Caption Contest! Vic Snyder's Animal Planet

This week's caption contest comes with a little bit of a news-ish angle. The uber-incumbent, Vic Snyder, of Arkansas' 2nd district (Little Rock and surrounding, for you outtatowners) is coming under fire from the National Republican Congressional Committee with about 16 of his fellow Congressional Democrats for being too close and too involved with the GOPublic Enemy No. 1, Nancy Pelosi.

Brummett rightly assess that Pelosi is the primary target for Republicans by default since all the usual suspects (i.e. Clintons, Kennedys) are either retired, ill, or out of Congress. That doesn't mean she isn't a big — and perhaps vulnerable — target.

And it's clear that the GOP sees the 2nd district as perhaps the state's only swing district, solely by its diversity in the capitol city. The 1st and 4th are deeply ensconced in good ole boy blue, while the 3rd is just as militantly devoted, but to the Republican cause. The 2nd would be up for grabs to either a Republican or a Democrat if...

Vic Snyder weren't running, which he is. I did a thesis paper a couple of years ago about Arkansas' 2nd, and subsequently Vic Snyder, as the district's congressman. It could have very well been titled "Why Vic Snyder Is The Most Perfect Political Candidate Ever For Arkansas' 2nd District and Why No One Should Ever Think About Running Against Him."

The 2nd district is circular, with liberal Pulaski County at its core and conservative counties, like Saline, White, Faulkner, etc., on its perimeter. The constituency is split very well down the middle, as Little Rock (more liberal) is the biggest city in the state, countering the outnumbering of counties.

Snyder, too, is liberal at his core, but has a nice shell of Arkansas conservatism. Looking at the guy and his flannel shirt on the House floor, his mustache, his war record, his degrees in medicine AND law, why, he's the spittin' image of a baby made by Andy Griffith and Uncle Sam. Then you look at his voting record and see that why, he's no conservative at all, being pro-choice to name one issue, but among other stances that are often distanced by many Arkansas Democrats.

Oh and he's been in office for about 950 years, with only one (1) election being within double digits of victory. The incumbent's advantage is spoiled on Vic Snyder.

So if the state GOP is planning a coup, by all means go ahead. I don't know who your candidate would be, he'd have to have the money of French Hill coupled with the name recognition of Jesus of Nazareth, but crazier things have happened (like, every ballot initiative passing in 2008? Wacky stuff). Two words: Good. Luck. You are certainly going to need that and more.

Oh, but remember this is a caption contest. Lattimer won again last week, since he was the only one not cool enough to have plans for Memorial Day. Have at it, I think this could be a good one.

The Far Side

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Interesting stuff from Mark McKinnon, a Dubya and McCain adviser and Republican strategist, on the Rachel Maddow show.

As the video is about ten minutes long, a hefty chunk of which is Maddow waxing about how stupid and racist Republicans are for calling Justice-to-be Sotomayor stupid and racist, but McKinnon's points can be summarized as thus: The far right is strangling the rest of the GOP, and could force the party into permanent minority status.

“The Republican party right now is clawing its way to the bottom. They’ve got 23 percent of the American electorate supporting them. They’re seen as a sort of bitter, partisan party right now: anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic. I just think that this sends a lot of the wrong signals to independents and soft Republican voters out there who are leaving the party in droves. … I say it as a proud Republican, and as a progressive and moderate Republican, but I would just hope that there’s room for us still. There are a lot of voices in the party that seem to be crowding and shouting us out and shouting us down all the time.”

Evan Smith, Editor in Chief of McKinnon's homeland's Texas Monthly, blogged that this is 'McKinnon vs. the GOP' in his titular address of the Maddow appearance. One commenter zinged the Bush strategist as someone who is turning his back on those he praised during the '00 and '04 elections — the far right base — and concluded with "Good luck getting your crazy uncles to leave the party you insisted they attend."

I'm a little torn on it. Have I noticed that the far right seems to be steering the party in an awkward and thus far ineffective manner? Youbetcha, but that could be because it's a vocal minority, which tends to be the loudest. And while the far right did at the very least help win the first two 21st century presidential elections, could it not be said that may have lost the third in 2008?

I think Smith may have this wrong, pitting McKinnon against the GOP. I think McKinnon wants the GOP to thrive and prosper as best it can, with its current track being, uh, not that. Not to say that the far right is unappreciated or crazy or needs to shut their big mouths or anything like that. But like I've said before, the base is the base for a reason. While the base will gripe and complain, I don't think it would gripe and complain to voting for a Democrat.

And vice versa. In 2000, which McKinnon alludes to, Democrats were struggling to find their way. The base was pulling the party too far left, and the word 'liberal' was a dirty word that Gore was desperate to expunge from his record. They've certainly found their way these days, in both state and federal legislatures.

But that is certainly not permanent. The saber-rattling of those in majority power to pull their agendas further right in 2000 or left 2008 often falls on deaf ears. The nation is centrist almost by an exact law of averages; one either votes Democrat or Republican, for the most part.

McKinnon seems to be trying to help the GOP by suggesting it allow the more moderate and "soft" wing of the Republican party in its tent. The GOP used to be known as the big tent party. I think McKinnon is pushing it further that way than it is now.

In order for victory, I think it has to be that way, or like McKinnon said, become a "permanent minority." The ardent principles of the far right will resurface as a vibrant ideal, rest assured, but that's not what's going to win elections now. Feasible alternatives, credibility and inclusivity — without betraying those principles — will be the way to go.

Now, anybody who has those 'feasible alternatives' figured out, tell me, and no one else. Meet me at a bank of my choice.

Is Sotomayor a Snag for Lincoln? Meh.

I mean, I'm scouring the traditional media outlets, scrounging around for a piece of noteworthy news I might be able to expound upon, but everyone's still jawing about Sotomayor. Doesn't everyone know that I already wrote about that lady? Harumph!

Just kidding. I'll bite.

Yesterday I was on the old talky radio box with Bureau columnist and fitness guru David J. Sanders, just talking shop, with the news of the day of course being Sotomayor's nomination.

Sanders, and the encompassing Arkansas blogosphere, saw before I did that the Senators Lincoln and Pryor are going to have some role in her vetting process, be it small or large, as they're in the Senate body.

