Proof that Obama's Numbers Are Too Low

Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance" beat out Obama's primetime health care show case last night.

Seeing amateurs dance was more appealing to the masses than hearing the President talk about how the country might or might not provide health insurance for them.

Maybe next time Obama could moonwalk or something. That one lady on American Idol made a career by showing up in a bikini.

Overexposure vs. Playing Your Hand

President Barack Obama is the most popular guy in school the world. He's got charm, smarm, snazz, tact, and smooth rhetoric that makes Morgan Freeman sound like a heavy-breathing, awkward teenager on the line with his Jr. high sweetheart.

He's good looking. I'm comfortable enough with myself (and my listening abilities) to say that. He's in shape. He hoops so regularly that ESPN ran an Outside the Lines article talking about how basketball is the new golf course, as for where the business in Washington is handled.

He has a compelling narrative. He has an 'it' factor that makes even conservative columnists like the New York Times' David Brooks acknowledge that he is the epitome of dignity in an ever dignity-less world, and that his greatest achievement as President might be the reawakening of a new age where dignity is treasured.

Politico reported that he is marketable, filed away under the biggest 'duh' ever category. Yesterday, I talked about how he, like Sarah Palin, has such a stellar character profile that it outshines hitherto considered to be blemishes on his resume, namely, a lack of a long one. Many in Obama's early corner told the now-President but then junior Senator only two years into office that he ought to wait a term or two to insure that his election would be a lock.

It was never anything but a lock, save for a few brief moments about six weeks before the election, but those tumbled as did the economy.

I could keep going on and on, but it would be redundant and would border on flirtatious. He's popular and he knows it.

But then that wily codger John Multimedia Brummett went and got me thinking about overexposure. In his renowned phone-it-in arrows column, he gave Obama a downward arrow for overexposure. "He’s overexposed and shouldn’t do any more health care specials on ABC unless he can produce better answers than he offered the other night...It is to say he should stay off television if all he can do is regurgitate banal talking points," said Brummett.

While I'm sure the two sorted it out that Sunday evening, with Obama being a fan of Brummett's and Brummett being a fan of his, this struck a chord with me; I had been having a meal with an avid, blindly and staunchly conservative, and she said the exact same thing. I had chalked it up to bias. But I think it's a strategy.

It's a balancing act for the President. Obama can be seen on television, the internet, and every medium in between (yes, Blake, TwiTTeR!!!) every day. Politico 44 stalks reports his every move. Barry (yeah, I feel like I'm on a first name basis with the guy) is like the picture of a loved one you keep on the dashboard of your car: Maybe not your primary focus, but always in sight, smiling at you.

But there's personable and then there's overanxious. Last week, Politico ran an article about the Politics of Personal Perfection, referring of course to how Obama seemingly being just so perfect in every way may actually be a detriment, as people might prefer a "real" or "flawed" person just like them. So President Obama is trying to be unflappable to his political opponents, yet would do well to seem more flawed, to connect with the common man.

Personally, I think the 'Everyman' narrative is a little worn out. Nobody craves the 'Everyman' or 'Everywoman' when they watch TV or a movie. They look for perfection. They look for Cameron Diaz. They look for Brad Pitt. They look for Obama. While worn, I think it still holds water.

Obama can see his assets as well as anyone. He sees that his weaknesses are also overshadowed by his strengths. His strength now becomes a pseudo-weakness. As his policy ratings continue to decline, his personal popularity might become more than just the luster on the ride, it could end up being the motor.

I think he'll do it, step out of the spotlight a bit and give his persona a breather. That'd be the smart move, and he's proven he's got a vast repertoire of smart moves. But that isn't to say that he'll be offstage, either. Again, it's Obama's hand to play.

Public Option vs. the Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Competes with the Government? And Wins?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caption Contest! This Necktie Is Worth More Than the Guy Next to You, Michelle

Photos like this rarely hit the light of day. But when they do...holy crap.

I'm not even going to offer a funny commentary. It almost speaks for itself. But please, I know there is funny out there. Let it be. Let it be.

Professional Gawkers and Stalkers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caption Contest! Obama Slamma Jamma

Taking a bit from our content partner in the Wide, Wide World of Sports, The Ghost of Roy Hobbs, of which I am a contributing member, here's the Caption Contest! In the comment section, give your best caption for the picture provided.

