Democratic Infighting: Political Problem or Feature of Majority?

There was an interesting article in The Hill today, which reiterated something I've been noticing for some time already: The schism between moderate Democrats and those on the far Left, especially over the most recent issue of health care reform.

But is the recent spat within the wings of the Democratic Party a question of political ideals or of their super-majority status? I'm thinking the latter.

Looking at the political spectrum, you have the Right, the Left, and Moderates. Duh. Republicans own the Right, Democrats the Left, and the victor of each election is figuring out how lasso moderate voters toward your respective cause. A good way to do this is nominate moderate candidates.

Last week, Blake "Look at these shoes. These are some awesome shoes. You don't like these shoes? Consider yourself judged; These shoes don't like you or your shoes, because these shoes are awesome" Rutherford had a good back and forth with Cory Allen Cox of the Arkansas Project. I tend to agree more with Rutherford's assessment of the woes of the Arkansas Republican party in that rather than a lack of communication through grassroots, it's a problem of roster.

In that argument, Rutherford aptly described that Democrats, at least at the state level, have done a better job at fielding moderate, winning candidates to fill positions at the state level, a la the blueprint Republican Newt Gingrich and his Congressional take over in 1994. I would contend that since the Republicans have controlled the House, Senate, White House and very nearly the Supreme Court, moderation on the part of Democrats aided their ascent.

That and a historically unpopular President. That'll do ya.

There's a lot of noise, mainly from those that have never voted Democratically in their life, that this is a sign that President Obama and his policies aren't flying in Middle America, and that he and his policies should just shut up and quit being so stupid and shut up. Moderate Democrats like Mike Ross are throwing the broom into the spokes of Obama's health care plan.

But I think its less a matter of policy and more a matter of the diversity of that, the majority party. Not diversity in that they've got numerous demographics in their fold, either. They've just got the base plus moderates. When Republicans win again, they'll be the diverse ones.

I dunno. Just a thought. Wakka wakka.

Is Tom Cox Really the Worst Person in the World, Keith?

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

You know if a Republican screws the pooch and Max Brantley doesn't verbally skewer him, he's probably okay. Olbermann probably should have consulted with him, Max that is, first.

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.

"Education" Lottery Indeed

The big news around the Capitol is this business concerning the new-fangled lottery, and who ought to be disbursing the fund therein. Is it a state agency? The legislature? An oracle who is only used every once in awhile, and while omniscient, also wields disastrous fates for those who dare call on her wisdom?

The answer is that nobody really cares, so long as the proper amounts are sent through the proper channels and the money ends up where they say it's going to end up: In the pockets of worthy students seeking to further their education.

But that's the most important facet and of the literally dozens of articles published from various news outlets and of the mouths of legislators and political leaders rarely mentioned: The education.

This lottery was set up for the sole purpose allowing Arkansas students the financial wherewithal to attend a college or university (preferably in-state, nudge nudge), regardless of their income. If a student has a 2.5GPA, they should have the ability to go to college, I heard legislators say. I couldn't agree more.

There's a reason for lack of a discussion of education in a lottery dedicated to it: Education in Arkansas is sitting relatively pretty.

No, really. It is. I know this may come as a shock to my interstate readers, those in the Leno crowd and all. And sure, there are some questionable, backwooded areas of the Natural State with a high proclivity toward an excessive amount of toes, unbeknownst to the keepers of these phalanges, as they have difficulty counting numbers higher than twelve.

But I digress.

In fact there are several reasons for this, but the critical point is that legislators should thank their lucky stars that they don't have such an encumbrance in the first place. Like Arkansas' good standing with regard to its economy (tremendous tax hike or not), it's something that many people — 40 other states, fact — wish they, too, could claim. A couple of reasons why:

First, public schools. Arkansas has made strides, rising to tenth in the nation in public education. Take that, 80 percent of the country. You've just been beaten by Arkansas in the spelling bee, per se.

You hear about the public schools in counties neighboring Pulaski county as being top notch, the source of great pride for the respective cities. The only town in Arkansas to don the moniker "boomtown" according to a nationwide survey was Cabot, AR. I spoke personally with the current mayor and the former mayor during the middle four years of the survey, and both were quick to credit, you guessed it, the schools as the primary draw to their community.

