[While I refuse to be dragged into the horse race aspect of the 2008 Presidential campaign so early, I would like to offer a ready-made stump speech for any candidate to use in order to get my vote. My humble guess is using this speech would win quite a number of other voters over as well.]

My name is [candidate's name] and I want to convince you I'm the best candidate running for President of the United States.

I want to change the way America votes for presidential candidates. I don't want America to vote for me because I'm the cutest one, or the most charismatic, or have the flashiest outfit. I don't want you to vote for me because I kissed your baby, ate your corn dogs at your county fair, or because I'm the [guy/gal] you'd most like to have a beer with. I don't want you to vote for me because some loud media type on television or radio told you to vote for me. I don't want you to vote for me because some "expert" tells you I'm "winning the horse race." I don't want you to vote for me because I gave some poetic and flowery speech about Mom, apple pie, and a chicken in every pot, without giving you any details about what I stand for. And I most especially don't want you to vote for me because you're voting against the other candidate.

I think you're smarter than all of that. I think you're smart enough to hear what I would do as President and then make up your own mind to vote for me. Wouldn't you like to vote for someone again, instead of always choosing the lesser of two evils? Most of the other candidates in this race don't want you to hear this. They all want you to listen to their handlers, their spin doctors, and their friendly media to explain to you why they would be the best candidate. I reject that approach fully. I want to personally explain to you exactly what I stand for. That's because I trust you to make up your own mind.

Continue Reading »

This is going to be another "three dot journalism" column (in homage, as always, to the late great Herb Caen), full of all the recent odds and ends that have been in the back of my mind, but were never prominent enough to warrant a full column.

. . . Firstly, Chris Kelley wrote a column here on Huffington Post about "Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip" that set off a fracas in the comments section.

Although I'm no TV critic, I have to jump in with my two cents. The main argument is whether the show is any good or not, or funny or not. I won't weigh in on that aspect (full disclosure: I watch it, sometimes it's good, sometimes not so good). Continue Reading »

[This is the second article of a two-part series. The first installment ran yesterday.]

Yesterday, I listed my choices for the award categories given yearly by the McLaughlin Group show on PBS. All of the categories in yesterday's article were featured on last week's show.

Today, I offer my selections for winners of the rest of the McLaughlin Awards (assuming they haven't changed categories since last year).

Continue Reading »

I'll have you know that (as a rule) I never watch any of what I call the "screamfests" -- the snarling dogfights which pass for "news commentary" on cable television. My position has always been: if O'Reilly and Scarborough and Hannity and Colmes and all the rest of their ilk annoy you; then just stop watching them and the problem is solved. The triumph of the free market!

But I must admit that I do watch The McLaughlin Group on PBS every week. Sure, it can be a "screamfest" at times; but watching Tony Blankley and Pat Buchanan froth at the mouth is worth it, in order to hear what John McLaughlin has to say each week.

And, while I do try to be creative with the columns I write, I've come to the conclusion that I really can't improve much on the categories of the yearly "McLaughlin Awards" (now celebrating a 25-year run, given out each December).

So, as an homage, this week I hand out my own selections for winners of the McLaughlin Awards.

Continue Reading »

* * * NORAD FLASH REPORT * * * NORAD FLASH REPORT * * *
12.24.06 ... 2132 MST ... 2332 EST ... CHEYENNE MTN REPORTING ...
Incoming unidentified object approaching Maine coastline at 15,000 feet elevation over North Atlantic . . . Object is traveling at hypersonic speed with erratic course . . . We are now at DEFCON 2 -- advise immediate upgrade to DEFCON 1 . . . Awaiting Presidential approval . . . Advise also scramble fighters to attempt intercept of incoming object . . . More to follow . . .

[From the FAA's air traffic control logs:]
12/24/06 -- 11:47 PM, EST
Currently tracking unidentified flying object on our screens. At times object appears to fly at speeds almost too fast to be believed -- much faster than any known type of aircraft. At other times (always near populated areas up and down the East Coast), object slows to conventional flight speeds and performs what appears to be a search grid over the entire area. During this search, we lose contact multiple times, but the object always reappears quickly, close to previously known position. Impossible as this seems, it is suggested (but not confirmed) that the object may be performing multiple landings in these areas.

Continue Reading »

Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi did a shrewd thing this past week, but few people noticed it in the midst of the media storm surrounding the Baker-Hamilton ISG report. She effectively linked congressional pay raises to raising the minimum wage, as she had promised to do before the election. This shines the spotlight of hypocrisy on members of Congress who are quite content to raise their own wages (a whopping raise of almost one-third the amount of a yearly minimum-wage salary this year alone), without also helping out the millions who depend on that minimum wage to survive.

But I have to say, as brilliant a political move as this is for Pelosi, it just doesn't go far enough. There are better ways these issues could be linked, with more far-reaching consequences -- for both minimum-wage earners, and Congress as a whole -- that have not been addressed.

Continue Reading »

[This is the third and final installment of my series of articles on Iraq. Part 1 appeared on Wednesday, and Part 2 ran yesterday. I apologize for the massive length of this series, but it's a complicated subject, so I hope you'll forgive my excess.]

In the previous two articles in this series, I addressed the political situation, diplomatic possibilities, and the situation within Iraq itself.

This final installment deals with what options America has militarily at this point. There is some overlap with the previous articles, but from a slightly different perspective.

The good news on the military front for America is, of course, the fact that Donald Rumsfeld is no longer in charge. So what can the incoming Secretary of Defense do now about the situation?

Continue Reading »

[This is the second in a series of three articles. Part 1, which addressed "Politics And Diplomacy," ran yesterday. Part 3 will be posted tomorrow.]

After seeing the White House's reaction to the Iraq Study Group's report yesterday, it seems there's a danger of President Bush trying to repackage his "stay the course" strategy as: "We'll leave when milestones are met, but we'll set impossible milestones, so expect a whole lot more of the same for the next one or two years." This may postpone the aftermath within Iraq for a while, but postponed or not, it will still hang over Bush's head like a modern-day sword of Damocles.

The aftermath may not take any of the forms I have outlined, but it will be waiting nonetheless for our eventual withdrawal.

Continue Reading »

Obviously, it's Baker-Hamilton report day. But while everyone else is deconstructing the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report, I'd like to address a different subject: the Iraqi endgame.

In addition to the ISG report, a virtual blizzard of leaks, memos, blue-commission reports, military reviews, political reviews, media reports, guesses, rumors and sheer speculation about Iraq currently consumes Washington.

Almost without exception, the focus is on "what should we do about Iraq?" But in this frenzy of opinionating, the aftermath is being largely overlooked. This needs to change.

Continue Reading »

While reading the text of the leaked Stephen Hadley memo, I couldn't help feeling the mainstream media has once again ignored the real story. All of the television news I saw, and most (but not all) of the print reporting focused on the perceived slur of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. The offending phrase (repeated ad nauseum) was:

"... the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."

Continue Reading »