Anonymity is acceptable, but a prize will be awarded to the best caption. Here are a couple of examples:

Hansbrough: I VOTE GOP ALL THE WAY!
Obama: I know you do (followed by an under-the-legs-360°-slammajamma-swish).

No. 40: I can't guard this guy. He's too pretty.

Kids on the Bench in Background: I can't say this isn't the first time I've been benched for a guy in his late 40's.

Hansbrough: SMELL THIS!

Hopefully, you can do better than this. Legislators, let your hair down and give a caption. Keep it clean and keep it classy.

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho

If you blare this loudly in your place of business or worship, you will likely be admonished by your boss or Lord.


Brummett and I were jawing about this movie, Idiocracy, yesterday while discussing President Obama, who is scheduled to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Obama has also made some headlines on ESPN this week, "following up on a campaign promise" by filling out an NCAA Tournament bracket.

I don't really have a problem with all this. I'm a huge comedy fan to the point of academia, and I've filled out a couple of brackets myself. What's wrong with the President being a normal guy?

Well, nothing really. It's just that the President, while not being royalty or anything ridiculous like that, is our highest office, our most lofty representative, our highest ambassador. There's a certain decorum, a certain prestige that ought to be associated with the office.

I don't think this is a large infringement on that. He's certainly not going to say or do anything that will really hurt him politically. And I think that there's something to be said about showing a little humanity, especially with such an already-iconic president as Obama (still waiting on the Jimmy Carter skull cap).

But sometimes you have to wear a tie to work. And sometimes, work is around the clock.

Taxable Deterrent? Alcopops? Fruit?...I Need a Drink

A bill to impose a higher tax "alcopops," or in other words those sweet and alcoholic beverages you used to sneak when you were in high school because you knew your dad wouldn't miss them, failed in the House Rules Committee today.

The bill would not only tax these unmanliest of nectars, but also keep them out of grocery and convenience stores.

The role call speaking for the bill apparently included a senior at the U of A, who among others, testified that the largest groups of people to purchase such beverages includes women between sixth and twelfth grade. For shame!

A panel endorsed the tax in October, probably miffed due to a lack of invitations to the Stovall Halloween Party 2k8.

The argument seemed to be that these poor youngsters are just having too much free-swingin', free-swigin' access to these fruity spirits, so we ought to tax the crap out of them and their allowance money. Because we all know teenagers, when faced with the choice of a new video game or hooch, will always choose video games.

(Slaps forehead.)

Luckily, this laughable bit o' legislatin' got turned down by Robbie's Rough Rule Riders in the House. But the bill itself brings up an interesting notion that I recall having when this whole cigarette tax was being brought up and ultimately run through the legislation: Taxing to save lives.

Are taxes intended to be deterrents? I sure hope not. It's a dutch door. From a defensive stand point, yes, because these things that are getting taxed are bad and no good, like cigarettes and...Mike's Hard Lemonade (slapping my forehead again). So in order to keep people from doing them, the bad things, the state ought to tax it, making them unaffordable to those who don't garner paychecks, but allowances.

My gut reaction to the cigarette and tobacco tax was that the government might be making investments in the self-harm of Arkansas youths, but upon calling the governor and the Tobacco Control Board for another story, a reasonable answer sufficed.

The costs incurred by these vices is directly proportional to the tax. So by raising the cigarette tax, for instance, the state might be reaping the benefits of a bad habit, but figures the deterrent will lower the cost of the health issues that the tax is for, eventually leveling out.

I'm not sure sure what a tax is on sweet hooch is supposed to raise money for. Awareness about the dangers of underage drinking? Awareness of the dangers inherent in drinking and driving? Those can't be taught without raising a tax?

Kids don't understand taxes. They might understand raised prices, but they don't get that whole notion of a tax as a deterrent. They're going to do what they want to do, often regardless of the prices.

Maybe that's why it got killed in the House Rules gauntlet. I don't know. But this whole bit about taxation as a deterrent is still mighty peculiar. If a vice is bad enough, it ought to be illegal in the first place. If it's not that bad, then why ought the taxes be raised to curb its use?

Is Breaking Someone's Thumbs a "Legal Avenue?"

Briefly, on Obama vs. AIG.

AIG was/is broke, and has accepted large sums of bailout cheddar in order to stay afloat, only to turn around and issue about $165 million in executive bonuses under "contractual obligations."

