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

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

To get the proverbial ball rolling:

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

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

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

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

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

But this issue just. Will. Not. Die.

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

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

But the Left is beginning to move as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's In a Name?

According to the Hill, Democrats are lobbying for their Republican chum Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to go ahead an come on over the fence, abandoning his GOP for the DNC.

According to the article, the governor of Pennsylvania, as well as the Arkansas traveler and VP Joe Biden, have been pushing him to go ahead and defect already, but apparently Specter will not relent, fearing the extinction of moderate Republicans.

I think the entire operation, from both sides of the agenda, can be described by one word: Futile.

Just weigh the pros and cons. Securing that 60th and filibuster proof vote is obviously high on the party agenda for Democrats. They've got the legislature by the throat, now they want to hit em where it hurts. Pelosi is just rigid with anticipation of a rampant Democratic "mandate" that sounds something akin to Manifest Destiny.

But what would Democrats be getting that they do not already possess? Specter has made national headlines since last week regarding the Employee Free Choice Act, or card check, because of the bind in which he finds himself; Being in a pro-union state with a pro-business party, one that may find someone a little more to their liking in the 2010 primaries.

Specter has been widely regarded as a R.I.N.O., Republican in Name Only, due to his centrist tendencies. So what are Democrats getting other than a little more solidarity and another name on the roster?

For the very reasons I listed for the explanation regarding his EFCA plight, it would not behoove Specter to join those Democratic ranks. He's been elected several times over, despite his centrist record and his admittedly Democratic past. There are no Democratic challengers. He's already as far left as it's going to get in this Senate race. So why lower his shoulder and plow through the wall and into the Democratic party? It wouldn't benefit him much; His re-election campaign is squared solely on the shoulders of another Republican, whether he's in the GOP or not.

Plus, I thought our elected representatives were supposed to represent their constituents, not their party, so says Joe Biden while in Little Rock. He let Sen. Blanche Lincoln off the hook by saying he knew that if the party's interest and Arkansas' interest ever conflicted, he was both confident and content with the fact that Blanche would side with her state.

The Democratic party seems to be taking one Senatorita off the hook, and is trying to put a Senator on.

The Son of Stimulus

I've already written about this, but now Democratic leaders are starting to act on what they've already hinted: A second stimulus.

A special meeting of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Good!) this morning yielded the same story from the same economists: More money.

The outlook for the rest of Aught-Nine: Grim.

Pelosi says the Word of the Day is Confidence: The confidence that is apparently lacking in the American markets but is vital to the success of this much-ballyhooed stimulus.

The Proposed Solution: More of the Same. A second stimulus, of equal or more value than the $787 billion that is just now hitting the streets.

My first, knee-jerk thought: D'oh!

My second, more reasoned thought: If the confidence necessary to drive the mechanism the government has constructed to hoist us out of this recession isn't being garnered by the stimulus, how much sense does it make to do it all over again?

Maybe it makes a lot of sense to someone other than me. God, I hope so.

Arkansas Is a Swing State?

Well, yes.

However, not in the traditional and presidential sense. There, Arkansas remains staunchly red, unless a home towner like a Clinton is involved. However, this card check issue is really pushing Arkansas into the spotlight.

And to think, only 20 months before the 2010 elections. Glad we were able to squeeze ourselves into the conversation just in the nick of time.

I've tried explaining this card check thing to people before and it usually leads to a confused look followed by an abrupt shift in the topic of the conversation. Regular joes like you and me don't really seem to have a great deal of interest in it It's because it only deals with the higher-ups in political and business arenas. Here's the nickel-and-dime rundown.

• It's called the Employee Free Choice Act, aka Card Check.
• It would allow unions to be able to form without the usual process, by allowing a union to form with only a signature on an authorized card from a handful of members.
• There's no mention of secret ballots; It's all out in the open, so pro-business scabs are exposed and vulnerable.

• Obama and his administration owe the unions for their support of his campaign and are expecting this payback in the form of Card Check. Several Democrats agree.
• Businesses don't like Unions.
• Businesses and business owners fund campaigns, and campaigns can't run without them.
• A woodchuck would be able to chuck 46.7 bushels (roughly 80 pounds) of wood were this mammal granted the faculties to do so in the first place.

Okay, so the last bit wasn't true, but everything else is. This Card Check is quite the political pickle. The moral of the story may be to not dole out a campaign promise that some of your party might be hesitant to cash for their own interests, but that's beside the point now.

