Postponement: Deathblow or Fresh Air for Health Care?

GEORGE: My god, I'm getting married in December, do you know that?

JERRY: Yeah, I know.

GEORGE: Well, I don't see how I'm gonna make December. I mean, I need a little more time. I mean, look at me I'm a nervous wreck. My stomach aches. My neck is killing me. I can't turn. Look. Look.

JERRY: You're turning.

GEORGE: Nah, it's not a good turn. December. December. Don't you think we should have a little more time just to get to know each other a little.

JERRY: If you need more time, you should have more time.

GEORGE: What, you think I could postpone it?

JERRY: Sure you can. Why not?

GEORGE: That's allowed? You're allowed to postpone it?

JERRY: I don't see why not.

GEORGE: So, I could do that?

JERRY: Sure, go ahead.

GEORGE: All right! All right. I'll tell you what. How about this? Got the date; March 21st, the first day of spring.

JERRY: Spring. Of course.

GEORGE: Huh? You know? Spring. Rejuvenation. Rebirth. Everything's blooming. All that crap.

JERRY: Beautiful.

GEORGE: She's not gonna like it.

JERRY: No, she's not.

I don't think I've made it any big secret that I'm a pretty avid Seinfeld fan. I was reminded of this section from the second episode of season 7, called "The Postponement," when thinking about the news that Mike Ross and his Blue Dog cohorts successfully lobbied to punt the House vote on health care reform back about a month, after the recess.

For Ross and the Blue Dogs, it was a success. Now he gets to go back to his constituents not with a result that could be praised or damned by those voter, but with a benign open ear. For the elected official, it's always better to have something open that voters feel they can put their input into than have to discuss why something that has already happened and can't be changed happened in the first place.

But that's political. What about the issue itself? Was this the deathblow? Many people think so. Others don't.

The Wall Street Journal has released numbers saying that popularity over the President's health care plan has dropped 10 percent in the last month alone, and that a whopping 41 percent of Americans don't think the legislation is headed in the right direction.

Mike Ross says that he's going to talk to his constituents, that there's more room for changes and compromises between liberals, conservatives and everyone in between, but that this shouldn't change the overall plan to reform health care. Others think that the trend will continue, popularity of the health care legislation will continue to plummet to the point that enough votes to pass the bill would be scarce, if at all in existence.

I'm not sure this is the coup of health care reform, as opponents of such legislation would hope. There's been too much time, money and political capital spent on the matter. But will it look dramatically different by month's end? That's very likely.

With three parties going at it — Liberal Democrats, Moderate Democrats, and Republicans — there are more concessions, compromises, and sausages to be made.

UPDATE: Tim Griffin's link to this post says that I'm comparing this 'whole health care thing' to that episode. Nope. Just the postponement, not the whole issue. Just a note of clarification for the four of you who read his blog.

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.

What Do All of These Ricky Randoms Mean For Lincoln?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rough PR Move, Guys

As I was creeping by on I-430, making my hasty yet sluggish trek to the office yesterday, I noticed this sign staring me in the face.

I drove through hell and back on the way from my home in Saline County to my high school in Little Rock during the I-30 construction that changed it from two lanes to three. I've seen people flung off interstates because of congestion and traffic due to construction. Needless to say, my usual jolly temperament (sure, I'm jolly) is slammed to the curb as my road rage increases tenfold.

I'm sure that goes for a lot of people. Traffic jams no es bueno. So you can imagine why it might be a bit of a PR snafu for the construction going on to advertise it as such a wonderful, brilliant, beautiful thing as people pass by, white-knuckled and weaving endless tapestries of profanities.

After the construction is done, and the roads are safer and perhaps more pleasant, then you could do it. I don't know, I'm not a big PR guy. We could probably bug Blake Rutherford or Emily Reeves, but I'm sure they're busy publicly relating to someone much more important than I.

Short Notice: On the Radio This Aft Around Five

I know it's short notice but I'll be on the old timey radio talking machine today with David J. Sanders; columnist, sharp-dresser, and Father of Many Children.

Not exactly sure what the soup de jour will be, but I bet we'll talk about this Marcus Vaden, Conway's Prosecuting Attorney, character he opined about today, and probably the goings on in Washington, like health care in the Senate (vague!), and Cap-and-Trade in the House (done!).

