When you look at clips of Word Series games, pre 1980 you notice on thing: daylight. Sunshine, blue sky all the wonderful settings that baseball was mean to be played in.
When I look back at the 2008 Phillies-Rays World Series (not that I really ever will) I will see a white dome or mud and rain. This was the Series that attempted to prove the justification for domed stadiums. That is, if you accept the premise that the World Series should be played at night in late October.
The final game's conclusion was delayed two days. The Rays tied it on Monday and lost it on Wednesday. The image that sticks in my head is B.J. Upton hydroplaning across home plate to tie the score on Tuesday.
Truth be told, I did not see the last four innings on Wednesday. Bad timing. I promised to go out to dinner with the family.
The World Series has ceased to be much of an event. The Super Bowl is almost a national holiday, but the penultimate event for the national past time is almost an afterthought. If your home team is not in it, then who cares? My hometown does not even have an NFL team, yet I will watch the Super Bowl.
I am a baseball die hard so I try to catch some of the World Series, but it just is not something you schedule around.
So what does baseball need to do? I am glad you asked Mr. Commissioner.
First, shorten the playoffs. Cut out the off days when the teams are not traveling. Try to avoid, if at all possible, late October weather on the East Coast. Run, snow and mud make football compelling to watch, but make baseball comical.
Second, throw in a couple of day games. Let's see baseball in the sunshine. Maybe someone will lose a fly ball in the sun rather than the lights. More importantly, kids will get a chance to watch. 8:30 starts on the East Coast mean all of those kids are in bed by game time (or at least the first inning) and most kids on the West Coast can't stay up until the end of the game.
Day baseball in early to mid-October, maybe it will be a Fall Classic again.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Oh, They're Playing the World Series?
With all the meltdowns, breakdowns and verbal smack downs of the campaign, baseball slipped into the background. Well, that and the fact that the World Series everyone wanted to see, the Red Sox against the Dodgers, bringing Manny back to Boston for four nights, won't happen.
This series, Philadelphia vs. Tampa Bay does have some interesting elements to it. First, the franchises play in crucial swing states, so good luck getting either candidate to announce a favorite!
Second, they represent a bygone era in baseball: two teams largely built from within without heavy reliance on free agency. The Phillies boast three NL MVPs on the infield. The Rays have several number one picks in the draft (losing and losing a lot, year after year will do that).
Both teams are fairly young and seem poised to contend for several years. Neither however, seemed likely to still be playing baseball in late October of this year. The Phillies emerged from the National League East which seemed as though it would be the Mets domain. The Rays, even more amazingly, won the American League East beating the Yankees and the Red Sox. The Rays' entire payroll is equal to the salaries of left side of the Yankee infield (and maybe a middle reliever).
Unfortunately there is not much national interest in this match up. I must confess I have trouble remembering that the Series is going on. I have managed to catch the last couple of innings of Games 1 and 2, but it is not an event that I, or probably many people outside of Tampa and Philadelphia, are blocking out time for. Fox may have to figure out a way to incorporate American Idol into the games to raise viewership. Maybe have Randy, Paula and Simon umpire? Maybe force the pitcher to be critiqued by the Judges after each inning? I can hear Simon now "that 2-2 slider was an appalling choice of pitches and you deserve to go home after tonight".
So, while these are two interesting young teams who have been built the right way, it seems that nobody really cares. We like drama and a storyline. The World Series is more interesting when the Yankees are there. We thought this might be the year of the Cubs. Manny vs. the Red Sox.
The World Series is often not what we want and normally a painful remeinder of the failed season that just ended (or if you're a Cubs fan, the failed 100 seasons). The two teams playing this year are worth a look and deserve our admiration for beating back the Goliaths from New York and Boston. Still, it might take an incomprehensible Paula commentary in the broadcast booth the get many of us to watch.
This series, Philadelphia vs. Tampa Bay does have some interesting elements to it. First, the franchises play in crucial swing states, so good luck getting either candidate to announce a favorite!
Second, they represent a bygone era in baseball: two teams largely built from within without heavy reliance on free agency. The Phillies boast three NL MVPs on the infield. The Rays have several number one picks in the draft (losing and losing a lot, year after year will do that).
Both teams are fairly young and seem poised to contend for several years. Neither however, seemed likely to still be playing baseball in late October of this year. The Phillies emerged from the National League East which seemed as though it would be the Mets domain. The Rays, even more amazingly, won the American League East beating the Yankees and the Red Sox. The Rays' entire payroll is equal to the salaries of left side of the Yankee infield (and maybe a middle reliever).
