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.

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.

Local Fisticuffs

"Man 1: Hey you, let's fight.
Man 2: Them's fightin' words!"
-The Simpsons

Roby Brock's article about the ever-daunting task of picking which unlucky soul will have to run against Gov. Mike Beebe in 2010 was enlightening. The writ outlining the fact that if the Republican Party of Arkansas wants to remain intact legally, they will have to put one of their lambs to slaughter was particularly interesting.

Basically, it means the mob will have their bloodbath.

But GOP head honcho Doyle Webb's musings about how people are "ready" and "willing" to be forced to step up to the plank- I mean plate was interesting as well. And maybe I'm reading to closely between lines that aren't really drawn, but his one-liner about the potential for the state's three congressional Democrats to draw opponents was particularly interesting.

I mean, isn't there enough blood being shed already?

You can ask my friend John Brummett about the ineptitude of the state's GOP. Take it with a grain of salt named David Sanders and you'll likely find the truth in the middle, but the truth is that the party can't swing much in Arkansas.

I hesitate to say 'of no fault of their own' but will stop short of saying quite that. I'm sure there is plenty that the party or former party leaders (cough, Huckabee, cough) could have done to help steady the ship, but the fact that Democrats have long managed and maintained this circus isn't really news so much as an understood axiom of Arkansas Politics: In any other region, they'd be Republicans, but in Arkansas, the Arkansas Democrat roams unfettered by national politics.

The only actual candidate who has voiced his candidacy for a delegate office, Senate-hopeful Kim Hendren, was a Democrat for years, and is now an ardent Republican. Like Brummett said: Same book, different cover. That applies to more than just a Kim Hendren.

The candidates will come. They have to. But what can they possibly do to win?

Nobody will likely touch Marion Berry. He's got the farmers in his corner and is a founding Blue Dog. There's some sect of more liberal Democrats running ads against Berry, but anyone in their right mind can see that's just foolhardy. Mike Ross is a young buck, comparatively, but still a powerful incumbent, but other than that I don't know much about him. He's got a funny haircut. I see him being the most "vulnerable," to use that word loosely, only because I know the others are pretty much bulletproof.

Vic Snyder has everything a politician could want on a resume: Veteran, doctor, lawyer, state legislator, experienced national legislator. He usually garners tepid poll numbers (likely due to the conservative rural perimeter surrounding Pulaski County), but always comes through and wins by the most vast of margins. The only struggle he'll have concerning re-election is whether or not the new triplets will affect his intentions of staying in office, as some often unfoundedly speculate. I haven't heard any intentions of a retirement from the good doctor.

I guess we should look at John Boozman, to keep things fair, but he is a Republican in friendly, friendly NWA waters. As political analyst Bill Vickery said, "He is undefeatable in that district."

There are two tactics opposition can take: Strike weaknesses or put forth a more popular candidate. The former seems nearly impossible as the resume's of these candidates are all quite lofty.

In the early 90's, Arkansas Men's basketball was visited by and were subsequently thumped by the University of Las Vegas. UNLV's biggest and baddest player, Larry Johnson, after nearly shattering the rim and flexing in Todd Day's face, sauntered over to Coach Nolan Richardson and said not-so-politely, "Coach. You need to get you some men."

The same is true for the Arkansas GOP, although gender isn't a prerequisite: They need to get some playmakers. The message is similar to the Democrats. Their members are strong. They need to get stronger people. And fast.

What's In a Name?

According to the Hill, Democrats are lobbying for their Republican chum Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to go ahead an come on over the fence, abandoning his GOP for the DNC.

According to the article, the governor of Pennsylvania, as well as the Arkansas traveler and VP Joe Biden, have been pushing him to go ahead and defect already, but apparently Specter will not relent, fearing the extinction of moderate Republicans.

I think the entire operation, from both sides of the agenda, can be described by one word: Futile.

Just weigh the pros and cons. Securing that 60th and filibuster proof vote is obviously high on the party agenda for Democrats. They've got the legislature by the throat, now they want to hit em where it hurts. Pelosi is just rigid with anticipation of a rampant Democratic "mandate" that sounds something akin to Manifest Destiny.

But what would Democrats be getting that they do not already possess? Specter has made national headlines since last week regarding the Employee Free Choice Act, or card check, because of the bind in which he finds himself; Being in a pro-union state with a pro-business party, one that may find someone a little more to their liking in the 2010 primaries.

