ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 26, 2003

DES MOINES - - Live television is not easy; the networks just make it look that way.

It took about 100 NBC employees to get last week’s Democratic presidential debate on the air. But before they could do so, one basic question had to be answered: How many candidates actually were going to show up?

All nine Democratic contenders had promised to appear in Iowa for the debate, but 10 days before the event, Joe Lieberman pulled out because he wanted to campaign in New Hampshire instead.

Then, on the Friday before the debate, word began circulating that Democratic senators might filibuster the Medicare vote on the Monday of the debate. So what would Senators John Kerry and John Edwards do? Show up in Iowa to debate or show up in Washington to filibuster?

On Saturday morning, the Kerry campaign assured NBC that Kerry would debate in Iowa. About an hour later, however, the Kerry campaign sent out a press release saying Kerry would be in Washington because “seniors need someone to fight for them.”

A few hours after that, the Edwards campaign decided that if Kerry was going to go back and filibuster, Edwards would have to go back, too.

Which left NBC with only six debaters (half of them from the bottom tier of candidates) which meant the debate would look small time.

But what if Kerry and Edwards could be hooked up to the debate by satellite from Washington? Wouldn’t that solve things?

Well, yes, but only if the six candidates who were going to be on stage in Iowa allowed it. And then there was the Democratic National Committee to consider.

The DNC has a policy against satellite hook-ups. “Once candidates know they can hold fundraisers and other events on the day of the debate and get hooked up by satellite, how are you going to get them together to debate?” a DNC official said.

But at NBC’s request, the DNC canvassed the six candidates to see if they would allow the satellite hook-up. They say they would, but with a list of demands:

Kerry and Edwards had to be in separate studios in Washington with no conversation allowed between them. Kerry and Edwards had to stand up for the entire two hour debate or sit on the same kind of stool that was provided for the debaters in Iowa. Kerry and Edwards could not have cell phones or pagers with them. An NBC producer would have to be with each one at all times to make sure no rules were violated. And Kerry and Edwards had to be on separate TV screens on the debate stage for the entire two-hour debate.

“That was so if there were any ‘sighs and lies’ the TV audience would see it,” a DNC source said.

If there was a vote on the floor of the senate during the debate, the two would be allowed to leave, but would not be allowed to come back.

This was going to cost NBC tens of thousands of dollars on top of the hundreds of thousands it was already spending, but the network was eager to do it. And set designer Eddie Knasiak sprang into action, ordering two different color backdrops painted for the senators in Washington so their backgrounds would match the background in Des Moines. (The match was so good that in close-ups you could not tell Kerry and Edwards were in Washington.)

Things were frantic at the debate site Sunday - - the stage had to be reconfigured to accommodate six lecterns and two plasma screen television monitors - - when Joe Lieberman decided he wanted to debate by satellite, too.

Neither NBC nor the DNC was enthusiastic about this, but the other campaigns were canvassed again and at least three voted against letting Lieberman back in.
So the debate took place in Iowa at the Polk County Convention Complex between six live human beings and two remote human beings and it came off without a technical hitch. Except one.

“Whenever a car with a radar detector drove by the convention complex, the picture from Washington got scrambled,” Mark Lukasiewicz, the NBC executive producer, said. “But we made sure that never got on the air.”

Television: It only looks easy.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 24, 2003

NEW YORK - - Tom Brokaw enters the 14th floor conference room at 30 Rockefeller Plaza through a side door. He is wearing a zippered black sweater and carrying a cardboard cup of soup. He has glasses on. The people in the room fall silent.

This meeting has been convened to plan this weeks debate among the Democratic presidential candidates in Des Moines, Iowa, which NBC News and MSNBC will produce and which will be re-run many times throughout the week, including on Thanksgiving Day.

An 18-point agenda for the meeting has been distributed and it includes everything from “Candidates - - movements, handling” to “Press room/Spin Alley.” It is like planning a small war. Or a live TV show.

Though “Brokaw speaks” is not on the agenda, everyone expects him to do so. He is the anchor and managing editor of the NBC Nightly News, a best-selling author and the winner of numerous awards. The first presidential election he covered was in 1968. This will be his last. He is 63 and will retire from the Nightly News at the end of the 2004 presidential campaign. This fact tends to heighten the events he participates in.

He will moderate and be the sole questioner of the candidates at the debate in Des Moines. He has set an extremely high goal for himself and the 100 or so NBC employees who are actively working on the debate. “I want,” Brokaw tells the group, “to try to make it memorable.”

