Kicking Back

If you haven't noticed, I've been taking a few days away from the blog. Not only have the Bureau duties become a tad busier, but I'm taking a bit of a sabbatical from the UFW to recharge the cognitive juices. Despite the lackluster, shoddy, unedited, and what my good friend John Brummett would call "nothing but self-promulgating" of these posts, it takes awhile to come up with this stuff.

If something comes up that's really noteworthy, or divine inspiration strikes (both unlikely), I'll put something up. Otherwise, I'll toss up some PoLOLitical Stuff on Friday and we'll call it a week.

In the news business, I think this would be called an 'advisory.' I don't know. I'm merely a Youngblood and know not of such things.

PoLOLitical Stuff: Peeks, How to Dress, and the Future

Is Sotomayor a Snag for Lincoln? Meh.

I mean, I'm scouring the traditional media outlets, scrounging around for a piece of noteworthy news I might be able to expound upon, but everyone's still jawing about Sotomayor. Doesn't everyone know that I already wrote about that lady? Harumph!

Just kidding. I'll bite.

Yesterday I was on the old talky radio box with Bureau columnist and fitness guru David J. Sanders, just talking shop, with the news of the day of course being Sotomayor's nomination.

Sanders, and the encompassing Arkansas blogosphere, saw before I did that the Senators Lincoln and Pryor are going to have some role in her vetting process, be it small or large, as they're in the Senate body.

Lincoln has an especially large role in that her every move is gauged by politicos and analysts from the Natural State, always in measurements of her electability (or, by some, defeatability). And I mean every move. Not to be taken without a huge grain of salt, but nearly all of her opponents will say that any give move is a 'clear cut example' of how she's out of touch with Arkansas, while all of her supporters will claim the opposite. As the professor once said, that's the nature of politics.

The Arkansas Project has a good explanation of this by Cory Allen Cox, written when Justice "Yawn" Souter announced his retirement for the love of Vermontian syrup and shuffleboard. It spells out Lincoln's obvious perils quite well, although Cox lacks Kinkade's obvious knack for captivating his audience.

On the air, I said that I didn't think that her confirming a nominee would be such a dagger to her cause, namely because she has plenty of other issues that are currently being held to her feet like flame. The problem for her is that every issue for her is magnified, and usually blown out of proportion.

After consideration following Sanders' and my conversation, I'm still not convinced that her confirming Sotomayor will make or break her election prospects. First off, nobody knows who Sotomayor is, well, nobody in Arkansas, anyway. Very few people had every heard of such a person, and likely those who had already have their minds and focuses made on Mrs. Lincoln.

While she has a questionable issue about her feelings while trying cases, experts are mainly discussing her ambiguity. She seems to be centrist, but not so much that it disguises her liberal nature. Obama wouldn't pick someone who wasn't, but Bush I and all of those Republicans who confirmed her years ago, even if only flippantly reviewing her nomination, wouldn't have let someone too far in left field play ball.

Nationally, Republicans will likely heed the words of Press Sec. Gibbs and Sen. Chuck Shumer, who's guiding her through the vetting process, and tread lightly, fearing a Hispanic backlash that they would surely rue, which would be devastating as they are attempting to woo that demographic back to the GOP.

The heat won't really be on anyone but Lincoln, but the heat's already on her and has been on her. She'll vote for Sotomayor. Again, I doubt it will make or break Lincoln's rerere-election bid. That's not to say that this, coupled with maybe a flip-flop on her latest card check position, then upsetting some pro-gun types, wouldn't add fuel to the fire and put her in greater danger.

However, she's been on several tours as of late to restore her conservative and "in touch" credentials and I doubt would make such a costly move in her campaign. Plus, right now it doesn't matter. Nobody's up against her thus far. Let's see if someone, say, Gilberto Baker has anything to say about it. I wonder if it will be a sticking point with any would-be candidate.

I'm going to be a guest with Sanders again tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon, not sure when exactly though (UPDATE: At three in the afternoon, after Senate-maybe Curtis "Blog?" Coleman). If you like listening to old timey radio, give an ear, or hey! phone in, 501-433-0092. It'd be riveting conversation I'm sure.

Do We Have a Contender?

That's a definite 'maybe.'

I've said before, as vulnerable as Sen. Lincoln's 2010 re-election campaign looks at this point, the roster of those who might be vying for the Republican nomination to dethrone her seems to be paltry at best.

The common criticism is that none of the possible candidates thus far have the firepower or name recognition to overthrown an incumbent. Sen. Mark Pryor did so in 2002, but had the credentials — not to mention a name as recognizable around Arkansas as Clinton, Dumpers, or Walton — to do so.

But there's a lot of time between now and November of 2010. While the fever-pitch associated with round-the-clock news coverage has certainly made far off issues — like the 2010 midterm and even the 2012 Presidential race — seem just around the corner, it also creates more opportunities for redemption, especially from this distance. A potential slip-up can now, at this time, be repaired, unless it's a big time gaffe that changes the perception upon which the contenders perception is based (uh, "that Jew" anyone?).

