Sen. Dorgan Launches New Media Campaign 15 Months Before State Has Internet Capability

BISMARCK, N.D. -- In a public relations snafu, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., and his staff had created, updated and publicised a facebook and twitter account, as well as a regularly updated blog, 15 months prior to the expected arrival of the internet to North Dakota.

The internet has been slated to be available to North Dakotans in December of 2010 or later. Dorgan's office says it "just plain forgot" the state was lacking the social utility, and "wanted to keep up with everyone else."

"Dag nab it, I don't understand these things to begin with," said Dorgan from Washington. "Everyone says you gotta do these things, so I did it. I just figured out how to send a fax, now I gotta type on my phone? Christ."

The senator's staff - none of whom are from North Dakota - say they never knew in the first place forgot as well.

"I mean, we've never had to go there. You pretty much have to drive, there aren't really airports, just big fields with way too many rocks," said 23-year-old senior press manager Ginger Franklin, who graduated from Florida State University in May.

Backlash is expected to be fierce by the time news of the mishap gets back to North Dakota, which is expected to be somewhere near November of 2010, as it will travel almost entirely by word-of-mouth and morse code.

Arkansas Relevance! Huzzah!

Arkansas is like the tiny rural town of America. It's small, relatively isolated, and pretty much keeps to itself, save for a President and Presidential candidate here, a sex scandal that reinforces negative stereotypes there, and the world just keeps spinning.

It gets six votes in the Electoral College, and only four congressmen in the House. As far as the movers and shakers of the world go, very few have ever called Arkansas home. It's not a bad thing, or a good thing. It's just a fact.

But the political anomaly that is the Arkansas Democrat has thrust Arkansas into a new state of prominence, importance, and relevance.

Arkansas is nominally Democratic in the way that a four-hoofed mammal with antlers is a duck. You can call it a duck all you want, but the it walks, talks and acts very much like a deer. The Arkansas Democrat, with a few notable exceptions, walks, talks, and acts more like a Republican than many Republicans do. In fact, I'd wager that a vast majority of these Arkie Donkeys, placed anywhere that's more urban and more northern that Arkansas — which by sheer demography and geography, is a lot of places — and they'd be wearing their straw hats and talking about how awesome Newt Gingrich is.

This makes them, on the political spectrum, moderate Democrats. All of the state's Congressional Delegation qualify under this moniker, save for, of course, Rep. John "I'm So Ronery" Boozman, the state's only Republican.

As I've said before, Arkansas' moderate Democrats have been a showcase in the tension between moderates that some Arkansans can actually get behind and the far-Left wings of the Democratic Party, who have achieved sweeping majorities over the last three years and are running the show. Like I said, you've got a small minority in one group, and a bigger majority comprising of two groups who are splitting apart at the seams.

What does this mean for Arkansas? Swing votes...and attention.

Arkansas' delegates now have to think about what they're going to wear before they walk out that door. Comb that hair, Ross! Shine them boots, Berry. Theme-ties again, Snyder? Smile big, Blanche!...not that big. Marky Mark, bring wet naps. Since President Obama took office in January, You've seen Arkansas' delegates mentioned on matters such as climate change, health care, and you're going to see them on issues such as immigration, gay issues, and whatever else comes up.

They represent the final totals on the Majority Whip's role call. Not only that, but each delegate has been going at it for awhile, each one having been re-elected several times back to their current position. That means seniority and authority, as shown in Mike Ross' case of being able to slam the breaks on health care reform, putting it back to September, and Sen. Lincoln's role in the Senate Finance Committee, which is seeing health care, and will see climate change and a number of other important issues.

And it will continue to be this way, as more and more issues pile up that pit the conservative constituency of Arkansas against the more liberal tendencies of the Democratic Leadership. Hey, they're in charge. That's their prerogative.

But there might be consequences in, say, 2010. Currently, all of the delegates should be pretty comfortable. They're all household names and, like I said earlier, have been re-elected numerous times. But with polling places (of the Democratic persuasion no less) saying that Arkansas is the most likely state to see a large shift from Democratic to Republican in 2010, it's easy to see why these guys might be shedding the spotlight and awkwardly pulling at their collars.

The best example of this is (sigh) Sen. Lincoln. I feel like I'm joining in on beating a dead horse, but the fact of the matter is she's a big target that a lot of people are seeing as vulnerable. Every step she takes that sides more with the President — who is very unpopular in Arkansas — that will be translated and transmitted as a step away from Arkansas' values, even if, in truth, those two steps might be compatible. That's what she'll argue anyway, but my and most everyone else's guess is that those arguments, no matter how true, will fall on deaf, if not actively non-acquiescent, ears.

