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.

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.

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.

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.

Conversation on Arkansas New Media

In the wake of the Washington Post listing the best blogs in the state as The Arkansas Times, The Arkansas Project, and The Arkansas Blake's Artificially Intelligent Panzer, I think some conversation could be started about the role of blogs with regard to conventional media, like newspapers.

I think Arkansas has a rich pool of bloggers that are, in most respects, remarkably credible and good at generating the kind of conversation that newspapers used to — and still can; Conversations that bind communities, offer insight and analysis, and can, perhaps in some regard, be the voice that media has always been.

I think the two — conventional and new media — ought to work together, feeding each other. They are not incompatible. And I think Arkansas might be a good microcosm of how things may ought to be in the future.

I can think of eight blogs off the top of my head right now that I deem to be credible. 'Credible' is a license often reserved for that type of conventional media. From authority, comes credibility. But these guys speak with that authority necessary to delivering news and analysis, often times deriving their information from regular old news types.

The Arkansas Times blog is imitable, as well as remarkably simple. Max links press releases that the Times gets. He links articles that are worth mentioning. He provides a little commentary, but never that much. I think it's what the bread-and-butter of blogging used to be as a concept; Easy, quick, and point-blank information.

Since its creation, blogs have become more legitimate platforms (looking at Pew Reserach web trends, trust me, they're legit) upon which people can build themselves up, therefore reducing the ability to make quick and easy blog posts due to the need to articulate well thought-out articles. Twitter, for the record, may have become what blogs were supposed to be — short and sweet bits o' info. And with only 140 characters, good twittererers had ought be sweet, because they have to be short.

Kinkade's Arkansas Project, while he will say he is not nor intends to be a journalist or be held to that standard, does a better job than most at putting news out there for people to see. Of course, this is layered with humor (or flailing attempts thereof — ZOINKS!), but the information is still there. You also know it's reliable. He's been around the block enough to know what's worthwhile and what's utter bull. The fact that he puts up cheesecake photos on the side, while unconventional in news media, is moot; He's got sources and information, and he's letting you in on it.

Blakes' Think Tank has a much more Man of Our Town appeal, yet maintains the authority of a viable news source. Blake "Don't Make Fun of My Flower Shoes" Rutherford was born and raised here. He's worked here in several different capacities, both professionally and otherwise. For someone who many might think is just popular due to his last name, he has certainly gone above and beyond to offer insight, commentary, and just plain old news that is redeemable on every level.

Specifically regarding the Tyler Denton for Lt. Governor story line. Broken on the Think Tank, it generated the same type of conversation and speculation that many people at one time might have looked for in the political section of the local paper. Whether or not the story pans out in reality isn't really the point; It got people talking, which is what papers have been doing for years.

Not that the Post mentioned them, but I think some honorable mentions ought to go around. Arkansas Business' Lance Turner's blog is really good, often dealing with the primary concern that many are heeding regarding new media: How the heck are we going to make money off of this? Jason Tolbert is unique, with his ever transparent, in-your-face flip cam, and has given the blogosphere a little more edge in legislative halls, I think (you sure as crap won't find Kinkade there).

Speaking of the Legislature, some props have to go to Under the Dome, Rep. Steve Harrelson's blog from the House. It's an obvious form of sincerity in trying to be as open and representative to his constituency. Robbie Wills' blog, while a little more theatrical, can be thought of in that same vein, although it's an obvious second fiddle to Under the Dome.

I'd like to say, without patting myself on the back, that I've done alright with Unfamous First Words, speaking from the Bureau's perspective in a bit of a more youthful (maybe irreverent?) voice than most have been used to, while still qualified to speak with credibility and authority. Brummett's blog also has that, but you won't see his tone changing between his column and his blog. Sometimes, they're even the same text.

Is Print Media Dead? I wouldn't think of it like that. Think of it more like Jurassic Park, where the prevailing theory was dinosaurs evolved into birds. Print Media might not be dead, but it could be said that it is evolving into a digital age. We'll monetize it, sure, somebody has to. But in the meantime, it's a special time to see the dinosaurs walking with the birds.

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.

Overlord Give Newsing Media Make Glorious America? Hail the Overlord!

As reported by several in the field, I spoke on a panel at the Society of Professional Journalists this weekend to discuss new-fangled media and what to do about it with old-fangless media strategies.