So..how's the race to the primary going thus far?

Kim Hendren made things interesting, to say the least. Some thought this boxed out maybe-candidate Gilbert Baker, as they were both state senators, yet Hendren would have secured the powerful Northwest Arkansas vote. Then that whole thing happened and Hendren won't even refer to himself as a candidate anymore. Not a good sign for him. A lot of people expected him to implode, but I don't think anyone thought he would do so with so much fireworks.

And, I must repeat, as I continue to scratch my head, he let the word out himself.

Hendren was the first to officially announce his candidacy, but he was not the first shark to smell the blood in the water. Tim Griffin, a former U.S. attorney and known Rove-anite, announced in December he was looking into getting into the race.

He has gone on speaking tours, he has gotten his name out there, but for the time being, not much else. Many believe he might have feigned a run to keep pressure on the incumbent Lincoln stick to a more conservative approach while legislating in the new Democratic Obama Administration. In an interview with me for the Bureau, he has said that he's weighing his other commitments, such as family and military duty.

If Griffin dos run, he'll have a haul in front of him. He's not that well known, although he has certainly made a lot of headway in that department. I'm not sure what his fund raising abilities would be, but they would have to be considerable as well.

Two businessmen are also in the mix, one rumored and one known to be contemplating.

I'm still hearing the name French Hill. The Delta Trust banker has considerable fundage, to say the least, and it could be said that that aspect could be the whole ball-game to toppling Lincoln, who has already well over $2 million on deck, ready to roll. But him even running is pure speculation; I'm sure he's been approached about it, but I haven't heard a peep from the man himself.

Curtis Coleman, a businessman and former evangelical minister, announced last week that he has formed an exploratory committee — with a staff, by the way — looking into it. During my discussion, he said that he felt confident enough about running to "take this next step."

Asked if he believed he could raise the necessary funds to beat Lincoln, Coleman said he believes he could. He said he thinks it will take between $5 and 8 million to beat Lincoln, and he also, when asked to repeat it, believes he can raise that amount of money. In fact, one of the reasons he launched the exp. committee, he said, was so that people who were just itching to give him their money would now have a legal avenue to do so.

Coleman's name isn't really out there. I'd wait to see how much dough he can garner in the next few months before we make any judgments. If he hasn't withered away by then, and can raise the money he says he can, he could be a dark horse for the primary.

The clear front-runner at this admittedly premature point is someone who hasn't announced, and says he's still thinking about it, although in an interview yesterday, says he's "more open" to the possibilities of running.

State Senator Gilbert Baker has the fewest negatives in the lot. He is an unwavering conservative, but has proven he works well enough across party lines (he has to: everyone else is on the other side). He seems to be able to stick to his guns, while getting some decent work done.

While certainly opposed to certain aspects of it, Baker helped weave an ambitious budget this year in the legislative session. He has the appeal of a stalwart conservative, and now that Kim Hendren is likely out of the picture, could secure the coveted NWA.

One thing that makes Gilberto stick out a little more than the others to me is his election experience. He ran against Joe White, a Conway Democrat who now, thanks to House Speaker Robbie Wills, serves on the Arkansas Lottery Commission. The name Joe White may not ring any bells but perhaps these names might: Mike Ross. Vic Snyder. Marion Berry. Mark Pryor. Mike Beebe. Bill Clinton. All of these All-star Arkansas Democrats spoke against Baker on the campaign trail, using all of their potent fund raising abilities and appeal to aide Joe White.

Baker won.

I'm not going to look too hard into this. Maybe Joe White was completely incompetent and everyone knew it, regardless of who spoke on his behalf (I really don't know, I was out of the state at that time). Maybe Baker is leaning too heavily on this experience for what will be a completely different ball game on a national as opposed to local stage.

But also, in the spirit of not looking too hard into it, that's mighty impressive to beat those good ole boys.

So what do these rankings mean in May of 2009? Probably the same as what they'll mean in November of 2010: Nothing too much, just some food for thought.

Suspicion? Me? How Dare You!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good, I say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's just a question.

You Can't Talk to Me Like That! This is a Members Only Jacket!

When isolated in relative obscurity, one does crazy things. The same is true for the Republican Party currently.

Due to a woeful dearth of qualified and exciting candidates, the GOP is taking the same old faces on a listening tour, aimed at revamping the Right, making it more attractive, all while simultaneously stimulating and staying loyal to the base.

'Listening Tour' has all of the appeal of a trip to the save-a-lot proctologist. Ugh.

One of those old faces, trying to stay even more relevant, is saying that these guys are silly, but then says the almost exact thing that they're saying.

This infighting will continue, I predict, until there's one person in the middle of these sentiments who appeals to not only both sides, but to those who aren't completely sold on the Democratic ticket, and of course, after the Obama dust has settled.

