Lincoln: Up Yours, Vocal & Active Constituency!

I would have loved to have seen the look on Steve Patterson's face around 11 in the morning, as Sen. Lincoln was wrapping up her press conference with Arkansas reporters on Thursday.

Patterson, Lincoln's campaign manager who is most certainly gearing up for a tough re-election bid, was probably sitting in his office in Little Rock, or maybe even her office in D.C. Depending on if or how big his breakfast was, maybe he was thinking about lunch.

Should I go to Wendy's again? he might've been pondering. But I just went there yesterday...but nobody saw me. Maybe I can go there again...I did almost get the spicy chicken. Maybe I'll get that today. But those square patties are-...

Then he heard that buzz word, that word that says so much while spelling so little: un-American. He could've sworn he had heard it from his client, Sen. Lincoln's mouth.

She must be talking about how dumb and polarizing and really, really dumb it was to use that word to discuss a politically biased stance, he probably mused to himself. Man, that Bush guy really helped us out by doing that.

Then his expression probably became a little more grim, aspirations of a delicious chicken sandwich, Frosty, and routine incumbent election quickly evaporating into the vapors. Had Sen. Lincoln had just called several hundred of her vocal constituency "un-American?"

Hang on, Steve might've thought to himself, in that low, booming voice that I hope is his inner-thought voice as well, Blanche is smarter than this. He'd be right, too. Sen. Lincoln frustrates many conservatives with her ability to tread politically difficult matters with somewhat ease, if not persistent thoroughness. Being a Democrat, her party and those running it are decidedly more liberal than probably she is, but most certainly more so than her constituency is. She has threaded the needle, as they say, and done so quite well with such a large bull's eye on her back.

She may weave 27 minute answers to some questions, but she has her points, sticks to them, and rarely gives much away.

Oh, she couldn't have done that, Steve, time to lay off the crazy pills, this isn't a Styx and Kansas concert, laughed Patterson to himself.

“It’s so sad, because it’s diminishing to the process, it’s diminishing to our outcome...I think it’s sad that they choose to do that," he recalled her saying. "I think it’s un-American and disrespectful."

I am going to throw up all over these tasseled loafers, a now pale and mortified Arkansas campaign manager may have thought to himself.

She had. She had called her some of her most vocal constituency "un-American." Not only are they the most vocal, but judging by their likely political leanings, they're a constituency that would be most offended by being branded as "un-American." They're vocal, they're on the move, they're willing to campaign against her now for no wage or interest other than their own: They will be a terrible nightmare for business, thought Patterson.

Some of these nuts are running against her already, Patterson might have pondered, noting the growing roster of Ricky Randoms, many of whom nobody outside their small circle of friends and relatives would know, recognize, or lend any help to. All of those guys just got a little more credibility, the now-worry-wrought Steve Patterson might have thought.

Maybe it won't be that bad, he might have scrambled in his head, trying to weave his way around the situation. He'd be fooling himself. While it's certainly no "that Jew" statement, it certainly is self-stubbing of the toe. Sen. Lincoln tripped up, insulted her constituency (much in the same way that Curtis Coleman chap did, eh?), and now looks like she's going to have to eat those words in every debate and campaign ad.

Will it cost her the election? Doubtful, as all of her challengers are those people who are best defined as 'ambiguous.' But someone well-funded with a compelling narrative that's relatively well-liked? It could be a loud speed bump, and we're only just in August of 2009...There's time, Patterson might have concluded, both optimistically at the time to dig herself out of the hole presented here and in her polling numbers and pessimistically at the time for a real candidate to emerge.

What in the name of holy flying horse snot is going on with this campaign?! Patterson thought madly to himself, the only visible sign of his rising anger a small twitch of his left eyelid. You know what, I hate this freaking job! This has got to be the most worthless, hapless, hopeless re-election campaign I've ever been a part of. I wake up every morning, look at those poll numbers, and curl up in a little fetal ball and cry my eyes out, because this is just a mess, Patterson might have mused as his face became more red and his knuckles became more white. Two terms? TWO TERMS?! What kind of amateur, rookie, bush-league, open-mic night at the Apollo is this Senate race supposed to be, huh? Now fuming in his own mind, I swear to God Almighty I am going to go off on a Clark-Griswold-esque rant that may or may not involve me punching numerous interns and aides in the face and thrusting my head in the toilet until the someone drags me out and puts me in the dumpster out back with the rest of the toiletries and all the health care reform placards and pickets!

He paused. Inhaled.