Glances are exchanged. “Informative” would be hard enough. “Watchable” may even be a challenge. But “memorable”?

Four debates officially sanctioned by the DNC have already taken place this year as well as dozens more unsanctioned debates and forums. A few have been interesting and one or two even made news for a day or two. But memorable is going to be one tough hill to climb.

Brokaw intends to go for it, however. And the first way he intends to achieve it is to knock the candidates off balance. “Because the (candidates) will come to this with their eyes semi-glazed over because they’ve been to so many of these, we have to get off to a very fast start,” Brokaw says.

He does not, he explains, want the debate to be about the “fine print” of the campaigns. He does not want it to be about “the health care niche of Gephardt or the John Kerry Vietnam veteran niche” but rather about the candidates’ “character and their values, and their vision and their feelings about each other.”

His big goal, Brokaw says, is that at the end of two hours the audience will have a much better sense of the “whole person” and “what drives them as human beings as much as presidential candidates.”

One might be tempted to say “easier said than done” but Brokaw realizes that. “I am still working through my own mind about the questions,” Brokaw says, “and how to orchestrate this on stage.” One of his strategies is going to be to interrupt the candidates to ask “a counter-intuitive question” in the middle of any long, scripted answer. “If they get into a big anti-Bush economy screed, I may interrupt that with another kind of a question,” Brokaw says. “We will try to get at them and make them think on their feet. I want the viewers to see how these guys react.”

In other words, the candidates will probably hate this debate.

Some months ago, the candidates asked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to step in and impose some order on the debate process for two reasons: First, they were getting too many invitations and wanted the DNC to sanction six debates only. This would give the candidates an excuse to turn down other offers. (As it turned out, it gave them an excuse, but not the guts. The candidates found it impossible to refuse the unsanctioned invitations of such groups as the NAACP. )

Second, before the sanctioning process was set up, ABC held a debate in Columbia, S.C., moderated by George Stephanopoulos. It received good reviews from journalists, but was loathed by the candidates. ABC made the candidates sit at desks on the stage while Stephanopoulos strode around in front of them asking questions.

“They hated George standing over them,” a Democratic strategist familiar with the debate negotiations said. “They hated sitting at those desks. They hated that the debate seemed to be focused more on George than on them. They were concerned that everything had been done to promote Stephanopoulos and to make it his show.”

So the DNC stepped in and began discussions with the networks for carrying sanctioned debates. But before the networks could get a debate, they had to outline the formats they wanted to use, and the DNC, on behalf of the candidates, could negotiate. “The first thing they wanted was no more little damn desks,” one consultant said.

The complaints did not stop with the furniture, however. After a CNN debate, many of the candidates were angry with the performance of moderator Judy Woodruff. Though Woodruff is held in very high regard and has never been considered a showboat by her fellow journalists, many of the candidates didn’t see it that way. They hated the “two-shots” that showed Woodruff walking over to the candidates to ask her questions, and they hated what they saw as her “high profile” during the debate.

“She was in nearly every shot!” one candidate complained. One senior Democrat put it this way: “In general, the candidates do not want a moderator of greater stature than the candidates.”

Which means they are really going to hate the NBC debate.

Though some of the moderators and questioners at prior debates have been people of considerable reputation and even fame, Brokaw is the first superstar to moderate a debate this year, the first network anchor, the first moderator more recognizable than the candidates themselves.

This gives him an advantage: Viewers see Brokaw as both likable and an authority figure and will not take it well if a candidate tries to be dismissive of him or slide away from his questions.

And though Brokaw recognizes the debate is about the candidates and not about him, he does intend to facilitate things by getting in the candidates’ faces.

Later, in his comfortable, but modest-sized office, filled with family pictures, awards and memorabilia, Brokaw says he realizes there is little that candidates hate more than surprises.

“But, you know,” Brokaw says, “that’s part of the risk that they have to take. I mean, part of our job is to act as the advocate of the audience and the voters and try to draw them out so that voters don’t get just an infomercial. Why give up two hours of your time as a viewer if you think you are going to get one canned campaign speech after another? It’s hard to convince campaigns of this, but it’s in their interest, frankly.”

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 19, 2003

WASHINGTON - - You think you have enemies? Just be glad you’re not a general.

When at a forum in September, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president, Shelton quickly took a drink of water.

