Has Everything That's Going To Be Said Been Said Already On Health Care?

The President last week gave a prime time address over the health care debacle that has the country in fits, one way or another. He didn't really get into too many details (I don't know about you, but I was very surprised by that [/sarcasm]). He did clear up what he said to be outright lies and mistruths on the matter, such as death panels and insurance for illegals, which lead to Joe Wilson making the unfortunate headlines of the evening and making Nancy Pelosi's contort into a shape that can only be described as really, really hilarious.

Conversely, Sen. John McCain went on to the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien last week to discuss the matter in a more prime time setting, as he is the most respected Republican whose opinion is trusted and therefore the most credible voice of the party and as that setting is the only platform the GOP can wrangle at this point: the late night talk show circuit.

McCain didn't say much either, only that the real problem is that the two aisles are not coming together to speak and work together and that's getting America all angry. This was followed by a cheesy-electric-guitar sequence a la Full House, Growing Pains, Step by Step and every other family-based situational comedy from the early 90's, provided by Max Wienberg and the Tonight Show Band.

So you've got the two most respected voices of the respective parties -- Obama and McCain -- setting up a pretty loose fence, and inside, the same stuff we've been hearing about all summer. "We're not signing this without the public option." "We're not signing this thing if it has the public option." "We'll you're stupid." "Oh yeah? Well, YOU'RE stupid." "I'm going to hold a town hall meeting to explain the crap out of this thing for my constituents." "I'm going to load that meeting with people who don't want to hear anything you're saying, and yell things that I am almost certain you don't want to hear."

And on and on and on. Rinse. Repeat.

I don't think that anything that's going to be said on health care hasn't already been said. We're still waiting for the Senate Finance Committee to get in gear and put something out there that is supposedly going to be able to pay for this sweeping yet seemingly necessary reform. And barring some unexpected new kink they might throw into their bill -- which I'm told is not going to include a public option -- basically, you'll mash up all the House and Senate bills and voila! Health care reform bill.

Good luck getting it passed. The document, which I'm sure is just going to be a hellish gargantuan of a document that must feed on smaller House and Senate bills for sustenance, is probably going to have language that will offend both the right and the left. The former will dig in their heels, and the latter will use their majority to push. I don't see it getting passed.

Is there anything else to say? I think so. Nobody's willing to play ball. The left says they want a bipartisan bill, but have relinquished very little. The right also says they want a bipartisan bill, but have done quite a lot to simply kill the reform dead.

I think one of the biggest problems that the right has with the bill is that they believe the public option is simply a foot in the door for a single-payer system down the eventual road, which a lot of folks aren't going to get behind. The left seems mystified that they have a majority status and somehow their polling numbers have hit the bottom of the barrel since this health care "discussion" got started.

Politics is about giving, taking, and making deals, then gussying them up to show off to your constituency. Very rarely is it about seeing who's going to be the first team to loosen their grip.

Marketing Politically

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random thought for the day. You're welcome.

Trying to Contemplate the Birther Issue Without Laughing

Conspiracy Theorists, I guess, make the world go 'round.

I remember them growing up. I had an uncle who swore the moon landing never happened. He also thought that actors and thespians were doing nothing but "glorified lying." The kid next door had a dad who thought that "we aren't getting the whole story" about JFK, Area 51, or where magnets come from.

But they were always marked with other overt eccentricities that pretty much fit the statements they had made. Now comes this laughable bit of forehead-slappery called "The Birther Issue," proponents of which contend that our President Barack Obama was not born in America and therefore is an invalid candidate to be President.

Smiling politely as people ramble incoherently about this ridiculous accusation is now not enough it seems. Lou Dobbs is giving it some legs, and today on Politico they discuss the headaches this conspiracy theory is giving elected officials of the GOP who want to maintain the semblance of rationality and credibility among everyone else but would like to avoid marginalizing these very vocal insane people voters.