"Uh...Blanche? I think we should issue a retraction."

If the GOP is Turning the Corner, Who's at the Wheel?

Michael Steele, head honcho for the RNC, has penned an op-ed for Politico today which boldly claims that the Republican party has "turned a corner" and that they are "looking forward" to surging back into the majority status once again.

It even offers a three-step plan to launch them back into the limelight:

1. Stop looking backward, only look forward, established in the penultimate paragraph by a Reagan quote.
2. Boldly oppose the most popular president in recent history.
3. Seize the already(?) simmering(??) momentum(?!) for the Republican party.

It really wasn't that poorly-written. It's the stance everyone on both sides of the aisle expects and accepts Republicans to make. No harm, no foul. They do need to look forward, Obama has an admittedly leftward agenda, and...hey, here's to optimism.

However, a problem arises in my mind when I try to think of an executor of all of these lofty maxims.

There's no singular individual in the GOP right now who seems up to the task of rallying undecided voters, which is the goal of every political endeavor. The Gallup poll is clear: People have been headed in the other direction. While Democrats will call this a matter of principle — that the GOP has got it all wrong — that's not necessarily the case: They're just not convincing the voters. Where were Democrats in 2000, and 2004? Exactly.

"Principle" is a funny word. It means so much to people without having an actual definition.

I'm finding a dizzying array of similarities between local and national political stories. Here's another one that I think illustrates what the GOP really lacks.

Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Blanche Lincoln, D-Here, are both up for rerere-election in 2010. Each are stalwart incumbents with a high degree of name recognition and money raising abilities (Lincoln has over $2.3M cash-in-hand, which in Arkansas dollars is roughly $4.9 bajillionkajillion, and Reid is already boasting Obama...and Sheryl Crow!), one of which is even the House Majority Leader.

Each are also rolling with pretty tepid polling numbers. Lincoln's numbers are kind of old news at this point, but Stephens Media's very own Las Vegas Review-Journal has written about a poll that show Reid's numbers to be even worse than Lincoln's. These numbers are paltry at best for the multiple-term Senators, and have their opposition — their starving opposition, by the way — licking their chops, ready to lower the boom.

But I'm not hearing any credible names, are you?

Reid has good reason to be comfortable. The only roster of those against him are an indicted Lieutenant Governor and a Representative whose name escapes me, and may escape the names of voters outside of the Reno area. Juxtaposed with the way out and wacky Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker, Reid comes across as a sensible moderate. Plus with Obama in his corner, some of that magic is bound to rub off.

Lincoln finds herself in the odd situation of being a Democrat, with tepid numbers, in a state that most associate with Republicans, nevermind the nomenclature to the contrary. But again, nobody has stepped up to the plate. One guy did, Kim Hendren, but all signs are pointing to a quick bow out (It's never a good sign to follow "I intend to win!" with "I haven't even filed the necessary paperwork to be a candidate," for the record), and the others are still waiting.

Tim Griffin could run, although it's tough to see how much money he could raise, and I'm not sure I'd recognize him if he walked into the room and kicked me in the shins. Curtis Coleman formed an exploratory committee, and says he can raise between $5-8 million to beat Lincoln, but is nearly anonymous.

Gilbert Baker was reported by Politico to be nearly in, although he hasn't done so. He's a good ole boy from Conway, with his homemade haircut and folksy appeal. An even stronger point, he ran and won a highly contested state Senate seat, even with Sen. Mark Pryor and Gov. Mike "OZYMANDIAS" Beebe openly opposed him. Baker's blasphemy paid off.

I'm still hearing rumors about businessman French Hill, who seems to be the opposite of Baker: Able to raise substantial fundage, but wears french cuffs and is therefore unable to connect with the typical Arkansan. I don't know, that's all hearsay. I haven't heard from him one way or the other.

Either way, although I know more about it, neither of these rosters is very daunting. With the Democratic incumbents vulnerable, the GOP has no one to push the button.

All of those goals that Steele is setting are fine, and ought to be encouraged if Republicans expect to be relevant. But you can't expect to win playing varsity ball with the J.V. squad.

States Approving Gay Marriage Just Dandy for Ark. Delegates

The Gay Marriage-Gay Rights agenda that most on the Right feared would sweep in with a cataclysmic bang once Obama et al. assumed office is on the move, but with no bang, nor whimper.

That doesn't mean it isn't being effective.

To date, five states, with Maine being the latest and Iowa (Iowa?!) being the first, have passed state legislation to make gay marriage a-okay in their respective states. The decisions are catching national headlines and causing some to shift awkwardly in their seats, like an auto mechanic roped into watching Project Runway.

