Unfamous First Words

Awfully Dusty Around Here...So Go to zackstovall.com!

2010-03-08T01:00:00.001-06:00

As you may have noticed if you've stopped by the UFW since, I dunno, SIX MONTHS AGO, this blog has run its course. I had a great time spitting some analysis out about politics, both national and Arkansas-centric, but, as a wise, old, toothless, cross-eyed man named John Brummett once told me, "If you don't have anything new or helpful to say on the matter, don't say it."

The day-to-day job of running this type of site was too much for my creative capacities and interest. I was getting around to not only repeating what everyone else was saying, but beginning to repeat what I was saying, which is weird and uncomfortable.

But if you liked this blog, you'll probably like my next venture, too. Zack Gets Down, zackstovall.com, is going to be more rants from me but on a more broad range of topics. There's going to be regular features, daily updates, pictures, video; everything your heart could hope for.

Anyway, I hope you'll stop on by there. It's going to be fun.

Best,

Zack

Has Everything That's Going To Be Said Been Said Already On Health Care?

2009-09-14T08:26:00.005-05:00

The President last week gave a prime time address over the health care debacle that has the country in fits, one way or another. He didn't really get into too many details (I don't know about you, but I was very surprised by that [/sarcasm]). He did clear up what he said to be outright lies and mistruths on the matter, such as death panels and insurance for illegals, which lead to Joe Wilson making the unfortunate headlines of the evening and making Nancy Pelosi's contort into a shape that can only be described as really, really hilarious.

Conversely, Sen. John McCain went on to the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien last week to discuss the matter in a more prime time setting, as he is the most respected Republican whose opinion is trusted and therefore the most credible voice of the party and as that setting is the only platform the GOP can wrangle at this point: the late night talk show circuit.

McCain didn't say much either, only that the real problem is that the two aisles are not coming together to speak and work together and that's getting America all angry. This was followed by a cheesy-electric-guitar sequence a la Full House, Growing Pains, Step by Step and every other family-based situational comedy from the early 90's, provided by Max Wienberg and the Tonight Show Band.

So you've got the two most respected voices of the respective parties -- Obama and McCain -- setting up a pretty loose fence, and inside, the same stuff we've been hearing about all summer. "We're not signing this without the public option." "We're not signing this thing if it has the public option." "We'll you're stupid." "Oh yeah? Well, YOU'RE stupid." "I'm going to hold a town hall meeting to explain the crap out of this thing for my constituents." "I'm going to load that meeting with people who don't want to hear anything you're saying, and yell things that I am almost certain you don't want to hear."

And on and on and on. Rinse. Repeat.

I don't think that anything that's going to be said on health care hasn't already been said. We're still waiting for the Senate Finance Committee to get in gear and put something out there that is supposedly going to be able to pay for this sweeping yet seemingly necessary reform. And barring some unexpected new kink they might throw into their bill -- which I'm told is not going to include a public option -- basically, you'll mash up all the House and Senate bills and voila! Health care reform bill.

Good luck getting it passed. The document, which I'm sure is just going to be a hellish gargantuan of a document that must feed on smaller House and Senate bills for sustenance, is probably going to have language that will offend both the right and the left. The former will dig in their heels, and the latter will use their majority to push. I don't see it getting passed.

Is there anything else to say? I think so. Nobody's willing to play ball. The left says they want a bipartisan bill, but have relinquished very little. The right also says they want a bipartisan bill, but have done quite a lot to simply kill the reform dead.

I think one of the biggest problems that the right has with the bill is that they believe the public option is simply a foot in the door for a single-payer system down the eventual road, which a lot of folks aren't going to get behind. The left seems mystified that they have a majority status and somehow their polling numbers have hit the bottom of the barrel since this health care "discussion" got started.

Politics is about giving, taking, and making deals, then gussying them up to show off to your constituency. Very rarely is it about seeing who's going to be the first team to loosen their grip.

Busy Today, But Here's This Bit O' Funny

2009-09-11T11:19:00.000-05:00

White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase

Rep. Joe Wilson Ready to Capitalize On His Catchphrase "You Lie!"

2009-09-10T08:04:00.006-05:00

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., now infamous for his outburst at President Obama's joint session speech on health care, says he's going to "strike the iron while it's hot" putting out a new line of merchandise featuring his hilarious and popular catchphrase "You lie!"

"We're gonna get some t-shirts, ball caps, koozies, stuff like that for starters," said Wilson, from his office covered in "You Lie!" banners with a DJ spinning records on a "You Lie!" table, featuring a new Black Eyed Peas jam "You-You-You-You! You Lie!."

"You've gotta start small, but we're confident we're gonna get the ball rolling pretty good," Wilson said.

Fox has already devoted a thirty minute block of a new game show, You Lie!, to replace whatever show is dropped mid-season, in which contestants will either have to tell a tale about certain things they have done to Wilson's face, and he will proclaim whether or not they are telling the truth, by yelling "You lie!" or "You (don't) lie!"

"This is tantamount to other wonderful catchphrases that swept the nation in recent history, such as 'Eat My Shorts', "Whazzzzuuuupp?!", and 'Cool Beans,'" said Fox director of marketing Richard North. "Anybody who doesn't think we're going to milk this sucker is," North paused, while chuckling, "Well, I'd just have to say 'You lie!'"

The White House Communications Office, immediately after accepting Wilson's red-faced apology, began to work on their own counter-catchphrase, now deciding between "hell nah" and "b*tch please," with the latter currently in the lead.

Sen. Dorgan Launches New Media Campaign 15 Months Before State Has Internet Capability

2009-09-01T05:57:00.005-05:00

BISMARCK, N.D. -- In a public relations snafu, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., and his staff had created, updated and publicised a facebook and twitter account, as well as a regularly updated blog, 15 months prior to the expected arrival of the internet to North Dakota.

The internet has been slated to be available to North Dakotans in December of 2010 or later. Dorgan's office says it "just plain forgot" the state was lacking the social utility, and "wanted to keep up with everyone else."

"Dag nab it, I don't understand these things to begin with," said Dorgan from Washington. "Everyone says you gotta do these things, so I did it. I just figured out how to send a fax, now I gotta type on my phone? Christ."

The senator's staff - none of whom are from North Dakota - say they ~~never knew in the first place~~ forgot as well.

"I mean, we've never had to go there. You pretty much have to drive, there aren't really airports, just big fields with way too many rocks," said 23-year-old senior press manager Ginger Franklin, who graduated from Florida State University in May.

Backlash is expected to be fierce by the time news of the mishap gets back to North Dakota, which is expected to be somewhere near November of 2010, as it will travel almost entirely by word-of-mouth and morse code.

Since You Asked...

2009-08-31T14:00:00.004-05:00

I've been getting a few emails, calls, and such about this Harry Reid character in the Senate and his comments about my former and beloved employer, Stephens Media, where I worked for the Arkansas News Bureau as recently as July.

The Senate Majority Leader apparently hopes that the flagship paper of Stephens Media, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "goes out of business."

Now the editorial staff out there in Nevada is decidedly less objective than the Bureau in Little Rock, and has an overt conservative slant, whereas Mr. Reid has an overt liberal slant. The two are bound to butt heads.

I'm not going to point out the obvious, that it's a rather boneheaded move for a Senator to hope that a not insignificant number of ~~voters~~ people lose their jobs, livelihoods, all that mess. That's a no-no.

But another no-no can be found in the irony of the Senator's statement. It occurs to me anyway, that by looking at Reid's polling numbers, which are comparable -- if not worse -- to Sen. Blanche Lincoln's dismal approval numbers, why, Sen. Reid might be out of business before the Review-Journal. And wouldn't that be just rich.

It's one thing to make a bold, acerbic statement against those whom you don't find to be favorable. It's another to do it when you find yourself to be in a pretty hapless situation your own self.

That's all I have to say about that.

Progressive Caucus Attempts To Woo Southern Democrats on Health Care With Big Bag of Meth

2009-08-28T17:07:00.000-05:00

BIRMINGHAM -- In a last-ditch effort to garner some semblance of bipartisan support for the health care reform that has been vigorously debated in the August recess, progressive Democrats from the Northern states have extended a variety of concessions to Southern, conservative Democrats, including a big bag of methamphetamines.

"We're willing to play ball," said Barney Frank, D-Mass. "Let no man or woman say we didn't give this our best shot. We want to make sure this thing gets passed by any means necessary, and we know what it's going to take."

Along side the big cellophane bag of meth, other concessions include season tickets to various monster truck rallies touring the nation, a crate of sleeveless shirts that say "New England Patriots: 19-0", more frequent visits from the Oscar Meyer Wiener Mobile, as well as marking every brand of beer in bright orange and camouflage.

"Overalls will be permitted on the House floor and the Senate, permitting their approval, so long as shirts are also worn under them," continued Frank. "And all of the Capitol spittoons will be replaced in their original positions."

In other news, health care legislation has passed the House and looks to sail through the Senate as all of the majority of the Southern delegates gave abstaining votes, save for Gene Taylor, D-Mississippi, who gave a "nay" vote before taking his shirt off and spinning it around his head, chanting "USA! USA! USA!"

Why It Would Be Really Dumb to Switch Parties

2009-08-27T10:43:00.006-05:00

There's some blog way down in Abbalama (pronounced just like that) purporting that some congressional Democrat is considering switching parties, becoming the Republican that so many of his vocal constituents aren't yelling at furiously. In there, someone blindly and ignorantly threw in the name Mike Ross as someone who might switch, being a conservative Democrat from a conservative state and being a headlining name for the time being.

Mike Ross, by the way, had to state for the record that he was remaining a Democrat. No news here; Ross has been loyal to the Democratic party since his days of driving around then-Gov. Bill Clinton. The Arkansas Democrat is a strange bird indeed, but it's been classified -- it's just a more conservative bird than the average.

But that just got me thinking about how dumb it would be for a politician to switch parties. I see no gain in it.

The obvious reason is the threat of inevitable defeat, which, I guess, makes it all okay. If a politician truly believes that a change of party has a better shot of winning than staying put, it is incumbent upon his survival to do so, no matter how embarressing. But even then, your numbers have to be terrible already.

Even then, it doesn't make sense though. Sometimes, like in the case of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, you flee the party due to primary opposition. The best case scenario is seeing the opposition you fled in November instead of the spring, albeit, you'd be in a more favorable pool, assuming you make it through the primary of a party you obviously joined for purely political motives, rather than a "change of heart."

Ask Specter what he's thinking about those polling numbers these days, after the switch. Kinda makes Sen. Lincoln thank her lucky stars.

Othertimes, fleeing comes from the toxicity of one's native party. In the South (Sou-Prize, Sou-Prize, Sou-Prize!!!), Democrats are not viewed favorably. When it was a conservative Democrat running the show, it was tolerable for their conservative constituency to vote them in. Now, with Obama's admittedly more-liberal-than-most agenda, these Democrats not in the leadership roles are finding it hard to wear the same Democratic pins as those their constituency outright loathes.

For this Bama Boy, he would likely serve his constituency better by being a coveted swing vote than by being a roster addition to the weakened minority. As a Democratic swing vote, concessions could be made to make sure there's party unity. Take Ross, again, for example. He was able to fashion his health care halting not by being a conservative, but by being a conservative Democrat. And (no matter what Tim Griffin, the bullpen bully, is trying to rouse) Ross is sitting comfortably in Arkansas' Fourth.

To me, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. If you've got bad numbers, YOU've got bad numbers, and they'll likely follow you wherever you go, be that to the right or left. Bad luck, perhaps, forecasts that Democrats are up for a tough re-election in 2010. That's just the way it is. But for those who do jump ship, and trust me you'll see more, the uncharted waters will be just as untamed as their raging home seas.

The best bet would be to weather the storm.

I'll Flinch When Those Polling Numbers Tell Me Something I Don't Already Know

2009-08-26T10:20:00.004-05:00

Word from Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln, Democratic Arkansas Senator up for rere-election in 2010, is in...(record scratch) trouble!!

Looks like she'll be facing a TOUGH CAMPAIGN?! And she'll have to raise SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS IN ORDER TO HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN?! And she's having to WATCH HER EVERY WAKING MOVE FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND A HALF?!

What's going on here?! Locusts! Famine! Boils! Down is up! Up is down! The weatherman is wrong and dogs and cats are sleeping together...IT'S MASS HYSTERIA!

Ugh. This has been the story since about December of last year. Polling numbers are usually only good if they're telling you something new. There isn't an amateur political analyst out there who doesn't think that Lincoln and her campaign manager Steve Patterson aren't fidgeting nervously about next November.

But nothing so far has changed. All of her potential challengers in the Republican ranks are rather puny at this point, able to be handled handily by a large bank account, which she undoubtedly will be able to muster at her whim.

State Sen. Bob Johnson, Bigelow's Democratic Senate President, has thrown a wrinkle into the story, but this shouldn't be altogether unexpected. There's got to be a more ambitious Democrat out there who might want to take a poke at the U.S. Senate -- Why not Bigelow Bob? It's certainly not a matter of party loyalty; that's why we have primaries in the first place.

So this is going to be a grinder in the Natural State. It will likely be that way until February. We will see if Bobby Boy really steps up to the plate against Blanche, where I suspect he would collapse under the weight of her checkbook and name recognition. Then she would face hitherto paltry opposition against the GOP.

There are three outcomes, all of which seem kind of probable at this point, verified by those same tired polling numbers we've seen rehashed and re-edited over and over again: She is defeated in a primary, she is defeated in a general election, or she will win it all.

Her bank account, name recognition and political tenacity make her a shoe-in for the last position. But those outcomes, statistically speaking, make her twice as likely to be defeated.

The result: No difference yet. Come back in a few months. Let's move on to a different subject: I don't think we're talking enough about this whole health care business, do you?

Rahm Appoints Left Hand To Position of White House Bringer of Pain, Knuckle Sandwiches

2009-08-24T17:08:00.008-05:00

WASHINGTON -- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on Monday announced that his left hand would be appointed as the White House Bringer of Pain and Knuckle Sandwiches, effective immediately.

"That's right, butterscotch. And he's ready to work," said the former Illinois congressman, who is often seen as one of the brains behind President Obama's quick-moving agenda.

"All those who want a one-way ticket on the Pain Train, step right up and get your ticket," said a sleeveless Emanuel. "And all you kids who think I'm kidding, you can come get a taste first."

Vice President Joe Biden says he's glad that someone will finally be able to enforce what the cabinet has been proposing since Day 1 of the Obama Administration.

"It's not like we want to take people to Fist City, but frankly, that's what it comes to sometimes in the Oval Office," said Biden, pointing to his own slightly blackened eye. "That's the price you pay."

The appointment marks the most recent addition to the Obama cabinet, including the Vice President's Chairman of the Bummer-Reduction task force, Attorney General Eric Holder's Viceroy of Keeping It Real, and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's Director of National Thursday Nite Ladies' Nite.