If you can't feel the restraint in my writing, please understand it now.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the President is not an American citizen and can't be president. The Hawaiian government has gone on the record — unequivocally, irrefutably, and unambiguously on the record — to say that he was born in Hawaii, which I'm pretty sure is an American state. But they don't look American! bellows a Birther from his trailer bathroom, door conveniently left open for just such an occasion. Upon further research, Hawaii became the 50th state on August 21, 1959. It's a state in America, like Arkansas, Texas, Delaware, Vermont, California...even Idaho! Being born there makes someone a citizen, and therefore able to be President. If there's more digging that needs to be done, then by all means, dig away with all of the powers granted by the FOIA, but I don't guess that the flights from Delaware to Hawaii are going to be in any higher demand.

Fie!, cries another Birther after swallowing his Copenhagen in shock and dismay that I would suggest that the documents in Hawaii are in fact the real documents, not lookalikes swapped out by them danged ole Democrats. He done switched em up! he proclaims, grinning like Encyclopedia Brown after cracking a case.

Yes, those Democrats and their crafty ways. Having a man born in Kenya, trained in the dark arts of community development, being unleashed in to Ivy League law schools and on to Chicago, the Senate, and the Presidency, all over the course of 40 years. It's almost too easy.

Uh. Sure. Maybe. That's a blanket statement that can be applied to a whole lot of things, but until evidence is produced it's just noise, not to mention so crazy that it doesn't warrant rebuttal. My problem with such statements, other than the fact that they're hopeless thrashings of people who really can't stand that a guy with a middle name like 'Hussein' is president, is this: If there were any indication that there might be a speck of truth, a hint of validity, an iota of credibility to this potentially-derailing claim, don't you think that a political party with the vested interest in that derailment — the GOP — would have done something to do just that, and derail this charismatic, confident, and composed man who made a bee line to the Oval Office?

If there were any truth to the matter, people who are paid to find the deepest dirt in the world for big, big bucks would have been happy to deliver these goods and then never have to work a day in their life again. It'd be that important.

Sadly, such reason will never reach the brains of people who really think that Barack Obama shouldn't be President right now. He should. He was vetted. He was elected. He's in. But the last ditch effort of sore losers who have uncomfortable undertones that reek of good-ole-fashioned racism is really getting, quite frankly, embarrassing. As more and more people line up into this fold, it's going to not only damage the already-punch drunk GOP, but I fear politics in general. I don't think the public forum can sustain such an aberration and dearth of common sense.

And there's the objectivity of it all. I'm not decrying Republicans or hoisting Democrats — These people are just bad for business all around. Unless you can show me a detailed research proposal that can state otherwise, please drop this.

Michael Jackson's death may be ruled a manslaughter or maybe even a homicide. Have fun with that one.

It's Funny Because It's True

Well here's just a dandy item forwarded to me from a dear friend in Dallas.

It seems that some of the creative folk at Vanity Fair have taken to Sarah Palin's lackluster resignation speech, giving it an honest edit.

The result is bloodshed. Literary bloodshed.

In Palin's defense for my Republican friends...well, there's no excuse really. "Shoulda done betta." If speaking is a supposed strong suit of hers, it certainly wasn't shown in her speech, which was described by most as "odd" and "off-putting."

Easy on the pounce though, my Democratic friends. In a recent Public Strategies poll shown off by Politico, skepticism of Democrats is on the rise. For as much of a dullard as it seems a great deal of people find Sarah Palin, who has even worse numbers? Oh, dang it, Nancy Pelosi, that Speaker of the House.

Those numbers reveal that Democrats — Obama included — are losing some of their cushy numbers. GOP rejoicing? Not so much. Republican numbers are even more putrid.

So if people are losing trust in Democrats, and have already lost trust in Republicans, who does that leave?

It's an interesting question for a later date, I'm afraid. I think there's some more dust that needs to be settled, but when it does, a great many of these patterns and trends could be thrown to the wind. It might sort of be like when a long-time incumbent resigns his or her post: it'll be up for grabs and highly contested. With the bad way the country is in these days, it might be so bad that both political parties are found culpable. Crazier stuff has happened.