Unfortunately there is not much national interest in this match up. I must confess I have trouble remembering that the Series is going on. I have managed to catch the last couple of innings of Games 1 and 2, but it is not an event that I, or probably many people outside of Tampa and Philadelphia, are blocking out time for. Fox may have to figure out a way to incorporate American Idol into the games to raise viewership. Maybe have Randy, Paula and Simon umpire? Maybe force the pitcher to be critiqued by the Judges after each inning? I can hear Simon now "that 2-2 slider was an appalling choice of pitches and you deserve to go home after tonight".
So, while these are two interesting young teams who have been built the right way, it seems that nobody really cares. We like drama and a storyline. The World Series is more interesting when the Yankees are there. We thought this might be the year of the Cubs. Manny vs. the Red Sox.
The World Series is often not what we want and normally a painful remeinder of the failed season that just ended (or if you're a Cubs fan, the failed 100 seasons). The two teams playing this year are worth a look and deserve our admiration for beating back the Goliaths from New York and Boston. Still, it might take an incomprehensible Paula commentary in the broadcast booth the get many of us to watch.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Obama's "I'm winning Speech"
With the polls showing Obama pulling ahead, I was wondering if he might be starting to feel comfortable with the idea of winning. What if he used that airtime he has bought on all the networks (delaying a World Series game, really?) to say something like this:
"My fellow Americans, the polls are showing that I am going to win. We are pulling ahead in many places and I have Acorn out there working where it is tight, so we should pick up enough votes to get by. Let's face it, I'm booking hotels for family and friends on Inauguration Day.
So I thought I might tell you what America will be like under my Administration.
First, we are not changing the name. When I was over in France and Germany, I heard a lot about how they don't like America, but the seem to like me, so I think we're o.k. keeping the name as long as I am President.
Second, much has been said about my desire to meet with foreign leaders, including some dictators who want to blow up our friends and allies. For guidance, I look back on my experience at the Harvard Law Review. Sometimes we were not sure about publishing something, so we would sit down over some coffee and talk it out. We always ended up reaching a consensus. I think the same approach can be made to these so called rogue dictators. I can persuade them through the rationality of my arguments that they really do not want to exterminate us or our allies and that it really would be bad for them to have nuclear weapons.
Also, a lot has been said about my inexperience on foreign policy. That's why I picked Joe Biden to be my Vice President and all of you bought it. I can promise you this, when I am in the White House and that phone rings at 3:00 a.m., we will, sometime the next day, or maybe the day after that, call Joe Biden and let him know the phone rang. He'll be invaluable to me.
I have said 95% of you will get a tax cut. Now my opponent points out that 30% of those people don't pay any taxes at all. He is right, but those folks will just get a check from the government. I would hope they will use it to pay rent or buy food, but there are some pretty good deals out there on flat screen TVs. If you blow it on a flat screen, don't worry, we'll give you another check the next year.
As to those of you whose taxes are going up, let's face it you make too much money. I had a fundraiser out in LA and some of you paid literally thousands of dollars to hear me speak and Barbara Streisand sing. That is truly disposable income and if you have that kind of disposable income, I need it. Hope and change isn't free, but if you have the money for Streisand tickets, you can afford buy some hope and change.
By the way, my tax plan actually does give you a credit for buying Streisand tickets so you really get a tax break. It's those suckers that buy the expensive seats at Big N Rich concerts and NASCAR races that are going to pay through the nose.
Once I have your money what am I going to do with it? I want you to know that your money will be managed carefully and practically. Any government benefit program will have strict application procedures and guidelines. We will be very careful to make sure that anyone who benefits from the government thinks the way we want them to think, acts the way we want them to act, employs the people we want them to employ and says only what we think should be said.
What do I hope to accomplish with my plans and new programs? I want to remove personal choice and responsibility from the equation. People will not have to be burdened with the consequences of their actions. Your government, and that rich 5%, will bear those burdens for you.
So, to those of you who are going to vote for me, I thank you. To those of you who don't exist, yet were registered to vote for me, I thank you as well. I look forward to being your President for the next four years, don't worry about a thing, I am going to take care of everything."
Ah, the thrill of victory.
"My fellow Americans, the polls are showing that I am going to win. We are pulling ahead in many places and I have Acorn out there working where it is tight, so we should pick up enough votes to get by. Let's face it, I'm booking hotels for family and friends on Inauguration Day.
So I thought I might tell you what America will be like under my Administration.
First, we are not changing the name. When I was over in France and Germany, I heard a lot about how they don't like America, but the seem to like me, so I think we're o.k. keeping the name as long as I am President.