"That question makes me wish it were vodka," Shelton said. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Which was bad enough, but on Nov. 6, retired Gen. General Norman Schwarzkopf appeared on CNBC’s Capital Report, hosted by Gloria Borger and Alan Murray, who asked him what he thought of Clark.

“I mean, he was fired as a NATO commander,” Schwarzkopf replied, “and when Hugh Shelton said he was fired because of matters of character and integrity, that is a very, very damning statement which says, `If that's the case, he's not the right man for president,' as far as I'm concerned.”

Clark was understandably miffed - - Shelton has refused to expand on his remarks or explain exactly what he meant - - and went on the air the next day to say: “I haven't talked to General Schwarzkopf since 1991 when I interviewed him in his headquarters about what he liked and didn't like about the Army. He left the Army shortly after that, haven't seen him in 12 years. He didn't ask me anything about it. So he's certainly entitled to his opinion, but I think America should hold people to a high standard.”

But it didn’t stop there. Clark got wind of the fact that Democratic presidential rival John Edwards was using Shelton as an adviser. So the Clark campaign shot off this rocket to Edwards:

“I’m simply astounded that you have retained General Hugh Shelton as an adviser to your presidential campaign. This choice undermines the spirit of civility that you have urged your fellow candidates to uphold. Just this September you said, ‘We need to be really careful that our anger is not directed at each other.’ Maybe you should share that advice with your own campaign team.

“General Shelton has engaged in precisely the type of politics as (the) usual mud-slinging that you profess to abhor….You should insist that General Shelton either repudiate his attacks or come forward and provide proof for what he said.”

Edwards decided to be cool and collected in the face of this hot and heavy attack and replied with this letter to Clark:

“Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I’m sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction.

“Although Gen. Shelton has not endorsed me or any other candidate, I value his advice as one of our nation’s top military leaders. He is a fellow North Carolinian and has been a friend and advisor for many years. I will continue to seek his advice.

“When I talk to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it’s about the safety and security of our men and women in uniform, not about politics.”

We are not sure what any of this means, but until they sort it out, we are not inviting any of them to the same party.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 17, 2003

WASHINGTON - - Politicians often regret their campaign promises. Upon calm reflection, George H.W. Bush might have wanted to say, “Read my lips, no new taxes - - unless the country really, really needs them to reduce the deficit.”

And Arnold Schwarzenegger, inaugurated as California’s 38th governor this week, probably wishes he had adopted the “Dee Snider Defense” in the face of accusations that Schwarzenegger has groped at least 15 women over the years. Snider, lead singer for Twisted Sister, whose 1984 hit "We're Not Gonna Take It" became Schwarzenegger's campaign anthem, said, "The fact is, men are dogs. If we took all the dogs out of jobs of importance, we'd have a lot of empty offices."

Instead, two days before the recall election that transformed him from a Hollywood superstar to a Sacramento superstar, Schwarzenegger did an interview with NBC’s Tom Brokaw in order to put the groping allegations to rest. Instead, however, Schwarzenegger continued their life cycle. The key exchange was this one:

BROKAW: Governor [Gray] Davis is saying today that you have an obligation to answer specifically the charges that have been made against you by 15 women now. You either have to call those women and their families liars, or give specific responses to the charges that they have made. Are you prepared to do that?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Governor Davis owes the people of California an apology for what he has done to this state. He owes them an explanation. He should talk to the people of California because what he has done to this state is terrible.

BROKAW: But you're not going to be any more specific about these charges, in terms of your denials?

SCHWARZENEGGER: As soon as the campaign is over, I will.

Two days later, the campaign ended with a Schwarzenegger victory, but he didn’t seem all that eager to make good on his campaign promise.

At his first press conference, Schwarzenegger didn’t raise the matter (nor did any of the hundreds of reporters in the room ask him about it) but he did make an interesting plea. "Please do me a favor,” Schwarzenegger said to the reporters. “Stay with me the next three years, because you are absolutely essential for me to get my message out there. I really appreciate your being a part of this campaign."

Perhaps Schwarzenegger’s assumption that the press was “part” of his campaign was enough to awaken some reporters, because the next day at a press conference, a reporter asked Schwarzenegger when he would make good on his promise to provide more specifics about the groping charges.

“Old news,” Schwarzenegger said tersely.