Obama says no dice, fool. He's encouraging his man in the field, Timmy "Asthma" Geithner, to pursue "every legal avenue" to make sure that these people can't pay these bonuses.

It's quite the pickle.

The President is still trying to stimulate the economy but let the businesses play ball. But these businesses — the executives of which by the way, haven't really proven themselves to be, how do you say, good at their jobs — are refusing. Admittedly, their CEO Libby has bitten the sacrificial bullet, taking a tremendous pay cut to one dollar, but that's about $164,999,999 too little of a cut, says most.

The government already took over one bank, Citigroup. I don't think they want to take over another (although they already own a measly 80 percent of AIG). Then we're getting into some pretty serious territories over government control of businesses, more socialist angst, etc. etc. Even with their controlling stake, politicians are put off about just what to do.

This fellow from The Daily Beast has a pretty neat idea: Why doesn't Obama just ask them to forgo their bonuses? Not threaten with pseudo-legalese, or make them criminals in the public eye, but simply ask them because their country needs it. The author points to the need for sacrifice that is apparent during war times, and equates the current climate to economic warfare.

Obama is set to go on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Thursday, the only sitting President to do so, and likely one of the only Presidents who can garner enough public appeal to make a pleasant appearance. Don't expect any shoe tossers. Here's where Obama will be at his best: Outside of politics, drumming up public support for his economic vision.

The point is this — Don't expect AIG to win verses the President. In fact, it'd be best for everyone if the two just found a common ground. But so far, neither have budged. Obama might be able to take a graceful offensive; Use his best weapon (public appeal) to wrap his arm around the shoulders of AIG and give them a hug. Or a squeeze?

Obama & Signing Statements: Big Whoop

Beneath the mire of all of this altogether uninteresting business about stem cell research, there was another bit of uninteresting news that Maxwell "Not the Coffee" Brantley brought to my attention.

The headline reads "Bye Bye Bush Era," and it applauds that Obama advising that signing statements under G.W. Bush may be ignored if convenient.

Bush's signing statements — clauses attached to bills that basically call for certain parts of a bill to be openly ignored — had enough coverage in its day. It basically is a loop around line-item vetoes, which are prohibited. So, Obama, accordingly, said that they are all now subject to interpretation by Atty. General Holder, and then they can be deemed constitutional or not.

I wonder how many of them will make it through the filter. What's the over/under on one to two?

Obama getting elected was the mandate. Once in office, he quickly did away with many of Bush's policies and rules, notably the implementation of a White House Happy Hour and looser dress code.

But then Maxwell misses another "important" piece of the NYT puzzle: Obama isn't against doing all that his own dern self. Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?

Of course, not. This is OBAMA we're talking about. You remember? The Hope and Change for America? He makes houses appear for the homeless, jobs appear for the jobless, and still has time to hoop with the Bulls?

I say that sarcastically, not to say that Obama won't do any of those things (he's done all of them) or even that he won't do any of them again (he's on track to do it all again and again).

It's just another example of how bias is often thinly-veiled and useless when some good ole fashioned objectivity would be a better lens.

The next president, who will likely be a Republican if trends mean anything, could reverse Obama's reversal. In fact, I bet he (or she!) might throw out nearly everything Obama puts into play. Clinton did it to Reagan's ugly step-child, Bush I. Bush II did it to Clinton, which I'm sure sticks in some people's craw, that Obama is reminding some of Bush. I'm sure that wily coot Jefferson did it to that old buzzard Adams, and then that upstart Adams II returned the favor, although I'm sure wigs and gloves were more involved back then.

I understand that there are liberal commentators and conservative ones, and I especially understand that those views are more prominently displayed in the blogosphere. I'm just saying that there ought to be a little more objectivity out there.

So I therefore understand the roof raising by some, heck, by many that Bush is gone and out, exiled to his Crawford Ranch and new ritzy Dallas condo. But that's a little old news by now, don't you say Maxwell? Olbermann still harps on Bush, and Maddow is relegated to doing fluff pieces about Boy Scouts, and now this. There's nothing to be critical about in Obama's short time as President? COUGH Wow! Look at all that pork in the gazillion dollar stimulus! COUGH!

I say let's freshen up that material. Frankly, we're still dealing with Bush's inheritance with this whole economy business and I'd rather not bring him up unless we have to. I don't think this is one of those have-to moments.