Second, much has been said about my desire to meet with foreign leaders, including some dictators who want to blow up our friends and allies. For guidance, I look back on my experience at the Harvard Law Review. Sometimes we were not sure about publishing something, so we would sit down over some coffee and talk it out. We always ended up reaching a consensus. I think the same approach can be made to these so called rogue dictators. I can persuade them through the rationality of my arguments that they really do not want to exterminate us or our allies and that it really would be bad for them to have nuclear weapons.
Also, a lot has been said about my inexperience on foreign policy. That's why I picked Joe Biden to be my Vice President and all of you bought it. I can promise you this, when I am in the White House and that phone rings at 3:00 a.m., we will, sometime the next day, or maybe the day after that, call Joe Biden and let him know the phone rang. He'll be invaluable to me.
I have said 95% of you will get a tax cut. Now my opponent points out that 30% of those people don't pay any taxes at all. He is right, but those folks will just get a check from the government. I would hope they will use it to pay rent or buy food, but there are some pretty good deals out there on flat screen TVs. If you blow it on a flat screen, don't worry, we'll give you another check the next year.
As to those of you whose taxes are going up, let's face it you make too much money. I had a fundraiser out in LA and some of you paid literally thousands of dollars to hear me speak and Barbara Streisand sing. That is truly disposable income and if you have that kind of disposable income, I need it. Hope and change isn't free, but if you have the money for Streisand tickets, you can afford buy some hope and change.
By the way, my tax plan actually does give you a credit for buying Streisand tickets so you really get a tax break. It's those suckers that buy the expensive seats at Big N Rich concerts and NASCAR races that are going to pay through the nose.
Once I have your money what am I going to do with it? I want you to know that your money will be managed carefully and practically. Any government benefit program will have strict application procedures and guidelines. We will be very careful to make sure that anyone who benefits from the government thinks the way we want them to think, acts the way we want them to act, employs the people we want them to employ and says only what we think should be said.
What do I hope to accomplish with my plans and new programs? I want to remove personal choice and responsibility from the equation. People will not have to be burdened with the consequences of their actions. Your government, and that rich 5%, will bear those burdens for you.
So, to those of you who are going to vote for me, I thank you. To those of you who don't exist, yet were registered to vote for me, I thank you as well. I look forward to being your President for the next four years, don't worry about a thing, I am going to take care of everything."
Ah, the thrill of victory.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Powell Doctrine
Colin Powell came out with his much rumored endorsement of Barack Obama. I am quite sure the media will trumpet this as a major victory for Obama.
While Colin Powell is a significant figure in American public life, is his crossing party lines any more significant than the 2000 vice presidential nominee of the Democratic Party endorsing John McCain? In the end, I say it is not.
I am not sure Colin Powell moves that many votes into the Obama column. African-American voters? Largely already there. Republicans? Those that are going over to Obama are already there. Military or retired military? Interesting question. John McCain is a true war hero. I do not think that Powell moves enough of those votes to make a difference.
So in the end, the medial will bray about the endorsement. Powell will do a few more television interviews and not much will change.
In making the endorsement however, Powell did say some things that the Republican Party needs to take heed of. He talked about the tone of the campaign and the whisper campaign about Obama being a Muslim. He is not. We all saw the lady at the rally who, before McCain could wrest away the microphone, said she was afraid of Obama because "he's an Arab". He is not. Powell indicated that he was bothered by the tone of the campaign. He is right.
Many Republicans say they are "afraid" of Barack Obama. The Republican Party needs to move beyond the politics of making voters afraid. Ronald Reagan did not make us afraid of the other candidate, he just told us why his ideas were better. The modern Republican Party has been more "anti" things than "for"things. That has to change.
I am not one who says the party needs to alter its view on social issues and become more "moderate". The party of Ronald Reagan was pro-life and likely opposed gay marriage (although I do not really recall it coming up back then), but it is all too easy to speak loudly about what you are against rather than what you are for.
Being for things is difficult. People may not agree with you. There may be other ideas out there competing with yours. You may lose. Being for something however, is how change happens. Reagan was for radically transforming our tax system. He was for strengthening our defenses to confront the Soviet Union and win the Cold War. Ronald Reagan was for reclaiming that shining city on a hill.
Colin Powell is right that the tone is too negative. People are tuning out. Even Barack Obama acknowledged that the Republican Party was the party of ideas over the past 25 years. We have not run out, we just have to remember the ideas we are for.
While Colin Powell is a significant figure in American public life, is his crossing party lines any more significant than the 2000 vice presidential nominee of the Democratic Party endorsing John McCain? In the end, I say it is not.
