Missing headlines: The Uh-Oh Version
OK, it's been awhile. But, ya know, I've been a tad busy. Too busy to write about anything, never mind the latest headlines. And, because I've been too busy, I've missed the opportunity to talk about a lot of interesting things, like the potential Michael Bloomberg indie candidacy and all the crap about the Bob Shrum book. Oh well. Here's what we got:

First, the biggest uh-oh of the week, dropped in a WSJ alert at 6:34 p.m. on Thursday night: ["Bancrofts Open Door To a Sale of Dow Jones"]. This is only a meeting and, frankly, I don't know if Rupert Murdoch is that bad of a guy. I've never worked for the man and I blame FoxNews' nonsense more on Roger Ailes than Murdoch. Ailes could easily make the network truly "fair and balanced" by actually making it that way. It was a great antithesis to CNN when it was first created, especially as a watchdog on President Clinton. But its constant cheerleading and fawning over President Bush, and not being a watchdog over the corruption and lies, is downright sickening.
But what I do wonder is this: Is a takeover of Dow Jones the best thing for the WSJ and its employees? After I catch up on the print editions later this weekend, I wil see if the notoriously obnoxious editorial board has had anything to say about this. More than likely, it will be rah-rah, and that means readers have to be a bit skeptical about the deal.

Also on Thursday, the seatbelt law, thankfully, was defeated in the New Hampshire state Senate. Democrats joined Republicans in a 16-8 vote, so at least one nanny state bill has been defeated. Most of us are responsible and we wear our seat belts. But we don't need the cops pulling us over for this and we don't need the fines either.
On the flip, the smoking ban did pass the House and Gov. Lynch is expected to sign it. So now, bartenders and restaurant workers can work in a safe workplace without the risk of being harmed by second-hand smoke. And those of us who don't smoke, won't come out of restaurants and bars smelling like an ashtray! Nice job.

FAIR, the liberal media watchdog group, has a great update here on the fallout from Ron Paul's GOP debate performance a couple of weeks ago: ["Treated Like a Democrat"]. I love that his comments were assumed to be unorthodox when the guy was basically paraphrasing the 9-11 Commission report or the fact that the guy was dead-on correct. Nope, can't have that.
The closing line in the email pretty much sums it up, especially in light of the press conference Paul had discussing his comments, which I didn't even hear about:

The real problem isn't that Ron Paul can't win the White House, or that he might "muck up" a debate; if anything, he started a debate the media don't want to have.

Exactly correct. When are we going to start having a serious conversation about our foreign policy instead of always talking about how tough we are or which and how many foreigners we are going to kill.

While dealing with the truth as spoken by Ron Paul may not be enough, it looks like the GOP faithful are a bit pissed when it comes to their president and his immigration policy: ["Republican revolt over immigration']. If this is true, it is really amazing and it is the writing on the wall.
But imagine, if you will, if one of the stronger Democratic candidates came out against this amnesty package and instead, embraced the closed border policy. If they could get through the primaries, and not be pigeonholed as too liberal, they might actually win the election in a landslide. If you think the rank and file Republicans were mad about Iraq, look at what they are doing about the immigration bill! Their shutting off the spigot. This looks like a prime time opportunity to me.

John Cox, the long-shot Republican presidential candidate, put full-page ads in both the New Hampshire Union Leader and Concord Monitor this week requesting that voters call the UL, WMUR, and CNN, and request that he be allowed into the June 5 debates. He doesn't have the ad on his Web site but he does have a pretty good list of talking points here: ["The Next Republican Debate"]. I especially like this line:

Tell them that candidates like Ron Paul, Jim Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson are not gaining new supporters since they've been in the last 2 televised debates.

Oh come on, John. You know as well as I do that viewers of the FoxNews debate had Paul winning, that is until "Guy Smiley" Romney got all his "followers" to start calling in and bumped Paul down to second place. A solid second place, I might add, 10 points above Rudy Giuliani.
Although, you may have a point: Since MSNBC viewers voted Paul the winner of the first debate, he has slipped to second place. But that is, however, no reason to put you in the debate.
But here is a reason Cox should be allowed in the debate: According to his FEC filings, the guy spent $796k through March 31 of this year, so far, and most of it has been his money. And, if Mike Gravel, the longest of long shots, with Vegas odds of something like 1,000,000 to 1 of getting the nomination, is allowed in, why not Cox?
Note to self: Put $5 bet on Gravel to win the nomination so if he does, I'll get $5M from the bookie.
In the end, Cox will not be allowed in and that's a shame. I interviewed the guy and he is talking about things the other Republican candidates aren't talking about, like a national sales tax. He is also one of the only Republicans admitting that we are in Iraq because of the oil ... Paraphrasing from our interview, since I don't have a copy of it readily available to quote from, Let's get in there and get that oil out of the ground ... And he is correct on this point: He has as much of a shot as the nomination as Jim Gilmore or Tommy Thompson, so why not let him on the stage? They're going to offer a podium to Fred Thompson. That will make 11. When you're at 11, why not 12?
Lastly, it should be noted that WMUR did do a Conversation with the Candidate featuring Cox and that is more than most other long-shot candidates receive: ["Commitment 2008"].

More tomorrow.