Showing posts with label James Earl Jones references trump all other references except for Seinfeld references. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Earl Jones references trump all other references except for Seinfeld references. Show all posts

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Politics In Motion and Grains of Salt

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.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Newt Again? What is this? 1993?

1993 was a pretty good year. I was in Ms. Abbott — now Mrs. Harmon's — classroom in Benton, Arkansas, and life was good. The film's of the year were phenomenal: Philadelphia. The Fugitive. Rookie of the Year. Groundhog Day. Last Action Hero. I also think that's the year I got a Sega Genesis. Like I said, the times were enviable.

'93 was also a good year for a Representative with an amphibian moniker.

I say 1993 had to have been a good year for Newt Gingrich because of what it produced: 1994. Contract with America. Sweeping Republican pwnage. Not to pat him on the back too much, not much of that era still stands today, but the early to mid-nineties was Newt's obvious prime.

Hence, it should come as no surprise to see Newt's face everywhere these days. '09 looks remarkably similar to the conditions which wrought the '94 mid-term landslide, with a few important distinctions.

1993: House, Senate, Executive; all Democrats.

2009: Ditto.

Newt is on the forefront of similar circumstances and naturally, would enjoy a similar result. He'd love the same sort of congressional revolt toward the Right. The GOP would love the same sort of congressional revolt toward the Right. Republicans are in a pretty low state. Talk shows are being widely purported as their best and brightest at this point. Es no bueno for those guys.

I get the thought process: If it ain't broke don't fix it. Newt did wonders then, why not now?

Because that was 16 years ago.

Come on, guys. That's Newt Gingrich. If the party is trying to gain a new appeal in the nation and actually move in that more appealing direction, why oh why would it turn toward antiquity? The values that permeated that time which was ripe for a new approach to new problems are not the same that the GOP needs to utilize in order to get themselves out of this existential funk.

You can't make any progress (the kind of progress Republicans can get behind) with regressive tactics, not in this case anyway. Now there's word that the RNC has raised more money than the DNC this past month. That's a better start.

While I would definitely agree that Congress, not the White House, as Obama will likely be insurmountable, ought to be the focus of the RNC, and Newt proved he knows Congress, innovation ought to also be a focus. Maybe the two are connected, as this article talking about the likelihood of Newt in '12 running for the Executive. Said one GOP strategist, "He's always been the idea man."

But come on, the guy's name is 'Newt.'

Friday, April 10, 2009

Caption Contest! Bawney Fwank is HILAWIOUS

I like this one, because it's just so dang open to interpretation. Give me your best captions for whatever it is that Barney Frank could have said that would make this many people laugh openly. I'll get the ball rolling:
Frank: I don't know where my pants went either.
Everyone else: Isn't he just ADORABLE?!

or this

Pelosi: Oh God, We are so screwed.

or how about this

Frank: And I told Dodd, I'd slap him right in the face with this hand if he ever let anything like that AIG bonus thing get in legislation again.
Dodd (just over Frank's right shoulder, laughing): Oh my God, he TOTALLY did!
Please do better than me. Schwag for the victor.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

American Epidemic: PIRATES


Forget the economy. Health care reform is negligible. We've got bigger fish to fry.

Who in the Wide World of Sports would have thought Pirates would be a problem for the Obama administration to face?

Handling a kajillion dollar deficit, facing the worst economic climate since the Depression, and overcoming partisan polarity that is simply unprecedented isn't enough for Obama to inherit, sayeth the Gods. Let's throw pirates in there too.

(Slaps forehead.)

Monday, April 6, 2009

Hate To Say I Told You So

Now where did I read that Sen. Blanche Lincoln was a 'definite no on card check' again? I have the worst memory about these things.

Ah, right. I didn't read it, I wrote it.

Anyway, I'm not gong to pat myself on the back anymore. Like Pop always said, you ought not be congratulated on something you should be doing anyway.

Plus, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE thought she'd ever go for it in the first place.

The next big point is where do we go from here? People have hyped this matter up for months, so naturally, there has to be somewhere for this pressure to vent. A trilogy of sequels to the Card Check saga awaits.

Labor — Lordy, what to do when the romance been gone? Labor felt a large kick to the bread basket on this one. Losing GOP-affiliate Arlen Specter is one thing, but this Lincoln is a Democrat. For labor forces, she was supposed to be a powerful ace in the hole. Heat from the business community in her right-to-work state was apparently too much to sway what many suspect is her naturally leftward inclinations.

Speaking with Alan Hughes, President of the Arkansas AFL-CIO, today, he said that from what he understood, Lincoln left a door open — wiggle room, if you will — to some sort of compromise, one in which his office has not heard in any detail but Sen. Pryor made headlines about.

Hughes says that while right now they would have to say no to a compromise, they haven't heard anything about it from the business community. Hughes also countered that they've offered no compromise, and wait on the business community to offer one first. I wouldn't look for one soon though. 'Compromise' is often code for 'we lost, but let's see how much we can squeeze out so it's not a complete and total loss.'

"This issue isn't going away," as Hughes put it.

Business — Chalk it up on the Big Board, so says the business community. From the beginning of the EFCA discussion, it seemed like big business has had this contest to lose for some time, being from a right-to-work state, while the Democratic delegation made it somewhat entertaining.

Chamber Prez. Randy Zook says that from here on out, the organization of businesses hopes to keep on keepin' on, educating people about what he and the chamber refer to as flaws in lousy legislation. Asked if this "education" involves focusing on Pryor to follow in Lincoln's footsteps, Zook agreed, but said they're not pressuring anyone, just educating.

He did leave us with a nice tagline for the trailers, though. "It will get the fate the bill deserves," while I thought I heard the faint drone of chainsaws and heavy and dangerous machinery in the background. Also some thunder rolled. And a horse neighed.

The Contenders — The most interesting story after the fact may be the card played by the candidates who might've been counting on Lincoln to fade to the left on this issue, giving them more ammo with which to assail her in her upcoming re-election campaign.

Several names have popped up. We were able to get a hold of two of those names regarding Lincoln's decision, and they seemed to be driving toward the same hoop.

"I’m glad that she is coming my way on this issue. I’m disappointed that it took years for her to get there,” said Tim Griffin, the former U.S. Attorney who has been the most active, if not vocal candidate among the ambiguity. Doyle Webb, state GOP head honcho and rumored candidacy-muser, said the something similar.

Look for the Republican strategy to be thus: "Why'd it take you so long to come out and say it? GOTCHA!"

It's kind of weak if you ask me, but it's the only hand they have at this point (Huh?! What?! Only a year and a half until Nov. 2010?! My how the time flies! [slaps forehead]). Delaying the inevitable decision was a pretty savvy move on her part, as according to phone conversations with her, she's much more concerned with other things, like health care reform.

But as Alan Hughes so accurately put it, "Huh, I believe it's on her radar." Politicians — as well they should be — are sensitive to the whims of their constituency.

The Republican contender, whoever that may be, is going to have a little more clout with the reports showing Lincoln's tepid-at-best approval ratings. That will be the big action from here on out.

But to quote Hughes again, this issue isn't going away.