I am not sure Colin Powell moves that many votes into the Obama column. African-American voters? Largely already there. Republicans? Those that are going over to Obama are already there. Military or retired military? Interesting question. John McCain is a true war hero. I do not think that Powell moves enough of those votes to make a difference.
So in the end, the medial will bray about the endorsement. Powell will do a few more television interviews and not much will change.
In making the endorsement however, Powell did say some things that the Republican Party needs to take heed of. He talked about the tone of the campaign and the whisper campaign about Obama being a Muslim. He is not. We all saw the lady at the rally who, before McCain could wrest away the microphone, said she was afraid of Obama because "he's an Arab". He is not. Powell indicated that he was bothered by the tone of the campaign. He is right.
Many Republicans say they are "afraid" of Barack Obama. The Republican Party needs to move beyond the politics of making voters afraid. Ronald Reagan did not make us afraid of the other candidate, he just told us why his ideas were better. The modern Republican Party has been more "anti" things than "for"things. That has to change.
I am not one who says the party needs to alter its view on social issues and become more "moderate". The party of Ronald Reagan was pro-life and likely opposed gay marriage (although I do not really recall it coming up back then), but it is all too easy to speak loudly about what you are against rather than what you are for.
Being for things is difficult. People may not agree with you. There may be other ideas out there competing with yours. You may lose. Being for something however, is how change happens. Reagan was for radically transforming our tax system. He was for strengthening our defenses to confront the Soviet Union and win the Cold War. Ronald Reagan was for reclaiming that shining city on a hill.
Colin Powell is right that the tone is too negative. People are tuning out. Even Barack Obama acknowledged that the Republican Party was the party of ideas over the past 25 years. We have not run out, we just have to remember the ideas we are for.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Joe the Plumber and Al Smith
The debate drew a lot of the attention, but the two big topics at the end of the week are a sort of plumber from Ohio and a dinner in honor of a long ago Governor of New York. Both Joe the Plumber and Al Smith may have an impact on the homestretch of this race.
First Joe the Plumber. Yes, McCain mentioned him something like 722 times in the debate the other night. Too bad there is not another vice presidential debate, I wonder what the over and under would be on Sarah Palin's use of "Joe the Plumber" and "maverick" in the same sentence? Joe the Plumber however, may have served to crystallize the debate in this campaign.
When he confronted Barack Obama on his tax plan, Obama said we needed to "spread the wealth around". Bingo. There it is. Redistribution of income. Policies that punish work and reward rest. I am stunned that Obama came out and said it.
His economic plan is built on the idea that we must take from the so-called rich and "spread it around". When was this what America was about?
The difference is equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. As a conservative I believe in equality of opportunity. Nobody should be denied an education and the chance to be whatever they can be. BUT, we do not always get to be or have whatever we want. I wanted to be the second baseman for the Dodgers, not pecking away on the computer writing some blog that nobody reads. I had the opportunity to play ball in Little League, High School and even college, but I was not good enough for the Dodgers. Nothing conspired against me (other than lack of height, speed and talent). I just did not make it.
Now maybe playing second base for the Dodgers should be wealth that we "spread around". It seems that liberals believe that even though I clearly was not good enough, I should still have gotten to play second base at Dodger Stadium. Aren't we all better off if everyone gets a chance to play for the Dodgers? With the major league minimum salary around $400,000 per year, we would surely be "spreading the wealth around".
But I was not good enough. I have gone on to have a decent life. I availed myself of other opportunities. People in America do that every day.
If we replace equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, we have undercut what makes this country great. It is not that we all get a trophy at the end, it is that we all get a chance. Joe the Plumber wants an opportunity to make his own wealth, not an outcome where he gets some of the droppings of someone else's wealth.
Now Al Smith. Both candidates delivered good stand up comedy routines at the annual Al Smith dinner. It was a show of humanity that we do not see in the course of campaigns. Yes, others wrote the lines, but to see our future President (whichever one of them it is) laugh and smile is healthy for the country. We have had two years of hearing how bad things are and seeing their grim faces. It was nice to see them laugh. Maybe we will all be o.k. after all.
So thanks to Joe the Plumber and Al Smith, maybe we now better understand the choice and have a little faith that, either way, the Republic will survive.
First Joe the Plumber. Yes, McCain mentioned him something like 722 times in the debate the other night. Too bad there is not another vice presidential debate, I wonder what the over and under would be on Sarah Palin's use of "Joe the Plumber" and "maverick" in the same sentence? Joe the Plumber however, may have served to crystallize the debate in this campaign.
When he confronted Barack Obama on his tax plan, Obama said we needed to "spread the wealth around". Bingo. There it is. Redistribution of income. Policies that punish work and reward rest. I am stunned that Obama came out and said it.