To add more sizzle to the steak here are certain candidates from certain states in which those states aren't too keen on this whole unionization business. Namely, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and the Pro-Bidness Natural State. And whaddya know, she's up for re-election in 2010.

To make matters worse for the Lincoln Campaign, columnist and monster-truck enthusiast David J. Sanders broke the news a couple of weeks ago that some of the like-party Congressional delegates from her state might be pulling the rug out from under her legs. Sanders reported that Marion Berry, a Blue Dog (fiscally conservative) Democrat from Arkansas first district, is at least hinting that he'll oppose Card Check, but of course, is waiting to see what the Senate does, putting Blanchey in the unfortunate situation of swing voter.

So what happens when the national party opposes the likely view points of the local constituency?

Go with the voters. Duh.

I spoke with two local union members about this Card Check matter, and both were against it. That they were union members against Card Check wasn't as remarkable as the avenues with which they took to get to their opinions.

One was the expected conservative and Pro-Bidness rigmarole. It's un-American to force workers to sign a Union Card in broad daylight, he said. The secrecy that is involved in joining a Union is critical to the security of that worker who may or may not want to join a union. This was interspersed in between the typical gripes against unions; That these aren't protecting the businesses and aren't protecting the workers from Moose and Rocco out in the parking lot.

But the other union member's point of view was the exact opposite — favoring the Unions — yet it came to same conclusion — that it was a bad idea. He said that he felt unions would not benefit, ultimately, from having Card Check in the first place, again over this whole bit about anonymity.

"Why would the Unions want management to know who was forming a union in their office?" the Pro-Union Member asked. "The secret ballot keeps management out of the loop; why would they want them in on it?"

That's a good question. Years ago, Unions clamored for secret ballots. That's because management had the upper hand. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and Unions are looking for the finishing, throat-stomping blow that would give them even more power.

Now, I'm not saying this is the rule rather than the exception. I'm not even saying that this means anything other than this specific instance. But it does beg the question of how many more Pro-Union types are for Card Check.

And what does this mean for Lincoln? Well, her state is very Pro-Bidness, is it not? She needs to be elected, does she not?Were I in her shoes, I'd fight this Card Check thing, and make amends with the Democratic Party when I'm back in my office in January of 2011.

She may be taking a different road. Vice President Biden is set to speak for her at her campaign launching and fund-raiser. Looks like she's siding with her management, rather than her Union, meaning of course, her party, rather than her constituents.

Haven't We Been Over This Electoral College Thing Before?

We've definitely spoken at length about why this whole complicated Electoral College deal is in fact a good thing, and in fact a necessary thing in order for states to receive equal representation, or at the very least a slight affirmative nod from national political candidates.

Despite my humble pleas, the Arkansas House voted to do away with the Electoral College.

Now with the vote up to the Senate, I thought I'd try it again. Let's summarize, shall we?

• The Electoral College was designed to make the Executive Branch appeal to the most broad constituency of all, namely, everyone in the United States.
• Without it, a politician only needs to get the most votes without necessarily appealing to that broader base.
• Smaller communities will get even less of a voice, as bigger cities equal more handshaking and baby kissing per square foot.

But apparently, you've heard all of this before and don't care, which is fine. There are plenty of arguments against it that hold merit, like the nation is becoming more of a singular community, and with the advent of the youtubes and the twitters and the like, politicians can cover that necessary ground to appeal to all.

And that's all well and good. But what really burns my grits is the fact that this, for some ungodly reason, become a partisan issue, when in actuality, this should be the most bipartisan issue ever, because it involves everyone regardless of political affiliation.

I get it. Al Gore lost the 2000 election with more popular votes in tow. George W. Bush turned out to be an ungood President. There's ire there, and I understand that.

But what if it had been the other way around? I'd still be arguing the same thing, that had Gore appealed to a broader base — as is the mandate for the representative faculties of the Executive Branch — and would've locked up more states, he should have won the Presidency. In doing so, he would have convinced more demographics, not just more people in the same demographic, and therefore could represent the diversities within the U.S. better. No?

A colleague likened it to FDR and his numerous re-elections. Afterward, Republicans were the ones who drove the term-limit stake through the heart of the Presidency. It's the same in this instance. It's not a Republican thing to like the Electoral College just because it benefited one Republican one time.

