Perhaps for you. Not for me. First, let me ask you this: if Bush announced that he had decided to support repeal of all his tax cuts plus an increase in the top bracket beyond that, appoint pro-choice judges to the bench, etc., would you still say that? Of course not. So the point is not only to reelect Bush - presumably we care about why we reelect Bush. I care about the First Amendment and our rights to free speech over the long term.
Second, one element in this discussion has been whether or not the GOP approach would work. I've laid out reasons why it is very unlikely to work. I don't think you've offered much in the way of a convincing response. So now you throw in the towel - well, let's just do it anyway, you say, because the purpose is to reelect Bush. Well, the purpose of massive welfare programs is to improve society. The question is do they work? Same question here, will it work? Should we abandon principle and long-term objectives for possible, but in no way certain, short term gain?
There is no guarantee that what is done with 527s will be a determining factor in Bush's reelection one way or the other. It's quite likely he'll win either way; it's certainly possible he'll lose either way. It's possible - in my view likely - that the GOP strategy on this issue is harming the campaign - they're discouraging conservatives from giving, while the liberals are going ahead. Meanwhile, the effort to shut down the 527s is firing up the most liberal Democrats - especially the Deaniacs and such, who might otherwise sit it out or vote Nader.
you'd best go over to DU and play. You'll be more welcome there.
Cheap, really cheap. That's the kind of thing people say when they're out of real arguments.