His economic plan is built on the idea that we must take from the so-called rich and "spread it around". When was this what America was about?
The difference is equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. As a conservative I believe in equality of opportunity. Nobody should be denied an education and the chance to be whatever they can be. BUT, we do not always get to be or have whatever we want. I wanted to be the second baseman for the Dodgers, not pecking away on the computer writing some blog that nobody reads. I had the opportunity to play ball in Little League, High School and even college, but I was not good enough for the Dodgers. Nothing conspired against me (other than lack of height, speed and talent). I just did not make it.
Now maybe playing second base for the Dodgers should be wealth that we "spread around". It seems that liberals believe that even though I clearly was not good enough, I should still have gotten to play second base at Dodger Stadium. Aren't we all better off if everyone gets a chance to play for the Dodgers? With the major league minimum salary around $400,000 per year, we would surely be "spreading the wealth around".
But I was not good enough. I have gone on to have a decent life. I availed myself of other opportunities. People in America do that every day.
If we replace equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, we have undercut what makes this country great. It is not that we all get a trophy at the end, it is that we all get a chance. Joe the Plumber wants an opportunity to make his own wealth, not an outcome where he gets some of the droppings of someone else's wealth.
Now Al Smith. Both candidates delivered good stand up comedy routines at the annual Al Smith dinner. It was a show of humanity that we do not see in the course of campaigns. Yes, others wrote the lines, but to see our future President (whichever one of them it is) laugh and smile is healthy for the country. We have had two years of hearing how bad things are and seeing their grim faces. It was nice to see them laugh. Maybe we will all be o.k. after all.
So thanks to Joe the Plumber and Al Smith, maybe we now better understand the choice and have a little faith that, either way, the Republic will survive.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
League Championship Time
Bailouts, meltdowns and debates have kept me off the baseball topic for awhile. Also, I was wrong on 3 of the four division series. The only one I got right was the Phillies over the Brewers. Now we are left with Dodgers-Phillies and Red Sox-Rays.
As I write this the Dodgers are down 2-0. I have written them off many times and been wrong, so I am not going to do it again. They are coming back to Dodger Stadium. In Game one they played well enough to win. It was one of those nights where an error and a couple of bad pitches was all it took to turn the game the wrong way. Yesterday, Chad Billingsley just did not have it for the first time in about three months. Every starter has an off day, it is magnified when one happens in October.
In the American League, the Red Sox got off to a good start. I thought the Rays inexperience would hurt them against the White Sox and I was wrong, so I won't count them out now, but you have to think Boston has the advantage here. Remember the days when Boston had not won in 86 years? Now they have become a dominant franchise contending year after year. So much for the Curse.
The World Series that everyone wants to see is Red Sox vs. the Dodgers. Manny Ramirez back in Fenway Park as a visiting player on the world's biggest stage. Also don't forget Derek Lowe and Nomar Garciaparra and their Boston ties and the parting did not end well.
It is the Series we want, but it may not be the one we get...oops, there I go writing them off again!
As I write this the Dodgers are down 2-0. I have written them off many times and been wrong, so I am not going to do it again. They are coming back to Dodger Stadium. In Game one they played well enough to win. It was one of those nights where an error and a couple of bad pitches was all it took to turn the game the wrong way. Yesterday, Chad Billingsley just did not have it for the first time in about three months. Every starter has an off day, it is magnified when one happens in October.
In the American League, the Red Sox got off to a good start. I thought the Rays inexperience would hurt them against the White Sox and I was wrong, so I won't count them out now, but you have to think Boston has the advantage here. Remember the days when Boston had not won in 86 years? Now they have become a dominant franchise contending year after year. So much for the Curse.
The World Series that everyone wants to see is Red Sox vs. the Dodgers. Manny Ramirez back in Fenway Park as a visiting player on the world's biggest stage. Also don't forget Derek Lowe and Nomar Garciaparra and their Boston ties and the parting did not end well.
It is the Series we want, but it may not be the one we get...oops, there I go writing them off again!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Debate Round 2: the price of Government
Last night was Round 2 and no damage was done. Both candidates stuck to talking points. The only thing different was they occasionally strolled over towards the questioner. I did notice little lines on the floor, was that a zone of personal space? Does the ghost of Al Gore live on in these debates?
The conventional wisdom was that McCain needed a game changer and, if he did, he did not get it last night. After he came roaring out of the convention, I am left to wonder where the campaign is going. His big announcement last night was that he was going to spend $300 billion to buy up home mortgages. A noble idea perhaps, but how do you turn around and paint your opponent as a big spender when you opened up the federal treasury first?