Should make for a good time anyway. Mother always said I have a face for radio. Listen here, and retweet me for questions, topics, or whatever.

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.

Is Pres. Obama Setting Democrats Up To Fail?

President Obama is sitting pretty.

He is very powerful right now. He is the Executive Branch, he has a commanding control of the Legislative Branch — so much so that when he doesn't like the direction a bill, he merely gives the word, and it's automatically done (cough, health care, cough)— and he's about to insert his first of who knows how many Supreme Court Justices to a lifelong assignment (the average for SCOTUS/Prez is 1.7, but this is early in Obama's Administration and the bench could likely have two more vacancies by the end of Obama's tenure).

But let's not kid ourselves. Obama has done very well for himself without having a ton of credentials. Had he not run for President, he'd be running for re-election in the Senate for 2010 for his second term. Not the second time, but his second term. Prior to that, he was an Illinois state senator and a professor of law.

His first foray into the national spotlight was a speech at the DNC convention in 2004. What got people on the Obama boat was his soaring rhetoric, his telling narrative and those big pearly whites of his. In a word, his appeal. Couple that with an acerbic sentiment toward the Washington status quo, worded by a singular word "CHANGE," which was so breif it literally fit any profile of anybody who wasn't happy with the government, which is usally everybody.

Obama has got it, that appeal. Everyone loves him. He's as much of a celebrity if not more so than Sarah Palin, only he has credibility whereas her largest splash in the media is getting into verbal fisticuffs with late night talk show hosts. Obama was a guest on similar shows, not the punch line.

Obama uses this appeal to get what he wants done, namely a very progressive agenda that would have been difficult for anybody to get accomplished, even with a Senate and House in their pocket. This is a center-right country after all, and I haven't really heard many arguments to the contrary, rather that it's remarkable Obama has functioned, worked and succeeded in those parameters. He's got the look.

But is that look, that appeal going to be a stumbling block for future Democrats?

You can see it now. Obama is pulling his weight for those with less than fortunate appeals. Let's take Harry Reid, the Senate leader. Tepid, awful, lousy polling numbers for this guy, and Obama is going to make sure he gets re-elected in 2010. $789 billion in taxpayer money for stuff like butterfly atriums in Florida? Obama flashes the pearly whites, and there she is, passed and ready to be doled out.

Obama can do these things because he's Obama. Will anyone else other than Obama be able to do these things?

Obama's polling numbers are at a positive mid-to-high 60's range. The direction of the country, the approval of Congress, and certain issues that the government is pioneering, like the economy, foreign policy and health care, are all sinking quickly.

The mystique of Obama will, in my guess, carry him through 2012. He will be remembered not only as a great accomplishment but for his various accomplishments. His rhetoric is certainly worthy of stature. But as the Republicans have a dearth of leadership, could it not be said that there is a similar dearth with the exception of Obama and his Administration?

The aforementioned Reid is more popular than Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has unenviable polling numbers as well. Most think she's been less-than-honest about her dealings with the CIA. Hillary Clinton has swing, but by 2016, when she'd be able to run for President, she'd be as old as John McCain was when he ran, which was his primary campaign fault. Not that she couldn't lead Democrats without being President. I may just still be in that mode where I see Hillary running for the top office with reckless abandon. Those were the days. Now she's just globetrotting the world, and from what I hear, doing a good job.

I'm curious to see the Democratic roster. If they get a handful of names, they'll have a handful lot more the Republicans. But I'll be more curious to see if they can keep up the far-leftward approach that Obama has been taking.

Obama can get away with it. I haven't seen anyone else in politics be able to pull it off. After eight years of it, do you think people will still find it meritorious when broached by someone who is inherently less likable than Obama?

How Do the Tables Turn So Quickly and Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three quick points:

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

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

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

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

Whether You Like It or Not, Status Quo in 2010

Incumbency. That word alone spells comfort for most of the congressional delegates and angst for their challengers.

It's not hard to quantify. In congressional elections, there have only been three or four elections since the mid-50's in which incumbent victories didn't rank in the 90th percentile. The Senate doesn't fare as well, perhaps due to its intended insulated nature, but still averages in the 70 percent and upward range.

It's also not hard to realize why. Part of the job a politician does while in office is the same any candidate has to do while petitioning. Go out, raise money, shake hands, kiss babies, guffaw/flatter, speak softly, but amicably. All that jazz. While a contender has to make time to do these things, the incumbent schedules it while on the clock, so to speak.

