THE DALY SHOW

The Real Story Behind Real TV

LAS VEGAS, NV – While sweating on the elliptical machine, I came across CNN’s video clip show called News To Me.

It’s CNN’s version of Real TV. The stories come from viewers with video cameras. And some of them are good. The two guys trying to surf in the wake of falling icebergs was great stuff. However, I didn’t watch much because I like to spend my time sweating and catching up on the news of the day.

Still, I get a lot of comments about these shows. “How come they’re doing Real TV?” Actually, everyone is doing Real TV and they have been since 2000 when we stopped producing Real TV. Ironically, Real TV is still airing on WGN and on Fox Reality Channel. Check your cable or satellite operator for times.

But there’s a big difference in these shows produced by news organizations and Real TV. First, media outlets like CNN, Fox, or MSNBC don’t pay people for their videos. Here’s what the agreement says on the CNN website:

By submitting your material, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which you hereby acknowledge, you hereby grant to CNN and its affiliates a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide license to edit, telecast, rerun, reproduce, use, syndicate, license, print, sublicense, distribute and otherwise exhibit the materials you submit, or any portion thereof, as incorporated in any of their programming or the promotion thereof, in any manner and in any medium or forum, whether now known or hereafter devised, without payment to you or any third party.

Notice, CNN can do whatever they want with your work – and not pay you. They make money on what you created. You know writers are on strike for that? My suggestion: make them pay you or put it up on your site first.

At Real TV, we paid you for your video. The license fee was between $250 and $10,000. And that was back in the late 1990s. Imagine what the fees would be today.

At Real TV, we made you a paid producer of the show. It was your show, too. But the news networks are now asking you to not only be the customer but the supplier as well – just for enjoyment, no money.

Unfortunately, the lure of being on TV is enough to make anyone give up their free-market rights. Granted, some of the folks who supply these videos get their website on screen. Big deal. How often do you write down a website while watching TV?

This mentality is partially what killed Real TV – or stopped Paramount from producing it any more. There were too many outlets for video clips on TV and then even more on the Internet. So, we couldn’t get an exclusive grasp on the videos without having to pay big money.

The other reason was stupid thinking by the brass formerly at Paramount Domestic Television. Those people are gone now – and for good reason. A little background first.

In my first three years on the show, we had averaged about 3 million viewers a night. There were a number of reasons: obviously, great videos; great story telling; and a system that enforced the rules that every story had no death and it had to have a hero.

This was the formula created by the show’s Co-Executive Producers Ron Vandor and Cheri Brownlee. And it was brilliant.

However, by the end of the third season, our numbers – 3 million a night – were good. We had a good mix of women and men, young and old. Our claim to fame was this was a show anyone could watch with their kids or their grandparents.

But we weren’t competing with the likes of Oprah. She was around 7 million. So, the studio heads decided Real TV would target (I kid you not) the urban male audience. Somehow, they heard the word “niche” back then and thought let’s go carve out a small homogeneous market.

Urban male audience usually means ethnic and poor. As someone on the show said, “We’re trying to attract gang bangers.” What products do they buy that advertisers want to attract?

As a result, Vandor and Brownlee were dismissed from the show. The replacement was … well let’s just say he was hired because he was a friend of one of the studio execs. He was horrible. The show’s ratings plummeted below 1 million a night. Segments were no longer stories, but clips of gratuitous violence, sometimes played over and over again.

Fortunately, my contract was up. I wanted no part of that. And to be honest, I didn’t fit the mold of the new format at all. That’s when they brought in Ahmad Rashad. However, the format of the show was so lame no one could have saved it. Production of the show stopped barely into the fifth season.

Still, we made TV history. Actually, we were pioneers. We showed local news, network news, and network magazines how to produce great reality shows. And now the Internet is doing it. Everyone is doing it.

A note here: the majority of reality shows you see today are not reality shows; they’re staged. Do you really think the people on Survivor are in danger?

The good old days are gone.

2008 Prediction: The Presidency Based on Barney Miller?

LAS VEGAS, NV – Here it is: my election year ritual. I name the presidential candidates and the winner on New Year’s Eve before the upcoming November election.