He went out of his way to mention his friendships with Joe Lieberman and Ted Kennedy. People who like Ted Kennedy are not voting for John McCain. Joe Lieberman is not too popular with many Democrats and if you believe what you hear, the Republican Party was going to revolt if McCain tried to make him his running mate. So, what do you gain by touting your relationship with them?
Obama was more of the same. Lots of eloquence, lots of promises and a good fitting suit. He is never forced to explain anything or address the inconsistencies in his votes and his proposals. try it and you hear "that's the old politics".
So what should McCain have done or said? What follows is one person's humble and not very valuable, opinion on what a McCain closing statement should be:
"My fellow Americans, these are times like we have never seen before. Two wars and a financial system in turmoil. September 11 represented failures of government to protect us. Katrina represented failures of government to assist those in need. The financial meltdown represents a failure of government to ensure that Wall Street played by the rules. Three massive failures of government.
My opponent wants to blame a single party, a single President or even a single Senator from Arizona for these failures, but he is wrong. These are failures of our government as an insitution stretching across administrations and to both sides of the aisle. It is a world where lobbyists wrote the bills and unions strong armed the votes. The American people were expected to simply pay the tab.
My opponent's answer to these massive failures in government is: let's make the government bigger. Let's create more agencies. Let's let lobbyists and unions craft more bills. Let expand the tax code. Let's continue to feed this monster we call government and "hope" it "changes".
My friends, enough is enough. Government does not need to be bigger to work better. We need to reduce government spending. We need to prioritize. DNA studies on bears and overhead projectors for museums in Chicago will not be on that list of priorities. What will be on that list are programs that protect the American people from those that would do us harm; programs that are there to assist when disasters strike; programs that ensure Wall Street plays by the rules.
We tried the bargain with big government and we paid handsomely for it, yet the war on poverty did not end poverty, the department of energy has not brought us energy independence and the department of education has spent more money while more kids fail to graduate from high school or, if they do, cannot read at grade level. To all of this my opponent says, let's spend more. Trust us to get it right this time. What has government done to earn your trust and more importantly, more of your money?
Only when government is forced to live like the rest of us, will it work for us. Every day you have to prove yourselves to your boss, your family and your community. Shouldn't government have to do the same? This is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is time to say enough is enough. Government must live within its means, reduce its size and prove it can work for the American people. As President that is what I will demand. As voters that is what you should expect."
McCain has not articulated what I feel is a clear "government is the problem" argument. Ronald Reagan made that argument in 1980 and he was right. Unfortunately subsequent Administrations mislead themselves into believing they could control and grow government.
Right now John McCain is feeling a lot more like Bob Dole 1996: hero, good man, would be a good President, but likely will not get that chance. Maybe he can summon the ghost of Reagan in these last weeks. John McCain needs Reagan voters because he is never going to get Kennedy or Lieberman voters. Time to sound the call Senator McCain or plan on spending Inauguration Day sitting in the cheap seats.
The conventional wisdom was that McCain needed a game changer and, if he did, he did not get it last night. After he came roaring out of the convention, I am left to wonder where the campaign is going. His big announcement last night was that he was going to spend $300 billion to buy up home mortgages. A noble idea perhaps, but how do you turn around and paint your opponent as a big spender when you opened up the federal treasury first?
He went out of his way to mention his friendships with Joe Lieberman and Ted Kennedy. People who like Ted Kennedy are not voting for John McCain. Joe Lieberman is not too popular with many Democrats and if you believe what you hear, the Republican Party was going to revolt if McCain tried to make him his running mate. So, what do you gain by touting your relationship with them?
Obama was more of the same. Lots of eloquence, lots of promises and a good fitting suit. He is never forced to explain anything or address the inconsistencies in his votes and his proposals. try it and you hear "that's the old politics".
So what should McCain have done or said? What follows is one person's humble and not very valuable, opinion on what a McCain closing statement should be:
"My fellow Americans, these are times like we have never seen before. Two wars and a financial system in turmoil. September 11 represented failures of government to protect us. Katrina represented failures of government to assist those in need. The financial meltdown represents a failure of government to ensure that Wall Street played by the rules. Three massive failures of government.
My opponent wants to blame a single party, a single President or even a single Senator from Arizona for these failures, but he is wrong. These are failures of our government as an insitution stretching across administrations and to both sides of the aisle. It is a world where lobbyists wrote the bills and unions strong armed the votes. The American people were expected to simply pay the tab.
My opponent's answer to these massive failures in government is: let's make the government bigger. Let's create more agencies. Let's let lobbyists and unions craft more bills. Let expand the tax code. Let's continue to feed this monster we call government and "hope" it "changes".