Anyway, for the average Arkansan, all this means is that you'll be able to go to a national news source to hear about your representation at home. And maybe be able to recognize the person who's actually doing that representing.

What In God's Name Is This 'Tim Griffin' Critter Up To?

It broke over my buddy David Sanders' tweets last week. He said the former-Senate-maybe, and former U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin had just got back from D.C. and was doing some thinking about running against that Mike "Shelmet" Ross, who currently happens to be probably one of the more powerful Congressmen in House right now.

The ever-sneaky Jason Tolbert picked up on an exchange between Jake Trapper of ABC, in which it seems Trapper had been picking up what Griffin had been laying down.

Griffin, raised in Magnolia but currently wheeling and dealing in Little Rock, says he's hearing from a lot of unhappy people in the fourth district. Being the benevolent and heroic leader of hope, charity and mercy he is, Griffin seems to be pondering a Crusade to alleviate the sorrows and famine of the 4th district against Mike Longshanks Ross.

Riiight.

Not saying anything about Ross or Griffin or anything like that, but let's take a gander at some facts and some history, shall we?

Mike Ross' Stick is Huge: President Obama, who every Arkansas delegate with whom I have spoken says is more liberal than themselves, is mighty popular and is aiming for some of that reform. Mike "Monkeywrench" Ross, leading the Blue Dog Democrats in the House on Health Care, said "Halt" and it was so.

The national media chalked it up to Harry Potterisms, like The Congressman Who Lived after standing up to Obama, not that Obama is anything like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, but you know what I mean. Obama's powerful.

Needless to say, in a state that overwhelming shot Obama down at the polls, any standing up to Obama, over matters large and small, is duly noted by the voters. This isn't even the first time Ross has gone on record against the progressive agenda in the Legislative Branch. Ross made a lot of now forgotten noise over cap-and-trade legislation that went through his committee earlier in the session, voting squarely no, and telling me personally, that he thought the President, in this case, was and is wrong.

Not to mention that all of Arkansas' congressional delegates are comfortable and cozily ensconced in their respective district. Ross is sitting pretty, and I think a lot of people are aware of that.

Tim Griffin? Who?: Tim Griffin as a candidate is puzzling to me. He obviously is well-connected to a bevy of deep-pocketed friends in D.C. and elsewhere, which is absolutely clutch in a national election. But outside of that, as well as some conservative credentials that are also key in Arkansas, I'm not sure that Tim Griffin couldn't kick me in the face while holding hands with my mother without me going, "Who was that guy?"

In an election, you need a name, too. I will give him this, outside of being a U.S. Attorney, he has done pretty well getting his name out there, primarily by doing some saber-rattling about Blanche Lincoln. In political circles, people know Tim Griffin. But the walls can be pretty thick and insulated in those political circles. I'm not sure that the general public is too aware of his presence.

But what am I saying? He's been hearing from the people of the fourth.

Tim Griffin? No, really, who is he? What's he doing here?: Getting back to not so much about who Griffin is, but what exactly he's doing. As far as I know, Tim Griffin has no elected experience. He's a former opposition researcher, political strategist, and U.S. Attorney. I don't think any of those positions have been put to votes.

But like I said earlier, his noteworthy past thus far has been talking down Blanche Lincoln since December. He was the first and definitely the most vocal potential opponent against the Democratic Senator, whose tepid polling numbers are spelling a potentially tough re-election.

But as the months wore on, people like Kim Hendren jumping in the race before self-detonating, and a litany of others throwing their hat into the ring, with nary a peep from Griffin.

Many suspect that he had no real intention of running against Lincoln. Rather, he just wanted to keep her in check, make sure she voted conservatively on issues like card check, and basically keep her on the defensive by moving her re-election campaign up about six or eight months.

I'm not saying it's the case now, I'm just saying it might be, that Griffin & Co. is doing the same with Ross: They recognize a long-time and loyal Democrat, Ross, with a propensity to vote conservatively, and are aiming a making sure he stays that way, nervous of a Republican backlash in conservative Arkansas.

Griffin, who certainly has a political background, may lack the political C.V. to stand up against a strong candidate like Ross. But maybe that's not what he wants to do in the first place.

At the very least, he'll need a much more dominate follicle arrangement to compete with Ross.

And In Case I Don't See You, Little Rock

Break-Up Sweatpants

Michael & Michael Have Issues	Wed 10:30pm / 9:30c
www.comedycentral.com
Joke of the Day Stand-Up Comedy Free Online Games

Good afternoon, good evening and good night. I know you'll be heartbroken, but with the advances in technology, really, what's the difference? Just get some great sweatpants, cry it out over the weekend, and by Monday you'll be good as new. It's been real.