It's due in the Senate Committee on State Agencies & Governmental Affairs tomorrow morning, with Steve Faris, D-Malvern, Gilbert Baker, R-Conway, Steve Bryles, D-Blytheville, Bobby Glover, D-Carlisle, Kim "Not Kimberly" Hendren, R-Gravette, Randy Laverty, D-Jasper, Bill Pritchard, R-Elkins and Ed Wilkinson, D-Greenwood.

Faris and Pritchard are their respective parties Whips, meaning button men assigned to make sure that the party fence is well-intact. It'll be interesting to see if they indeed fling some partisan mud, although I have it on good authority that Faris is in fact all about the Electoral College. This might be a good opportunity to see a politicalooney toon moment, when Faris says he's for the Electoral College and Rabbit Season, while Pritchard will then immediately oppose him by wanting to do away with the Electoral College and Duck Season and thereby being harmlessly blasted in the face.

Either way, let's hope the Senate Committee thinks about their small constituencies in this case.

And if the National Popular Vote people leave anymore spam on my blog, I'm deleting it. Did you see it last time? Talk about annoying. I felt technologically violated.

Obama the Transparent

President Obama has stepped into the batting cages of the political sphere with 100 m.p.h. fastballs being flung at his head. While being a rookie, only a month and a few days in office, he still sits in the catbird seat.

Obama has made it clear and acknowledged that he understands what everyone else understands: That this malignant economy and the stimulus he has prescribed will make or break him.

I don't think it will cost him the 2012 election; The circumstances are dire enough to merit a pass if the economy is still struggling.

But President Obama has done something very well throughout his 38 days thus far. He has been thoroughly sincere and thoroughly transparent throughout the process. They are related as his transparency begets his sincerity.

His sincerity cannot and should not be measured by his speeches. He's a politician, after all. His speeches had better be moving and compelling otherwise he'd be out of a job, not that that is all a politician does but it's mighty important. There's no real worry here — Obama has, in short order, moved toward the elite echelon of Presidential orators, like Lincoln, Roosevelt (both of em), and Reagan.

Rather his sincerity should be measured by his actions. He's certainly been talking the talk, as he does so well, but I've been impressed with the fact that he is indeed walking the walk. Being usually suspect of a government opaqued by politicians in the past, Obama has been up front. He has been transparent.

Obama has actively reached out in this regard, actively shown himself to be transparent, and he has done so at every level of population.

He flew across the country, speaking to the people in town hall meetings, similar to the ones his political opponent John McCain had challenged him to during the race. He yielded questions, concerns, complaints, and comments from the audience. In some moves of once-in-a-lifetime political spectacle, he made a home for a homeless family appear out of nowhere (or should I say a congressman's second home) and a dream job opportunity appear for an enthusiastic, if not slightly obnoxious, McDonald's employee.

Talk about walking the walk.

That was Obama reaching the people. Obama also spoke to businesses. In factories, he pushed his stimulus bill, but also has spoken adamantly about the sloth and shameful irresponsibility of Wall Street. It's one thing to tell everyone how everything is going to be all a-ok. It's another to call people out and make them accountable. He might've lost some friends in the bureaus for that — friends who may or may not have campaign funds in their pockets — but he held nothing back.

But what about the infrastructure and the legislators who will ultimately dole this money out? President Obama gathered mayors — yeah, mayors — from cities and towns as obscure as North Little Rock, Arkansas, for the sole purpose of making sure that everything was done by the book, and that all anxieties were alleviated.

Nothing against the NLR or its mayor, Patrick Hays, but they're no where near a blazing metropolis, like New York, LA, Atlanta, and so on. This shows Obama's broader strategy: He wants absolutely everyone on-board, even us backward, cousin-marryin', cave dwellers in Arkansas.

He convened with Governors as well. Gov. Mike Beebe had a reasonable question regarding just how much of this money was flexible, as he rightly assessed, the needs of some states are very different from others. He met with them to assure them and get them on the same page, as it will be them and their legislators who will ultimately carry out his ambitious plan.

In the halls of Congress is where he has met his most staunch opposition at the hands of the GOP. Obama only succeeded winning over three Republican Senators, but he lobbied hard for them and more. This is despite the fact that he didn't have to. Democrats have a kung fu grip on both chambers. House Speaker Pelosi wanted to move at an even faster speed, claiming there was a mandate that vindicated Democrats her thinking to go about their business and leave Republicans in their dust. Obama said otherwise, reaching across the aisle.

