Sen. Dorgan Launches New Media Campaign 15 Months Before State Has Internet Capability

BISMARCK, N.D. -- In a public relations snafu, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., and his staff had created, updated and publicised a facebook and twitter account, as well as a regularly updated blog, 15 months prior to the expected arrival of the internet to North Dakota.

The internet has been slated to be available to North Dakotans in December of 2010 or later. Dorgan's office says it "just plain forgot" the state was lacking the social utility, and "wanted to keep up with everyone else."

"Dag nab it, I don't understand these things to begin with," said Dorgan from Washington. "Everyone says you gotta do these things, so I did it. I just figured out how to send a fax, now I gotta type on my phone? Christ."

The senator's staff - none of whom are from North Dakota - say they never knew in the first place forgot as well.

"I mean, we've never had to go there. You pretty much have to drive, there aren't really airports, just big fields with way too many rocks," said 23-year-old senior press manager Ginger Franklin, who graduated from Florida State University in May.

Backlash is expected to be fierce by the time news of the mishap gets back to North Dakota, which is expected to be somewhere near November of 2010, as it will travel almost entirely by word-of-mouth and morse code.

Marketing Politically

Just a stray thought of which I haven't been able to rid myself over the weekend and into miserable Monday: What is politics if not marketing?

While Aristotle would say that political thought and reflection are the highest acts of natural causes that a man can make, what difference does any of the diplomacy make if not for the sake of re-election?

Re-election, being the lifeblood of any political viability, is both vice and virtue to politics, or so it seems to me. That's why we have different levels within our legislative bodies of representation: House has two years, President gets four, and the Senate gets six years to make their case for another term.

We obviously want some level of our government privy to the whims of the masses, and some to be insulated from those wants. That sensitivity binds politicians to their election campaigns; the most sensitive, the victor.

Marketing strategists and political operatives don't seem all that different, it's just a different strategy. You brand the face, name, phrase of your candidate, or some combination of all three, to get people who are uninterested interested. You enter the lexicon, thrusting your campaign — yes, both political and marketing campaigns — into the vernacular of those you wish to influence.

You saw a lot of that with the election of President Obama. He had a big, grinning face, unique, but not-difficult-to-pronounce-name, and hung a five letter banner "CHANGE" everywhere he went, first written by hand from loyal supporters in Iowa, to pressed on designer T-shirts. The iconic, three-color picture of the President is what will be remembered most from his campaign. It encompassed all three.

Senators, like Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, are having to walk a tight rope toward re-elected prosperity, an arduous and difficult gait. She's obviously got her hands tied in some kind of restraint by those who will or will not elect her for a third consecutive term to the Senate.

While her policies are complex, her record long, and her biography well-documented, look for her opposition to use short sentences, if not monosyllabic phrases. She helped them out by dubbing a sympathetic constituency "un-American," but that will be a throw away.

I'm not really looking for an answer, it's just been buzzing around in my head. For all of the high-minded thought that's going into such policies as health care, climate changes, and, oh yeah, those two wars we're fighting, I'm just hoping that politics — the important part of it anyway — is more than picking between Reebok and Nike.

Random thought for the day. You're welcome.

Caption Contest! Too Soon?

I don't know if you've heard about this fifty times yet, but Michael Jackson died yesterday afternoon. If your office is anything like mine, all working ceased to look at TMZ/figure out what TMZ is, yell at everyone surrounding your desk, go outside and yell it on the streets, pull a fire alarm, and then just scream unintelligibly.

Then someone started comparing him to Elvis and you just lost it, didn't you. Me too. Apples and Oranges, man.

Anyway, here's a political photo I snagged while drifting through photos of the King of Pop. It's Reagan giving Jackson a civic award for being a good role model (hindsight?), and also for lending his hit song 'Beat It' to an anti-drunk driving campaign. Show him off right, kids. Show him off right.

Lattimer won last week. He gets to watch me moonwalk.

Oh yeah, I guess no one knows that about me. I can moonwalk. Seriously. Not kidding. I can do it.

Have at the CapCon.

Caption Contest! Vic Snyder's Animal Planet

This week's caption contest comes with a little bit of a news-ish angle. The uber-incumbent, Vic Snyder, of Arkansas' 2nd district (Little Rock and surrounding, for you outtatowners) is coming under fire from the National Republican Congressional Committee with about 16 of his fellow Congressional Democrats for being too close and too involved with the GOPublic Enemy No. 1, Nancy Pelosi.