This 'principle' jargon has got to go. No undecided voter cares about them, much less can define them as ardently as those on the Right are doing. "We've got to get back to our principles!" they all clamor to themselves.

What they need is some people who can speak with authority, with credibility, something the party (state and national, for those local people tuning in) lacks.

My quaffed friend David J. Sanders tweeted today (and I reviewed and edited) his column for tomorrow. In it, he claims that the GOP ought to be a little more Clintonian in its dealings, who in his own dealings, was more like Reagan. In Reagan Sanders does trust, and he notices the proven success rate of those who mirror his candor, believability and credibility, including that of our current President, who ran as someone who was remarkably underqualified but mounted a strong campaign of hope.

Sanders puts a lot on that word 'Hope' and 'unbridled optimism.' Regan, Clinton, Bush (at first) and Obama had it and won. I think Hope is a little soft. How about not just 'hope,' but how about something people can repeat on something other than a comedy night show.' Or something with a little bit of confidence. I see none right now that isn't immediately shut down. You see sparks here from the Huckabees, the Jindals, the roster of no-names in Congress. But you don't see the same steady stream of gems like you got with Obama, Bush, Clinton and Reagan.

If it's really rock bottom for the GOP, it's because those people don't exist. I think they do. They just don't know it yet.

Souter's Out, So Who's In?

David Souter, the Bush I-appointed and admittedly liberal Supreme Court Justice, is stepping down. According to most reports, he just doesn't like Washington anymore, and wants to go back to driving his Subaru while wearing socks and sandals in New Hampshire. Or Vermont. Or Maine? It's all the same really.

I got to meet Justice Souter in March of 2003 while spending time in Washington. I wish I could say it was riveting, something I remember fondly and look forward to telling people about but quite frankly, I'd give anything to have that hour and a half of my life back, as it was the single most boring thing I've ever endured.

And I'm not talking about that sort of boring where you can look at the wall, or daydream, or occupy yourself with some other mental venture. This was that inescapable, painful type of boring that made you want to gnaw off your own leg like a captured bear. It nearly ruined the trip completely, as I was weary that any human contact could possibly be as boring as that man just was, and was in silent seclusion for the rest of the day.

But I digress.

The big story now is what Obama is going to do with this prized gem: A vacant supreme court seat. Appointed by the president, this is often seen — by supporters and opponents alike — as the most tangible legacy any President can leave behind.

The average for a President is just under two justices per administration, so this could be part one of an Obama saga. Here's what to expect:

Minutia vetting: Republicans are going to try and vet whoever this candidate might be to millions of tiny shreds. To, uh, no avail, by the way, as they are mightily outnumbered.

A lot of speculation about the political implications: Well, duh. But people are going to be using this selection, I think, as a barometer of Obama's political intentions. B-Rock has done very well for himself by pushing a liberal agenda while extending a hand to conservatives to come along for the ride (perhaps a mere gesture, knowing full-well that they won't accept and he doesn't need them, but it's still playing nice).

No net gain; no net loss: Souter was appointed by G.H.W. Bush, a Republican, and — gasp! — turned out to be a rather liberal judge. I'm certain it's not what Bush or the GOP had in mind while selecting him (making him especially loathsome to Republicans). Obama isn't going to pick a conservative justice, although he could take a centrist-play-nice approach. That will leave the American people with...exactly what they had before.

The only up-swing is for Republicans, in that there's another gotcha move a la G.H.W. Bush by the justice being a conservative voice rather than the liberally-preferred one that will be selected by the Democrat Obama. I doubt this will be the case, however; There's somewhat of a loyalty that's associated with a justice and the president who appointed him. And Obama is mighty popular.

So let the prejudiced vetting and mindless speculating begin. If Obama's selection is anything like the circus that was his cabinet nominations, we're in for a fun ride here at UFW.

UPDATE: Conservatives are already on the move. Well that took all of about three hours.

The Essence of Twitter (slaps forehead)

Let me first and foremost make a technological confession: I don't much care for Twitter.

It's nothing personal, to Twitter itself or to those who tweet religiously. To each their own. Me and some of my friends are just of the persuasion that at any moment, given the right amount of infuriating circumstance, we could happily liquidate all of our assets and invest in fishing lures and go live on a mountain somewhere. It's really nothing personal.

I've never had news broken to me on Twitter. A colleague and I were discussing the value of Twitter when it broke the story that a plane landed in the Hudson River. We both agreed that the popularity of the social networking device was a bit shameful; It's not like somebody wasn't going to report on a plane crash until — oh crap! — Twitter was on the scene!

But I think Twitter is useful, outside of its best use, that is, of transmitting hilarious headlines from the Onion, or the Ghost of Roy Hobbs.

Twitter is the new blog.

I referenced this briefly in my discussion about the Central Arkansas Champions of New Media. Huzah. Consider what blogs were meant to be when blogs were first created; Simple, quick ways to document a weblog of events or journals on the internet with little to no actual tech expertise.