Lincoln has an especially large role in that her every move is gauged by politicos and analysts from the Natural State, always in measurements of her electability (or, by some, defeatability). And I mean every move. Not to be taken without a huge grain of salt, but nearly all of her opponents will say that any give move is a 'clear cut example' of how she's out of touch with Arkansas, while all of her supporters will claim the opposite. As the professor once said, that's the nature of politics.

The Arkansas Project has a good explanation of this by Cory Allen Cox, written when Justice "Yawn" Souter announced his retirement for the love of Vermontian syrup and shuffleboard. It spells out Lincoln's obvious perils quite well, although Cox lacks Kinkade's obvious knack for captivating his audience.

On the air, I said that I didn't think that her confirming a nominee would be such a dagger to her cause, namely because she has plenty of other issues that are currently being held to her feet like flame. The problem for her is that every issue for her is magnified, and usually blown out of proportion.

After consideration following Sanders' and my conversation, I'm still not convinced that her confirming Sotomayor will make or break her election prospects. First off, nobody knows who Sotomayor is, well, nobody in Arkansas, anyway. Very few people had every heard of such a person, and likely those who had already have their minds and focuses made on Mrs. Lincoln.

While she has a questionable issue about her feelings while trying cases, experts are mainly discussing her ambiguity. She seems to be centrist, but not so much that it disguises her liberal nature. Obama wouldn't pick someone who wasn't, but Bush I and all of those Republicans who confirmed her years ago, even if only flippantly reviewing her nomination, wouldn't have let someone too far in left field play ball.

Nationally, Republicans will likely heed the words of Press Sec. Gibbs and Sen. Chuck Shumer, who's guiding her through the vetting process, and tread lightly, fearing a Hispanic backlash that they would surely rue, which would be devastating as they are attempting to woo that demographic back to the GOP.

The heat won't really be on anyone but Lincoln, but the heat's already on her and has been on her. She'll vote for Sotomayor. Again, I doubt it will make or break Lincoln's rerere-election bid. That's not to say that this, coupled with maybe a flip-flop on her latest card check position, then upsetting some pro-gun types, wouldn't add fuel to the fire and put her in greater danger.

However, she's been on several tours as of late to restore her conservative and "in touch" credentials and I doubt would make such a costly move in her campaign. Plus, right now it doesn't matter. Nobody's up against her thus far. Let's see if someone, say, Gilberto Baker has anything to say about it. I wonder if it will be a sticking point with any would-be candidate.

I'm going to be a guest with Sanders again tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon, not sure when exactly though (UPDATE: At three in the afternoon, after Senate-maybe Curtis "Blog?" Coleman). If you like listening to old timey radio, give an ear, or hey! phone in, 501-433-0092. It'd be riveting conversation I'm sure.

Sonia Sotomayor Nabs Obama SCOTUS Nod and Whaddyaknow the Local Angle Is a Gaffe

"Well, I was driving, see? And it was a stick shift and pretty heavy traffic, and there was that school pretty nearby...Needless to say, I was a little preoccupied and when I misspelled Sonia. I was just mashing my fingers furiously and got it to M-A-R- instead of S-O-N. To be honest, I got 40 percent of it right, and that's pretty impressive when considering all of the business-types and vagrants wandering the streets I avoided with my Honda." -Huckabee staffer (but not really)
---------

I don't know if you heard this or not, as you may or may not have had access to a television set, computer, telephone, newspaper, fax machine, or friends with any of those accouterments, but Obama made his Supreme Court nomination.

It's District Judge Sonia Sotomayor, making her the first Latin American justice (milestone: check), and only the third female justice (bronze medal milestone: check). Pretty much no national politicking is going to get done today, as everyone else is freaking out one way or another on this, the first of Obama's possibly several SCOTUS picks.

I say "one way or another" because it depends who you ask. Many conservatives are mad and eyeing a tough vetting process. A couple of the leadership Republicans are saying they're going to wait until they get all the facts, theeen they'll attempt to verbally skewer her.

I'm told that on the record she's a centrist, but off the record she's an avowed liberal. Either way, it wouldn't be much different than what we have now. Souter turned out to be plenty liberal, appointed by G.H.W. Bush, who also happened to appoint Sotomayor to her district seat. COINCIDENCE?!?!?

There is one concern that she perhaps leans on her own feelings and experiences while exercising her judicial opinions, which really lends itself to more of a philosophical question about the nature of justice and how we execute it here in the good ole U.S. of A.

A judge ought to be void of conflicting emotions and ought to rely on nothing but cold, hard reason in order to execute the law, right? But how often is that actuated in court? People are people any way you slice it and might not be able to differentiate between their job and their humanity, although few are so quick to admit it (in public, anyway) like Sotomayor has done (and on video, no less).

I spoke with two attorneys today about it and they both said it happens but that a.) it always happens b.) it's not that big of a deal. Seems to be that these guys are humans and like humans do, use their experiences to weigh their decisions, even ones that are intended to be unbiased.

After all, it doesn't seem that odd that a President would pick someone who would be at least somewhat in the slightest bit just maybe and perhaps would select someone who might be the least bit sympathetic to their cause, which is likely the case here.

Maybe it's a simple case of honesty, saying that she uses her feelings on the bench. But it's going to be an attacking point for conservatives. Politico's Mike Allen said that both sides got what they wanted in the pick: Conservatives got a controversial candidate they can sink their teeth into and use as an example of Obama bias, and Liberals get a lock.

And of course, the local angle is that former Gov. Mike Huckabee called her 'Maria' instead of her actual name 'Sonia.' The misnomer is apparently due to the staffer writing on the Web site while driving. D'oh! Oh well. Typos happen. Not sure that a typo includes giving someone a completely different name, but yeah, it happens.

Caption Contest! Since When Have They Outlawed Guns While Fishing?

What better way for the former No. 2 to relax after verbally blasting the current No. 1? Fly fishing. Duh. Here we find the trigger-happy veep relaxing on the lake, collecting water upon which to board those who stand in his America's way, but happen to be standing out of range of a buck shot.

To get the proverbial ball rolling:

—Hey, weren't there two people out on that boat? Where's Fredo? (/Godfather elitism)
—Fishing is usually a solo act for Cheney, as most would rather be shot in the face while hunting than hooked in the face while fishing.
—Cheney: (singing to himself) "Shush girl, shut ya lips, Do the Helen Keller, and dance with yer hips."
Bodyguard: "What was that sir?"
Cheney: "Nothing!...Nothing at all...Shush girl..."

