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.

Caption Contest! BARRYYYY Ya Gotta See The BayBEEEE

If you didn't know that the title of this Caption Contest was referencing Seinfeld, leave this blog and never return.

In the age of 24-hour news coverage and social media buzzing constantly, I can't believe I haven't seen this picture before. Should make for a great Contest. Probably won't. Allow me:

• BO: He's gonna barf! HE'S GONNA BARF! SOMEONE! QUICK! HE'S GONNA BARF!
• Baby: Oh my God! It's President Obama! Can you sign my head or something?
• BO: Staring contest. Go.
• BO: Usually kissing babies is a welcome change to the rigmarole of shaking hands all day. Usually.
• Caption: Obama surprised to find a baby that looks exactly like Hillary Clinton.

There we go. That should get someone going. Last weeks winner was Robert Everett Simpson. He was rewarded with affection from yours truly.

Get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about a Good Ole Boy network.

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

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

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

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

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.

Me and The Most Thunderous Slapping of the Forehead Ever on Maddow Tonight

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

UPDATE: It's uh me uh speaking to uhhhh Rachel Maddow about uh ooo ah oh Kim uh Hendren.

State Sen. Kim Hendren said some things last week that he should not have said. And he admitted that to me in an interview today.

Oh, wait, what? You already heard that? Okay. We'll here's my Bureau story on it, anyway.

It's been getting a lot of national buzz. I would say that many people are appalled at the statements, but even more are perplexed that he himself let this get out.

I spoke with someone on the condition of anonymity who was at the GOP meeting. He (or She?!?! Ooo! A twist!) said that everyone there heard it, and through a series of awkward shrugs, acknowledged the same thought: "What the heck did he just say?"

But no one there reported it. There were no media folks there, and the only word out was that he was getting "eaten alive" according to one tweeter. "I mean, we were all Republicans."

Basically, no one was going to throw a fellow Republican — no matter how much they seemed to despise his tax raisin' ways — under the bus. Everyone knows that Sen. Lincoln is rolling with some pretty tepid numbers, and that Hendren is the only actual candidate without the word "potential" preceding it.

But everyone also knew this would happen sooner or later. Hendren has always been defined by that, as someone who speaks their mind, openly and honestly, if you like him, or someone who is always about ankle-deep with their foot in their mouth.

I'll be on Rachel Maddow's show tonight, live on MSNBC. It runs from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. central standard time, and they tell me I should be on around 8:45. That is if I don't get bumped or something, which w

The real question is this: Shirtless or sleeveless? I'll let the comment section decide.

Rethinking That Whole Silly Party Switch Thing?

D'oh!

You have to give Arlen Specter some credit: He understands the political machine well-enough to know that being a Republican in Pennsylvania wasn't going to do him any favors. He has readily admitted that the reason he defected from his nearly 30-year stint as a Republican Senator was because polls were showing that he simply could not win. Being a politician, in order to be elected, he had no other option.

But that doesn't mean that that option is a sure-fire winner either.

I remonstrated as much when the news broke that Specter was going bye-bye. He might not win the general election either. Ardent Republicans rightfully hate him, that Benedict Arnold, they clamor. But Democrats can't be too crazy about a guy who not only openly opposed (and often defeated, mind you) them for so many years.

It boils down to my main point then: What are Democrats gaining or Republicans losing that they haven't already gained or lost? Democrats are griping that Specter isn't yielding on issues that he's already spoken on, like Card Check or endorsing Norm "Not the Comedian" Coleman in Minney-soda, and Republicans are frankly enjoying watching the old man squirm.

If Al Franken is seated, will there be an asterisk next to that number 60 in the Senate?

Caption Contest! This Necktie Is Worth More Than the Guy Next to You, Michelle

Photos like this rarely hit the light of day. But when they do...holy crap.

I'm not even going to offer a funny commentary. It almost speaks for itself. But please, I know there is funny out there. Let it be. Let it be.

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.

Hate hate hate

Man, the GOP sure is steamed at this Arlen Specter bozo. Who does he think he is? Defecting his party just to get re-elected? What a bonehead!

Well, they'll show him, won't they? They're going to try their hardest to make sure that he doesn't get re-elected. They're going to attach the most assuredly damning political kryptonite available to ensure that Specter never sees the light of political day after 2010.

They're chaining him to George W. Bush.