It went well. There were was an encouraging amount of interaction between the panel, admittedly old-school journalists, Journalism Professors, and students.

I say it went well, although the question persists, but no one walking into that room thought anything would be resolved. One question, from our moderator, the Demozette's John "Supa" Krupa, unnerved me a little bit. I hadn't thought about it until I saw the question in writing before the gig was set to launch.

"Do you think the government should subsidize or 'bail out' newspapers?"

I think I wrapped up that question quickly and then yielded my time to Conan "Cannon Galaxy" Gallaty and this other guy. But I began to wonder later that day if people had actually been mulling this idea around.

The answer to this has to be no. The answer to this has to be H-E-double hockey sticks no.

I spoke briefly and most boringly about taking steps backward philosophically to figure out what it truly means to be a distributor of information and what it means to be a journalist.

I have always thought, even before landing bass-aackward into this job, that one of the most important roles a newspaper (and even the news without the paper-attachment) could play was that of the foil to government. It is, in my humble opinion, a necessary check and balance.

This is an often quoted, and probably ill-referenced example, but Watergate worked through a newspaper. Woodward and Bernstein brought down a now obviously corrupt executive branch. That's a clear example. But delivering information does more than just topple the oppressive. It serves as a political conduit. Politicians and constituents alike gauge on another, often, by what they read about one another in the paper.

And a paper will never write anything that impugns its owner. Ever.

Whether or not the news comes on gray paper with smudgy ink isn't the issue for me. Like Michael Kinsley said in the Washington Post, it's all going to be alright. People will figure out how to monetize the news.

That being said, the news businesses, including our own, will need to innovate these ways to monetize quickly, or be lost along the wayside. But government ownership — and that's what it would be, ownership; not Stephens Media or Gannett, but United States Media or Government — would pose such a tremendous conflict of interest that it would border on making this blessed service news provides and turning into propaganda.

Anyway, I read the press releases from government officials. They're lousily written.

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.

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.

Obama and Geithner Get Low Grades from Wall Street Economists

The Wall Street Hoover-Blanket says that economists aren't too keen on this Barack guy or his boy Timmy Geithner.

I don't know how quickly or how emphatically I can say the following: Duh?

Of course, these businesses are not going to look favorably on the administration who is taking the reigns for their businesses for the foreseeable future.

The Obama administration certainly hasn't been too friendly with them, as well.

In fact, I read that some, e.g. Wells Fargo, have had it with all of these rules and are giving their government bailouts back and try to wing it on their own.

It's clear that something's amiss on Wall Street. I'm not entirely convinced that regulation is the answer, although it's only through regulation that we can straighten out the incompetents who have apparently run their businesses into the ground, tethered, of course, to the livelihoods of millions of American people.

The fact that Wall Street doesn't grade Obama and Timmy well doesn't surprise me. The fact that some people are willing to give up their automatic budgets in exchange for autonomy surprises me a little.

Frankly, I'm tired of surprises. I'd rather just know if I can rely on either the government or on a business to which my retirement may be linked.

My pessimistic tendencies make me lean toward neither. But then again, I'm not going to hand out grades on it, either.

The Son of Stimulus

I've already written about this, but now Democratic leaders are starting to act on what they've already hinted: A second stimulus.

A special meeting of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Good!) this morning yielded the same story from the same economists: More money.

The outlook for the rest of Aught-Nine: Grim.

Pelosi says the Word of the Day is Confidence: The confidence that is apparently lacking in the American markets but is vital to the success of this much-ballyhooed stimulus.

The Proposed Solution: More of the Same. A second stimulus, of equal or more value than the $787 billion that is just now hitting the streets.

My first, knee-jerk thought: D'oh!

My second, more reasoned thought: If the confidence necessary to drive the mechanism the government has constructed to hoist us out of this recession isn't being garnered by the stimulus, how much sense does it make to do it all over again?

Maybe it makes a lot of sense to someone other than me. God, I hope so.

LaborLady Strikes Washington!

Just a quick note that we here in Arkansas aren't the only ones getting fired up over this whole Card Check business.

As you can clearly see, this woman (Yes, this is a woman) has been driven quite mad by the entire thing.