Democratic Infighting: Political Problem or Feature of Majority?

There was an interesting article in The Hill today, which reiterated something I've been noticing for some time already: The schism between moderate Democrats and those on the far Left, especially over the most recent issue of health care reform.

But is the recent spat within the wings of the Democratic Party a question of political ideals or of their super-majority status? I'm thinking the latter.

Looking at the political spectrum, you have the Right, the Left, and Moderates. Duh. Republicans own the Right, Democrats the Left, and the victor of each election is figuring out how lasso moderate voters toward your respective cause. A good way to do this is nominate moderate candidates.

Last week, Blake "Look at these shoes. These are some awesome shoes. You don't like these shoes? Consider yourself judged; These shoes don't like you or your shoes, because these shoes are awesome" Rutherford had a good back and forth with Cory Allen Cox of the Arkansas Project. I tend to agree more with Rutherford's assessment of the woes of the Arkansas Republican party in that rather than a lack of communication through grassroots, it's a problem of roster.

In that argument, Rutherford aptly described that Democrats, at least at the state level, have done a better job at fielding moderate, winning candidates to fill positions at the state level, a la the blueprint Republican Newt Gingrich and his Congressional take over in 1994. I would contend that since the Republicans have controlled the House, Senate, White House and very nearly the Supreme Court, moderation on the part of Democrats aided their ascent.

That and a historically unpopular President. That'll do ya.

There's a lot of noise, mainly from those that have never voted Democratically in their life, that this is a sign that President Obama and his policies aren't flying in Middle America, and that he and his policies should just shut up and quit being so stupid and shut up. Moderate Democrats like Mike Ross are throwing the broom into the spokes of Obama's health care plan.

But I think its less a matter of policy and more a matter of the diversity of that, the majority party. Not diversity in that they've got numerous demographics in their fold, either. They've just got the base plus moderates. When Republicans win again, they'll be the diverse ones.

I dunno. Just a thought. Wakka wakka.

Trying to Contemplate the Birther Issue Without Laughing

Conspiracy Theorists, I guess, make the world go 'round.

I remember them growing up. I had an uncle who swore the moon landing never happened. He also thought that actors and thespians were doing nothing but "glorified lying." The kid next door had a dad who thought that "we aren't getting the whole story" about JFK, Area 51, or where magnets come from.

But they were always marked with other overt eccentricities that pretty much fit the statements they had made. Now comes this laughable bit of forehead-slappery called "The Birther Issue," proponents of which contend that our President Barack Obama was not born in America and therefore is an invalid candidate to be President.

Smiling politely as people ramble incoherently about this ridiculous accusation is now not enough it seems. Lou Dobbs is giving it some legs, and today on Politico they discuss the headaches this conspiracy theory is giving elected officials of the GOP who want to maintain the semblance of rationality and credibility among everyone else but would like to avoid marginalizing these very vocal insane people voters.

If you can't feel the restraint in my writing, please understand it now.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the President is not an American citizen and can't be president. The Hawaiian government has gone on the record — unequivocally, irrefutably, and unambiguously on the record — to say that he was born in Hawaii, which I'm pretty sure is an American state. But they don't look American! bellows a Birther from his trailer bathroom, door conveniently left open for just such an occasion. Upon further research, Hawaii became the 50th state on August 21, 1959. It's a state in America, like Arkansas, Texas, Delaware, Vermont, California...even Idaho! Being born there makes someone a citizen, and therefore able to be President. If there's more digging that needs to be done, then by all means, dig away with all of the powers granted by the FOIA, but I don't guess that the flights from Delaware to Hawaii are going to be in any higher demand.

Fie!, cries another Birther after swallowing his Copenhagen in shock and dismay that I would suggest that the documents in Hawaii are in fact the real documents, not lookalikes swapped out by them danged ole Democrats. He done switched em up! he proclaims, grinning like Encyclopedia Brown after cracking a case.

Yes, those Democrats and their crafty ways. Having a man born in Kenya, trained in the dark arts of community development, being unleashed in to Ivy League law schools and on to Chicago, the Senate, and the Presidency, all over the course of 40 years. It's almost too easy.

Uh. Sure. Maybe. That's a blanket statement that can be applied to a whole lot of things, but until evidence is produced it's just noise, not to mention so crazy that it doesn't warrant rebuttal. My problem with such statements, other than the fact that they're hopeless thrashings of people who really can't stand that a guy with a middle name like 'Hussein' is president, is this: If there were any indication that there might be a speck of truth, a hint of validity, an iota of credibility to this potentially-derailing claim, don't you think that a political party with the vested interest in that derailment — the GOP — would have done something to do just that, and derail this charismatic, confident, and composed man who made a bee line to the Oval Office?

