Postponement: Deathblow or Fresh Air for Health Care?

GEORGE: My god, I'm getting married in December, do you know that?

JERRY: Yeah, I know.

GEORGE: Well, I don't see how I'm gonna make December. I mean, I need a little more time. I mean, look at me I'm a nervous wreck. My stomach aches. My neck is killing me. I can't turn. Look. Look.

JERRY: You're turning.

GEORGE: Nah, it's not a good turn. December. December. Don't you think we should have a little more time just to get to know each other a little.

JERRY: If you need more time, you should have more time.

GEORGE: What, you think I could postpone it?

JERRY: Sure you can. Why not?

GEORGE: That's allowed? You're allowed to postpone it?

JERRY: I don't see why not.

GEORGE: So, I could do that?

JERRY: Sure, go ahead.

GEORGE: All right! All right. I'll tell you what. How about this? Got the date; March 21st, the first day of spring.

JERRY: Spring. Of course.

GEORGE: Huh? You know? Spring. Rejuvenation. Rebirth. Everything's blooming. All that crap.

JERRY: Beautiful.

GEORGE: She's not gonna like it.

JERRY: No, she's not.

I don't think I've made it any big secret that I'm a pretty avid Seinfeld fan. I was reminded of this section from the second episode of season 7, called "The Postponement," when thinking about the news that Mike Ross and his Blue Dog cohorts successfully lobbied to punt the House vote on health care reform back about a month, after the recess.

For Ross and the Blue Dogs, it was a success. Now he gets to go back to his constituents not with a result that could be praised or damned by those voter, but with a benign open ear. For the elected official, it's always better to have something open that voters feel they can put their input into than have to discuss why something that has already happened and can't be changed happened in the first place.

But that's political. What about the issue itself? Was this the deathblow? Many people think so. Others don't.

The Wall Street Journal has released numbers saying that popularity over the President's health care plan has dropped 10 percent in the last month alone, and that a whopping 41 percent of Americans don't think the legislation is headed in the right direction.

Mike Ross says that he's going to talk to his constituents, that there's more room for changes and compromises between liberals, conservatives and everyone in between, but that this shouldn't change the overall plan to reform health care. Others think that the trend will continue, popularity of the health care legislation will continue to plummet to the point that enough votes to pass the bill would be scarce, if at all in existence.

I'm not sure this is the coup of health care reform, as opponents of such legislation would hope. There's been too much time, money and political capital spent on the matter. But will it look dramatically different by month's end? That's very likely.

With three parties going at it — Liberal Democrats, Moderate Democrats, and Republicans — there are more concessions, compromises, and sausages to be made.

UPDATE: Tim Griffin's link to this post says that I'm comparing this 'whole health care thing' to that episode. Nope. Just the postponement, not the whole issue. Just a note of clarification for the four of you who read his blog.

PoLOLitical Stuff: Punching, Time Travel and Nerds

Michael Jackson Splitting Democrats? Sounds Like the Summer Doldrums To Me

First, let me say I am a pretty big Michael Jackson fan. I think he meant a lot to the African-American community, meant a lot to many other communities, and hey, I can moonwalk.

So I'm not not too beside myself about the MJ coverage. There's an argument such a presentation was in demand. Let it be. I was surprised however to see the beltway political Web site Politico launch into a bevy of articles about the death of the pop icon. Two stuck out, one because it was interesting, the other because it was a stretch.

First, Al Sharpton said that it was Michael Jackson that made it possible for a man like Barack Obama to be elected President.

This isn't the aforementioned stretch I was referring to earlier. I think, in, of course the broadest sense of the terms, that Michael Jackson may have helped ease some of the previous tensions that in times past would have kept some white voters from voting for Obama. He certainly wasn't the only reason, and I doubt he was even a big reason. Maybe just in the societal subconscious. I'm just saying. Okay, it's a stretch, I admit it. Happy?

Plus, I don't think Al Sharpton saying something as ridiculous as that should have surprised anyone.