So there's that. I don't usually condone Bush-Era bashing, as it's a little played, but with Cheney's recent foray into center stage against Obama on national security, he's fair game. Have at it.

Last week, Steve Lattimer won the first leg of the DOUBLE Caption Contest, as a caption that is completely and appropriately opposite of what's actually going on is compelling (take note, kids), and Justin Sealand (the last Anon.) won the second because SEALAND ALWAYS WINS. They'll get something in the mail this week. I'm not saying it'll be nice, but it'll be something.

Do We Have a Contender?

That's a definite 'maybe.'

I've said before, as vulnerable as Sen. Lincoln's 2010 re-election campaign looks at this point, the roster of those who might be vying for the Republican nomination to dethrone her seems to be paltry at best.

The common criticism is that none of the possible candidates thus far have the firepower or name recognition to overthrown an incumbent. Sen. Mark Pryor did so in 2002, but had the credentials — not to mention a name as recognizable around Arkansas as Clinton, Dumpers, or Walton — to do so.

But there's a lot of time between now and November of 2010. While the fever-pitch associated with round-the-clock news coverage has certainly made far off issues — like the 2010 midterm and even the 2012 Presidential race — seem just around the corner, it also creates more opportunities for redemption, especially from this distance. A potential slip-up can now, at this time, be repaired, unless it's a big time gaffe that changes the perception upon which the contenders perception is based (uh, "that Jew" anyone?).

So..how's the race to the primary going thus far?

Kim Hendren made things interesting, to say the least. Some thought this boxed out maybe-candidate Gilbert Baker, as they were both state senators, yet Hendren would have secured the powerful Northwest Arkansas vote. Then that whole thing happened and Hendren won't even refer to himself as a candidate anymore. Not a good sign for him. A lot of people expected him to implode, but I don't think anyone thought he would do so with so much fireworks.

And, I must repeat, as I continue to scratch my head, he let the word out himself.

Hendren was the first to officially announce his candidacy, but he was not the first shark to smell the blood in the water. Tim Griffin, a former U.S. attorney and known Rove-anite, announced in December he was looking into getting into the race.

He has gone on speaking tours, he has gotten his name out there, but for the time being, not much else. Many believe he might have feigned a run to keep pressure on the incumbent Lincoln stick to a more conservative approach while legislating in the new Democratic Obama Administration. In an interview with me for the Bureau, he has said that he's weighing his other commitments, such as family and military duty.

If Griffin dos run, he'll have a haul in front of him. He's not that well known, although he has certainly made a lot of headway in that department. I'm not sure what his fund raising abilities would be, but they would have to be considerable as well.

Two businessmen are also in the mix, one rumored and one known to be contemplating.

I'm still hearing the name French Hill. The Delta Trust banker has considerable fundage, to say the least, and it could be said that that aspect could be the whole ball-game to toppling Lincoln, who has already well over $2 million on deck, ready to roll. But him even running is pure speculation; I'm sure he's been approached about it, but I haven't heard a peep from the man himself.

Curtis Coleman, a businessman and former evangelical minister, announced last week that he has formed an exploratory committee — with a staff, by the way — looking into it. During my discussion, he said that he felt confident enough about running to "take this next step."

Asked if he believed he could raise the necessary funds to beat Lincoln, Coleman said he believes he could. He said he thinks it will take between $5 and 8 million to beat Lincoln, and he also, when asked to repeat it, believes he can raise that amount of money. In fact, one of the reasons he launched the exp. committee, he said, was so that people who were just itching to give him their money would now have a legal avenue to do so.

Coleman's name isn't really out there. I'd wait to see how much dough he can garner in the next few months before we make any judgments. If he hasn't withered away by then, and can raise the money he says he can, he could be a dark horse for the primary.

The clear front-runner at this admittedly premature point is someone who hasn't announced, and says he's still thinking about it, although in an interview yesterday, says he's "more open" to the possibilities of running.

State Senator Gilbert Baker has the fewest negatives in the lot. He is an unwavering conservative, but has proven he works well enough across party lines (he has to: everyone else is on the other side). He seems to be able to stick to his guns, while getting some decent work done.

While certainly opposed to certain aspects of it, Baker helped weave an ambitious budget this year in the legislative session. He has the appeal of a stalwart conservative, and now that Kim Hendren is likely out of the picture, could secure the coveted NWA.

One thing that makes Gilberto stick out a little more than the others to me is his election experience. He ran against Joe White, a Conway Democrat who now, thanks to House Speaker Robbie Wills, serves on the Arkansas Lottery Commission. The name Joe White may not ring any bells but perhaps these names might: Mike Ross. Vic Snyder. Marion Berry. Mark Pryor. Mike Beebe. Bill Clinton. All of these All-star Arkansas Democrats spoke against Baker on the campaign trail, using all of their potent fund raising abilities and appeal to aide Joe White.

Baker won.

I'm not going to look too hard into this. Maybe Joe White was completely incompetent and everyone knew it, regardless of who spoke on his behalf (I really don't know, I was out of the state at that time). Maybe Baker is leaning too heavily on this experience for what will be a completely different ball game on a national as opposed to local stage.

But also, in the spirit of not looking too hard into it, that's mighty impressive to beat those good ole boys.

So what do these rankings mean in May of 2009? Probably the same as what they'll mean in November of 2010: Nothing too much, just some food for thought.

I Got Nothing.

There's literally nothing going on today. It feels like the Stephens Media building is an old-timey bomb shelter, and someone just dropped the big one. Is there anyone out there?

I guess I'll do one of these obligatory lists of which we in the Arkansas blogosphere are so fond, especially when confronted with a news famine like today. LT's "Week in Review," Kinkade's "Stuff Around Arkansas" and the Artificially Intelligent Panzer's "Whatever" file.

Unfortunately, like I said. There's. Nothing. Going. On. National, state, local. There isn't even any office politicking to be heard, now that we got a whole other microwave in the break room, so now we can cook two meals at THE SAME TIME. And the Gods did tremble.

So two brief points, one on Cheney's new found love of the limelight, and the other on that Thing That Will Not Die.