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.

Obama to Cross Border for Bacon and Flapjacks

The Washington Post says President Obama is headed north to meet with the Kanucki ringleader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

This is the first trip to a foreign land for our new executive. The roads will be scary, the dialect will be nearly unintelligible, and the climate will be frightful. Thankfully, Obama will have translators and Canadian Sherpas there to guide his every step.

But with the eyes of the world watching our historic president diplomating on foreign soil, it will be important to put a powerful foot forward. Many aides are suggesting that Obama walk right past Harper and punch the biggest bodyguard he can find right in the neck.

Actually, Obama aides say that the majority of the discussion will be about assuring trades and general good relations with the Maple Nation. Within the encyclopedia of pages within the stimulus bill, provisions and possible tax exemptions will be made to companies that "Buy American," helping to boost revenue and the economy. Apparently, Canada didn't appreciate such a clause, saying that it would hurt the trade relations between the U.S. and them.

What we actually trade with them that isn't already ours, they didn't say, but the price of Labatt Blue and Canadian Bacon pizzas, even the ones with pineapple, have skyrocketed in the past few days following the passing of the stimulus by Congress.

Anyway, that's where Obama is today, and let's hope Obama can do some good work, because let's face it: We need Canada as much as they need u-...sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.

What's the Difference between Partisan and Politics?

The short answer: Not much.

The shorter answer: nm. (lol, omg, g2g, insert emoticon here)

The long answer: There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between partisanship that President Obama and Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe lament so fervently in their orations and the axiomatic politics that — often begrudgingly by most — defines the sport.

There's a whole screenplay's worth of rhetoric bloviated by politicians, local, national and otherwise, about bipartisanship. Come on people, now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together, try to love one another right now. It's very heart-felt and I believe very honest at times. Everybody likes somebody who gets along. Nobody likes the guy at the bar who walks in, smashes a bottle on the ground for no apparent reason and picks fights with the first guy they see. Politicians have a need to be liked, and nobody likes exclusion. Bipartisanship has also become a synonym for open-mindedness, which isn't necessarily so. There can be two logical conclusions that are incompatible with one another, thus causing a partisan divide. So bipartisanship is acclaimed by the masses.

You have these politicians who have made careers out of talking the talk. Then when it comes to walking the walk, they do so like the fat kid in gym class jumping rope; They can keep it up for awhile, but only for so long.

There are two instances of note, one local and one national, where the name 'partisan' was attempted to be seared on the flesh of political opponents, like an ominous scarlet letter. Neither were necessary as they both reigned in the majority, yet neither really stuck as anything out of the ordinary day-to-day routine, as these two Dimmesdales might have you believe.

First, locally, the tumult over tobacco in the Arkansas legislator drew a quick line between Republicans and Democrats. While Republicans, who columnist John Brummett rightly dubs "tax-cutters," quetched the notion of a 56-cent increase on cigarettes, Democratic leaders balked, as if such a thing as fundamental toward the nature of a Republican like tax cuts was shockingly distasteful or something.

Beebe ran to the papers — an odd place to go these days if you're wanting to get some information out to people (zing!) — to decry these Republicans for being what he called "overly partisan," and "divisive politics."

House Speaker Robbie Wills...Well, we've gone over his contributions toward Arkansas Republicans.

Sure, they're gumming up swift legislation, but swift and hasty can run around the same pace. The reason multiple parties and sides have developed, from the days of Publicus and the Federalist Papers (number ten, specifically) is so that all sides of an argument can be heard. Overly partisan? How about doing their job.

At the national front, president Obama has claimed that "the party is over," and rightly so. With a stagnant economy, nobody's got enough money for streamers or balloons anymore, and Obama is proposing a whopping stimulus bill that would call for a tremendous expanse of government on numerous levels.

Without getting into whether or not this is a necessarily good thing (that's another whole article that somebody much smarter than me will have to write), Republicans are not only known as "tax-cutters" but as small government types. Brummett didn't say so in his column, but you can take my word for it; It's one of their sticking points. Aside from the gravity of the circumstances surrounding such a bill, you can pencil in most conservatives to not be thrilled by this idea.