In all actuality, Arkansas is being shoved into the national spotlight for reasons more interesting than former state representatives procreating at questionably and forehead-slappingly high levels.

The Wall Street Cardboard Scrawl is reporting that Lincoln and Pryor, a cajun, and a man with an unfortunately difficult name may be the fab four that bring this EFCA bill down.

The only reason I find this mildly entertaining is that it takes my mind off of the harrowing economy, and there's nothing better than watching a politician dangle in the wake of re-election, a la Lincoln. We'll see how it all pans out.

Whatever, I'm over it.

What if it doesn't work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously. I'm just asking.

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.

Obama the Transparent

President Obama has stepped into the batting cages of the political sphere with 100 m.p.h. fastballs being flung at his head. While being a rookie, only a month and a few days in office, he still sits in the catbird seat.

Obama has made it clear and acknowledged that he understands what everyone else understands: That this malignant economy and the stimulus he has prescribed will make or break him.

I don't think it will cost him the 2012 election; The circumstances are dire enough to merit a pass if the economy is still struggling.

But President Obama has done something very well throughout his 38 days thus far. He has been thoroughly sincere and thoroughly transparent throughout the process. They are related as his transparency begets his sincerity.

His sincerity cannot and should not be measured by his speeches. He's a politician, after all. His speeches had better be moving and compelling otherwise he'd be out of a job, not that that is all a politician does but it's mighty important. There's no real worry here — Obama has, in short order, moved toward the elite echelon of Presidential orators, like Lincoln, Roosevelt (both of em), and Reagan.

Rather his sincerity should be measured by his actions. He's certainly been talking the talk, as he does so well, but I've been impressed with the fact that he is indeed walking the walk. Being usually suspect of a government opaqued by politicians in the past, Obama has been up front. He has been transparent.

Obama has actively reached out in this regard, actively shown himself to be transparent, and he has done so at every level of population.

He flew across the country, speaking to the people in town hall meetings, similar to the ones his political opponent John McCain had challenged him to during the race. He yielded questions, concerns, complaints, and comments from the audience. In some moves of once-in-a-lifetime political spectacle, he made a home for a homeless family appear out of nowhere (or should I say a congressman's second home) and a dream job opportunity appear for an enthusiastic, if not slightly obnoxious, McDonald's employee.

Talk about walking the walk.

That was Obama reaching the people. Obama also spoke to businesses. In factories, he pushed his stimulus bill, but also has spoken adamantly about the sloth and shameful irresponsibility of Wall Street. It's one thing to tell everyone how everything is going to be all a-ok. It's another to call people out and make them accountable. He might've lost some friends in the bureaus for that — friends who may or may not have campaign funds in their pockets — but he held nothing back.

But what about the infrastructure and the legislators who will ultimately dole this money out? President Obama gathered mayors — yeah, mayors — from cities and towns as obscure as North Little Rock, Arkansas, for the sole purpose of making sure that everything was done by the book, and that all anxieties were alleviated.

Nothing against the NLR or its mayor, Patrick Hays, but they're no where near a blazing metropolis, like New York, LA, Atlanta, and so on. This shows Obama's broader strategy: He wants absolutely everyone on-board, even us backward, cousin-marryin', cave dwellers in Arkansas.

He convened with Governors as well. Gov. Mike Beebe had a reasonable question regarding just how much of this money was flexible, as he rightly assessed, the needs of some states are very different from others. He met with them to assure them and get them on the same page, as it will be them and their legislators who will ultimately carry out his ambitious plan.

In the halls of Congress is where he has met his most staunch opposition at the hands of the GOP. Obama only succeeded winning over three Republican Senators, but he lobbied hard for them and more. This is despite the fact that he didn't have to. Democrats have a kung fu grip on both chambers. House Speaker Pelosi wanted to move at an even faster speed, claiming there was a mandate that vindicated Democrats her thinking to go about their business and leave Republicans in their dust. Obama said otherwise, reaching across the aisle.

It's commendable to reach across the aisle. It's more commendable to do so when no one is reaching back. It's even more commendable to keep the hand out there.

He then met with the Joint Session of Congress, the brilliant coup de grâce that expertly balanced fair warning with optimism, with the whole world watching with bated breath. It was wonderfully done, even without the paltry excuse of a rebuttal that followed from Bobby Jindal. The rebuttal itself was followed by a thud as everyone in American, conservative and liberal, collectively slapped their foreheads and shook their noggins.