Brummett rightly assess that Pelosi is the primary target for Republicans by default since all the usual suspects (i.e. Clintons, Kennedys) are either retired, ill, or out of Congress. That doesn't mean she isn't a big — and perhaps vulnerable — target.

And it's clear that the GOP sees the 2nd district as perhaps the state's only swing district, solely by its diversity in the capitol city. The 1st and 4th are deeply ensconced in good ole boy blue, while the 3rd is just as militantly devoted, but to the Republican cause. The 2nd would be up for grabs to either a Republican or a Democrat if...

Vic Snyder weren't running, which he is. I did a thesis paper a couple of years ago about Arkansas' 2nd, and subsequently Vic Snyder, as the district's congressman. It could have very well been titled "Why Vic Snyder Is The Most Perfect Political Candidate Ever For Arkansas' 2nd District and Why No One Should Ever Think About Running Against Him."

The 2nd district is circular, with liberal Pulaski County at its core and conservative counties, like Saline, White, Faulkner, etc., on its perimeter. The constituency is split very well down the middle, as Little Rock (more liberal) is the biggest city in the state, countering the outnumbering of counties.

Snyder, too, is liberal at his core, but has a nice shell of Arkansas conservatism. Looking at the guy and his flannel shirt on the House floor, his mustache, his war record, his degrees in medicine AND law, why, he's the spittin' image of a baby made by Andy Griffith and Uncle Sam. Then you look at his voting record and see that why, he's no conservative at all, being pro-choice to name one issue, but among other stances that are often distanced by many Arkansas Democrats.

Oh and he's been in office for about 950 years, with only one (1) election being within double digits of victory. The incumbent's advantage is spoiled on Vic Snyder.

So if the state GOP is planning a coup, by all means go ahead. I don't know who your candidate would be, he'd have to have the money of French Hill coupled with the name recognition of Jesus of Nazareth, but crazier things have happened (like, every ballot initiative passing in 2008? Wacky stuff). Two words: Good. Luck. You are certainly going to need that and more.

Oh, but remember this is a caption contest. Lattimer won again last week, since he was the only one not cool enough to have plans for Memorial Day. Have at it, I think this could be a good one.

Is Sotomayor a Snag for Lincoln? Meh.

I mean, I'm scouring the traditional media outlets, scrounging around for a piece of noteworthy news I might be able to expound upon, but everyone's still jawing about Sotomayor. Doesn't everyone know that I already wrote about that lady? Harumph!

Just kidding. I'll bite.

Yesterday I was on the old talky radio box with Bureau columnist and fitness guru David J. Sanders, just talking shop, with the news of the day of course being Sotomayor's nomination.

Sanders, and the encompassing Arkansas blogosphere, saw before I did that the Senators Lincoln and Pryor are going to have some role in her vetting process, be it small or large, as they're in the Senate body.

Lincoln has an especially large role in that her every move is gauged by politicos and analysts from the Natural State, always in measurements of her electability (or, by some, defeatability). And I mean every move. Not to be taken without a huge grain of salt, but nearly all of her opponents will say that any give move is a 'clear cut example' of how she's out of touch with Arkansas, while all of her supporters will claim the opposite. As the professor once said, that's the nature of politics.

The Arkansas Project has a good explanation of this by Cory Allen Cox, written when Justice "Yawn" Souter announced his retirement for the love of Vermontian syrup and shuffleboard. It spells out Lincoln's obvious perils quite well, although Cox lacks Kinkade's obvious knack for captivating his audience.

On the air, I said that I didn't think that her confirming a nominee would be such a dagger to her cause, namely because she has plenty of other issues that are currently being held to her feet like flame. The problem for her is that every issue for her is magnified, and usually blown out of proportion.

After consideration following Sanders' and my conversation, I'm still not convinced that her confirming Sotomayor will make or break her election prospects. First off, nobody knows who Sotomayor is, well, nobody in Arkansas, anyway. Very few people had every heard of such a person, and likely those who had already have their minds and focuses made on Mrs. Lincoln.

While she has a questionable issue about her feelings while trying cases, experts are mainly discussing her ambiguity. She seems to be centrist, but not so much that it disguises her liberal nature. Obama wouldn't pick someone who wasn't, but Bush I and all of those Republicans who confirmed her years ago, even if only flippantly reviewing her nomination, wouldn't have let someone too far in left field play ball.