So Obama broke his silky smooth character and went off on the House GOP members who unanimously voted against his bill, equating them to sheep of the Rush Limbaugh flock. At a Democratic rally, he lost his composure a bit as he stressed the importance of this bill. Watch out; now Barack Obama means business. There's going to be no telling how many furrowed brows and sternly-worded letters flying out of the gate, roasting their targets with nothing but charitable malice.

Not surprisingly, few Republicans have shifted their position. In fact, the oft wined-and-dined John McCain, who many expected to go with Obama's plan at the get-go, is one of the most vocal opponents. And why? Do people really think that this is an us-against them matter? It's against most conservative principles. Just overlook that whole George W. thing. He was kind of bad for business across the board and across the aisle.

Since when has bipartisanship become a noteworthy issue? It kind of seems to me to be the name of the game. Sides differ. Lines are drawn. Conclusions are made. People gripe. What am I missing here?


How for some things that I do like:

• Sadly, the last eight years weren't a dazzling example of good policy and many would like the Left to return the favor of a nice legislative kick to the junk. But Obama is still striving for bipartisanship. I like that somebody is attempting to keep his word about that.
  
  He's acting like he needs the Republicans, which he most certainly does not, being backed by the House, Senate, MSNBC, ESPN, Kellogg's cereal, Pizza Hut, Mountain Dew, Oprah and most importantly of all, LeBron. He seems to both fully back his agenda with complete confidence, yet understands the opposition, even if he does vent in public. He understands the alluring warmth of bipartisanship, so much so he might be posing for it if it's not available.

• I like seeing the GOP stick to their guns. There's a lot of publicized support behind this deal, and it can be easy to get swept up in the hoopla. And for those in the Arkansas House who crossed party lines? That's okay by me, too. So long as that's actually what they believed in, while my instincts lead me to believe that isn't necessarily what happened.
  
  Some closed-door, behind-the-scenes meetings, threats against legislators never being able to get their meaningful legislation off the ground? Wouldn't put it past some people.

• Finally, I like seeing people make a big deal out of this stuff. Like it's important. Bipartisan, partisan; It's not going to make a heck of a lot of difference. Votes are just numbers, after all. Politics will go on, even if everyone is on the same side.

How Do We Un-Do Technology

There's an old adage that once somebody gets something for free, you'll never be able to force them to pay for it.

This was true for the music industry, but they've seemed to manage with the advent of song-by-song purchasing through iTunes and the like.

This is the problem for the current news media, specifically those in the antiquated print-media field. You know, newspapers, periodicals, scrolls. All that jazz.

Information is just floating around like all sorts of dust in the wind, leaves in the breeze, twigs in the stream or whatever simile you prefer to reflect an object being swept away by a force it cannot control, like information and the Information Super Highway.

But mixed in with all of those dust, leaf, and twig bits of information floating around there is a plethora of information — I guess one might call it "information," although I don't find it informative or worthwhile — that makes no sense or use. And it's the 24-hour, seven days a week, 52 weeks yearly feeding frenzy that has sprouted up since all of this "information" has become readily available at the click of a mouse.

There are some things that just don't matter.

Take this New York Daily News headline that ran today, oh-so-cleverly titled "Hey Bam, that's not the door!" In short, it outlines the remarkable turn of events that took place outside the White House as Barack Obama, newly sworn-in President and resident of the aformentioned mansion, happened to think a window with the exact same glass panes as the door near that window was in fact the door itself.

"Harf! Harf! Harf! Harf! Harf! Get a load of the moe-ron! Ahuck! Ahuck! This Obama guy ain't to smart neither," bellows anybody who thinks this is laughable or even noteworthy.

Barack Obama is the new-age president who uses the technological advances of such internet pheonomenon as social-networking tools, like Facebook, but he isn't the first to be under the watchful eye of the Big Brother Media that will watch his every move like a hawk.

Bush had a similar experience. or I should say, experiences. The round-the-clock ridicule was unprescedented, albeit W didn't help himself, often fueling the fire with a number of memorable photo ops. But you have to admit, perhaps his image wouldn't be so marred with accusations of possible retardation were the cameras and the microphones not on him at every-single waking and otherwise moment, tuned loud enough for even the most remote and disconnected villages of Africa to hear.

My point is this: Who cares? I mean really, who on God's green Earth cares?

Obama isn't a moron who can't tell the difference between a window and a door. Bush, along with everyone else in the world, has tugged on a locked door. I wish I had a flux capacitor to go back and get rid of all of these little round-the-clock-crap flingers. But alas; people demand it. And get it for free.