Not the worst strategy in the world. Hey, it's worked for Democrats masterfully since 2006. Why not give them a taste of their own medicine, says Senate Republicans.

The Bush Hatefest continues. Personally, as I said in an earlier post, I think the GOP ought to be more progressive and forward-thinking if they hope to be politically viable. This is, while seemingly counter-intuitive in a 'This might be crazy enough to work!' sort of way, it's still harping on the past.

But you certainly can't begrudge Republicans for the move. Again, it has worked masterfully before.

Whether You Like It or Not, Status Quo in 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Cue the Disney Inspirational-Triumph-Miracle Music)

Health Care? Immigration? Global Warming? Pirates? Yahtzee!

Federal Legislators are back in the District following their two-week recess. After swapping photos from their respective Spring Break tiki bar excursions, reading emails, and barking orders to the aides and pages who were admittedly lax while their boss was away (Casual/Hawaiian-Shirt Friday: All day, every day during the recess), the largely Democratic Congress will get back to work cramming legislation at an ambitious pace.

The Obama Administration was adamantly vocal about their extending of the proverbial olive branch to the curmudgeonly, backward, and scaly Republicans still sulking about Capitol Hill, saying he wanted them to come along and get in on the conversation of legislation for which they could not and would not endorse as even marginal Republicans.

While dealing with the economic meltdown which at it's most fevered pitch ran like an episode of 24 on the various news networks, conservative and liberal alike, with the former bemoaning the current state of affairs like Nero sawing on his fiddle as Rome burned to the ground and the latter bemoaning the pitiful and so-called "check and balance" from the Right and has charged them obstruction of justice, going the way of Fox News during the Bush Administration.

Obama pushed a bevy of pieces of liberal legislation while dealing with the economy. Stem cell research, expanding the government by eight percent with a projection of nine percent next year, and has reached his hands further into the business sector than any preceding President, save perhaps FDR, but hey, it's only been 90 days. Now, with Congress coming back into swing and the economy (finally) becoming a little bit of a tired subject in the media, what will be Congress' next move?

We know it won't be card check. As Sen. Pryor's spokesman told me last week, "This thing is dead."

The Wall Street Hoover Blanket says that it's a two way tie between health care or climate change. Apparently, there's a growing roster of Democrats who believe health care has a better shot at actually making it through the sausage factory, whereas the most ardent Democrats believe that global warming is right around the corner and shouldn't wait on the political process.

Obama made some news last week by talking immigration. This might have a good chance at being dealt with if health care and climate change butt too many skulls. People might get tired of that argument and move on to this issue which The Hill called "one of the most politically charged issues in Congress."

Pirates have also vowed revenge. Something must be done. Perhaps a subcommittee with Michael Bay, Bruce Willis and Chris Tucker could be formed to thwart their efforts. Or perhaps they could all be substituted by Will Smith. Who knows.

Anyway, the subject, to me anyway, isn't as important as the political bludgeoning which is going to be on display. As bad as the political slugging was with regard to the mobilization of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, I'm predicting that the upcoming bouts will be much less one-sided than the stimulus plow-fest that garnered only three (3) Republican delegates' support.

Obama's popularity is still potent, but that pixie dust won't rub off on Congress. As seemingly futile as the Tea Party Protests were, they were only the first step by the far-right moving inward. More and more people, per tradition, will begin to raise skeptical brows to the competency of Congress, even if it is of Obama's party. Congress has been, is and will likely always be collectively unpopular. It's just the way it goes.

It's that whole ebb and flow thing again. The Right will be back, if not of its own volition and innovation, than of the implosion of its rival. In the meantime, more fireworks as the sausage is rendered.

Caption Contest! Bawney Fwank is HILAWIOUS

I like this one, because it's just so dang open to interpretation. Give me your best captions for whatever it is that Barney Frank could have said that would make this many people laugh openly. I'll get the ball rolling:

Frank: I don't know where my pants went either.
Everyone else: Isn't he just ADORABLE?!

or this

Pelosi: Oh God, We are so screwed.

or how about this

Frank: And I told Dodd, I'd slap him right in the face with this hand if he ever let anything like that AIG bonus thing get in legislation again.
Dodd (just over Frank's right shoulder, laughing): Oh my God, he TOTALLY did!

Please do better than me. Schwag for the victor.

Conversation on Arkansas New Media

In the wake of the Washington Post listing the best blogs in the state as The Arkansas Times, The Arkansas Project, and The Arkansas Blake's Artificially Intelligent Panzer, I think some conversation could be started about the role of blogs with regard to conventional media, like newspapers.