Name recognition also helps a great deal. I once spoke with a former state representative from Missouri who was elected to the Missouri House years ago at the ripe age of 23 with no real experience or qualifications outside of being a bright and industrious fellow. His name also happened to be John Hancock, he readily admitted.

Incumbents are not all-powerful. They still have to get re-elected, and have to maintain their credentials.

But when someone asks me, like last week, who the most vulnerable candidate up for re-election in 2010 is, I feel like they need to know all of those things I just said. It all goes double for Arkansan incumbents.

They say Blanche Lincoln is vulnerable. While she has certainly tepid polling numbers for a two-term Senator, that may be a rush to judgment. Sanders concurs. For Republicans, the roster lining up to challenge the incumbent is not promising. They're going to need an all-star deal breaker. The only Arkansas GOP member who fits that description is — bingo — Mike Huckabee, who has already cast off and set sail away from Arkansas and towards everywhere but.

There are deep flag posts in the 1st, 3rd and 4th districts. Quoth Dr. Hal Bass, Prof. of Political Science at Ouachita Baptist, "It would be extraordinarily difficult for a Democrat to win in (Boozman's) 3rd district. Conversely, it would be nearly impossible for a Republican to win in (Berry's) 1st or (Ross') 4th."

Naturally that left my congressman, Vic Snyder, as being the "most vulnerable" Congressman. He should be, anyway. His district is much more diverse than the others, split almost perfectly down the middle with a liberal center surrounded by a conservative perimeter. There is more opposition in his district than any of the other three.

I mark "most vulnerable" as such because it is such a laughably bad description of Snyder: He is going to be there as long as he wants to, which means, as per my conversation with him on Friday, includes a 2010 run (He says yes, he's definitely running). In fact, Snyder — the former Marine, Doctor, Lawyer, Conservative acting Liberal, and Friendly Neighbor — may be the most consummate politician of the bunch. He has to balance himself politically between the conflicting political tempers of his evenly-split constituency.

And he's been in office since the late 90's. That should tell you something.

So if you're super pumped about your home-towners, and the job they're doing in Washington, you're sitting pretty. If not, get comfortable because it doesn't look like the scenery is going to change much.

Unless, of course, someone pulls out. I'm not saying I've heard anything substantial, but I've heard some might be considering hanging it up.

Plus, as the old sports adage goes, that's why they play the game. Something could happen.

(Cue the Disney Inspirational-Triumph-Miracle Music)

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.

John Kerry Violently Harpoons Media Industry by Voicing Support

Let's face it. Among all of the potential swimming in the sea of new media, conventional media and its industry is in a bad way.

Hometown papers left and right a folding up, even the big ones in Seattle, Detroit, and elsewhere. There's talks of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Boston Globe shutting their doors. If anybody could use a bailout (not that I'm advocating, as I have clearly remonstrated), it's the newspaper industry. Any charitable donors out there?

But...let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's a nearly proven fact that everything John Kerry touches immediately dissolves if not erupting into flames. Print Media will be fine, Mr. Kerry, move along, nothing to see here.

This reads nothing but calamity. Hilarious calamity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Post: Icehouse says Increase the Peace

UFW wouldn't have been possible without GRH.

The Ghost of Roy Hobbs is a haven of sports knowledge and analysis from those who are in the know. For those of you who come to my humble site and don't immediately go to the Ghost, or vice versa, are definitely missing out.

I found this piece by my dear friend to be particularly compelling, and duly republished it here. One of the regular staples at GRH — the Book Club — discusses sports films or films with particular interests regarding events, such as this post, juxtaposing the film Boyz in the Hood to the sentiments surrounding the Michigan State Spartans playing in the NCAA Championship.

Understand that it was supposed to be read prior to the game, but its words still have great merit.

Read, and enjoy.

-Zack
Ok, ok, ok. I know it’s not a “Sports Movie.” Hear me out.

Sports plays a large factor in the movie, and plays a pivotal role in the development of one of the central characters. Plus, it kind of connects to a lot of current things, so, shut up and listen.

Boyz N The Hood is the coming to age story of Tre Styles, Ricky Baker, and Doughboy Baker, following them from childhood up to the cusp of adulthood, in the poverty-ridden environment of south-central Los Angeles. The three take essentially the three different paths available to those of this plight.