But I find it remarkable that when real news happens — say, the first African-American President takes the Oath of Office — they all tend to say the same thing.

But who says it better? That's the question. And no, slap-stick guffaws don't count as quality journalism.

Governor Retahd Digs a Deeper Grave

When I was about eight or nine years old, I decided it would be an awesome idea to try out a lot of my dad's power tools, namely the power drills, when the folks were out. I quietly absconded with the machinery into my bedroom and began drilling through anything and everything in my room. Toys, books, pillows; it was all gravy.

Then I decided to grow up a bit and get to some more productive drilling. That wall had to go. I drilled about ten holes in the drywall in between my room and my brother's room. Only after I had calmed down from my drilling frenzy did I think, Maybe...Just MAYBE this was a bad idea. I moved my dresser over the destructed wall but to no avail — Scotty the Body (aka Dad) found the destruction and questioned me immediately about my obvious transgressions.

I stood poised to create a whimsical and fantastical defense. I rose like Clarence Darrow, ready to weave some sort of intelligible alibi, likely impugning my little brother or our cross-eyed neighbor. As I opened my mouth, my Dad quickly cut me off and laid down some logic that to this day I believe to be true.

"Son, don't lie to me. We both know what you did. If you lie to me now, it's only going to get a lot worse. So just tell me the truth, and we can deal with it. But don't lie; you're only going to make it worse."

I learned two things that day: reckless drilling leads to sore backsides, and getting caught lying leads to much worse.

So you can see why I might be so frustrated at this ex-Gov. Rod The Retahd Blagojevich, not so much for his stupidity in the first place, but at his added stupidity with this media-rampage that is keeping the regular guests off The View. Just thinking about all of the sexy guests and rising stars that could have been on that show instead of some awkwardly-haired liar.

On a quick sidenote, there is something ungood about that guy's follicle arrangement. It's too thick to be declared fraudulent, yet far too shapely and too life-of-its-own-like to be considered mere hair. More on that as it develops, I suppose.

Anyway, the FBI has been tailing this guy for months for all sorts of differnt misgivings and errors, from extortion and laundering and abuse of power. So they're recording him. Then, they get something they can't just keep to themselves: he tries to sell President Obama's vacant seat in the Senate. They have tapes. They have records. They have transcripts.

FBI agents testified to this point today during Blago's impeachment trials. From the AP:

Again and again, agent Daniel Cain told state senators he had accurately quoted Blagojevich in a sworn affidavit filed when the governor was arrested last month on federal corruption charges. At each stage, House prosecutor David Ellis displayed the most damning quote on a poster board.

The affidavit quoted Blagojevich saying his power to name a replacement to Obama's vacant Senate seat was a "valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing." Ellis asked if that was accurate.

Yes, Cain replied.

Did he say, "I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden, and uh, uh I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing"?

Yes, Cain said.

Did he say, "I want to make money"?

Yes, Cain said.

The lawyer here obviously tracked his thoughts very carefully, so as not to be encumbered by any legal ambiguity. For the record, the FBI agent said Blago called the seat a "golden opportunity" that he wasn't going to "give away for forking nothing."

The hand is in the cookie jar. The holes have been drilled in the wall. Here's where you grin to yourself, then go before the media, resign, and wait it out until someone else messes up and you're quickly forgotten. You're politically out, but maybe after a grand jury hearing, some form of "punishment" or a slap on the proverbial wrist, and you're back out there, writing books and doing charity boxing matches against Danny Bonaduce.

But no. Rod the Retahd decides he's not going to give up anything he hasn't worked/stolen hard to make during his career, cut no losses, and run his name as far into the mantle of the earth as possible, never to be seen again.

The media blitz he is running isn't necessarily one of the more innovative of all time, but then again, Johnny Cochran has been gone for sometime.

He's using the Ole Out of Context bit, which is about as keen as the Ole Pull a Dollar by a String Gag, and the Ole I Got Your Nose Bit O' Sorcery.

"In the end, a lot of it was talk and exploring ideas," Blagojevich said. "I never, ever intended to violate any criminal law."

I can't wait for this guy to actually be prosecuted. Scotty the Body said it first: It's only going to get worse.

Blago will be selling a different seat in prison.

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.