But a Politico article that shamefully used the pun "moonwalking" to connote delicately toeing around a divisive issue was brought to my attention last night. Since the new administration took office in January, there has been a theme over the past few months regarding a possible schism between the far and middle left. It happens to every majority. Some want to keep it going in the other direction (In the early decade, it was the Far Right and to much success on their part, now it's the Far Left, with less-than-expected success) others fight to keep it more moderate.

Politico asserted that since Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, was announcing that she was planning a resolution to honor MJ and his humanitarian efforts, and the leftward Congressional Black Caucus being in support of such a bill, could further the divide in House Democrats.

I think this is a wild, crazy idea, personally. There are resolutions submitted every single day on the House floor for things more crazy than Michael Jackson and his humanitarian bent. And no matter how bust Congress is right now (which they are) a twenty minute break to talk a little bit about the actual tangible good MJ did might be a good breather.

Plus, if there are such stark cultural differences between the pro-Michael and anti-Michael camps within the Democratic Party, I think those differences would have already made themselves apparent by this point.

I think what this is is a good opportunity for the media to get a quick respite from what are called the summer doldrums. You know, the slow news times where nothing seems to happen and that seem to go on without end and are endless and go on without end? Making something out of nothing, I guess.

By the way, the blog post is an example of summer doldrums respite.

Lincoln's a Cool Customer on Health Care

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

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

That's no chump change for anyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Option vs. the Field

Pretty good write-up here from Politico, nailing down the nuts and bolts of what they call the final piece of the health care puzzle, namely the public option that Obama specifically stipulated he would like to see in the bill but is causing many moderate Democrats to balk.

Politically, it's a problem of rhetoric, which is, as I stated in the previous post, is ironic, as the best quality of our new President is, admitted by both sides, his soaring rhetoric.

Had this public option been called anything else less-socialist-sounding, moderate Democrats could have had this sucker sent through with little to know problem. Call it a "due service," or a "personal medical option," something other than public, which connotes the socialist-stigma that the President already is having to deal with from his critics.

But I guess you gotta give it to the President: At least he took the honest road and called the spade a spade. It is what it is. Being what it is, he may not get it. The public option, that is.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln has said that she prefers a cooperative rather than a public option, saying that there is a grave concern of the government usurping the abilities of a private industry to make money fairly. The problem is that big businesses in the private industry are easy targets, and everybody already assumes and believes wholeheartedly that they are crooks.

If the health care industry were run on the backs of "mom and pop" type family doctors and such, it'd be a different story.

This debate is about helping out the 47 million who don't have health coverage without pulling the legs out from under everyone else. Obama said that the only reason he wants the government to be a competitor in the public sector is to keep everyone in that business honest. Lincoln said that they're looking into the needs that the private sector either can't or has yet to provide.

It will be a matter of convincing everyone, i.e. voters, if there's any other way. Well, I say voters. Vocal, interested constituents at this point. Although with the way candidates are piling up against our own Senator Lincoln, it's campaign season year round.

Department of Irony: Obama the Silent

So. Looks like this thing in Iran is escalating pretty quickly, no?

Indeed, this it is. It's got people wearing the already-environmentally-trademarked color green in support of those rioting in Tehran here in the states. The Iranian media has been ordered to blackout the biggest news story in the country, namely, the riots and the election that caused them.

The only word is coming from amateur sources. Twitpics, camera-phones, and facebook are playing an integral role in telling the world what's happening over there. 'Neda,' a young protester who was allegedly shot in the chest and died on camera, is being used as a martyr for their cause.

All of this compelling turmoil going on in the world, and the world wants to hear from the most compelling man in that world right now: President Barack "Check my $tats" Obama.

Yet the gregarious chief executive has remained vigilantly silent.

Oh, the irony.

The man whose rhetoric can sweep men, women, babies, and some mammals off their feet suddenly has a case of feline-mandibular-seizure. The cat seems to have his tongue, that is.

I think it's showing his intelligence, personally. Thoughtfulness, if not intelligence.