Now look at what blogs have become. Blogging technology is snazzier. It looks more professional. And it's just as easy. If the news source that feeds the blog is credible, be it the person or business that runs the blog, then boom — It's become a new website and new media outlet. People can use these templates as platforms to get their voices heard and make themselves viable public entities, and spend a lot of time making sure it's well-done and thoughtful.

While wonderful in some respects, it kind of distorts the essence of what it used to be to have a blog.

Now comes Twitter, which limits its phraseology to 140 characters. Barely enough for a headline. Hardly enough for a headline and link to whatever the subsequent story may be. It is, in its most base and analytical sense, necessarily easy. The only thought that must be mustered is to confine one's thought to a mere 140 characters.

But it moves news. The Arkansas News Bureau uses it. The Arkansas Project uses it. Blake's Think Tank uses it. I use it. Lance Turner uses it splendidly. Jessica Dean and Choose Your News uses it. CNN. The Onion. The Ghost. All of these credible news sources are using twitter.

It moves news and it generates conversation and puts people's thoughts out there like the regular blogosphere was supposed to, and still does.

Now if they could just get rid of that danged over-tweeted whale. I've never been so infuriated at an aquatic mammal.

Professional Journalists Set to Convene, Shrug Awkwardly About New Media

The rest of the blogosphere seems to be all about this regional gathering of the Society of Professional Journalists scheduled for this weekend.

Rutherford expectedly whined about an inability to Twitter about the event in his absence, which brought up his first good point of the week: Some may be unable to attend the event to hear Kinkade and Conan wax eloquently about New Media, or to hear me ramble incoherently about the magic boxes that control them there interwebs.

So here's a preview, what literally half-dozens of people will line up to hear us say:

"I don't know." (This declarative statement will then be a variance of shrugging, nervous glances, and stuttered, empty platitudes about how "interesting the subject is")

That's the God's honest truth. Nobody knows how this New vs. Old Media thing is going to play out. If I know the answer to this question, you'd never hear from me again on this medium, because I'd be too filthy stinking rich, driving fast cars and trying on fly suits.

I really think that before we figure this level-kajillion-Sudoku enigma out, we're going to have to take several steps back, deep into the recesses of journalistic philosophy and rediscover what it means to be someone who delivers news.

I think we — naturally and unashamedly and with good reason — look at how to monetize the market the way our predecessors monetized newspapers. And it's much more complex. This isn't like figuring out how to fit a square peg in a round hole; It's more like figuring out how to throw a monster truck into a blender to make a banana daiquiri.

I think once we step back and look at the services the news industry has and does offer, I think we'll be able to make headway. I believe it can be done. They monetized music in the wake of the Napster crisis of aught-one, not that music and news are compatible in business models.

One of the wisest sages of our time — Conan O'Brien, of course — offered a segment on the subject on his feature "Glass Half Empty, Glass Half Full." Here's that, paraphrased:

"Half-Empty: The print media business is hemorrhaging money in the wake of the internet and New Media, and struggling to find a way to make money off of it.
Half-Full: Hey, it worked for porn!"

It's that sort of Can-Do attitude that's going to get the media business back on track. Innovation is the life force behind the capitalist markets to which we all subscribe.

Somebody's got that idea right now between their ears. I hope they're my friend. Or better yet, me.

You can never have too many fly suits.

Fear of a One Party System? Try Four

The word of the week seems to be "infighting."

Republicans are split on what to do about the budget. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is having to fend off an aggressive left flank.

Some Republicans were chastised for voting for the AIG-bonus-supplexing bill. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are having closed-door shouting matches.

Can't we all just get along?

Even with a tremendous choke hold on the clear majority, Democrats are starting to dig a line in the sand, dividing the party between the far-Left and middle-Left. A coalition of 16 or so Senators claim in the New York Times and elsewhere that they don't wish to water down out Leftward President's agenda, but to enhance it. Many in the far-Left cry foul.

Not to kick a man when he's down, but outnumbered Republicans find themselves fracturing over principle and pragmatism. Sticking to their guns, at times, has landed them the moniker of "The Party of No." Playing ball with the team that has all of the cards at this point labels them turncoats.

While flipping through the channels, sometimes a case of butterfingers causes me to drop the remote, and it comes to pass that I end up listening to the talking heads, or something equally dreadful. Olbermann has taken to referring to Republicans as "the next Wig Party," due to their overwhelming defeats in aught-six and eight.

It seems more likely to me that four parties might emerge. Like a softball outfield, you'd have your Left, Left-Center, Right-Center and Right. Like the Federalist Papers' solution for factions, perhaps Publicus' notion of multiplying and diversifying instead of unifying would be the most ideal solution.

I don't actually see this happening, by the way. I think there will always be mainly Republicans and Democrats from here on out. But the members of those parties — and their platforms — are always subject to change.

But interesting thought, perhaps.

Arkansas Is a Swing State?

Well, yes.

