Inside Today's 6 News; The News Director's Blog

How Boise Police Deal with a 'No' Person

We recently broke a story of a Boise Ombudsman's report that was highly critical of a Boise Police officer's actions in dealing with suspected vandals at the Statehouse.  During the encounter, the report says the officer physically took one of the suspects to the ground and stuck a knee in his back.  This was in spite of the fact all agree the man was not being physically threatening to the officer and was not in any way a danger to him.  The officer's reasoning?  He told the Ombudsman that he was trained to deal this way with someone he called a 'no' person.

Just what is a 'no' person?, and why is this person vulnerable to physical restraint by Boise Police?

To find some answers, I asked around our newsroom.  First, I went up to one of our reporters and asked her, "Do you know what a 'no person' is?"  She answered, "no" at which point I immediately shouted out "You're a 'no' person!" and wrestled her to the ground, firmly putting my knee into her back.

Hours later, after having endured a stern lecture from our human resources department and the threat of a harassment suit, I realized I may have overreacted.*  I think the general consensus is the officer may have as well, yet here he is telling the Ombudsman that not only was his behavior appropriate, but it was actually a part of his training as a Boise Police Officer.  As State Senator Mike Burkett told us (whose son was the young man the officer pinned to the ground), "For years we've known that the Boise Police are heavy-handed in some situations."  No denying that is certainly the department's reputation, and this does nothing to detract from that.

A quick reality check.  The whole encounter was minor.  No one was hurt.  Life goes on.  I should also note at the time of the vandalism incident, we aired criticisms of the two young men involved because it did appear they vandalized an American flag honoring an Iraqi war hero, hardly a defensible act.  Yet when it comes to the officer's actions, a man employed by the public, it makes me wonder if there isn't a bigger problem here.

In his news conference after we broke the story, Police Chief Mike Masterson told reporters "we feel we were in the scope of the law."  No one ever said the officer was not within the scope of the law.  The crux of the Ombudsman's report calls into question the officer's professionalism in meeting established codes of conduct.  Masterson's response implies officers should only be disciplined if laws are broken.  It would be my hope disciplinary action would also be taken when officers fail to meet high standards of professionalism as well.

And there's more.

Boise police admit the audio recorder the officer was supposed to keep on during this incident mysteriously turned off in the middle of it.  They blame a faulty recorder button.  But then the Ombudsman also notes the officer in question compounded the error by writing a misleading incident report.  As the Ombudsman notes, "Prosecutors, defense attorneys, juries, judges, and others depend on police officers to write reports that clearly and precisely document what the officer saw, did, and was told."  It all adds up to an image of a Boise Police officer dispensing his own version of street justice while feeling little public accountability.

There's a theory of law enforcement called 'broken windows' that became the hallmark of former New York Police Chief and now Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton.  It takes the approach that small crime if ignored leads to bigger crimes.  Therefore, by policing small criminal acts such as 'broken windows,' police help prevent bigger crimes down the road.

I think it works in reverse as well.  An officer who shows a lack of discretion in using force ... even minor force ... and who allows his recorder to stop during a confrontation against policy ... and then turns in a report that the Ombudsman's objective review finds misleading ... certainly seems to be taking actions that do not meet the standards the public expects from its police officers.  By disciplining the officer, Chief Masterson would be enforcing a high code of conduct and stemming potential bigger problems later.  But he says he's not doing that in this case.

It made me think back to the days of former Boise Chief Larry Paulson.  My take on Paulson was that he was a good guy and a good cop, but his tenure was looked upon as a period when BPD was considered the last outpost of the police version of the 'Wild Wild West.'  The impression was it was a heavy handed, 'shoot first and ask questions later' kind of police department where officers who did not always live up to high standards.  The thing with Paulson was you always knew on what side of the thin blue line he stood.  He was a seen by many as a true blue defender of police whether their actions were right or wrong, and that perception ... real or not ... is how we got a citizen Boise Police Ombudsman in the first place.

I've praised the job Chief Masterson has done in rebuilding the image of professionalism of the Boise Police Department and I'm still a fan.  But maintaining and enhancing that image will require more than a 'Paulson-esque' defense of an officer who clearly stepped over some lines.  By pubicly stating that officers who commit such actions will be disciplined in some way, Masterson would continue to build public trust and also shine a positive light on the vast majority of Boise Police officers who uphold the highest standards of professionalism each and every day.