Tre, raised until the age of eleven by his mother (who earns a master’s degree and becomes a denizen of a higher social status), is taken in by his father, Furious. His life is maintained by a strict code of ethics set forth from his father, with words of wisdom like, “any fool can make a baby, but it takes a man to be a father.” Tre has a job, excels in school, and is ambitious and driven enough to make college a reality.

Doughboy, played aptly by Ice Cube (the dude that makes family movies?!), is the opposite. In and out of prison, his life is consumed by drugs, alcohol, and the perpetual and cyclical violence which he himself perpetuates, and succumbs to, postscript.

Tre’s best friend and Doughboy’s half-brother is Ricky Baker. This is where the movie intersects with our interests. Ricky has been sports-obsessed since a young age and is now an All-American Running Back for Crenshaw High School, is highly touted and recruited to play the position at USC. Ricky is not without his setbacks. Like of many of the same young men in his situation, he is already a father, and does not excel in school. When the recruiter comes to talk to Ricky, he is obviously put off by the young son, and sends Ricky into a spiral of self-doubt when he mentions that Ricky must score at least a seven hundred on the SAT to be eligible to play at Southern Cal.

Tre is the exception whose eyes we see the movie through. He has two supportive parents and seemingly only has the weakness of female attention. Doughboy and Ricky, on the other hand have the same mother, but we know nothing else of their fathers. Crime is the only avenue that Doughboy seems destined for, and football is the only outlet – and way out – for Ricky. This seems to be a prevailing notion, for when the USC recruiter comes to visit Ricky, one of Doughboy’s associates asks for a scholarship, saying, “I want to go to college, too.”

I won’t spoil the end for those of you that would like to know where it goes, but needless to say, it’s not a feel-good movie.

What got me on this line of thinking is a game that tips off here in a little less than an hour. How many times in the last weekend have you read something about how great it would be for the state of Michigan if Michigan State were to win tonight? Seriously, how many? It’s all anybody can talk about, really. I’m not trying to take anything away from the accomplishments of the Spartans, they’ve done very well, and been pretty fun to watch. OMFG! FUNK!

What I don’t want is for sports to be the only thing that these people have to cheer about. I don’t want people in Detroit, Flint, or any other impoverished Michigan community thinking that sports is the only thing that can heal a community that has been ailing for decades.

Maybe I’m reading to much into it, maybe I’m just being a jerk, but it seems to me like it’s just a scrap of happiness being thrown their way, while the real pervasive problems of their society go largely ignored.

Put it another way. In the words of Doughboy, “Just goes on and on, you know? Either they don’t know, don’t show, or don’t care about what’s going on in the hood.”

Majority Punditry In Midst of Identity Crisis

This is an objective observation about the slow demise of objective news.

Liberal punditry has scored some big time victories this decade. Not only has their voice been made legitimate, but they have taken once-straight-news organizations,most notably MSNBC, and made them their own. Conservatives are left with talk-radio and FoxNews, which has never sought to be objective, and therefore has always lacked a degree of credibility, as far as most are concerned.

The Fairness Doctrine, once ballyhooed by the Left as necessary to counter the formerly dominating Conservative punditry on the radio, with the likes of Limbaugh, especially, has been aptly dropped; They've staked their claim on television and blogs, as blogs are typically driven by a younger crowd and younger crowds often lean leftward.

But in order for these people to establish a reign, they're going to have to appeal to a minority they soundly oppose. Which is of course nonsense.

Watching Hardball last night was anything but Hardball.

The openly biased Chris Matthews, whose contract was extended past the next presidential election, tossed softballs up to fellow Democrats about the salvation of Obama's budget, in between talking about how happy and glowing he is all of the time these days (not kidding, he said that).

My favorite line: "The economy. Republicans don't have a plan. Democrats have one. Back after this."

Well, that's newsworthy.

If it were really hardball political analysis, he might be more concerned with how this Democratic majority will handle the budget and all of its ambitions agenda points and not how the Republicans will be powerless to stop it. The bit about the GOP isn't news; It's olds.