This year’s predictions won’t surprise. What will leave you shaking your head is how I reached my conclusions – including the influence of an old sitcom – and who I predict will be the Vice Presidential candidates.

Before the predictions, some history: I’ve done this since 1988 and have been wrong only once; Al Gore in 2000, although he won the popular vote. I can still remember with great pride friends saying to me in 1992, “the Governor of Arkansas?”

And some disclosures here: this is not my endorsement. Like Rick from Casablanca, “I stick my neck out for no one.” This is merely my educated guess on what the voting public will do on Election Day 2008.

If I’m right, it will be a lot of luck. This will be more difficult than predicting the weather on Election Day. There are too many factors that can sway the public over the next eleven months. First, there is the war in Iraq. If insurgents begin to over-run the Iraqis who are supposedly helping us and an increase in U.S. deaths occurs, then the dynamics move away from the economy, health care, and education. What happens in Pakistan and Afghanistan will alter the perceptions of voters, too. And who knows what the current White House will do.

Furthermore, politics this election cycle is like a primordial soup. Stuff’s still evolving. The GOP is a mess. The Democrats are wavering on Hillary – at least in the early primary and caucus states. And if Bloomberg runs what effect will that have? Let me predict right here and right now: Bloomberg is not our next president.

So, here we go.

The Republicans will nominate — barely — Mitt Romney. A close second will be John McCain. But McCain will not be Romney’s running mate. Instead, Mitt will pick – your jaw is about ready to drop — Mike Huckabee.

What?! Daly, are you nuts? These two hate each other. They’re carrying on like school children on a playground. Yes, that’s true. But winning at all cost is an over-riding factor in politics today that can be translated into Christian forgiveness. Plus, geographically it works. Huckabee can give Romney the south while bringing the evangelicals on board.

Meanwhile, the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton. This race will be close until Super Tuesday and then she wins the big states and has the nomination sewed up by mid-Spring. Many Democrats will have their doubts about Hillary and might regret not going with Barrack Obama who will be ready for the next election cycle.

However, I think the deciding factor will be women. A friend, who I consider to be educated and informed, told me that Obama bothers her because of his “Muslim upbringing.” She wouldn’t hear any arguments to the contrary.

Let me be clear. I don’t think all women – or even the majority of women – think that way. But I think Obama is fighting an uphill battle in the minds of women of all colors because he’s a man. Yes, I’m not high on the Oprah factor.

However, I think many women will quietly enter the voting booth and pull the lever for Hillary. I call it the Barney Miller Effect.

What’s that? There was an episode from the famous 1970s sitcom where a husband locks his wife in their bathroom on Election Day. She claimed false imprisonment. But the husband claims he locked her away to protect his right to vote. You see, his wife hated him so much she was going to vote for everyone the husband didn’t vote for “to cancel out his vote.”

To me, it was the most memorable episode, because, I believe, it has a grain of truth – especially in 2008. I know it sounds conspiratorial. Are we preparing for a War between the Sexes? Probably not, but women are predicted to vote in larger numbers this year.

And I think many women are learning how to play the power game. It’s much more effective under the radar. So, voting for Hillary just to cancel out their husbands or boyfriends who seem to attack Hillary for what seems to be her gender isn’t so far-fetched. Hey, remember the months and years after Watergate. Could you find anyone who admitted they voted for Nixon when he won in a landslide in 1972?

My wife Teri is my best sounding board on this. She actually discovered the Barney Miller Effect from her observations and conversations with other women; my collection of useless TV knowledge merely allowed me to articulate it.

On a more serious note, lately Teri has become more aware of other slights to women in the public arena. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto bothered her, because Bhutto was partly targeted by extremists because she was a woman. And lately, Teri has corrected me and other men for describing women as either a “bitch” or “bitchy”. She says that description isn’t always fair since the corresponding description of a man with the same traits is admirably described as “tough”, “disciplined”, or a “good businessman”. Teri is not too far out of the mainstream of American women.

So, I lean toward a stealth-like, 2008 version of the 1960s bra burning that might not be unleashed until Election Day; not to mention the yearning for a return to the 1990s with Bill near the Oval Office again.