Specter has been widely regarded as a R.I.N.O., Republican in Name Only, due to his centrist tendencies. So what are Democrats getting other than a little more solidarity and another name on the roster?

For the very reasons I listed for the explanation regarding his EFCA plight, it would not behoove Specter to join those Democratic ranks. He's been elected several times over, despite his centrist record and his admittedly Democratic past. There are no Democratic challengers. He's already as far left as it's going to get in this Senate race. So why lower his shoulder and plow through the wall and into the Democratic party? It wouldn't benefit him much; His re-election campaign is squared solely on the shoulders of another Republican, whether he's in the GOP or not.

Plus, I thought our elected representatives were supposed to represent their constituents, not their party, so says Joe Biden while in Little Rock. He let Sen. Blanche Lincoln off the hook by saying he knew that if the party's interest and Arkansas' interest ever conflicted, he was both confident and content with the fact that Blanche would side with her state.

The Democratic party seems to be taking one Senatorita off the hook, and is trying to put a Senator on.

Obama & Signing Statements: Big Whoop

Beneath the mire of all of this altogether uninteresting business about stem cell research, there was another bit of uninteresting news that Maxwell "Not the Coffee" Brantley brought to my attention.

The headline reads "Bye Bye Bush Era," and it applauds that Obama advising that signing statements under G.W. Bush may be ignored if convenient.

Bush's signing statements — clauses attached to bills that basically call for certain parts of a bill to be openly ignored — had enough coverage in its day. It basically is a loop around line-item vetoes, which are prohibited. So, Obama, accordingly, said that they are all now subject to interpretation by Atty. General Holder, and then they can be deemed constitutional or not.

I wonder how many of them will make it through the filter. What's the over/under on one to two?

Obama getting elected was the mandate. Once in office, he quickly did away with many of Bush's policies and rules, notably the implementation of a White House Happy Hour and looser dress code.

But then Maxwell misses another "important" piece of the NYT puzzle: Obama isn't against doing all that his own dern self. Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?

Of course, not. This is OBAMA we're talking about. You remember? The Hope and Change for America? He makes houses appear for the homeless, jobs appear for the jobless, and still has time to hoop with the Bulls?

I say that sarcastically, not to say that Obama won't do any of those things (he's done all of them) or even that he won't do any of them again (he's on track to do it all again and again).

It's just another example of how bias is often thinly-veiled and useless when some good ole fashioned objectivity would be a better lens.

The next president, who will likely be a Republican if trends mean anything, could reverse Obama's reversal. In fact, I bet he (or she!) might throw out nearly everything Obama puts into play. Clinton did it to Reagan's ugly step-child, Bush I. Bush II did it to Clinton, which I'm sure sticks in some people's craw, that Obama is reminding some of Bush. I'm sure that wily coot Jefferson did it to that old buzzard Adams, and then that upstart Adams II returned the favor, although I'm sure wigs and gloves were more involved back then.

I understand that there are liberal commentators and conservative ones, and I especially understand that those views are more prominently displayed in the blogosphere. I'm just saying that there ought to be a little more objectivity out there.

So I therefore understand the roof raising by some, heck, by many that Bush is gone and out, exiled to his Crawford Ranch and new ritzy Dallas condo. But that's a little old news by now, don't you say Maxwell? Olbermann still harps on Bush, and Maddow is relegated to doing fluff pieces about Boy Scouts, and now this. There's nothing to be critical about in Obama's short time as President? COUGH Wow! Look at all that pork in the gazillion dollar stimulus! COUGH!

I say let's freshen up that material. Frankly, we're still dealing with Bush's inheritance with this whole economy business and I'd rather not bring him up unless we have to. I don't think this is one of those have-to moments.

Lincoln a Definite 'No' on Card Check

I'm going to say on the front end that this is merely hearsay, and no one will confirm such a statement, but I'll go ahead and weigh in on this EFCA bit again.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., is going to be a definite 'no' on Card Check.

So says my Agent in Washington, who works in the Senate and is often around the Senate halls. He just so happens to be friendly with some of Blanche's people, and through their conversations and eavesdropping, he gave me the scoop.

Of course, it's not anything that you haven't likely heard from others around the state, but I thought hearing it from sources in the bowels of the Senate might be useful.

The Agent says that their office is indeed worried about 2010. They ought to be, as she's drawing opposition in the wee hours of 2009. They should also be confident. Blanche is powerful — she has been a vocal proponent for rural Arkansas, and no amount of union support by her party should bring her down, although it could possibly drive her to the brink thereof.