But when he was asked if this officer has been disciplined over the incident, Masterson replied 'no.'  To my relief, our reporter didn't yell "You're a 'no' person!" and immediately try to wrestle him to the ground.

*-Full disclosure-I did not assault one of our reporters for being a 'no' person.

How Some Truths are 'Self-evident.'

I received an e-mail from a gentleman a couple of days back urging us to give Representative Curtis Bowers the opportunity to comment regarding our coverage of his editorial in the 'Idaho Press Tribune.'  In his editorial, Bowers muses how the communist agenda has infiltrated the American mainstream.  Bowers wrote about a meeting of a socialist group affiliated with the Communist Party he attended back in 1992 where he says the group decided to promote feminism, gay rights and the environmental movement as a means to undermine democracy.  His conclusion was that they had succeeded based on the state of all three movements in American society today.

I replied to the viewer that we had given Representative Bowers and Governor Otter, who appointed him to the vacant seat, the opportunity to discuss the controversy over the editorial on camera.  Both declined, as is their right.

But I should have added something more.  I should have noted that the coverage still likely would have been somewhat critical because the connections Mr. Bowers made in his editorial were a self-evident falsehood.

To explain, let me use some other examples.  One might be media coverage of the Aryan Nations when they had a compound in Idaho.  While we in the media made an effort to get Aryan Nations members to comment, the tone of the coverage was necessarily going to be critical of them simply because we as a nation have collectively come to the conclusion that no one race should be treated as superior to all others.  In other words, it is pretty clear Hitler did not get it right, even a little bit, and those who preach otherwise are furthering an agenda of hate that has been discredited over time.

In another blog I wrote a few months ago, I talked about why we at KIVI-TV have a franchise named 'War on Warming.'  It's because of near universal agreement in the scientific community that global warming is occurring.  Even the former oil man turned President George W. Bush has concluded this is correct and has outlined a plan of America to mitigate it.  When there is such widespread scientific and political agreement over an issue, it's 'game over.'  The debate has now shifted to what we should do about it.

These are two accepted truths that over time have become 'self-evident.'  There are others, like the fact that children deserve special protections in our society or that cigarette smoking is bad for you.  And then there is the self-evident truth that Bowers exploits in his editorial, namely that democracy and freedom are a far superior form of government to communism.  No argument there.

But here's another.

The Communist Party had absolutely nothing to do with the formation or success of the feminist movement, the gay rights movement, or the environmental movement in America.  The modern feminist movement began in earnest in the 1960's.  The environmental movement began to take off in the 1970's with the recognition of 'Earth Day.'  The gay rights movement gained momentum as an activist movement in response to the American AIDS epidemic of the 1980's.  All of these movements were well past their formative stages by 1992 when Bowers says he attended the meetings he wrote about.

Even if everything Bowers says is true (and the 'Idaho Press Tribune' tracked down someone else who attended those meetings who says his account is not true), communists somehow vowing in 1992 to promote any of these movements is akin to deciding to hand out water at a marathon after the last runner has passed.  They would have no impact (or if they did, it would likely be a negative impact which clearly did not happen).

What Bowers is engaging in is a rhetorical trick a former professor of mine used to call 'demonization by association.'  In other words, his logic states that those dastardly communists promote these causes so the causes must be evil, and not only that, their relative success is therefore a communist success.

But when have communists ever promoted these causes?  Homosexuals were violently persecuted by Chinese Communist Maoists.  The environment didn't fair much better and still doesn't in Communist China today.  You could argue that communists did promote a feminist agenda, but they had little if anything to do with the American feminist movement.

But even a minimal overlap doesn't prove association.  And so I wrote a blog linking Bowers to the President of Iran based on some overlap in their positions.  I know full well Bowers would never in a million years be supportive of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  My point was to show how Bowers' little rhetorical trick can be just as easily and ridiculously used against him.

In fact, you probably have something in common with a communist.  Maybe both you and a communist enjoy Oreo cookies, but that in no way associates you with communists nor does it implicate you in their evil plot to foster our nation's obesity crisis by promoting a darn tasty high-calorie treat.