PoLOLitical Stuff: Last Acts of Desperate Men

2009-08-21T08:27:00.008-05:00

Fwank Bawks Back

2009-08-20T09:02:00.006-05:00

At least he's calling it like he sees it.

Here's Barney Frank, who's to the Left of most anyone in the entirety of both houses of Congwess. He is an avid and die hard supporter of the proposed health care legislation, and his town hall meeting had all the familiar symptoms of those we've seen elsewhere, from New York to Missouri and Arkansas: rowdy.

But this is Bawney Fwank we're talking about here. Wowdy might be his middle name.

I have no problem with this, speaking independently of the situation at hand, regardless of any political affiliation one might have that would endorse or decry his fighting back. This is how legislation works. The people give, the delegate gives back. The politician ought to always be civil, but civility has never been exclusively set apart from standing your ground in the face of unrelenting and stubborn opposition, no matter how humorous standing your ground sounds.

Plus, I think the comparison to Nazis is a tad strong. Comparing things you oppose to Nazism is a move most white people have played out. It's lost its snazz. There are a number of different things sensible people could vocally oppose in this bill before having to compare it to the death of millions and millions of people due to overt and government-sponsored racism.

Anyway, he called the lady an alien dinner table. That was pretty funny.

Arkansas Relevance! Huzzah!

2009-08-19T10:09:00.002-05:00

Arkansas is like the tiny rural town of America. It's small, relatively isolated, and pretty much keeps to itself, save for a President and Presidential candidate here, a sex scandal that reinforces negative stereotypes there, and the world just keeps spinning.

It gets six votes in the Electoral College, and only four congressmen in the House. As far as the movers and shakers of the world go, very few have ever called Arkansas home. It's not a bad thing, or a good thing. It's just a fact.

But the political anomaly that is the Arkansas Democrat has thrust Arkansas into a new state of prominence, importance, and relevance.

Arkansas is nominally Democratic in the way that a four-hoofed mammal with antlers is a duck. You can call it a duck all you want, but the it walks, talks and acts very much like a deer. The Arkansas Democrat, with a few notable exceptions, walks, talks, and acts more like a Republican than many Republicans do. In fact, I'd wager that a vast majority of these Arkie Donkeys, placed anywhere that's more urban and more northern that Arkansas — which by sheer demography and geography, is a lot of places — and they'd be wearing their straw hats and talking about how awesome Newt Gingrich is.

This makes them, on the political spectrum, moderate Democrats. All of the state's Congressional Delegation qualify under this moniker, save for, of course, Rep. John "I'm So Ronery" Boozman, the state's only Republican.

As I've said before, Arkansas' moderate Democrats have been a showcase in the tension between moderates that some Arkansans can actually get behind and the far-Left wings of the Democratic Party, who have achieved sweeping majorities over the last three years and are running the show. Like I said, you've got a small minority in one group, and a bigger majority comprising of two groups who are splitting apart at the seams.

What does this mean for Arkansas? Swing votes...and attention.

Arkansas' delegates now have to think about what they're going to wear before they walk out that door. Comb that hair, Ross! Shine them boots, Berry. Theme-ties again, Snyder? Smile big, Blanche!...not that big. Marky Mark, bring wet naps. Since President Obama took office in January, You've seen Arkansas' delegates mentioned on matters such as climate change, health care, and you're going to see them on issues such as immigration, gay issues, and whatever else comes up.

They represent the final totals on the Majority Whip's role call. Not only that, but each delegate has been going at it for awhile, each one having been re-elected several times back to their current position. That means seniority and authority, as shown in Mike Ross' case of being able to slam the breaks on health care reform, putting it back to September, and Sen. Lincoln's role in the Senate Finance Committee, which is seeing health care, and will see climate change and a number of other important issues.

And it will continue to be this way, as more and more issues pile up that pit the conservative constituency of Arkansas against the more liberal tendencies of the Democratic Leadership. Hey, they're in charge. That's their prerogative.

But there might be consequences in, say, 2010. Currently, all of the delegates should be pretty comfortable. They're all household names and, like I said earlier, have been re-elected numerous times. But with polling places (of the Democratic persuasion no less) saying that Arkansas is the most likely state to see a large shift from Democratic to Republican in 2010, it's easy to see why these guys might be shedding the spotlight and awkwardly pulling at their collars.

The best example of this is (sigh) Sen. Lincoln. I feel like I'm joining in on beating a dead horse, but the fact of the matter is she's a big target that a lot of people are seeing as vulnerable. Every step she takes that sides more with the President — who is very unpopular in Arkansas — that will be translated and transmitted as a step away from Arkansas' values, even if, in truth, those two steps might be compatible. That's what she'll argue anyway, but my and most everyone else's guess is that those arguments, no matter how true, will fall on deaf, if not actively non-acquiescent, ears.

Anyway, for the average Arkansan, all this means is that you'll be able to go to a national news source to hear about your representation at home. And maybe be able to recognize the person who's actually doing that representing.

Health Care Reform: Dead

2009-08-18T08:36:00.005-05:00

It pains me to say this, but I think it's true. Hope it's not, because Republicans and Democrats alike agree we need it.

I think the much-ballyhooed health care reform plan is dead. Kaput. No more.

Well, most of it anyway, the part that would radically change health care. There may be a concurrent resolution or something nifty and feel-goody that gets passed to mark the achievement of doing some fine talking, but I don't think that anything is going to pass the muster.

Too much sausage is getting made on either side. It's hurting the quality of the meat, the meat of course being the reform itself.

Each side can and will blame the other. They'd both be right. Some stubborn folks on not just each end of the aisle but stubbornness on each pew of each aisle has lead to a gridlock, despite some, I'm sure, wonderful progress on those respective side.

It came to me reading the Washington Post this morning. Senate Democrats are making noise about the lack of a public option in the finalized bill. This sent everyone in a position to get to their battle stations.

Speaker Pelosi says there will be a public option in any bill the House approves. Blue Dogs like Arkansas' Mike Ross say they won't sign anything with a public option, losing 50 or more crucial votes. 100+ members of the Progressive caucus and others say they won't vote for it if there's a lack of one. Gridlock.

The Senate Finance Committee is the last frontier of the health care bill. They are struggling admirably to arrive at a bipartisan conclusion. This will — according to Sen. Blanche Lincoln's numerous speeches at home — not include the public option, since it doesn't prove to be a "viable plan." Now Senate Democrats are ready to stand in the way of the 20 months of compromise that's been hashed out in the Finance Committee. Stalemate.

Lincoln, Ross, the President, and others have often clamored that the scary option in health care reform is "to do nothing." They certainly make a strong argument, with nearly 20 percent of every dollar Americans spend going toward health care, health care costs rising at nearly six times the rate of income, and the unsustainability of that path. Even Republicans confess that the system is flawed and outdated, if not completely broken.

But with each group at the ready to bring this bipartisan thing to a screeching halt — now, with no chance of a partisan bill being rammed through either — I think it's dead.

That's just me though. Maybe we'll try it again in another 15 years.

Marketing Politically

2009-08-17T13:18:00.004-05:00

Just a stray thought of which I haven't been able to rid myself over the weekend and into miserable Monday: What is politics if not marketing?

While Aristotle would say that political thought and reflection are the highest acts of natural causes that a man can make, what difference does any of the diplomacy make if not for the sake of re-election?

Re-election, being the lifeblood of any political viability, is both vice and virtue to politics, or so it seems to me. That's why we have different levels within our legislative bodies of representation: House has two years, President gets four, and the Senate gets six years to make their case for another term.

We obviously want some level of our government privy to the whims of the masses, and some to be insulated from those wants. That sensitivity binds politicians to their election campaigns; the most sensitive, the victor.

Marketing strategists and political operatives don't seem all that different, it's just a different strategy. You brand the face, name, phrase of your candidate, or some combination of all three, to get people who are uninterested interested. You enter the lexicon, thrusting your campaign — yes, both political and marketing campaigns — into the vernacular of those you wish to influence.

You saw a lot of that with the election of President Obama. He had a big, grinning face, unique, but not-difficult-to-pronounce-name, and hung a five letter banner "CHANGE" everywhere he went, first written by hand from loyal supporters in Iowa, to pressed on designer T-shirts. The iconic, three-color picture of the President is what will be remembered most from his campaign. It encompassed all three.

Senators, like Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, are having to walk a tight rope toward re-elected prosperity, an arduous and difficult gait. She's obviously got her hands tied in some kind of restraint by those who will or will not elect her for a third consecutive term to the Senate.

While her policies are complex, her record long, and her biography well-documented, look for her opposition to use short sentences, if not monosyllabic phrases. She helped them out by dubbing a sympathetic constituency "un-American," but that will be a throw away.

I'm not really looking for an answer, it's just been buzzing around in my head. For all of the high-minded thought that's going into such policies as health care, climate changes, and, oh yeah, those two wars we're fighting, I'm just hoping that politics — the important part of it anyway — is more than picking between Reebok and Nike.

Random thought for the day. You're welcome.

Something That Rubbed Me The Wrong Way

2009-08-14T15:54:00.007-05:00

And no, it wasn't the hot wings from lunch.

I don't know how this health care business is going to play out. I think we definitely need something to keep costs lower, eliminate inefficiencies, all that stuff, but I'm not entirely convinced that a government option is necessarily the way to go.

Honestly, with there being so many dead horses piling up in America's front yards, all fatalities due to blunt force trauma from the health care talking points, I just want there to be a conclusion. Yay or nay, but let's get it over with, I'm pretty unbiased.

But there's one point I'm hearing over and over again that really rubs me the wrong way. We're the only civilized country that doesn't have universal health care. This is used to decry that those Americans must be a bunch of backward, knuckle-dragging, booger-eating morons, if those Americans don't want universal health care.

Wanting universal health care is not a bad thing. Saying we need it because others have it is a whole other ball game.

My case in point, granted, an isolated one, but it got to me. France, yes, that civilized European parlor of love and elegance, France, outlawed burkhas. A 'burkha' for those of you out of the loop is a head-to-toe garment donned by devout and fundamentalist Muslim women. While that's kind of old news, I was reminded of it when I saw that a woman on the beach in France was arrested for wearing a full-body suit and mask, creating a waterproof beach burkha.

Creativity be damned, French officials said, and they arrested her for it.

A clear violation of personal rights --wearing clothing for religious purposes -- was not only passed into law in France, but is enforced as well. I just think it's really dumb to say that "oh, they're doing it!" that we must be remiss for not doing it here. The equivalent would be your local police officer knocking the yamacha off some rabbi's head.

This isn't to say that there aren't lessons we can't learn from the French (how DO they get croissants so fluffy?) and vice versa, or that these things have anything to do with one another. I'm not going to be ordering Freedom Fries anytime soon at my local McDonald's. I just think it's a shallow, useless point to be made in an argument, offered to the lowest common denominator of angry person who happens to be siding with universal health care.

Sorry. That just got to me. Carry on.

Because Some Things Are Worth Fighting For

2009-08-13T15:56:00.003-05:00

Delicately Handling The Curmudgeon Sector

2009-08-12T08:05:00.008-05:00

Very good work here from the Beltway webbing site Politico regarding the woes that President Obama is having to deal with regarding health care. Senior citizens are some of the ones making the most noise at these health care town hall meetings that is giving Democrats fits and giving those on the far aisles of the right-wing fits of giggling.

This probably accounts for the amount of cane-related injuries involved. And why I've been hearing the terms "whippersnapper" and "fiddlefartin'" flying around so often.

While this is a problem for Obama right now, peddling to the geriatric masses is something all politicians have to find a way to deal with. They vote in record numbers, they're the most vocal constituency that most the delegates have, they're inherently suspicious after decades of experience in dealing with politicians, politicians, by the way, who are now a few decades their junior, and if they ever joined together to form some kind of compact or union, could crush America under their army of Panzeresque Buicks.

Put it this way: If Seniors could ever muster the technological know-how to create a blog, it'd be the most rabid and most updated blog out there. It'd make Matt Drudge look like Walter Cronkite.

Point being, they're a handful for anybody. It's time somebody put together some political rules to dealing with our octogenarian friends, and their older buddies.

Have Everything Wrapped Up By 4:30 pm: They're up every day around 4:30 in the morning. The Early Bird Special goes from 4 to 6, and Golden Girls comes on right before bed, around 6:30. If they make it to 8 in the evening, Murder She Wrote comes on, forcing seniors to stay up until 9. God help us if it's a Wednesday night and those two Matlock episodes come on (back to back!).

Point being, have stuff wrapped up promptly. As soon as you see some guy leaning in his seat to stretch out his high-socked leg, it's time to close up shop: You've said everything they're going to hear.

Speak Louder: It doesn't matter how loudly you're speaking, sir or ma'am, I'm going to need you to speak up. Speak up. No really, shouting is not offensive. Just soften your natural-yelling expression a little bit, sonny, no blue-faced young buck is going to tell that guy what's good and bad for him by talking down to him like that, by God.

It's just that they can't hear you in the back or the middle. Or really past the third row. If you're speaking as loud as humanly possible without ripping your vocal chords into shreds like a Quentin Tarantino film, maybe invest in some speakers that go up to eleven. Or some of those little ear horns that look like gramophones for your ear hole.

Otherwise be accused of not telling these people anything. Sure, four people in that stadium might have heard you, but it's very likely that even if they heard you, they already forgot what it was you were saying. So, speak up or sit down. Now that Perry Como, he could talk to an audience.

Offer Free Stuff: And not campaign stickers. Fans, glasses, tee-shirts, gift cards. These people lived through the Depression, and many think they're in one again. It is their impulse to hoard and thank their benevolent granters.

Plus, some have many dozens of grandchildren, all of which in need of a good stocking stuffer.

Don't Eat Your Dinner In The Living Room: Just don't do it. Same rule goes for lounging on your bed with your feet by the pillows. That's what recliners are for, butterscotch. If any pictures of these activities, please post them online where they will be hitherto unattainable to anyone over the age of 65.

Reference 'The Good Ole Days' As Much As Humanly Possible: It doesn't matter that taxes, percentage-wise, were higher when Reagan was in office. It doesn't matter that things like segregated schools and water fountains existed. Ignore any and all progress society has made over the last 50 years or so.

Referencing 'The Good Ole Days' doesn't necessarily remind people of how good it really used to be before these kids screwed everything up, with their rap/rock and roll and their baggy pants, and their women working in gainful employment, because frankly, stuff wasn't as good as they "remember" it being.

But it gives them that old "reminding" feeling when you reference those nostalgic days of yore. These instances of having that reminding feeling are also becoming more and more fleeting for this demographic, so one would do well to encourage a collective sort of remembrance, where one's constituency can simply nod their head, give slight and affirming gestures to those sitting around them, and look like they know what's going on, when in fact, they're trying to remember where they parked the Oldsmobile.