Just a stray thought on my end I guess. Politics is weird in general.

PoLOLitical Stuff: Peeks, How to Dress, and the Future

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.

Department of Irony: Obama the Silent

So. Looks like this thing in Iran is escalating pretty quickly, no?

Indeed, this it is. It's got people wearing the already-environmentally-trademarked color green in support of those rioting in Tehran here in the states. The Iranian media has been ordered to blackout the biggest news story in the country, namely, the riots and the election that caused them.

The only word is coming from amateur sources. Twitpics, camera-phones, and facebook are playing an integral role in telling the world what's happening over there. 'Neda,' a young protester who was allegedly shot in the chest and died on camera, is being used as a martyr for their cause.

All of this compelling turmoil going on in the world, and the world wants to hear from the most compelling man in that world right now: President Barack "Check my $tats" Obama.

Yet the gregarious chief executive has remained vigilantly silent.

Oh, the irony.

The man whose rhetoric can sweep men, women, babies, and some mammals off their feet suddenly has a case of feline-mandibular-seizure. The cat seems to have his tongue, that is.

I think it's showing his intelligence, personally. Thoughtfulness, if not intelligence.

People are clamoring for him to say something, anything about it. Joe "WHOOOOOO's Gotta Microphone?!" Biden has already voiced his unsolicited opinion, saying there are real concerns about the legitimacy of the election. Well, duh, Joe. Someone who many call a dictator calls the election —for him, of course— only two hours after the polls close?

The other day I was speaking with Sen. Mark Pryor, interviewing him for something other than this post. Pryor commended Obama for his silence. In our conversation, he related this issue to a similar one Reagan faced early in his presidency, namely, the oft-forgotten situation in Dec. 1981 in Poland, in which their government declared marshal law, which P.O.ed the Soviets, which got the Pope in a fuss, and so on and so forth. Like I said, it's oft-forgotten, but Reagan, for the most part, bit his tongue on the matter.

Pryor says that showed Reagan's political savvy to reserve plight-shifting judgment and says that Obama is showing the same. I tend to agree; Obama's opinion on the matter might not solve anything, as odd as that might seem. It could in fact have adverse effects on the situation, like strengthening the resolve of the man who is unwilling to open himself to the possibility of being ousted from office or pushing someone who is just about to go on a violent tirade instead of a peaceful rant just over the edge.

The fact is we don't have all the facts. Time Magazine's Howard Chua-Eoan (hat tip to Blake Rutherford) asked what aren't we seeing in Tehran. The answer is undetermined at this point. And as my associate John Brummett advises me, if you don't have anything worth contributing, you ought not contribute at all.

I guess that's what Obama's doing. Despite criticisms being levied for his omission, I'm willing to give him a pass.

Fmr. President Bush Punches, Body Slams Obama Look-a-Like Repeatedly, Forces Him to Say 'Uncle'

That's what we call a misleading headline. That, in fact, never happened. Last night President George W. Bush spoke in Erie, Penn. last night, and after saying repeatedly that he was not going to criticize his successor, President Obama, the headline "Bush takes swipe at Obama policies" is what ran.

While mine would be a wild exaggeration, and the Washington Times would be a mild one inferred from the policies and principles of a man who overtly is of a different political persuasions than the person who has his job now, I think you get my point.

On the front end, let me admit that defending George W. Bush is like repairing a dishwasher while it's running; next to impossible. While Democrats joyously revile him as an anthropomorphized plague, Republicans and conservatives often squirm at a man who expanded government at a rate of 3 percent per year. His low polling numbers are a combination of that, as well as the scorn of independents who see his slow-talkin' ways and think "yokel."

I don't plan on defending his presidency or even he himself. But in this instance, on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, in Pennsylvania, Bush is getting a raw deal.

The Times purports that Bush took two stances — one, defending his administration, specifically with regard to terrorism, and two, his endorsement of the private sector — and posed them as a direct affront to President Obama.