People are clamoring for him to say something, anything about it. Joe "WHOOOOOO's Gotta Microphone?!" Biden has already voiced his unsolicited opinion, saying there are real concerns about the legitimacy of the election. Well, duh, Joe. Someone who many call a dictator calls the election —for him, of course— only two hours after the polls close?

The other day I was speaking with Sen. Mark Pryor, interviewing him for something other than this post. Pryor commended Obama for his silence. In our conversation, he related this issue to a similar one Reagan faced early in his presidency, namely, the oft-forgotten situation in Dec. 1981 in Poland, in which their government declared marshal law, which P.O.ed the Soviets, which got the Pope in a fuss, and so on and so forth. Like I said, it's oft-forgotten, but Reagan, for the most part, bit his tongue on the matter.

Pryor says that showed Reagan's political savvy to reserve plight-shifting judgment and says that Obama is showing the same. I tend to agree; Obama's opinion on the matter might not solve anything, as odd as that might seem. It could in fact have adverse effects on the situation, like strengthening the resolve of the man who is unwilling to open himself to the possibility of being ousted from office or pushing someone who is just about to go on a violent tirade instead of a peaceful rant just over the edge.

The fact is we don't have all the facts. Time Magazine's Howard Chua-Eoan (hat tip to Blake Rutherford) asked what aren't we seeing in Tehran. The answer is undetermined at this point. And as my associate John Brummett advises me, if you don't have anything worth contributing, you ought not contribute at all.

I guess that's what Obama's doing. Despite criticisms being levied for his omission, I'm willing to give him a pass.

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.

Sweet Sassy Molassy Look at How Far We've Come

Hang on guys, I'm getting a page. Is there another telephone in the bedroom that I might be able to use? Oh wait! Terry's got a car phone! Terry, give me your keys so I can start your car and use your car phone.

But how were you supposed to tweet?

Is Pres. Obama Setting Democrats Up To Fail?

President Obama is sitting pretty.

He is very powerful right now. He is the Executive Branch, he has a commanding control of the Legislative Branch — so much so that when he doesn't like the direction a bill, he merely gives the word, and it's automatically done (cough, health care, cough)— and he's about to insert his first of who knows how many Supreme Court Justices to a lifelong assignment (the average for SCOTUS/Prez is 1.7, but this is early in Obama's Administration and the bench could likely have two more vacancies by the end of Obama's tenure).

But let's not kid ourselves. Obama has done very well for himself without having a ton of credentials. Had he not run for President, he'd be running for re-election in the Senate for 2010 for his second term. Not the second time, but his second term. Prior to that, he was an Illinois state senator and a professor of law.

His first foray into the national spotlight was a speech at the DNC convention in 2004. What got people on the Obama boat was his soaring rhetoric, his telling narrative and those big pearly whites of his. In a word, his appeal. Couple that with an acerbic sentiment toward the Washington status quo, worded by a singular word "CHANGE," which was so breif it literally fit any profile of anybody who wasn't happy with the government, which is usally everybody.

Obama has got it, that appeal. Everyone loves him. He's as much of a celebrity if not more so than Sarah Palin, only he has credibility whereas her largest splash in the media is getting into verbal fisticuffs with late night talk show hosts. Obama was a guest on similar shows, not the punch line.

Obama uses this appeal to get what he wants done, namely a very progressive agenda that would have been difficult for anybody to get accomplished, even with a Senate and House in their pocket. This is a center-right country after all, and I haven't really heard many arguments to the contrary, rather that it's remarkable Obama has functioned, worked and succeeded in those parameters. He's got the look.

But is that look, that appeal going to be a stumbling block for future Democrats?

You can see it now. Obama is pulling his weight for those with less than fortunate appeals. Let's take Harry Reid, the Senate leader. Tepid, awful, lousy polling numbers for this guy, and Obama is going to make sure he gets re-elected in 2010. $789 billion in taxpayer money for stuff like butterfly atriums in Florida? Obama flashes the pearly whites, and there she is, passed and ready to be doled out.