Not to Garry Trudeau, creator of Doonesbury, it wasn’t. Trudeau has done strip after strip portraying Schwarzenegger as a giant groping hand. And California Attorney Gen. Bill Lockyer, who appears to have been on every possible side of the issue, has also kept it going.

On the last day of the recall campaign, Lockyer, a Democrat, said that even though the statute of limitations had run out on bringing criminal charges against Schwarzenegger for his behavior, “Arnold should volunteer” for an “investigation to clear up these charges.” Said Lockyer, “There’s too many of them, they’re disturbing, the volume is disturbing.”

After Schwarzenegger won, however, Lockyer said he had voted for Schwarzenegger. “I’m convinced Arnold didn’t really understand that he was caught up in frat-boy behavior,” Lockyer said.

Two weeks ago, however, Lockyer gave a radio interview saying he had met with Schwarzenegger and told him "some form of independent, third-party review of those [groping] complaints" was needed "to see if there's any criminal liability or not.” Schwarzenegger was furious and his spokesman made the somewhat curious claim that Lockyer had violated “attorney-client” privilege by divulging “the content of communication between himself and the governor-elect.” Under California law, Schwarzenegger’s spokesman said, “the attorney general is the governor’s lawyer.”

But at the time, Schwarzenegger was not governor, nor had the recall vote even been certified. No matter, the spokesman said, Lockyer had violated the privilege and even though Schwarzenegger had decided “to engage a well-respected investigative firm to look into the allegations,” he now might not turn the results over the Lockyer.

Lockyer, who may run for governor in 2006, soon struck back, saying someone had come to him two days before the election with information that Schwarzenegger may have groped someone last year during the filming of Terminator 3. Lockyer also suggested that a toll-free 800 number be established so that anyone with complaints against Schwarzenegger could call in.

Unfortunately, 1-800-T-H-E-G-R-O-P-I-N-A-T-O-R will not fit.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 12, 2003

WASHINGTON - - A very sensible person of my acquaintance, an inside-the-beltway political expert of some reputation, has just made a bet that if Howard Dean captures the Democratic nomination, he will win only two states in the general election: his home state of Vermont and Massachusetts.

And you wonder why Dean doesn’t like inside-the-beltway political experts.

This bet, which I consider very weird, is based on the notion that Howard Dean in 2004 will suffer the same fate as George McGovern in 1972.

In that year, McGovern, who opposed the war in Vietnam, was wiped out by incumbent President Richard Nixon. McGovern took only one state, Massachusetts, (plus the District of Columbia), losing the popular vote 60.6 to 37.5 percent and the Electoral College vote 520 to 17.

(As has been pointed before, the criminal behavior that Nixon and his re-election gang engaged in during Watergate and related scandals was entirely unnecessary against an opponent as hapless as McGovern.)

And you hear opponents of Dean say that while our current involvement in Iraq is nothing like our past involvement in Vietnam, Dean’s fate will nonetheless be the same as McGovern’s: a leftist anti-war candidate will get chewed up by a flag-waving incumbent president.

This is why, the argument goes, the Democratic party cannot afford to nominate Howard Dean.

And, usually, insurgent candidates like Dean are stopped on the way to the nomination. They do well in early states (John McCain crushed George W. Bush in New Hampshire in 2000, for instance), but their very success spells their doom: As the possibility of them winning the nomination becomes more real, the mainstream of the party rallies around a mainstream candidate and puts an end to the insurgent.

This is what Dean’s Democratic opponents are depending on: The party will wake up and eventually endorse the mainstream front-runner.

There is a problem with this scenario, however: Howard Dean (ital) is (unital) the mainstream front-runner of the Democratic Party.

The party is an anti-war party and Dean is an anti-war candidate. Four of Dean’s chief opponents - - Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman - - all voted for the Iraq war, which, as they have noticed, has not made them very popular with a number of their fellow Democrats.

And while there is certainly an anti-Dean faction in the party, to defeat Dean will require that faction to coalesce around a single candidate.

But who is that candidate? Thus far, no such person has emerged. It is very early and this could change, but the very fact that so many candidates are viable helps instead of hurts Howard Dean.

As to finding someone more electable than Dean, the Dean forces have had the same response to that from the beginning: You are not going to beat George Bush with George Bush Lite. If you nominate a pro-war Democrat, the American people will find very little difference between the Democrat and Bush and they will go with Bush.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark was supposed to be the answer to Dean. He was anti-war, yet, as a general nobody could paint him as some kind of lily-livered peacenik.