But I also predict Hillary won’t go the feminist route completely. She won’t choose Obama as a running mate. Sure, there is bad blood. But like the GOP, they will make up and be ready to join hands as the Democratic Convention ends. However, there is no way America is ready for a woman and an African-American on the same ticket.

So who will she pick? I think Hillary will run to the center and take as her running mate – another jaw dropper – Nebraska Senator Check Hagel, a Republican.

She gets the coasts; Hagel gets the Midwest and the military-hawk votes. Plus, she remembers her husband’s pick of GOP Senator William Cohen as Defense Secretary. If anything, there needs to be some healing and compromise. And sorry to say to you Republicans, it will be the Democrats who make the first concilliatory gesture.

And who wins? I predict Hillary becomes our next president.

And furthermore, I think her presidency will create such huge shifts in politics that you will see a re-alignment of the political parties as we know them today. But that’s another posting.

2008 Prediction: Online Marketing and The Fortins

LAS VEGAS, NV – For me, 2007 was a year to be very thankful for many reasons –besides the BoSox winning another World Series.

One reason is Sylvie and Michel Fortin.

Why this couple came into my life I have no idea. But I’m glad they did. Besides being funny and full of party, they’re genuine people who know their stuff. They are two of the top experts on creating and running online businesses.

Sylvie’s company is Workaholics4Hire. She has nearly 24,000 free-lancers to get your online business up and running. Michel (you can pronounce it the French way or call him Michael) is one of the world’s top ad copywriters. His company is CopyDoctor. Together, they run another company called SuccessChef.

With each meeting or phone call with them, I learn more and more about this new world of online commerce.

And just today, I read one of Michel’s latest columns. He gives a pretty insightful look at the changing online world in 2008. He is looking at three different markets for online marketers: the newbie market, the offline market, and the Asian market.

If you’re preparing to launch a business online or do any kind of internet commerce, then you need to read this.

New Boss Gets Good Pub

Las Vegas, NV – As you’ve read in previous posts, in addition to reporting here, I am an officer of Bank of New York Mellon in Private Wealth Management.

In other words, I can help you manage your individual and family wealth with a holistic plan (my term) that keeps in mind your goals while also creating a portfolio with growth, income, tax efficiencies, and estate planning.

Taking the job was a no-brainer for me. I had always been a student of the financial markets and wealth management – even during my reporting days. Trying to get people to pay attention to economic stories and their impact may have finally paid off. 

And there’s no better town to start a list of solid clients than in Las Vegas, a place I have lived and covered since 1990, which is still a boom-town with six thousand new residents.  I can also handle anyone’s needs outside Las Vegas if you’re a reader here or if we happen to meet in other parts of the world through different events.

The other reason for accepting the job was the staff in the Nevada office. They’re professional and experienced from the support staff to the portfolio managers, to my fellow business development officers.

Besides my local colleagues, I have already spent a week in Boston with BNY Mellon corporate and 20 other new officers of the company who are situated in offices around the country. Those were five intense and exhilarating days of learning and examining.

What was evident, though, was the company’s growth potential worldwide. I created a Google Alert for anything BNY Mellon and each day I get new updates on other parts of the company and their expansion into many new markets.

Backing that up was an article published yesterday in Barron’s. Take a read. If you have any thoughts or questions, feel free to leave a comment here or call me at 702 944-7145 or email me at daly.b2@mellon.com.

Media Bias, Greed, and Sub-Prime Mess

LAS VEGAS, NV – My guess is that this page one news story could only be written by the Wall Street Journal now – before the News Corp take off.  If anything, this story will be attacked by the WSJ’s own editorial page staff and it will never appear on TV news.

The story in today’s Wall Street Journal is “Lobbying Abetted Mortgage Mess”. It describes how sub-prime lenders lobbied (legally bribed) lawmakers and politicians to stop laws that would make it harder for them to offer mortgages to low-income homeowners. Many of those loans – especially in Georgia and New Jersey – are in foreclosure, according to the piece.

