Postponement: Deathblow or Fresh Air for Health Care?

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.

PoLOLitical Stuff: Punching, Time Travel and Nerds

Is Pres. Obama Setting Democrats Up To Fail?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Be Careful What You Wish For

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.

Whether You Like It or Not, Status Quo in 2010

Incumbency. That word alone spells comfort for most of the congressional delegates and angst for their challengers.

It's not hard to quantify. In congressional elections, there have only been three or four elections since the mid-50's in which incumbent victories didn't rank in the 90th percentile. The Senate doesn't fare as well, perhaps due to its intended insulated nature, but still averages in the 70 percent and upward range.

It's also not hard to realize why. Part of the job a politician does while in office is the same any candidate has to do while petitioning. Go out, raise money, shake hands, kiss babies, guffaw/flatter, speak softly, but amicably. All that jazz. While a contender has to make time to do these things, the incumbent schedules it while on the clock, so to speak.

Name recognition also helps a great deal. I once spoke with a former state representative from Missouri who was elected to the Missouri House years ago at the ripe age of 23 with no real experience or qualifications outside of being a bright and industrious fellow. His name also happened to be John Hancock, he readily admitted.

Incumbents are not all-powerful. They still have to get re-elected, and have to maintain their credentials.

But when someone asks me, like last week, who the most vulnerable candidate up for re-election in 2010 is, I feel like they need to know all of those things I just said. It all goes double for Arkansan incumbents.

They say Blanche Lincoln is vulnerable. While she has certainly tepid polling numbers for a two-term Senator, that may be a rush to judgment. Sanders concurs. For Republicans, the roster lining up to challenge the incumbent is not promising. They're going to need an all-star deal breaker. The only Arkansas GOP member who fits that description is — bingo — Mike Huckabee, who has already cast off and set sail away from Arkansas and towards everywhere but.

There are deep flag posts in the 1st, 3rd and 4th districts. Quoth Dr. Hal Bass, Prof. of Political Science at Ouachita Baptist, "It would be extraordinarily difficult for a Democrat to win in (Boozman's) 3rd district. Conversely, it would be nearly impossible for a Republican to win in (Berry's) 1st or (Ross') 4th."

Naturally that left my congressman, Vic Snyder, as being the "most vulnerable" Congressman. He should be, anyway. His district is much more diverse than the others, split almost perfectly down the middle with a liberal center surrounded by a conservative perimeter. There is more opposition in his district than any of the other three.

I mark "most vulnerable" as such because it is such a laughably bad description of Snyder: He is going to be there as long as he wants to, which means, as per my conversation with him on Friday, includes a 2010 run (He says yes, he's definitely running). In fact, Snyder — the former Marine, Doctor, Lawyer, Conservative acting Liberal, and Friendly Neighbor — may be the most consummate politician of the bunch. He has to balance himself politically between the conflicting political tempers of his evenly-split constituency.

And he's been in office since the late 90's. That should tell you something.

So if you're super pumped about your home-towners, and the job they're doing in Washington, you're sitting pretty. If not, get comfortable because it doesn't look like the scenery is going to change much.

Unless, of course, someone pulls out. I'm not saying I've heard anything substantial, but I've heard some might be considering hanging it up.

Plus, as the old sports adage goes, that's why they play the game. Something could happen.

(Cue the Disney Inspirational-Triumph-Miracle Music)

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.

Slick Obama

Our new President is a smooth character.

He goes on Leno. He goes to basketball games. He's the regular Smith everybody wanted and wants to go to Washington, but he's also the Arthurian Knight of our dreams, an icon so bright that he remains quite popular in the midst of a number of cabinet appointments gone sour, and an at best loathsome economy.

And now he's kicked the dust off these traditional, meddlesome news outlets and has gone straight to the people.

The President is hosting an online town hall meeting. Rather than taking questions from the press, he's taking them from the people.

Never mind that there are already close to 70,000. Never mind that there's no way he can possibly answer every one of those questions, and that the filtering process might be, I don't know, favorable to him, maybe even pre-scripted for him.