But he stumbled badly on his very first day of campaigning by bobbling an answer as to whether he would have voted to support the war in Iraq and ever since he has had to spend an awful lot of time establishing his Democratic and his anti-war bona fides.

He pulled out of Iowa in order to concentrate on New Hampshire, but Dean still leads in that state by double digits. Clark is hoping to do well in the states that immediately follow New Hampshire, but Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt have the same strategy.

Further, the notion that Clark could stand toe-to-toe with George Bush and whomp him has not yet been born out by Clark’s performance on the stump.

Howard Dean has been raising tons of money and doing well in the polls week after week, month after month, and his opponents have yet to derail or even damage him much.

Dean success so far should not be confused with victory, however. Amassing dollars and poll numbers is not the same thing as winning actual votes. But if Dean does well in Iowa and wins New Hampshire, I think he is going to be very tough to beat.

In order to stop Howard Dean, I think his opponents have to take him on where he is perceived to be strong and not where he is perceived to be weak. If one of Dean’s Democratic rivals really wants to show that Dean has feet of clay, I think he better do it in New Hampshire before it is too late.

Beat Dean in New Hampshire and you might really cause the party to look for an alternative.

Beating Dean in New Hampshire would not be easy. But it would be impressive.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 10, 2003

WASHINGTON - - One of the things I look for in a presidential candidate is his ability to take a punch.

Some candidates can do it. They can take a body blow that might stagger them for a day or two, but eventually they bounce off the ropes and come back to fight on.

Bill Clinton could take a punch. During his first primary campaign in 1992, he got hit with everything from accusations of adultery to accusations of draft dodging and he just kept coming back. (That his chief defense was to lie about these accusations is another matter.)

Many candidates cannot take a punch. Gary Hart in 1987, who fled the race after accusations of adultery and Joe Biden in 1988, who dropped out after accusations of plagiarism, are two examples.

One of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s biggest weaknesses is supposed to be his penchant for speaking before fully thinking. And he does do that. But it isn’t turning out to be much of a weakness.

Back in September, speaking to a small group of supporters, Dean said “it’s not our place to take sides” in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Joe Lieberman, among others, jumped all over Dean, saying Dean was abandoning “a 50-year record of support for Israel.”

But Dean took the punch. While it might come back to hurt Dean in the general election (if Dean gets that far), it sure doesn’t seem to have derailed his primary campaign.

And take his recent comment about wanting the votes of people who display the Confederate flag. There was a huge dust-up over that one. (And Dean was forced to semi-apologize.) Dean has also been accused by his fellow Democrats of wanting to dismantle Medicare, of having an “anti-black agenda” and a host of other charges, none of which have slowed him down.

In fact, Dean has emerged stronger than ever. He is expected to get the endorsement of two huge labor unions - - the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - - and also will opt out of matching funds, freeing him to spend as much as he can raise in pursuit of the Democratic nomination.

So who is talking about the Confederate flag controversy now? Nobody. And even what could have been bad news contains a glimmer of good news for Dean this week: A new poll has come out in Iowa, showing U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., with a substantial seven-point lead over Dean. This is definitely good news for Gephardt, who has been undergoing something of a resurgence (at least in the media) lately. But there is a troubling figure in that poll for Gephardt: While 49% of Dean's supporters say they definitely will go to the caucuses, only 27% of Gephardt’s supporters say that.

Telling a pollster whom you favor is a whole lot easier than spending 2-3 hours on a cold January night in Iowa voting for that candidate in a caucus. To win the Iowa caucuses, you need committed voters. And Dean, at least according to that poll, seems to have them.

Last week, ABC News’ electronic political newsletter, The Note, which was one of the first media outlets to pick up on Dean’s potential earlier this year, listed 18 “truths” about Howard Dean, almost all of them complimentary. I won’t list all 18, but here are a few:

“1. Dean will raise more money in the year before the election than anyone else seeking the Democratic nomination, and that historically in the modern era is (with one exception) the iron-clad predictor of who wins in both parties.

“2. Beyond money, this year Dean has dominated in message and media, two other fabu[lous] things to have.

“3. None of the other candidates can overtake Dean in the fourth quarter - - they can theoretically do damage to him (although, outside damage with the Chattering Class, we doubt that, too), but they can't cripple him. There just aren't enough people paying attention yet.

“4. What doesn't kill Howard Dean only makes him stronger.