As per a video I posted a couple of days ago, Bush bashing — and subsequent Cheney-bashing — is and will be popular for the foreseeable future. Dubya has gone on a few limited engagement speaking tours, and apparently is penning (crayoning?) an autobiography, but for the most part, has been willfully sequestered in his palatial Dallas cul de sac.

Cheney on the other hand has been mounting an offensive to preserve the Bush Legacy, something few credible types believe is possible. I've given an optimist's guide to the Bush legacy, but it's more of a 'nowhere to go but up' type of essay. Cheney doesn't have a nowhere to go but up stance, rather, he's on the top of the world looking down on creation.

I'm befuddled. We went from never knowing where or what Cheney was doing, save for a couple of Meet the Press appearances and someone getting shot in the face, to know him being the strongest qualified voice for the GOP. And don't kid yourself; He is.

I'm waiting to see if this is all an elaborate play on the part of the GOP. The only person hated more than George W. Bush during that Administration was Dick Cheney. Bush has from day one been someone who was identified by those around him: Cheney, Rove, Card, etc. etc., with Bush simply being the puppet to this Brain Trust.

The GOP could — and this is a stretch — be using Old Man Cheney as bait. If so, the media (whom the Right somewhat accurately but to not a damning extent refer to as "the Liberal Media) has bitten. They regularly rip Cheney to pieces and send Bohner and Steele in with brief defenses. This could provide a large distraction for the Right to make moves that would have otherwise alerted the media, and blown their cover. The GOP needs to move somewhat clandestinely if they really hope to gain power back. The Democratic rhetoric is strong these days, the best example of which is by taking a gander at the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

It could be. It'd be fascinating if it were, but it likely is not. It'd be interesting to see a piece on what the GOP's aim is at letting Cheney run amok. Maybe Cheney is just plain old vanilla crazy. I just think it's another sign that the Republicans had better get some play makers and fast.

Now for the Thing That Will Not Die.

Card check talks are still heating up, according to Politico, as Specter, DDD-Pa., is trying to rally labor support as a Democrat by launching an initiative to find a compromise to an issue upon which neither side has previously hinted.

Business has won for now, and so will not open an avenue for labor to have a slightest shot at victory. No official that I have spoken with for the AFL-CIO, and I've spoken with a few, are going to be willing to give up the arbitration and secret ballot points, and therefore no compromise will likely exist.

An article from the L.A. Times says that Labor's efforts has been beaten in the halls of Congress by the business community. But Labor is still calling the Democratic party on its aid during the election. They want theirs.

Now comes our very own Mark Pryor as one of the Senate insiders trying to negotiate such a compromise. I've always said that of the two Senators, Pryor has the best shot for the Democrats to get anything in Arkansas. Lincoln will be bitten by the re-election bug, and I doubt would do something has locally politically hazardous as vote for card check.

It's been defeated, but yet it arises again. It will not die. Roby Brock says a vote could come in June. Perhaps that will be the episode someone straps it to a rocket and launches it to the sun. But that could just lead to another sequel.

UPDATE: And of course, just as I'm writing this, UCA's Interim Prez. Courtway says he's vying for the top lotto job. Also, Gilbert Baker not only say's he's "more open" to running, but says he flat out disagrees with Doyle Webb's statement about Rep. Kathy Webb. Check out my article the Bureau's site in the next while about it, and check UFW tomorrow about Gilberto. Thwarted again by actual news to be reported. Drat.

If the GOP is Turning the Corner, Who's at the Wheel?

Michael Steele, head honcho for the RNC, has penned an op-ed for Politico today which boldly claims that the Republican party has "turned a corner" and that they are "looking forward" to surging back into the majority status once again.

It even offers a three-step plan to launch them back into the limelight:

1. Stop looking backward, only look forward, established in the penultimate paragraph by a Reagan quote.
2. Boldly oppose the most popular president in recent history.
3. Seize the already(?) simmering(??) momentum(?!) for the Republican party.

It really wasn't that poorly-written. It's the stance everyone on both sides of the aisle expects and accepts Republicans to make. No harm, no foul. They do need to look forward, Obama has an admittedly leftward agenda, and...hey, here's to optimism.

However, a problem arises in my mind when I try to think of an executor of all of these lofty maxims.

There's no singular individual in the GOP right now who seems up to the task of rallying undecided voters, which is the goal of every political endeavor. The Gallup poll is clear: People have been headed in the other direction. While Democrats will call this a matter of principle — that the GOP has got it all wrong — that's not necessarily the case: They're just not convincing the voters. Where were Democrats in 2000, and 2004? Exactly.

"Principle" is a funny word. It means so much to people without having an actual definition.

I'm finding a dizzying array of similarities between local and national political stories. Here's another one that I think illustrates what the GOP really lacks.

Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Blanche Lincoln, D-Here, are both up for rerere-election in 2010. Each are stalwart incumbents with a high degree of name recognition and money raising abilities (Lincoln has over $2.3M cash-in-hand, which in Arkansas dollars is roughly $4.9 bajillionkajillion, and Reid is already boasting Obama...and Sheryl Crow!), one of which is even the House Majority Leader.

Each are also rolling with pretty tepid polling numbers. Lincoln's numbers are kind of old news at this point, but Stephens Media's very own Las Vegas Review-Journal has written about a poll that show Reid's numbers to be even worse than Lincoln's. These numbers are paltry at best for the multiple-term Senators, and have their opposition — their starving opposition, by the way — licking their chops, ready to lower the boom.

But I'm not hearing any credible names, are you?

Reid has good reason to be comfortable. The only roster of those against him are an indicted Lieutenant Governor and a Representative whose name escapes me, and may escape the names of voters outside of the Reno area. Juxtaposed with the way out and wacky Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker, Reid comes across as a sensible moderate. Plus with Obama in his corner, some of that magic is bound to rub off.

Lincoln finds herself in the odd situation of being a Democrat, with tepid numbers, in a state that most associate with Republicans, nevermind the nomenclature to the contrary. But again, nobody has stepped up to the plate. One guy did, Kim Hendren, but all signs are pointing to a quick bow out (It's never a good sign to follow "I intend to win!" with "I haven't even filed the necessary paperwork to be a candidate," for the record), and the others are still waiting.

