No this isn't a Michael Vick blog. It's about the U.S. Senate ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty under urging from the Bush administration.

The LOST policy, as it has come to be known to some, is a move by the United Nations to grab control of navigational and transit issues, the regulation of deep-sea mining, marine trade, pollution, research, dispute resolution and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries from any proceeds from oceanic trade.

In short it gives the U.N. control of 70 percent of the globe (i.e., all of the oceans).

Dan Gilbert, a North Carolina native with a Web site, We the People for President, thinks it's a horrible idea.

But then again, so did President Ronald Reagan and the Heritage Foundation.

"The United Nation's record is hardly stellar as an organization that has improved the general welfare of people across the globe. In the 60-plus years since it was established, not much can be said for its effectiveness," Mr. Gilbert says.

President Reagan opposed LOST because under the treaty, intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated, which could pose national security problems.

This was in addition to, as Mr. Gilbert points out, the U.N. having "the power to enforce quotas for mining and oil production, reap undeserved royalties, and control ocean exploration and research, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, who already fund nearly a quarter of the organization's budget."

A treaty that, in short, calls for defanging the U.S. Navy while (again) clubbing American taxpayers.

-- Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is under heat now from at least two politicians and, for at least one day, President Bush.

Earlier in the week on Tuesday Mr. Bush couldn't bring himself to endorse the leadership of Mr. Maliki in a press conference and expressed frustration with the government's lack of progress.

A day later he said Mr. Maliki was "a good guy, good man," and that American politics shouldn't supercede the Iraqi people's determination on how to form their government.

Mr. Bush's comments came after Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Illinois and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said that the Maliki government had "totally and utterly failed."

Now Sen. Diane Feinstein, California Democrat, has called for the embattled prime minister's head:

"My own view is that he should resign. The problem is who would replace him, what does that mean, and what are the implications? I think Maliki has been a failure. Parliament doesn't show up for work. The ministers walk out. And he can't meet the benchmarks he set for himself. There are Shia against Shia, and Shia against Sunni. Iraq has become very destabilized and the leadership is not adequate. So, my view is that he should resign."

Here's the problem for Democrats. The troop surge that President Bush called for is working, American casualties in July were the lowest in the short history of this war.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that, "More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that's a fact."

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said on CNBC's Kudlow and Company that "parts of the surge are working."

Even the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, said: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working."

And many others, including Sen. Barack Obama, said it is working to improve things "in the short term."

The problem for Republicans is that the surge was touted as a way to help the Iraqi government solidify itself and become more effective, and that hasn't happened.

The government's response was to have the entire Sunni wing of the unified parliament resign en masse in May, just as the surge began, then return in July and not show up for work.

But somehow this is all Maliki's fault. And American politics has nothing to do with it.

Democrats have talking tough about getting out of Iraq for months now, almost immediately after taking back majorities in the House and Senate.

But just how far out of Iraq do they want to go?

That is the question Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson asked today in a campaign contribution letter he sent out the afternoon:

"Some say that all of the Democratic presidential candidates have basically the same position on Iraq. I disagree.

"I'd pull all of our troops out in six to eight months. The other major candidates would leave some troops behind indefinitely.

"That's a major difference -- any way you look at it.

"On Sunday, at the ABC debate in Iowa, I asked the other candidates point blank: How many troops would you leave behind? 25,000? 50,000? 75,000? For how long?

"I didn't get an answer."

Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards all made mention of leaving behind a "contingency force" to deal with emergencies, but they haven't said what constitutes an emergency or how many troops are in a contingency force. Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have pretty much said the same.

Mr. Richardson said the "big campaigns," are trying to spin the public with their ample media budgets, but that he wants to talk to the grass roots:

"Pulling our troops out won't cause a civil war; our troops are targets in a civil war right now. We must redeploy them out of Iraq and then secure the region.

"The Bush administration has been using half-measures since this war started, and now we have to make a decision -- it is either in or out; now or after more people die. You can't have it both ways."

And taking a shot at Mr. Edwards, Mr. Richardson said:

"Saying that all Democrats have the same position because 'any' Democrat would end the war eventually is a cop out. Saying there is no military solution in Iraq and then advocating leaving US troops behind to find the military solution you just said doesn't exist is nuts."

-- Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times

The Club for Growth, a pro-business and economic growth advocacy group, appears to be a tad smitten with the Republican presidential candidates from the Northeast.

The Club notes some "concerns" about Mitt Romney's and Rudy Giuliani's political records. But it accepts that those records were shaped by their respective constituencies in Massachusetts and New York.