Obama can do these things because he's Obama. Will anyone else other than Obama be able to do these things?

Obama's polling numbers are at a positive mid-to-high 60's range. The direction of the country, the approval of Congress, and certain issues that the government is pioneering, like the economy, foreign policy and health care, are all sinking quickly.

The mystique of Obama will, in my guess, carry him through 2012. He will be remembered not only as a great accomplishment but for his various accomplishments. His rhetoric is certainly worthy of stature. But as the Republicans have a dearth of leadership, could it not be said that there is a similar dearth with the exception of Obama and his Administration?

The aforementioned Reid is more popular than Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has unenviable polling numbers as well. Most think she's been less-than-honest about her dealings with the CIA. Hillary Clinton has swing, but by 2016, when she'd be able to run for President, she'd be as old as John McCain was when he ran, which was his primary campaign fault. Not that she couldn't lead Democrats without being President. I may just still be in that mode where I see Hillary running for the top office with reckless abandon. Those were the days. Now she's just globetrotting the world, and from what I hear, doing a good job.

I'm curious to see the Democratic roster. If they get a handful of names, they'll have a handful lot more the Republicans. But I'll be more curious to see if they can keep up the far-leftward approach that Obama has been taking.

Obama can get away with it. I haven't seen anyone else in politics be able to pull it off. After eight years of it, do you think people will still find it meritorious when broached by someone who is inherently less likable than Obama?

Who Competes with the Government? And Wins?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still...

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Far Side

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

Interesting stuff from Mark McKinnon, a Dubya and McCain adviser and Republican strategist, on the Rachel Maddow show.

As the video is about ten minutes long, a hefty chunk of which is Maddow waxing about how stupid and racist Republicans are for calling Justice-to-be Sotomayor stupid and racist, but McKinnon's points can be summarized as thus: The far right is strangling the rest of the GOP, and could force the party into permanent minority status.

“The Republican party right now is clawing its way to the bottom. They’ve got 23 percent of the American electorate supporting them. They’re seen as a sort of bitter, partisan party right now: anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic. I just think that this sends a lot of the wrong signals to independents and soft Republican voters out there who are leaving the party in droves. … I say it as a proud Republican, and as a progressive and moderate Republican, but I would just hope that there’s room for us still. There are a lot of voices in the party that seem to be crowding and shouting us out and shouting us down all the time.”

Evan Smith, Editor in Chief of McKinnon's homeland's Texas Monthly, blogged that this is 'McKinnon vs. the GOP' in his titular address of the Maddow appearance. One commenter zinged the Bush strategist as someone who is turning his back on those he praised during the '00 and '04 elections — the far right base — and concluded with "Good luck getting your crazy uncles to leave the party you insisted they attend."

I'm a little torn on it. Have I noticed that the far right seems to be steering the party in an awkward and thus far ineffective manner? Youbetcha, but that could be because it's a vocal minority, which tends to be the loudest. And while the far right did at the very least help win the first two 21st century presidential elections, could it not be said that may have lost the third in 2008?

I think Smith may have this wrong, pitting McKinnon against the GOP. I think McKinnon wants the GOP to thrive and prosper as best it can, with its current track being, uh, not that. Not to say that the far right is unappreciated or crazy or needs to shut their big mouths or anything like that. But like I've said before, the base is the base for a reason. While the base will gripe and complain, I don't think it would gripe and complain to voting for a Democrat.

And vice versa. In 2000, which McKinnon alludes to, Democrats were struggling to find their way. The base was pulling the party too far left, and the word 'liberal' was a dirty word that Gore was desperate to expunge from his record. They've certainly found their way these days, in both state and federal legislatures.

But that is certainly not permanent. The saber-rattling of those in majority power to pull their agendas further right in 2000 or left 2008 often falls on deaf ears. The nation is centrist almost by an exact law of averages; one either votes Democrat or Republican, for the most part.

McKinnon seems to be trying to help the GOP by suggesting it allow the more moderate and "soft" wing of the Republican party in its tent. The GOP used to be known as the big tent party. I think McKinnon is pushing it further that way than it is now.