Tim Griffin could run, although it's tough to see how much money he could raise, and I'm not sure I'd recognize him if he walked into the room and kicked me in the shins. Curtis Coleman formed an exploratory committee, and says he can raise between $5-8 million to beat Lincoln, but is nearly anonymous.

Gilbert Baker was reported by Politico to be nearly in, although he hasn't done so. He's a good ole boy from Conway, with his homemade haircut and folksy appeal. An even stronger point, he ran and won a highly contested state Senate seat, even with Sen. Mark Pryor and Gov. Mike "OZYMANDIAS" Beebe openly opposed him. Baker's blasphemy paid off.

I'm still hearing rumors about businessman French Hill, who seems to be the opposite of Baker: Able to raise substantial fundage, but wears french cuffs and is therefore unable to connect with the typical Arkansan. I don't know, that's all hearsay. I haven't heard from him one way or the other.

Either way, although I know more about it, neither of these rosters is very daunting. With the Democratic incumbents vulnerable, the GOP has no one to push the button.

All of those goals that Steele is setting are fine, and ought to be encouraged if Republicans expect to be relevant. But you can't expect to win playing varsity ball with the J.V. squad.

Yep. Still Funny.

I thought he was retiring it after his Tony-nominated performance, but Will Ferrell brought back his George W. Bush imitation while plugging his new film Land of the Lost on SNL.

Yep. It's still funny, even though it's an old formula.

Yep. It still works to make fun of Bush. I've often wondered on this site how long people will ridicule and mock and generally hate Bush. My friend reminded me that people hated Nixon until he died.

On this episode, Ferrell also un-retired his imitable Harry Caray impersonation, now referring to it as the Ghost of Harry Caray, since the bespectacled Caray passed away over 11 years ago.

That was funny too. It seems that as long as Ferrell's around, mocking Bush will still be a premium.

Suspicion? Me? How Dare You!

There's some national and state news — two separate issues — which are linked by two words: Due suspicion.

Nationally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is up against the CIA. The CIA says she heard all about the "advanced interrogation" techniques back in 2002. She replies "Nay!" and calls the CIA liars, even when asked to repeat it, saying "Yes (they lied), they misled the Congress of the United States."

The CIA retorts. They — they being headed by a former Democratic colleague of Pelosi by the way — say they've got documentation outlining what they said and when they said it, making no mention of much gray area. Biased information, slanted toward their argument? Perhaps. Until Pelosi backs off her statements, adjusting it to say that the good ole CIA didn't lie through their teeth, rather, it was that danged ole Bush Administration, always getting thems and everyone else into a heapin' helpin' of trouble. Aw horsefeathers, let's forget the whole thing. Right?

Wrong. Point goes to CIA. While decidedly Democratic punditry will say that Republicans are just trying to tie the Speaker to their own sinking Bush/Cheney ship — which I think is entirely accurate — that doesn't mean the rope is faulty. The usually unflappable Pelosi messed up, or, as they New York Times said, there's now a "chink in the armor."

I was alerted to the other instance of due suspicion over the weekend while out of town, via Twitter (groan). Arkansas House Speaker Robbie Wills was on his own defense about yet another lottery ethics story, this time from the ADG's Michael Wickline. "Another ethics story? Yep. I was quoted fairly and accurately. I guess I'll blog about it if I have time later today," said Wills, followed quickly by, "I welcome any concerns or comments about legislative ethics laws at robbiewills.com."

Good for him for standing up to seemingly on-going...I won't say 'criticism,' because his actions haven't been criticized, but perhaps his non-actions have been questioned. 'Questioned' is more apt in this case.

But those non-actions kinda ought to be questioned though, right? Like leaving things out of the lottery bills, and then referencing those things that were left out? Or referencing things that don't exist, like gambling-addiction programs, in the writ of the bill? In Wills' defense, it is a very large bill, one can't expect him to remember all of the ins and outs of it, "it" being the bill he authored.

Brummett has been leading the charge thus far for keeping legislators abreast of what they ought to be doing and saying with regard to Lady Transparency, who is often hailed but is more often neglected in the name of expediency, not necessarily covert malfeasance. He's always in his office, talking with legislators and then columnizing about transparency with the Lottery Commission, education, and mainly with keeping politicians out of the mix altogether. This is all while playing Text Twist. Not bad for an old a guy.

The lesson here is simple: Politicians on every level, by their very definition and mandate, are suspicious. Not to bore you with philosophical history, but Plato, while imagining his Socratic political utopia, called a kallipolis, that presiding over the country would be philosopher-kings. He chose philosophers not because they were smart or good-looking (Socrates was apparently hideously repugnant), but because philosophers in this case were judged to be the ones in the community who were most prudent, most judicious, and the least likely (as in never) to use their power corruptly.

Is there a politician out there who wants to be held to that standard? Pelosi acts offended that anyone would question her about tactics during the Buuuuush Administration. While pointing the finger, she didn't seem to consider the finger might be pointed back at her, as if being in the party of power is bulletproof. "Why aren't you believing me? I'm a Democrat! Who do you think I am? Cheney?"

One Wills quote kind of says it all for me with regard to the possibility of suspicion, this time on the subject of there being a cooling off period for legislators getting into the lobbying business, and perhaps creating various conflicts of interest while in office" He said it was "a solution in search of a problem."

It's true that you aren't seeing a bunch of legislators pushing a bunch of bills that they will just-so-happen to be advocates of via a hardy paycheck. But the "problem" is always there. Suspicion doesn't mean implication, and it certainly doesn't mean indictment. Unless legislators are claiming infallibility, which I don't think they are, then these ethics stories are going to keep mercifully rolling.

Good, I say.

DOUBLE Caption Contest! Happy Grad-u-muh-kay-shun, son & Hey! Someone Who Will Never Be On TV Again!

In honor of those graduating this weekend, here's a caption contest blast from the past with everyone's favorite gaffe-expert.

Here's some starters:

• "My roommate Brian dared me to ask you this but..."
• "Son, could you show me how to properly hold a man down while you beat him in the head?"
• Kid: "I'm just a yellow belt."
  Bush: "HAH! BLACK BELT HERE!"

And I thought this picture was pretty funny looking, courtesy of Blake's Artificially Intelligent Panzer, via Lance Turner's Failed Attempt at Anonymity Blog. I look like I'm Otis, the Town Drunk, to reference Kim Hendren's beloved Andy Griffith Show, of which I too am a fan.
Here's the ball rolling on this one, too.