Obama's walking the walk, all right. For all of our sakes, let's hope he's not walking us into more troubled waters. But he has at least given us that hope, and we have no real reason, outside of reasonable reflection and deliberation, to think otherwise.

Stimulus: It's the Patriotic Thing To Do

"Seconds in this business," my venerable publisher told me, "can mean everything."

The salty veteran was teaching me the lesson that when you have an idea for a news story — or in the case of the this humble site, something I find remotely interesting — get it out before it's too late.

I learned that lesson as I looked on the front page of the good ole Demozette this Sunday morning: On the front page, Alex Daniels hosed me.

Well, not completely. I still think I have a mayoral unique angle. And this could be a valuable lesson of two things: how to salvage a story when someone rightly beats you to it instead of watching cartoons over the weekend, and that maybe these old timey newspapers can still break a news story. Hey, it happened here, after all, just the other day (speaking of Old Timey).

But anyway, to the story.

Daniels rightly compares the sprint-to-the-finish tactics between recently pressing yet controversial federal legislation in the wake of dire circumstances; the 2001 USAPATRIOT Act and most recently the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Obama signed into law Tuesday.

Both are timely: The USAPATRIOT Act was a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th. In just under three weeks, the Bill was rushed through committee and chamber to the President, then Dubya, and signed into law. The Stimulus is a response to the stagnant and somehow still slowing economy that is putting millions in the bread line, the worst economic crisis since that Great Depression thing, as most would surmise.

Both faced strict opposition from the out-party: The USAPATRIOT Act was lamented by liberal Democrats as a foul piece of legislation that put American civil liberties in a headlock. The Stimulus is seen by every Republican congressional delegate — save for three Senators — as further expansion and dependence on an already swollen federal government, sending the country into a greater number of trillions in deficit than one.

Both encourage a lack of transparency and general oversight: The USAPATRIOT Act, apparently written in capital letters so that everyone who invoked its name would be required to scream it at the top of their lungs, seemed to be, at its essence, a legal loophole.

The debate over whether the means justify the ends can certainly be debated. Republicans will claim that the proof is in the puddin': No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since. Democrats contend that in spite of the safety it provides, there was and is a lack of respect for inalienable civil liberties, like that whole right to privacy thing that people seem to like. Slack-jawed delegates will bellow from their chaw-stained mouths that "Freedom ain't free." Toby Keith will say that it should be. So on and so forth.

But the point is that whether or not it was the right thing to do, it certainly opened up avenues for the government that had hitherto been blocked off by the writ of law. It expedited the process to get the goal of the bill realized in a quicker-acting fashion.

Well, guess what I heard this Friday from someone speaking with the President.

A caucus of mayors was gathered in Washington, an earnest attempt by the new Executive to reach out to local officials and make sure that this important legislation was implemented as soundly as possible.
The mayors assembled to meet with key figures of the Obama cabinet that were crucial to the success of the stimulus, and even had a good sit down with the President himself.

Now, you may have read the story I wrote for the Bureau last week. The important part for most Arkansans and central Arkansans specifically of my conversation with North Little Rock Mayor Patrick Hays was that there will be money on the streets as soon as this very week, "next week" at the time of publishing.

But my conversation with Hays also yielded something else I found remarkable, so remarkable in fact I had to ask him to repeat it.

Hays said that in the 45 minutes the President spoke to the mayors, Obama told them that there would be a lot of room to "cut corners" and that a lot of this stimulus spending would be unregulated, although there would be an office established by the President for the sole purpose of monitoring the stimulus funds to make sure everything was transparent.

In Hays' defense, Obama was speaking about this in a challenging light. Obama was using this as a charge to the mayors that they had better make sure that they were handling this money in the right way, otherwise the whole system will be doomed to ruin. It was supposed to be encouragement that the Federal government was entrusting and enabling local officials; what I heard was that the keys are being given to governors, mayors and local officials with little oversight and a message: Do good, or it'll be bad.

Well, duh. But what about corruption? What about protecting this investment? One office to monitor the $787,200,000,000 or so dollars and make sure its not getting spent on a fur coat for the First Lady of Dallas? I thought the name of this game was de-deregulation; It was the deregulation that got us into this mess, so get those shackles back on, right?