Thus, we have another reason to ban all lobbying money and campaign money. The greed of lawmakers and businesses goes unchecked and the nation and the economy suffer. Although not mentioned in this story, another piece from the Washington Post describes how Senator John McCain, the father of campaign finance reform, is the biggest solicitor of corporate dollars for his White House run. And we wonder how we get the laws we get.  It’s no wonder that candidates like Barrack Obama and Mike Huckabee — with less campaign dollar taint — have made recent gains in presidential opinion polls; some informed folks get it.

Does it seem too confusing? Or is it something you just shrug your shoulders and say, “That’s just the way it is.” Ask yourself these questions. Would you allow someone to pay money to a judge before a trial? Wouldn’t you howl if a journalist was being paid by someone he or she is writing or broadcasting a story about? Then why aren’t we enraged when we see that lawmakers get money from people who benefit from the laws they pass?

The reason we don’t howl is because we don’t know about it. A good portion of the media is in bed with lawmakers. And it’s probably one of the top reasons you can’t get a mortgage even though you have a good paying job or your business can’t get a good loan today.

First, this story could only be written by the news staff of the Wall Street Journal, in my mind the most unbiased of news staffs in the world. Watch the response from the heavily right-leaning editorial page staff of the same paper. My guess is the editorialists will either ignore the issue or denigrate the coverage by their own colleagues.

Second, this type of journalism might be in its final days at the WSJ since the take-over by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp is only months away. Is it because Murdoch owns the right-wing cable news network Fox News? Actually, no it’s not. It’s because Murdoch is a businessman, plain and simple.

Murdoch is a man who watches over his profits. Why else would he hold fundraisers for Hillary Clinton? He’d sink any Republican who got in the way of his bottom line.

In this case, you will never see a story about campaign and lobbying contributions involved in the sub-prime mess on Fox News or any news outlet owned by Murdoch. Why? A lot of that lobbying and campaign money goes to lawmakers and their campaigns which run campaign ads on TV stations and the cable news network that Murdoch owns.

I don’t deny Murdoch and other media outlets their chance to make money. I’m a free-market proponent. But I’m also an honest broker of information. I’ve been down this road before. Here’s an excerpt from my book.

In fact, media organizations and politicians work together, some would say conspire, on various issues. Do you expect television stations and networks to investigate campaign finance reform or the weakening of such laws? No, it is not in their financial interest. Many broadcast outlets make bigger profits in election years due to the increase in advertising dollars raised by campaigns. I learned this when the local Fox affiliate in Las Vegas, KVVU-TV 5, offered me a low salary for an anchor job that would have landed me on the anchor desk in 2005. I was told the dismal salary was because 2005, a non-election year, was going to see lower revenues than 2004, a presidential election year.

Those campaign dollars can be used to influence elected officials. Some call it a legal form of bribery. Others think it threatens public safety. For example, broadcast stations are supposed to switch from analog to digital signals that will give viewers better picture quality. But broadcasters have forced Congress to push back the switch date three years until 2009 because some people who cannot afford newer, more expensive, digital television sets might be left without television service. Caring for the little guy out in the hinterlands, you think? Yes, but here’s what the 9/11 Commission says. Those analog signals, the ones the broadcasters hang onto, should be used by local governments so first-responders in emergencies like a terrorist attack or a hurricane can talk directly to each other. 9/11 Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton said on NBC’s Meet the Press in December 2005 that New York City police, firefighters, and paramedics did not have that capability on September 11, 2001. As a result, many died because they could not be told to escape the crumbling Twin Towers.

Again, we live in a capitalistic society. Media businesses have every right to make profits. But remember this when you hear slogans like “Fair and Balanced” or “Where News Comes First.”

The lesson here: don’t be swayed by one news outlet or one form of media news.  Read to lead.

Bhutto Murder Will Lead To Conspiracy Theories

LAS VEGAS, NV – Conspiracy theories will flourish about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Like the killing of JFK, we may never know.

Media reports say a suicide bomber fired two shots at Bhutto hitting her in the neck and chest as she waved to supporters from the sunroof of a car. The shooter then detonated a bomb killing himself and dozens of others.