My friend also says that the Democratic Party is well-aware of Lincoln's intentions to go against the party agenda, and vote against Card Check, They say she just can't come out and definitively say it yet; They have to finesse it.

But the writing is on the wall. Lincoln can't go with this, not in Arkansas. The state is so pro-business that any one running against her would have plenty of ammunition against her. This could make a weak candidate a strong candidate; What would that make an already strong candidate?

You got it, and the Democrats know that calculus as well. She probably wouldn't lose her seat, but why even risk it?

For Lincoln, as I've said before, her thought should be to make sure you get re-elected, then make amends with the Party. But don't think that Lincoln is the only one who understand that. The Democrats need her in 2010, as well.

Those 60 votes are going to be tough to come by. It's hard enough right now, even with the addition of Al Franken, D-Minney-SO-dahdontchaknoe. With the party sort of fracturing from the inside, according to Politico, anyway, losing seats in relatively purple states like Arkansas isn't the way they want to go.

She gets it. They get it. We get it. It'd put Lincoln in an awful pickle to have to go for this Card Check in her state. The Party will give her a pass. They need her in office next year, and can possibly get it without her. If not, no big deal, I say. It's just paying back the Unions for their support. If you can't muster those votes with an honest effort, well, that's just the way it goes sometimes.

What will really be interesting will be to see how her opponents will position themselves without such a pivotal talking point in their pocket. Defeating Lincoln would be hard enough with her impugning herself with an affirmative for Card Check.

Without that, where will a Republican like, say, Tim Griffin, attack?

UPDATE: Politico says good ole Blanchey is one of two Senators upon which the entirety of the EFCA vote hinges. Makes it more interesting, but frankly, it doesn't change anything. Arkansas doesn't care about what everyone else thinks. They don't care for unions. Done-zo.

What if it doesn't work?

This isn't bemoaning the current state of affairs. It's no longer a mere bill, but an act signed into law by our President.

This isn't an attempt to uncoil and pounce with a litany of "I'm telling you now, so I can say I told you so later" and the like, a la Limbaugh et al.

It's not even criticism. No news is good news thus far, and the money isn't even on the streets yet.

But I'm just asking the question, because it's been bugging me, and might generate some thoughtful discourse: What if this $787 bill American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — The Stimulus —does the unthinkable and fails?

I really don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I've been scratching my head on it for far too long, hence the bald spots and claw marks. What do we do if this life-vest that we're creating for our livelihood's sake turns out to be a mere floatie?

I've heard grumblings from UFWAW (that's my Unfamous First Words Agent in Washington, a trustworthy chap who works for a high-ranking Senator and feeds me tips, leads, and eavesdropping in the halls, for those of you who don't know) that another stimulus might be brewing, and the New York Times didn't rule it out in Denver.

The thought is that the spending on the stimulus might not be enough for the added deficit we're currently building, which is now reportedly going to be about $1.75 trillion, according to forecasts, and that the $787 billion wasn't designed to cover that. Never mind all of the pork that was thrown in there, despite an Obama campaign promise to the contrary. That's beside the point. The point is that there might be even more billions of dollars to dig ourselves out if the economy should still be sour after a few years.

But would this be the answer? If not this, then what else?

Are we talking about a complete about face if the stimulus doesn't work? Of course not, because then it'd be the GOP talking about de-deregulation and tax cuts, two things the stimulus and the Democratic party have been weeding out since January 20th.

Are we going to cut programs? That seems contrary to the diversified recipients of these stimulus dollars. Like $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program to help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi, $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama and $1 million for "Mormon cricket control in Utah."

Not to speak of frivolity, but how much research can be done on catfish that hasn't been accomplished by a mechanic named Ty baiting a fart and catching a catfish with it? And concerning these crickets, well, I don't see what a little Mormonism could do to hurt a cricket.

No beaver jokes, kids. This isn't the Arkansas Project (HI KINKADE!)

We're willing to toss all of this money at these programs but what happens if the country is really in a pinch? Which are the first to go, and are we really going to limit the discussion for the delegates from North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Utah when they will likely object?

So I'm asking. Where do we go from here if 'here' ends up being the gutter? Not that it will, but is there any sort of a back-up plan?

Colleague, mentor, and BFF John Brummett has columnized, blogged, and will surely tweet that America runs on a capitalist economy with a socialist safety net. He doesn't sweat the label socialist, but for all of you who do, I assure you he means it in the nicest way possible. It seems apparent to Newsweek and to Conservative pundits everywhere that we have, although I'm not convinced.