"We're not promising some silver bullet for the economy," chief economic adviser to Obama Lawrence Summers said in an interview Friday on NBC. "Indeed, what really is very important about President Obama's approach is his commitment to working this through step by step in its many aspects."

It seems like we're putting an awful lot of trust in the some very important steps on shoulders untested.

Obama in his inaugural address said that it's time of the country to get up, dust itself off, and get to the business of fixing itself, paraphrasing. Then, its taking control of the deregulation that drove it into the gutter. Now its re-releasing it into the wild, at the whim of God-Knows-Who-Has-Been-Elected?

The Stimulus seems to be being formed as it goes and on the fly, possibly because of the unprecedented nature of the situation in which we find ourselves, but also perhaps of the rush to get these 1,071 pages of legislature on the books ASAP.

We can see the ending of the USAPATRTIOT Act in the public's eye. It was the beginning and the cornerstone of a country that no longer trusted its government nor its hero in the strife, George W. Bush (look at the approval ratings then; everyone loved him, despite what current sentiments are).

With all of the similarities between that bill and this new one, will we be reviling Obama's Administration for creating a rushed and unstable expansion of the federal government forged on the backs of the American taxpayers?

I sincerely hope not. We need this thing to work. We need these leaders that Obama has dutifully charged to pay heed. We need transparency.

I sincerely hope this falls the other way. I hope the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act does everything is says it will.

But it sure feels like I'm hoping for a lot.

UPDATE: My boy, Mike Allen at Politico, has more on the Stimulus Funny Money Watchdog. The field mouse is fast, but the owl sees at night, as per the old man from Talladega Nights

GOP Governors: Thanks, but Meh...No Thanks

Strolling across the AP wire, I ran across this little tidbit that I found exceptionally remarkable, yet ultimately futile and meaningless at the same time, and since paradoxes amuse me, I thought I'd share it.

It seems that several GOP Governors are considering saying 'no' to the literally billions in federal funding that the stimulus will provide for their respective states.

So is this looking a federal gift horse in the mouth or mere political posturing? Wait, those are both negative things. Wait...huh?

I'm still trying to figure this little bit out. So some governors are tossing this around, as if they will be the one's to turn down literally billions of dollars that would be directly inserted into their states. They talk a big game, but I'd be shocked to see any of these Republican governors balk at the federal stimulus.

Apparently one of these governors — South Carolina's Mark Sanford — rubbed their Democratic congressmen — James Clyburn , the No. 3 man in the U.S. House — the wrong way, causing him to put some clauses into the make up of the stimulus bill that will make legislators able to override any pesky gubernatorial hurdles in getting the respective state stimulus money.

So these conservatives can elbow with their conservative buddies in their conservative primaries, claiming that they were against it to the point of turning it down, knowing all the while that they'll get that money anyway.

Apparently a big concern is attachments, or set up programs that will use the stimulus money budgets in the long-term, eventually running state economies into the ground one the federal funds expire.

Maybe these people ought to be more worried about their competency being questioned with regard to budgeting. If you can't figure out some short-term uses for a (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime federal gift in a way that won't hinder long-term sustenance, I'd have a bigger problem with that than with putting up a fight about the stimulus.

Like it or not, the stimulus train is moving now, whether those in the GOP are on the platform or on the tracks. While I don't think that these leaders would genuinely put their politics and political ambitions in front of the livelihoods of their constituents, like the Democratic leader of South Carolina Carol Fowler claims, I certainly think that these people aren't thinking of the immediate future as much as their ideal and long-term futures.

Political ideals can shift or adapt momentarily, without permanent transfiguration, as conservatives have to deal with a questionable inheritance from the Democratic House, Senate and Executive. There might be good reason, as a conservative, to feel uneasy about such a proposal. But the check is in the mail, and no amount of political posturing is going to unwrite it.

Plus, who wants to be known as the guy who turned down a kajillionbajillion dollars?

UPDATE: Apparently Sanford isn't one of those guys. He says he's taking the dough. “Being against it doesn’t preclude taking the money,” Sanford said, which is like saying "I hate chocolate but I love Hershey bars."

We're Not Socialists, Comrade

You hear the hubbub. You hear the grumblings.