• "Sorry I'm out of breath Rachel; me and the guys here in Little Rock just had a hot dog eating contest."
• "Pants? No, no I'm not. As you can tell by my lack of necktie, this is casual."
• Stovall pauses to take a breath after savagely beating the intern who originally spelled his name 'Zach Stovel.'

Last week's winner was Bobby Simpson, of North Little Rock. He was handsomely rewarded with a coffee mug. No, seriously. Submit and I'll give you something if you win, one for each picture this week. Now. Have at you.

Me and The Most Thunderous Slapping of the Forehead Ever on Maddow Tonight

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

UPDATE: It's uh me uh speaking to uhhhh Rachel Maddow about uh ooo ah oh Kim uh Hendren.

State Sen. Kim Hendren said some things last week that he should not have said. And he admitted that to me in an interview today.

Oh, wait, what? You already heard that? Okay. We'll here's my Bureau story on it, anyway.

It's been getting a lot of national buzz. I would say that many people are appalled at the statements, but even more are perplexed that he himself let this get out.

I spoke with someone on the condition of anonymity who was at the GOP meeting. He (or She?!?! Ooo! A twist!) said that everyone there heard it, and through a series of awkward shrugs, acknowledged the same thought: "What the heck did he just say?"

But no one there reported it. There were no media folks there, and the only word out was that he was getting "eaten alive" according to one tweeter. "I mean, we were all Republicans."

Basically, no one was going to throw a fellow Republican — no matter how much they seemed to despise his tax raisin' ways — under the bus. Everyone knows that Sen. Lincoln is rolling with some pretty tepid numbers, and that Hendren is the only actual candidate without the word "potential" preceding it.

But everyone also knew this would happen sooner or later. Hendren has always been defined by that, as someone who speaks their mind, openly and honestly, if you like him, or someone who is always about ankle-deep with their foot in their mouth.

I'll be on Rachel Maddow's show tonight, live on MSNBC. It runs from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. central standard time, and they tell me I should be on around 8:45. That is if I don't get bumped or something, which w

The real question is this: Shirtless or sleeveless? I'll let the comment section decide.

Card Check Zombies: The Thing That Just Won't Die

On the morning of April 6, 2009, most thought that the Employee Free Choice Act had sustained fatal injuries near the Governor's Mansion, as U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln announced that she would vote 'no' on the issue in 'it's current form.' With there being little real discussion of a compromise, outside of the gripes from labor, and Specter's same decision, it looked like the killing blow had been delivered.

But this issue just. Will. Not. Die.

On the Right, Republicans are poised ready to mount an offensive against Lincoln on the issue, not because she's voting against it — which I'm sure they appreciate — but because it took so long for her to come to this decision, claiming that it shows her to be a mere bureaucrat who will do anything for a vote, and not really connected with the people of the state. More on those people in a bit.

I wrote an article about the state GOP's plan to do so about a week after Lincoln gave her two cents. It goes into greater detail, but basically, she was in a Catch 22 to begin with, which is often the nature of the political beast.

But the Left is beginning to move as well.

As recently as this past week, the Wall Street Hoover Blanket and Politico have both reported that officials are beginning to heat up the conversation about a card check compromise. Joe "Did I say that?" Biden, who according to Arlen Specter is "mighty persuasive," has renewed his push for card check just yesterday.

Our very own Sen. Pryor first began the discussion about the possibility of a compromise, even before Lincoln supplxed it, likely after a meeting with the Arkansas AFL-CIO and other labor folks.

But speaking with a Pryor aide, even they will admit that this thing is "dead," especially in Arkansas.

Looky here! A survey! The Political Firm, a political consulting group from Louisiana and here in Little Rock, conducted a telephone survey of 400 likely voters on both sides of the aisle, 38 percent Democrats, 33 percent Republican and 26 percent independents.

The sheer numbers are pretty clear cut: Arkansas is right-to-work for a reason, as nearly 65 percent oppose and 22 percent support card check. Breaking it down further, you can see that 52 percent of those polled strongly opposed it, while only 12 percent were strongly for it. The whole breakdown is here (UPDATE: Link fixed), but even with an obligatory five percent margin of error, it seems to be pretty firmly against card check.

This is what everybody already knew, and this is what everybody already knows. That dog just won't hunt in Arkansas.

What Does Lincoln Think About Blue Dog Backlash on Health Care?

I am admitting it on the front end: I don't know.

I'm not clear on what Sen. Blanche Lincoln's stance is on the issue of health care, other than that in my conversations and interviews with her, is that it's something she's very passionate about fixing, especially for the uninsured in Arkansas, and so on and so forth with the political ramblings that one should expect from a Senator.

I know she's introduced legislation and initiatives and gone on 'listening tours' but the problems remain.

And I'm not clear what she thinks about her fellow Arkansans in the lower chamber, the barking Blue Dogs, as they openly question the many in which health reform is being handled.

The Hill quotes Arkansas' very own Mike Ross as saying "We are becoming increasingly troubled that this process has yet to be structured in a way that includes the contributions of the majority of our Caucus.”

I'm just posing the question: What does she think about all of these Blue Dogs barking about her most treasured initiative, health care? And more importantly, would this be helping or hurting her cause to get closer to Arkansans and further away from the far left?

It's just a question.

You Can't Talk to Me Like That! This is a Members Only Jacket!

When isolated in relative obscurity, one does crazy things. The same is true for the Republican Party currently.

Due to a woeful dearth of qualified and exciting candidates, the GOP is taking the same old faces on a listening tour, aimed at revamping the Right, making it more attractive, all while simultaneously stimulating and staying loyal to the base.

'Listening Tour' has all of the appeal of a trip to the save-a-lot proctologist. Ugh.

One of those old faces, trying to stay even more relevant, is saying that these guys are silly, but then says the almost exact thing that they're saying.

This infighting will continue, I predict, until there's one person in the middle of these sentiments who appeals to not only both sides, but to those who aren't completely sold on the Democratic ticket, and of course, after the Obama dust has settled.

This 'principle' jargon has got to go. No undecided voter cares about them, much less can define them as ardently as those on the Right are doing. "We've got to get back to our principles!" they all clamor to themselves.

