Pelosi Whines at Lincoln, Ross, Rest of America

The gauntlet. She has been thrown.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was outlining her August plan of attack yesterday. I read via Politico about her mounting frustrations with the Senate's health care plan, specifically with the amount of sweet time taken by the Finance Committee, on which Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., sits.

“Frankly I had hoped we had seen more from the Senate Finance Committee so we could have a little better idea on where we might find common ground,” the speaker said. “What do they call themselves?” she laughed of the Senate “We’re the hot cup of coffee and they’re the saucer. They’re really doing the saucer thing to the hilt. They are cooling off this coffee to the nth degree.”

Good one and zing.

In recent interviews, Sen. Lincoln and others on the Finance Committee, the Senate in general, all three committees of the House working on health care legislation, the House in general, and nearly everyone you talk to says that while the pre-August recess deadline would have been nice, it's better to slow this sucker down a little bit to make sure they get this thing right. After all, what's being proposed is one of the biggest overhauls in public policy ever. It could use a couple of second thoughts, most would agree, before pulling the trigger.

One sort of local yokel angle that I was looking for but seemed to have missed is where the Speaker discusses her own "saucer," to use her really dumb metaphor: Blue Dogs in the House, who completely wrecked her agenda from flying at breakneck speeds.

Like Mikey Ross (insert haircut joke), who has been the leader in saying very little and getting a lot of pub in return. "Hey, let's slow this down," and the ensuing spectacle.

Marion Berry even threw himself into the fireworks, although it can probably just be chalked up to a copycat move to bolster the necessary conservative bonafides of an Arkansas elected official. Berry apparently dressed down some of President Obama's senior officials - including David Axelrod - and repeatedly referred to Obama as "your president," which is to say, not his president, and maybe not even the first district's President.

But there's nary a mention of them in this rundown, maybe I should just read another article. I'm guessing that Pelosi is assuming that all or most of these Blue Dogs will fall in line and vote for it after little to no changes or a lot of changes are made and then subsequently amended at 3 AM or something like that.

One thing in all this mire is certain: No one likes Nancy Pelosi. Her polling numbers are awful, awful, dreadful, and awful. Sarah Palin doesn't envy her. Yikes. Pelosi comes across as divisive and stubborn, and is unfortunately becoming the focus of an increasing amount of distrust in the policies. People may not turn on Obama, he's so popular and cool, but they'll certainly skewer Pelosi.

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.

Democratic Infighting: Political Problem or Feature of Majority?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dunno. Just a thought. Wakka wakka.

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?

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.

Caption Contest! PoLOLitical Stuff

It's an early weekend, and therefore, is an early caption contest. In light of a recent dearth of comments, I've decided to kick it up a notch, and add some photos that already have comments on the photos themselves.

By all means, feel free to add more comments, captions, suggestions, or threats on my personal well-being. All are appreciated.

And yes, this is a clear cut example of my phoning it in today. Enjoy, and have a merry Independence Day, and take part in America's favorite pastime — recklessly and dangerously blowing up stuff that is highly flammable.

That's Senator Franken To You

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Al Franken, the former SNL Funnyman, has won the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, with his decidedly unfunny opponent, Norm Coleman conceding defeat.

Way to go guys. Only took you eight months. Healthy children have been conceived and born in that time, albeit prematurely.

For Republicans, this is yet another in a long line of kicks to gaping hole that used to be their gut. Not only does their Doomsday Theory of 60 seats in the Senate being controlled by Democrats inch closer to reality, but simply speaking, they threw the pocketbook at this problem, spending over a million bones in the last three months.

I've only met handful of people from Minnesota, and none of them are worth a million dollars.

That's not to say that Democrats didn't put a lot into soon-to-be Senator Franken's campaign either. Franken is going to have an even greater impetus to achieve in his inaugural term. He will be heavily scrutinized by his opponents, but also the independents in the Land of 10,000 Metaphorical Lakes.

I'm very interested to see how Franken fares, regardless of his political leanings. Democrats can recognize good, hard work from Republicans and vice versa. Independents don't care about that stuff anyway. Franken should have no problem being a good speaker, but let's see if he is persuasive. Or at least worth the trouble of letting Minnesota go eight months without being represented by two Senators.

Even Arkansas has that.

Speaking of the Natural State, the local angle could be that now Sens. Lincoln and Pryor, moderate, rural Democrats, will have more pressure on them than they had when Democrats lacked the filibuster-ending 60 votes. Every Democratic vote will now be crucial. Expect those who are trying to temper the more liberal-inclinations of the party for the sake of their political lives — like Lincoln, a Democrat up for re-election in 2010 in conservative Arkansas — to feel more heat.

Today, Lincoln and Pryor both professed their reservations for the House-approved Cap-and-Trade bill. While it will be much more difficult to achieve in the Senate, you can tell by the ruckus in the House that it's an important Democratic issue. And if President Obama is going to phone lil ole Rep. Mike Ross, D-Pig's Knuckle, and try to get him to vote for such legislation, one has to believe that for Obama-issues, Pryor and Lincoln will get Obama-calls too.

I'm looking forward to hearing Franken's first floor speech. And I'll be watching for Pryor and Lincoln's reactions.

Politics In Motion and Grains of Salt

Just when one Arkansas Republican Senate hopeful takes himself out by devouring his foot with an insensitive statement, another one puts on a bib and gets ready to chow down. Or was it?

This Curtis Coleman remark, the one about needing a visa and shots to go to southeast Arkansas, has caused a minor stir. I say minor because only one side is doing the stirring. That stirring is making the whole picture look like it's not just being stirred, but it's a-brewin'.

Its an excellent example of how everything viewed in the political light can be potentially beneficial and potentially hazardous. It just depends on which side one looks at it — and exploits it.

I have to admit the first I had heard about the statement was from the Democratic Party of Arkansas, decrying it. The Demozette certainly didn't think much of it, or otherwise they've gotten very bad about burying leads, which I doubt. The Party sent out an email calling it an insult and clamoring for an apology. At the time, I had nothing else to base that information off of, save for the statement itself, and the Democratic response.

So I called Coleman, and talked to him about it. He laughed the whole time, saying that it wasn't necessarily taken out of context, but was intended to denote a great metaphor than it was like a foreign land, traveling from one corner of the state to another. He says it certainly wasn't intended to refer to the southeast corner of the state as a disease-ridden third world country. He then went on about how long he lived in Southeast Arkansas, and how much family he had there, and how his first son was born there, and so on and so forth.

Stripped down: You have statement Y. You have political party, cause, affiliate, whatever X and political party, cause, affiliate, whatever Z. X is going to play Y to its own greatest benefit, same with Z. The variable X and Z are just that: variable, and in this case, to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Democrats, hoping to squash any semblance of a challenger from the GOP for their Sen. Blanche Lincoln, are going to make this sound like the worst thing that they can possibly make it out to be, hopefully derailing Coleman's maybe-campaign. "Outrage!" they cry, and begin to make inferences that maybe just aren't there.

Republicans — and one in particular, Coleman himself — will spin it the other way. A moderate spin would be to say that one who is offended by it, ought not be because that'd just be overly sensitive. The biggest spin, the path Coleman chose, was to say that it meant nothing but heartfelt and wonderful things, metaphors of diversity and such.

The truth is likely in the middle: It was probably not as insensitive as Democrats would let on, but it could be perceived as such, so Coleman probably shouldn't have said it. It's really as simple as that.

All we can do it look at the statements, the facts, and make our judgments. Whether or not someones wants others to agree with our judgments — which is the goals of all politics and especially political campaigns — is up to that deciding entity itself.