Pelosi yesterday offered what on the surface appeared to be a cold statement about the Gay Rights agenda and its place on the legislative docket — saying it would not take the focus away from Congress' goal to create jobs, meaning, don't hold your breath — but in fact, likely, progress that agenda through a more constructive avenue:

Send it to the states.

One of the most recent examples of Congress passing the buck could be viewing in the historical context of the Employee Free Choice Act (not to bring that behemoth up again, but it was the best example of which I could think). The House, after having dealt with the issues to no avail in two separate sessions cried 'Uncle,' saying they weren't going to move on it until the Senate had done something first.

To put it in a local perspective, that's why the Arkansas Democrats in Congress weren't under nearly as much scrutiny this year, while Sens. Pryor and (especially) Lincoln dealing with the tiresome issue of card check. The House had passed it off.

Comes now the entirety of the Congress, both House and Senate, taking a back seat and letting someone else (state legislatures) deal with this tiresome and radioactive issue of Gay Marriage. I wager that when this issue comes up, you will be able to see these delegates kick back in a chaise lounge and sip on a banana daiquiri at the thought, excited to see someone else take their licks.

No one will be more relieved than Southern Democrats, namely, anyone from Arkansas, save the Fightin' 3rd's John Boozman, the state's only Republican delegate. It's for the same reason that the congressional delegates were at ease about Card Check; This is someone else's fight now, and not ours.

Arkansas, collectively, will never vote in favor of Gay Marriage in the near or likely distant future. It just doesn't fly down here, whether you like that fact or you don't. The Democratic Senators and Congressman are now free from being pinned against their party and their constituency which, after seeing this whole Arlen Specter meltdown, is pretty potent.

Now it would be up to the State Senators and Representatives, likely of the Democratic persuasion, to push any such Gay Rights agenda, and I would say there are a great many things that are more likely than that happening: Me hula-hooping for eighty-straight hours, Blake Rutherford not referencing the West Wing, John Brummett helping a kitten out of a tree. These are all in the same vein of the 'pigs flying' reference I am currently boycotting due to the overdosage of that pun being facilitated during the current Swine Flu panic.

Their constituency has become quite accustomed to seizing any and all priority from the national Democrats. Anything contrary would resemble a fighter pilot pulling a level to his ejection seat, and the legislator would go flying out of the dome in the Capitol building.

I think this will likely be the way of things for the next long while. The environments are respectively hospitable for the causes. California is obviously very pro-Gay Rights and will likely adopt legislation as such. I would not expect anything like that from Arkansas, Mississippi, or Louisiana, although you do have to keep an eye on those wacky Cajuns. Texans, too, they're equally wily. You can never really expect what they're going to do.

This is all, mind you, wholly independent of any musings about whether opposing Gay Rights is an affront to liberty and justice or whether endorsing Gay Rights is a rallying point for the decimation of the American Family/Way of Life. This is just looking at the numbers, the politics, rather than the morality that may be implied on either side of the fence.

Morality and Politics have never been good bedfellows in the first place.

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.”

GOP Executive Director: Nowhere To Go But Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I'm talking about race relations.

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

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

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

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

Three points of optimism though:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh Yeah, a Sternly Worded Letter Should Do the Trick

I've discovered that an axiom of the legislative session is that business gets filed and dealt with on a daily basis that is most accurately described as futile, pointless, and a misappropriation of valuable time that could be spent elsewhere.

I mean, I get it. Legislators have an agenda suggested by the Governor or by hot-button issues, and sometimes they don't get caught up in the discussion and don't get any facetime. Facetime for a politician is a substance akin water, blood, and oxygen combined. So in order to grab a headline or get their name heard by their peers, and more importantly their constituents, they file concurrent resolutions.

The people need to know their elected officials are at least trying to bring home that bacon.

These resolutions are called to honor people that have made an impact in the state, like honoring the only Cy Young winner to come out of Arkansas, Cliff Lee. That's all fine and well but let's call a spade a spade. This is nothing more than a collective statement made by the legislative body at large. The bill demanding a Thomas Paine Day? Concurrent Resolution. The bill to honor Ronald Reagan? You guessed it. The bill to let people carry weaponry into church legally? Wrong! That's just a regular old bill, no matter how silly it sounds.

I'm not saying they're unimportant, because I think all of that business has its place, but this stuff is just unimportant, don't you think? Wait...did I just contradict myself in the same sentence?