Such rhetorical tricks are not honesty.  They are not the truth.  They are not the words of those who wish to engage in a forthright and honest debate.  They are the words of demagogues that distort the debate, and as journalists, we have an obligation to cover such misleading arguments with a critical eye.

I personally don't agree with some aspects of the feminist, gay rights, and environmental movements.  All are controversial in some ways and are deserving of a robust American debate.  One person who responded to my previous blog clearly believes these movements have hurt America, writing, "Can you deny that cohabitation as opposed to marriage between one man and one woman is good for our society? Can you deny that there is a moral decay going on in our country? Are we better off as a nation because moms have been taken out of the household and put in the board room?"

Whether you agree with him or not, those questions are the basis of an honest debate.  Let's have it!  But to use the smear tactics of 'demonization by association' adds nothing to that debate.  It should be another 'self-evident' truth that the people of Idaho have a right to expect a higher form of discourse from their public officials, even if in this particular case he was not elected to office.

A Letter to State Rep. Curtis Bowers from the President of Iran

I recently received a copy of a letter written by the President of Iran to State Representative Curtis Bowers*, and thought I would share it with you.

To:  The Honorable Representative of the State of Idaho Curtis Bowers

From:  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran

Dear Representative Bowers:

I was having doubts about renewing my subscription to the 'Idaho Press Tribune' until I read your most excellent recent editorial on how the Communist Agenda has made its way into the American mainstream.  I am writing to congratulate you on your clear thinking for it is obvious from your writing that you and I think very much alike.  For instance, you wrote in the 'Idaho Press Tribune:'

"(The communists) would promote co-habitation instead of marriage. They would also try to get children away from their mothers into government programs at the earliest age possible. They felt the best way to do this was to promote the feminist movement, which had been very effective at making women discontent with marriage and motherhood."

Indeed, in a blog message I recently wrote to Christians who live in my nation, I discussed how, "If Jesus Christ (peace be upon Him) was present today, he would order an encounter against those who would propagate corruption, obscenity and perversion, and try to nullify and exterminate the merits and the rights of women and diminish their position – a position that virgin Mary (peace be upon Her) – is their role model and sample."**

You will note the similarities in our positions, but be not concerned, for I would not pursue charges of plagiarism against someone with whom I feel such a kinship of belief.  You have stated not only your own position but my position and the position of Iran very well.  This is why in Iran, we insist our women dress modestly that includes the wearing of burqas.  If we relax these reasonable standards, it is a very short step to the day when women will be visible in our streets chugging beer while wearing halter tops.

You further write in your editorial:

"Finally, to destroy our culture, (the communists) needed us to abandon our heritage of religion and morality. They believed the homosexual movement, if accepted, would begin to effectively extinguish these values."

Indeed, when I was recently asked while visiting Columbia University in New York about homosexuals in Iran, I replied there are none.  What we in Iran have discovered that you in America have not is that if you oppress these people enough, they go away!

And that is another reason why I am writing you, for I believe you have misidentified the true threat to your nation today, for the tactics of communism have changed.  As I have read in your newspaper, communists now seek poison your children with the toys you import from them while using your free enterprise system against you to steal America's high-paying jobs.  It is no longer communism that is ruining your nation from the inside.  It is freedom!

Freedom has run amok in America!, and women and homosexuals are taking advantage of it.  Had your founding fathers realized what kind of nation they would have created by giving it so much freedom, they would have never written such words as "All men are created equal" or that all free peoples are endowed with an unalienable right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  No, had they known what state your nation is in today, your Constitution of the United States would look much more like your 'Patriot Act.'

And as an obviously more reasonable elected official of the United States than others in your government, I urge you to fight this freedom that allows all men and women in the United States to live, vote and worship as they wish.  You even allow a woman to run for President!  What further evidence do you need that there is too much freedom in America?

And if you are successful in fighting these freedoms Representative Bowers, you will form a nation that we in Iran will respect greatly and can co-exist with in peace after we join forces to annihilate Israel.

I personally hope to visit and meet with you on my next visit to America.  Judging from your writing, I can tell the reception I would receive from you would be much more welcoming than the one I recently received from New Yorkers.

Warmest regards,

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

*-This is not an actual letter from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to State Rep. Bowers, but a parody written on a blog.

**-This is an actual quote from Ahmadinejad's blog that was forwarded me by someone clearly horrified at his take on Christianity.