In order for victory, I think it has to be that way, or like McKinnon said, become a "permanent minority." The ardent principles of the far right will resurface as a vibrant ideal, rest assured, but that's not what's going to win elections now. Feasible alternatives, credibility and inclusivity — without betraying those principles — will be the way to go.

Now, anybody who has those 'feasible alternatives' figured out, tell me, and no one else. Meet me at a bank of my choice.

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

"Well, I was driving, see? And it was a stick shift and pretty heavy traffic, and there was that school pretty nearby...Needless to say, I was a little preoccupied and when I misspelled Sonia. I was just mashing my fingers furiously and got it to M-A-R- instead of S-O-N. To be honest, I got 40 percent of it right, and that's pretty impressive when considering all of the business-types and vagrants wandering the streets I avoided with my Honda." -Huckabee staffer (but not really)
---------

I don't know if you heard this or not, as you may or may not have had access to a television set, computer, telephone, newspaper, fax machine, or friends with any of those accouterments, but Obama made his Supreme Court nomination.

It's District Judge Sonia Sotomayor, making her the first Latin American justice (milestone: check), and only the third female justice (bronze medal milestone: check). Pretty much no national politicking is going to get done today, as everyone else is freaking out one way or another on this, the first of Obama's possibly several SCOTUS picks.

I say "one way or another" because it depends who you ask. Many conservatives are mad and eyeing a tough vetting process. A couple of the leadership Republicans are saying they're going to wait until they get all the facts, theeen they'll attempt to verbally skewer her.

I'm told that on the record she's a centrist, but off the record she's an avowed liberal. Either way, it wouldn't be much different than what we have now. Souter turned out to be plenty liberal, appointed by G.H.W. Bush, who also happened to appoint Sotomayor to her district seat. COINCIDENCE?!?!?

There is one concern that she perhaps leans on her own feelings and experiences while exercising her judicial opinions, which really lends itself to more of a philosophical question about the nature of justice and how we execute it here in the good ole U.S. of A.

A judge ought to be void of conflicting emotions and ought to rely on nothing but cold, hard reason in order to execute the law, right? But how often is that actuated in court? People are people any way you slice it and might not be able to differentiate between their job and their humanity, although few are so quick to admit it (in public, anyway) like Sotomayor has done (and on video, no less).

I spoke with two attorneys today about it and they both said it happens but that a.) it always happens b.) it's not that big of a deal. Seems to be that these guys are humans and like humans do, use their experiences to weigh their decisions, even ones that are intended to be unbiased.

After all, it doesn't seem that odd that a President would pick someone who would be at least somewhat in the slightest bit just maybe and perhaps would select someone who might be the least bit sympathetic to their cause, which is likely the case here.

Maybe it's a simple case of honesty, saying that she uses her feelings on the bench. But it's going to be an attacking point for conservatives. Politico's Mike Allen said that both sides got what they wanted in the pick: Conservatives got a controversial candidate they can sink their teeth into and use as an example of Obama bias, and Liberals get a lock.

And of course, the local angle is that former Gov. Mike Huckabee called her 'Maria' instead of her actual name 'Sonia.' The misnomer is apparently due to the staffer writing on the Web site while driving. D'oh! Oh well. Typos happen. Not sure that a typo includes giving someone a completely different name, but yeah, it happens.

I Got Nothing.

There's literally nothing going on today. It feels like the Stephens Media building is an old-timey bomb shelter, and someone just dropped the big one. Is there anyone out there?

I guess I'll do one of these obligatory lists of which we in the Arkansas blogosphere are so fond, especially when confronted with a news famine like today. LT's "Week in Review," Kinkade's "Stuff Around Arkansas" and the Artificially Intelligent Panzer's "Whatever" file.

Unfortunately, like I said. There's. Nothing. Going. On. National, state, local. There isn't even any office politicking to be heard, now that we got a whole other microwave in the break room, so now we can cook two meals at THE SAME TIME. And the Gods did tremble.