Not necessarily; couldn't a majority signed memo do the same trick of honoring people? Why do we waste such valuable legislative time debating in committee, then chamber, then another committee, then another chamber to sign off on something that has little more effect than a clearing of the throat.

This lesson became even more clear while I was going over the latest concurrent resolution, HCR 1011.

This is a statement of defiance against the Federal government and its white-knuckle grip over the states. “I have … the impression that individuals in Washington feel the state is an agent to them, when in fact the federal government is an agent to Arkansas,” cosponsor Rep. John Woods, R-Springdale, said.

The other cosponsors of the bill, Republicans Reps Karen Debra Hobb of Rogers and Roy Ragland of Marshall say they feel the same way; like the state is the lapdog of the Federal government, having no sovereignty of its own, and on the beckon call of the Washingtonites.

Reading this bill sent me on a bit of a rolercoaster of feelings and thoughts regarding the matter. A quick review of the path:

First Reaction

Really? There's nothing else you could be doing with your time? There's, what, two weeks left to file bills in this legislative session and this is how you're spending those valuable hours? By pushing statement bills? Way to really take up for your constituents.

The agenda mainly consisted of animal cruelty, the cigarette tax, the lottery and the grocery tax; There's nothing else you could be doing in the meantime? There isn't one bill for your district that you could propose to aid them directly? Nothing?

Maybe this is speaking against the futility of resolutions in the first place. And I hate to sound like I'm bashing the legislative process, and I certainly think the legislative body should be able to speak collectively on important issues. Sending the Federal government a Post-It reminding them of the tenth amendment is not one of these issues that needs to be taking up the valuable time of the legislators.

I'm sure the Feds understand the checks and balances against their indomitable take over. It's the Tenth Amendment, for Pete's sake. Where's Mark Martin when you need him to bellow out "IT'S THE LAW!" with that trademark primal shout of his?

Second Reaction

But wait a minute; these guys have a point, and it seems to be a pretty popular one at that.

Fellow blogger and local heartthrob Jason Tolbert went into greater detail about the resolution and linked to other sources who are all jacked up about the issue. Tolbert says that according to Woods, the last straw to give the go ahead to file the resolution was this whole nationalizing of the banks, an idea that offends ardent conservatives and even gives many moderates the willies. Many economists — including Mr. Free Market Alan Greenspan — are saying that it's the only solution to get us out of this economic pickle.

And I admit, reading this resolution, I find myself getting equally enthralled with the language of the bill. It's really got everything a freedom-loving individual loves:

"...Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory process of the states..."

"Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment..."

and last but certainly not least, "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more..."

The resolution puts the ever-spreading government in its rightful place to stick up for themselves.

The Feds have been on a spreading spree like it's Manifest Destiny since the Bush Era, and Obama hasn't shown any sign of pushing the breaks anytime soon.

I spoke to Marion Berry, a Blue Dog conservative Democrat, about the amount of emergency spending and spreading the government was undertaking by adopting this stimulus bill. Berry admitted that the new administration was putting into place some actions that offended some of his more conservative sensibilities, but "if there's ever been a time to do such a thing, now is the time."

That may be, but the time ought not be to tread on the states like a Federal Big Brother. Obama recently met with several mayors to make sure everyone was on the same page with regard to a grassroots approach to applying the stimulus dollars. There's even an office set up to monitor the transparency of the spending of the moolah.

Vero quis custodiet ipsos custodies? No?

So while the new boss is admitting and attempting to regulate the regulation, the Tenth Amendment was set in place to regulate the regulators, to watch the watchmen. Hear, hear to these band of legislators sticking up for Arkansans with the resolution.

Third (Final) Response

Really? There's nothing else you could be doing with your time? There's, what, two weeks left to file bills in this legislative session and this is how you're spending those valuable hours? By pushing statement bills?

Doesn't that look a lot like my initial response? Me too. That's because it was.

My main problem is the ineffectiveness of it all. "Hey! We're mad! What are we gonna do about it? Write a sternly-worded letter. That'll show em!"

Since when have we been pro-state? It was the late 1800s , best I can recollect. That whole Civil War thing? A large facet was over the rights of state having precedent over the rights of the federal government. It was the one of the first of many victories for the Feds.

So these legislators are doing a lot of saber rattling over the rapid spread of the government and are taking steps to make sure that the Feds know they're none too keen on the idea.

But who cares? What does it amount to other than blowing around hot, albeit principled, air. It just seems like a lot of frivolity.

But there's a lot to be said for the frivolous.