Attach Nazis To Your Opposition's Cause: It doesn't matter which side your on. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, heck, even Socialists and Communists would do well to relate whatever their opposition is doing and saying, or not doing and not saying, to Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, the Luftwaffe or concentration camps.

All of these things associated with Naziism, certainly and undoubtedly evil, have become the only symbol of not only evil, but anything that's just bad. Everything bad in their life can somehow be channelled to hatred of Nazis, including osteoporosis, arthritis and that health care thing that the pretty Palin lady says is going to set up death camps.

And that Palin is a sassy lady who likes to show the ankles. She must be right.

Have Numerous Bathroom Stations Set Up: This goes without saying. If you're certain that these people need to hear your message, put speakers up in the restrooms or port-o-potties. Also, make them comfortable, they could be there awhile.

This Is The Sound of Hitting Rock Bottom

2009-08-11T09:08:00.005-05:00

So this, apparently, is ousted Illinois Governor Rod the Bod Blagojevich's hand at making an honest living: joining the ranks of professional Elvis impersonators.

God, this is painful.

Health Care Showdowns and Fisticuffs

2009-08-10T07:00:00.001-05:00

People rising up and taking their message to the streets used to be one of the most powerful visual statements an organization or movement could make. The Civil Rights movement has been visually epitomized by images of folks like Martin Luther King, Jr., locked arm-in-arm with like-minded brothers and sisters in places like Birmingham and Memphis.

For the uninvolved layman, the nation's capitol and all of its monuments of the country's genesis and origins provides a potent stage, and has carried the messages of numerous movements, such as the Vietnam War protests at the Washington Monument's reflecting pool.

Grassroots movements aim to evoke that imagery and appeal, convincing and educating the common, everyday person to take up their picket and join the fight for whatever it is the organizers or those who have the most vested interest in the movement is proposing. Grassroots hope to appeal to that everyman and in doing so, multiply their ranks exponentially.

It's the whole point of any political campaign in general: Tell your message to as many people as there are willing to listen, and get them to tell others, so that they'll vote for you. That's pretty much the whole ball of wax right there. It's a fine method of pushing not only candidates, but also politically-driven agendas.

Like this health care thing, which has gone from complex and frustrating to loud and raucous. Democratic senators and congressional delegates are being met by what Sean Hannity would call mobs of people at their usually mundane town hall meetings to discuss the goings-on in Washington, with the topic du jour being, of course, health care reform.

They are met with taunts, jeers, and rowdy chants. Some even burn the politicians in effigy, which is not only over-the-line and overly aggressive, but outdated and exceedingly unoriginal. Democrats have been responding with outrage, leading some, like Arkansas' Sen. Blanche Lincoln to say they are "disrespectful and un-American," a statement which she later retracted.

The most common dismissal of these former TEA-partiers-turned "Obamacare"-protesters is that it's "Astroturfing," or fake-grassroots. They accuse the organizers to rile up and organizing these people to get out and throw about 8,000 monkey wrenches into the fast moving gears of the legislative machine.

The problem with that line of defense is that Democrats and Health Care Reform advocates do plenty of grassrooting and astroturfing of their own.

They send out pamphlets. They call people (and, aw horsefeathers, always around dinner time, too!) at their homes to talk about health care reform and why it needs to be done as quickly as possible and why Republicans and moderate Democrats are just wrong about everything, but especially health care reform, etc. etc. etc.

The pot is calling the kettle black, and the kettle is firing back about the pot being black, too. But if the pot and kettle have both been black for as long as cookware has been around, why would the pot or the kettle start acting offended by it (Ed. Note - Rampant Metaphor Running Amok? Check.)?

I think it has something to do with the lack of appeal of the march-on-wherever, or at least the diminishing of its impact. It's sort of like using a really good curse word: If it's used rarely, and only in appropriate situation, it connotes an appropriate amount of emotions or seriousness, or whatever the user is trying to portend. But if it's a guy who uses the word in the rigmarole of daily life, in any and all uses, in any and all contexts or mindsets, it loses its luster.

It'll still grab some people's attention, but for the most part, it'll just be a part of the droning noise. Grassroots movements are still potent, as seen by both health care former advocates and antagonists, and still can rile up a great bevy of those in the middle. But the fighting on either side, I would contend, isn't sneaky, dirty, underhanded, or a sign of a lack of message.

On either side, I say again. Those currently in the spotlight are the rightward health care dissuaders, crashing these town hall meetings. They are certainly going a little overboard, with reports of fistfighting going on over it. But their presence should not only be expected, but if their opposition is worth anything, countered.

And for the record, whining about their organization, when your side is clearly just as organized but not as effective, is not a good parry. Not saying Democrats or health care advocates should harpoon a big, stuffed John Boehner facsimile, but surely they've got some other statement or plan.

Lincoln: Up Yours, Vocal & Active Constituency!

2009-08-07T09:16:00.009-05:00

I would have loved to have seen the look on Steve Patterson's face around 11 in the morning, as Sen. Lincoln was wrapping up her press conference with Arkansas reporters on Thursday.

Patterson, Lincoln's campaign manager who is most certainly gearing up for a tough re-election bid, was probably sitting in his office in Little Rock, or maybe even her office in D.C. Depending on if or how big his breakfast was, maybe he was thinking about lunch.

Should I go to Wendy's again? he might've been pondering. But I just went there yesterday...but nobody saw me. Maybe I can go there again...I did almost get the spicy chicken. Maybe I'll get that today. But those square patties are-...

Then he heard that buzz word, that word that says so much while spelling so little: un-American. He could've sworn he had heard it from his client, Sen. Lincoln's mouth.

She must be talking about how dumb and polarizing and really, really dumb it was to use that word to discuss a politically biased stance, he probably mused to himself. Man, that Bush guy really helped us out by doing that.

Then his expression probably became a little more grim, aspirations of a delicious chicken sandwich, Frosty, and routine incumbent election quickly evaporating into the vapors. Had Sen. Lincoln had just called several hundred of her vocal constituency "un-American?"

Hang on, Steve might've thought to himself, in that low, booming voice that I hope is his inner-thought voice as well, Blanche is smarter than this. He'd be right, too. Sen. Lincoln frustrates many conservatives with her ability to tread politically difficult matters with somewhat ease, if not persistent thoroughness. Being a Democrat, her party and those running it are decidedly more liberal than probably she is, but most certainly more so than her constituency is. She has threaded the needle, as they say, and done so quite well with such a large bull's eye on her back.

She may weave 27 minute answers to some questions, but she has her points, sticks to them, and rarely gives much away.

Oh, she couldn't have done that, Steve, time to lay off the crazy pills, this isn't a Styx and Kansas concert, laughed Patterson to himself.

“It’s so sad, because it’s diminishing to the process, it’s diminishing to our outcome...I think it’s sad that they choose to do that," he recalled her saying. "I think it’s un-American and disrespectful."

I am going to throw up all over these tasseled loafers, a now pale and mortified Arkansas campaign manager may have thought to himself.

She had. She had called her some of her most vocal constituency "un-American." Not only are they the most vocal, but judging by their likely political leanings, they're a constituency that would be most offended by being branded as "un-American." They're vocal, they're on the move, they're willing to campaign against her now for no wage or interest other than their own: They will be a terrible nightmare for business, thought Patterson.

Some of these nuts are running against her already, Patterson might have pondered, noting the growing roster of Ricky Randoms, many of whom nobody outside their small circle of friends and relatives would know, recognize, or lend any help to. All of those guys just got a little more credibility, the now-worry-wrought Steve Patterson might have thought.

Maybe it won't be that bad, he might have scrambled in his head, trying to weave his way around the situation. He'd be fooling himself. While it's certainly no "that Jew" statement, it certainly is self-stubbing of the toe. Sen. Lincoln tripped up, insulted her constituency (much in the same way that Curtis Coleman chap did, eh?), and now looks like she's going to have to eat those words in every debate and campaign ad.

Will it cost her the election? Doubtful, as all of her challengers are those people who are best defined as 'ambiguous.' But someone well-funded with a compelling narrative that's relatively well-liked? It could be a loud speed bump, and we're only just in August of 2009...There's time, Patterson might have concluded, both optimistically at the time to dig herself out of the hole presented here and in her polling numbers and pessimistically at the time for a real candidate to emerge.

What in the name of holy flying horse snot is going on with this campaign?! Patterson thought madly to himself, the only visible sign of his rising anger a small twitch of his left eyelid. You know what, I hate this freaking job! This has got to be the most worthless, hapless, hopeless re-election campaign I've ever been a part of. I wake up every morning, look at those poll numbers, and curl up in a little fetal ball and cry my eyes out, because this is just a mess, Patterson might have mused as his face became more red and his knuckles became more white. Two terms? TWO TERMS?! What kind of amateur, rookie, bush-league, open-mic night at the Apollo is this Senate race supposed to be, huh? Now fuming in his own mind, I swear to God Almighty I am going to go off on a Clark-Griswold-esque rant that may or may not involve me punching numerous interns and aides in the face and thrusting my head in the toilet until the someone drags me out and puts me in the dumpster out back with the rest of the toiletries and all the health care reform placards and pickets!

He paused. Inhaled.

"Uh...Blanche? I think we should issue a retraction."

Fwank to Woss: I See Yo-ah Blue Dawgs and Waise You the Pwogwessive Caucus

2009-08-04T17:39:00.004-05:00

Sausage is getting made in the House on health care reform. And it ain't pretty.

First, Mike Ross and his 54-strong Blue Dog Coaltion put the brakes on the monorail-speed health care legislation. Ross claimed that the decidedly more liberal Party Leadership was excluding the input of moderate Democrats while hammering out legislation that would affect all constituencies.

It lead to a big stink being raised by the Blue Dogs, a signing of a letter, and subsequent concessions being made for moderates, namely the punting of the debate into September. Because nothing says "I'm dead freaking serious" like a sternly worded letter.

This effectively derailed the arrival of legislation past its deadline of before the August recess. Many have called this a tremendous victory for Ross and the Blue Dogs. Many Republicans are claiming that they have a newfound hope that they can stop this legislation as successfully as they did in the early 90's during the Clinton Administration, which I'm not sure was the intention of the Blue Dogs.

Not so ~~fat~~ fast!, says U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, and his band of mewwy cohawts. According to Patty O'Conner of O'Politic, House Democrats of the more liberal persuasion are running a play from the Blue Dog playbook. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, boasting a 83 member roster, has authored its own letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, reaffirming their goals to get health care legislation passed, including beinhg prepared to vote against any bill that doesn't require government-sponsored public health care plans to pay providers some multiple of Medicare costs.

Frank has already gone on the record to say that he would not vote for the health care legislation that seemed to be proposed at the compromisorial meeting between Waxman and the Blue Dogs.

There are 435 members of the House. 54 are Blue Dogs ready to stop this health care funride. 83 are in the Progressive Caucus and there are 178 Republicans, who now, by the way, are seeing an open door to bluntly opposing all of the proposed legislation lock, stock and barrel, without fear of partisan backlash - if the Democrats can't get on the same page, why should Republicans?

I'm no doctor but it seems like either 232 or 261 or maybe more stand ready to oppose this bill. Those shouldn't be confident numbers on either side. Expect this August recess to be less about hammering out policy and more about getting these Blue Dogs and these Progressives reading from the same page of the hymnal.

Pelosi Whines at Lincoln, Ross, Rest of America

2009-08-04T08:43:00.005-05:00

The gauntlet. She has been thrown.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was outlining her August plan of attack yesterday. I read via Politico about her mounting frustrations with the Senate's health care plan, specifically with the amount of sweet time taken by the Finance Committee, on which Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., sits.

“Frankly I had hoped we had seen more from the Senate Finance Committee so we could have a little better idea on where we might find common ground,” the speaker said. “What do they call themselves?” she laughed of the Senate “We’re the hot cup of coffee and they’re the saucer. They’re really doing the saucer thing to the hilt. They are cooling off this coffee to the nth degree.”

Good one and zing.

In recent interviews, Sen. Lincoln and others on the Finance Committee, the Senate in general, all three committees of the House working on health care legislation, the House in general, and nearly everyone you talk to says that while the pre-August recess deadline would have been nice, it's better to slow this sucker down a little bit to make sure they get this thing right. After all, what's being proposed is one of the biggest overhauls in public policy ever. It could use a couple of second thoughts, most would agree, before pulling the trigger.

One sort of local yokel angle that I was looking for but seemed to have missed is where the Speaker discusses her own "saucer," to use her really dumb metaphor: Blue Dogs in the House, who completely wrecked her agenda from flying at breakneck speeds.

Like Mikey Ross (insert haircut joke), who has been the leader in saying very little and getting a lot of pub in return. "Hey, let's slow this down," and the ensuing spectacle.

Marion Berry even threw himself into the fireworks, although it can probably just be chalked up to a copycat move to bolster the necessary conservative bonafides of an Arkansas elected official. Berry apparently dressed down some of President Obama's senior officials - including David Axelrod - and repeatedly referred to Obama as "your president," which is to say, not his president, and maybe not even the first district's President.

But there's nary a mention of them in this rundown, maybe I should just read another article. I'm guessing that Pelosi is assuming that all or most of these Blue Dogs will fall in line and vote for it after little to no changes or a lot of changes are made and then subsequently amended at 3 AM or something like that.

One thing in all this mire is certain: No one likes Nancy Pelosi. Her polling numbers are awful, awful, dreadful, and awful. Sarah Palin doesn't envy her. Yikes. Pelosi comes across as divisive and stubborn, and is unfortunately becoming the focus of an increasing amount of distrust in the policies. People may not turn on Obama, he's so popular and cool, but they'll certainly skewer Pelosi.

What In God's Name Is This 'Tim Griffin' Critter Up To?

2009-08-03T09:09:00.007-05:00

It broke over my buddy David Sanders' tweets last week. He said the former-Senate-maybe, and former U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin had just got back from D.C. and was doing some thinking about running against that Mike "Shelmet" Ross, who currently happens to be probably one of the more powerful Congressmen in House right now.

The ever-sneaky Jason Tolbert picked up on an exchange between Jake Trapper of ABC, in which it seems Trapper had been picking up what Griffin had been laying down.

Griffin, raised in Magnolia but currently wheeling and dealing in Little Rock, says he's hearing from a lot of unhappy people in the fourth district. Being the benevolent and heroic leader of hope, charity and mercy he is, Griffin seems to be pondering a Crusade to alleviate the sorrows and famine of the 4th district against Mike ~~Longshanks~~ Ross.

Riiight.

Not saying anything about Ross or Griffin or anything like that, but let's take a gander at some facts and some history, shall we?

Mike Ross' Stick is Huge: President Obama, who every Arkansas delegate with whom I have spoken says is more liberal than themselves, is mighty popular and is aiming for some of that reform. Mike "Monkeywrench" Ross, leading the Blue Dog Democrats in the House on Health Care, said "Halt" and it was so.