If there were any truth to the matter, people who are paid to find the deepest dirt in the world for big, big bucks would have been happy to deliver these goods and then never have to work a day in their life again. It'd be that important.

Sadly, such reason will never reach the brains of people who really think that Barack Obama shouldn't be President right now. He should. He was vetted. He was elected. He's in. But the last ditch effort of sore losers who have uncomfortable undertones that reek of good-ole-fashioned racism is really getting, quite frankly, embarrassing. As more and more people line up into this fold, it's going to not only damage the already-punch drunk GOP, but I fear politics in general. I don't think the public forum can sustain such an aberration and dearth of common sense.

And there's the objectivity of it all. I'm not decrying Republicans or hoisting Democrats — These people are just bad for business all around. Unless you can show me a detailed research proposal that can state otherwise, please drop this.

Michael Jackson's death may be ruled a manslaughter or maybe even a homicide. Have fun with that one.

From the Dept. of Bad Angles: The Arkansas Business Cover

Lincoln's a Cool Customer on Health Care

Sen. Blanche Lincoln and I have done our fair share of conversating over the past few months. From card check to energy reform and in between, the Senator has always been good to call me back for an interview, and we've had many.

The headliner as of late, as you already well know, is what are we going to do about health care. Lincoln sits on the ever-powerful Senate finance committee that will be responsible for footing the bill, a bill that many are estimating is mighty steep, at over $1 trillion.

That's no chump change for anyone.

Lincoln has stated that she has no definitive stance on the issue, only the vague, tepid response that she is for "whatever it is that works," fulfilling all of the goals for all of the problems that there are or may be in the health care arena. That's a rather tall order.

So you can understand how ambitious it must be for her to say that she expects a health care bill next week, as everyone returns from the July 4th recess. To go from having no preference whatsoever, as she stated to me several times is her position, on a specific position — be it a public option, co-op, or any other option — to having some meat on the table will surely be something.

Actually, what it shows is that beneath the tame surface, there is a frenzy of activity in the legislative waters on health care. But with all of her weight being shifted equally, we have no idea how she'll land.

My guess — again, guess, mind you — is that we'll be presented with something remarkably similar if not identical to the public option proposed by President Obama, only reworded to fix the well-publicized collective aversion to the socialist-sounding moniker of "public option." I think Obama, a former Senator, will be able to make sure his goal is taken care of with a small, 100-person room full of his former colleagues, which as of yesterday, also happens to be a supermajority.

Cap-and-trade, a divisive bill that split the Democratic party down a rural fence, passed in the House, in no small part due to Obama's backing. It will die in the Senate, but the message is still clear.

Like Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe during the past legislative session, I think President Obama could be riding his popularity to the bank, nearly sweeping all of his legislative agenda points, any one of which would have been remarkable, but all of them? That's big time.

That's Senator Franken To You

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Al Franken, the former SNL Funnyman, has won the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, with his decidedly unfunny opponent, Norm Coleman conceding defeat.

Way to go guys. Only took you eight months. Healthy children have been conceived and born in that time, albeit prematurely.

For Republicans, this is yet another in a long line of kicks to gaping hole that used to be their gut. Not only does their Doomsday Theory of 60 seats in the Senate being controlled by Democrats inch closer to reality, but simply speaking, they threw the pocketbook at this problem, spending over a million bones in the last three months.

I've only met handful of people from Minnesota, and none of them are worth a million dollars.

That's not to say that Democrats didn't put a lot into soon-to-be Senator Franken's campaign either. Franken is going to have an even greater impetus to achieve in his inaugural term. He will be heavily scrutinized by his opponents, but also the independents in the Land of 10,000 Metaphorical Lakes.

I'm very interested to see how Franken fares, regardless of his political leanings. Democrats can recognize good, hard work from Republicans and vice versa. Independents don't care about that stuff anyway. Franken should have no problem being a good speaker, but let's see if he is persuasive. Or at least worth the trouble of letting Minnesota go eight months without being represented by two Senators.

Even Arkansas has that.

Speaking of the Natural State, the local angle could be that now Sens. Lincoln and Pryor, moderate, rural Democrats, will have more pressure on them than they had when Democrats lacked the filibuster-ending 60 votes. Every Democratic vote will now be crucial. Expect those who are trying to temper the more liberal-inclinations of the party for the sake of their political lives — like Lincoln, a Democrat up for re-election in 2010 in conservative Arkansas — to feel more heat.