I think Arkansas has a rich pool of bloggers that are, in most respects, remarkably credible and good at generating the kind of conversation that newspapers used to — and still can; Conversations that bind communities, offer insight and analysis, and can, perhaps in some regard, be the voice that media has always been.

I think the two — conventional and new media — ought to work together, feeding each other. They are not incompatible. And I think Arkansas might be a good microcosm of how things may ought to be in the future.

I can think of eight blogs off the top of my head right now that I deem to be credible. 'Credible' is a license often reserved for that type of conventional media. From authority, comes credibility. But these guys speak with that authority necessary to delivering news and analysis, often times deriving their information from regular old news types.

The Arkansas Times blog is imitable, as well as remarkably simple. Max links press releases that the Times gets. He links articles that are worth mentioning. He provides a little commentary, but never that much. I think it's what the bread-and-butter of blogging used to be as a concept; Easy, quick, and point-blank information.

Since its creation, blogs have become more legitimate platforms (looking at Pew Reserach web trends, trust me, they're legit) upon which people can build themselves up, therefore reducing the ability to make quick and easy blog posts due to the need to articulate well thought-out articles. Twitter, for the record, may have become what blogs were supposed to be — short and sweet bits o' info. And with only 140 characters, good twittererers had ought be sweet, because they have to be short.

Kinkade's Arkansas Project, while he will say he is not nor intends to be a journalist or be held to that standard, does a better job than most at putting news out there for people to see. Of course, this is layered with humor (or flailing attempts thereof — ZOINKS!), but the information is still there. You also know it's reliable. He's been around the block enough to know what's worthwhile and what's utter bull. The fact that he puts up cheesecake photos on the side, while unconventional in news media, is moot; He's got sources and information, and he's letting you in on it.

Blakes' Think Tank has a much more Man of Our Town appeal, yet maintains the authority of a viable news source. Blake "Don't Make Fun of My Flower Shoes" Rutherford was born and raised here. He's worked here in several different capacities, both professionally and otherwise. For someone who many might think is just popular due to his last name, he has certainly gone above and beyond to offer insight, commentary, and just plain old news that is redeemable on every level.

Specifically regarding the Tyler Denton for Lt. Governor story line. Broken on the Think Tank, it generated the same type of conversation and speculation that many people at one time might have looked for in the political section of the local paper. Whether or not the story pans out in reality isn't really the point; It got people talking, which is what papers have been doing for years.

Not that the Post mentioned them, but I think some honorable mentions ought to go around. Arkansas Business' Lance Turner's blog is really good, often dealing with the primary concern that many are heeding regarding new media: How the heck are we going to make money off of this? Jason Tolbert is unique, with his ever transparent, in-your-face flip cam, and has given the blogosphere a little more edge in legislative halls, I think (you sure as crap won't find Kinkade there).

Speaking of the Legislature, some props have to go to Under the Dome, Rep. Steve Harrelson's blog from the House. It's an obvious form of sincerity in trying to be as open and representative to his constituency. Robbie Wills' blog, while a little more theatrical, can be thought of in that same vein, although it's an obvious second fiddle to Under the Dome.

I'd like to say, without patting myself on the back, that I've done alright with Unfamous First Words, speaking from the Bureau's perspective in a bit of a more youthful (maybe irreverent?) voice than most have been used to, while still qualified to speak with credibility and authority. Brummett's blog also has that, but you won't see his tone changing between his column and his blog. Sometimes, they're even the same text.

Is Print Media Dead? I wouldn't think of it like that. Think of it more like Jurassic Park, where the prevailing theory was dinosaurs evolved into birds. Print Media might not be dead, but it could be said that it is evolving into a digital age. We'll monetize it, sure, somebody has to. But in the meantime, it's a special time to see the dinosaurs walking with the birds.

Dry Rub or Wet, It's Still Pork

An interesting article from the Hill got me going about about pork and earmarks.

According to said article, Congressmen and women are going about their duty of transparency to their constituency in a variety of different manners. Some are flaunting their appropriations like a man who caught a fish "THIS" big (extends arms outwards), an overt gesture that they are, in fact, bringing home the bacon.

Others, the Hill reports, are heeding the harsh winds of a populist storm that frowns upon the vague notion of greed and have taken to nestling the required posting of earmark information in clandestine locations that are difficult to find even for the most tech-savvy navigator of the interwebs.