However, not in the traditional and presidential sense. There, Arkansas remains staunchly red, unless a home towner like a Clinton is involved. However, this card check issue is really pushing Arkansas into the spotlight.

And to think, only 20 months before the 2010 elections. Glad we were able to squeeze ourselves into the conversation just in the nick of time.

I've tried explaining this card check thing to people before and it usually leads to a confused look followed by an abrupt shift in the topic of the conversation. Regular joes like you and me don't really seem to have a great deal of interest in it It's because it only deals with the higher-ups in political and business arenas. Here's the nickel-and-dime rundown.

• It's called the Employee Free Choice Act, aka Card Check.
• It would allow unions to be able to form without the usual process, by allowing a union to form with only a signature on an authorized card from a handful of members.
• There's no mention of secret ballots; It's all out in the open, so pro-business scabs are exposed and vulnerable.

• Obama and his administration owe the unions for their support of his campaign and are expecting this payback in the form of Card Check. Several Democrats agree.
• Businesses don't like Unions.
• Businesses and business owners fund campaigns, and campaigns can't run without them.
• A woodchuck would be able to chuck 46.7 bushels (roughly 80 pounds) of wood were this mammal granted the faculties to do so in the first place.

Okay, so the last bit wasn't true, but everything else is. This Card Check is quite the political pickle. The moral of the story may be to not dole out a campaign promise that some of your party might be hesitant to cash for their own interests, but that's beside the point now.

To add more sizzle to the steak here are certain candidates from certain states in which those states aren't too keen on this whole unionization business. Namely, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and the Pro-Bidness Natural State. And whaddya know, she's up for re-election in 2010.

To make matters worse for the Lincoln Campaign, columnist and monster-truck enthusiast David J. Sanders broke the news a couple of weeks ago that some of the like-party Congressional delegates from her state might be pulling the rug out from under her legs. Sanders reported that Marion Berry, a Blue Dog (fiscally conservative) Democrat from Arkansas first district, is at least hinting that he'll oppose Card Check, but of course, is waiting to see what the Senate does, putting Blanchey in the unfortunate situation of swing voter.

So what happens when the national party opposes the likely view points of the local constituency?

Go with the voters. Duh.

I spoke with two local union members about this Card Check matter, and both were against it. That they were union members against Card Check wasn't as remarkable as the avenues with which they took to get to their opinions.

One was the expected conservative and Pro-Bidness rigmarole. It's un-American to force workers to sign a Union Card in broad daylight, he said. The secrecy that is involved in joining a Union is critical to the security of that worker who may or may not want to join a union. This was interspersed in between the typical gripes against unions; That these aren't protecting the businesses and aren't protecting the workers from Moose and Rocco out in the parking lot.

But the other union member's point of view was the exact opposite — favoring the Unions — yet it came to same conclusion — that it was a bad idea. He said that he felt unions would not benefit, ultimately, from having Card Check in the first place, again over this whole bit about anonymity.

"Why would the Unions want management to know who was forming a union in their office?" the Pro-Union Member asked. "The secret ballot keeps management out of the loop; why would they want them in on it?"

That's a good question. Years ago, Unions clamored for secret ballots. That's because management had the upper hand. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and Unions are looking for the finishing, throat-stomping blow that would give them even more power.

Now, I'm not saying this is the rule rather than the exception. I'm not even saying that this means anything other than this specific instance. But it does beg the question of how many more Pro-Union types are for Card Check.

And what does this mean for Lincoln? Well, her state is very Pro-Bidness, is it not? She needs to be elected, does she not?Were I in her shoes, I'd fight this Card Check thing, and make amends with the Democratic Party when I'm back in my office in January of 2011.

She may be taking a different road. Vice President Biden is set to speak for her at her campaign launching and fund-raiser. Looks like she's siding with her management, rather than her Union, meaning of course, her party, rather than her constituents.

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!

GOP Executive Director: Nowhere To Go But Up

There has been an endless litany of names —some laughably and otherwise— being thrown around for the Arkansas Republican Party Executive Director since the departure of Karen "Who?" Ray.

Tolbert is all over it, putting flip cameras in the closets of anyone who he deems to have a half-shot at the position, which is subject to being nearly anyone. Blake Rutherford has pushed his ideological forbidden fruit — David Kinkade — as a viable candidate, while Kinkade rebuts that illicit drug use must have been involved with Rutherford's assessment, while also throwing out a few names of his own.

Max Brantley has ordered, received, and sharpened three dozen steak knives and currently has his finger hovering over the print button of a mug shot of each of the possible names, ready to violently maim and destroy whoever might take the position in effigy (at first).

But rather than look at the names and faces of these possible candidates, a look at what the position will demand of its owner might be better suited for analysis. It's easier to hit a still target, after all.

A national mandate has been issued from the top of the Republican party on down or vice-versa. Presidential nominee runner-up, Former Governor and Gomer Pyle lookalike Mike Huckabee says he's beginning to sow the seeds from the bottom up on a grassroots movement to replenish the Republican party.