The national media chalked it up to Harry Potterisms, like The Congressman Who Lived after standing up to Obama, not that Obama is anything like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, but you know what I mean. Obama's powerful.

Needless to say, in a state that overwhelming shot Obama down at the polls, any standing up to Obama, over matters large and small, is duly noted by the voters. This isn't even the first time Ross has gone on record against the progressive agenda in the Legislative Branch. Ross made a lot of now forgotten noise over cap-and-trade legislation that went through his committee earlier in the session, voting squarely no, and telling me personally, that he thought the President, in this case, was and is wrong.

Not to mention that all of Arkansas' congressional delegates are comfortable and cozily ensconced in their respective district. Ross is sitting pretty, and I think a lot of people are aware of that.

Tim Griffin? Who?: Tim Griffin as a candidate is puzzling to me. He obviously is well-connected to a bevy of deep-pocketed friends in D.C. and elsewhere, which is absolutely clutch in a national election. But outside of that, as well as some conservative credentials that are also key in Arkansas, I'm not sure that Tim Griffin couldn't kick me in the face while holding hands with my mother without me going, "Who was that guy?"

In an election, you need a name, too. I will give him this, outside of being a U.S. Attorney, he has done pretty well getting his name out there, primarily by doing some saber-rattling about Blanche Lincoln. In political circles, people know Tim Griffin. But the walls can be pretty thick and insulated in those political circles. I'm not sure that the general public is too aware of his presence.

But what am I saying? He's been hearing from the people of the fourth.

Tim Griffin? No, really, who is he? What's he doing here?: Getting back to not so much about who Griffin is, but what exactly he's doing. As far as I know, Tim Griffin has no elected experience. He's a former opposition researcher, political strategist, and U.S. Attorney. I don't think any of those positions have been put to votes.

But like I said earlier, his noteworthy past thus far has been talking down Blanche Lincoln since December. He was the first and definitely the most vocal potential opponent against the Democratic Senator, whose tepid polling numbers are spelling a potentially tough re-election.

But as the months wore on, people like Kim Hendren jumping in the race before self-detonating, and a litany of others throwing their hat into the ring, with nary a peep from Griffin.

Many suspect that he had no real intention of running against Lincoln. Rather, he just wanted to keep her in check, make sure she voted conservatively on issues like card check, and basically keep her on the defensive by moving her re-election campaign up about six or eight months.

I'm not saying it's the case now, I'm just saying it might be, that Griffin & Co. is doing the same with Ross: They recognize a long-time and loyal Democrat, Ross, with a propensity to vote conservatively, and are aiming a making sure he stays that way, nervous of a Republican backlash in conservative Arkansas.

Griffin, who certainly has a political background, may lack the political C.V. to stand up against a strong candidate like Ross. But maybe that's not what he wants to do in the first place.

At the very least, he'll need a much more dominate follicle arrangement to compete with Ross.

And In Case I Don't See You, Little Rock

2009-07-31T07:00:00.001-05:00

Break-Up Sweatpants

Michael & Michael Have Issues

Wed 10:30pm / 9:30c

www.comedycentral.com

Joke of the Day

Stand-Up Comedy

Free Online Games

Good afternoon, good evening and good night. I know you'll be heartbroken, but with the advances in technology, really, what's the difference? Just get some great sweatpants, cry it out over the weekend, and by Monday you'll be good as new. It's been real.

Postponement: Deathblow or Fresh Air for Health Care?

2009-07-30T11:02:00.010-05:00

GEORGE: My god, I'm getting married in December, do you know that?

JERRY: Yeah, I know.

GEORGE: Well, I don't see how I'm gonna make December. I mean, I need a little more time. I mean, look at me I'm a nervous wreck. My stomach aches. My neck is killing me. I can't turn. Look. Look.

JERRY: You're turning.

GEORGE: Nah, it's not a good turn. December. December. Don't you think we should have a little more time just to get to know each other a little.

JERRY: If you need more time, you should have more time.

GEORGE: What, you think I could postpone it?

JERRY: Sure you can. Why not?

GEORGE: That's allowed? You're allowed to postpone it?

JERRY: I don't see why not.

GEORGE: So, I could do that?

JERRY: Sure, go ahead.

GEORGE: All right! All right. I'll tell you what. How about this? Got the date; March 21st, the first day of spring.

JERRY: Spring. Of course.

GEORGE: Huh? You know? Spring. Rejuvenation. Rebirth. Everything's blooming. All that crap.

JERRY: Beautiful.

GEORGE: She's not gonna like it.

JERRY: No, she's not.
I don't think I've made it any big secret that I'm a pretty avid Seinfeld fan. I was reminded of this section from the second episode of season 7, called "The Postponement," when thinking about the news that Mike Ross and his Blue Dog cohorts successfully lobbied to punt the House vote on health care reform back about a month, after the recess.

For Ross and the Blue Dogs, it was a success. Now he gets to go back to his constituents not with a result that could be praised or damned by those voter, but with a benign open ear. For the elected official, it's always better to have something open that voters feel they can put their input into than have to discuss why something that has already happened and can't be changed happened in the first place.

But that's political. What about the issue itself? Was this the deathblow? Many people think so. Others don't.

The Wall Street Journal has released numbers saying that popularity over the President's health care plan has dropped 10 percent in the last month alone, and that a whopping 41 percent of Americans don't think the legislation is headed in the right direction.

Mike Ross says that he's going to talk to his constituents, that there's more room for changes and compromises between liberals, conservatives and everyone in between, but that this shouldn't change the overall plan to reform health care. Others think that the trend will continue, popularity of the health care legislation will continue to plummet to the point that enough votes to pass the bill would be scarce, if at all in existence.

I'm not sure this is the coup of health care reform, as opponents of such legislation would hope. There's been too much time, money and political capital spent on the matter. But will it look dramatically different by month's end? That's very likely.

With three parties going at it — Liberal Democrats, Moderate Democrats, and Republicans — there are more concessions, compromises, and sausages to be made.

UPDATE: Tim Griffin's link to this post says that I'm comparing this 'whole health care thing' to that episode. Nope. Just the postponement, not the whole issue. Just a note of clarification for the four of you who read his blog.

Democratic Infighting: Political Problem or Feature of Majority?

2009-07-29T10:16:00.007-05:00

There was an interesting article in The Hill today, which reiterated something I've been noticing for some time already: The schism between moderate Democrats and those on the far Left, especially over the most recent issue of health care reform.

But is the recent spat within the wings of the Democratic Party a question of political ideals or of their super-majority status? I'm thinking the latter.

Looking at the political spectrum, you have the Right, the Left, and Moderates. Duh. Republicans own the Right, Democrats the Left, and the victor of each election is figuring out how lasso moderate voters toward your respective cause. A good way to do this is nominate moderate candidates.

Last week, Blake "Look at these shoes. These are some awesome shoes. You don't like these shoes? Consider yourself judged; These shoes don't like you or your shoes, because these shoes are awesome" Rutherford had a good back and forth with Cory Allen Cox of the Arkansas Project. I tend to agree more with Rutherford's assessment of the woes of the Arkansas Republican party in that rather than a lack of communication through grassroots, it's a problem of roster.

In that argument, Rutherford aptly described that Democrats, at least at the state level, have done a better job at fielding moderate, winning candidates to fill positions at the state level, a la the blueprint Republican Newt Gingrich and his Congressional take over in 1994. I would contend that since the Republicans have controlled the House, Senate, White House and very nearly the Supreme Court, moderation on the part of Democrats aided their ascent.

That and a historically unpopular President. That'll do ya.

There's a lot of noise, mainly from those that have never voted Democratically in their life, that this is a sign that President Obama and his policies aren't flying in Middle America, and that he and his policies should just shut up and quit being so stupid and shut up. Moderate Democrats like Mike Ross are throwing the broom into the spokes of Obama's health care plan.

But I think its less a matter of policy and more a matter of the diversity of that, the majority party. Not diversity in that they've got numerous demographics in their fold, either. They've just got the base plus moderates. When Republicans win again, they'll be the diverse ones.

I dunno. Just a thought. Wakka wakka.

Because This Zach Is Funnier Than I

2009-07-28T16:59:00.005-05:00

I've got nothing for the blog today. Did this one for the Bureau, but had little for the UFW. Plus Zach Galifianakis is hilarious.

Trying to Contemplate the Birther Issue Without Laughing

2009-07-27T10:09:00.008-05:00

Conspiracy Theorists, I guess, make the world go 'round.

I remember them growing up. I had an uncle who swore the moon landing never happened. He also thought that actors and thespians were doing nothing but "glorified lying." The kid next door had a dad who thought that "we aren't getting the whole story" about JFK, Area 51, or where magnets come from.

But they were always marked with other overt eccentricities that pretty much fit the statements they had made. Now comes this laughable bit of forehead-slappery called "The Birther Issue," proponents of which contend that our President Barack Obama was not born in America and therefore is an invalid candidate to be President.

Smiling politely as people ramble incoherently about this ridiculous accusation is now not enough it seems. Lou Dobbs is giving it some legs, and today on Politico they discuss the headaches this conspiracy theory is giving elected officials of the GOP who want to maintain the semblance of rationality and credibility among everyone else but would like to avoid marginalizing these very vocal ~~insane people~~ voters.

If you can't feel the restraint in my writing, please understand it now.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the President is not an American citizen and can't be president. The Hawaiian government has gone on the record — unequivocally, irrefutably, and unambiguously on the record — to say that he was born in Hawaii, which I'm pretty sure is an American state. But they don't look American! bellows a Birther from his trailer bathroom, door conveniently left open for just such an occasion. Upon further research, Hawaii became the 50th state on August 21, 1959. It's a state in America, like Arkansas, Texas, Delaware, Vermont, California...even Idaho! Being born there makes someone a citizen, and therefore able to be President. If there's more digging that needs to be done, then by all means, dig away with all of the powers granted by the FOIA, but I don't guess that the flights from Delaware to Hawaii are going to be in any higher demand.

Fie!, cries another Birther after swallowing his Copenhagen in shock and dismay that I would suggest that the documents in Hawaii are in fact the real documents, not lookalikes swapped out by them danged ole Democrats. He done switched em up! he proclaims, grinning like Encyclopedia Brown after cracking a case.

Yes, those Democrats and their crafty ways. Having a man born in Kenya, trained in the dark arts of community development, being unleashed in to Ivy League law schools and on to Chicago, the Senate, and the Presidency, all over the course of 40 years. It's almost too easy.

Uh. Sure. Maybe. That's a blanket statement that can be applied to a whole lot of things, but until evidence is produced it's just noise, not to mention so crazy that it doesn't warrant rebuttal. My problem with such statements, other than the fact that they're hopeless thrashings of people who really can't stand that a guy with a middle name like 'Hussein' is president, is this: If there were any indication that there might be a speck of truth, a hint of validity, an iota of credibility to this potentially-derailing claim, don't you think that a political party with the vested interest in that derailment — the GOP — would have done something to do just that, and derail this charismatic, confident, and composed man who made a bee line to the Oval Office?

If there were any truth to the matter, people who are paid to find the deepest dirt in the world for big, big bucks would have been happy to deliver these goods and then never have to work a day in their life again. It'd be that important.

Sadly, such reason will never reach the brains of people who really think that Barack Obama shouldn't be President right now. He should. He was vetted. He was elected. He's in. But the last ditch effort of sore losers who have uncomfortable undertones that reek of good-ole-fashioned racism is really getting, quite frankly, embarrassing. As more and more people line up into this fold, it's going to not only damage the already-punch drunk GOP, but I fear politics in general. I don't think the public forum can sustain such an aberration and dearth of common sense.

And there's the objectivity of it all. I'm not decrying Republicans or hoisting Democrats — These people are just bad for business all around. Unless you can show me a detailed research proposal that can state otherwise, please drop this.

Michael Jackson's death may be ruled a manslaughter or maybe even a homicide. Have fun with that one.

Proof that Obama's Numbers Are Too Low

2009-07-23T14:34:00.013-05:00

Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance" beat out Obama's primetime health care show case last night.

Seeing amateurs dance was more appealing to the masses than hearing the President talk about how the country might or might not provide health insurance for them.

Maybe next time Obama could moonwalk or something. That one lady on American Idol made a career by showing up in a bikini.

From the Dept. of Bad Angles: The Arkansas Business Cover

2009-07-22T16:44:00.003-05:00

It's Funny Because It's True

2009-07-21T17:01:00.007-05:00

Well here's just a dandy item forwarded to me from a dear friend in Dallas.

It seems that some of the creative folk at Vanity Fair have taken to Sarah Palin's lackluster resignation speech, giving it an honest edit.

The result is bloodshed. Literary bloodshed.

In Palin's defense for my Republican friends...well, there's no excuse really. "Shoulda done betta." If speaking is a supposed strong suit of hers, it certainly wasn't shown in her speech, which was described by most as "odd" and "off-putting."

Easy on the pounce though, my Democratic friends. In a recent Public Strategies poll shown off by Politico, skepticism of Democrats is on the rise. For as much of a dullard as it seems a great deal of people find Sarah Palin, who has even worse numbers? Oh, dang it, Nancy Pelosi, that Speaker of the House.

Those numbers reveal that Democrats — Obama included — are losing some of their cushy numbers. GOP rejoicing? Not so much. Republican numbers are even more putrid.

So if people are losing trust in Democrats, and have already lost trust in Republicans, who does that leave?

It's an interesting question for a later date, I'm afraid. I think there's some more dust that needs to be settled, but when it does, a great many of these patterns and trends could be thrown to the wind. It might sort of be like when a long-time incumbent resigns his or her post: it'll be up for grabs and highly contested. With the bad way the country is in these days, it might be so bad that both political parties are found culpable. Crazier stuff has happened.

Just a stray thought on my end I guess. Politics is weird in general.

What Do All of These Ricky Randoms Mean For Lincoln?

2009-07-21T09:09:00.010-05:00

(Ed. Note — After a week sabbatical and then a case of the violently-ill Mondays, the UFW is back for its regular installments. I know you were missing me. I missed you, too.)

Monday morning, I noticed a blog post by Jason "Too Much Time" Tolbert that a retired Army colonel, Conrad Reynolds, was throwing his name into the hat in the ever-shifting, always awkward roster of those Republicans vying for a shot to beat Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic incumbent, in the U.S. Senate.

Tom Cox, the Tea-Bagger. Curtis Coleman, ex-Huckster/Safe Foods mogul. Fred Ramey, a businessman who runs a business. A Chicagoan with Arkansan roots named Chris Bequette is being rumored. Conrad Reynolds. Moneyman French Hill was also rumored, but he seems to be warming up to a Congressional run against Vic Snyder. Kim Hendren, oy vey. Gilbert Baker seems to have quietly bowed out, while Tim Griffin seems to have been playing opossum the whole time.