My friends, enough is enough. Government does not need to be bigger to work better. We need to reduce government spending. We need to prioritize. DNA studies on bears and overhead projectors for museums in Chicago will not be on that list of priorities. What will be on that list are programs that protect the American people from those that would do us harm; programs that are there to assist when disasters strike; programs that ensure Wall Street plays by the rules.
We tried the bargain with big government and we paid handsomely for it, yet the war on poverty did not end poverty, the department of energy has not brought us energy independence and the department of education has spent more money while more kids fail to graduate from high school or, if they do, cannot read at grade level. To all of this my opponent says, let's spend more. Trust us to get it right this time. What has government done to earn your trust and more importantly, more of your money?
Only when government is forced to live like the rest of us, will it work for us. Every day you have to prove yourselves to your boss, your family and your community. Shouldn't government have to do the same? This is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is time to say enough is enough. Government must live within its means, reduce its size and prove it can work for the American people. As President that is what I will demand. As voters that is what you should expect."
McCain has not articulated what I feel is a clear "government is the problem" argument. Ronald Reagan made that argument in 1980 and he was right. Unfortunately subsequent Administrations mislead themselves into believing they could control and grow government.
Right now John McCain is feeling a lot more like Bob Dole 1996: hero, good man, would be a good President, but likely will not get that chance. Maybe he can summon the ghost of Reagan in these last weeks. John McCain needs Reagan voters because he is never going to get Kennedy or Lieberman voters. Time to sound the call Senator McCain or plan on spending Inauguration Day sitting in the cheap seats.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Veep Night
The one we have been waiting for took place Thursday night. Biden vs. Palin. The blowhard vs. the lightweight, the senior senator vs. the reform governor, Mars vs. Venus. Apparently 70 million of us tuned in for the show.
In the end it was a solid performance for both. Palin showed what those of us who support her believe: she is smart, in touch and has lived a life more like most of ours than the three Senators.
It took awhile, but Biden actually displayed a touch of humanity. He choked up when talking about his family and the tragic loss of his wife and daughter. For a moment there was a real person there, it is a shame that so many decades in Washington layer over that.
Biden clearly had his technical issues down. Palin stuck to her themes. I am not sure Biden's explaining the nuances of a Senate procedural vote was particularly riveting for the viewers and Palin was effective with her "you voted for it before you were against it" retort.
It would have been interesting however, if at about an hour in, Palin had been told she could not steer her answer to any question into energy policy. Also, at about 45 minutes into the debate I would have liked it if she had been told she had used her quota of the word "maverick" and would have points deducted if she did it again.
Biden seemed to forget at times that he was actually running for Vice President and only mentioned his running mate's name, the guy who would be President, offhandedly. I kept waiting for him to say "I and whats-his-name will..."
Both running mates demonstrated how they shore up their partner's weaknesses. Biden demonstrated substance and experience, something Obama is a little thin on. Palin showed charisma and charm, things McCain is short on.
Neither candidate did any damage to their campaigns. Palin probably helped by exceeding expectations and Biden at least maintained status quo. The debate was not a train wreck but also not truly memorable as a discussion of public policy. Then again, when it comes to public policy, are Vice Presidents ever truly memorable?
In the end it was a solid performance for both. Palin showed what those of us who support her believe: she is smart, in touch and has lived a life more like most of ours than the three Senators.
It took awhile, but Biden actually displayed a touch of humanity. He choked up when talking about his family and the tragic loss of his wife and daughter. For a moment there was a real person there, it is a shame that so many decades in Washington layer over that.
Biden clearly had his technical issues down. Palin stuck to her themes. I am not sure Biden's explaining the nuances of a Senate procedural vote was particularly riveting for the viewers and Palin was effective with her "you voted for it before you were against it" retort.
It would have been interesting however, if at about an hour in, Palin had been told she could not steer her answer to any question into energy policy. Also, at about 45 minutes into the debate I would have liked it if she had been told she had used her quota of the word "maverick" and would have points deducted if she did it again.
Biden seemed to forget at times that he was actually running for Vice President and only mentioned his running mate's name, the guy who would be President, offhandedly. I kept waiting for him to say "I and whats-his-name will..."
Both running mates demonstrated how they shore up their partner's weaknesses. Biden demonstrated substance and experience, something Obama is a little thin on. Palin showed charisma and charm, things McCain is short on.
Neither candidate did any damage to their campaigns. Palin probably helped by exceeding expectations and Biden at least maintained status quo. The debate was not a train wreck but also not truly memorable as a discussion of public policy. Then again, when it comes to public policy, are Vice Presidents ever truly memorable?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Playoff Time
With all the politics, debates and bailouts of the last week, it has been easy to forget the really important event of this week: the start of October baseball.