But if this is in fact our safety net, what is to happen to us if the net has too much slack?

Seriously. I'm just asking.

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.

Portly Kid and Three Credible Journalists on 'Unconventional Wisdom'

Here's the AETN Showcase of David Sanders' show, Unconventional Wisdom, where three credible journalists and one portly kid who may or may not have epilepsy go on air to discuss the political goings on around the Natural State. After about the 16 minute mark you can get to the blogger's discussions, but think of these questions:

Just how old is Zack Stovall?
a.) 37
b.) 22
c.) 31
d.) 29
e.) 14-hot dogs

What's that look in Kinkade's eye?
a.) Disdain for sharing the spotlight.
b.) Thinking of something really funny he thought of earlier.
c.) Pondering why measuring the length of Lance Turner's neck on air would be a bad thing.
d.) Asking Sanders for his comb back.
e.) What's that smell?

How did Lance do?
a.) Terrible
b.) Offensive
c.) Ungood
d.) Shameful
e.) Meh.

Who's David Sanders?
a.) Gyspy
b.) Broadway musical fanatic
c.) A new character for the Twilight movie series
d.) Your mom (ooooooo)
e.) My mom (HEY!)

Just watch it. And try to count how many times I in fact say "Um" or "Uh." Closest without going over wins my misshapen cuff links!

Blake Rutherford Consumed By Rabid Jealousy Over AETN Gig

Local blogger and hackysack enthusiast Blake Rutherford, from the website Blake's Artificially Intelligent Panzer, reports the abduction of another blogger, Lance Turner, by the "Conservative Media Mafia," consisting of David "Bugsy" Sanders, David "Baby Face" Kinkade, and Zack "Not David" Stovall.

That last person is me. While I'm fairly certain that I am pragmatically objective with regard to my writing, maybe I've just been bashing the Left more than the Right. I'll try to even that out; Being an equal-opportunity butthole, as I've heard is my moniker a la Sanders, that is my mandate.

In the spirit of Shameless Self-Promotion, yes, I will be on Sanders' Unconventional Wisdom where we discussed the major players in Arkansas politics, their actions, and how they interact with the Information Super-Highway.

We also giggled like schoolgirls at the expense of John Brummett, Jason Tolbert, Billy Mays, Timmy Geithner, Rush Limbaugh's jowels, a person who has bananas for hands, Shaquille O'Neal and Lance Turner, who was indeed locked in Sanders' trunk.

Anyway, when the video's available, we'll post it. But until then, enjoy this bit of political history.

Dr. Thompson and Mr. Surgeon General

One of the subplots so far of the 87th General Assembly in Arkansas could be "Safety First."

Two bills have been filed and processed with regard to personal safety, and I've noticed that one man has been very involved in both of them. Not a legislator, but a doctor. Dr. Joe Thompson, the Arkansas Surgeon General.

The name Joe Thompson is very recognizable to me and anyone else who attended college with me as the goofiest looking honky to step foot on a basketball court, so every time I see it, I take notice. He's been in the news a lot this session.

His latest dip into the high profile section has been this seat belt law that he's behind and lobbying for. Thompson urged lawmakers to prevent injury accidents by making the act of not wearing a seat belt an offense punishable by death. Not really, but it would be a primary offense, one for which you can be pulled over.

I've had my own cup of tea with this issue, but my initial, albeit slight, reservation certainly has nothing to do with the act of wearing a seat belt; Everyone should do it. Stay in drugs, say no to school, and buckle that seat belt. And Rep. Harrelson said it well: Reasonable minds can differ.

But Thompson's latest delve into the political realm was not his most memorable. With so much tension and noteworthy business going on within the chambers, many seem to have forgotten the momentous build-up, of which the surgeon general was key player.

It wouldn't haven taken a rocket scientist to figure out what the Arkansas Surgeon General's stance on raising the tax on a pack of smokes would be, especially when you consider the end — a brand-spanking new statewide trauma system.

I want to make it clear that this isn't about whether or not the tax was right or wrong, or the obvious value of such a trauma system, but rather a look at how involved Thompson was. And he wasn't just involved; He was in-your-face involved.

The Surgeon General was instrumental in assembling rallies to garner support for the bill, which were well-attended by regular ole citizens, but also delegates and even (gasp!) the Governor himself. They were at the Governor's Mansion, Children's Hospital, and ran without a hitch.

