My brush with fame!

As many of you know I am a daily obsessed reader of Dan Froomkin's White House Watch on washingtonpost.com. The column is published each day around 11:30AM AZ time and almost every day at work I spend my lunch hour at my computer reading White House Watch. I hate to miss it and I hate when Froomkin takes off a few days for vacations or holidays.

Froomkin has a tremendous grasp of White House political affairs. Each weekday he scans the online stories from all the leading newspapers and political blogs and summarizes the major story lines from the days news. He is able to capture the essence of what is happening in any news related to the White House and presidency. While he inserts his own opinion at times, the column gives voice to many perspectives.

The column is laid out in sections, each four or five paragraphs in length, which highlight a particular story. There might be a dozen of these sections in each column, yet it is a quick and entertaining read. The column usually has a lead theme for the day, which Froomkin covers in more length and breadth, then follows with analysis of everything else going on in a day. It is a very comprehensive look at the news and I am always impressed by Froomkin's ability to summarize stories to their essence.

Well, every other week Froomkin hosts an online Q & A session where readers submit questions which he then answers live online, all published on washintonpost.com. Well, after many failed attempts to get one of my questions answered in past chats, Froomkin answered not just one, but TWO questions I submitted yesterday, live online! I felt like such a celebrity! And, not only did he answer the questions, he even turned one of my questions into a little contest for other readers to reply to! Woo hoo!

It's like better than getting a call answered on Diane Rehm - although probably not as good as getting on Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me, The NPR News Quiz Show, which I have yet to do! (No offense Dan!)

Anyway, my first question and the slogan contest were about the recent Pocket Veto by Bush. It is one of those stories only political junkies have interest in and here is what I asked:

Chandler, Ariz. -- one more on the pocket veto: Bush et al are very good about making very technical moves that inicite Democratic ire but don't motivate the public because of their technical nature. It's hard to get an apathetic public to get upset about a "pocket veto"; it has no heart -- no slogan!
Dan Froomkin: Consider this a slogan contest. Send submissions to froomkin@washingtonpost.com.

And so then, today, he actually followed up on MY question in his column! I almost swooned! Someone get me my smelling salts! And, he took my point to heart - that there couldn't be any public outrage against a "Pocket Veto" because it is so darn technical no one even knows what it is - it is a bore!

Slogan Contest
In my Live Online yesterday there was a great deal of animated discussion about Bush's attempted pocket veto. But a reader from Chandler, Ariz., chimed in to suggest that it wasn't exactly the sort of controversy that Democrats could use to harness voter outrage: "It's hard to get an apathetic public to get upset about a 'pocket veto'; it has no heart -- no slogan!"
I instantly commissioned a slogan contest. And by golly, Chandler, Ariz., was right. The strongest entries came from reader Horace LaBadie, and they weren't good. Among them:
"Don't pocket veto me, bro'."
"Is that a veto in your pocket, or did you just miss me?"
"If the Senate's in sayshun, the bill's legislation."
The best I could come up myself: The Pick Pocket Veto. (The veto, after all, had the immediate effect of reducing the raise military members got on Jan. 1 from 3.5 percent to 3 percent.)

And, to top off my joy, he answered a second question during his session:

Chandler, Ariz. -- Republican Support?: Dan, how much support among Republican law makers does the President still hold? Do you think they are frustrated with him behind closed doors, or happy he is being so obstructionist with the Dems?

Dan Froomkin: From what I hear, they are delighted that he is being obstructionist with the Dems.
As Stan Collender blogs, "the Bush administration and congressional Republicans won't allow congressional Democrats to do much of anything so that the Dems can't get credit for making it happen."
Or as John D. McKinnon writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "Even if Mr. Bush fails to get much more action out of lawmakers, White House pressure could help Republicans' political fortunes by reinforcing negative public perceptions of inaction in the Democratic-led Congress."
In other words, beyond doing exactly what Bush asks them do, they want to keep their political distance from him as much as possible.
It's an interesting balancing act that the media is largely enabling.

Anyway, as you can tell, I was very excited and wanted to share the wonderful news - maybe I need to call in to Wait Wait one more time!