People look this $787 billion dollar stimulus incredulously. Arkansans raise eyebrows at the $2.1 billion they will receive for education, health care, and whatever else you can spend $2.1 billion on.

The word hangs in the air like the shimmering blade of a guillotine: Socialist.

Opponents decry, "This is socialism! Big government is aspreadin' like wild fire!" They bemoan the tax-payer money being thrown in every which way to recoup what the unregulated and unsuccessful businesses the American people invested in have lost. They see it as an unprecedented and vast expansion of the government.

And they have good reason: They're right. They're right about everything except the title. This isn't socialism. It may not be strict, free market capitalism, and the price tag might be too steep, but this isn't the despotism that we have defeated in the past.

Some aren't quick to shed the moniker. My colleague John "Twitterbug" Brummett has said before that what we have here in the U.S. is a capitalist society with a socialist safety net. We let that free market run like a gravy train with biscuit-capped wheels — until it derails. Then we depend on our Mothergovernment to take care of us until we can get our feet back under us.

It's hard to disagree with him. By all accounts of the Great Depression and this Not-So-Great Recession, that seems to be the trend. Yet I'm not so quick to concede this as socialism; What's the point of a government — any government — if not to protect its citizens?

And rest assured that this bill is protecting us, although the staunch GOP opponents would say at too steep of price, or as one delegate said, "All we need is a life-preserver, and they're throwing us a yacht." That too may also be accurate. But even they will agree, this is still sound governance and not necessarily socialist.

I have to hearken back to Thomas "Tawmmy" Hobbes and his Leviathan to quell my own reservations about such a proposal.

Hobbes describes the world without government as the state of nature. Now this state of nature isn't like a still frame from Bambi or Snow White; more like a frame out of Saving Private Ryan. It's war — bloody, gritty, violent, and relentless war against your fellow man to simply survive to the next day. Those who do not fight perish. In De Cive, he describes it as bellum omnium contra omnes, or "The War of All Against All."

A bright and chipper fellow, this Tawmmy Hobbes was, huh?

Now hold that Hobbsian thought; let's talk about Milton Friedman, the Godfather of Capitalism. Regarding the Great Depression, Milty found the sole blame to be found at the desk of those who directed and managed the Federal Reserve. In his memoirs that he let his wife co-write (apparently she cooked quite the babka), Friedman claims that the Fed was "largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe...Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government."

Now, of course, Milty is likely rolling over in his grave about all of the de-deregulation that has been reshaping the avenues from Washington to Wall Street. But is this a failure of the free-market or of the Marketeers who have driven their own companies into the ground?

But Friedman dealt with the businesses, which in the case of the auto industry I said specifically yesterday, but I think the point applies generally as well, the government isn't bailing out the industries; they're bailing out those who are tethered to those businesses. The free-market system works — if these businesses continue about their idea-void and inept ways, they're certainly doomed. But the government should and is protecting its people in this case.

Now back to Hobbes: This stimulus is aiming at keeping people out of the state of nature by trying earnestly to garner gainful employment and protection. Think that such an endeavor isn't keeping people out of the state of nature? Ask the 500,000 plus who have recently lost their jobs and find their livelihood becoming more of a scarce commodity. Ask those unemployed people who are now scrambling, hoping, and praying that something comes along to take care of them.

There's the state of nature for you.

With the interests of so many relying on the competency of so few, a bailout is appropriate. The magnitude of the bailout is debatable, as we can clearly see on Capitol Hill.

Sure, this might be a slippery slope. But there have been plenty of slippery slopes that good men have overcome. George Washington had the slickest slope of them all, and could've made he and his family set for the rest of their lineage, but didn't cave. Not to toss around platitudes about the precedents of Presidents, and certainly not to compare Obama to Washington, but we ought to have enough faith in our political system that despotism won't be able to get too far without be dealt with swiftly and with much prejudice.

Besides, it's all about the ebb and flow anyway. One minute you're up, the next you're down, and back again. Cross em if you got em, but we should be alright. Someday.

UPDATE: If Milty Friedman is the Godfather of the Free Market, Alan Greenspan is his consigliere. One of the most vocal proponents of laissez-faire capitalism says he's now in favor of temporarily nationalizing banks. Maybe Friedman isn't rolling over in his grave after all?