So, in a natural move of political boredom and obligatory rebuttal, opponents of the tobacco tax decided to hold a rally of their own, and bring in a big, headlining, marquee name to lobby their noble plight to the masses.

Instead, they got Dick Armey. (cue the Debbie Downer sound: wah waaahhh)

Okay, but this wasn't the first and won't be the last time the Arkansas GOP was described as futile or inept, and a rally was held for opponents to get their voices heard and backed by a national figure which, love him or hate him or question why he is such a figure, he is. It was just political mud-flinging, representing the other side.

Rep. Harrelson said it well, and some should say it more often: Reasonable minds can differ. Right?

Wrong! Thompson broke in the middle of the rally like Gangbusters, interrupting Armey, bringing the rally to a screeching and awkward halt, and challenging Armey to a verbal duel — a debate. Sources claim but can't confirm that Thompson slapped Armey in the face with his ceremonial latex surgeon glove.

Armey wisely declined being booby-trapped by a ready-to-pounce medical doctor who was ready to swing away. Of course, it made him look like a coward, running back to Washington or Texas with his tail between his legs, but that was probably better than looking like a verbally-decapitated idiot, which is surely what would've happened had he bitten Thompson's bait.

Proponents of HB1204 crowed. Robbie Wills heehawed like a blogger possessed. Max Brantley chortled like a man who had just run a criminal out of town on a rail.

But wait just a minute; Can't reasonable minds differ? What if some opponent more eloquent than Frank Glidewell and Bryan King (although with his performance in the chamber upon the vote of the bill set the bar pretty low) had barged into the middle of one of these support-driving rallies? Outrage would likely have been the appropriate word to describe the mood were such an event to occur.

And who was remarkably visible and audible throughout all this? Dr. Joe Thompson.

I'm not entirely clear of the Surgeon General's role. I know he is appointed by the the state to be the leading spokesperson on matters of public health in the state government. And I certainly understand the position, however juxtaposed the ends may be (stamp out smoking, but not so much that it can't fund some health programs, right?), and I'm all for him speaking adamantly for his position; He is as entitled as anyone to do so.

The man's a doctor and is concerned with health issues. Good for him and us, that we have such a knowledgeable public figure. But I'm curious to see if any legislation will be passed, not in this session but perhaps in future sessions, regarding obesity, which is regarded as an epidemic by the U.S. Surgeon General. They're talking about taxing mileage — maybe some taxing per pound will be in order?

But are his actions in the cigarette tax scrum above reproach? What's the precedent of a surgeon general to break up the partisan process that drives legislative debate? As an agent of the office that protects all Arkansans regardless of political affiliation, was Thompson out of line by using his clout to degrade and belittle a political view that was different than his own?

It's not hard to see through the medical doctors' thoughts on the dangers of smoking, but the political implications therein perhaps ought to be handled a little more delicately than being a mere button man for a certain political party.

And medical doctors with political appointments have been duly criticized before.

Leave the pushing and shoving to the politicians. That's what they're paid to do.

"Education" Lottery Indeed

The big news around the Capitol is this business concerning the new-fangled lottery, and who ought to be disbursing the fund therein. Is it a state agency? The legislature? An oracle who is only used every once in awhile, and while omniscient, also wields disastrous fates for those who dare call on her wisdom?

The answer is that nobody really cares, so long as the proper amounts are sent through the proper channels and the money ends up where they say it's going to end up: In the pockets of worthy students seeking to further their education.

But that's the most important facet and of the literally dozens of articles published from various news outlets and of the mouths of legislators and political leaders rarely mentioned: The education.

This lottery was set up for the sole purpose allowing Arkansas students the financial wherewithal to attend a college or university (preferably in-state, nudge nudge), regardless of their income. If a student has a 2.5GPA, they should have the ability to go to college, I heard legislators say. I couldn't agree more.

There's a reason for lack of a discussion of education in a lottery dedicated to it: Education in Arkansas is sitting relatively pretty.

No, really. It is. I know this may come as a shock to my interstate readers, those in the Leno crowd and all. And sure, there are some questionable, backwooded areas of the Natural State with a high proclivity toward an excessive amount of toes, unbeknownst to the keepers of these phalanges, as they have difficulty counting numbers higher than twelve.

But I digress.

In fact there are several reasons for this, but the critical point is that legislators should thank their lucky stars that they don't have such an encumbrance in the first place. Like Arkansas' good standing with regard to its economy (tremendous tax hike or not), it's something that many people — 40 other states, fact — wish they, too, could claim. A couple of reasons why:

First, public schools. Arkansas has made strides, rising to tenth in the nation in public education. Take that, 80 percent of the country. You've just been beaten by Arkansas in the spelling bee, per se.