Winners and Losers in the Great ABC News Debate

The ABC News debate out of New Hampshire Saturday night had to be one of the most interesting I've ever seen.  Maybe that's because this election is so in doubt, and so the interest is that much higher.  So many Americans just haven't made up their minds.  Honestly, I haven't either, but I'm going to give you my list of how I think the candidates did from 1st-to-10th, then invite you to tell me who you think won the debate.  We'll put some of your responses on-air or in a follow-up blog in the next couple of days.

Here's my list:

1. Barack Obama:  Was it my imagination, or did he actually look Presidential?  I've never seen him in a full-on debate before, and I confess I was surprised how well he stayed philosophical and above the political fray.  No gaffes either to reveal his relative inexperience.  Impressive.  I confess I underestimated him, and maybe the Clinton campaign did too.  Clinton made a legitimate point about him talking about change versus implementing it, but I'm beginning to see why Iowans liked this guy so much.
2. Hillary Clinton:  As mentioned above, her comments about actually creating change in her lifetime versus just talking about it were dead on.  Her being 'hurt' by a poll that showed she wasn't as liked by voters as much as Obama was the memorable moment of the debate, but her attempts to attack Obama's record didn't carry the sting she may have hoped.  Obama virtually repeated her closing remarks at the end of the debate.  An indication of Clinton's unsteady start but very strong finish.
3. Mike Huckabee:  Convincingly portrayed himself as more substantive than the guy who wins only because Iowa evangelicals like him.  Had a demeanor that seemed more poised and thoughtful than his other Republican colleagues.  He split hairs a bit in defending his comment about Bush's 'bunker mentality' on foreign policy, but his praise of Barack Obama's 'vertical candidacy' was both correct and magnanimous.  He's learned that compliments in debates say much more about the complimenter than the complimentee.  I'm beginning to see why Iowans also liked this guy so much too.
4. John Edwards:  Appeared to be flailing early, but made points when he talked about leadership being personal and his fervor for helping the middle class.  His comments about Clinton being 'status quo' got her riled up but did little to help him.  You get the sense he would be a battler in the White House ... maybe too much of a battler?
5. Rudy Giuliani:  Proved you just can't out anti-terrorist Rudy Giuliani.  The selection of topics played to his strengths and he came across as both tough and a leader.  I think his '12 points' scored even though he's been publicly criticized for moving to the right on his more liberal views.  His thoughts on immigration mixed toughness with compassion.  He put in a performance however that was in no way 'memorable.'
6. John McCain:  Made some good quips, but was just so quiet.  Was visibly irritated by the whole topic of immigration and almost disengaged otherwise.  Would have liked to hear more from him.  Is his strategy for winning just keeping his maverick mouth shut?
7. Bill Richardson:  Threw in some great one-liners, including the one about some hostage negotiations being more civil that some of the debate exchanges.  His selling of his credentials just wasn't convincing though.  Maybe it is because we all know in our hearts he's really not in this race
8. Mitt Romney:  A tough debate for him and it really wasn't all his fault.  He was taking incoming from all sides.  He talked by far more than any of the Republicans and was at times a bit exasperated.  I thought his arguments about health care reform and how he achieved it in Massachusetts were convincing, but he took far more punishing shots than he landed.  Didn't seem like a guy who is prepared to take the kind of heat he would get in the White House.
9. Fred Thompson:  ABC's George Stephanopolous thought he had a strong debate, but I didn't see it.  He looked slow, less energetic and tired to me.  There were times you almost wanted to pull words out of his mouth.  Also appeared very unsympathetic when asked about how oil prices are hurting ordinary Americans while oil companies are making huge profits.  You can argue against windfall profit taxes while still expressing an understanding of Americans' pain.  I don't see how his posture wins votes even among more pro-business Republicans.
10. Ron Paul:  This is the guy so many in Idaho are talking about?  He just didn't look like he belonged on the same stage.  Every issue came back to monetary policy for him as if that's the only thing that's ailing this country.  Even his Reagan-esque joke about his age fell flat.  When other Republicans were laughing, they weren't laughing with him.

As you can probably tell by my list, I thought the Democrats did better overall than the Republicans.  Part of that was there were fewer Democrats on stage which means each got more airtime, and I also think Charlie Gibson was getting a better feel for moderating the debate by the time the Democrats took the stage.  More engaged and in control in the second two hours than the first two.

