Pelosi Whines at Lincoln, Ross, Rest of America

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.

Kicking Back

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.

Sonia Sotomayor Nabs Obama SCOTUS Nod and Whaddyaknow the Local Angle Is a Gaffe

"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.

How Do the Tables Turn So Quickly and Why?

Go back a few years. Let's say, I don't know, four of them.

We were looking on the second first 100 days of the George W. Bush's presidency. Republicans had been comfortably ensconced in Congress for a decade. The president had returned to the White House after defeating the best his opposition had to offer: John "Muscles" Kerry.

There were books — entire volumes — written about whether or not the Republican Party was vulnerable. It seemed (at the time, of course) the public affront to the war in Iraq was at its worst, and not enough to eject the President from office. And incumbents are hard to beat.

Well, it happened. The tables turned. And swiftly.

The House and Senate were handily taken by Democrats in 2006. The country, it seemed in two short years, had been thrust in a direction toward the nearest pooper, according to the voting populous.

While the GOP sweeps of 1994 had a mastermind — Newt Gingrich — who set a firm course and plan for action, the 2006 Democratic sweeps lacked the figure but kept a message: Bush is bad and anyone who agrees with him is bad as well.

Fast forward to 2008. The GOP loses again. Once-too-moderate John McCain isn't moderate enough these days to win an election, and according to opponents, would be Bush's third term, or what we in the political business call, the SuperMegaHugeandViolentandMalevolentDeathBlow. Squish.

He also happened to be running against what appears to be the most iconic president since FDR or Lincoln.

Democrats have their leader: Barack Obama. Democrats have their message: "Whatever that guy says," as an addendum to the aforementioned "Bush is bad and anyone who agrees with him is bad as well." Don't kid yourself, either. That is still a very clear and public message.

Here's a question to which I have no real answers: Why?

You can point to Bush, and that's probably the best answer. I can't think of a figure more demonized. Even Clinton — who was impeached, by the way — was regarded favorably upon his exit from the Oval Office. I wasn't around, but I'm sure the Nixon Family is hearing these familiar cries hearkening back to the good ole days when Uncle Dick was in the limelight.

Three quick points:

How long is Anti-Bushism going to last? — People are going to gripe and moan and complain about the mess the Bush Administration put the country in. But when will that not be enough. My guess? As long as Obama, who could kill stray cats in plain public view and receive a medal of honor from the public, is in office is my guess. Congress, on the other hand, will be much more subject to scrutiny. And the infighting that will occur as a result of a broad majority won't help. Think Bull-Moose.

Is the GOP doomed? — Were Democrats from until before 2006? No way. They'll be back. But the goal will have to be gaining party members, added, of course, with a heapin' helpin' of patience.

How? — If I knew that, I'd be a rich man. But I'll venture to say it isn't glorifying the good ole days or saying we need to put the good ole boys back in office. Democrats are remarkably popular. There will have to be a new direction forged. Not to worry anyone on the far right, but Republicans are going to have to cozy up to the word 'Progressive' that they once lamented.

That's really the whole point. The moniker 'progressive' was attached by liberals when the word 'liberal' was a dirty word, especially during the 2000 election. In 2009, the word 'conservative' is just as dirty: It is synonymous by many as narrow-minded and backward thinking and immoral.

House Rules Committee (Verbally) Bludgeons AG McDaniel in the Head Repeatedly

The Gauntlet: She has been thrown.

News of Attorney General Dustin "The Dog Whisperer" McDaniel and his ethics reform bills spread like wildfire throughout the legislative halls. McDaniel's announcement of the twin bills, one to offer a "cooling off" period of a year to former legislators before they can get back into the legislators via lobbyists and another that makes legislators pay for food that they eat, came around the noon hour.

Shortly thereafter, a verbal fracas erupted, sending all those involved to the capitol nurses' offices for hot towel treatments, Flintstone vitamins, and even a thermometer for one of the legislators involved.

Rumor has it that as soon as the news broke from the AG's office, the House Rules committee, who is expected to deal with the ethics package once it takes the cakewalk through the Senate, kicked the doors to the office in, and in a very choreographed, and very deliberate way, began to verbally beat McDaniel until he could hardly put out a press release.

The committee, apparently after taking a short break following their choreographed number which provided "super intimidation," according to committee member Steve "The Bod" Harrellson, verbally ganged up on McDaniel to let him and his buddies know that nobody messes with legislators and their lunches or their potential lobbying careers.

(While chewing gum loudly) "You know, it's just stupid, ya know?" said an obviously frustrated Gregg "Don't Fear the" Reep. "I mean, I'm term limited, dog. I need a job after I get done with this. And I gotta eat. AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT?!" Reep then used a capitol coat rack as a javelin and threw it through McDaniel's pick-up truck windshield, before starting a slow clap with the rest of the committee members.

Rep. Barry Hyde, D-Dogtown, said he'd had enough, but couldn't remember why.

Rick Saunders kept the perimeter secure during the entirety of the verbal fisticuffs, while holding a 40 pound boom box over his head, blaring Guns N Roses' Welcome to the Jungle.