He'll get asked tough questions. He'll give straight answers. He'll be praised by some. He'll pass praise to someone else in his cabinet, spreading it around with thoughtful magnanimity. He might even let some criticism get through. He politely crush it.

He'll walk away being a new politician, a true man of the people, connecting with the commoner in his own medium.

On Bill Clinton, I heard a wise sage ask a question about his sincerity in light of his obvious political savvy.

"So there you sat in the audience, asking yourself yet one more futile time whether this was an instinctively good man or a consummate political being, and whether this person or any person could possibly be both."

I'm not about to compare Obama to Clinton in the dawn of his administration, but I think this is a good question of all politicians. And, after all, the President is now under the 24-hour surveillance of the people's now technologically advanced eye.

Sen. Pryor: The Magic Number is $789 Billion

I had a chance to speak with Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas, this morning in a telephone conference call with other media folk, and Pryor said that he had some breaking news on the Stimulus & Recovery Package or the Spend & Swindle Package, whichever way you're taking it now.

Pryor says that the magic number the Senate and House hope to agree upon in an upcoming special committee prior to its re-vote in the House is $789 billion.

Pryor also said that in the Senate, Democrats reached across the aisle and made bipartisan amendments to slim what he said was at one time in the $900 billion range on the stimulus, and that he supported the bill following the addition of said amendment.

"We decided to make some cuts that ultimately focused more on job creation and recovery," said Pryor (which is kind of funny, because I thought that's what the entirety of the bill was supposed to be focused on — woe to me and my boundless ineptitude).

The special joint committee between the House and the Senate is expected, so says Pryor, to try to work out the disparity between the House and the Senate bills, which is in fact the same bill, down to $789 billion.

I'm reading around and many are saying that the bill is supposed to be much higher, with the Senate bill being around $838 and the House version around $820, and you'd think it'd be in that ball park, but Pryor said otherwise, straight from the horse's mouth.

He said that this is an ear-mark free bill and isn't like the New Deal, full of government handouts. Rather, it will be mostly handled by the private sector. Whether or not he's talking about the same private sector that tanked on Obama's ole buddy Geithner yesterday wasn't discussed in the phone call. Let's keep em crossed that there's another one he was talking about.

Pryor also said that he was "optimistic" about the bill passing in the House, and said that Democrats were going to try harder than ever to get at least a little more than zero Republican votes on the bill in the House. The Senate stimulus got three whole unnecessary Republican nods from Senatoritas Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe also of Maine and Senator Arlen "Not Related to the Murderer Phil" Spector of Pennsylvania, likely ruining his shot at renomination in his own primary but receiving a nice pat on the back from across the aisle.

The special joint committee includes Senators Cochran, R-MS, Grassley, R-IA, Reid, D-NV, Baucus, D-MT, and Inoyue, D-HI, while the House is bringing Obey, D-WI, Rangel, D-NY, and Waxman, D-CA. If Democrats are really pumped up about bipartisanship and getting this thing passed amicably in the House, they might've started by including some on this joint whittling discussion, don't you think?

Locally, Arkansas is sitting pretty if the stimulus bill passes, Pryor said.

The Senator said that the Natural State is slated to receive $360 million for "shovel ready" projects. Pryor said that "shovel ready" didn't mean that a shovel was necessarily involved and that I was just being silly, but rather it meant that it's a project due to start in the next 180 days at most, with some beginning even 60 and 90 days from now.

"Arkansas currently has $1.1 billion scheduled in projects in the next 180 days," Pryor said. "People may complain 'We're only getting $360 million,' but there's a third of those projects taken care of instantly."

Obama is wanting to sign this deal by the end of the week, and his proposal knew very little bounds. Despite how these Republicans might struggle or how these Democrats might genuinely want and amicable resolution, the Democrats have more firepower and are lead by a guy who wants nothing more than to get this thing rocking and rolling on all cylinders ASAP. Like it or not, it's coming.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. I look forward to seeing if this will be labeled as noble expedience or stubborn hastiness.

UPDATE: Just remember you heard it here first.

It's a new GOP, baby

From the desk of The Full Ginsburg, apparently a group of politically-inclined parody writers, sent to me from UFWAW.