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

But really, that happened today.

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

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

Pope: So. You still all for abortion?

Nancy: Uh. Yes sir.

Pope: You know I'm infallible right?

Nancy: Uh. Yes sir.

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

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

Pope: Like everyday! Every. Single. Day!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it's an admittedly Bad Bank...

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

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

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

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

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

Except for these few points, anyway:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CelebRighties?! Omigah!

Normally — and I don't think this piece is an exception — I loathe celebrity news.

I mean I really hate it. Down to my very core. The Hollywood Gossip Mill does nothing for me. I don't care if Jennifer Aniston screws a beagle and that beagle learns to talk and spills the beans on what REALLY happened in the Pitt/Aniston household. It doesn't matter. She's hot and my shameful insecurities will not allow me to elaborate on the aesthetic qualities of Brad Pitt, but I hear he's quite the looker.

But I found this link, sent to me by our UFW Agent in Washington (UFWAW), to be of a higher caliber than just mere celebrity hogwash, and it actually relates to a book-topic I'll be proposing in the Spring (more on that story as it develops and surely dies a terrible, embarrassing death). The topic is the impact of entertainers (comedians, specifically) on the objectivity — or lack thereof — in contemporary media.

Naturally, the exception rather than the rule would be the ever-rare Conservative Celebrity. This article shows (and apparently updates) a wide array of conservative celebrities; some who you might expect and others you may just be baffled by.

Now these excerpts under the monikers don't distinguish between conservative and Republican, although many might object to that misnomer, but for these exercises, I think the point remains valid; conservative or GOP-advocate, the headliners are few and far between. Further dissection is prudent:

Expected Honkies

Now, you can expect there to be some people on this list. If the stereotype "All conservatives care about are rich people," is fulfilled, then certainly many of these celebrities would fall under the category. But there are a few names that don't shock anyone.

Clint Eastwood and Charlton Heston spearhead this Light Brigade. Heston was the face of the NRA, and still is even from the grave, and amid rumors of Eastwood perhaps going soft on the Left, he put out Gran Torino, which is Eastwood going righteous on some Asian-American gangsters with a slew of racial epithets that I didn't even know existed.

You've also got your high-brow honkies like Kelsey Grammer and Ben Stein, who add a hint of sophistication, and in the case of Grammer, a dizzying level of obscurity. Ben Stein is actually very popular in most circles, except for scientists, of course.

Then there's the garrulous Dennis Miller and the horn-rimmed Price is Right host Drew Carey. And one can't forget the washed up Italian folks, Tony Danza and Scott Baio.

One can also assume the entirety of the country music genre, because to do otherwise is career suicide. RE: Dixie Chicks. Enough said, although I will add that there was a collective sigh of relief from mainstream Americans everywhere, giving them the final reason to never want to listen to the Dixie Chicks ever again. Super-honky and Left Behind actor Kirk Cameron also goes on this list of people nobody cares about, but for actors.

But no one was surprised by these names on the list. The next few names are a few from the list, but just a few of the more noteworthy names.

Hurts the Program

These are a few names that maybe the GOP could stand to do without.

Kid Rock - Now the excerpt only says that Kid Rock is a registered Republican, but I think it's safe to say that this guy fits the trampled-upon Republican mold of Ignorant-Racist-Votes-for-Whitey. Everything this guy has touched is destroyed violently, just look at Vanilla Ice, who Rock emulated in his early days. The Right would do well to steer clear of this wife-beater-wearing collection of hair grease and ambiguously vulgar tats.

Jessica Simpson - Remember that bit about "everything they touch is destroyed violently?" Ditto on this lady. As fabulous as she was in the dialogue-limited role of Daisy Dukes in the Dukes of Hazzard re-barf, as well as subsequent Direct TV ads, but since then, nothing remarkable other than apparent weight-gain and the ruining of a Super Bowl-caliber squad of gentlemen known as the Dallas Cowboys. George W. Bush approves based on her ability to raise his relative rank in total GOP intelligence. Britney Spears also falls under this White-Trash-Bash scattegory.

Mel Gibson - Just in case racism isn't a big enough stigma in the Republican ranks, just to round the bases and even everything out, they grab a guy who hates Jews! Score! Braveheart did rule though.

Meatloaf - This one is a toss-up. Depending on which decade you're looking at, Meatloaf could be a beast of burden or a welcome guest to your party. My proclivities toward the movie Fight Club and the song "I Would Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" prohibit me from completely throwing the Loaf under the bus. But those cell phone commercials suck.