“10. Most Washington Democrats who are scared out of their wits about Howard Dean as their nominee have never been to a Dean event and don't have a genuine understanding of WHY he has succeeded this year.”

I’ll be writing more about this later, but make no mistake: Howard Dean is this year’s political Superman. And nobody has found the Kryptonite to stop him.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 5, 2003

SIMON SAYS:
People who buy very expensive watches are trying to make up for the love they never had as children. (Or else they just like very expensive watches.)

If you really want to see something ugly, just look under your tongue.

Why do people who take off their shoes on airplanes always end up sitting next to me?

For a good no-frills cookie, it is hard to beat Pepperidge Farm Chessmen. (Though why they have chessmen on them is beyond me.)

I am not saying “K Street” is the worst show on television, but it is certainly the worst show on HBO. According to an HBO press release, it is supposed to be an “experimental fusion of reality and fiction.” What it actually turns out to be is “lousy.” The show is based on three highly questionable premises:
1. Mary Matalin and James Carville are endlessly fascinating people.
2. Non-actors are just as watchable as real actors.
3. The public is so interested in current events that it wants them not just in news, but also in entertainment broadcasting.

How come I didn't invent the rolling suitcase? It was so obvious.

You haven't lived until you've had your eyebrows waxed. (Or so I am told.)

No, you are not mistaken: People are angrier and ruder than they have ever been.

Those shoulder straps on your trench coat once had a purpose. In World War I (which is why it’s called a “trench” coat, I guess) shoulder straps kept the straps of your binoculars, gas mask, etc., from slipping off your shoulder.

Don't believe those cable company commercials about how lousy satellite TV is. In my experience satellite is far superior to cable in all respects.

If you are a real fanatic, you believe barbecuing is a year-round activity and are quite willing to do it even when there are icicles on the Weber. (Never drag your barbecue indoors to use it, however. A good winter steak is not worth dying over.)

If you have never gone shopping for screws in a hardware store, you haven't lived. Yes, you can buy them individually and they often cost only a few pennies each.

Answers to questions you never asked: When you take a candy from a box of chocolates, take the little paper holder with it.

In movies, people never say good-bye before they hang up the phone. Check if you don't believe me.

We don't want the Iraqis to pay back any of the billions we are going to lavish on their country because, the administration says, we don't want to burden them with debt. So how come nobody is worried about burdening the American taxpayer with debt?

For the life of me, I cannot see how mechanical pencils are any improvement over wooden pencils. (And who still uses pencils, anyway?)

Is it just me or does it seem really strange to see Arnold Schwarzenegger movies now?

I don't care if it is unfashionable, I like iceberg lettuce. (And French dressing ain't half- bad either.)

In one more generation, nobody will be able to drive a stick shift.

I don't like insects, but I won't kill a lady bug.

I really admire people who can arrange flowers.

Hardback pick of the month: "America’s Mom: The Life, Lessons and Legacy of Ann Landers” by Rick Kogan.

If we can buy cheap baseball caps from China, why can't we buy cheap drugs from Canada?

Watching the trees change color is about the cheapest entertainment you can get.

It is a sign of maturity to realize that there are some stoplights you can never make.

“Lost in Translation” is a critics’ movie, by which I mean it has been wildly over-praised and therefore guarantees disappointment. Why did the critics love it? Virtually nothing happens. Movie critics love movies in which virtually nothing happens. They think it’s very European.

On some days, New York City is just not worth it.

People who swing right before they turn left deserve what they get.

For some reason there is nothing cuter than a little kid wearing sunglasses.

There is great satisfaction, as well as considerable financial reward, in fixing your own toilet. (It is easier than you think, all the help you need is on the Internet. And don't be squeamish; the water in your toilet tank is clean.)

Considering how noisy it is, one wonders why movie theaters push popcorn. (Why not pudding?)

No, you won't use a whirlpool bath as often as you think you will (it takes too long to fill) but it sure is fun when you do use it.

Could it be that Jeffrey Tambor and Dr. Phil are the same person?

Admit it: You are too embarrassed to admit how old your pillow is.

Is it true that high school cheerleaders grow up to lead lives of misery, or do we just wish it were true?

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 3, 2003

WASHINGTON - - My BlackBerry began buzzing Saturday afternoon. For those of you unfamiliar with it, a BlackBerry is a device that expands your workday from 12 to 18 hours and your work week from five to seven days.