What they need is some people who can speak with authority, with credibility, something the party (state and national, for those local people tuning in) lacks.

My quaffed friend David J. Sanders tweeted today (and I reviewed and edited) his column for tomorrow. In it, he claims that the GOP ought to be a little more Clintonian in its dealings, who in his own dealings, was more like Reagan. In Reagan Sanders does trust, and he notices the proven success rate of those who mirror his candor, believability and credibility, including that of our current President, who ran as someone who was remarkably underqualified but mounted a strong campaign of hope.

Sanders puts a lot on that word 'Hope' and 'unbridled optimism.' Regan, Clinton, Bush (at first) and Obama had it and won. I think Hope is a little soft. How about not just 'hope,' but how about something people can repeat on something other than a comedy night show.' Or something with a little bit of confidence. I see none right now that isn't immediately shut down. You see sparks here from the Huckabees, the Jindals, the roster of no-names in Congress. But you don't see the same steady stream of gems like you got with Obama, Bush, Clinton and Reagan.

If it's really rock bottom for the GOP, it's because those people don't exist. I think they do. They just don't know it yet.

Obama the Jester

Perhaps you can thank the lull in news over the weekend, other than a rainy Mother's Day in Arkansas, but I heard a lot of noise about this White House Correspondents Association dinner, which is hailed by some as one of the most boring evenings of the entire year for Washington's elite in politics and media. While this may be the case it is also one of the most anticipated; You never know when a Stephen Colbert will come out and do some royal ripping.

Not necessarily in the Arkansas blogosphere, but the national media and the twittersphere was abuzz.

Basically, I saw a remarkably uninteresting trend: Democrats hailed the laughable Obama as someone who is so calm, so cool, and so collected that he can give and take jabs. Conservatives deemed some of his jabs as "inappropriate." The same for the headliner Wanda Sykes, of whom I am not particularly a regular fan.

But the point is this: Obama did kill. He did better than most expected even he would be able to pull off, given the restraints of decorum necessary of the office. Many lampooned him for going onto Leno's Tonight Show — myself included — so I imagined the hubbub when it would be Mr. Obama performing the monologue.

I have since softened on the Leno business, no harm really, so I suppose no foul. But in that case, he was there as the president. In this case, is was Barack the Comedian. Judging him as anything other than that is, in my humble opinion, missing the point completely.

This goes on for both sides. Conservatives ought not chalk this speech up along with his various addresses to Congress, or speeches on the stimulus, or his town hall meetings. Liberals ought not attach this as some sort of highfalutin virtue of the President. I know plenty of funny people who can't and shouldn't be president.

Looking at it as a comedy performance, you have to give Obama, and sure, Wanda Sykes, a hand.

First, Sykes, as she went first, and it has also been said she had the most inappropriate line of the two. As I said before, I'm not the biggest Wanda Sykes fan. She tends to be one of those loud types who loudly points out racial stereotypes while loudly being loud. Loud doesn't often mean funny. But in this performance she was even keel and thoughtful, making fun of the Obamas — a high point being that she asked the President if he is now unfoulable in basketball as Commander in Chief — to making fun of Rush Limbaugh (and by "making fun of" I mean "wishing death upon" and "insinuating he was the 20th hijacker in the 9-11 attacks " the popular conservative target), and Sarah Palin.

The Palin line was the biggest brow lifter of the evening, saying she "pulled out" of the evening, and then making the inevitable line about abstinence-only education, alluding not-so-subtly to the mother of Palin's granddaughter.

It's a-okay. Palin's life is under constant scrutiny, and her positions will be scrutinized with regard to her real life, more "appropriately" by fellow politicians, but more realistically by everyday people like Sykes. And as for the Rush Limabugh being the 20th hijacker but too high on Oxycontin to get there...Probably (and by probably I mean definitely) in bad taste (Obama wisely didn't laugh at that joke) but still acceptable by comedic standards.

Far worse has been said about far better people. Freedom of speech, man. Funny or offensive, she's just doing her job.

The President did well also. The opening line about giving up the notes and speaking of the cuff while a creaky teleprompter system raises up was genuinely funny. The most awkward moment was when he began speaking in what I believe was supposed to be urban slang to his fellow African-American, GOP head Michael Steele ("He's in the HEEZY!" said the President, as I recalled that that was a not-that-funny but popular mode of communication five years ago, and thusly, groaned).

He gave his share of floppers, though. The whole bit about Joe Biden being like Bo the dog was booably predictable.

His Cheney line about writing his memoirs titled avaunt gardly How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People made me laugh simply because it was very blunt, very straightforward, and very unexpected. When telling a joke, you're setting the audience up for a twist. Sometimes that twist is best utilized as a lack thereof.

As a comedian, Obama excelled. But again, this really doesn't have a lot to do with his politics. I wouldn't think that he could do it full time, but once a year? Sure. I'm just wondering who wrote the thing.

Caption Contest! Vote or Die By Having Your Arms Ripped Off By a Wookie

The weekly Caption Contest is living up to its mandate. I guarantee you this is not photoshopped. While it is not an actual wookie (OR IS IT?!) someone actually did this. I don't know who this person convinced, but it's making me rethink my decision to vote against Ron Paul.

Anonymous won last week, with the grip comment. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell who that is, but if they shoot me a note, I'll try to verify it and ship you a mug, G.I. Joe, or dumb bells.

Anyway, have at it. Should be fun. Star Wars elitism is encouraged, with bonus points.

David Kinkade (Apparently) Joins Ark. Times Staff, Promises to 'Spruce Up the Joint'

Well, well, well. Looks like Maxwell Brantley is taking a number from the ole Arkansas Project repertoire.

Not complaining. It's very, very newsworthy.

Plus, food! Specifically, potato salad! Could this day get any better? I submit that it could not.

States Approving Gay Marriage Just Dandy for Ark. Delegates

The Gay Marriage-Gay Rights agenda that most on the Right feared would sweep in with a cataclysmic bang once Obama et al. assumed office is on the move, but with no bang, nor whimper.

That doesn't mean it isn't being effective.

To date, five states, with Maine being the latest and Iowa (Iowa?!) being the first, have passed state legislation to make gay marriage a-okay in their respective states. The decisions are catching national headlines and causing some to shift awkwardly in their seats, like an auto mechanic roped into watching Project Runway.