Two reports today out of Pakistan offer more confusion than clarity. First, Pakistani officials say they intercepted al Qaeda phone calls congratulating themselves for killing Bhutto. U.S. intelligence is not backing nor denying the claim yet.

To many, the intelligence intercept seems too convenient for the government of Pervez Musharraf since many Pakistanis believe Musharraf is behind the attack of Bhutto, a surging opposition leader. Still, it should be noted, Bhutto had been targeted by certain terrorist groups who didn’t want to a woman in power in an Islamic state.

The second report today said neither bullets nor the bomb killed Bhutto; it was a head injury she suffered while trying to avoid the attack. Medical officials in Pakistan say Bhutto hit her head on a handle for the sunroof. There is no definitive evidence, though, since Bhutto was buried today within 24 hours of her death according to Islamic law. There was no autopsy.

Those reports brought back a conversation I had in 1998 with Gary Mack, historian, documentarian, and spokesperson for the Six Floor Museum in Dallas. The museum is literally in the place where Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly fired the shots to kill JFK. It’s a fascinating and eerie place.

I was interviewing Gary for Real TV about the first historic Real TV video: the Zapruder film. But we discussed more than just the actual killing. I wanted Gary to tell me why the conspiracy theories remain until this day. His answers have stuck with me and they will resonate with you about the Bhutto killing, too.

In short, Gary said there was no proper autopsy performed on JFK’s remains.

Why? Gary explained that during that time in Dallas, November 22, 1963, most Americans, including LBJ, thought the assassination was the work of the Soviets. Kill the leader and then attack the nation: it seemed like a sound military strategy to overrun us. As a kid, I thought this, too. I saw the same terrorized look from my parents. Years later, other folks told me the same.  They were expecting the missiles at any moment.

As a result, LBJ wanted to get out of Dallas as soon as possible and get back to Washington to protect the nation. But LBJ wouldn’t leave Jackie behind. And Jackie wouldn’t leave Dallas without JFK. So, they compromised on the autopsy. JFK’s corpse was flown back directly to Washington to lie in state.  Gary said a proper and lengthy autospy may have removed so many questions.

I’m sure there are plenty of JFK experts out there. Tell me your thoughts. Is this relevant to what happened in Pakistan today?

My Presidential Endorsement… Sort Of

LAS VEGAS, NV – I know who I want as President. However, this person would only get a few thousand votes — if his name were even on the ballot.

There’s only one presidential candidate, Joe Biden, who mentions my candidate or even acknowledges his significance. Yet, this person is exactly the manager we need as head of state. He might not have the foreign policy experience (did the last two?), but he’s a clear thinker on the economy.

So who is he?

My vote goes to David Walker. He’s the U.S. Comptroller General; in short, he’s the nation’s accountant. Unlike many government officials, elected or appointed, Walker is truthful and insightful. Read this speech called ”Fiscal Facts and Keeping America Great”.

He says in the speech:

As the federal official who signs the audit report on the government’s financial statements, I’m here to tell you our government’s financial condition is worse than advertised.

That’s strange since this current Administration tells us how the foundations of the economy are strong. Walker warns us about the unfunded commitments for Social Security and Medicare. I can hear some of you now saying, “boring!” OK, let me spice it up. The price tag is more than $50,000,000,000,000. That’s 50 trillion and you owe it.

Walker explains:

Our government has made a whole lot of promises that, in the long run, it can’t possibly keep. And here’s why. Fifty trillion dollars translates into an IOU of about $440,000 for every American household. Keep in mind that the median household income in this country is less than $50,000 a year.  For the typical family, it’s like having a mortgage that’s 9½ times their annual income. And that mortgage doesn’t even come with a house!  This burden is rapidly outpacing the net worth of most Americans and the growth rate of our economy. 

However, Congress and the President won’t tell us about the future debt. We balanced the budget, right? Wrong. We’ll pay it later. Wait, let’s have our kids pay it when they’re older.

It’s like going home to your wife and saying, “The bills are paid, Honey” but you failed to mention the five million dollar loan you pushed back twenty years on that forty foot, gold statue of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton discussing Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

Walker says the lack of transparency in government and the lack of solid reporting by the media leave many of us without any real answers about the dangers ahead.