With the slight exception of a state Senator or two — one of which only made the kind of national headlines that candidates don't want — none of these names are household ones. I'm sure they've got fund raising ability, and I'm sure that in their relative communities, they're pretty popular fellows. But the moniker 'Ricky Random' can be applied to most if not all of them.

Maybe it makes sense for a populist state like Arkansas to have a host of willing contenders ready to throw their names, reputations and families into the ring. A litany of everymen, lining up like a group of modern-day Cincinnatus-es, it's almost compelling.

Emphasis on almost. Compelling doesn't bring home the bacon. My point man on the power of money, David Kinky Kinkade, had a good piece today on the Arkansas Project about how much real dollars some of these candidates are going to have to raise to compete with Lincoln. Like Kinkade, I'll punt on some of the chances these suitors have. Sure, they've got a shot, they're running after all, buuuuuut...

What does this mean for Lincoln exactly? A few points, if I may:

People say she's vulnerable: This isn't news. Polls have been out for a few months now, revealing tepid numbers for anyone, let alone a two-term incumbent. Lincoln has been in the dastardly pickle to pick sides on issues ranging from card check, to health care, and soon, I'd wager, energy, between her more-conservative state and her more-liberal party. This perceived vulnerability allows people who would regularly not consider running to think, hey, maybe I've got a shot.

The field says she isn't vulnerable: What this should also show is that perhaps she isn't so vulnerable after all. You'd think that, if she were after all, so weak and unable to mount a good enough campaign to make up for those meager numbers, that someone of note — like a Mike Huckabee, for instance, or someone in that same vein — would swoop in to take advantage. Elections naturally favor incumbents. Lincoln is a shrewd politician, who wisely straddles the fence on many issues, much to the chagrin of her opponents. She's obviously got not only plenty of people, but plenty of well-off people who aren't afraid to scrawl out a check, again, referencing Kinkade's mention of her $11 million pace she has already set.

More to come: It's still very early in this race, despite what the 24-hour hungry news cycle would let you think. Think about it a couple of months ago. You had Tim Griffin and Gilbert Baker making the most noise. Then Kim Hendren loudly barged into the discussion. Then he loudly pushed the eject button out of the discussion. Names are floating in and out of the conversation in the vacuum of actual news on the subject. There will be more names, some less credible than the roster assembled, others more so.

Like this Tom Cotton guy Sanders opined about. He's not a household name by any means, but he seems to have some pretty big time credentials. Harvard Law grad leading soldiers into battle? Brains and brawn! He's just one of the names I've heard in the ether, and frankly, one that I think, if he is as well-connected as many are claiming he is, has a decent shot in a runoff.

That's pretty much it. Is this the common Arkansan rising up against Lincoln? I doubt it; many Arkansans don't care enough to vote, let alone run. But it should mean that, despite the Ricky Randoms assembled thus far, we should be in for a barn-burner in 2010. Or not! See what I did there?

PoLOLitical Stuff: Punching, Time Travel and Nerds

2009-07-17T11:14:00.006-05:00

Kicking Back

2009-07-16T13:08:00.005-05:00

If you haven't noticed, I've been taking a few days away from the blog. Not only have the Bureau duties become a tad busier, but I'm taking a bit of a sabbatical from the UFW to recharge the cognitive juices. Despite the lackluster, shoddy, unedited, and what my good friend John Brummett would call "nothing but self-promulgating" of these posts, it takes awhile to come up with this stuff.

If something comes up that's really noteworthy, or divine inspiration strikes (both unlikely), I'll put something up. Otherwise, I'll toss up some PoLOLitical Stuff on Friday and we'll call it a week.

In the news business, I think this would be called an 'advisory.' I don't know. I'm merely a Youngblood and know not of such things.

PoLOLitical Stuff: Peeks, How to Dress, and the Future

2009-07-10T10:37:00.007-05:00

Rough PR Move, Guys

2009-07-09T10:28:00.009-05:00

As I was creeping by on I-430, making my hasty yet sluggish trek to the office yesterday, I noticed this sign staring me in the face.

I drove through hell and back on the way from my home in Saline County to my high school in Little Rock during the I-30 construction that changed it from two lanes to three. I've seen people flung off interstates because of congestion and traffic due to construction. Needless to say, my usual jolly temperament (sure, I'm jolly) is slammed to the curb as my road rage increases tenfold.

I'm sure that goes for a lot of people. Traffic jams no es bueno. So you can imagine why it might be a bit of a PR snafu for the construction going on to advertise it as such a wonderful, brilliant, beautiful thing as people pass by, white-knuckled and weaving endless tapestries of profanities.

After the construction is done, and the roads are safer and perhaps more pleasant, then you could do it. I don't know, I'm not a big PR guy. We could probably bug Blake Rutherford or Emily Reeves, but I'm sure they're busy publicly relating to someone much more important than I.

Michael Jackson Splitting Democrats? Sounds Like the Summer Doldrums To Me

2009-07-08T15:07:00.004-05:00

First, let me say I am a pretty big Michael Jackson fan. I think he meant a lot to the African-American community, meant a lot to many other communities, and hey, I can moonwalk.

So I'm not not too beside myself about the MJ coverage. There's an argument such a presentation was in demand. Let it be. I was surprised however to see the beltway political Web site Politico launch into a bevy of articles about the death of the pop icon. Two stuck out, one because it was interesting, the other because it was a stretch.

First, Al Sharpton said that it was Michael Jackson that made it possible for a man like Barack Obama to be elected President.

This isn't the aforementioned stretch I was referring to earlier. I think, in, of course the broadest sense of the terms, that Michael Jackson may have helped ease some of the previous tensions that in times past would have kept some white voters from voting for Obama. He certainly wasn't the only reason, and I doubt he was even a big reason. Maybe just in the societal subconscious. I'm just saying. Okay, it's a stretch, I admit it. Happy?

Plus, I don't think Al Sharpton saying something as ridiculous as that should have surprised anyone.

But a Politico article that shamefully used the pun "moonwalking" to connote delicately toeing around a divisive issue was brought to my attention last night. Since the new administration took office in January, there has been a theme over the past few months regarding a possible schism between the far and middle left. It happens to every majority. Some want to keep it going in the other direction (In the early decade, it was the Far Right and to much success on their part, now it's the Far Left, with less-than-expected success) others fight to keep it more moderate.

Politico asserted that since Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, was announcing that she was planning a resolution to honor MJ and his humanitarian efforts, and the leftward Congressional Black Caucus being in support of such a bill, could further the divide in House Democrats.

I think this is a wild, crazy idea, personally. There are resolutions submitted every single day on the House floor for things more crazy than Michael Jackson and his humanitarian bent. And no matter how bust Congress is right now (which they are) a twenty minute break to talk a little bit about the actual tangible good MJ did might be a good breather.

Plus, if there are such stark cultural differences between the pro-Michael and anti-Michael camps within the Democratic Party, I think those differences would have already made themselves apparent by this point.

I think what this is is a good opportunity for the media to get a quick respite from what are called the summer doldrums. You know, the slow news times where nothing seems to happen and that seem to go on without end and are endless and go on without end? Making something out of nothing, I guess.

By the way, the blog post is an example of summer doldrums respite.

Overexposure vs. Playing Your Hand

2009-07-07T10:54:00.007-05:00

President Barack Obama is the most popular guy in ~~school~~ the world. He's got charm, smarm, snazz, tact, and smooth rhetoric that makes Morgan Freeman sound like a heavy-breathing, awkward teenager on the line with his Jr. high sweetheart.

He's good looking. I'm comfortable enough with myself (and my listening abilities) to say that. He's in shape. He hoops so regularly that ESPN ran an Outside the Lines article talking about how basketball is the new golf course, as for where the business in Washington is handled.

He has a compelling narrative. He has an 'it' factor that makes even conservative columnists like the New York Times' David Brooks acknowledge that he is the epitome of dignity in an ever dignity-less world, and that his greatest achievement as President might be the reawakening of a new age where dignity is treasured.

Politico reported that he is marketable, filed away under the biggest 'duh' ever category. Yesterday, I talked about how he, like Sarah Palin, has such a stellar character profile that it outshines hitherto considered to be blemishes on his resume, namely, a lack of a long one. Many in Obama's early corner told the now-President but then junior Senator only two years into office that he ought to wait a term or two to insure that his election would be a lock.

It was never anything but a lock, save for a few brief moments about six weeks before the election, but those tumbled as did the economy.

I could keep going on and on, but it would be redundant and would border on flirtatious. He's popular and he knows it.

But then that wily codger John Multimedia Brummett went and got me thinking about overexposure. In his renowned phone-it-in arrows column, he gave Obama a downward arrow for overexposure. "He’s overexposed and shouldn’t do any more health care specials on ABC unless he can produce better answers than he offered the other night...It is to say he should stay off television if all he can do is regurgitate banal talking points," said Brummett.

While I'm sure the two sorted it out that Sunday evening, with Obama being a fan of Brummett's and Brummett being a fan of his, this struck a chord with me; I had been having a meal with an avid, blindly and staunchly conservative, and she said the exact same thing. I had chalked it up to bias. But I think it's a strategy.

It's a balancing act for the President. Obama can be seen on television, the internet, and every medium in between (yes, Blake, TwiTTeR!!!) every day. Politico 44 ~~stalks~~ reports his every move. Barry (yeah, I feel like I'm on a first name basis with the guy) is like the picture of a loved one you keep on the dashboard of your car: Maybe not your primary focus, but always in sight, smiling at you.

But there's personable and then there's overanxious. Last week, Politico ran an article about the Politics of Personal Perfection, referring of course to how Obama seemingly being just so perfect in every way may actually be a detriment, as people might prefer a "real" or "flawed" person just like them. So President Obama is trying to be unflappable to his political opponents, yet would do well to seem more flawed, to connect with the common man.

Personally, I think the 'Everyman' narrative is a little worn out. Nobody craves the 'Everyman' or 'Everywoman' when they watch TV or a movie. They look for perfection. They look for Cameron Diaz. They look for Brad Pitt. They look for Obama. While worn, I think it still holds water.

Obama can see his assets as well as anyone. He sees that his weaknesses are also overshadowed by his strengths. His strength now becomes a pseudo-weakness. As his policy ratings continue to decline, his personal popularity might become more than just the luster on the ride, it could end up being the motor.

I think he'll do it, step out of the spotlight a bit and give his persona a breather. That'd be the smart move, and he's proven he's got a vast repertoire of smart moves. But that isn't to say that he'll be offstage, either. Again, it's Obama's hand to play.

Let the Mindless Palin Speculation Begin!

2009-07-06T10:36:00.004-05:00

So Sarah Palin made some headlines this week, abdicating the throne of Alaska to pursue...something other than running Alaska.

While it's all well and good that she's making actual headlines, rather than wedging herself awkwardly into the conversation by talking about how creepy that Dave Letterman guy is (slaps forehead), what she has now started is an endless carousel of annoying speculation.

The news ran between segments about Michael Jackson and that Jonas Brother who got engaged, if that tells you anything about the magnitude of the speculating.

There are a few schools of thought on the subject. One is that she's bailing due to up-and-coming lawsuits that would derail her political viability, another is that she'll use all that time she was wasting trying to run Alaska and devote it to a tour of the lower 48 on her way to the White House, and another thinks that she'll ride the gravy train with biscuit-capped wheels all the way to the bank, getting out of elected office and speaking for money.

The three are not incompatible, which leads to a wide array of various combinations (seven!), and fuels speculation further.

I yield to the imitable Mark McKinnon, who prepped her for her admittedly low-bar and successful Vice-Presidential debate with Joe "HEY!" Biden. He says that she exceeded his expectations in the debate, always knows how to keep things interesting, and he concludes that she has still more up her sleeve.

But what do we actually know about Palin, and could that shed light on her future intentions? I don't think we know enough about her, honestly. There's not enough on the record, politically, to gauge her actions in that arena.

That plays to her advantage. While I think it'd be akin to comparing apples to ~~oranges~~ F-16 Tomcat jet planes, she, like President Obama, has enough of what I'd call a "blind appeal" that makes her, to many people, simply wonderful, despite lacking hitherto considered invaluable intangibles, in their cases, experience.

In other words, those who cultishly cling to Palin, as Obama, don't cling because of their brief political stints as governor and senator respectively; They've got something else altogether. Call it snazz, I guess. Now, from there, you can go off on a number of different tangents and directions spouting the obvious differences between Obama and Palin. I'm not comparing them any further or to any other extent.

She's very folksy, which appeals to some and doesn't to others. She's relatively inexperienced, which matters to some and doesn't to others. But across the board, the consensus is that she keeps things interesting and is therefore someone to keep an eye on.

Whatever breaks up this Michael Jackson mania is a-okay with me, anyway.

Caption Contest! PoLOLitical Stuff

2009-07-02T10:20:00.000-05:00

It's an early weekend, and therefore, is an early caption contest. In light of a recent dearth of comments, I've decided to kick it up a notch, and add some photos that already have comments on the photos themselves.

By all means, feel free to add more comments, captions, suggestions, or threats on my personal well-being. All are appreciated.

And yes, this is a clear cut example of my phoning it in today. Enjoy, and have a merry Independence Day, and take part in America's favorite pastime — recklessly and dangerously blowing up stuff that is highly flammable.

Short Notice: On the Radio This Aft Around Five

2009-07-01T16:08:00.004-05:00

I know it's short notice but I'll be on the old timey radio talking machine today with David J. Sanders; columnist, sharp-dresser, and Father of Many Children.

Not exactly sure what the soup de jour will be, but I bet we'll talk about this Marcus Vaden, Conway's Prosecuting Attorney, character he opined about today, and probably the goings on in Washington, like health care in the Senate (vague!), and Cap-and-Trade in the House (done!).

Should make for a good time anyway. Mother always said I have a face for radio. Listen here, and retweet me for questions, topics, or whatever.

Lincoln's a Cool Customer on Health Care

2009-07-01T10:09:00.008-05:00

Sen. Blanche Lincoln and I have done our fair share of conversating over the past few months. From card check to energy reform and in between, the Senator has always been good to call me back for an interview, and we've had many.

The headliner as of late, as you already well know, is what are we going to do about health care. Lincoln sits on the ever-powerful Senate finance committee that will be responsible for footing the bill, a bill that many are estimating is mighty steep, at over $1 trillion.

That's no chump change for anyone.

Lincoln has stated that she has no definitive stance on the issue, only the vague, tepid response that she is for "whatever it is that works," fulfilling all of the goals for all of the problems that there are or may be in the health care arena. That's a rather tall order.

So you can understand how ambitious it must be for her to say that she expects a health care bill next week, as everyone returns from the July 4th recess. To go from having no preference whatsoever, as she stated to me several times is her position, on a specific position — be it a public option, co-op, or any other option — to having some meat on the table will surely be something.

Actually, what it shows is that beneath the tame surface, there is a frenzy of activity in the legislative waters on health care. But with all of her weight being shifted equally, we have no idea how she'll land.