Established universities like the U of A establish new ways to learn for those with deficiencies or debilities, as the Bureau's sports columnist, Harry "Father Time" King reported last month.

Speaking of debilitated, school districts that had been declared fiscal disaster areas, like Clinton and Bismark, were able to pick themselves up and get about the business of straightening themselves out, benefiting their students most importantly.

My primary concern throughout the lottery and scholarship discussions regards the retention of students who would receive these scholarship funds, basically a concern of whether or not this lottery is indeed helping students achieve their desired degree. That's the point of this, after all, isn't it?

The retention numbers of the state are grim, at a substandard 18.2 percent. But the Southern average is only 27 percent, a number for which there is an entirely separate task force strategizing to achieve. Even amidst a dark cloud, there seems to be a silver lining. As a friend of mine from Texas claimed, "If college retention is your biggest problem, you're headed in the right direction."

I saw a comment on another blog where someone was still lamenting that there was a lottery, in fact saying that as long as the church had a say, there'd be no lottery. That ship has come and gone. The lottery is here. It's something that needs to be vetted, mulled over, discussed, debated, all of that fine politickin'. But it should be mentioned that this process is made that much better and easier by having a quality education system in place.

Now I don't want to boost anyone's ego too terribly much. That'd just be foolhardy. The education in Arkansas isn't where it should be, where it could be. We've still got a long way to go before the stereotypes against an intellectual Arkansas are no longer fulfilled on a daily basis to be paraded in the national spotlight.

But at least we're not as far off as we could be. This lottery deal is a reflection of that; It is a profitable means to a worthy end.

That's it. No catch. Just a compliment or two. Arkansas deserves some credit here and there.

Romney on MLK Day: Epic Fail

Usually, I try to craft my writing so that the main point is seen at the conclusion of the piece following logical progression and discourse, but a video like this is enough to warrant a front-loading of the overarching point:

The likelihood of the Old Republican Guard ushering in a supposed "New Age" for the GOP is slim to none, and leaning heavily toward the latter.

Here we have Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, is seen here chumming with a bunch of African-American people celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Now, there is nothing wrong with celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, even if you're white. But I think it should reserved more solemnly than Romney delivers here.

Who let the dogs out? What's happenin'? Bling? Bling?

I'm sorry, Romnians, but this is political bull. There has been a strong call from the top down to integrate more of the minority culture into the GOP, specifically by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, as I said here. People will say that the Republican party doesn't have anything to offer minorities, but I don't think that the party discriminates as a matter of principle or ideal, rather its constituency often discriminates, infamously the ones down here in the good ole South, but definitely elsewhere as well. Ideological stances aside, the GOP is seen as the Old-Fashioned Honky Country Club that stood defiant against the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's.

That's the image, anyway. It's a fine suggestion to make the public step of embracing progress, especially toward minorities. Getting an African-American to be the RNC Chairman? Good. Getting the Whitest White Guy you can to start throwing around kitschy phrases that are supposed to sound like you're "down with it?" Bad.

A nice start would be to stop treating those in the minority like a prize to be won in a sweepstakes, and start treating them like people. A minority is not a person; It's a demographic.

Frankly, I don't see this fraternity of old white men being able to usher in this new era of which McConnell so earnestly waxed regarding a strategic and ideological shift in the GOP. It's going to take some new blood, fresh faces, fresher ideas, and time.

Time to forget the old way. Time to embrace — or come up with — a new way. Mitt Romney is the old way. Who the new way is represented by is yet to be seen, but if the Republican party hopes to remain relevant, it had better come sooner than later.

UPDATE: RNC Chairman Steele is all about how Republicans look in "hip-hop settings." It's a good start— he'll be able to use this Romney video as a "What Not To Do" example.

UPDATE II: The Daily Show's Samantha Bee chimes in.

It's a new GOP, baby

From the desk of The Full Ginsburg, apparently a group of politically-inclined parody writers, sent to me from UFWAW.