GOP chairman Michael Steele has issued a mandate saying that the Republican party needs to begin to appeal to the "hip-hop" neighborhoods. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has also talked about appealing to the cultures of those who are in minorities. I've gone on about that before.

And just last night, Bobby Jindal, the esteemed Governor of Louisiana, gave a faint-hearted and high-pitched rebuttal to President Obama's Congressional address (not a State of the Union, but pretty close), which turned out to be an attempt at solidifying the values of the Republican party and making them appealing.

We learned two things from this rebuttal: First is that Little Bobby had better stick to his Meet the Press neighborhood, because speaking in front of a camera — which is a little important — is brutal for everyone involved. And the other is that the Republican party is in a period of dramatic transition that will, or should, revamp the party as an entirely new deal, not to coin or invoke a phrase.

If the national GOP wants a ground-zero place to start setting up the revamping shop, I might suggest Arkansas, where the party is remarkably weak across the board.

If you're an Arkansas Republican legislator and reading this, I'm not talking about you; I'm talking about someone else.

The sort of revamping the national figureheads are clamoring for is much needed locally if the Republican party is hoping to maintain a shred of relevance, which seems odd for a state that many will automatically write off as a Red state.

Think Big: Bringing the national perspective of the Democratic party is a good way to start. Arkansas is home to some of the most conservative Democrats in the country, Blue Dogs, they're called. None of these legislators will push the agenda of the national party here and hope to keep their seats.

Pro-Gay Rights? Pro Choice? Pro Union? Do I need to keep going? I mean, none of these things are what you would call integral to a majority of Arkanans values. For those who don't give a hoot about values, Democrats are known to most — justly and otherwise — as government-expanders and taxers.

All of these things go against the natural inclinations of most — again, not all — Arkansans. It should not be hard to make this happen. Let's see how loyal to their party these legislators can be when their national agenda is brought under the microscope.

Think Small: The next executive director ought to think about these grassroots movements Huckabee was talking about (as much as I hate to give him any more credit than he'll take and put on that abhorrent show of his).

I did a research project two years or so ago about the odd appearance of Blue strongholds in a perceived Red state. District to district reflected a national trend: Metropolises (or as close to that moniker as Arkansas can claim), like Little Rock and Fayetteville, usually tend to be more liberal, and therefore more likely to claim Democrats. But the periphery counties, for example in Arkansas' 2nd district, Saline, Yell, Garland, White Counties and etc. etc. are rural counties surrounding Little Rock's Pulaski County.

Energizing the country folk ought to be no sweat for Republicans for the reasons just mentioned with regard to the national perspective. Remind them of their values, remind them of the GOP's, and then (and save this one for last, because it's always good to end with fire and brimstone) bemoan those liberal and tax-happy national Democrats — even if their representative happens to be a conservative local Democrat.

The GOP should know full well how damning it is to have a national figurehead who is an affront to their initial sensibilities (e.g. George W. "Big Government" Bush) but is a representative for the party at large, regardless of differences. Think of John McCain: Obama wisely shackled Bush to him like an iron noose. It's tough to defend your party when those at the top proffer such dramatic disparity to the constituents whose vote you wish to receive.

And what's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

There are also a couple of nagging stereotypes that are following the party, and need to be dealt with posthaste, if any progress is to be made in these dire times for the Republican Party — one much easier to deal with than the other, or at least relatively.

First, the easy one. The GOP has to find a way to get rid of this stigma that they hate poor people. And people don't just think that Republicans don't want to give the poor people of the world anything, but many actually envision a secret, underground liar where Republican spokesmen are wringing their hands and wracking their brains to figure out how to destroy poor people with as much malice as humanly possible.

I've always seen Democrats as the champions of the middle class. I never hear them talk about anybody but the middle class. I even rarely ever hear a peep about impoverished people, although their disdain for the upper-class is obvious, sometimes hypocritically so.

But Republicans can take charge of that tactic, I believe. Can't there be a party that cares about everybody, regardless of income? Treating everyone equally, and rewarding people for their industry; Those could easily be tossed as Republican pillars. Easing up on the tax cuts for solely the wealthy is probably a healthy start to translating such a message. Easing up taxes for everybody? Now there's a start.

Sadly, I fear the last stereotype is nearly impossible to shake, not while the constituency is unable to release its grip on the matter.

Yeah, I'm talking about race relations.

I've talked to several people, professionals and casual political observers, and their primary beef with the Grand Ole Party is that they believe the Party is made up of and has a sole end of representing white people, and discourages immigrants, foreigners, and people who are different.

I get frustrated with that, not because I'm a Democrat or a Republican, but because I didn't know that dreaded vice had political affiliations. I'm fairly certain there are plenty of racist Democrats. And I'm fairly certain there are a lot in Arkansas. Here's one. This whole gun issue became real important all of a sudden, didn't it?

