Somewhere between my computer and the Opelika-Auburn News printing press, the last line of my column was lost to today’s print edition. Here is the column in its entirety.

I knew that if I waited long enough, one of the presidential candidates would deliver an idea that would really fire me up.

On Thursday, it finally happened.

In a speech about his vision for the country, GOP nominee-to-be Sen. John McCain rattled off a laundry list of policy benchmarks he hopes to meet by the end of his first term.

McCain also promised to “set a new standard for transparency and accountability” with “weekly press conferences” meant to “regularly brief the American people on the progress … our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered.”

And then there was this:

“I’ll ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons,” McCain said.

Are you kidding me? An American equivalent of Prime Minister’s Questions?

Is this campaign season, or Christmas???

Prime Minister’s Questions is the gold standard for political junkies. It’s a weekly grilling to which the British Prime Minister subjects himself (or herself, as it were) in the name of being accessible to all citizens through their representatives.

Yes, the British gave us American Idol … and Simon Cowell. But PMQ is a different – a better – kind of reality show.

According to 10 Downing Street’s web site, PMQ began in 1961 with Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. His biography says Macmillan “expected his tenure to be short-lived.

“Instead, he had considerable success in restoring both party and national morale and confidence,” the bio reads.

Was it coincidence that Macmillan pioneered PMQ, with the idea of giving MPs (members of Parliament) from all parties an opportunity to question the prime minister on any subject?

I don’t think so.

Over the years, PMQ has become a news item all its own. When quick-witted Tony Blair was in the arena, the Wednesday morning rows became something of a cult phenomenon. But as the increasingly raucous rounds of questions delivered by boisterous MPs have drawn international attention to PMQ, it has also attracted domestic scorn.

So McCain’s proposal understandably drew curious consideration from British media. Thus, this staid – and characteristically British – assessment:

“The weekly half hour PMQ sessions in the Commons are often rowdy affairs with party leaders trading insults spurred on by baying MPs,” the BBC remarked. “But they allow the main opposition party leaders to put the prime minister on the spot on a subject of their choice and backbench MPs to raise issues on behalf of constituents.”

If you’ve ever seen PMQ, you know that navigating the experience requires the best political skills a politician can muster. Thirty minutes is a lifetime when you’re faced with grumpy, confrontational opposition-party backbenchers with carte blanche to come after you.

But it serves a notable purpose in British politics: Prime ministers are never more than six days away from having to account for their decisions – when Parliament is in session, at least.

One has to wonder how American history would be different if our president came before the citizens’ representatives every week – and how those representatives’ own actions would change, knowing the president is just waiting to hit back.

An American president, slugging it out, toe-to-toe with Congress every week?

Now that’s what I call a campaign promise!

On the blog this weekend: Links to all kinds of PMQ info, an update on the federal shield law for reporters and disturbing news from the Supreme Court.

I’m so excited about the possibility of an American version of Prime Minister’s Questions that it took me twice as long to write my column this week. I kept getting distracted by all the neat PMQ content on web sites out there!

Finally, there’s one guy out there who says HE ALONE had the idea to import PMQ to the United States. John McCain ripped him off, he says. His claim includes this statement:

Obviously, I think it is a great idea but suddenly seeing it raised as this great idea McCain and his campaign came up with is curious. I don’t write for a top tiered news organization like the New York Times or Washington Post or Miami Herald and I know it is possible for more than one person to come up with the same idea at the same time. However, when people seem to come up with the same idea and then phrase their justification of the idea almost exactly the same way and then do not give any sort of nod as to where they got the idea, that is irksome.

SIDEBAR: “Irksome.” You know what’s irksome? Lack of punctuation. You know what else? Run-on sentences. Talk about irksome. END SIDEBAR

But I know you’re curious, so here’s the link to the guy’s original post he says gave rise to McCain’s proposal Thursday.

One thing’s for sure: This right honorable fellow doesn’t lack for self-esteem.

Watch this clip of Barack Obama in Oregon last week:

Fifty-seven states?

Let’s think about this: He specifically eliminated Alaska and Hawaii, and he said he had one more state to go. Fifty states, minus Alaska, Hawaii and one other state, equal 47 states.

Is it possible that Obama meant to say, “47 states?”

It seems like a pretty reasonable explanation, right?

Watch it again. What do you think?

Now, consider this: The conservative blogosphere is on fire about the 57 states remark. It seems that 57 states (countries) make up the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). From its web site:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring to safeguard and project the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world. The Organization was established upon a decision of the historical summit which took place in Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco on 12th Rajab 1398 Hijra (25 September 1969) as a result of criminal arson of Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem.

As if Obama didn’t already have enough problems with rumors about his religion. Many conservative bloggers have taken to calling him by his entire name,"Barack Hussein Obama.” (Yes, it is his name. But I haven’t heard them start referring en masse to the GOP nominee as “John Sidney McCain.")

This whisper campaign has produced countless rumors that have been promulgated like a virus over e-mail. Obama’s campaign set up this page on his campaign site in an effort to discredit and stamp out those rumors. There’s no missing the meaning: The title is, “Obama has never been a Muslim.”

What do you think? Honest mistake attributable to campaign fatigue meets unfortunate coincidence? Or, in the words of some conservative bloggers, “Freudian slip?”