Nationally, Republicans will likely heed the words of Press Sec. Gibbs and Sen. Chuck Shumer, who's guiding her through the vetting process, and tread lightly, fearing a Hispanic backlash that they would surely rue, which would be devastating as they are attempting to woo that demographic back to the GOP.

The heat won't really be on anyone but Lincoln, but the heat's already on her and has been on her. She'll vote for Sotomayor. Again, I doubt it will make or break Lincoln's rerere-election bid. That's not to say that this, coupled with maybe a flip-flop on her latest card check position, then upsetting some pro-gun types, wouldn't add fuel to the fire and put her in greater danger.

However, she's been on several tours as of late to restore her conservative and "in touch" credentials and I doubt would make such a costly move in her campaign. Plus, right now it doesn't matter. Nobody's up against her thus far. Let's see if someone, say, Gilberto Baker has anything to say about it. I wonder if it will be a sticking point with any would-be candidate.

I'm going to be a guest with Sanders again tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon, not sure when exactly though (UPDATE: At three in the afternoon, after Senate-maybe Curtis "Blog?" Coleman). If you like listening to old timey radio, give an ear, or hey! phone in, 501-433-0092. It'd be riveting conversation I'm sure.

At Least One Reason To Be Glad You're From Arkansas

We don't have problems like this.

Mother of God.

I hope not, anyway. Sweet sassy molassy, I pray not. The endless late-night ridicule would likely bring the state to its collective knees.

But for now, Arkansas can proudly say, "Wow, I'm really glad I'm not from Georgia.

Newt Again? What is this? 1993?

1993 was a pretty good year. I was in Ms. Abbott — now Mrs. Harmon's — classroom in Benton, Arkansas, and life was good. The film's of the year were phenomenal: Philadelphia. The Fugitive. Rookie of the Year. Groundhog Day. Last Action Hero. I also think that's the year I got a Sega Genesis. Like I said, the times were enviable.

'93 was also a good year for a Representative with an amphibian moniker.

I say 1993 had to have been a good year for Newt Gingrich because of what it produced: 1994. Contract with America. Sweeping Republican pwnage. Not to pat him on the back too much, not much of that era still stands today, but the early to mid-nineties was Newt's obvious prime.

Hence, it should come as no surprise to see Newt's face everywhere these days. '09 looks remarkably similar to the conditions which wrought the '94 mid-term landslide, with a few important distinctions.

1993: House, Senate, Executive; all Democrats.

2009: Ditto.

Newt is on the forefront of similar circumstances and naturally, would enjoy a similar result. He'd love the same sort of congressional revolt toward the Right. The GOP would love the same sort of congressional revolt toward the Right. Republicans are in a pretty low state. Talk shows are being widely purported as their best and brightest at this point. Es no bueno for those guys.

I get the thought process: If it ain't broke don't fix it. Newt did wonders then, why not now?

Because that was 16 years ago.

Come on, guys. That's Newt Gingrich. If the party is trying to gain a new appeal in the nation and actually move in that more appealing direction, why oh why would it turn toward antiquity? The values that permeated that time which was ripe for a new approach to new problems are not the same that the GOP needs to utilize in order to get themselves out of this existential funk.

You can't make any progress (the kind of progress Republicans can get behind) with regressive tactics, not in this case anyway. Now there's word that the RNC has raised more money than the DNC this past month. That's a better start.

While I would definitely agree that Congress, not the White House, as Obama will likely be insurmountable, ought to be the focus of the RNC, and Newt proved he knows Congress, innovation ought to also be a focus. Maybe the two are connected, as this article talking about the likelihood of Newt in '12 running for the Executive. Said one GOP strategist, "He's always been the idea man."

But come on, the guy's name is 'Newt.'

Pro-Union, Anti-Card Check? Possible, I think

My thoughts on Card Check were refreshed by this article from The Hill, a DC-based news service, that said former West Wing stars Martin Sheen, Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff had more to say on the matter than the actual politicians at a Labor Rally in Washington today.

I say they had something to say on the matter of Card Check, but in reality, from the report, they said nothing about EFCA, but a great deal about the benefit of Unions in general, a most agreeable point.