The latter point is odd to me: President Obama himself has said that the private sector is well and good, he just wants to be able to compete with it to "keep it honest." When someone endorses that private sector, how is that necessarily swiping at Obama. Let's not turn our 44th into a socialist just yet.

But I'm not naive, either. Quotes like "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money," said by Bush, aren't pointed blindly. But it's a bold assertion to say that he's lampooning Obama directly. Sure, he may be taking a swipe at Democrats, the leader (and face and lifeblood and perhaps only hope) of which is Obama, but what would you expect a Republican to do?

Simply because Bush is not going to criticize his successor does not mean that he is going to give everything Obama and Democrats do a ringing, bright-eyed, cheery endorsement. The man's still a Republican. He's not dead.

Which leads me to the former: Why on earth wouldn't a former president defend his administration?

It's in stark contrast to the one currently in office. "Change" has certainly come, nominally and otherwise. President Obama is not going to do things the way President Bush did this, in many instances, thankfully. One is a Republican, one is a Democrat. You could go point for point, but I don't think a conservative is going to stand for Bush being compared to Obama, or a liberal standing for Obama being compared to Bush.

I don't know what to make of it. I hate cliches like "liberal media," mainly because I work in a very objective, no-nonsense newsroom (opinion columnists aside; while we're awkwardly comparing Obama and Bush, we could be having the same conversation about Brummett and Sanders). Also, I'm pretty sure the Times is known for being more conservative than liberal, which would make "liberal media" an odd pickle in that case. It just seems to pit Bush in a no-win situation. He either agrees with the populace, who is gaga for Obama, and throws his own administration under the bus, or he sticks up for his tenure, making it look like a slap in Obama's face.

President Bush can be blamed for a lot of things. I don't think this is one of them. Especially after his repeated statement: I'm not going to criticize the current administration. I'm sure this will be criticized as apologetic toward Bush's Administration. It's not. Just this one evening's speech, and the coverage therein.

Caption Contest! Everybody Who Wanna Marry a President say YEAAHHHH!

Ah, the First Couple. Elegant. Radiant. The perfect pair.

But this picture is pretty funny. Ball rolling:

MO: Come on! Y-M-C-...
BO: This is so stupid...
MO: Barry...
BO: (sighs) Aaaa.
-------
BO: See, kids? This is why you never make a bet with your wife. Or get married in general.
-------
MO: And I told Barry I wanted a diamond THIS BIG!
BO: She's right. And your parents are paying for it (winks).
-------
BO: You? (looking at kid in first row) No, I doubt you'll be President. You'd make a good...Uh...Parks and Recreation...daytime youth event coordinator. Yeah. Yeah. You do that.
MO: YAYYY! PARKS AND RECREATION DAYTIME YOUTH EVENT COORDINATOR! YAYYY!

Weak sauce, I know, but they're just SO GOOD LOOKING I CAN'T MAKE FUN OF THEM.

No one won last week's CapCon, as there was no CapCon last week. Suckaaas.

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?

Yep. Still Funny.

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

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

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

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

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

Obama the Jester

Perhaps you can thank the lull in news over the weekend, other than a rainy Mother's Day in Arkansas, but I heard a lot of noise about this White House Correspondents Association dinner, which is hailed by some as one of the most boring evenings of the entire year for Washington's elite in politics and media. While this may be the case it is also one of the most anticipated; You never know when a Stephen Colbert will come out and do some royal ripping.

Not necessarily in the Arkansas blogosphere, but the national media and the twittersphere was abuzz.

Basically, I saw a remarkably uninteresting trend: Democrats hailed the laughable Obama as someone who is so calm, so cool, and so collected that he can give and take jabs. Conservatives deemed some of his jabs as "inappropriate." The same for the headliner Wanda Sykes, of whom I am not particularly a regular fan.

But the point is this: Obama did kill. He did better than most expected even he would be able to pull off, given the restraints of decorum necessary of the office. Many lampooned him for going onto Leno's Tonight Show — myself included — so I imagined the hubbub when it would be Mr. Obama performing the monologue.