"No more Miss Nice Gal," declared Kathy Webb. She then began to sternly dictate a House Concurrent Resolution entitled "Dustin McDaniel is a Big Stupid Dummy Who is Bad at His Job and Smells like a Foot," and filed it shortly after.

The bill is expected to sail through committees and chambers and is to be signed by Gov. Mike Beebe in a press conference as early as next Tuesday.

The sole Republican on the committee, Rick Green, R-Van Buren, was the only person who was uninvolved in the communal verbal thrashing. For partisan purposes, Green was asked by the committee to not get involved, but was allowed to quote "stand off to the side, and tremble with a real mean look in his eye, like he was the really crazy one of the group, because every group has THAT guy."

(While simultaneously flexing his calf muscles and dipping an entire can of Skoal)"AM I RIGHT?! AM I RIGHT?! GREEN IS CRAZY! AM I RIGHT?!" confirmed Gregg Reep again, starting yet another slow clap, then tying a black skull-and-cross bones bandanna around his head.

No comment from McDaniel, but he is said to be holding up well at the duplex of Sen. Steve Faris' in Malvern. Faris is carrying one of the bills in the Senate, and has assured McDaniel's safety from more verbal taunts.

Sen. Gilbert Baker, R-Conway, who is also carrying one of the ethics bills, offered to take McDaniel in, but his neighbor, Conway native Robbie Wills, said "Nah dog. Not in my house. Not in my house," and allegedly and verbally tossed a boutonniere-shaped brick through Baker's front bay window.

More on this story as it doesn't develop.

-----------------------

So apparently, McDaniel is trying to get these ethical matters put to rest through legislative discourse. Conflict of interest is a big deal, after all, and even if there is none with these legislators or commission members-turned-lobbyists, or their meals on wheels, hadn't we at least discuss it?

Like in a committee? I'm not saying I'm for or against the bill, as it hasn't been fully considered yet. How can these leaders who say — before a bill has even been filed, mind you —that it's all going to be D.O.A.?

Just my two cents, but in order to be transparent, the unsettling feelings that surround these instances at least deserve...I don't know.... respectful consideration?

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.

Oh Yeah, a Sternly Worded Letter Should Do the Trick

I've discovered that an axiom of the legislative session is that business gets filed and dealt with on a daily basis that is most accurately described as futile, pointless, and a misappropriation of valuable time that could be spent elsewhere.

I mean, I get it. Legislators have an agenda suggested by the Governor or by hot-button issues, and sometimes they don't get caught up in the discussion and don't get any facetime. Facetime for a politician is a substance akin water, blood, and oxygen combined. So in order to grab a headline or get their name heard by their peers, and more importantly their constituents, they file concurrent resolutions.

The people need to know their elected officials are at least trying to bring home that bacon.

These resolutions are called to honor people that have made an impact in the state, like honoring the only Cy Young winner to come out of Arkansas, Cliff Lee. That's all fine and well but let's call a spade a spade. This is nothing more than a collective statement made by the legislative body at large. The bill demanding a Thomas Paine Day? Concurrent Resolution. The bill to honor Ronald Reagan? You guessed it. The bill to let people carry weaponry into church legally? Wrong! That's just a regular old bill, no matter how silly it sounds.

I'm not saying they're unimportant, because I think all of that business has its place, but this stuff is just unimportant, don't you think? Wait...did I just contradict myself in the same sentence?

Not necessarily; couldn't a majority signed memo do the same trick of honoring people? Why do we waste such valuable legislative time debating in committee, then chamber, then another committee, then another chamber to sign off on something that has little more effect than a clearing of the throat.

This lesson became even more clear while I was going over the latest concurrent resolution, HCR 1011.

This is a statement of defiance against the Federal government and its white-knuckle grip over the states. “I have … the impression that individuals in Washington feel the state is an agent to them, when in fact the federal government is an agent to Arkansas,” cosponsor Rep. John Woods, R-Springdale, said.

The other cosponsors of the bill, Republicans Reps Karen Debra Hobb of Rogers and Roy Ragland of Marshall say they feel the same way; like the state is the lapdog of the Federal government, having no sovereignty of its own, and on the beckon call of the Washingtonites.

Reading this bill sent me on a bit of a rolercoaster of feelings and thoughts regarding the matter. A quick review of the path:

First Reaction

Really? There's nothing else you could be doing with your time? There's, what, two weeks left to file bills in this legislative session and this is how you're spending those valuable hours? By pushing statement bills? Way to really take up for your constituents.

The agenda mainly consisted of animal cruelty, the cigarette tax, the lottery and the grocery tax; There's nothing else you could be doing in the meantime? There isn't one bill for your district that you could propose to aid them directly? Nothing?

Maybe this is speaking against the futility of resolutions in the first place. And I hate to sound like I'm bashing the legislative process, and I certainly think the legislative body should be able to speak collectively on important issues. Sending the Federal government a Post-It reminding them of the tenth amendment is not one of these issues that needs to be taking up the valuable time of the legislators.

