There have been two recent posts about California's presidential primary here on Huffington Post in the past few days, one from Christine Pelosi (Nancy's daughter), and one from Rick Jacobs.

I wrote about this issue previously here (last July), and in an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News (last June).

I have cut and pasted below my previous Huffington Post article, which is as relevant to the debate now as when I wrote it. [The only thing I changed was the link to the Mercury News piece, since you cannot view it on their site anymore without paying $2.95 for the privilege. It now links to a duplicate of the article's text.]

Continue Reading »

[With massive apologies to Joseph Heller, in advance...]

Yossarian approached the medical tent, where Doc Daneeka was sunning himself.

"This surge plan is crazy."

"Surge is out," Doc Daneeka replied. "It's now an augmentation."

"Augmentation?"

"That's right. Augmentation. It's not a surge, and it's definitely not an escalation."

"That's ridiculous," said Yossarian. "That makes it sound like Iraq's getting a boob job." He thought about this for a moment.

Continue Reading »

Last week, a prominent Republican leader gave voice to a monumentally stupid idea. Surprisingly, this does not (just) describe President Bush's speech. I refer instead to a little-noticed quote from House Minority Whip Roy Blunt. He seems somewhat annoyed that the Democratic House majority is actually delivering on their "100 hours" promises.

Still, his choice of words is embarrassingly revealing: "The Democrats will soon move from these issues that poll at 80, 90 percent to issues that really matter."

Wow. Think about that for a minute. The cluelessness in coming up with such a statement is truly mind-boggling: "issues that poll at 80, 90 percent" are not "issues that really matter," according to the current Republican congressional leadership. This is earthshaking, because for years Republicans have been hammering Democrats for being "elitist." Now it seems the Republicans are showing their own true "elitist" colors, for all to see.

Continue Reading »

Much attention has been paid to President Bush's speech on Wednesday, and the fact that the escalation's chances for success rest on the willingness of Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraq government to take on the sectarian violence in an evenhanded way (i.e., going after the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias).

But even if Maliki did everything Bush wanted him to, his plan is still going to fail, because it relies heavily on the Iraqi Army to pacify Baghdad. And the Iraqi Army is a joke.

Continue Reading »

Much to everyone's surprise, congressional Democrats are actually stealing President Bush's thunder before he gives his speech tonight. In the last 48 hours or so, the Democrats (led by Senator Kennedy) have launched a brilliant pre-emptive strike on the news media in preparation for President Bush's speech tonight on Iraq. And it's working wonders.

Although this Democratic activity is somewhat unfocused (these are still Democrats, after all), with competing ideas vying for attention, the miracle is how fast it all happened. Washington is not a town known for such blinding speed. Quite the opposite, in fact (no matter which party is in control). So it truly is amazing how fast and hard the Democrats are hitting back. Whether these efforts will bear fruit or not remains to be seen, but it's a good omen for the future of the 110th Congress. And it will be interesting to see Bush give his speech tonight, since he has been forced into a defensive position before he even begins speaking.

Continue Reading »

[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 »