What Do All of These Ricky Randoms Mean For Lincoln?

(Ed. Note — After a week sabbatical and then a case of the violently-ill Mondays, the UFW is back for its regular installments. I know you were missing me. I missed you, too.)

Monday morning, I noticed a blog post by Jason "Too Much Time" Tolbert that a retired Army colonel, Conrad Reynolds, was throwing his name into the hat in the ever-shifting, always awkward roster of those Republicans vying for a shot to beat Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic incumbent, in the U.S. Senate.

Tom Cox, the Tea-Bagger. Curtis Coleman, ex-Huckster/Safe Foods mogul. Fred Ramey, a businessman who runs a business. A Chicagoan with Arkansan roots named Chris Bequette is being rumored. Conrad Reynolds. Moneyman French Hill was also rumored, but he seems to be warming up to a Congressional run against Vic Snyder. Kim Hendren, oy vey. Gilbert Baker seems to have quietly bowed out, while Tim Griffin seems to have been playing opossum the whole time.

With the slight exception of a state Senator or two — one of which only made the kind of national headlines that candidates don't want — none of these names are household ones. I'm sure they've got fund raising ability, and I'm sure that in their relative communities, they're pretty popular fellows. But the moniker 'Ricky Random' can be applied to most if not all of them.

Maybe it makes sense for a populist state like Arkansas to have a host of willing contenders ready to throw their names, reputations and families into the ring. A litany of everymen, lining up like a group of modern-day Cincinnatus-es, it's almost compelling.

Emphasis on almost. Compelling doesn't bring home the bacon. My point man on the power of money, David Kinky Kinkade, had a good piece today on the Arkansas Project about how much real dollars some of these candidates are going to have to raise to compete with Lincoln. Like Kinkade, I'll punt on some of the chances these suitors have. Sure, they've got a shot, they're running after all, buuuuuut...

What does this mean for Lincoln exactly? A few points, if I may:

People say she's vulnerable: This isn't news. Polls have been out for a few months now, revealing tepid numbers for anyone, let alone a two-term incumbent. Lincoln has been in the dastardly pickle to pick sides on issues ranging from card check, to health care, and soon, I'd wager, energy, between her more-conservative state and her more-liberal party. This perceived vulnerability allows people who would regularly not consider running to think, hey, maybe I've got a shot.

The field says she isn't vulnerable: What this should also show is that perhaps she isn't so vulnerable after all. You'd think that, if she were after all, so weak and unable to mount a good enough campaign to make up for those meager numbers, that someone of note — like a Mike Huckabee, for instance, or someone in that same vein — would swoop in to take advantage. Elections naturally favor incumbents. Lincoln is a shrewd politician, who wisely straddles the fence on many issues, much to the chagrin of her opponents. She's obviously got not only plenty of people, but plenty of well-off people who aren't afraid to scrawl out a check, again, referencing Kinkade's mention of her $11 million pace she has already set.

More to come: It's still very early in this race, despite what the 24-hour hungry news cycle would let you think. Think about it a couple of months ago. You had Tim Griffin and Gilbert Baker making the most noise. Then Kim Hendren loudly barged into the discussion. Then he loudly pushed the eject button out of the discussion. Names are floating in and out of the conversation in the vacuum of actual news on the subject. There will be more names, some less credible than the roster assembled, others more so.

Like this Tom Cotton guy Sanders opined about. He's not a household name by any means, but he seems to have some pretty big time credentials. Harvard Law grad leading soldiers into battle? Brains and brawn! He's just one of the names I've heard in the ether, and frankly, one that I think, if he is as well-connected as many are claiming he is, has a decent shot in a runoff.

That's pretty much it. Is this the common Arkansan rising up against Lincoln? I doubt it; many Arkansans don't care enough to vote, let alone run. But it should mean that, despite the Ricky Randoms assembled thus far, we should be in for a barn-burner in 2010. Or not! See what I did there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about a Good Ole Boy network.

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

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

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

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

Do We Have a Contender?

That's a definite 'maybe.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baker won.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Yep. Still Funny.

I thought he was retiring it after his Tony-nominated performance, but Will Ferrell brought back his George W. Bush imitation while plugging his new film Land of the Lost on SNL.

Yep. It's still funny, even though it's an old formula.

Yep. It still works to make fun of Bush. I've often wondered on this site how long people will ridicule and mock and generally hate Bush. My friend reminded me that people hated Nixon until he died.