My guess — again, guess, mind you — is that we'll be presented with something remarkably similar if not identical to the public option proposed by President Obama, only reworded to fix the well-publicized collective aversion to the socialist-sounding moniker of "public option." I think Obama, a former Senator, will be able to make sure his goal is taken care of with a small, 100-person room full of his former colleagues, which as of yesterday, also happens to be a supermajority.

Cap-and-trade, a divisive bill that split the Democratic party down a rural fence, passed in the House, in no small part due to Obama's backing. It will die in the Senate, but the message is still clear.

Like Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe during the past legislative session, I think President Obama could be riding his popularity to the bank, nearly sweeping all of his legislative agenda points, any one of which would have been remarkable, but all of them? That's big time.

That's Senator Franken To You

2009-06-30T15:01:00.012-05:00

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Al Franken, the former SNL Funnyman, has won the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, with his decidedly unfunny opponent, Norm Coleman conceding defeat.

Way to go guys. Only took you eight months. Healthy children have been conceived and born in that time, albeit prematurely.

For Republicans, this is yet another in a long line of kicks to gaping hole that used to be their gut. Not only does their Doomsday Theory of 60 seats in the Senate being controlled by Democrats inch closer to reality, but simply speaking, they threw the pocketbook at this problem, spending over a million bones in the last three months.

I've only met handful of people from Minnesota, and none of them are worth a million dollars.

That's not to say that Democrats didn't put a lot into soon-to-be Senator Franken's campaign either. Franken is going to have an even greater impetus to achieve in his inaugural term. He will be heavily scrutinized by his opponents, but also the independents in the Land of 10,000 Metaphorical Lakes.

I'm very interested to see how Franken fares, regardless of his political leanings. Democrats can recognize good, hard work from Republicans and vice versa. Independents don't care about that stuff anyway. Franken should have no problem being a good speaker, but let's see if he is persuasive. Or at least worth the trouble of letting Minnesota go eight months without being represented by two Senators.

Even Arkansas has that.

Speaking of the Natural State, the local angle could be that now Sens. Lincoln and Pryor, moderate, rural Democrats, will have more pressure on them than they had when Democrats lacked the filibuster-ending 60 votes. Every Democratic vote will now be crucial. Expect those who are trying to temper the more liberal-inclinations of the party for the sake of their political lives — like Lincoln, a Democrat up for re-election in 2010 in conservative Arkansas — to feel more heat.

Today, Lincoln and Pryor both professed their reservations for the House-approved Cap-and-Trade bill. While it will be much more difficult to achieve in the Senate, you can tell by the ruckus in the House that it's an important Democratic issue. And if President Obama is going to phone lil ole Rep. Mike Ross, D-Pig's Knuckle, and try to get him to vote for such legislation, one has to believe that for Obama-issues, Pryor and Lincoln will get Obama-calls too.

I'm looking forward to hearing Franken's first floor speech. And I'll be watching for Pryor and Lincoln's reactions.

Hat and Swap — Cap and Trade

2009-06-29T10:43:00.009-05:00

Apparently these legislative types in Washington didn't get the memo that I was leaving work early to book it to St. Louis on Friday afternoon. They had the audacity to make landmark decisions while I was away from my post. For shame!

As you likely heard, the U.S. House passed the U.S. Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as a variant of cap-and-trade, by a skimpy margin, 219-212. With a name like 'Clean Energy and Security' who could vote against this bill? Turns out a lot of people, and most of the Arkansas' congressional delegation.

Republicans dubbed this a "cap-and-tax" bill, and being that it was written by the likes of representatives from California (gasp!) and Massachusetts (fie!), were nearly unanimous in their opposition to the bill. The story was the schism between Democrats, rural and otherwise.

Rural folk are against cap-and-trade. The business of agriculture runs on gasoline fumes. The expenses, while a mild irritant for John and Jane Q. Automobile Driver, would be devastating for the farming industry, and could have a negative ripple effect (such as a rise in the imports of food and cloth), say opponents.

Subsequently, rural Democrats balked, leading to the squeaker vote. I spoke with several delegates who had "great concerns" over how this would effect the biggest business in Arkansas, which is of course, agriculture. There were references from all to "importing food and cloth like we import oil," all of which were negative references.

We can all see how the votes went down for our delegates, plain as day now. 75 percent were against it, with only one opting for it.

While the state's lone Republican, John Boozman, was surely against it, national media attention was given to the remaining delegates of our very Natural State. Mike Ross made some noise voting against the bill in committee. Marion Berry and Vic Snyder were the question marks.

Most speculated that Berry would follow Ross' example. In my discussions with Ross, he said that he plainly believed it to be a bad bill for Arkansas, so much so that when President Obama personally called him to support the bill, he say "Thanks, but no." Berry's district is just as if not more rural and agriculturally-based as Ross'.

If Berry and Snyder were the question marks, with the more 'urban' (as urban as an Arkansan can be) Snyder would have to have been considered the bigger wild card of the two. Snyder told me that he hadn't made a decision but that he indeed had concerns about the bill.

Those concerns were obviously alleviated. The decision itself is not necessarily remarkable. The congressman said that he was weighing the decision, understanding the potential difficulties for his agricultural constituency. One side obviously won out over the other.

The dissent on the other hand was slightly more remarkable. Sens. Pryor and Lincoln have not spoken favorably about the bill. I'm not sure exactly what their latest words on the matter have been on the matter, but cap-and-trade is expected to falter in the Senate, where urbanosity and rurality (words?) is spread more thinly between two Senators per each state.

Either way, a majority of Arkansas' congressional delegation believed that this bill was bad for Arkansas. The state Farm Bureau had come out against it, before and after amendments to accommodate rural economies were included. One delegate (Ross) was the rallying clarion for Blue Dogs against the bill.

What did Snyder see that the others did not?

Caption Contest! Too Soon?

2009-06-26T06:00:00.001-05:00

I don't know if you've heard about this fifty times yet, but Michael Jackson died yesterday afternoon. If your office is anything like mine, all working ceased to look at TMZ/figure out what TMZ is, yell at everyone surrounding your desk, go outside and yell it on the streets, pull a fire alarm, and then just scream unintelligibly.

Then someone started comparing him to Elvis and you just lost it, didn't you. Me too. Apples and Oranges, man.

Anyway, here's a political photo I snagged while drifting through photos of the King of Pop. It's Reagan giving Jackson a civic award for being a good role model (hindsight?), and also for lending his hit song 'Beat It' to an anti-drunk driving campaign. Show him off right, kids. Show him off right.

Lattimer won last week. He gets to watch me moonwalk.

Oh yeah, I guess no one knows that about me. I can moonwalk. Seriously. Not kidding. I can do it.

Have at the CapCon.

Politics In Motion and Grains of Salt

2009-06-25T14:18:00.007-05:00

Just when one Arkansas Republican Senate hopeful takes himself out by devouring his foot with an insensitive statement, another one puts on a bib and gets ready to chow down. Or was it?

This Curtis Coleman remark, the one about needing a visa and shots to go to southeast Arkansas, has caused a minor stir. I say minor because only one side is doing the stirring. That stirring is making the whole picture look like it's not just being stirred, but it's a-brewin'.

Its an excellent example of how everything viewed in the political light can be potentially beneficial and potentially hazardous. It just depends on which side one looks at it — and exploits it.

I have to admit the first I had heard about the statement was from the Democratic Party of Arkansas, decrying it. The Demozette certainly didn't think much of it, or otherwise they've gotten very bad about burying leads, which I doubt. The Party sent out an email calling it an insult and clamoring for an apology. At the time, I had nothing else to base that information off of, save for the statement itself, and the Democratic response.

So I called Coleman, and talked to him about it. He laughed the whole time, saying that it wasn't necessarily taken out of context, but was intended to denote a great metaphor than it was like a foreign land, traveling from one corner of the state to another. He says it certainly wasn't intended to refer to the southeast corner of the state as a disease-ridden third world country. He then went on about how long he lived in Southeast Arkansas, and how much family he had there, and how his first son was born there, and so on and so forth.

Stripped down: You have statement Y. You have political party, cause, affiliate, whatever X and political party, cause, affiliate, whatever Z. X is going to play Y to its own greatest benefit, same with Z. The variable X and Z are just that: variable, and in this case, to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Democrats, hoping to squash any semblance of a challenger from the GOP for their Sen. Blanche Lincoln, are going to make this sound like the worst thing that they can possibly make it out to be, hopefully derailing Coleman's maybe-campaign. "Outrage!" they cry, and begin to make inferences that maybe just aren't there.

Republicans — and one in particular, Coleman himself — will spin it the other way. A moderate spin would be to say that one who is offended by it, ought not be because that'd just be overly sensitive. The biggest spin, the path Coleman chose, was to say that it meant nothing but heartfelt and wonderful things, metaphors of diversity and such.

The truth is likely in the middle: It was probably not as insensitive as Democrats would let on, but it could be perceived as such, so Coleman probably shouldn't have said it. It's really as simple as that.

All we can do it look at the statements, the facts, and make our judgments. Whether or not someones wants others to agree with our judgments — which is the goals of all politics and especially political campaigns — is up to that deciding entity itself.

Hold the Phone: Lincoln 'Doesn't Favor' Co-Ops, 'Not Against' Public Option

2009-06-23T18:10:00.006-05:00

"It's a complicated thing," Sen. Blanche Lincoln laughed while talking me over the phone Tuesday, after we discussed health care for about 30 minutes.

She's right. And the minutiae is excruciating.

As it's toward the end of an article about a study rather than the subject itself, a shift on Lincoln's stance in the health care debate might be buried. I reported last week that Lincoln favors a co-op rather than the public option proposed by the President.

I said it because that's what she had said. She said perhaps I misunderstood, rather, that she believed her colleagues would be more receptive and understand better the idea of co-ops, being that they are so prevalent already, with electric and housing co-ops and the like.

She doesn't prefer a co-op over a public option. Rather, she prefers what works.

"People have gotten too tied up in titles and don't focus on the goals," said Lincoln. "The key is to meet the goals," citing those goals as making sure that whatever it is is competitive, transparent, efficient, affordable, and provides an option of coverage for those who'd like to keep their insurance.

"Co-op? Sure. Public option? Sure. Fall back plan? Sure. State to state plan? Sure," said Lincoln.

Lincoln said that there are a number of different definitions for the term "public plan," some in which the government controls everything, and some of which that have varying degrees of government intervention therein.

What does a public option mean for Lincoln? She wouldn't say. Rather, she just made sure that she was clear on the matter: She's for whatever, as long as it gets those aforementioned goals attained.

Right now, nothing is on paper. There are proposals, there are prototypes being scrawled in closed door meetings. But there is no one clear plan, so far, that has been agreed upon. If that plan comes out, and it works, she'll be for it.

So for the record: Sen. Lincoln isn't for the co-op, but she's not against the co-op. She's not for the public option, whatever that is, but she's not against the public option either.

She's for whatever it is that works.

Public Option vs. the Field

2009-06-23T13:26:00.005-05:00

Pretty good write-up here from Politico, nailing down the nuts and bolts of what they call the final piece of the health care puzzle, namely the public option that Obama specifically stipulated he would like to see in the bill but is causing many moderate Democrats to balk.

Politically, it's a problem of rhetoric, which is, as I stated in the previous post, is ironic, as the best quality of our new President is, admitted by both sides, his soaring rhetoric.

Had this public option been called anything else less-socialist-sounding, moderate Democrats could have had this sucker sent through with little to know problem. Call it a "due service," or a "personal medical option," something other than public, which connotes the socialist-stigma that the President already is having to deal with from his critics.

But I guess you gotta give it to the President: At least he took the honest road and called the spade a spade. It is what it is. Being what it is, he may not get it. The public option, that is.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln has said that she prefers a cooperative rather than a public option, saying that there is a grave concern of the government usurping the abilities of a private industry to make money fairly. The problem is that big businesses in the private industry are easy targets, and everybody already assumes and believes wholeheartedly that they are crooks.

If the health care industry were run on the backs of "mom and pop" type family doctors and such, it'd be a different story.

This debate is about helping out the 47 million who don't have health coverage without pulling the legs out from under everyone else. Obama said that the only reason he wants the government to be a competitor in the public sector is to keep everyone in that business honest. Lincoln said that they're looking into the needs that the private sector either can't or has yet to provide.

It will be a matter of convincing everyone, i.e. voters, if there's any other way. Well, I say voters. Vocal, interested constituents at this point. Although with the way candidates are piling up against our own Senator Lincoln, it's campaign season year round.

Department of Irony: Obama the Silent

2009-06-22T10:31:00.008-05:00

So. Looks like this thing in Iran is escalating pretty quickly, no?

Indeed, this it is. It's got people wearing the already-environmentally-trademarked color green in support of those rioting in Tehran here in the states. The Iranian media has been ordered to blackout the biggest news story in the country, namely, the riots and the election that caused them.

The only word is coming from amateur sources. Twitpics, camera-phones, and facebook are playing an integral role in telling the world what's happening over there. 'Neda,' a young protester who was allegedly shot in the chest and died on camera, is being used as a martyr for their cause.

All of this compelling turmoil going on in the world, and the world wants to hear from the most compelling man in that world right now: President Barack "Check my $tats" Obama.

Yet the gregarious chief executive has remained vigilantly silent.

Oh, the irony.

The man whose rhetoric can sweep men, women, babies, and some mammals off their feet suddenly has a case of feline-mandibular-seizure. The cat seems to have his tongue, that is.

I think it's showing his intelligence, personally. Thoughtfulness, if not intelligence.

People are clamoring for him to say something, anything about it. Joe "WHOOOOOO's Gotta Microphone?!" Biden has already voiced his unsolicited opinion, saying there are real concerns about the legitimacy of the election. Well, duh, Joe. Someone who many call a dictator calls the election —for him, of course— only two hours after the polls close?

The other day I was speaking with Sen. Mark Pryor, interviewing him for something other than this post. Pryor commended Obama for his silence. In our conversation, he related this issue to a similar one Reagan faced early in his presidency, namely, the oft-forgotten situation in Dec. 1981 in Poland, in which their government declared marshal law, which P.O.ed the Soviets, which got the Pope in a fuss, and so on and so forth. Like I said, it's oft-forgotten, but Reagan, for the most part, bit his tongue on the matter.

Pryor says that showed Reagan's political savvy to reserve plight-shifting judgment and says that Obama is showing the same. I tend to agree; Obama's opinion on the matter might not solve anything, as odd as that might seem. It could in fact have adverse effects on the situation, like strengthening the resolve of the man who is unwilling to open himself to the possibility of being ousted from office or pushing someone who is just about to go on a violent tirade instead of a peaceful rant just over the edge.