But this has to rate as one of the best debates I've ever seen overall.  Informative and at times entertaining if not as revealing as some may have hoped.  I still have no idea who I'm going to vote for, but I do feel I know them all better now.

So here's your chance.  Reply to this blog with whom you think did the best in last night's debate and why.  We'll use your comments in our newscasts and/or in a follow-up blog over the next few days.

The Bitter Debate With Myself Over the Iowa Caucus

So the Iowa caucuses are over and Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama came out on top.  So what does it all 'mean' for this year's Presidential election?  I've been having a bitter if somewhat 'tongue-in-cheek' debate with myself about it all day.

Point #1:  Huckabee's win shows the power of Christian conservatives in this election.  60% of Republican voters in the Iowa caucus referred to themselves as evangelicals in a state where they make up a little bit more than 1/3rd of the Republican Party overall.  The last time evangelicals were this motivated to agree on anything, they celebrated with a toast of water that had just been turned into wine.  Huckabee's candidacy has clearly re-energized this powerful segment of the Republican party and they will carry him to the party's nomination.

Counterpoint #1:  Huckabee's win in Iowa is a blip in a long campaign he has no chance of winning.  C'mon Scott, in what state with more than 10 electoral votes and buildings higher than a corn stalk can Christian conservatives dominate an election process like they did in Iowa?  Sure, Huckabee will do okay in South Carolina, but after Super Tuesday he'll be flying back to Little Rock strumming his bass and playing the blues.  Iowa would be nothing more than a sideshow if it wasn't the first political sideshow.  Huckabee doesn't have the money or the momentum to attract non-evangelical Republicans who are wary of his tax record as Governor of Arkansas or those who decry his 'touchback' immigration plan.

Point #2:  Obama's ability to energize independents and young voters will carry him to the Democratic nomination.  Polls show Barack Obama was a huge hit with Independents who decided to caucus with Democrats in Iowa and also younger voters who traditionally haven't caucused at all.  Talk about playing to the future of this nation!  Obama's win shows that Democrats are abandoning their often polarizing, Democratic agenda-driven past represented by Clinton and Edwards for a bold new future that will sway independent voters.  Plus, he's got sex appeal even without an Edwards-style $400 haircut!

Counterpoint #2:  Scott, you haven't written anything that idiotic since you blogged that Edwards would win the Democratic nomination.  (Oh, wait!  That was your last blog!)  Name the last Democrat to win the Iowa caucus and go on to win the White House?  There isn't one!  The Democratic nomination will be decided in the big states where there are lots more Democrats than in tiny Iowa and New Hampshire.  Edwards may be in trouble, but Clinton is not.  She has lots of cash, she's a big hit with African-Americans who were in short-supply in Iowa, and if Hillary has proved anything over the years, it is that she's a fighter.

Point #3:  Iowa was a death-blow to Mitt Romney's campaign.  For a guy who reportedly knows how to invest, Iowa was a very expensive dry hole for Mitt Romney.  Romney outspent Huckabee 20-to-1 in Iowa and still came in second to him by a wide margin.  That's an even a more lopsided rejection than I get asking women out on dates!  Now, Romney is staggering into New Hampshire where he's fighting a resurgent Sen. John McCain with no time and no chance to regain momentum.

Counterpoint #3:  Two words.  "Bill Clinton."  Although not as well financed in Iowa as Romney, Clinton spent a lot of his time and a good deal of cash trying to win Iowa in 1992 only to lose there and then win New Hampshire.  He then went on to be dubbed the 'comeback kid' and rode that wave all the way to the White House.  Yes, Romney probably made a mistake devoting so much time and energy and money to Iowa after it became clear he could not win.  Asking Iowa Republican evangelicals whose faith is issue #1 to vote for a Mormon is like asking them to try on LDS underwear.  It's just not a good fit.  New Hampshire is a far different state with Republicans who are far less evangelical and far more familiar with Romney from his days as Governor of Massachusetts.  And if Romney can win New Hampshire, he regains the 'Big Mo' while handing McCain a serious setback.