On this episode, Ferrell also un-retired his imitable Harry Caray impersonation, now referring to it as the Ghost of Harry Caray, since the bespectacled Caray passed away over 11 years ago.

That was funny too. It seems that as long as Ferrell's around, mocking Bush will still be a premium.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hate hate hate

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

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

They're chaining him to George W. Bush.

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

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

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

How Do the Tables Turn So Quickly and Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three quick points:

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

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

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

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

Local Fisticuffs

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

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

Basically, it means the mob will have their bloodbath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hate To Say I Told You So

Now where did I read that Sen. Blanche Lincoln was a 'definite no on card check' again? I have the worst memory about these things.

Ah, right. I didn't read it, I wrote it.

Anyway, I'm not gong to pat myself on the back anymore. Like Pop always said, you ought not be congratulated on something you should be doing anyway.

Plus, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE thought she'd ever go for it in the first place.

The next big point is where do we go from here? People have hyped this matter up for months, so naturally, there has to be somewhere for this pressure to vent. A trilogy of sequels to the Card Check saga awaits.

Labor — Lordy, what to do when the romance been gone? Labor felt a large kick to the bread basket on this one. Losing GOP-affiliate Arlen Specter is one thing, but this Lincoln is a Democrat. For labor forces, she was supposed to be a powerful ace in the hole. Heat from the business community in her right-to-work state was apparently too much to sway what many suspect is her naturally leftward inclinations.

Speaking with Alan Hughes, President of the Arkansas AFL-CIO, today, he said that from what he understood, Lincoln left a door open — wiggle room, if you will — to some sort of compromise, one in which his office has not heard in any detail but Sen. Pryor made headlines about.

Hughes says that while right now they would have to say no to a compromise, they haven't heard anything about it from the business community. Hughes also countered that they've offered no compromise, and wait on the business community to offer one first. I wouldn't look for one soon though. 'Compromise' is often code for 'we lost, but let's see how much we can squeeze out so it's not a complete and total loss.'

"This issue isn't going away," as Hughes put it.

Business — Chalk it up on the Big Board, so says the business community. From the beginning of the EFCA discussion, it seemed like big business has had this contest to lose for some time, being from a right-to-work state, while the Democratic delegation made it somewhat entertaining.

Chamber Prez. Randy Zook says that from here on out, the organization of businesses hopes to keep on keepin' on, educating people about what he and the chamber refer to as flaws in lousy legislation. Asked if this "education" involves focusing on Pryor to follow in Lincoln's footsteps, Zook agreed, but said they're not pressuring anyone, just educating.

He did leave us with a nice tagline for the trailers, though. "It will get the fate the bill deserves," while I thought I heard the faint drone of chainsaws and heavy and dangerous machinery in the background. Also some thunder rolled. And a horse neighed.

The Contenders — The most interesting story after the fact may be the card played by the candidates who might've been counting on Lincoln to fade to the left on this issue, giving them more ammo with which to assail her in her upcoming re-election campaign.

Several names have popped up. We were able to get a hold of two of those names regarding Lincoln's decision, and they seemed to be driving toward the same hoop.

"I’m glad that she is coming my way on this issue. I’m disappointed that it took years for her to get there,” said Tim Griffin, the former U.S. Attorney who has been the most active, if not vocal candidate among the ambiguity. Doyle Webb, state GOP head honcho and rumored candidacy-muser, said the something similar.

Look for the Republican strategy to be thus: "Why'd it take you so long to come out and say it? GOTCHA!"

It's kind of weak if you ask me, but it's the only hand they have at this point (Huh?! What?! Only a year and a half until Nov. 2010?! My how the time flies! [slaps forehead]). Delaying the inevitable decision was a pretty savvy move on her part, as according to phone conversations with her, she's much more concerned with other things, like health care reform.

But as Alan Hughes so accurately put it, "Huh, I believe it's on her radar." Politicians — as well they should be — are sensitive to the whims of their constituency.

The Republican contender, whoever that may be, is going to have a little more clout with the reports showing Lincoln's tepid-at-best approval ratings. That will be the big action from here on out.

But to quote Hughes again, this issue isn't going away.

W: Memoirs, Baseballs, and Whatnot

A couple of weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of watching Will Ferrell's one-man Broadway show, You're Welcome, America: A Final Night with George W. Bush.

It was absolutely wonderful.