I was on the horn with Alan Hughes, President of the Arkansas AFL-CIO regarding another article. With Democratic Senators finicky about how to handle the Employee Free Choice Act in a right-to-work state, who better to talk to than the chief delegate of Labor and get his take?

Needless to say, he was agitated.

Asked what he thought about Sen. Lincoln saying the matter was 'not on her radar,' Hughes laughed. "Huh, I believe that it is definitely on her radar," Hughes said. He then went on to run on the point that the NBC West Wingers would make a few weeks later.

"How can you be for Unions and be against Card Check?" Hughes clamored. "You can't."

Nobody thinks Unions are bad. In fact, they're necessary to balance the power of the employer and the power of the employee.

Notice the key word there is 'balance.'

My best good buddy John Brummett has reluctantly been all over Card Check. He says that Unions are getting ready to compromise and 'make some sausage.' I'm reminded of what he said about the biggest spur in the EFCA argument, the secret ballot:

You can be pro-union without wanting unions to reap an inappropriate advantage, just as you can root for the Razorbacks without wanting the officials to give them the game with unfair calls.

Like I said. Balance.

I'm all for watching people's backs against the big, oppressive businesses. But who watches the business' back? Those are made up of people, after all. Can't have one group dominating the other.

It's that whole 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?' bit again.

UPDATE: I was right. The Artificially Intelligent Panzer has been so totally super-psyched about it ALL DAY.

What if it doesn't work?

This isn't bemoaning the current state of affairs. It's no longer a mere bill, but an act signed into law by our President.

This isn't an attempt to uncoil and pounce with a litany of "I'm telling you now, so I can say I told you so later" and the like, a la Limbaugh et al.

It's not even criticism. No news is good news thus far, and the money isn't even on the streets yet.

But I'm just asking the question, because it's been bugging me, and might generate some thoughtful discourse: What if this $787 bill American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — The Stimulus —does the unthinkable and fails?

I really don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I've been scratching my head on it for far too long, hence the bald spots and claw marks. What do we do if this life-vest that we're creating for our livelihood's sake turns out to be a mere floatie?

I've heard grumblings from UFWAW (that's my Unfamous First Words Agent in Washington, a trustworthy chap who works for a high-ranking Senator and feeds me tips, leads, and eavesdropping in the halls, for those of you who don't know) that another stimulus might be brewing, and the New York Times didn't rule it out in Denver.

The thought is that the spending on the stimulus might not be enough for the added deficit we're currently building, which is now reportedly going to be about $1.75 trillion, according to forecasts, and that the $787 billion wasn't designed to cover that. Never mind all of the pork that was thrown in there, despite an Obama campaign promise to the contrary. That's beside the point. The point is that there might be even more billions of dollars to dig ourselves out if the economy should still be sour after a few years.

But would this be the answer? If not this, then what else?

Are we talking about a complete about face if the stimulus doesn't work? Of course not, because then it'd be the GOP talking about de-deregulation and tax cuts, two things the stimulus and the Democratic party have been weeding out since January 20th.

Are we going to cut programs? That seems contrary to the diversified recipients of these stimulus dollars. Like $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program to help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi, $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama and $1 million for "Mormon cricket control in Utah."

Not to speak of frivolity, but how much research can be done on catfish that hasn't been accomplished by a mechanic named Ty baiting a fart and catching a catfish with it? And concerning these crickets, well, I don't see what a little Mormonism could do to hurt a cricket.

No beaver jokes, kids. This isn't the Arkansas Project (HI KINKADE!)

We're willing to toss all of this money at these programs but what happens if the country is really in a pinch? Which are the first to go, and are we really going to limit the discussion for the delegates from North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Utah when they will likely object?

So I'm asking. Where do we go from here if 'here' ends up being the gutter? Not that it will, but is there any sort of a back-up plan?

Colleague, mentor, and BFF John Brummett has columnized, blogged, and will surely tweet that America runs on a capitalist economy with a socialist safety net. He doesn't sweat the label socialist, but for all of you who do, I assure you he means it in the nicest way possible. It seems apparent to Newsweek and to Conservative pundits everywhere that we have, although I'm not convinced.

But if this is in fact our safety net, what is to happen to us if the net has too much slack?

Seriously. I'm just asking.

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.

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.

Quoth the Gander: We Got Us a Goose

I run a nary-mentioned, hardly-frequented, often-pithy, likely-ignoble blog.