So two brief points, one on Cheney's new found love of the limelight, and the other on that Thing That Will Not Die.

As per a video I posted a couple of days ago, Bush bashing — and subsequent Cheney-bashing — is and will be popular for the foreseeable future. Dubya has gone on a few limited engagement speaking tours, and apparently is penning (crayoning?) an autobiography, but for the most part, has been willfully sequestered in his palatial Dallas cul de sac.

Cheney on the other hand has been mounting an offensive to preserve the Bush Legacy, something few credible types believe is possible. I've given an optimist's guide to the Bush legacy, but it's more of a 'nowhere to go but up' type of essay. Cheney doesn't have a nowhere to go but up stance, rather, he's on the top of the world looking down on creation.

I'm befuddled. We went from never knowing where or what Cheney was doing, save for a couple of Meet the Press appearances and someone getting shot in the face, to know him being the strongest qualified voice for the GOP. And don't kid yourself; He is.

I'm waiting to see if this is all an elaborate play on the part of the GOP. The only person hated more than George W. Bush during that Administration was Dick Cheney. Bush has from day one been someone who was identified by those around him: Cheney, Rove, Card, etc. etc., with Bush simply being the puppet to this Brain Trust.

The GOP could — and this is a stretch — be using Old Man Cheney as bait. If so, the media (whom the Right somewhat accurately but to not a damning extent refer to as "the Liberal Media) has bitten. They regularly rip Cheney to pieces and send Bohner and Steele in with brief defenses. This could provide a large distraction for the Right to make moves that would have otherwise alerted the media, and blown their cover. The GOP needs to move somewhat clandestinely if they really hope to gain power back. The Democratic rhetoric is strong these days, the best example of which is by taking a gander at the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

It could be. It'd be fascinating if it were, but it likely is not. It'd be interesting to see a piece on what the GOP's aim is at letting Cheney run amok. Maybe Cheney is just plain old vanilla crazy. I just think it's another sign that the Republicans had better get some play makers and fast.

Now for the Thing That Will Not Die.

Card check talks are still heating up, according to Politico, as Specter, DDD-Pa., is trying to rally labor support as a Democrat by launching an initiative to find a compromise to an issue upon which neither side has previously hinted.

Business has won for now, and so will not open an avenue for labor to have a slightest shot at victory. No official that I have spoken with for the AFL-CIO, and I've spoken with a few, are going to be willing to give up the arbitration and secret ballot points, and therefore no compromise will likely exist.

An article from the L.A. Times says that Labor's efforts has been beaten in the halls of Congress by the business community. But Labor is still calling the Democratic party on its aid during the election. They want theirs.

Now comes our very own Mark Pryor as one of the Senate insiders trying to negotiate such a compromise. I've always said that of the two Senators, Pryor has the best shot for the Democrats to get anything in Arkansas. Lincoln will be bitten by the re-election bug, and I doubt would do something has locally politically hazardous as vote for card check.

It's been defeated, but yet it arises again. It will not die. Roby Brock says a vote could come in June. Perhaps that will be the episode someone straps it to a rocket and launches it to the sun. But that could just lead to another sequel.

UPDATE: And of course, just as I'm writing this, UCA's Interim Prez. Courtway says he's vying for the top lotto job. Also, Gilbert Baker not only say's he's "more open" to running, but says he flat out disagrees with Doyle Webb's statement about Rep. Kathy Webb. Check out my article the Bureau's site in the next while about it, and check UFW tomorrow about Gilberto. Thwarted again by actual news to be reported. Drat.

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.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Tip of my comedic-oversized-foam-cowboy hat (a Monday Morning ritual here at the Bureau) to Jason Tolbert for shooting me an email about retaliation from the Family Council toward the organization Know They Neighbor, which by publishing a directory of names to a petition, attempted to out those in Arkansas who needed no outing.