You hear about the public schools in counties neighboring Pulaski county as being top notch, the source of great pride for the respective cities. The only town in Arkansas to don the moniker "boomtown" according to a nationwide survey was Cabot, AR. I spoke personally with the current mayor and the former mayor during the middle four years of the survey, and both were quick to credit, you guessed it, the schools as the primary draw to their community.

Established universities like the U of A establish new ways to learn for those with deficiencies or debilities, as the Bureau's sports columnist, Harry "Father Time" King reported last month.

Speaking of debilitated, school districts that had been declared fiscal disaster areas, like Clinton and Bismark, were able to pick themselves up and get about the business of straightening themselves out, benefiting their students most importantly.

My primary concern throughout the lottery and scholarship discussions regards the retention of students who would receive these scholarship funds, basically a concern of whether or not this lottery is indeed helping students achieve their desired degree. That's the point of this, after all, isn't it?

The retention numbers of the state are grim, at a substandard 18.2 percent. But the Southern average is only 27 percent, a number for which there is an entirely separate task force strategizing to achieve. Even amidst a dark cloud, there seems to be a silver lining. As a friend of mine from Texas claimed, "If college retention is your biggest problem, you're headed in the right direction."

I saw a comment on another blog where someone was still lamenting that there was a lottery, in fact saying that as long as the church had a say, there'd be no lottery. That ship has come and gone. The lottery is here. It's something that needs to be vetted, mulled over, discussed, debated, all of that fine politickin'. But it should be mentioned that this process is made that much better and easier by having a quality education system in place.

Now I don't want to boost anyone's ego too terribly much. That'd just be foolhardy. The education in Arkansas isn't where it should be, where it could be. We've still got a long way to go before the stereotypes against an intellectual Arkansas are no longer fulfilled on a daily basis to be paraded in the national spotlight.

But at least we're not as far off as we could be. This lottery deal is a reflection of that; It is a profitable means to a worthy end.

That's it. No catch. Just a compliment or two. Arkansas deserves some credit here and there.

So the Pope and Nancy Pelosi Walk Into a Bar...

But really, that happened today.

His Holiness (that's his moniker, not mine particularly), Pope Benedict XVI met with House Speaker Fancy Nancy Pelosi today in Rome.

I'm sure the conversation between the pontiff and Pelosi was more than a little awkward.

Pope: So. You still all for abortion?

Nancy: Uh. Yes sir.

Pope: You know I'm infallible right?

Nancy: Uh. Yes sir.

Pope: Okay! Just making sure we were on the same page on that one...(tapping fingers awkwardly)...So, looks like that Internet thing is here to stay, huh?

Nancy: YES! Do you ever go on Amazon? How about Twitter?

Pope: Like everyday! Every. Single. Day!

It probably didn't really go like that, but according to Glenn Thrush at Politico, the Pope and Pelosi did exchange some words on the subject, while also remaining chipper and discussing other things. Benny, as he was affectionately called, even blessed some rosaries.

Awkward exchanges aside, the whole thing got me thinking about the odd relationship between religion and politics.

I know I'm chartering into dangerous territories by even bringing it up; just look at the comments section on Thrush's blog post to see how fired up, even violent, people get about it. Don't worry, I don't plan on saying anything definitive and therefore I hope nothing offensive. It's all gravy, baby.

But there is one undeniable fact concerning this: There is religion and there is politics, and some want the two as oppositely positioned as physically possible while others can't help but blend them together. That's not subject to debate.

Now some interesting facets of the conversation, be them right or wrong, or somewhere in the middle, but are certainly debatable:

Separation of Church and State is an immovable object at the foundation of our government and the political mindset therein. The law which is prescribed by the legislature should be one that applies in a vacuum. It should apply to everyone without regard to religion, or race, or status, or sexual orientation for that matter. The law applies to one and all and religion shouldn't have anything to do with the molding of that law.

Now sponsorship, to me, is an entirely different matter.


One of the biggest arguments I hear concerning church and state comes during the Holidays. The Creche. Where DO we put it?! First of all, I couldn't care less. Often times, the aesthetic value of these rickety displays is an affront to both the religious and the secular.