Also, it seems that our UFWAW made good on his insider-information about the acceptance of Republican Senator Judd Gregg into the bowels of the Obama White House. UFWAW reported a bit of irony, when in '95 Gregg called for the dismantling of the very department he now heads, but that's all in the past. It's a new GOP now, baby, one that is all about bipartisanship, holding hands, and gettin' to gettin' along.

While I'm certain this new "trend" is going to get off the ground about as well as a brick armchair, we get to wait a couple of years — 2010 Senate elections — to see if my prognostications hold any water with this Gregg deal. I'm rigid with anticipation, as I'm sure you are.

Prognostication: Democratic Victory on Tuesday

The 2008 Presidential Election concludes on Tuesday evening, and not soon enough. Frankly at this point, I couldn't care less. All of the ballots will be cast, and viewers everywhere will watch as the numbers flow in from all over the country. Expect most of those states to be red, expect most of those big cities to be blue, and expect there to be griping about Floridian geriatrics still looking for Hubert Humphrey on the ballot.

But the middle man, the swing vote, the undecideds in the country are who really count in this and any election, and the number of those in that category is quickly dwindling. Very simply, the question is this: Obama or McCain?

The answer will be Obama, and I pledge that I will not delete this should I be proven wrong.


Looking back at 2006, people were already rolling up their sleeve ready to back hand anybody associated with Dubya, which unfortunately includes the entirety of the GOP. Sure, there are plenty of Republicans — John McCain included — who didn't agree with a lot President Bush did in his tenure, but by sticking that 'R' in front of their state abbreviation, there was a tacit understanding by the public of "this is my boy, G-Bush." Political analyst Charlie Cook also recognizes the angst toward the Elephant Men (and Palin) saying this:

"Usually, when voters kick the heck out of one party, their anger is satisfied and they move on. Voters rarely come back the very next time and kick the same party hard again." -Charlie Cook

Everyone seems to be hating on Republicans, and it's very likely that they are convincing the previously unconvinced so far.

The title of the article highlights a victory on the Left. But don't worry about me, this title still covers me even if Obama somehow loses the election. The very fact that John McCain is the Republican candidate for President is already a Democratic victory. Another such victory would have been devotedly pro-choice and cross-dressing Rudy Giuliani. These guys are very nearly R.I.N.O.'s (Republicans In Name Only).

John McCain was indeed a maverick, but two problems arose during his campaign that tainted all of the authenticity of this claim. First off, people like Sarah Palin drove this pithy moniker into the ground like it stole their lunch money. "He's a mayaverrick, and I'm a mayaverrick, and we're gonna do all sorts of mayaverrickish things." This battle cry or anthem becomes a little more than mundane and just slightly less maddening than a campaign lawn ornament being driven through my ear hole.

The fact of the matter is that he was a bit of a maverick. He did reach across the aisle and he did piss off a lot of Republicans. If you need any reassurance of this, look at who's been sitting in the Oval Office since 2000. McCain lost in those primaries for not being conservative enough, which ultimately led to a Bush Administration in the first place.

Can you begrudge him for not falling for the same trick twice during this primary season attempt? McCain hit a snag, though, as a two-year primary season (far too long, in my opinion) that consisted of posturing towards and for far-right leaning constituents eradicated the rest of his entire bi-partisan Senate career. Two years out of the 164 years that he's been in the Senate was more than enough to ruin his chances in this race, which was more left-leaning than the 2000 presidential season, especially in this What Have You Done for Me Lately society of ours.

Speaking of What Have You Done for Me Lately voting, I'd discuss McCain's being hamstrung by this faulty at best economy at the worst possible time, but the discussions have already run him into the ground and I've never been one to kick a man while he's down. Well, that's not true, but it's safe to say that the economy ended up being the October Surprise, and McCain was the victim.

So Tuesday will happen. Unless this Bradley Effect — under which Obama may be polling better than people will actually vote, on the basis of racism being unpopular — is as bad as some pessimists forecast, which I don't; I feel pretty comfortable with that prediction. Whether or not I'm comfortable with that outcome is yet to be determined. There's not a lot of governance that we've seen out of this Obama fellow, but it's very possible that we may have just seen too much governance from John McCain.