Today, Lincoln and Pryor both professed their reservations for the House-approved Cap-and-Trade bill. While it will be much more difficult to achieve in the Senate, you can tell by the ruckus in the House that it's an important Democratic issue. And if President Obama is going to phone lil ole Rep. Mike Ross, D-Pig's Knuckle, and try to get him to vote for such legislation, one has to believe that for Obama-issues, Pryor and Lincoln will get Obama-calls too.

I'm looking forward to hearing Franken's first floor speech. And I'll be watching for Pryor and Lincoln's reactions.

Hat and Swap — Cap and Trade

Apparently these legislative types in Washington didn't get the memo that I was leaving work early to book it to St. Louis on Friday afternoon. They had the audacity to make landmark decisions while I was away from my post. For shame!

As you likely heard, the U.S. House passed the U.S. Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as a variant of cap-and-trade, by a skimpy margin, 219-212. With a name like 'Clean Energy and Security' who could vote against this bill? Turns out a lot of people, and most of the Arkansas' congressional delegation.

Republicans dubbed this a "cap-and-tax" bill, and being that it was written by the likes of representatives from California (gasp!) and Massachusetts (fie!), were nearly unanimous in their opposition to the bill. The story was the schism between Democrats, rural and otherwise.

Rural folk are against cap-and-trade. The business of agriculture runs on gasoline fumes. The expenses, while a mild irritant for John and Jane Q. Automobile Driver, would be devastating for the farming industry, and could have a negative ripple effect (such as a rise in the imports of food and cloth), say opponents.

Subsequently, rural Democrats balked, leading to the squeaker vote. I spoke with several delegates who had "great concerns" over how this would effect the biggest business in Arkansas, which is of course, agriculture. There were references from all to "importing food and cloth like we import oil," all of which were negative references.

We can all see how the votes went down for our delegates, plain as day now. 75 percent were against it, with only one opting for it.

While the state's lone Republican, John Boozman, was surely against it, national media attention was given to the remaining delegates of our very Natural State. Mike Ross made some noise voting against the bill in committee. Marion Berry and Vic Snyder were the question marks.

Most speculated that Berry would follow Ross' example. In my discussions with Ross, he said that he plainly believed it to be a bad bill for Arkansas, so much so that when President Obama personally called him to support the bill, he say "Thanks, but no." Berry's district is just as if not more rural and agriculturally-based as Ross'.

If Berry and Snyder were the question marks, with the more 'urban' (as urban as an Arkansan can be) Snyder would have to have been considered the bigger wild card of the two. Snyder told me that he hadn't made a decision but that he indeed had concerns about the bill.

Those concerns were obviously alleviated. The decision itself is not necessarily remarkable. The congressman said that he was weighing the decision, understanding the potential difficulties for his agricultural constituency. One side obviously won out over the other.

The dissent on the other hand was slightly more remarkable. Sens. Pryor and Lincoln have not spoken favorably about the bill. I'm not sure exactly what their latest words on the matter have been on the matter, but cap-and-trade is expected to falter in the Senate, where urbanosity and rurality (words?) is spread more thinly between two Senators per each state.

Either way, a majority of Arkansas' congressional delegation believed that this bill was bad for Arkansas. The state Farm Bureau had come out against it, before and after amendments to accommodate rural economies were included. One delegate (Ross) was the rallying clarion for Blue Dogs against the bill.

What did Snyder see that the others did not?

Who Competes with the Government? And Wins?

"I fought the law and the law won." -Sonny Curtis and the Crickets

I read in the New York Times over the weekend that President Obama is getting a little bit fed up with the rate at which health care legislation is getting taken care of, and even more concerned that some of the things he would prefer to be in the legislation might get left out.

One note toward the beginning stuck out in my mind. The article states that one of the primary notes Obama is concerned with making certain is in the bill is the government-option insurance plan that would compete with private companies.

During an interview several weeks ago with Blanche Lincoln, who has given many lines of press releases on the matter of health care in this session, said she would be in favor of such a government option. Basically, the program would give every one the same benefits as a Federal Employee, which everyone knows are just grand. But it would be an option if they so chose; If they've got a better plan, they'd be more than welcome to choose that.

In a lot of ways, it makes sense. Think of the United States Post Office, slugging it out with the likes of FedEx, UPS, DHS, a friend of mine proffered. There is a service that needs to be rendered, in this care, health insurance. In order to keep the other companies honest and not gouge, the government would directly compete with them in order to insure that the prices were fair and affordable.

It's basic economics. There's a demand. Competition is the backbone of free market functionality. If insurance companies are going to run their affairs like cartels, who minds the government being a thorn in their side, keeping them honest?