Tolbert has now published a list of contributors to the organization Arkansas Families First, which was a driving force of opposition against Act 1. They were unsuccessful, and alongside KTN are trying to force those petition-scrawlers to "stand behind their signatures and be responsible for this dehumanizing attack on the gay community," so says one KTN leader.

Okay, says everyone who signed such a petition. Again, this Massachusetts organization is not outing anyone. They are loud and proud. I wouldn't be surprised if all of these names were written in all capital letters, with an enormous sharpie marker. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these John Hancock's took up an entire page.

That'll show em. Accuse us of being cold-hearted bigots? We'll give you a taste of your own medicine, with a smile on our face. Signatures? Weak sauce, says Tolbert, I've got names of contributors who gave real, live money. Booyah.

God, I feel like I've heard this somewhere before. Somewhere, out there along the internet or Hoover blanket or somewhere...

Fie! It was that wily Johnnie Ray Brummett!

The ever-conservative, 'Print is Dead' blogger Tolbert has opened a Pandora's box of unintended consequences. His ideological opposite in both medium and political leaning has already foreseen this occurring.

Brummett prognosticated the beating of the chests that the Tolbert Report now...reports. While Tolbert's post in this instance is reasonably void of slight, and Brummett's makes no bones about the fact that he believes those on the list to be the bigots KTN would want to out, Tolbert is making Brummett's point for him.

We bloggers are supposed to be ahead of the curve of traditional news outlets, like the one for which I work. Aren't we? Or can't we all just work together and get along?

Doubtful. This will likely mean (verbal) war.

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.

How Do the Tables Turn So Quickly and Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three quick points:

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

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

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

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

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)

Professional Gawkers and Stalkers

I read Politico daily. I don't frequent Perez Hilton's blog.

There are numerous reasons for this disparity, aside from a preference to the subject matter, but the primary one is this: One reports news and the other peddles gossip.

I don't think I need to say which is which.

So when I see a superior news outlet mimicking something reserved for feeding the base desires of people who have nothing better to do than not bathe and stalk the every waking move of celebrities, I'm not thrilled about it.

Politico features this new page on their site 'Politico 44,' monitoring the every waking move of the 44th President, Barack Obama. This 'living diary of the Obama presidency' features a section of speed-read headlines, any story that happens to mention Obama, and quick blurbs about who is buzzing around the White House (the latest was Usher; Lil John was nowhere to be found).

They even have an hour by hour calendar listing what Obama and his cabinet are up to. 9:15 AM — Obama receives his daily briefing. Biden is also in attendance. 9:30 AM — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. 1:05 PM Obama meets with representatives of the credit card industry.

I'm a little mixed up about all this. I don't know if this is a sign of the times, a sign of the Presidency itself, or perhaps some mix of both. I believe the answer might be C.

The current times are an age of technological advancements that are largely outgrowing the subjects it records. There's a camera. Everywhere. On campaign trails, every gaff of miscue is meticulously proliferated to numerous other websites, newspapers or any other media outlet available. For those in office, the same rule applies: Every mistake will be well-documented.

And who's to say that's necessarily wrong? Transparency, after all, seems to be the chief goal of the new media circus and of this current administration. I don't think the previous administration was ready for what developed right under their nose. Camera's being in the face of George W. Bush, if they stay long enough, will most certainly yield some sort of hilariously quotable fruit, like “Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.”

A lot of it, however, I dare say, comes from the seemingly unending appeal of our President. His numbers are remarkably honeymoon-esque for someone who has been in office nearly 100 days. Referring back to the site, Politico and others refer to it aptly as the '100 Day Sprint,' and Obama, for better or worse depending on your political preferences, has gone a considerable distance in that sprint.

The minute by minute living diary of Obama is there because people want to know what Barack Obama is doing every minute, just like there are some people who want to know what Lindsay Lohan or George Clooney are doing every minute. Such appeal has not been attached to an politician since Reagan, who was a celebrity in his own right, and without the convenience of new media and round-the-clock news.

I'm curious to see if there will be a Politico 45. I doubt it. By then, it will be a terrible rerun or spin-off. And those typically do terribly, with the fine exception of Frasier (from Cheers) and Laverne and Shirley (from Happy Days).