The fact is we don't have all the facts. Time Magazine's Howard Chua-Eoan (hat tip to Blake Rutherford) asked what aren't we seeing in Tehran. The answer is undetermined at this point. And as my associate John Brummett advises me, if you don't have anything worth contributing, you ought not contribute at all.

I guess that's what Obama's doing. Despite criticisms being levied for his omission, I'm willing to give him a pass.

Caption Contest! BARRYYYY Ya Gotta See The BayBEEEE

2009-06-19T10:14:00.004-05:00

If you didn't know that the title of this Caption Contest was referencing Seinfeld, leave this blog and never return.

In the age of 24-hour news coverage and social media buzzing constantly, I can't believe I haven't seen this picture before. Should make for a great Contest. Probably won't. Allow me:

BO: He's gonna barf! HE'S GONNA BARF! SOMEONE! QUICK! HE'S GONNA BARF!
Baby: Oh my God! It's President Obama! Can you sign my head or something?
BO: Staring contest. Go.
BO: Usually kissing babies is a welcome change to the rigmarole of shaking hands all day. Usually.
Caption: Obama surprised to find a baby that looks exactly like Hillary Clinton.

There we go. That should get someone going. Last weeks winner was Robert Everett Simpson. He was rewarded with affection from yours truly.

Get it.

Fmr. President Bush Punches, Body Slams Obama Look-a-Like Repeatedly, Forces Him to Say 'Uncle'

2009-06-18T09:44:00.008-05:00

That's what we call a misleading headline. That, in fact, never happened. Last night President George W. Bush spoke in Erie, Penn. last night, and after saying repeatedly that he was not going to criticize his successor, President Obama, the headline "Bush takes swipe at Obama policies" is what ran.

While mine would be a wild exaggeration, and the Washington Times would be a mild one inferred from the policies and principles of a man who overtly is of a different political persuasions than the person who has his job now, I think you get my point.

On the front end, let me admit that defending George W. Bush is like repairing a dishwasher while it's running; next to impossible. While Democrats joyously revile him as an anthropomorphized plague, Republicans and conservatives often squirm at a man who expanded government at a rate of 3 percent per year. His low polling numbers are a combination of that, as well as the scorn of independents who see his slow-talkin' ways and think "yokel."

I don't plan on defending his presidency or even he himself. But in this instance, on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, in Pennsylvania, Bush is getting a raw deal.

The Times purports that Bush took two stances — one, defending his administration, specifically with regard to terrorism, and two, his endorsement of the private sector — and posed them as a direct affront to President Obama.

The latter point is odd to me: President Obama himself has said that the private sector is well and good, he just wants to be able to compete with it to "keep it honest." When someone endorses that private sector, how is that necessarily swiping at Obama. Let's not turn our 44th into a socialist just yet.

But I'm not naive, either. Quotes like "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money," said by Bush, aren't pointed blindly. But it's a bold assertion to say that he's lampooning Obama directly. Sure, he may be taking a swipe at Democrats, the leader (and face and lifeblood and perhaps only hope) of which is Obama, but what would you expect a Republican to do?

Simply because Bush is not going to criticize his successor does not mean that he is going to give everything Obama and Democrats do a ringing, bright-eyed, cheery endorsement. The man's still a Republican. He's not dead.

Which leads me to the former: Why on earth wouldn't a former president defend his administration?

It's in stark contrast to the one currently in office. "Change" has certainly come, nominally and otherwise. President Obama is not going to do things the way President Bush did this, in many instances, thankfully. One is a Republican, one is a Democrat. You could go point for point, but I don't think a conservative is going to stand for Bush being compared to Obama, or a liberal standing for Obama being compared to Bush.

I don't know what to make of it. I hate cliches like "liberal media," mainly because I work in a very objective, no-nonsense newsroom (opinion columnists aside; while we're awkwardly comparing Obama and Bush, we could be having the same conversation about Brummett and Sanders). Also, I'm pretty sure the Times is known for being more conservative than liberal, which would make "liberal media" an odd pickle in that case. It just seems to pit Bush in a no-win situation. He either agrees with the populace, who is gaga for Obama, and throws his own administration under the bus, or he sticks up for his tenure, making it look like a slap in Obama's face.

President Bush can be blamed for a lot of things. I don't think this is one of them. Especially after his repeated statement: I'm not going to criticize the current administration. I'm sure this will be criticized as apologetic toward Bush's Administration. It's not. Just this one evening's speech, and the coverage therein.

Is Tom Cox Really the Worst Person in the World, Keith?

2009-06-17T10:12:00.005-05:00

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

You know if a Republican screws the pooch and Max Brantley doesn't verbally skewer him, he's probably okay. Olbermann probably should have consulted with him, Max that is, first.

What Does a 'Nervous' Blanche Lincoln Mean?

2009-06-16T14:49:00.007-05:00

Elections being what they are, candidates may begin to feel the heat unusually early these days, and by these days, I mean in recent memories.

Barack Obama campaigned for two years. As did Hillary, McCain, Huckabee, et al. It's what you do now. Maybe it's for the best; Keeps politicians on their toes and keeps their feet to the fire to represent their constituency. The Founders set up varying years of tenure so there would be varying levels of insulation from the constituency, but that's the way it is now anyway. Deal with it.

Anyway, that's why we're looking into Sen. Blanche Lincoln's rerere-election bid a mere 15 months prior to the date. Not just us. She's looking hard at it too. You can look at her campaign cash stash if you need convincing.

David Sanders' Sunday column about her concern about the election confirms what everyone knows: It's going to be a tough re-election, but she's confident she's got the firepower and the name recognition to over come it.

But over $2.5 million — maybe even more at this point — cash in hand already doesn't spell confidence. It spells the need to obliterate, crush, destroy any opponents after aptly scaring away sane candidates.

If you feel in the mood to hear an interesting, strong-worded and long-winded ~~rant~~ conversation on how much money matters in a political race, ask David Kinkade of the Arkansas Project, former Asa Hutchinson wingman during the 2006 gubernatorial race. It made a believer out of me.

The field vying to beat Lincoln is shifting awkwardly, kicking the dirt and shrugging. Finally, we have someone other than Kim "Shalom" Hendren who has officially declared, but I forget his name and know him only as "that Tea Party guy." Oh, yeah. Tom Cox. The shortness of his name will help its recognition, but he still has quite a long ways to go, he himself acknowledging last night that he is indeed a "fringe" candidate.

One thing I'd be interested to see is if the national Tea Party folks rally behind Cox. It's been widely reported that he's the first from the Don't-Tread-On-Me movement to run for office. Basically, it's a question of whether or not FoxNews cares enough about an Arkansas Senate race. There might be a lotta dollar to be had in that circle.

Or maybe not. I'm hearing that some people might not be so keen on this idea, taking a dissent movement and anthropomorphizing it into a senate candidate. That would be one to watch.

I'm hearing the force is strong with Tom Cotton, again with a cool short name, and I hear Harvard credentials to raise cheddar. Not to mention a Disney-esque narrative that would give anybody a good chill. Not everyone may love war, but everyone loves the troops. From what I gather, this guy is a good soldier.

Baker is giving me the same feeling the now-Senatorially-defunct Tim Griffin was giving me: A whole lotta talking, not alotta walking. While I think Griffin might have been doing it for reasons other than a Senate seat, Baker has twin reservations: A family back home (awwww) and a plush, enviable seat in the Arkansas legislature. I'm beginning to think maybe his funding resources might be bailing on him, and he's not assured that he can win. But that's just me. He could announce tomorrow, then I'd look like the buffoon.

Curtis Coleman is an enigma. He says he can raise the money. He obviously has a very scripted response to anyone who has a problem with his divorce (which you can go here if you'd like to see the bajillion comments of people who do or don't), and I don't think that a state in which over 50 percent of the population has dealt with divorce will really begrudge him that (although, there's also a majority of Baptist folks — even the once who have been divorced — who say it'll affect their vote). But maybe it will.

The problems for all of the would-be challengers are the same for anybody who's taking on an incumbent: Name recognition and money raising ability. There's only one person who has both, and enough of both to make a race of it against Lincoln, and we all know that despite facebook pages to the contrary, Huckabee likely has his sights focused elsewhere.

At the end of the day, Lincoln looks strong, both due to her own firepower and the lack thereof for her competition. But again, she's seen the numbers. She's collected the ~~ammo~~ monies. What does a nervous Blanche Lincoln mean? It means that there's something out there that isn't exactly clear that's making her at least anxious, if not nervous.

Who knows, though. Could just be an abundance of caution.

Sweet Sassy Molassy Look at How Far We've Come

2009-06-12T14:16:00.003-05:00

Hang on guys, I'm getting a page. Is there another telephone in the bedroom that I might be able to use? Oh wait! Terry's got a car phone! Terry, give me your keys so I can start your car and use your car phone.

But how were you supposed to tweet?

Caption Contest! Everybody Who Wanna Marry a President say YEAAHHHH!

2009-06-12T09:35:00.003-05:00

Ah, the First Couple. Elegant. Radiant. The perfect pair.

But this picture is pretty funny. Ball rolling:

MO: Come on! Y-M-C-...
BO: This is so stupid...
MO: Barry...
BO: (sighs) Aaaa.
-------
BO: See, kids? This is why you never make a bet with your wife. Or get married in general.
-------
MO: And I told Barry I wanted a diamond THIS BIG!
BO: She's right. And your parents are paying for it (winks).
-------
BO: You? (looking at kid in first row) No, I doubt you'll be President. You'd make a good...Uh...Parks and Recreation...daytime youth event coordinator. Yeah. Yeah. You do that.
MO: YAYYY! PARKS AND RECREATION DAYTIME YOUTH EVENT COORDINATOR! YAYYY!

Weak sauce, I know, but they're just SO GOOD LOOKING I CAN'T MAKE FUN OF THEM.

No one won last week's CapCon, as there was no CapCon last week. Suckaaas.

Is Pres. Obama Setting Democrats Up To Fail?

2009-06-11T17:00:00.001-05:00

President Obama is sitting pretty.

He is very powerful right now. He is the Executive Branch, he has a commanding control of the Legislative Branch — so much so that when he doesn't like the direction a bill, he merely gives the word, and it's automatically done (cough, health care, cough)— and he's about to insert his first of who knows how many Supreme Court Justices to a lifelong assignment (the average for SCOTUS/Prez is 1.7, but this is early in Obama's Administration and the bench could likely have two more vacancies by the end of Obama's tenure).

But let's not kid ourselves. Obama has done very well for himself without having a ton of credentials. Had he not run for President, he'd be running for re-election in the Senate for 2010 for his second term. Not the second time, but his second term. Prior to that, he was an Illinois state senator and a professor of law.

His first foray into the national spotlight was a speech at the DNC convention in 2004. What got people on the Obama boat was his soaring rhetoric, his telling narrative and those big pearly whites of his. In a word, his appeal. Couple that with an acerbic sentiment toward the Washington status quo, worded by a singular word "CHANGE," which was so breif it literally fit any profile of anybody who wasn't happy with the government, which is usally everybody.

Obama has got it, that appeal. Everyone loves him. He's as much of a celebrity if not more so than Sarah Palin, only he has credibility whereas her largest splash in the media is getting into verbal fisticuffs with late night talk show hosts. Obama was a guest on similar shows, not the punch line.

Obama uses this appeal to get what he wants done, namely a very progressive agenda that would have been difficult for anybody to get accomplished, even with a Senate and House in their pocket. This is a center-right country after all, and I haven't really heard many arguments to the contrary, rather that it's remarkable Obama has functioned, worked and succeeded in those parameters. He's got the look.

But is that look, that appeal going to be a stumbling block for future Democrats?

You can see it now. Obama is pulling his weight for those with less than fortunate appeals. Let's take Harry Reid, the Senate leader. Tepid, awful, lousy polling numbers for this guy, and Obama is going to make sure he gets re-elected in 2010. $789 billion in taxpayer money for stuff like butterfly atriums in Florida? Obama flashes the pearly whites, and there she is, passed and ready to be doled out.

Obama can do these things because he's Obama. Will anyone else other than Obama be able to do these things?

Obama's polling numbers are at a positive mid-to-high 60's range. The direction of the country, the approval of Congress, and certain issues that the government is pioneering, like the economy, foreign policy and health care, are all sinking quickly.

The mystique of Obama will, in my guess, carry him through 2012. He will be remembered not only as a great accomplishment but for his various accomplishments. His rhetoric is certainly worthy of stature. But as the Republicans have a dearth of leadership, could it not be said that there is a similar dearth with the exception of Obama and his Administration?

The aforementioned Reid is more popular than Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has unenviable polling numbers as well. Most think she's been less-than-honest about her dealings with the CIA. Hillary Clinton has swing, but by 2016, when she'd be able to run for President, she'd be as old as John McCain was when he ran, which was his primary campaign fault. Not that she couldn't lead Democrats without being President. I may just still be in that mode where I see Hillary running for the top office with reckless abandon. Those were the days. Now she's just globetrotting the world, and from what I hear, doing a good job.

I'm curious to see the Democratic roster. If they get a handful of names, they'll have a handful lot more the Republicans. But I'll be more curious to see if they can keep up the far-leftward approach that Obama has been taking.

Obama can get away with it. I haven't seen anyone else in politics be able to pull it off. After eight years of it, do you think people will still find it meritorious when broached by someone who is inherently less likable than Obama?

Who Competes with the Government? And Wins?

2009-06-10T10:38:00.010-05:00

"I fought the law and the law won." -Sonny Curtis and the Crickets

I read in the New York Times over the weekend that President Obama is getting a little bit fed up with the rate at which health care legislation is getting taken care of, and even more concerned that some of the things he would prefer to be in the legislation might get left out.

One note toward the beginning stuck out in my mind. The article states that one of the primary notes Obama is concerned with making certain is in the bill is the government-option insurance plan that would compete with private companies.

During an interview several weeks ago with Blanche Lincoln, who has given many lines of press releases on the matter of health care in this session, said she would be in favor of such a government option. Basically, the program would give every one the same benefits as a Federal Employee, which everyone knows are just grand. But it would be an option if they so chose; If they've got a better plan, they'd be more than welcome to choose that.

In a lot of ways, it makes sense. Think of the United States Post Office, slugging it out with the likes of FedEx, UPS, DHS, a friend of mine proffered. There is a service that needs to be rendered, in this care, health insurance. In order to keep the other companies honest and not gouge, the government would directly compete with them in order to insure that the prices were fair and affordable.

It's basic economics. There's a demand. Competition is the backbone of free market functionality. If insurance companies are going to run their affairs like cartels, who minds the government being a thorn in their side, keeping them honest?

Still...

It'd be like playing against the home team. In a stadium they built. In a state they run in a country they regulate. The rules are all theirs, and can change any rule at any time for any advantage, with a simple vote by 600 people who work for that team.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the goal of business competition is to put the other guy out of business, which I hope isn't the goal of the U.S., unless that business is an illegal one.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. We landed on the moon, the Holocaust happened, and Barack Obama is a legal U.S. Citizen and a Christian to boot. But giving the government free reign to compete against another business sounds trickier than the fruits might be worth.