Arkansas' delegates pan out pretty well, in the middle of the road: They're not mounting their trophy earmarks above the fireplace in the living room, but they're not tucking them away in the digital folder next to Congressional Intern applications where no one is going to be sneaking peeks. All of the Congressmen have PDF file links where one would call them "reasonably accessible," although the sites could stand a little new age face lift altogether. No harm, no foul.

The problem can be described in two avenues: One in that everyone hates Congress (They were the only group to poll worse than George W. Bush, after all), the other in that everyone usually likes their own Congressional delegates.

While sticking to our folks in D.C., it should be stated that state congressional members often do their fair share of pigging out, sometimes even retroactively. Rep. Keith Ingram, D-West Memphis, voted for a cigarette tax hike that would devastate local business and then turned around and had that tax exempted for his constituency only. That's a canny mastery of bringing home the bacon; my compliments to the chef.

The point of sending a native of your state for a two year term to Washington is so that they will represent your interests to the best of their ability. This often means that constituents want their delegates to represent them into a new manufacturing plant, smoother roads, or government subsidies for, say, a brand-spanking new, 36-hole Frisbee golf course like in Austin, Texas.

Which is great for their constituents. But everyone else — especially those in need of a little more that spring outings with a recreational discus — eyebrows are raised, fingers are pointed, and tempers flare.

All of this is in line with the 1,073 page stimulus bill that can best be described as a Memphis Meat Locker; laden with pork in all different quantities, styles, and flavors. I wrote about such projects awhile ago, some of which could be deemed by many to be, ahem, unnecessary. The idea for most was to conserve money, as it was tight, and to them, the idea of throwing money towards the study of why pork poop stinks seemed an affront to those thrifty and chemoreceptive senses.

And you have to think that this look at the handling of earmarks might have to do with the attention it received in 2008 and in the developmental stages of the 2009 stimulus, juxtaposed with the result: Nearly 9,000 earmarks, by some counts, worth an estimated $7.7 billion.

Are earmarks good or bad? They're probably necessary in many cases. Necessary to get re-elected, anyway. But the amount of spending made by some of these folks on some of the things they're spending their Federal funds is bound to ruffle a few more feathers.

Whether or not it will ruffle enough to outrage remains to be seen. Let's hope it's not as bad as the outrage against that insurance company AIG. Two words: Piano wire.

Yikes.

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.

Is Breaking Someone's Thumbs a "Legal Avenue?"

Briefly, on Obama vs. AIG.

AIG was/is broke, and has accepted large sums of bailout cheddar in order to stay afloat, only to turn around and issue about $165 million in executive bonuses under "contractual obligations."

Obama says no dice, fool. He's encouraging his man in the field, Timmy "Asthma" Geithner, to pursue "every legal avenue" to make sure that these people can't pay these bonuses.

It's quite the pickle.

The President is still trying to stimulate the economy but let the businesses play ball. But these businesses — the executives of which by the way, haven't really proven themselves to be, how do you say, good at their jobs — are refusing. Admittedly, their CEO Libby has bitten the sacrificial bullet, taking a tremendous pay cut to one dollar, but that's about $164,999,999 too little of a cut, says most.

The government already took over one bank, Citigroup. I don't think they want to take over another (although they already own a measly 80 percent of AIG). Then we're getting into some pretty serious territories over government control of businesses, more socialist angst, etc. etc. Even with their controlling stake, politicians are put off about just what to do.

This fellow from The Daily Beast has a pretty neat idea: Why doesn't Obama just ask them to forgo their bonuses? Not threaten with pseudo-legalese, or make them criminals in the public eye, but simply ask them because their country needs it. The author points to the need for sacrifice that is apparent during war times, and equates the current climate to economic warfare.

Obama is set to go on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Thursday, the only sitting President to do so, and likely one of the only Presidents who can garner enough public appeal to make a pleasant appearance. Don't expect any shoe tossers. Here's where Obama will be at his best: Outside of politics, drumming up public support for his economic vision.

The point is this — Don't expect AIG to win verses the President. In fact, it'd be best for everyone if the two just found a common ground. But so far, neither have budged. Obama might be able to take a graceful offensive; Use his best weapon (public appeal) to wrap his arm around the shoulders of AIG and give them a hug. Or a squeeze?

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.

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.