Still...

It'd be like playing against the home team. In a stadium they built. In a state they run in a country they regulate. The rules are all theirs, and can change any rule at any time for any advantage, with a simple vote by 600 people who work for that team.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the goal of business competition is to put the other guy out of business, which I hope isn't the goal of the U.S., unless that business is an illegal one.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. We landed on the moon, the Holocaust happened, and Barack Obama is a legal U.S. Citizen and a Christian to boot. But giving the government free reign to compete against another business sounds trickier than the fruits might be worth.

I wrote awhile back about my slight aversion toward the new seat belt restrictions that passed through the Arkansas Legislature this year. My aversion was not that police officers are inherently racist and therefore it should be assumed they are going to pull over every African-American they see on the road. My hesitancy is that there will already be that suspicion, and rather than wind it further down the road, always having it assailed, it might be better to find another avenue.

Health care might be an issue that needs resolving post haste, I don't think there's anyone who believes the contrary, and that everything is a-okay right now. But I'm not sure that the possibility of the government under-cutting one business and then perhaps moving on to another is going to sit well with people.

Since I already spoke to one of them about it, I look forward to hearing about possible pros, cons, and maybe even alternatives from our delegates.

The Reddest Blue-State or the Bluest Red-State?

Ask anyone outside of Arkansas whether the Natural State is red or blue. If someone answers "blue," assume they are a political operative or at least someone in the know on Arkansan politicking.

The vast majority will unblinkingly answer "red," and likely look at you like you're an idiot for asking such a weird question.

Yet Arkansas has a deep-seeded identity confusion, one that is rarely addressed, save for every four years, and even more rarely analyzed. I don't think anyone really quite knows why Democrats rule the state with an iron fist, except in the third district, while (hometown elections aside [kinda]) the state is an automatic lock for six electoral college votes to the Republicans.

I've heard many theories, tradition mostly. The Good Ole Boy network that permeates the political process in Arkansas has its roots in the Democratic Party, perhaps from the days when that party was the one discussed as a regional party anchored in the South. That network, a selective one, helps its own for a couple or four generations and viola! You have a tradition of a Democratic reign, fueled by being the right person in the right place at the right time.

Another theory is that the lack of a large metropolis in Arkansas, which altogether has about 2.85 million, aids state Democrats. Metropolises, often populated with a ethnically diverse demographic and universities that have tended Democratically in recent history. The lack thereof in Arkansas' case keeps Democrats from being held accountable to the far left, whereas they would otherwise be scrutinized by them in states with large metropolises.

Not that Arkansas doesn't have any liberal Democrats. But if you take most of these Democrats out of Arkansas and put them anywhere else, they'd be Republicans. I distinctly remember speaking with a former State Rep. about why he was a Democrat, when I knew that prior to his election, he voted Republican. He responded that if he ever wanted to get anything done while in office, he had better be a Democrat to have a fighting chance.

Talk about a Good Ole Boy network.

So the titular question is the same as asking a Zebra whether he's black with white stripes or vice versa. A better analogy would be a wolf in sheep's clothing, or in this case, a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

I'm not sure what all this means, except that Republicans have an underutilized advantage of having a national party that is more congruent with the state's populace than Democrats. The problem Republicans then becomes solely an issue of leadership and roster.

Term-limits have opened up the incumbency barrier that allows Good Ole Boy networks to thrive and allows parties such as the Democrats in Arkansas to dominate for decades and decades. If the state GOP ever got some more well-known, respected members of local communities to add to their roster, they'd be formidable with the backing of an overtly conservative populace.

Now who those Republicans would be and how the state GOP would lead them is something else completely. I bet it's the reason behind the party's record as the all-time minority since Reconstruction.

What Couldn't Beebe Do?

As much as he'll hate it that I'm regurgitating and relinking another Arkansas author, John Brummett, the consummate political columnist and humanitarian, as well as my best friend in the whole wide world, made an interesting point that seems to have slipped under the radar, but opens the door to something that isn't often discussed here now in the third of his almost-assured eight year reign.

What else is Beebe going to do?

This will be a more discussed query in four years, when the governor will be winding his reign down, tidying up his legacy, and trying to pick who the next governor of Arkansas will be (I hear Beebe thinks the attorney general is just a swell guy).

Beebe, on the cover of a reputable periodical about state and local governments, has been hailed as perhaps one of the state's best governors, even by the person who has been voted as the state's best governor, Dale Bumpers.