Unless we reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, these programs will eventually crowd out all other federal spending, including defense. Based on historical federal tax levels, by 2040 our government could be doing little more than sending out Social Security checks and paying interest on our massive national debt.

Think about that. We won’t be able to buy weapons systems or educate our kids because we’ve spent too much money to make sure someone can clean up the mess in your parents’ and my pants. All joking aside, if this scenario is not taken seriously the only way to a viable U.S. is to adapt Kevorkian methods and get rid of all the baby-boomers once they hit a certain age.I’m much more dark and pessimistic here than David Walker. Walker, in the speech, believes America can overcome this. But we agree about this: something needs to be done soon.

And what do we hear from the candidates running today? The GOP wants to tax-cut us to death and the Democrats have no plan to cut spending.

Once you’ve converted to the Walker Campaign, read this book: Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future And What American Can Do About It by Peter G. Peterson. Also, check out the Concord Coalition website.

If you get near any of the presidential candidates, ask them what they know about David Walker. Watch them stammer.

Christmas Wish

LAS VEGAS, NV – Mitt Romney’s “religion speech” helped form my Christmas wish.  

A note of disclosure here: In my role as political prognosticator, not a voting citizen, I’m still picking Gov. Romney to win the GOP nomination.  Any perception of me rooting for him is solely for the pleasure of an “I told you so.”  Still, Romney supporters won’t like what you’re about to read.

So what was it about his speech?  Was it the comparison to JFK?  No.  In fairness to Governor Romney, his religion speech shouldn’t be compared to JFK’s.  JFK delivered his speech a month before a presidential election, not two months before the first primary or caucus. As a result, JFK’s speech has much more historical impact.  Romney’s won’t because he was playing to a smaller audience – core GOP voters.

Furthermore, JFK took questions afterwards from angry Protestant ministers in October, 1960.  MSNBC’s Chris Matthews tells the story of the Kennedy advance man who had to find the meanest looking Protestant ministers to sit in those front rows for the TV cameras.  Romney, meanwhile, only had to face family and friends in the first two rows.  And he took no questions after his speech.

Sure, that’s a more polite way of saying, Governor, you’re no Jack Kennedy.  However, today’s media and political game is microscopicly managed, so possibly JFK today would have played it safe, too. 

After all, we live in an age where campaigns can pinpoint the narowest of niche groups.  And the most niche of niche currently is the Christian evangelicals; not because they’re big in number, but because if touched by a particular candidate they will vote enough to possibly sway an election.

But Governor Romney and the others have not converted the evangelicals yet.  So, they’re playing the Jesus card.  What Governor Romney doesn’t realize is the other underlying message he’s sending: This is a domestic religious war.

Credit David Brooks, the New York Times columnist and guest on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, for this. He said Romney didn’t paint a picture of religious freedom in America, but a country of believers versus non-believers; in short, a war between the religious and the secularists.  You know, kill your opponent in the name of Jesus.  Leaders are supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart.

That observation by Brooks has stuck with me. Thus, my Christmas wish is for all of us to help these politicians to stop this type of politics. 

The truly religious among us will step up and say something.  Why?  Because it’s part of the Christian tradition.

In his book Triumph of Reason: How Christianity Led To Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, Rodney Stark talks about the thriving capitalism in the Italian city-states like Venice that blossomed long before the so-called Protestant work ethic centuries later. Stark’s premise is that Christianity, unlike other religions, has not only a faith in God, but a faith in reason – unlike the religious extremists we endure today.

That Christian-inspired reason led to freedom from dictatorial rulers who had previously controlled the economies of their people. Venice was not the best port city, nor the most fertile region for crops. Yet, it thrived because, as Stark points out, they had a theological belief in progress, moral equality and honorability in commerce. 

Today there is a great commerce of ideas that confronts organized religion.  Though ridiculed, they’re worth a read.I hope that people will go to the website of my friend Acharya S and read her intellectual views on the historical Jesus Christ – without thinking it’s pure blasphemy. Acharya is very spiritual, a bit radical, but with a solid academic training in the study of religions.  I’m not saying you’ll agree with her, but if you don’t read her works you’re missing out intellectually.