I suppose my point to all this is that all the political punditry after Iowa is fun, but it is like declaring a winner to the World Series after the teams have only played game #1.  Iowa can be an edge, but it has a history of being better at eliminating candidate's chances, like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd this year or Howard Dean four years ago, rather than kinging them.  The truth about predicting political campaigns after the Iowa caucus is that no one even has any clue what will happen.  But for political nerds like me, it is fun!  Pardon me, but I have to go now and get ready to watch the debates on ABC tonight.  And I wonder why I can't get a date.

Outrageous Political Predictions for 2008

I should have resolved not to blog about politics in 2008.  That's because the evidence is pretty clear most Americans don't care much about politics.  I'm not saying Americans don't care about Democracy.  They do.  It's politics they can live without.

I got my first real lesson on this from former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina.  For those of you who don't remember Helms, he was die hard conservative republican who retired in 2003 and reminded me in many ways of Larry Craig (pre-sex scandal of course).  Helms was a champion of rural interests in North Carolina, especially tobacco farmers, and was instrumental in bringing federal dollars to rural parts of the state.  He also had a bit of a reputation as a southern hick, and his early stance opposing desegregation only added to that view, but in covering Helms when I worked in North Carolina in the 1980's, I found him to be extremely politically astute.

In 1990, he was up for re-election against the Democratic former Mayor of Charlotte, Harvey Gantt.  It seemed to everyone to be a political mismatch that Helms would win easily, yet he was running a very hard campaign.  I really didn't understand why and I got the opportunity to ask him about it one day.  Helms explained to me that 45% of the people in North Carolina supported him and 45% supported his opponent, so the real battle was going to be over the 10% who were undecided and he was taking no chances with them.

The more I thought about it, it seemed to me Helms was right, and it made me wonder why we were spending so much airtime on a political campaign that only 10% of our audience had any real interest in knowing any more about.

I thought about Helms' words the other day when a viewer called asking why we weren't doing more coverage of Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.  She wasn't asking us to do more political coverage in general mind you.  She wanted more coverage of the candidate she already supports, perhaps in the somewhat naive belief that if the media payed more attention to Paul, he would have a chance to win the nomination.  As Helms might say, a large percentage of the electorate has already decided they will not support Ron Paul, and no amount of so-called 'free media' is going to change that.  As for her, she had no interest in the objective political coverage we might offer.  She had already made up her mind, and wanted more coverage of the candidate she had chosen.

But I do think 2008 is different from normal elections in the fact that so many Americans haven't decided who they will support for President.  We have a rare convergence of circumstances that make this election strange and very unpredictable, including a very unpopular incumbent, a sitting Vice-President who is not running for President, very crowded and competitive fields of candidates for both political parties and the wild-card of a possible independent candidacy by New York Mayor Micheal Bloomberg.

It's a bit of an outrageous year politically, and so here are my outrageous political predictions for 2008.

The Republican nominee will be John McCain:  I predict McCain will win New Hampshire and that will springboard him past Giuliani in big states on Super Tuesday.  McCain is just conservative enough to get religious right support should Huckabee falter and his steadfast support of the surge in Iraq shows he is politically courageous and has some foreign policy smarts.  He's run a horrible campaign, but I think he takes it anyway.

The Democratic nominee will be John Edwards:  The last poll I saw from Iowa had Edwards finishing second.  I think he'll actually finish first and his candidacy will steamroll from there.  I don't buy the argument that America isn't ready to elect a black or a woman President.  I just think Edwards will win because he has a clear message of the 'two Americas' that resonates with so many, especially Democrats.  The economy is the number one issue right now, and Edwards is speaking to it on a level that no other candidate is with a passion others seem to lack.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can certainly see its appeal.

Michael Bloomberg will run and has a shot at winning:  Some political experts are saying Bloomberg won't run because he has no chance of getting the 270 electoral votes needed to win.  I don't think he does either, but I think he'll run anyway, spend hundreds of millions of his own dollars on a 'big state' strategy and earn enough electoral votes to throw the election into Congress.  If Bloomberg was also the popular vote leader, a Democratic Congress would have a difficult time electing the Democratic nominee just eight years after Al Gore won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college.  Besides, I think many Democrats would view Bloomberg despite his Republican pedigree as a man they could work with.

All my picks on this New Year's Day are long-shots, so give me credit for not playing it safe.  You can ridicule me later when the political process proves me completely wrong.  I'm betting though that you won't remember my outrageous picks months from now because the evidence is pretty clear most Americans really don't care much about politics.