Beebe is currently 62 years young. By the time he exits, forced out by term limits, he'll be 67, a still politically viable age, especially if good health prevails, heaven forbid the contrary. But Beebe is who he is because of where he's been: Arkansas. The thought of Beebe flying off to Washington doesn't seem like something we could see our cover boy doing.

Then I read this:

Imagine Beebe’s doing that today, announcing that he would run not for re-election, but for the U. S. Senate, and imagine him doing so because the incumbent of his own party, Blanche Lincoln, looks anemic in the polls.

Lincoln, Dustin McDaniel and Bill Halter would collide — she in frightened flight from a race she’d almost assuredly lose and the two men in frantic pursuit of the vacancy Beebe would be creating.

He's right. He's got more pull than Lincoln. Than Pryor. Than Berry. Than anyone. The fact of the matter is that Gov. Beebe is hands down the most powerful politician in the state, federal, state, and local combined.

That fact in and of itself opens a lot of doors to what Gov. Beebe could do.

Now there's nothing to say this is what he'll do. He could very well do what many believe he will do, ride off into the sunset, leaving an unblemished legacy as the best ole guvner this state has ever done seen. But, while that might be the only option for not just some, but many who are pushed out by term-limits, this is not the case for Beebe. He is unfettered.

And he's done it before. After being pushed out of the legislature in which he resided for about a billion years or so due to then-new-fangled term limits, Beebe set up shop as attorney general, waiting out Huckabee for the governorship.

Maybe there's another office that Beebe could inhabit. Could is the wrong word. Would is a better word.

It's there if Beebe wants it. And again, the fact that he could is a lot more than most people who could can say.

Hankins v. Rutherford: Too Civil/Lacking of Bloodshed To Be Entertaining

The minor tremors about the Arkansas blogotwitterspheres today were regarding a column published by Arkansas Business publisher Jeff Hankins on the omnipresence of new media and the subsequent rebuttal by blogger Blake Rutherford of Blake's Sentient Bull Dozer.

Hankins says that media is now everywhere thanks to these meddling kids and their blogs and their twitters and their pop music. Rutherford retorts, "Yeah, so?"

In short, they seem to agree with one another about the viability and actuality of new media being on the prowl, but disagree on whether or not this is necessarily a causal "pitfall." Rutherchevy says that people have been spreading rumors and traditional news outlets have been getting it wrong for quite sometime, and to blame new media for those conventions is downright erroneous.

He also points out that it's a vast generalization to say that bloggers wouldn't correct themselves if they admittedly got a scoop wrong, which is true. But come to think of it, I don't see a lot of corrections made, unless it's regarding a source, quoted statement, or something else supplementary, rarely affecting the entire body of the post. But maybe the blogs I frequent are rarely wrong (ARKANSAS BLOGOSPHERE ELITISM! FIST PUMP!).

There's more agreeing going on here than not to really say this is a debate. As I say this, I'm hoping that a shirtless Hankins is storming down to the Bowen Law School, kicking open the door to Rutherford's law class to open a can in front of his students, ya know, to spice this narrative up a bit, but in case that doesn't pan out, it seems that both made good points about the whole state of affairs, without stomping each others' toes. Cue to the cheesy Full House electric guitar, denoting a valuable lesson to be learned.

Hankins is right: The media in its new form is now everywhere, unfettered by the old media's rules and governance. Rutherford is right: That doesn't mean that old media is infallible, not that Hankins was claiming it to be.

I actually spoke on an SPJ panel about the rift or symbiosis of old and new media. I really believe that the cream will rise to the top, meaning credible bloggers are more likely to be carried on and be successful than those that are known to spew bias and misinformation to prove its own point or attain a cheap, non-informative goal.

I think that credible blogs do indeed hold themselves to standards. We all know the credible blogs around town. While I certainly see bias in the analysis, very rarely are they flat out wrong about the events. In fact, I don't recall any. In double fact, I recall one such blog — Max Brantley's not-very-originally titled "Arkansas Blog" — getting information regarding the no-smiling law on our driver's licenses that turned out to be bogus and through investigation — huh? fact checking? on a blog?! — and then corrected it, shedding light on the subject through good ole fashioned journalistic checking of sources.

But "citizen journalism" is here to stay, anyway. It ought to. At it's very core, all journalism, conventional and otherwise, ought to at the very least be geared toward the citizenry.

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.

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.

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.

Because Nothing Says 'Take Me Seriously' Like Knickerbockers

Well, this pretty much sums up my thoughts about the so-called tea parties.

It's not that it's bad to protest. It's a necessary part of politicking. The people must be heard above the noise of the political engine churning on Capitol Hill.

It's not that this isn't even a worthy cause. The Federal Government is expanding mighty quickly, and just maybe these people have a point.