Olbermann has been particularly hackable. Bush and his cronies remain in the headlines, showing you how pointless Olbermann's headlines are. "BREAKING NEWS" isn't a question of whether or not Bush was the worst President ever. I'm not even sure breaking news should be a question to begin with. Sure, George W. Bush was terrible. But there's nothing else to be done about it. He's out. Obama's in. Obama's in the White House. Bush doesn't even have a house, he lives in a Dallas condo.

Same goes for Maddow and the rest. Lamenting over the past is not news. In fact, the news isn't even their business anymore.

And therein lies their deal with the devil. By abandoning objectivity, they have sought to merely be weapons of the minority plight, which is all well and good, until you become the majority.

Want to know why O'Reilly is all over Olbermann's 'Worst People in the World'? Because he's thrashing Olbermann in the ratings. The conservative voice, while not necessarily missed just yet, merely a few months out of the Bush era, will continue to grow.

You heard nary a peep out of Rush Limbaugh during the Republican dominance of the early century. These days he's being labeled as the face of the whole franchise, which only helps his cause.

I started this as some kind of vocal plea for these "news" anchors to get over Bush and start being real journalists about the current President. But that won't work. I think it's the ebb and flow. They'll be down again, just like they were during the Clinton years, while conservative radio surged.

Then they were back up during their Minority Glory. I suspect the cycle will roll on.

W: Memoirs, Baseballs, and Whatnot

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

It was absolutely wonderful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate Aide on AIG: "Out of Control"

I wrote about some of the claws that Blanche Lincoln and others clearly had for Public Enemy No. 1, AIG. Those guys and their bonuses were and are an affront to decency, says many or most or all.

Our very own Mike Ross led legislation to put these morons in their place, taxing them to the tune of 90 percent of their income through these bonuses, and many still think it's not enough.

Luckily, I've got a man on the scene.

My agent in Washington, who as I've explained, works for a high-ranking Senator and fills me in on the dirt, had this to say, which I found interesting:

This AIG thing has gotten way out of control here.

We are getting swarmed with people who despite hating AIG, don't want to the bill because they think it is ridiculous, because they are taxing them at a 90% clip. and only targeting specific companies and people.

It is to the point that it is endangering Dodd, and Republicans are loving it. He threw Obama under the bus by saying he put in the amendment that changed the rules of TARP at the behest of the White House.

Interesting point, no? People are worried about the specificity of the tax targeting specific people? It's completely backward, ridiculous, and wrong, but interesting nonetheless.

I think these people are a little crazy, but not nearly as crazy as the lack of oversight that went into the bailout and stimulus that got us here. How quickly could one physically read the 1,073 pages that "accidentally" included an specific exemption from such activities.

I don't know. There's a word that describes the mass hysteria that is going on. It rhymes with a vulgar conjugation of General Custer's last name and a duck. That's the most apt word I can think of, anyway.

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?

Rigor and Reward

Heads Up: Since it's South Park, there are two instances of naughty language, so if you're watching this on the House floor, or at a daycare, turn the volume down.


Yesterday, President Obama made an announcement regarding education and his vision for it in America.

It sounds great. And here's the kicker, he's right about nearly everything.

Here's where he's right: We need to make sure our students aren't falling behind, as compared to international standards. We need to get better about accountability and not let grades slip any more. We need to tighten the bolts on students, make the material more rigorous, and push them to succeed. And we need to pay teachers more.

Then Obama offered this notion: To pay teachers according to how well their students perform.

On the front end, you're thinking "Hey, that's pretty good! If a teacher is doing well, they should be paid well. If the teacher is encouraging and molding these young minds to get good grades, they ought to be rewarded. PLUS! It provides an incentive for the teacher to work harder to get their students to achieve more. Golly!"

Hopefully the documentary I provided might have enlightened some to question how this method of rigor and reward might play out.

Luckily for the journalist, suspect grade inflation was discussed at length in the Natural State as recently as last week.

My best good buddy in the whole wide world, columnogger Johnnie "JRay" Brummett, showed an apparent gaffe in the new-fangled state lottery requisites. He showed a list of "grade-inflaters" — schools that were easier to attain better grades. That's not me saying that 64.5 percent of kids in the Earle School district have bogus grades: That'd be the state Education Department.

If we're awarding teachers based on the performance of their students, the teachers in Earle would be sittin' pretty while the faculty of the Glen Rose School district in Hot Springs County, which has 65 students with a B average or higher and zero students with inflated grades would still be underpaid.