But I'm not so sure that the government ought not be a representation of the constituency therein. If you have a primarily Christian legislature and population, such decorations make sense. If the state of New York wanted to put up several menorahs around their Jewish populations, or Islamic symbols around their Muslim neighborhoods, I've got no beef with that. I'm not sure you could find anybody, save the bigot, of course, who would have strong objections.

Decorations don't affect the rule of the law. Legislators do. Which makes a nice little segway (no, not that segway) to my next point.

Religion is the choice of people, and legislators are people, too.

This one has perplexed me for awhile, probably due to my proximity to the much-ballyhooed Bible Belt. How do legislators who claim religious affiliation separate themselves from it?

The answer isn't one at all, but rather a choice. Some legislators and political figures embrace it. Mike Huckabee for example often embraced his roots as a Baptist preacher, but also has come to distance himself from it as he as been propelled into a more diverse, national spotlight. Nancy Pelosi, obviously, puts her religious views on the back-burner when legislating. Were she to perhaps make heavy weather out of them, her constituency for which she is obliged to represent would have a cow, likely impaling her at first sight, or more likely just not re-electing her.

Try as they might, some can't escape their religious affiliations. Mitt Romney is Mormon. Don't think the very mention of that fact didn't rub a lot of people down South the wrong way.

We pick and choose our legislators to represent their constituency and vote for or against them accordingly. Their religion either does or doesn't affect their decision to use it or not as a legislative tool. The difference is as clear as Arkansas and California.

In Arkansas, Thomas "T-Paine" Paine Day has failed repeatedly to get off the ground amid concerns that Paine was anti-religious, scaring off legislators and killing all measures of the bill. A bill to ban late-term abortions doesn't even get a rebuttal during the conversation today because the leader of the ACLU (rightly) contends that "it wouldn't matter anyway." There's a bit in the state Constitution that prohibits atheists from participating in government, for Pete's sake, although it is not enforced.

In California, gay rights, abortion, and a number of other more-secular bills are passed daily.

But some are not. This past November, Californians failed to stop an initiative, Proposition 8, to amend the constitution to make gay marriage illegal. That was in California. Literally the Gayest State per capita in the union couldn't keep such a measure from passing.

What does this say? That California is a religious and conservative haven? Of course not. It means that there's a choice when it comes to religion or, in the case of Prop. 8, religiously sensitive issues. Bill Maher famously says that if they're really going to consider regulating anything, it should start with religion, as more people have offended, died or killed others in its name than any other cause. But that's ridiculous. It'd be denying a choice.

Pelosi is choosing to offend her own admitted religious sensibilities in order to do what she believes is the most accurate representation of her congressional district, as is her mandate. The Pope is doing his job, too, by trying to convince her otherwise.

Both are choices. The amount of religion a legislator wishes to add to his legislation is done so at his own peril or his own security in the voting booth. All —religious or otherwise— have to live with the consequences.

You gotta think that the exchange between Pelosi and the Pope had to be hilarious, anyway.

So it's an admittedly Bad Bank...

(Over the sounds of gunfire and screaming)
Peter Griffin: Wow! So, you can really give me a loan?
Jim Kaplan: I sure can. You see, Mr. Griffin, what sets us apart from other banks is that other banks are banks. Now, I trust you have collateral.
Peter Griffin: Um, I got three kids.
Jim Kaplan: I'll take them. Just kidding. Or maybe I'm not. Sign this. Here you go. Good luck!

Call me a dullard, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this Wall Street Journal article that leaked some of our distinguished new Administrative Assistant of the Treasury Timmy Geithner's plans about the new stimulus which is expected to pass in the Senate and then re-pass in the House.

The wunderkind Geithner is going to propose that the government and private investors are going to lock arms with one another and play red-rover with the economy, praying that this partnership broken and falling into an even greater recepression.

Geithner's plan is to buy these bad assets and put them all into one big bad bank, gently called an "aggregator bank." There the government, but mainly private investors, will buy these bad assets, put money into them, and watch them grow as they will be backed by grounded and certain tax-payer and private funds.

That's all well and good. Put all of the cancer in one place, and then pump enough good stuff in to fix it. Am I right?

Except for these few points, anyway:

The banks can't fix these bad assets themselves because of a fear of collapse in all of their interests, so the government/private investor group is going to take them off their hands for them. So these banks are left with only good assets, but do they have any claims once they flourish? What incentives might they have, as these fellows from J.P. Morgan might contend, to just keep these assets and try to weather the storm and turn them into better, flourishing assets on the other side?