"Governor Romney's economic record contains a mixture of pro-growth accomplishments and some troublesome positions that beg to be explained," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "While his record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature."

The Club also likes his position on school choice.

But it doesn't like his opposition to the flat tax, admittedly a special deal for them, and his refusal to endorse the Bush tax cuts.

Giuliani got the same praise for his budget, tax and bureaucratic slashing as mayor of New York City. His lack of support for NAFTA was a problem for the Club.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback also got a glowing review.

Here's who the Club doesn't like: former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

-- Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times

With so much attention on the presidential election, not much attention is being paid to congressional races, particularly in the House, where three Republicans are ready to retire.

Rep. Ray Lahood of Illinois, has announced that he would retire at the end of his term. Today Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the former House Republican Conference chairwoman, today announced her retirement, having served 16 years in Congress. And former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois is expected to announce his retirement tomorrow.

Mrs. Pryce is the last of the old House Republican leadership to go with Mr. Hastert, following former Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

The question is: Can the GOP hold those seats?

Unbeknownst to some, Mrs. Pryce was one of the few Republicans from a district that is 26 percent black and more than 30 percent minority. Many Democratic-leaning voters either gave her the nod or helped her by staying home.

It is hard to see how Republicans can hold her seat, considering that Mrs. Pryce almost lost it to Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy last year.

Republicans have less worry about Mr. Hastert and Mr. Lahood's seats. But if fellow Illinoisan Barack Obama tops the Democratic ticket, there is no telling what effect that could have on voters in the Hastert and Lahood districts.

-- Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times

UPDATED: 6:12 p.m. The original version of this blog contained an error. Mrs. Pryce's district is 7 percent black.

-- Brian DeBose

Here's a curious video that was brought to my attention recently. It's an American Enterprise Institute interview with Dick Cheney in 1994, and it's been viewed more than 350,000 times.

In the interview, Mr. Cheney describes what would have happened if the U.S. had invaded Iraq at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Noting that 146 U.S. service members were killed in the Gulf war, Mr. Cheney says the cost of taking down Saddam Hussein, in terms of American casualties, would have been too high.

He also talks about how sectarian groups in Iraq would have fought with each other and attempt to divide the country, as would Iraq's neighbors -- Syria and Iran.

-- Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Hillary Clinton yesterday scolded a conservative freelance writer and offered to re-educate him about the differences between socialized medicine and her health care plans.

During a session at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention in Las Vegas, blogger Kiara Ashanti asked Mrs. Clinton why she was advocating to "bring socialized medicine" to the U.S. when "reports from Canada and the U.K. show that is has been harmful to their citizens level of care and that the country's are pulling back from it?"

Mrs. Clinton said the question posed "too many distortions" for her to address in 30 seconds. "I have never called for socialized health care. That is an old right-wing distortion," she told Mr. Ashanti.

She went on to say that she wanted Mr. Ashanti to come backstage and speak with her staff so that he could be "educated on the topic so you can speak intelligently about the topic, instead of just being rhetorical."

-- Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times

A lot of people here at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention in Las Vegas are talking about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with regard to race, sex and the fine line these two candidates must walk.

Mrs. Clinton may be up in the nationals polls and at the top of the Democratic Party, but "experience and arrogance are starting to merge," said a National Public Radio journalist.

A number of reporters here are being asked to report on the potentially racist or "white elitist" subtext of Mrs. Clinton calling Mr. Obama "naive" for saying he would meet with the leaders of rogue nations, if he is elected president.

-- Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Every day we hear on "Dateline," "48 Hours," "The Today Show" and other TV newsmagazines about the beatings, stabbings and homicides that occur among young persons week after week.

In those admittedly anecdotal showcases the hosts, guests and viewers are looking for solutions to quell youth violence. Well, a few years ago, it became clear in cities across America -- as 11-, 12- and 13-year-olds were stealing cars and joyriding in emulation of characters in the "Grand Theft Auto" video games -- that electronic toy technology may be a direct or indirect contributor.

In response, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided the do something about it beyond the voluntary ratings system the video-game industry created -- you know, the "T for Teen," "M for Mature," "E for Everyone" on the lower left corner of the game box.

The "Governator" decided that the M-games need not be sold at all to those impressionable young minds under 18 years old. And he signed a law to make it so.

Civil libertarians sued to have the law voided, and yesterday a federal judge in California did just that.

The governor's response: "I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children. The bill I signed would require that violent video games be clearly labeled and not be sold to children under 18 years old. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents."

Schwarzenegger promised to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco.

-- Brian DeBose, politcal correspondent, The Washington Times