I also hope people will be open to writings of Christopher Hitchens, the author of God Is Not Great.  Hitchens is a brilliant writer who, too, will make you think. Again, he may not be your soul mate, but you have to marvel at what a mind God has given him.  And if you don’t think this intellect has any heart, then read this article he penned for Vanity Fair about the death of an American soldier in Iraq and the soldier’s noble family.

And lastly, I hope you all go to the website of my good friend Gary Mule Deer. To me, he is the funniest man God — or whoever put us here – placed on Earth. Gary puts it all in perspective when he gives his impersonation of a dyslexic atheist.  ”There is no dog.”

Merry Christmas.

Know Who You’re Voting For; Some Suggestions

LAS VEGAS, NV – Think of how many times we’ve elected a president only to have them get into office and stun us.

Bill Clinton made gays in the military his first presidential directive. George Bush blindsided us by working only to unite the Republicans, not the country — among other things.  Granted, Mr. Bush had to change stands and platforms after 9/11; so much for his stand against nation building.

Sure we can blame the politicians for lying or flip-flopping.  The problem, however, lies mainly with each of us.  First, we don’t look at the candidates’ financial backers. It’s no surprise that George W. sided with corporate, oil, and defense interests. In fairness, Bill Clinton cancelled covert CIA operations that might have hurt the oil companies in the 1990s, according to Bob Baer’s book See No Evil. And in the future, none of us would be surprised if evangelical Mike Huckabee wins the White House and we have another Terry Schiavo, invasion of privacy incident.

The second thing to remember is that we are in the primary season. And what a candidate says to win a state in the next few months will be something he’s back-pedaling on to win another state or, later, the presidency.  What’s worse for this primary season is the writers’ strike.  Because Leno, Letterman, Stewart, and Colbert are not broadcasting, the candidates are getting away with things like never before.

So, it’s up to ourselves.  As I mention in my book: the most important journalist in your life is you.  So, you ask, how do we really know what these guys and gal on the stump will do once they descend from the stump?

One suggestion I have is to consistently read reports on FactCheck.Org. It’s non-partisan and it’s run by one of our best journalists, Brooks Jackson, who has worked for The Wall Street Journal and CNN.

Another quick guide is from the New York Times.   This is a comprehensive look at what each candidate has said and done on the most important issues.

Another suggestion is self-examination. Here’s a fun way. Check out this website: http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

Answer the questions on the issues and it will calculate which candidate you’re most in line with.

For most people I’ve sent to this site it has been an eye-opener. Died in the wool conservatives are paired with Rudi Giuliani. And I’m a down the middle moderate and my choices were either Rudi or Mike Gravel.

Don’t use this site as gospel. The questions and answers may be accidentally tainted. After all, candidates change their platforms based on the constituency. And maybe the responses are based on what they did as legislators and how they voted or they could be on what they say on the campaign trail; two different things.

Have fun and let me know who you chose and how it fits or doesn’t fit with your political leanings.

Ron Paul: Not For Prez; But a TV Host

LAS VEGAS, NV — Watch or read Ron Paul’s interview on Meet The Press today. See if you agree with me.  There’s no way Ron Paul could or should run this country.  He lacks the management skills and presidential temperament.  Doing away with the IRS and the Education Department, as he suggests, might sound good to the political rebels, but it makes no fiscal sense in the short run and it would cause unfathomable problems.  Sure Ron Paul would avoid a recession; he’d take us directly into Depression. 

Still, Ron Paul is well-read and he understands many foreign policy issues.  In fact, his grasp of Middle Eastern issues and the causes of Muslim terrorism are far more nuanced than any other Republican candidate.  I’m not saying he’s right, but he offers a better perspective of why we’re fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, we need Ron Paul – but not in the White House.  We need him on TV. 

Once this election is done, will one of the cable yakking networks please hire Ron Paul with his own show? 

I implore anyone reading this to send some emails to the cable news networks.  Explain to them that a Ron Paul Show would be the best thing for the Republican Party whose members seem to think the only mouth pieces are the myopic and angry Rush and Hannity.