It's a blog. It's a simply-templated piece of real estate along the Information Super Highway and it lets me voice my opinions, thoughts, musings, what-have-you, in a loose atmosphere, free of the high standards of quality press journalism, like the Arkansas News Bureau's site, where I am the Web Content Editor and a staff writer.

I regularly see and deal with the disparity between a meager blog and a credible website, and feel like I have a pretty good handle on the situation. UFW is of the former, meant for (at least I attempt to provide) somewhat insightful commentary, blended with humor and frivolity.

But I am in a position to do so; I'm a youngblood, as my good friend Heir Brummett would say, and have very few responsibilities that would be slighted or depreciated if this humble blog were ever to run wayward into, dare I say, offensive territories. It's all pretty nonvenomous. I am in a position to do so because my position is relatively unimportant.

My position is not Speaker of the House of the Arkansas Legislature.

Robbie Wills, D-Conway, on the other hand, is.

Wills jumped on the blogging board just a few days prior to the maiden voyage of the 87th General Assembly. His colleague, Steve Harrelson, D-Texarkana, has been running Under the Dome for awhile, and it's been a pretty neat bird's-eye-view of the inner workings of the Arkansas Legislature.

But this Robbie fellow thinks he's funny, and is taking shots for the guffaws of a few. Let's delve.

Wills started out doing what most expected him to do; Make some pitches regarding legislation he'd like to have passed, give passive talking points for why he likes some bills and not others, shake some digital hands, kiss some digital babies, and whatever else a technologically advanced politician aims to do.

This was all well and good. A little weak sauce by blogging terms, but hey, he's an elected official. You might expect a little bit of bland, and likely get it with no complaints.

But then the first big issue of the Fightin' 87th came up: HB 1204, the Cigarette Tax. A highly divisive issue, Wills decided to fire off at the mout— I mean, keyboard at his opposition.

He fired off at national legislators who were coming in to speak against the bill, namely Dick Armey of Texas. Now, some points in Wills' defense:

• Armey dished out some weak material at the obvious behest of tobacco lobbyists.
• Wills rightly called him out regarding his own state's cigarette tax exceeding our own.
• Wills genuinely disagreed with what this national spokesman had to say, and wished to dismantle his arguments.

But there's a right way and a wrong way. Mocking the people who attended the rally, trivializing the excuses —albeit weak— by the opposition that probably wisely didn't want to get into a losing debate, and finally referencing a movie that is contrary to your point (Thank You For Smoking actually shows a humane side to big tobacco, a point which apparently completely escapes Rep. Wills). It reminds me of the episode of Seinfeld where Jerry seeks the counsel of a priest when his dentist, Dr. Tim Whatley, converts to Judaism strictly for the jokes.

Priest: "And this offends you as a Jewish person?"
Jerry: "No! It offends me as a comedian!"

You let some things slide. You don't stoop down to someone else's level. Which brings me to another point, the posts where he openly ridicules a colleague of mine, columnist David J. Sanders.

Sanders, an avowed conservative and opponent of the tax hike, is not a legislator. While he may often be in the ear of legislators, he is not one of them. The best way to rebut is to make your case, not to apostatize about how the man dresses or combs his hair. It's a bully tactic from the pulpit with a gavel. You can rebut through meaningful legislation, not cheap verbal shots like some kid under the monkey bars. And not that Sanders was taking unnecessarily low-blows; Sanders gets paid to levee opinions, Wills get paid to lead Arkansas' representation.

Plus, if you're going to take the shot, maybe take it a little more forcefully than just saying "Nu-uh!" to his points. Were you really not worried about it, you wouldn't have felt the necessary to post anything in the first place. Again, there's a time and a place.

But the biggest point concerning Wills and his gunslinging blog is the point he himself halted legislation last Thursday to make: Decorum.

After Rep. Mark Martin, R-Prairie Grove (no, not that Mark Martin), bellowed "It's the law!" during Rep. Gregg Reep's closing arguments of HB 1204, Wills made an angry plea for decorum. Apparently, there were cat calls and chiding, but that's beside the point. Martin later apologized for his actions, case closed.

You'd think so, but then you read Wills' post about how disappointed he was in the Republicans and their decorum. He said it was "a complete lack of respect for the House of Representatives," and a "shocking display of pettiness," when the House GOP called off the pairing rule so every legislator had to be there for the crucial vote.