It would be impossible to say to those racists who do indeed vote Republican "We don't want your vote." Their vote, unfortunately, counts as much as the next fellows, and frankly, no one rewards nobility. Democrats would relish such a noble move, because it would be strategic suicide for the GOP. Even if those people didn't vote Democrat, their non-votes would be dramatically damaging.

However, the GOP, in order to make something noteworthy in the future or be doomed, must actively distance itself from that terrible vice as quickly as possible.

Three points of optimism though:

1.) The Arkansas GOP maybe poised to mount an offensive. Speaking to a conservative columnist I know, he says that the party, despite relative obscurity currently, has added legislators to the fold in 2006 and 2008, and could be ready to add more to the ranks through strong party leadership, making this E.D. (not that E.D., I mean executive director) decision even more important.

2.) Historically, the racial tempers have politically shifted before. Prior to the Civil Rights Act in Lydon B. Johnson's Great Society movement, you had a whole heapin' helpin' of southern Democrats who were dang near opposed to all of that desegregatin' hooey. They were called Dixiecrats, and quickly died off. Perhaps the GOP can somehow isolate and get rid of that same problem that plagued Democrats over thirty years ago.

3.) Think of how inept the national Democrats were in 2000. There is always an ebb and flow, a shift in popular appeal. Eight years is a long time. Perhaps by luck, the party has a virtually undefeatable opponent for 2012 against Obama. Name me someone who has a shot at him, and I'll show you a unicorn.

Jindal? Far too weak, albeit he is a principled fellow. Palin? God help us. Huckabee? I hate to say it, but he is probably the strongest at this point, which doesn't bode well for him, as most candidates who are front-runners with this much time to blow it usually do. Obama will have to start catching animals on fire in front of people and stop wearing pants before anybody will question his abilities. He has at least a four year pass on the economy.

Now, Mr. or Ms. Executive Director, you have the task of helping mold the Arkansas GOP from the top down and the bottom up for the party nationally. The Republican focus should be on these local and state parties, as the national front will likely be booked solid. There are plenty of seats in the Arkansas legislature to nab. That Blanche Lincoln is going to be in a pickle in her 2010 card-checked campaign.

Look on the bright side; there's nowhere to go but up.

Blago Strikes Again in the Form of Burris!

"Seat this man from Illinois!" they clamored.

"It's in the Constitution!" they roared.

"Illinois is being denied its proper representation in the United States Senate!" they bemoaned, slightly out of breath, because that's a mouthful to bemoan.

...a little premature now perhaps?

U.S. Senator Roland Burris was appointed to the Senate by ex-Gov. Rod "Cabbage Patch Genius" Blagojevich in the absence of some other guy whose name escapes me at the moment. Oh yeah. Barack Obama? Yeah, I think he got appointed to do something else.

Anywho, were Blago anybody but Blago — a name which has become synonymous with "liar," "cheat," "fink," "sleaze," "carnival worker," "pedophile," and "hack" —this appointment would have gone on with out suspicion or reservation. But under the remarkable circumstances surrounding our favorite Illinoisan, some people rightly balked at the idea.

Understand this wasn't at all because of Burris himself, but because of the man to whom he would owe his appointment. After saying the Senate would initially bar him from entry, after sitting down with the guy, they thought he'd be alright and backed off, allowing him in as one of their own.

But apparently, a little more digging needed to be done.

Burris is now under investigation by the ethics committee under suspicion of perjury. He remarked under oath that he had never campaigned or raised money for Blago in the past and had some questionable dealings with Rod's brother, Rob (real original names by the way, Mom and Pop Blagojevich), a rather high bar when determining whether or not this appointee has a history of any affections toward the then-soon-to-be-now-ex-governor.

This just bugs me, because the entire time the Burris deal was in the news, the pace felt a little too fast for me. I mean, governors have been ousted before (Jim Guy Tucker ring any bells for you native Arkansans?), but this was a pretty serious offense on the part of Blagojevich. One that likely dealt with other people, mind you; this couldn't have been a one man show.

There had to be people on the other end. And if the Chicago Sun-Times' Mark Brown is at least partly right, and Burris was literally begging anyone who had ears for an appointment, doesn't it rub someone the wrong way that maybe —and this is pure speculation— Burris could be one of those purchasers?

That's the whole point. But expedience took precedent over thoroughness, even if Burris is acquitted of all suspicions or charges. If they had done their jobs in the first place, perhaps this mess could've been sorted out earlier.

'Innocent until proven guilty' never applied to public appeal, and suspicion is wholly independent from guilt or innocence, merely a means to one of those ends. And suspicion carries its own weight.

I said in an earlier piece regarding the economic stimulus that I look forward to seeing if it will be labeled as noble expedience or stubborn hastiness on the part of Obama and Congress to get that bill passed. I think the latter, now using our premiere-view 20/20 hindsighting lenses, now applies .

What's the Difference between Partisan and Politics?

The short answer: Not much.