Helps the Program

Now these are guys you want on your side, and the GOP is thankful for their presence, while they may not like their music.

Karl Malone - Color me confused on this one, but hey, nobody's going to turn down the Mailman. I might chalk this up to a Charles-Barkely-esque move, where he goes Republican in step with wanting to protect his dozens and dozens of dollars. However, it cannot be said that Malone is Barkley-crazy. To do so would be folly, to borrow a line.

James Earl Jones - Darth Vader! You can't get any darker than the Dark Lord of the Sith, and he's an ardent Republican? Talk about the exception rather than the rule, and not in a racist way. Also, I don't mean to neglect Jones' sterling career in such films as The Sandlot, The Hunt for Red October, and The Lion King, but Star Wars trumps all.

LL Cool J - Not only did Cool James vote Republican, but he spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention. But sure you could kind of see it; the relatively clean-rap lyrics, the movies like S.W.A.T. where he positively portrays police officers, the MTV Unplugged appearence, it's not too broad of a jump, albeit an unexpected one. Not like...

50 Cent - Curtis? Jackson? While many on the Left may think "Get Rich or Die Tryin'" is indeed a Republican slogan, none could have imagined that it was in fact the slogan of a Republican. CBS' excerpt says it all. Fiddy claimed: "I actually like Bush. In some ways, I'm the George W. Bush of hip hop — nobody likes me but I'm still gonna run it for the next four years."

Now you may have noticed a trend in the first four members of this group. That's because there was one! Gold star for you. An Africa-American presence definitely helps the image of the GOP, and it's my belief that until they can garner genuine support in larger numbers from that community, it will continue to hemorrhage as it clearly did in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Just my two cents. Sorry Fiddy.

Adam Sandler also helps the program, but his loyalty is certainly in question after the absence of his boy Rudy Giuliani from the political arena.

Supplexes the Program

(over the roar of System of a Down's "B.Y.O.B." and Monster Trucks)
SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! Come one! Come all and prepare to be SLAMMED! by the line-up of professional WRESTLERS and professional FIGHTERS and professional SNAKE HANDLERS who are making all of their unlikeminded political opponents their biggity BIAHHHH! Sponsored by Red Bull (TM), Mt. Dew (c), and nubitty-nine-oh-two, THE SCOURGE, your source for hit death metal music!

And kids seats are still just FIVE BUCKS!!!

The Rock - Someone with a name like Dwayne Johnson voting Republican is unremarkable at best. But The Rock going right is pretty nifty, not necessarily because the Rock was a wrestler, but because Johnson played football at Miami in So. Florida (ewww). I figured the U to harbor more of a liberal attitude while harboring their criminal minions. Even their classy athletes like Marvin Harrison can't go through a career without shooting someone at least once. I plead the fif.

Chuck Norris - Now this is a move that doesn't shock me one bit. Because if the mustache didn't give it away, the political stereotype will: Chuck Norris hates change. Norris was the only credible (?) supporter of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee's Presidential Run's infant days. Just a big enough splash to warrant a couple of round house kicks to the-... okay, enough with the Chuck Norris jokes. They've been done before. Over. And over. And over again.

Coach Mike Ditka - Who would win in a legal battle? Ditka or SENATOR DITKA? That's right, the Hercules of Hurt is a GOP'er and a zealot at that. Now for some serious political discourse: Ditka very nearly challenged then-challenger Barack Obama for the the vacant Senate seat in 2004, but chose not to run. As Ahnold showed us in 2004, celebrity does carry with it a certain level of clout, and it's not out of the question to say that Ditka might've won handily, leaving Barack Obama to his own devices. Ditka's decision actually affected the events that lead to the first African-American President. Did that blow your mind?

Promotes the Supplex of the Program

Don King - Thank you, God! The most spectacular, most splendiforous, most spectoutrageous fight promoter since Lucifer tempted Christ in the desert, Don King and Don King's hair are both registered Republicans. As UFWAW put it, "It is awesome; Don King and John McCain have two things in common. They are both republicans and both killed men in the 60s." UFWAW was likely guffawing with high-ranking Senators as this was being discussed (no, seriously, I didn't make this informant up).

I feel like this can't be true, Don King is just too high/dumb to know the difference between political parties. Or maybe he's just outsmarting everyone by brilliantly feigning mildly flamboyant retardation. Anyway, file this under the "I Don't Know What to Make of Such an Anomaly" category.

Saves the Program

WAYNE NEWTON!!!
OmigahOmigahOmigahOmigahOmigah!