I have since softened on the Leno business, no harm really, so I suppose no foul. But in that case, he was there as the president. In this case, is was Barack the Comedian. Judging him as anything other than that is, in my humble opinion, missing the point completely.

This goes on for both sides. Conservatives ought not chalk this speech up along with his various addresses to Congress, or speeches on the stimulus, or his town hall meetings. Liberals ought not attach this as some sort of highfalutin virtue of the President. I know plenty of funny people who can't and shouldn't be president.

Looking at it as a comedy performance, you have to give Obama, and sure, Wanda Sykes, a hand.

First, Sykes, as she went first, and it has also been said she had the most inappropriate line of the two. As I said before, I'm not the biggest Wanda Sykes fan. She tends to be one of those loud types who loudly points out racial stereotypes while loudly being loud. Loud doesn't often mean funny. But in this performance she was even keel and thoughtful, making fun of the Obamas — a high point being that she asked the President if he is now unfoulable in basketball as Commander in Chief — to making fun of Rush Limbaugh (and by "making fun of" I mean "wishing death upon" and "insinuating he was the 20th hijacker in the 9-11 attacks " the popular conservative target), and Sarah Palin.

The Palin line was the biggest brow lifter of the evening, saying she "pulled out" of the evening, and then making the inevitable line about abstinence-only education, alluding not-so-subtly to the mother of Palin's granddaughter.

It's a-okay. Palin's life is under constant scrutiny, and her positions will be scrutinized with regard to her real life, more "appropriately" by fellow politicians, but more realistically by everyday people like Sykes. And as for the Rush Limabugh being the 20th hijacker but too high on Oxycontin to get there...Probably (and by probably I mean definitely) in bad taste (Obama wisely didn't laugh at that joke) but still acceptable by comedic standards.

Far worse has been said about far better people. Freedom of speech, man. Funny or offensive, she's just doing her job.

The President did well also. The opening line about giving up the notes and speaking of the cuff while a creaky teleprompter system raises up was genuinely funny. The most awkward moment was when he began speaking in what I believe was supposed to be urban slang to his fellow African-American, GOP head Michael Steele ("He's in the HEEZY!" said the President, as I recalled that that was a not-that-funny but popular mode of communication five years ago, and thusly, groaned).

He gave his share of floppers, though. The whole bit about Joe Biden being like Bo the dog was booably predictable.

His Cheney line about writing his memoirs titled avaunt gardly How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People made me laugh simply because it was very blunt, very straightforward, and very unexpected. When telling a joke, you're setting the audience up for a twist. Sometimes that twist is best utilized as a lack thereof.

As a comedian, Obama excelled. But again, this really doesn't have a lot to do with his politics. I wouldn't think that he could do it full time, but once a year? Sure. I'm just wondering who wrote the thing.

Kicking a Dog When It's Down

Seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

Not that it's necessarily bad. Not that it's necessarily undeserved. Not that it's untrue, either.

But for a Republican to read the New York Times or Politico today, words like "crazy," "idea-bankrupt," and "powerless" are jumping off the page and piercing into their hearts like a dagger.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Krugman takes a bearded look at these Tea Parties that are sprouting up around the country, indeed, here in Little Rock, laughingly. Finally, an idea that Republicans are unifying behind that seems to get a couple of people at least half-interested and thud: America's Hometown newspaper writes this is the desperate act of a semi-brain dead political party.

Politico unbiasedly observed that the No. 2 man for the GOP in the House is trying desperately to assert the competency of the Republican Party by offering no ideas. Crazy like a fox, perhaps, but maybe just crazy period.

Politico's poll is also telling. Of all of the people in the Republican Party offered, one is a radio host (Limbaugh), one who has amounted to little more than an obscure governor/gimmick (Palin) and a no-name who reminds many of John Kerry (Romney).

The Republican Party is in a bit of a bad way. Luckily, the contest is politics, where those who are in power absolutely lose power each and every time. This isn't the Republican's Decade. Wait til next time.