And what's to stop some That doesn't add up to me, either.

I get and applaud what the President is trying to do here. We must reach these kids and providing teachers adequate compensation is a wonderful start. But at the end of the day, Mr. Cartmenez's aforementioned question still remains: How do we reach these kids?

President Obama has yet to respond. Hopefully he will, if he's as serious and sincere about education reform as we should all hope he is.

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.

Arkansas Is a Swing State?

Well, yes.

However, not in the traditional and presidential sense. There, Arkansas remains staunchly red, unless a home towner like a Clinton is involved. However, this card check issue is really pushing Arkansas into the spotlight.

And to think, only 20 months before the 2010 elections. Glad we were able to squeeze ourselves into the conversation just in the nick of time.

I've tried explaining this card check thing to people before and it usually leads to a confused look followed by an abrupt shift in the topic of the conversation. Regular joes like you and me don't really seem to have a great deal of interest in it It's because it only deals with the higher-ups in political and business arenas. Here's the nickel-and-dime rundown.

• It's called the Employee Free Choice Act, aka Card Check.
• It would allow unions to be able to form without the usual process, by allowing a union to form with only a signature on an authorized card from a handful of members.
• There's no mention of secret ballots; It's all out in the open, so pro-business scabs are exposed and vulnerable.

• Obama and his administration owe the unions for their support of his campaign and are expecting this payback in the form of Card Check. Several Democrats agree.
• Businesses don't like Unions.
• Businesses and business owners fund campaigns, and campaigns can't run without them.
• A woodchuck would be able to chuck 46.7 bushels (roughly 80 pounds) of wood were this mammal granted the faculties to do so in the first place.

Okay, so the last bit wasn't true, but everything else is. This Card Check is quite the political pickle. The moral of the story may be to not dole out a campaign promise that some of your party might be hesitant to cash for their own interests, but that's beside the point now.

To add more sizzle to the steak here are certain candidates from certain states in which those states aren't too keen on this whole unionization business. Namely, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and the Pro-Bidness Natural State. And whaddya know, she's up for re-election in 2010.

To make matters worse for the Lincoln Campaign, columnist and monster-truck enthusiast David J. Sanders broke the news a couple of weeks ago that some of the like-party Congressional delegates from her state might be pulling the rug out from under her legs. Sanders reported that Marion Berry, a Blue Dog (fiscally conservative) Democrat from Arkansas first district, is at least hinting that he'll oppose Card Check, but of course, is waiting to see what the Senate does, putting Blanchey in the unfortunate situation of swing voter.

So what happens when the national party opposes the likely view points of the local constituency?

Go with the voters. Duh.

I spoke with two local union members about this Card Check matter, and both were against it. That they were union members against Card Check wasn't as remarkable as the avenues with which they took to get to their opinions.

One was the expected conservative and Pro-Bidness rigmarole. It's un-American to force workers to sign a Union Card in broad daylight, he said. The secrecy that is involved in joining a Union is critical to the security of that worker who may or may not want to join a union. This was interspersed in between the typical gripes against unions; That these aren't protecting the businesses and aren't protecting the workers from Moose and Rocco out in the parking lot.

But the other union member's point of view was the exact opposite — favoring the Unions — yet it came to same conclusion — that it was a bad idea. He said that he felt unions would not benefit, ultimately, from having Card Check in the first place, again over this whole bit about anonymity.

"Why would the Unions want management to know who was forming a union in their office?" the Pro-Union Member asked. "The secret ballot keeps management out of the loop; why would they want them in on it?"

That's a good question. Years ago, Unions clamored for secret ballots. That's because management had the upper hand. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and Unions are looking for the finishing, throat-stomping blow that would give them even more power.

Now, I'm not saying this is the rule rather than the exception. I'm not even saying that this means anything other than this specific instance. But it does beg the question of how many more Pro-Union types are for Card Check.

And what does this mean for Lincoln? Well, her state is very Pro-Bidness, is it not? She needs to be elected, does she not?Were I in her shoes, I'd fight this Card Check thing, and make amends with the Democratic Party when I'm back in my office in January of 2011.

She may be taking a different road. Vice President Biden is set to speak for her at her campaign launching and fund-raiser. Looks like she's siding with her management, rather than her Union, meaning of course, her party, rather than her constituents.