Also, it seems that our UFWAW made good on his insider-information about the acceptance of Republican Senator Judd Gregg into the bowels of the Obama White House. UFWAW reported a bit of irony, when in '95 Gregg called for the dismantling of the very department he now heads, but that's all in the past. It's a new GOP now, baby, one that is all about bipartisanship, holding hands, and gettin' to gettin' along.

While I'm certain this new "trend" is going to get off the ground about as well as a brick armchair, we get to wait a couple of years — 2010 Senate elections — to see if my prognostications hold any water with this Gregg deal. I'm rigid with anticipation, as I'm sure you are.

Limbaugh vs. Obama Leaves Little For the Imagination

So there's been a dust up in the wee-hours of President Barack Obama's four-to-eight year tenure in the Executive branch, though not between legislators, as he has sufficient ammunition in both the House and the Senate.

It's between Obama and Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talking head of radio and early 90's lore.

Apparently on Rush's program, while lamenting the $825 kajillion stimulus that irks most conservatives, he went so far as to say that not only does he hope the stimulus package fails, but that he wants Obama himself to fail.

"My response? My response is only four words," Limbaugh spouted. "I want him to fail."

When the President began addressing a collection of House Republicans — who unanimously voted against the package — Obama quipped, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

That'll show 'em.

Now the media is really charging this thing up to make it a much-ballyhooed heavyweight slug match between the forces of the Right and the Left. Maybe it's because there's no one left in active governance who can pose a formidable challenge to Obama and his Leftward Legion. Maybe it's because Rush is just that type of explosive personality who will generate discourse and viewership.

Maybe there just hasn't been a decent heavyweight boxing match in years, a decline possibly brought on by the advent of UFC cage fighting or perhaps the growing gargantuan and therefore sluggish size of current heavyweight boxers. Why does Radio Shack ask for your phone number when you buy batteries?

I don't know. But I digress.

There are not only problems with the fight, but a fundamental flaw in the fight to begin with. It's a real cart-before-the-horse thing, only now the carriage is flying at about 88 miles per hour. And there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

First off, for the Rushians (MOTHERLAND!!!). What the hell, man. This was just a stupid thing to say. Limbaugh is a very influential person. I'll even take that further; he's really, genuinely funny. He often makes great points, and was a bludgeon for the Newtonians who took charge of the Legislature in 1994.

But the stimulus package is about more than just President Obama. The President of the United States has thrown all of his chips in on this economic package for the good of the American people. This is not an endorsement of that plan; I think it does lack a certain rigidity you'd expect when throwing skyscrapers full of money at a problem. But this is the apparent way we're going to go, or at least something like it, as even the GOP's idea still throws billions and billions and billions of dollars at the problem.

But the result is serious, either way. American well-beings hang in the balance, and to call for this plan, for the Presidency to fail is bush-league. Vote against him, call for others to vote against him, do everything you can to bend the powers-that-be to what you may have rationally concluded is the best course of action. But to hope that Obama fails?

Had Matthews or Olbermann called for Bush to fail in Iraq, although a depression isn't as serious as war, Limbaugh would have been up in arms. Both deal in livelihoods.

But then Obama had to give this guy a credible voice. In my line of journalism, I've run across a number of constructive criticisms and vicious complaints, often an indistinguishable line. The best course of action to malevolent complaints and fits of irrational ill-will is to ignore completely. Just walk away; they're only words after all.

Then the usually tame and inclusive Obama sent a divisive cheap shot to the capable faculties of House Republicans. No one wants to be told they aren't thinking for themselves, or that they're being manipulated by a larger puppeteer. It's quite a shot to the ego, especially if the puppeteer is a radio talk show host. And let's face it — the Legislature isn't filibuster proof. If Obama really wants to be bipartisan, which I believe he honestly does, such remarks aren't warranted, and only give credibility where it is apparent credibility is undue.

So now this thing is a big talking point mess, which is to say a mess of BS. Media hither and yon are really talking up this brouhaha, ad naseum and ad barf-eum. But the end result cancels out; Rush will spew whatever is on his mind (be it his own thought or his own need to simply grab attention), Obama will slip up and get divisive, but only every once in awhile, and the stimulus package will either work or it wont, regardless of what anyone has to editorialize about it.

The two cancel out each other. End result: Nothing much. Kinda makes you wonder what the last 62 column inches were all about in the first place.