It's commendable to reach across the aisle. It's more commendable to do so when no one is reaching back. It's even more commendable to keep the hand out there.

He then met with the Joint Session of Congress, the brilliant coup de grâce that expertly balanced fair warning with optimism, with the whole world watching with bated breath. It was wonderfully done, even without the paltry excuse of a rebuttal that followed from Bobby Jindal. The rebuttal itself was followed by a thud as everyone in American, conservative and liberal, collectively slapped their foreheads and shook their noggins.

Obama's walking the walk, all right. For all of our sakes, let's hope he's not walking us into more troubled waters. But he has at least given us that hope, and we have no real reason, outside of reasonable reflection and deliberation, to think otherwise.

ONLY a Half-Million? Whatever Shall We Do?!

So don't take this President Obama for a complete sucker. He may look like a guy who is willing to throw billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars at a problem but don't count on him to just make a recommendation without making sure all of the funds are in order.

Killefer doesn't count. Daschle does a little bit, but he already owned up to that one.

In the wake of a collective realization that being the head of a major corporation is a lucrative gig (I had NO idea), Americans are suddenly angered by the fact that these people the government bailed out due to incompetency are acting incompetent by making no changes to retaining their multi-million dollar bonuses.

Also, it seems some of these companies that are now rolling in money aren't exactly being frugal.

Wells Fargo planned a lavish corporate outing to Las Vegas in what was sure to be "just business," so long as that business is always conducted in the background of a beer-soaked private Jimmy Buffett concert. Puts a new spin on "Wasting Away Again in Margaritaville," don't it?

AIG execs could barely stand all of that pressure mounting about their $85 billion bailout and needed $440,000 on spa treatments for executives. Now that every body's nails are manicured and skin is properly exfoliated, they'll surely be able to get down to business.

Obama says he'll have none of that hot mess, putting his top economan, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. "Muscle Beach" Geithner, on the case to make sure that these executives are paid no more than a paltry $500,000 to get by in their day-to-day routine.

The indoor horseback rides to the office? Gone. Vacations to an actual Jurassic Park? No more. A new kind of toilet that isn't available to the public at large but is much more convenient and desirable? Pawned for mere Monopoly money.

I don't advocate the government being able to regulate how much money a company is able to afford its chairmen and women, but it can be understood that the government is just protecting its investment. I can't say that this is the wrong thing to do, despite my limited governance tendencies.

But it does speak, a little anyway, to the entire concept of this billion dollar buy-out thing. The logic seems to follow as this:

1. Companies have been greedy and incompetent.
2. These companies are now going down the toilet, and taking innocent Americans' well-beings with them.
3. The omni-benevolent government sees fit to aid these companies for the sake of the American well-being.
4. The government proposes giving these obviously incompetently led corporation gobs of money to pull themselves out of the gutter, without stipulating a change in leadership or at least waiting a decent stretch of time to get a second draft of a plan.
5. The government gets mad when the companies in question spends their bailout funds on the roulette wheel and craps tables, and Lord knows what else in Sin City.

Oh yeah, Change has come to Washington. Way to go team.

That noise you heard was me slapping my forehead most fervently.

The Beginning of the Site: Unfamous First Words

Regard the preliminary article under this article as a prequel to what I hope this site will become: moderate analysis of political nature reflected by American society, for liberal and conservative, for Democrat and Republican, for better and for worse.

Politics are mired with nonobjective monologue that in turn, gets nothing done. Boy, it's great to throw all kinds of bull around with your buddies, but how does that talk fly when it's up against intelligent discourse from a differing view point? It's about creating a dialogue, mixing it up to find better results, because if you think you're right, all the time, in every instance, I think you're an idiot.

But while politics isn't without its fair share of problems, I also find it to be the most fascinating sport in the world. I refer here to famed political consultant Charlie Cook. Cook is a moderate and runs the non-partisan politically handicapping newsletter, The Cook Political Report. I don't so much enjoy the players that often, but I love the game. The game is what shapes and molds our collective destinies. Representation is a powerful thing.

So which ever side of the issue you're on, just consider for a moment someone else's opinion. I guarantee I'll offend you, but you just might learn something.

Oh yeah, and I promise that future posts will have more funny in them. These opening statements are so broad, that it's hard to pin a certain feature to one certain style or whatever the case may be. Wakka wakka.