Pelosi yesterday offered what on the surface appeared to be a cold statement about the Gay Rights agenda and its place on the legislative docket — saying it would not take the focus away from Congress' goal to create jobs, meaning, don't hold your breath — but in fact, likely, progress that agenda through a more constructive avenue:

Send it to the states.

One of the most recent examples of Congress passing the buck could be viewing in the historical context of the Employee Free Choice Act (not to bring that behemoth up again, but it was the best example of which I could think). The House, after having dealt with the issues to no avail in two separate sessions cried 'Uncle,' saying they weren't going to move on it until the Senate had done something first.

To put it in a local perspective, that's why the Arkansas Democrats in Congress weren't under nearly as much scrutiny this year, while Sens. Pryor and (especially) Lincoln dealing with the tiresome issue of card check. The House had passed it off.

Comes now the entirety of the Congress, both House and Senate, taking a back seat and letting someone else (state legislatures) deal with this tiresome and radioactive issue of Gay Marriage. I wager that when this issue comes up, you will be able to see these delegates kick back in a chaise lounge and sip on a banana daiquiri at the thought, excited to see someone else take their licks.

No one will be more relieved than Southern Democrats, namely, anyone from Arkansas, save the Fightin' 3rd's John Boozman, the state's only Republican delegate. It's for the same reason that the congressional delegates were at ease about Card Check; This is someone else's fight now, and not ours.

Arkansas, collectively, will never vote in favor of Gay Marriage in the near or likely distant future. It just doesn't fly down here, whether you like that fact or you don't. The Democratic Senators and Congressman are now free from being pinned against their party and their constituency which, after seeing this whole Arlen Specter meltdown, is pretty potent.

Now it would be up to the State Senators and Representatives, likely of the Democratic persuasion, to push any such Gay Rights agenda, and I would say there are a great many things that are more likely than that happening: Me hula-hooping for eighty-straight hours, Blake Rutherford not referencing the West Wing, John Brummett helping a kitten out of a tree. These are all in the same vein of the 'pigs flying' reference I am currently boycotting due to the overdosage of that pun being facilitated during the current Swine Flu panic.

Their constituency has become quite accustomed to seizing any and all priority from the national Democrats. Anything contrary would resemble a fighter pilot pulling a level to his ejection seat, and the legislator would go flying out of the dome in the Capitol building.

I think this will likely be the way of things for the next long while. The environments are respectively hospitable for the causes. California is obviously very pro-Gay Rights and will likely adopt legislation as such. I would not expect anything like that from Arkansas, Mississippi, or Louisiana, although you do have to keep an eye on those wacky Cajuns. Texans, too, they're equally wily. You can never really expect what they're going to do.

This is all, mind you, wholly independent of any musings about whether opposing Gay Rights is an affront to liberty and justice or whether endorsing Gay Rights is a rallying point for the decimation of the American Family/Way of Life. This is just looking at the numbers, the politics, rather than the morality that may be implied on either side of the fence.

Morality and Politics have never been good bedfellows in the first place.

Rethinking That Whole Silly Party Switch Thing?

D'oh!

You have to give Arlen Specter some credit: He understands the political machine well-enough to know that being a Republican in Pennsylvania wasn't going to do him any favors. He has readily admitted that the reason he defected from his nearly 30-year stint as a Republican Senator was because polls were showing that he simply could not win. Being a politician, in order to be elected, he had no other option.

But that doesn't mean that that option is a sure-fire winner either.

I remonstrated as much when the news broke that Specter was going bye-bye. He might not win the general election either. Ardent Republicans rightfully hate him, that Benedict Arnold, they clamor. But Democrats can't be too crazy about a guy who not only openly opposed (and often defeated, mind you) them for so many years.

It boils down to my main point then: What are Democrats gaining or Republicans losing that they haven't already gained or lost? Democrats are griping that Specter isn't yielding on issues that he's already spoken on, like Card Check or endorsing Norm "Not the Comedian" Coleman in Minney-soda, and Republicans are frankly enjoying watching the old man squirm.

If Al Franken is seated, will there be an asterisk next to that number 60 in the Senate?

MARION BERRY likelytostealheadlinesfromsomeguynamedRick

My apologies for the light blogging yesterday as affairs of state had to take precedent over affairs of state and such and therefore and, most importantly, so on.

I did want to touch on one note though, about the candidacy of one Rick Crawford, a Jonesboro businessman, against the apparently indomitable Marion Berry in the first congressional district.

Speaking with Doyle Webb, state GOP hot dog, several weeks back on the amount of contenders lining up against the congressional delegates, Webb said several were putting feelers out, but only one was for sure: Crawford.

Last week, the blogosphere was abuzz at the launching of MeetRickCrawford.com, a site designed to get Crawford's virtually unknown name in the common Arkansas vernacular leading up to November 2010.

I had a nice conversation a few days ago with University of Arkansas Political Science Professor Janine Parry. We were discussing what exactly it would take to win an election, first and foremost, and then to beat an incumbent. We agreed; Money and name recognition are everything.

Perhaps Mr. Crawford has a massive personal fortune, friends in high places, or, his best bet, a little bit of column A and column B. He would need that and more to have any chance to beat Mr. Berry.

A lot of what an elected official does for a living is the same as what a hopeful candidate has to do in their spare time, or instead of their job. Going out and meeting folks, raising money, all that jazz; While a contender has to muscle all of that business, an incumbent does it while on the clock.

Looking at this Web site, you must ask yourself where Crawford's resume is strong against Berry's and where it is weak and vice versa.

The answer is bleak for, not just Crawford, but anyone who hopes to stand against Marion Berry. He has done nothing to dissuade his constituency that he is anything but what he says he is, a conservative Democrat, which is very reflective of the constituency therein.

Berry has been around the block a time or five as well. Everyone knows who he is. His voting for the stimulus and various associations with the far-left and Barack Obama's so-far successful administration aren't going to hurt him; Even if it were to damage him, his name would carry him through the day.

Rick Crawford is off to a decent enough start by starting a Web site to get his name out there. But any Bozo with a moniker can start a Web site or blog (Hello? Yours Truly?). It's going to take a real difference and a real answer — and a little more firepower than I'm afraid blogspot will be able to put out.