But speaking again of Politico 44, I have to admit I prefer The Onion's living diary of the President's first 100 days.

Guest Post: Icehouse says Increase the Peace

UFW wouldn't have been possible without GRH.

The Ghost of Roy Hobbs is a haven of sports knowledge and analysis from those who are in the know. For those of you who come to my humble site and don't immediately go to the Ghost, or vice versa, are definitely missing out.

I found this piece by my dear friend to be particularly compelling, and duly republished it here. One of the regular staples at GRH — the Book Club — discusses sports films or films with particular interests regarding events, such as this post, juxtaposing the film Boyz in the Hood to the sentiments surrounding the Michigan State Spartans playing in the NCAA Championship.

Understand that it was supposed to be read prior to the game, but its words still have great merit.

Read, and enjoy.

-Zack
Ok, ok, ok. I know it’s not a “Sports Movie.” Hear me out.

Sports plays a large factor in the movie, and plays a pivotal role in the development of one of the central characters. Plus, it kind of connects to a lot of current things, so, shut up and listen.

Boyz N The Hood is the coming to age story of Tre Styles, Ricky Baker, and Doughboy Baker, following them from childhood up to the cusp of adulthood, in the poverty-ridden environment of south-central Los Angeles. The three take essentially the three different paths available to those of this plight.

Tre, raised until the age of eleven by his mother (who earns a master’s degree and becomes a denizen of a higher social status), is taken in by his father, Furious. His life is maintained by a strict code of ethics set forth from his father, with words of wisdom like, “any fool can make a baby, but it takes a man to be a father.” Tre has a job, excels in school, and is ambitious and driven enough to make college a reality.

Doughboy, played aptly by Ice Cube (the dude that makes family movies?!), is the opposite. In and out of prison, his life is consumed by drugs, alcohol, and the perpetual and cyclical violence which he himself perpetuates, and succumbs to, postscript.

Tre’s best friend and Doughboy’s half-brother is Ricky Baker. This is where the movie intersects with our interests. Ricky has been sports-obsessed since a young age and is now an All-American Running Back for Crenshaw High School, is highly touted and recruited to play the position at USC. Ricky is not without his setbacks. Like of many of the same young men in his situation, he is already a father, and does not excel in school. When the recruiter comes to talk to Ricky, he is obviously put off by the young son, and sends Ricky into a spiral of self-doubt when he mentions that Ricky must score at least a seven hundred on the SAT to be eligible to play at Southern Cal.

Tre is the exception whose eyes we see the movie through. He has two supportive parents and seemingly only has the weakness of female attention. Doughboy and Ricky, on the other hand have the same mother, but we know nothing else of their fathers. Crime is the only avenue that Doughboy seems destined for, and football is the only outlet – and way out – for Ricky. This seems to be a prevailing notion, for when the USC recruiter comes to visit Ricky, one of Doughboy’s associates asks for a scholarship, saying, “I want to go to college, too.”

I won’t spoil the end for those of you that would like to know where it goes, but needless to say, it’s not a feel-good movie.

What got me on this line of thinking is a game that tips off here in a little less than an hour. How many times in the last weekend have you read something about how great it would be for the state of Michigan if Michigan State were to win tonight? Seriously, how many? It’s all anybody can talk about, really. I’m not trying to take anything away from the accomplishments of the Spartans, they’ve done very well, and been pretty fun to watch. OMFG! FUNK!

What I don’t want is for sports to be the only thing that these people have to cheer about. I don’t want people in Detroit, Flint, or any other impoverished Michigan community thinking that sports is the only thing that can heal a community that has been ailing for decades.

Maybe I’m reading to much into it, maybe I’m just being a jerk, but it seems to me like it’s just a scrap of happiness being thrown their way, while the real pervasive problems of their society go largely ignored.

Put it another way. In the words of Doughboy, “Just goes on and on, you know? Either they don’t know, don’t show, or don’t care about what’s going on in the hood.”