I wrote awhile back about my slight aversion toward the new seat belt restrictions that passed through the Arkansas Legislature this year. My aversion was not that police officers are inherently racist and therefore it should be assumed they are going to pull over every African-American they see on the road. My hesitancy is that there will already be that suspicion, and rather than wind it further down the road, always having it assailed, it might be better to find another avenue.

Health care might be an issue that needs resolving post haste, I don't think there's anyone who believes the contrary, and that everything is a-okay right now. But I'm not sure that the possibility of the government under-cutting one business and then perhaps moving on to another is going to sit well with people.

Since I already spoke to one of them about it, I look forward to hearing about possible pros, cons, and maybe even alternatives from our delegates.

And Now For Our Feature Presentation

2009-06-09T13:40:00.006-05:00

Well, Zachary was ill. And before that he was busy. And before that, he said that the next four sentences on his blog would be spoken in the third person. Zachary was right, and apologizes for the absence.

So, by my calculations I haven't posted in about a week. Pretty eventful, in those few days, I reckon. Let's do some quick hits, some "Stuff From Around...", or some of whatever Rutherford and Lance call it when they just post briefs and links. At least Kinkade branded his; The rest of us are screwed:

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ, I see the light!: According to Politico, Pres. Obama invokes the name of Jesus Christ more so than his evangelical predecessor Pres. "Born Again" Bush. While Bush made it a part of his identity, Obama has embraced all religions, including reaching out to non-believers. It's an understandable move: About one in ten people walking around you in America believe he is a Muslim. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm willing to bet that percentage is a tad higher in Arkansas. Looking at you, Grandma.

Republican Headliners Get Awkward: Sarah was invited, but she got subbed out for Newt, but unbeknownst to her, so she totally went up there, and then said stuff. Meanwhile, Huck did his own thing at the same exact time. And you thought the new 90210 was going to suck.

Don't Worry I'll Be Leaving Shortly: Dan Greenburg classes up the Arkansas Project with a touch of electability, this time opining on the merits of term limits. He says experience is overrated, and new-blood is invaluable. He probably voted for Obama. I'm sort of torn; While it's always good to liven up the place, and allow for new thoughts and faces and energies — not to mention the daunting incumbent advantage — I always tend to think that it leads people to focus on the elections rather the numbered days they have in office. Doesn't count for the Prez.

Talk Like An Egyptian: You'd have thought the press could've come up with a more sensitive name than 'The Muslim Speech.' Obama addresses the role of the United States in and with the Middle East and collectively, the Nation of Islam, using his personal appeal at home and abroad to make a speech that will be remembered for a long time. It was good, but there were several quotes that could be used by Republicans as ammo. The problem? Many in the GOP wont be able to enunciate a clear rebuttal, as they will be red-faced and slobberingly angry-toned, and will therefore come across as nothing more than an mad, sweaty-toothed, bigot/honky. The GOP needs a smooth talker. Badly.

Senator Get the Kids Out of the Room: Stormy Daniels, pornography actress(?) is, by many people's count, seriously taking this whole Senate run seriously. Seriously. No, we mean it. Politics just got interesting, or at least unboring.

Your Daily Dose of Onion (NSFW, audio):

Obama Drastically Scales Back Goals For America After Visiting Denny's

The Reddest Blue-State or the Bluest Red-State?

2009-06-03T11:47:00.009-05:00

Ask anyone outside of Arkansas whether the Natural State is red or blue. If someone answers "blue," assume they are a political operative or at least someone in the know on Arkansan politicking.

The vast majority will unblinkingly answer "red," and likely look at you like you're an idiot for asking such a weird question.

Yet Arkansas has a deep-seeded identity confusion, one that is rarely addressed, save for every four years, and even more rarely analyzed. I don't think anyone really quite knows why Democrats rule the state with an iron fist, except in the third district, while (hometown elections aside [kinda]) the state is an automatic lock for six electoral college votes to the Republicans.

I've heard many theories, tradition mostly. The Good Ole Boy network that permeates the political process in Arkansas has its roots in the Democratic Party, perhaps from the days when that party was the one discussed as a regional party anchored in the South. That network, a selective one, helps its own for a couple or four generations and viola! You have a tradition of a Democratic reign, fueled by being the right person in the right place at the right time.

Another theory is that the lack of a large metropolis in Arkansas, which altogether has about 2.85 million, aids state Democrats. Metropolises, often populated with a ethnically diverse demographic and universities that have tended Democratically in recent history. The lack thereof in Arkansas' case keeps Democrats from being held accountable to the far left, whereas they would otherwise be scrutinized by them in states with large metropolises.

Not that Arkansas doesn't have any liberal Democrats. But if you take most of these Democrats out of Arkansas and put them anywhere else, they'd be Republicans. I distinctly remember speaking with a former State Rep. about why he was a Democrat, when I knew that prior to his election, he voted Republican. He responded that if he ever wanted to get anything done while in office, he had better be a Democrat to have a fighting chance.

Talk about a Good Ole Boy network.

So the titular question is the same as asking a Zebra whether he's black with white stripes or vice versa. A better analogy would be a wolf in sheep's clothing, or in this case, a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

I'm not sure what all this means, except that Republicans have an underutilized advantage of having a national party that is more congruent with the state's populace than Democrats. The problem Republicans then becomes solely an issue of leadership and roster.

Term-limits have opened up the incumbency barrier that allows Good Ole Boy networks to thrive and allows parties such as the Democrats in Arkansas to dominate for decades and decades. If the state GOP ever got some more well-known, respected members of local communities to add to their roster, they'd be formidable with the backing of an overtly conservative populace.

Now who those Republicans would be and how the state GOP would lead them is something else completely. I bet it's the reason behind the party's record as the all-time minority since Reconstruction.

What Couldn't Beebe Do?

2009-06-02T11:56:00.009-05:00

As much as he'll hate it that I'm regurgitating and relinking another Arkansas author, John Brummett, the consummate political columnist and humanitarian, as well as my best friend in the whole wide world, made an interesting point that seems to have slipped under the radar, but opens the door to something that isn't often discussed here now in the third of his almost-assured eight year reign.

What else is Beebe going to do?

This will be a more discussed query in four years, when the governor will be winding his reign down, tidying up his legacy, and trying to pick who the next governor of Arkansas will be (I hear Beebe thinks the attorney general is just a swell guy).

Beebe, on the cover of a reputable periodical about state and local governments, has been hailed as perhaps one of the state's best governors, even by the person who has been voted as the state's best governor, Dale Bumpers.

Beebe is currently 62 years young. By the time he exits, forced out by term limits, he'll be 67, a still politically viable age, especially if good health prevails, heaven forbid the contrary. But Beebe is who he is because of where he's been: Arkansas. The thought of Beebe flying off to Washington doesn't seem like something we could see our cover boy doing.

Then I read this:

Imagine Beebe’s doing that today, announcing that he would run not for re-election, but for the U. S. Senate, and imagine him doing so because the incumbent of his own party, Blanche Lincoln, looks anemic in the polls.

Lincoln, Dustin McDaniel and Bill Halter would collide — she in frightened flight from a race she’d almost assuredly lose and the two men in frantic pursuit of the vacancy Beebe would be creating.

He's right. He's got more pull than Lincoln. Than Pryor. Than Berry. Than anyone. The fact of the matter is that Gov. Beebe is hands down the most powerful politician in the state, federal, state, and local combined.

That fact in and of itself opens a lot of doors to what Gov. Beebe could do.

Now there's nothing to say this is what he'll do. He could very well do what many believe he will do, ride off into the sunset, leaving an unblemished legacy as the best ole guvner this state has ever done seen. But, while that might be the only option for not just some, but many who are pushed out by term-limits, this is not the case for Beebe. He is unfettered.

And he's done it before. After being pushed out of the legislature in which he resided for about a billion years or so due to then-new-fangled term limits, Beebe set up shop as attorney general, waiting out Huckabee for the governorship.

Maybe there's another office that Beebe could inhabit. Could is the wrong word. Would is a better word.

It's there if Beebe wants it. And again, the fact that he could is a lot more than most people who could can say.

Hankins v. Rutherford: Too Civil/Lacking of Bloodshed To Be Entertaining

2009-06-01T12:51:00.010-05:00

The minor tremors about the Arkansas blogotwitterspheres today were regarding a column published by Arkansas Business publisher Jeff Hankins on the omnipresence of new media and the subsequent rebuttal by blogger Blake Rutherford of Blake's Sentient Bull Dozer.

Hankins says that media is now everywhere thanks to these meddling kids and their blogs and their twitters and their pop music. Rutherford retorts, "Yeah, so?"

In short, they seem to agree with one another about the viability and actuality of new media being on the prowl, but disagree on whether or not this is necessarily a causal "pitfall." Rutherchevy says that people have been spreading rumors and traditional news outlets have been getting it wrong for quite sometime, and to blame new media for those conventions is downright erroneous.

He also points out that it's a vast generalization to say that bloggers wouldn't correct themselves if they admittedly got a scoop wrong, which is true. But come to think of it, I don't see a lot of corrections made, unless it's regarding a source, quoted statement, or something else supplementary, rarely affecting the entire body of the post. But maybe the blogs I frequent are rarely wrong (ARKANSAS BLOGOSPHERE ELITISM! FIST PUMP!).

There's more agreeing going on here than not to really say this is a debate. As I say this, I'm hoping that a shirtless Hankins is storming down to the Bowen Law School, kicking open the door to Rutherford's law class to open a can in front of his students, ya know, to spice this narrative up a bit, but in case that doesn't pan out, it seems that both made good points about the whole state of affairs, without stomping each others' toes. Cue to the cheesy Full House electric guitar, denoting a valuable lesson to be learned.

Hankins is right: The media in its new form is now everywhere, unfettered by the old media's rules and governance. Rutherford is right: That doesn't mean that old media is infallible, not that Hankins was claiming it to be.

I actually spoke on an SPJ panel about the rift or symbiosis of old and new media. I really believe that the cream will rise to the top, meaning credible bloggers are more likely to be carried on and be successful than those that are known to spew bias and misinformation to prove its own point or attain a cheap, non-informative goal.

I think that credible blogs do indeed hold themselves to standards. We all know the credible blogs around town. While I certainly see bias in the analysis, very rarely are they flat out wrong about the events. In fact, I don't recall any. In double fact, I recall one such blog — Max Brantley's not-very-originally titled "Arkansas Blog" — getting information regarding the no-smiling law on our driver's licenses that turned out to be bogus and through investigation — huh? fact checking? on a blog?! — and then corrected it, shedding light on the subject through good ole fashioned journalistic checking of sources.

But "citizen journalism" is here to stay, anyway. It ought to. At it's very core, all journalism, conventional and otherwise, ought to at the very least be geared toward the citizenry.

"This (Card Check) Thing Is Dead" - Sen. Pryor aide

2009-06-01T10:00:00.003-05:00

Stand corrected, aides to Sens. Lincoln and Pryor. Remember! Senator Lincoln is all that stands between crooked Wall Street and a diversely populated cardboard box plant; Between the mafia and children eating breakfast cereal.

And here I was thinking that this card check thing really was dead. Color me a dunce. Hat tip to Kinky Kinkade for the flyer, and another for winning the caption contest. I was worried I'd have to give myself a prize.

Caption Contest! Vic Snyder's Animal Planet

2009-05-29T11:02:00.007-05:00

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

2009-05-28T10:38:00.009-05:00

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.

2009-05-27T13:13:00.008-05:00

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

2009-05-26T13:03:00.010-05:00

"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?

2009-05-22T10:02:00.004-05:00

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?

2009-05-21T10:28:00.008-05:00

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.

2009-05-20T12:15:00.008-05:00

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?

2009-05-19T12:57:00.006-05:00

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:

Stop looking backward, only look forward, established in the penultimate paragraph by a Reagan quote.
Boldly oppose the most popular president in recent history.
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.

2009-05-18T17:17:00.004-05:00

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!

2009-05-18T10:08:00.010-05:00

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!

2009-05-15T12:34:00.007-05:00

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

2009-05-14T14:38:00.008-05:00

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

2009-05-14T09:09:00.009-05:00

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?

2009-05-13T11:42:00.004-05:00

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!

2009-05-12T12:58:00.005-05:00

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

2009-05-10T21:48:00.007-05:00

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

2009-05-08T09:22:00.003-05:00

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'

2009-05-07T14:38:00.004-05:00

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

2009-05-07T07:45:00.004-05:00

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?

2009-05-06T13:38:00.004-05:00

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

2009-05-05T13:05:00.008-05:00

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.

Be Careful What You Wish For

2009-05-04T09:35:00.007-05:00

Tip of my comedic-oversized-foam-cowboy hat (a Monday Morning ritual here at the Bureau) to Jason Tolbert for shooting me an email about retaliation from the Family Council toward the organization Know They Neighbor, which by publishing a directory of names to a petition, attempted to out those in Arkansas who needed no outing.

Tolbert has now published a list of contributors to the organization Arkansas Families First, which was a driving force of opposition against Act 1. They were unsuccessful, and alongside KTN are trying to force those petition-scrawlers to "stand behind their signatures and be responsible for this dehumanizing attack on the gay community," so says one KTN leader.

Okay, says everyone who signed such a petition. Again, this Massachusetts organization is not outing anyone. They are loud and proud. I wouldn't be surprised if all of these names were written in all capital letters, with an enormous sharpie marker. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these John Hancock's took up an entire page.

That'll show em. Accuse us of being cold-hearted bigots? We'll give you a taste of your own medicine, with a smile on our face. Signatures? Weak sauce, says Tolbert, I've got names of contributors who gave real, live money. Booyah.

God, I feel like I've heard this somewhere before. Somewhere, out there along the internet or Hoover blanket or somewhere...

Fie! It was that wily Johnnie Ray Brummett!

The ever-conservative, 'Print is Dead' blogger Tolbert has opened a Pandora's box of unintended consequences. His ideological opposite in both medium and political leaning has already foreseen this occurring.

Brummett prognosticated the beating of the chests that the Tolbert Report now...reports. While Tolbert's post in this instance is reasonably void of slight, and Brummett's makes no bones about the fact that he believes those on the list to be the bigots KTN would want to out, Tolbert is making Brummett's point for him.

We bloggers are supposed to be ahead of the curve of traditional news outlets, like the one for which I work. Aren't we? Or can't we all just work together and get along?

Doubtful. This will likely mean (verbal) war.

Caption Contest! This Necktie Is Worth More Than the Guy Next to You, Michelle

2009-05-01T10:06:00.003-05:00

Photos like this rarely hit the light of day. But when they do...holy crap.

I'm not even going to offer a funny commentary. It almost speaks for itself. But please, I know there is funny out there. Let it be. Let it be.