Dry Rub or Wet, It's Still Pork

An interesting article from the Hill got me going about about pork and earmarks.

According to said article, Congressmen and women are going about their duty of transparency to their constituency in a variety of different manners. Some are flaunting their appropriations like a man who caught a fish "THIS" big (extends arms outwards), an overt gesture that they are, in fact, bringing home the bacon.

Others, the Hill reports, are heeding the harsh winds of a populist storm that frowns upon the vague notion of greed and have taken to nestling the required posting of earmark information in clandestine locations that are difficult to find even for the most tech-savvy navigator of the interwebs.

Arkansas' delegates pan out pretty well, in the middle of the road: They're not mounting their trophy earmarks above the fireplace in the living room, but they're not tucking them away in the digital folder next to Congressional Intern applications where no one is going to be sneaking peeks. All of the Congressmen have PDF file links where one would call them "reasonably accessible," although the sites could stand a little new age face lift altogether. No harm, no foul.

The problem can be described in two avenues: One in that everyone hates Congress (They were the only group to poll worse than George W. Bush, after all), the other in that everyone usually likes their own Congressional delegates.

While sticking to our folks in D.C., it should be stated that state congressional members often do their fair share of pigging out, sometimes even retroactively. Rep. Keith Ingram, D-West Memphis, voted for a cigarette tax hike that would devastate local business and then turned around and had that tax exempted for his constituency only. That's a canny mastery of bringing home the bacon; my compliments to the chef.

The point of sending a native of your state for a two year term to Washington is so that they will represent your interests to the best of their ability. This often means that constituents want their delegates to represent them into a new manufacturing plant, smoother roads, or government subsidies for, say, a brand-spanking new, 36-hole Frisbee golf course like in Austin, Texas.

Which is great for their constituents. But everyone else — especially those in need of a little more that spring outings with a recreational discus — eyebrows are raised, fingers are pointed, and tempers flare.

All of this is in line with the 1,073 page stimulus bill that can best be described as a Memphis Meat Locker; laden with pork in all different quantities, styles, and flavors. I wrote about such projects awhile ago, some of which could be deemed by many to be, ahem, unnecessary. The idea for most was to conserve money, as it was tight, and to them, the idea of throwing money towards the study of why pork poop stinks seemed an affront to those thrifty and chemoreceptive senses.

And you have to think that this look at the handling of earmarks might have to do with the attention it received in 2008 and in the developmental stages of the 2009 stimulus, juxtaposed with the result: Nearly 9,000 earmarks, by some counts, worth an estimated $7.7 billion.

Are earmarks good or bad? They're probably necessary in many cases. Necessary to get re-elected, anyway. But the amount of spending made by some of these folks on some of the things they're spending their Federal funds is bound to ruffle a few more feathers.

Whether or not it will ruffle enough to outrage remains to be seen. Let's hope it's not as bad as the outrage against that insurance company AIG. Two words: Piano wire.

Yikes.

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.

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.

Slick Obama

Our new President is a smooth character.

He goes on Leno. He goes to basketball games. He's the regular Smith everybody wanted and wants to go to Washington, but he's also the Arthurian Knight of our dreams, an icon so bright that he remains quite popular in the midst of a number of cabinet appointments gone sour, and an at best loathsome economy.

And now he's kicked the dust off these traditional, meddlesome news outlets and has gone straight to the people.

The President is hosting an online town hall meeting. Rather than taking questions from the press, he's taking them from the people.

Never mind that there are already close to 70,000. Never mind that there's no way he can possibly answer every one of those questions, and that the filtering process might be, I don't know, favorable to him, maybe even pre-scripted for him.

He'll get asked tough questions. He'll give straight answers. He'll be praised by some. He'll pass praise to someone else in his cabinet, spreading it around with thoughtful magnanimity. He might even let some criticism get through. He politely crush it.

He'll walk away being a new politician, a true man of the people, connecting with the commoner in his own medium.