Wills has openly lambasted opponents in a manner unbecoming of the speaker, on his blog and elsewhere. Gov. Beebe lambasted Arkansas Republicans — Freshman legislator Jonathan Dismang, R-Beebe, by name — for being openly partisan and divisive.

For someone who holds the House of Representatives to such a high standard, and is the head of that very House, he certainly has not walked the walk.

A blog, in its very essence perhaps, is meant to be informal. But choosing words a bit more carefully could bode well for the Speaker. It sort of goes against the whole bipartisan, non-divisive, people friendly image the Speaker pushes outside of the confines of the interweb.

Not Joe the Plumber again...

Just when I get to hoist the GOP getting a much-needed face lift by getting an African-American chairman and appealing to this fresh new attitude of a bipartisan love-fest on Capitol Hill, I get this little nugget of information that sends all positive feelings of affirmation crashing down.

Joe the Plumber — the only thing more gimmicky than Sarah Palin in the 2008 election — will be the featured guest of honor at the Conservative Working Group in Washington, a collection of congressional aides and players who regularly meet to "strategize" for the Republican party.

I put "strategize" in quotes because I'm not sure if this qualifies; Strategy is usually reserved for progressive planning for a certain organization, and if this is their best shot, it's not strategy; It's folly.

The headline reads that he's fresh from his stint as a war correspondent in Gaza, which means someone else had the bright idea to cling to this guy's new found celebrity. The CWG is calling this man forward to discuss different ways to revamp the party, and forecast and plan for the future ahead.

This is worse than the stuff Joe regularly sifts through during his more-ballyhooed nine-to-five job.

The GOP is using and admittedly taking the advice of a man who may be a popular voice among the Republican faithful, but came under fire in his own right for not paying his taxes, and we all know how faux pas that is these days with the falling out of Daschle and Killefer.

This man has no credentials, no promise, and little to show other than a brief flash-in-the-pan, 15 minutes of fame, coat-tail riding, made-for-cable-or-straight-to-video-movie style that seems to have got some people in Congress to say, "Hey! I'm void of any workable ideas! Let's see what this guy who fixes toilets has to say! He's been on television!"

If the Grand Old Party thinks clinging to a recently failed gimmick is the answer to some of their fundamental strategic problems, they've got more problems than I thought.

Plaxico is All About Guns in Church

Here's some of the wackier news floating around the country, and true to form, Arkansas is behind the wheel, dipping and diving through a stretch of redneckery that had previously been uncharted, even by the most slack-jawed of affiliates.

A bill was filed last Tuesday to repeal the stifling and antiquated and remarkably sane ban on guns in church. House Bill 1237 would remove the "church or any place of worship" bit out of the lists of places that one cannot carry concealed heat; long-winded priests and pastors everywhere will now have added motivation to wrapping up an homily or sermon on a big-game Sunday.

With churches out of the way, now legislature can finally make some progress and get this pesky ban lifted in nursing homes, day cares, maximum-security prisons and nuclear submarines. That way we can get down to the bidness of protecting that most hallowed of amendments: lucky number two.

Sarcasm aside, the cognitive faculties of those in the Arkansas Legislature seem to be lacking, or at least in one instance.

The bill calls to lift a ban, as advocates say it is an infringement on liberties. That may be fine. Bring the guns into church. Lord knows we need protection from those who might mean to do religious people harm. I don't know of any chemically-balanced persons who struggle with leaving their gun at home when they go to worship, but maybe I'm not broadening my narrow-minded horizons enough.

My problem with the entirety of the bill is this: Law or no, people are still (apparently) going to do it. It's that whole "concealed" part that helps people get away with it. I guarantee you — in fact, I know from personal experiences — that people do bring guns into church anyway.

It's these Plaxico types you really have to worry about. Because whether or not there is a law prohibiting the carrying of guns or not, or even whether the person in question has a permit to make such a weapon clandestine, it's going to happen.

All this law does is give these genuinely sick people a little more credibility. Hey, they'll say, this is a new law. You can't prosecute me, just because a misfire happened within the pews of a sanctuary, God forbid.

I'll hear the argument that this may better protect someone in case of some kind of jihadist who may burst into a church and open fire, but if you're going to a church where you can envision this in the foreseeable future, I suggest you find a new congregation.

So maybe I don't have a problem with the legislation so much as the thoughts that are immediately associated with it. They say guns don't kill people, people kill people, or something like that.