The shorter answer: nm. (lol, omg, g2g, insert emoticon here)

The long answer: There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between partisanship that President Obama and Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe lament so fervently in their orations and the axiomatic politics that — often begrudgingly by most — defines the sport.

There's a whole screenplay's worth of rhetoric bloviated by politicians, local, national and otherwise, about bipartisanship. Come on people, now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together, try to love one another right now. It's very heart-felt and I believe very honest at times. Everybody likes somebody who gets along. Nobody likes the guy at the bar who walks in, smashes a bottle on the ground for no apparent reason and picks fights with the first guy they see. Politicians have a need to be liked, and nobody likes exclusion. Bipartisanship has also become a synonym for open-mindedness, which isn't necessarily so. There can be two logical conclusions that are incompatible with one another, thus causing a partisan divide. So bipartisanship is acclaimed by the masses.

You have these politicians who have made careers out of talking the talk. Then when it comes to walking the walk, they do so like the fat kid in gym class jumping rope; They can keep it up for awhile, but only for so long.

There are two instances of note, one local and one national, where the name 'partisan' was attempted to be seared on the flesh of political opponents, like an ominous scarlet letter. Neither were necessary as they both reigned in the majority, yet neither really stuck as anything out of the ordinary day-to-day routine, as these two Dimmesdales might have you believe.

First, locally, the tumult over tobacco in the Arkansas legislator drew a quick line between Republicans and Democrats. While Republicans, who columnist John Brummett rightly dubs "tax-cutters," quetched the notion of a 56-cent increase on cigarettes, Democratic leaders balked, as if such a thing as fundamental toward the nature of a Republican like tax cuts was shockingly distasteful or something.

Beebe ran to the papers — an odd place to go these days if you're wanting to get some information out to people (zing!) — to decry these Republicans for being what he called "overly partisan," and "divisive politics."

House Speaker Robbie Wills...Well, we've gone over his contributions toward Arkansas Republicans.

Sure, they're gumming up swift legislation, but swift and hasty can run around the same pace. The reason multiple parties and sides have developed, from the days of Publicus and the Federalist Papers (number ten, specifically) is so that all sides of an argument can be heard. Overly partisan? How about doing their job.

At the national front, president Obama has claimed that "the party is over," and rightly so. With a stagnant economy, nobody's got enough money for streamers or balloons anymore, and Obama is proposing a whopping stimulus bill that would call for a tremendous expanse of government on numerous levels.

Without getting into whether or not this is a necessarily good thing (that's another whole article that somebody much smarter than me will have to write), Republicans are not only known as "tax-cutters" but as small government types. Brummett didn't say so in his column, but you can take my word for it; It's one of their sticking points. Aside from the gravity of the circumstances surrounding such a bill, you can pencil in most conservatives to not be thrilled by this idea.

So Obama broke his silky smooth character and went off on the House GOP members who unanimously voted against his bill, equating them to sheep of the Rush Limbaugh flock. At a Democratic rally, he lost his composure a bit as he stressed the importance of this bill. Watch out; now Barack Obama means business. There's going to be no telling how many furrowed brows and sternly-worded letters flying out of the gate, roasting their targets with nothing but charitable malice.

Not surprisingly, few Republicans have shifted their position. In fact, the oft wined-and-dined John McCain, who many expected to go with Obama's plan at the get-go, is one of the most vocal opponents. And why? Do people really think that this is an us-against them matter? It's against most conservative principles. Just overlook that whole George W. thing. He was kind of bad for business across the board and across the aisle.

Since when has bipartisanship become a noteworthy issue? It kind of seems to me to be the name of the game. Sides differ. Lines are drawn. Conclusions are made. People gripe. What am I missing here?


How for some things that I do like:

• Sadly, the last eight years weren't a dazzling example of good policy and many would like the Left to return the favor of a nice legislative kick to the junk. But Obama is still striving for bipartisanship. I like that somebody is attempting to keep his word about that.
  
  He's acting like he needs the Republicans, which he most certainly does not, being backed by the House, Senate, MSNBC, ESPN, Kellogg's cereal, Pizza Hut, Mountain Dew, Oprah and most importantly of all, LeBron. He seems to both fully back his agenda with complete confidence, yet understands the opposition, even if he does vent in public. He understands the alluring warmth of bipartisanship, so much so he might be posing for it if it's not available.

• I like seeing the GOP stick to their guns. There's a lot of publicized support behind this deal, and it can be easy to get swept up in the hoopla. And for those in the Arkansas House who crossed party lines? That's okay by me, too. So long as that's actually what they believed in, while my instincts lead me to believe that isn't necessarily what happened.
  
  Some closed-door, behind-the-scenes meetings, threats against legislators never being able to get their meaningful legislation off the ground? Wouldn't put it past some people.

• Finally, I like seeing people make a big deal out of this stuff. Like it's important. Bipartisan, partisan; It's not going to make a heck of a lot of difference. Votes are just numbers, after all. Politics will go on, even if everyone is on the same side.