Want one?

A BlackBerry automatically forwards e-mail from your office to a handheld device that you can carry anywhere. Which means the weekends are no longer an escape from the office.

Political campaigns moved quickly to exploit the potential of the BlackBerry. In the past, campaigns had difficulty reaching large numbers of reporters on the weekends. E-mails, faxes, even phone calls were largely ineffective, because reporters were not at their offices to receive them.

Now, however, all a political campaign need do is send out an e-mail, reasonably confident that paranoid reporters, who are afraid of missing anything, have their BlackBerries turned on all weekend long.

And most of us do, I am afraid. Which is why the first Battle of the BlackBerry was able to take place on Saturday.

The opening salvo came from U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., who expressed shock, outrage and dismay with a quote former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean had given the Des Moines Register. The quote had appeared the same Saturday. (Everything is very quick these days. Nobody has much time to think before they react.)

Here is the quote: “ ‘I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,’ Howard Dean said Friday in a telephone interview from New Hampshire. ‘We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.’ ” Dean was responding to questions about guns and gun control.

Well, Dick Gephardt was absolutely outraged. "I don’t want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” he said in his e-mail. “I will win the Democratic nomination because I will be the candidate for the guys with American flags in their pickup trucks.”

Which is a pretty nifty line, whether he came up with it or not.

While I was absorbing that, my BlackBerry began buzzing again. This time, it was an e-mail from U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. “Howard Dean is justifying his pandering to the NRA by saying his opposition to an assault weapons ban allows him to pander to lovers of the Confederate flag. It is simply unconscionable for Howard Dean to embrace the most racially divisive symbol in America. I would rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA.”

Another nifty line.

Within minutes, I got buzzed again, this time with Dean defending himself. (How do the various campaigns get the e-mails of the other campaigns? Could reporters be passing them along?)

"I want people with Confederate flags on their trucks to put down those flags and vote Democratic - - because the need for quality healthcare, jobs, and a good education knows no racial boundaries,” Dean said. “The dividing of working people by race has been a cornerstone of Republican politics for the last three decades - - starting with Richard Nixon. For my fellow Democratic opponents to sink to this level is really tragic.”

But before this tragedy could sink in, my BlackBerry went off again. This time it was from U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., the first Southerner to buzz into the fray.

"What Howard Dean said today was nothing short of offensive,” Edwards said. “Democrats from every wing of the party understand what that flag symbolizes. And when a politician embraces one of the most divisive symbols in America, it is offensive to every American. Some of the greatest civil rights leaders, white and black, have come from the South. To assume that southerners who drive trucks would embrace this symbol is offensive.”

Things were really heating up, when former Gen. Wesley Clark, also a Southerner, buzzed me.

“The Confederate flag flies in the face of our most deeply-held American values ­ diversity, equality and inclusion,” Clark said. “As someone who led men and women of all backgrounds in the United States military, I believe that the only flag we should fly is the one that brings us together ­ the Stars and Stripes ­ and that the Confederate flag should never, ever be flown on public buildings.”

Pretty soon, Rev. Al Sharpton BlackBerried me, too. He expressed shock and outrage in his unique way, saying, “If I were ever to say that I wanted to be the candidate for guys with “Swastikas”, I would be asked to leave the race and one cannot take these associations lightly”.

Next came Joe Lieberman’s campaign director Craig Smith (it being the Jewish Sabbath, Lieberman, himself, was not commenting directly) who said: "Governor Dean ought to be more careful about what he says. It is irresponsible and reckless to loosely talk about one of the most divisive, hurtful symbols in American history. The last thing the Democratic party needs is a nominee who will regularly make these kind of mistakes."

One does not know what to make of all this. Dean points that he first talked about the Confederate flag at a February meeting of the Democratic National Committee, in which he said: “White folks in the South who drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too.”

And nobody got upset at him then. But that statement was more nuanced than the quote that appeared Saturday and in his follow-up e-mail, Dean did say that he wanted “people with Confederate flags on their trucks to put down those flags,” which is something he had not said before.

By Sunday, the e-mails had stopped, but newspapers carried stories about the dust-up and by Monday it was all over the cable news shows.

The first Battle of the BlackBerry had done its work, transforming a small, regional news item into a national melee.

The solution? Candidates could speak with greater care. Or other candidates could react with a greater sense of understanding and charity.

Or we could all turn off our BlackBerries on the weekends.