In the National League we have the Dodgers vs. the Cubs and the Phillies squaring off with the Brewers. Over in the American League it is the Angels vs. the Red Sox and the White Sox vs the Rays (can't call them the Devil Rays). The Yankees play the...oh, wait, that's right, they missed the playoffs this year.
My Dodgers take on the nation's sentimental favorite: the Cubs. Yes, it has been 100 years since they last won the World Series. Yes, Wrigley field is a venerable old ballpark and it would be great to see a World Series played there, but enough already. Why do I have to be sentimental about a team that has been losing for 100 years? If they lose this year I suppose Congress will step in with a bailout (again, my effort to mix the topics of this blog). The Cubs have just been bad for 100 years, that's not my problem.
My problem is that they have been pretty good this year. Best record in the National League. Solid pitching. Home field advantage. The Dodgers played lights out in September, but the fact remains they got there with 85 wins, mostly due to the collapse of everyone else in the National League West. I have to pick the Cubs here.
The Brewers represent another strange journey to the playoffs. The midseason pick up of C.C. Sabathia was dramatic in its effect. More intriguing was the decision to fire their manager two weeks before the end of the season. That seemed insane, but it paid off.
The Phillies however seem to have every National League MVP of the last 10 years on their infield. I have to pick them to take out the Brewers.
In the American League we have the Angels, who clinched the division in the third week of April. They have played remarkably well for a team that has not played a meaningful game in months. Still, it is hard to flip the switch and Boston seems to have their number in October. This is not the same Boston team however. Manny is gone and David Ortiz has not had a huge year. This time I think the Angels get by.
The White Sox clinched two days after the end of the season. The best part of that is more Ozzie Guillen interviews. They are facing the renamed Rays (change your team name and start winning? The Royals might want to consider that). The Rays boast great young talent that will challenge in the East for several years, or at least until their players can become free agents and the Yankees and Red Sox sign them. The White Sox won a world series three years ago and have been here before, and the Rays have not, so I am picking the White Sox.
I am going to defer analyzing the League Championship Series because if my picks are wrong, do you really care about my predictions for a series that is not going to happen?
After 6 months, 162 games and some big trades, the postseason is finally here. It's October so let's get ready for some baseball.
In the National League we have the Dodgers vs. the Cubs and the Phillies squaring off with the Brewers. Over in the American League it is the Angels vs. the Red Sox and the White Sox vs the Rays (can't call them the Devil Rays). The Yankees play the...oh, wait, that's right, they missed the playoffs this year.
My Dodgers take on the nation's sentimental favorite: the Cubs. Yes, it has been 100 years since they last won the World Series. Yes, Wrigley field is a venerable old ballpark and it would be great to see a World Series played there, but enough already. Why do I have to be sentimental about a team that has been losing for 100 years? If they lose this year I suppose Congress will step in with a bailout (again, my effort to mix the topics of this blog). The Cubs have just been bad for 100 years, that's not my problem.
My problem is that they have been pretty good this year. Best record in the National League. Solid pitching. Home field advantage. The Dodgers played lights out in September, but the fact remains they got there with 85 wins, mostly due to the collapse of everyone else in the National League West. I have to pick the Cubs here.
The Brewers represent another strange journey to the playoffs. The midseason pick up of C.C. Sabathia was dramatic in its effect. More intriguing was the decision to fire their manager two weeks before the end of the season. That seemed insane, but it paid off.
The Phillies however seem to have every National League MVP of the last 10 years on their infield. I have to pick them to take out the Brewers.
In the American League we have the Angels, who clinched the division in the third week of April. They have played remarkably well for a team that has not played a meaningful game in months. Still, it is hard to flip the switch and Boston seems to have their number in October. This is not the same Boston team however. Manny is gone and David Ortiz has not had a huge year. This time I think the Angels get by.
The White Sox clinched two days after the end of the season. The best part of that is more Ozzie Guillen interviews. They are facing the renamed Rays (change your team name and start winning? The Royals might want to consider that). The Rays boast great young talent that will challenge in the East for several years, or at least until their players can become free agents and the Yankees and Red Sox sign them. The White Sox won a world series three years ago and have been here before, and the Rays have not, so I am picking the White Sox.
I am going to defer analyzing the League Championship Series because if my picks are wrong, do you really care about my predictions for a series that is not going to happen?
After 6 months, 162 games and some big trades, the postseason is finally here. It's October so let's get ready for some baseball.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)