Delightfully and unexpectedly raunchy, Ferrell retired his beloved caricature by unloading every bad thought or misstep that one who hated Bush as sincerely as Ferrell does (he has stated publicly that, despite a tradition as such, he would not want to ever meet the person he so famously portrayed on SNL) could ever conjure, guns-blazing. It may be the last we see of the truly hilarious depiction of No. 43.

For awhile, it should be the last we see of any depiction, real or imagined, of George W. Bush.

In the UFW archives, I've rehashed my optimist's guide to the Bush Legacy. It's not pretty, un-spectacularly amounting to a "nowhere-to-go-but-up" scenario. I stand by it. The bar is set pretty low, anyway.

But now I hear about his 2010 memoirs about the decisions he made while in office, and the circumstances as he interpreted them during that decision-making process. That was a couple of weeks ago. Today, ESPN tells me that he's throwing out the first pitch for the first game of the Texas Rangers this season.

Bush would do well to sit back and let the smoke thin out a little longer than a few months than to bust back onto the national spotlight.

Cheny is sticking his nose into the limelight, to the tune of thunderous boos and hisses, even from Republicans.

There will come a time when his voice may want to be heard. Not by everyone, mind you, but by some. But for right now, even the GOP is trying to figure out how to move on Bush free.

Presidents are often guided by precedents, and skewing from those boundaries can often lead to hot water. One such precedent is to not speak ill of another President while they're in office, even if they're of a different party. You never heard that much from Bill Clinton about W, until he began campaigning for his wife, in which case he subscribed to the obligatory shackling of Bush to the GOP at large. That criticism is often taken poorly, which is why Jimmy Carter and Clinton aren't the best of buddies.

Another such precedent, the precedent for a President to fade into the background for awhile, ought to be heeded more actively by W. There's not a lot of good, if any at all, that can come from this.

Aside, of course, from a Disney-esque freak accident that enables the President from tossing 103 mph fastballs in his opening day pitching. That'd be noteworthy. But otherwise, let's just save it.

Limbaugh: He's As Big As You Make Him

There's been a lot of heavy weather over this heavy man on the radio.

Saturday, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. In his own dojo, Limbaugh spoke to his people as most would speak to like-minded people: Unashamedly, abrasively, and loudly.

Notice that when you're speaking to like-minded people, you don't have to say anything with a lot of substance to get a rousing applause.

Obama — well, his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who speaks for him, anyway — was on the offensive within 12 hours, speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation" and claiming that Rush is the voice and intellect of the GOP, and paying no compliments by doing so.

A columnist asked me, the youngest and therefore most technologically savvy individual in the office, how to register to comment on his own column. Apparently, criticisms were being levied and he wanted an opportunity to rebut.

I told him about a boxing rule I had heard: Don't fight below your weight class, meaning of course, don't sink to someone else's level. Let the words speak for themselves, take criticisms and move on, giving no credibility or leverage to the nay-sayer. Shake them haters off, I said.

The same rule should apply to Obama and Rush: Obama would do well to just ignore him completely.

Not to say that Rush doesn't own some clout. He's no elected official, but he carries himself as if he has a public mandate. He is articulate. He is compelling. These are not debatable opinions, but objective facts. No one has done anything close to what he did in 1994 with Newt Gingrich, which is use an entertainment medium to shift public policy and tilt Congress.

Love him like a saint or hate him like the devil, Rush Limbaugh is good at what he does. He also finds himself in the fortuitous circumstance of being a member of the Out Party.

Nobody likes to kick a dog while they're down. As Capt. John Miller in Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks wisely stated that gripes go up, not down; The American Public will have more to say about the In Party than the Out, and will thereby give more credence to Out. As Keith Olbermann still bashes Bush and Rachel Maddow lowers that eye brow, both struggling to remain relevant, Limbaugh is finding his feet and a broader audience than, say, the last eight years.

Obama charged House Republicans with ineptitude, claiming that nothing was going to get done so long as they "did whatever Rush Limbaugh tells them to do." Emanuel is chaining Rush to the Republican party, which is really rather redundant. That's not news to anyone.

While it may be a smart tactic to represent a somewhat vilified caricature in order to damage the opposition, it'd be smarter just to let him spin his wheels. You're only encouraging him to do what he does best.

And maybe that person with whom you find so much disdain will weed himself out in the end. Hey, it could happen.

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.