While this is a way to get one's voice heard, an important first step, it fails at the more important second step: Getting a response other than a furrowed brow and confused glance from legislators, conservative and liberal alike.

Where were these people the last eight years? In an interview I had with Rep. John Boozman, he admitted to vast government expansion at the rate of 3 per cent average annually.

“We were certainly guilty of that,” he said. “We increased the government at about a rate of 3 percent per year, which was too much, but the new administration has increased it by 8 percent so far and is projecting to add 9 percent on top of that in 2010.

“I don’t think that’s what Arkansans want or need right now.”

Well, sure, but tell that to the brilliant people who are masterfully photoshopping Obama's face over Hitler's body. I wonder how they voted in 2004 and 2008.

Here's a pro-business, anti-tax conservative's take. Don't let those big numbers fool you.

Now, I wouldn't go as far as to call this a collection of right-wingnut crazies, like Krugman or Brummett might. But the message is getting lost in the noise; Not only the noise of people who aren't genuine or informed in their stance, but people who are knowingly disingenuous, ill-informed, and willfully so. I guess that goes for every gathering. The idiots often steal the spotlight.

Clear out that mess, lose the costumes, then maybe it'll make some noise worth hearing. That hasn't proven to be the case just yet, no matter how valid the argument for the gathering.

Taxable Deterrent? Alcopops? Fruit?...I Need a Drink

A bill to impose a higher tax "alcopops," or in other words those sweet and alcoholic beverages you used to sneak when you were in high school because you knew your dad wouldn't miss them, failed in the House Rules Committee today.

The bill would not only tax these unmanliest of nectars, but also keep them out of grocery and convenience stores.

The role call speaking for the bill apparently included a senior at the U of A, who among others, testified that the largest groups of people to purchase such beverages includes women between sixth and twelfth grade. For shame!

A panel endorsed the tax in October, probably miffed due to a lack of invitations to the Stovall Halloween Party 2k8.

The argument seemed to be that these poor youngsters are just having too much free-swingin', free-swigin' access to these fruity spirits, so we ought to tax the crap out of them and their allowance money. Because we all know teenagers, when faced with the choice of a new video game or hooch, will always choose video games.

(Slaps forehead.)

Luckily, this laughable bit o' legislatin' got turned down by Robbie's Rough Rule Riders in the House. But the bill itself brings up an interesting notion that I recall having when this whole cigarette tax was being brought up and ultimately run through the legislation: Taxing to save lives.

Are taxes intended to be deterrents? I sure hope not. It's a dutch door. From a defensive stand point, yes, because these things that are getting taxed are bad and no good, like cigarettes and...Mike's Hard Lemonade (slapping my forehead again). So in order to keep people from doing them, the bad things, the state ought to tax it, making them unaffordable to those who don't garner paychecks, but allowances.

My gut reaction to the cigarette and tobacco tax was that the government might be making investments in the self-harm of Arkansas youths, but upon calling the governor and the Tobacco Control Board for another story, a reasonable answer sufficed.

The costs incurred by these vices is directly proportional to the tax. So by raising the cigarette tax, for instance, the state might be reaping the benefits of a bad habit, but figures the deterrent will lower the cost of the health issues that the tax is for, eventually leveling out.

I'm not sure sure what a tax is on sweet hooch is supposed to raise money for. Awareness about the dangers of underage drinking? Awareness of the dangers inherent in drinking and driving? Those can't be taught without raising a tax?

Kids don't understand taxes. They might understand raised prices, but they don't get that whole notion of a tax as a deterrent. They're going to do what they want to do, often regardless of the prices.

Maybe that's why it got killed in the House Rules gauntlet. I don't know. But this whole bit about taxation as a deterrent is still mighty peculiar. If a vice is bad enough, it ought to be illegal in the first place. If it's not that bad, then why ought the taxes be raised to curb its use?

LaborLady Strikes Washington!

Just a quick note that we here in Arkansas aren't the only ones getting fired up over this whole Card Check business.

As you can clearly see, this woman (Yes, this is a woman) has been driven quite mad by the entire thing.

In all actuality, Arkansas is being shoved into the national spotlight for reasons more interesting than former state representatives procreating at questionably and forehead-slappingly high levels.

The Wall Street Cardboard Scrawl is reporting that Lincoln and Pryor, a cajun, and a man with an unfortunately difficult name may be the fab four that bring this EFCA bill down.

The only reason I find this mildly entertaining is that it takes my mind off of the harrowing economy, and there's nothing better than watching a politician dangle in the wake of re-election, a la Lincoln. We'll see how it all pans out.

Whatever, I'm over it.