Sure it looks bleak now, but let the other floundering banks sell their stakes, some banks might say. When it's all said and done, they'll be sorry, they might taunt. Going from having something to having nothing might sound like a good idea when that something is a bad asset, but it is something after all. Here's a pickle; what makes it a bad asset to begin with? If it's something that is so easily fixable by the government, why would someone want to part with it so easily?

But that question pales to the proposition outlined in the WSJ:

The Treasury's working theory for the government/private-sector partnership is that investors wouldn't overpay, because if they did, they'd stand to lose money; but they also wouldn't underpay, since the selling banks wouldn't be willing to part with their assets too cheaply.

Oh! Good! I thought we were going to be dealing with the incompetent bankers and Wall Streetrats that put us in this situation in the first place. I didn't know that we'd be dealing with people who would know to invest just the right amount at just the right time to make it all worthwhile.

The Treasury's working theory is the same working theory for free-market capitalism, which is just great, but it's supposedly guaranteeing through government-backed risk limits that these investors won't lose money, which isn't guaranteed in the free market.

Which brings us to the final point, which WSJ points out is quite a snag; How do you convince these people, upon which your whole plan hinges, to invest? Government incentives liiiiiike tax cuts? Pork? An etching of your companies logo on the lunar surface? That'd be some prime advertising.

The government is supposedly limiting the risk, but what if the risk is limitless? Wouldn't the government be going even further into debt than it already is and actively planning to do? How can the government, who clearly does not have a firm handle on the situation, guarantee that an investor buying an admittedly bad stock and putting it into an admittedly bad bank will be all okay?

Alas, I'm no economist. I only deal in quarters these days since the dollar insert in the Coke machine has been on the fritz. I'll go back to my mud-hut to tend to the daily pleasantries of destitution.

Obama: The New Face of the GOP!

Well, not really, but you'd think so if this latest report from UFWAW and Politico is accurate.

Remember that big ole nasty partisan verbal fisticuffs that happened last week, as a unanimous front of Republican House members voted against the stimulus bill? And then Obama came out and wagged his finger at their Limbaughian and counter-productive ways? And now people are reporting on the same thing happening in the Senate behind the wiliest old curmudgeon in Congress, John "McClane" McCain?

What a lot of people don't realize is that there were several Blue Dog Democrats — fiscally conservative fans of Blues Clues — who also opposed the bill by vote. But you wouldn't think that Obama would encourage some Democrats to vote against his own bill would you?

If you said you would, you a lie.

The Tennessee Blue Dog Jim Cooper went on some radio show and admitted that people in the Obama camp actually encouraged him to vote against party lines and go against the stimulus bill. To vote against the bill that Obama has toured second grade classrooms to push. To vote against the only bill that will make or break his opening days, possibly the entirety of his tenure. To vote against the stimulus bill.

Apparently, Obama understands that partisanship goes both ways.

Knowing that Pelosi and Reid are the voice of the Left — frankly, indomitable at this point — and that in order to manifest this bipartisan family funfest upon which he has so elegantly waxed, he must have some Blues mixing with the Reds, not just the other way around.

Ever the shrewd politician, Obama may have just made one of the most awkwardly awesome political moves of all time.

But is it admirable to get people to vote against your own bill that you hope saves America from standing in the breadlines, or condemnable?

I don't know. On the one hand, if you're a political observer it has to be a sign of actual change coming to Washington, something that admittedly sounds like a lot of hot air that has been blown for centuries, but can be remarkably moving if it is as true to form as Obama would say it is.

But on the other hand, it's a bit fraudulent. Pushing or feigning bipartisanship isn't bipartisanship. Cooper rightly assessed that it seemed there was no room for bipartisan politics in the House, partly on the fault of the hounds, Pelosi and Reid, and maybe Obama was just hurrying the process along. But still, this isn't bipartisanship.

Plus, if you're an idealist, this has to be deafening, that the person responsible for this bill doesn't care about unanimity (as if that were a necessary fault).

So I guess the jury is out, and will probably be left up the the court of popular appeal. On the bright side, and this I believe is irrefutable, this shows that Obama seems to be walking the walk that his bipartisan talk mandated.

UPDATE: Well, of course, as I'm writing this, Cooper backtracks saying that while he had concerns, the Obama camp "convinced him" and reassured him that voting for the stimulus would not offend his conservative senses. Ben Smith is now reporting that while Cooper's aides are saying he didn't, Obama's aides claim that a statement will be released from the Congressman. I forget who is speaking for who here, but it's obvious that Cooper has lost any and all credibility with Obamanation.