I'm sure the Feds understand the checks and balances against their indomitable take over. It's the Tenth Amendment, for Pete's sake. Where's Mark Martin when you need him to bellow out "IT'S THE LAW!" with that trademark primal shout of his?

Second Reaction

But wait a minute; these guys have a point, and it seems to be a pretty popular one at that.

Fellow blogger and local heartthrob Jason Tolbert went into greater detail about the resolution and linked to other sources who are all jacked up about the issue. Tolbert says that according to Woods, the last straw to give the go ahead to file the resolution was this whole nationalizing of the banks, an idea that offends ardent conservatives and even gives many moderates the willies. Many economists — including Mr. Free Market Alan Greenspan — are saying that it's the only solution to get us out of this economic pickle.

And I admit, reading this resolution, I find myself getting equally enthralled with the language of the bill. It's really got everything a freedom-loving individual loves:

"...Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory process of the states..."

"Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment..."

and last but certainly not least, "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more..."

The resolution puts the ever-spreading government in its rightful place to stick up for themselves.

The Feds have been on a spreading spree like it's Manifest Destiny since the Bush Era, and Obama hasn't shown any sign of pushing the breaks anytime soon.

I spoke to Marion Berry, a Blue Dog conservative Democrat, about the amount of emergency spending and spreading the government was undertaking by adopting this stimulus bill. Berry admitted that the new administration was putting into place some actions that offended some of his more conservative sensibilities, but "if there's ever been a time to do such a thing, now is the time."

That may be, but the time ought not be to tread on the states like a Federal Big Brother. Obama recently met with several mayors to make sure everyone was on the same page with regard to a grassroots approach to applying the stimulus dollars. There's even an office set up to monitor the transparency of the spending of the moolah.

Vero quis custodiet ipsos custodies? No?

So while the new boss is admitting and attempting to regulate the regulation, the Tenth Amendment was set in place to regulate the regulators, to watch the watchmen. Hear, hear to these band of legislators sticking up for Arkansans with the resolution.

Third (Final) Response

Really? There's nothing else you could be doing with your time? There's, what, two weeks left to file bills in this legislative session and this is how you're spending those valuable hours? By pushing statement bills?

Doesn't that look a lot like my initial response? Me too. That's because it was.

My main problem is the ineffectiveness of it all. "Hey! We're mad! What are we gonna do about it? Write a sternly-worded letter. That'll show em!"

Since when have we been pro-state? It was the late 1800s , best I can recollect. That whole Civil War thing? A large facet was over the rights of state having precedent over the rights of the federal government. It was the one of the first of many victories for the Feds.

So these legislators are doing a lot of saber rattling over the rapid spread of the government and are taking steps to make sure that the Feds know they're none too keen on the idea.

But who cares? What does it amount to other than blowing around hot, albeit principled, air. It just seems like a lot of frivolity.

But there's a lot to be said for the frivolous.

Romney on MLK Day: Epic Fail

Usually, I try to craft my writing so that the main point is seen at the conclusion of the piece following logical progression and discourse, but a video like this is enough to warrant a front-loading of the overarching point:

The likelihood of the Old Republican Guard ushering in a supposed "New Age" for the GOP is slim to none, and leaning heavily toward the latter.

Here we have Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, is seen here chumming with a bunch of African-American people celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Now, there is nothing wrong with celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, even if you're white. But I think it should reserved more solemnly than Romney delivers here.

Who let the dogs out? What's happenin'? Bling? Bling?

I'm sorry, Romnians, but this is political bull. There has been a strong call from the top down to integrate more of the minority culture into the GOP, specifically by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, as I said here. People will say that the Republican party doesn't have anything to offer minorities, but I don't think that the party discriminates as a matter of principle or ideal, rather its constituency often discriminates, infamously the ones down here in the good ole South, but definitely elsewhere as well. Ideological stances aside, the GOP is seen as the Old-Fashioned Honky Country Club that stood defiant against the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's.

That's the image, anyway. It's a fine suggestion to make the public step of embracing progress, especially toward minorities. Getting an African-American to be the RNC Chairman? Good. Getting the Whitest White Guy you can to start throwing around kitschy phrases that are supposed to sound like you're "down with it?" Bad.

A nice start would be to stop treating those in the minority like a prize to be won in a sweepstakes, and start treating them like people. A minority is not a person; It's a demographic.

Frankly, I don't see this fraternity of old white men being able to usher in this new era of which McConnell so earnestly waxed regarding a strategic and ideological shift in the GOP. It's going to take some new blood, fresh faces, fresher ideas, and time.

Time to forget the old way. Time to embrace — or come up with — a new way. Mitt Romney is the old way. Who the new way is represented by is yet to be seen, but if the Republican party hopes to remain relevant, it had better come sooner than later.

UPDATE: RNC Chairman Steele is all about how Republicans look in "hip-hop settings." It's a good start— he'll be able to use this Romney video as a "What Not To Do" example.

UPDATE II: The Daily Show's Samantha Bee chimes in.