Sure; but let's not give those people any impetus to maybe start adding heat to that brimstone and hellfire.

Obama's Culpability: His to Make or Break

Well, someone had to do it. Someone had to finally get people out and Ba-Rock the Vote, as so many inept politicians before had attempted in the decades prior to 2008. The victory was clear, decisive, and wildly popular: Barack Obama is to become the 44th president of the United States. The fanfare associated with the inception of the very first African-American president is not only appropriate, but required.

But the roads will not prove to be so golden along the way in the next four years.

And while certainly challenging, Obama will have to do less of the talking which makes him so appealing and more of the walking that he has promised his country he would do, without having demonstrated a lot of it in his prior experiences. But no one will have more power than he to squeeze every drop of potential out of his administration.

So for better or for worse, these next four years are all Obama's to make or break. And if there's less making than breaking, the fault cannot be laid at the feet of outgoing President Bush.

Granted, Obama is inheriting an unprecedented burden. Two wars with one over-arching theme of eliminating terrorism coupled with an economy that seems to be "inconsistent" at best would be a challenge for anyone. But blaming the previous administration for one's woes is worthless. It gets nothing positive done but it is also, frankly, something that Bush did to absolutely no avail. Bush lamented the Clinton administration for a majority of his initial hiccups, and went about scrapping everything that Clinton hadn't nailed down in his eight years.

And look where that got Bush. Bush eliminated every stick of infrastructure of the executive branch prior to his arrival and I would argue thusly struggled. The Obama camp currently has plans to do this, or so I hear and speculate, but were I an adviser, I might hold off. It's just weak sauce.

Obama is a powerful personality. But a majority of his power does not lie in that trademark grin of his, or his oratory skills, but rather his control of both the House and the Senate. Obama has two of the three branches of government in the palm of his hand. It should be mentioned that Bush also had party favoritism when he was elected, as well as six years of his eight year tenure. But the division in Congress was much more even, so a GOP-romp was impossible whereas a Democratic free-for-all is a very real possibility.

Those recounts and run-off elections? Like Al Franken's in Minnesota? Those do matter, because Democrats are very nearly close to a filibuster-proof legislative period that would allow for most of their bills to pass unscathed, unopposed, and unchecked by the right. Now the past two elections have certainly been a mandate by the public for more Democratic legislation, but there needs to be some sort of disparity, some sort of discourse between parties. This is still a center-right country, and if Obama thinks that he can use majority rule tactics, he will most likely be treated similarly to Clinton in 1994 and Bush in 2006, both mid-term election domination by the opposing party.

Obama has an opportunity to be a transformational president, if only he follows through with the assurances he gave on his campaign stumps. I noticed a bit of his acceptance speech on Nov. 4th, something that makes me take notice, wary against a preceding-president backlash I see on the horizon:

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. -Barack Obama

The tail end of his message spells hope, while the first spells out "get out of jail free," or a "rebuilding year," to use a sports phrase. And I certainly agree with that. However, I believe that whether or not his first term is a success lies on his shoulders, rather than on Bush's.

Call this what you will, but I'll call it a preemptive attack on using a weak previous leader as a crutch. The end result would just be that: weak.

The Beginning of the Site: Unfamous First Words

Regard the preliminary article under this article as a prequel to what I hope this site will become: moderate analysis of political nature reflected by American society, for liberal and conservative, for Democrat and Republican, for better and for worse.

Politics are mired with nonobjective monologue that in turn, gets nothing done. Boy, it's great to throw all kinds of bull around with your buddies, but how does that talk fly when it's up against intelligent discourse from a differing view point? It's about creating a dialogue, mixing it up to find better results, because if you think you're right, all the time, in every instance, I think you're an idiot.

But while politics isn't without its fair share of problems, I also find it to be the most fascinating sport in the world. I refer here to famed political consultant Charlie Cook. Cook is a moderate and runs the non-partisan politically handicapping newsletter, The Cook Political Report. I don't so much enjoy the players that often, but I love the game. The game is what shapes and molds our collective destinies. Representation is a powerful thing.

So which ever side of the issue you're on, just consider for a moment someone else's opinion. I guarantee I'll offend you, but you just might learn something.

Oh yeah, and I promise that future posts will have more funny in them. These opening statements are so broad, that it's hard to pin a certain feature to one certain style or whatever the case may be. Wakka wakka.