On Bill Clinton, I heard a wise sage ask a question about his sincerity in light of his obvious political savvy.

"So there you sat in the audience, asking yourself yet one more futile time whether this was an instinctively good man or a consummate political being, and whether this person or any person could possibly be both."

I'm not about to compare Obama to Clinton in the dawn of his administration, but I think this is a good question of all politicians. And, after all, the President is now under the 24-hour surveillance of the people's now technologically advanced eye.

Card Check? Dead?

I got an email today from someone asking me if I thought Arlen Specter's decision on Card Check would have any effect on the decisions-in-waiting from our own Senators, Lincoln and Pryor.

Here's that response.

I'm not too surprised by this. Specter, despite his very centrist tendencies, is still a Republican. His biggest campaign will be the primaries that those in the further-Right of in Pennsylvania are beginning to mount. It wouldn't have made sense for him to vote for it, especially if he is going to stay a Republican, which he has avowed to do several times over.

As for Lincoln and Pryor, I think we'll get more of the same, and an eventual 'no.'

Lincoln has made up her mind to vote no for it. She'll likely get a pass from the party for it, because the writing is all over the wall: Her right-to-work state isn't for it. She's up for re-election. Such a vote would make her re-election more difficult. There it is.

The trick for her now — and my sources in Washington tell me is now her plan — is to do this in the most Union-friendly way possible, maybe a promise for union devotion afterward or something. I don't know. I think the national hubbub she received about it has helped to do some of the aforementioned wall writing. Or at least to do it in bolder letters.

Pryor is a bit more peculiar, to me, anyway, simply because he's not up for re-election, so he seemingly is a bit more insulated than Lincoln. He may pick up some party clout by sticking it to his right-to-work state and taking up for his party's agenda, because he knows it won't ultimately pass, and he may have time to rectify such an action with his state in the time it takes to run a campaign.

I still don't think he'll do it, though. It's still a pretty close vote, even with a certain Specter vote against. And, it'd be hard to raise money around the state for his eventual re-election campaign.

Of the two, I think Pryor would be more likely, but I don't think either will.

Obama Up, Congress and "Direction" Down

Real Clear Politics has an interesting (at least to me, anyway) poll that I think is reflective of the business as usual in Washington.

President Obama's approval numbers are doing alright, hovering around 60 percent. For the fanfare he received upon his inauguration, one would think that his numbers would still be somewhere in the 924 kajillion percent range, but this economy has understandably darkened most people's moods.

He has had to replace and defend more of his appointed associates than anyone in recent history. His Recovery and Reinvestment Stimulus has received a bevy of question marks, most notably the line that allowed for AIG bonuses that riled the public up to the point of lethal threats. And his main man Timothy Geithner has yet to put his feet on solid ground, while his toxic asset purchasing plan has yet to be determined as successful or hare-brained, with many experts leaning toward the latter.

Brummett gave him an arrow down this weekend. I give him an arrow that has yet to be pointed. He really does deserve a fair shake at this substantial, but not wholly insurmountable crisis.

Congress has its mandate, so says Speaker Pelosi, and now much charge forward to the tune of an abysmal George W. Bushian approval rating of 36.8 percent. Speaking of W., his ratings in the last two years were often better than the Democratic Congress with which he quarreled in his last two years in office. Ouchtown.

This isn't unexpected; Everyone hates Congress.

Sure, people enjoy their own delegates, but loathe the remaining. That means while the average Arkansan applauds their six homebodies (four Congressmen, one Senator, and one Senatorita), they just can't stand the other 529 guys. Like the imitable George Carlin said, paraphrasing, "To us, all of their stuff is s**t, but to them, all of their s**t is stuff."

But the odd blending of these two may yielding the most suprising entry. The overall direction of the country has an even lower and even more stomach-turning approval rating of 35.8 percent. Granted, "overall direction of the country" is a vague description that, in fact, doesn't describe anything much at all.

But what do polls mean in the first place? This one seems to show what everyone else already understands: It's tough out there.