The Far Side

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspicion? Me? How Dare You!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good, I say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's just a question.

MARION BERRY likelytostealheadlinesfromsomeguynamedRick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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