Massachusetts

I would have loved to have posted predicting that Scott Brown would when the Massachusetts Senate election last Tuesday. In fact, had I posted, I would of posted a prediction that the Democrat Coakley was going to win the election. I thought it would be close, but I simply could not wrap my mind around the idea of a Republican winning a Senate election in Massachusetts. I particularly could not grasp the idea of a Republican winning Ted Kennedy's old seat.

Yet that is exactly what happened on Tuesday. Brown's margin of victory was every bit as convincing President Obama's victory last November.

There are lessons for both parties in the outcome of this election. For Democrats it should be obvious: the country has problems with your agenda. When one of the most liberal states in the union says it is not like your agenda, that is a problem. Independents actually make up the largest bloc of voters in Massachusetts and it was the independents that turned on the Democrats. In November 2008 Independents turned on the Republicans. The message is, while independents were not happy with the Bush years, that did not mean they favored a return to FDR and LBJ style big government. For the last year, it seems that the only thing President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have been interested in growing the size of government. Jobs? Yes, they wanted to create government jobs and bail out the auto workers' unions. They misread the results of the 2008 election. Not everyone works for the government or belongs to a union.

For the Republicans the risk is reading too much into this election. While this election outcome, as well as the outcomes in New Jersey and Virginia last November are cause for hope, they did not mean the Republican brand is back. The candidates who won, won not because of the "R" after their name, but because of what they were saying. What they were saying was they favored lower taxes, less government intrusion into our lives and that they opposed the government takeover of health care. It is also interesting with these candidates were not talking about: they were not talking about their opposition to abortion or their opposition to gay marriage, and they were not talking about cracking down on illegal immigration. They were talking about kitchen table issues that matter to people. As a well know Democratic consultant once said, "It's the economy, stupid".

The lesson from Massachusetts should be that when Republicans focus on economic issues that really matter to people, they win. Despite President Obama's victory November 2008, this remains a center-right country. The current administration and current leadership of the Congress is nowhere near center-right, they are best described as left. They have pushed big government, higher taxes, and the redistribution of wealth. They are not offering solutions to the country wants and they are not talking about the issues that most people care about.

Therefore, while Republicans can feel that there is an opening to restore the Republican brand, they are still selling a brand that needs restoration. In the 2010 elections, Republicans need to offer an economic vision that is appealing to the country. I believe this will mean lower taxes, less government regulation and a plan for creating jobs. Much as the public did not view health care as the greatest challenge facing the country at this time, the public does not view gay marriage, or even illegal immigration, as the greatest challenge facing the nation. If Republican candidates allow themselves to get lost in these issues they will not be victorious. I am not advocating "moderate" Republican candidates over socially conservative candidates. What I am saying is: if Republicans can articulate a clear economic message, there is a real opening for making big gains in Congress in 2010.

In the meantime, a Republican holds a Kennedy sees in the United States Senate. Did we ever think we would live to see it?

The Greatest Nation

Over the last year it seems as though there has been a lot of apologizing for the actions of the United States. We are told that we have been "arrogant", "made mistakes" and not treated our allies, and our enemies, with respect.

Then along comes an event that reminds us of why we we are the greatest nation in the world: the Haitian earthquake.

Within hours of the quake, the United States was mobilized. The military was on its way to help. Yes, help, not invade, not bully, but help. That is what we do.

The American people responded by donating millions of dollars. We do this in still difficult economic times, because that is what we do.

We are the world's lone superpower and we saw this week why. What other nation can, and would, mobilize the resources and compassion that the United States has this week?

On Saturday we saw another testament to the greatness of the United States: three Presidents standing shoulder to shoulder in the Rose Garden announcing further relief efforts.

I have written before about the majesty of our peaceful transfer of power ("Today is the Day", November 4, 2008 ), but Saturday's event really brings that home. In what other country would the current and two former heads of state stand together and announce a joint international relief effort?

I am sure these three do not like each other much. Remember 42's wife ran against 44. 42 defeated 43's father. 44 spent much of his campaign talking about how he would undo what 43 had done. There is a lot of history amongs this group, yet here they stood, united to help those who need it most.

We have heard a lot in the last year, much of it from the President, about how the United States needs to be more humble in the world. This week showed however why we are entitled to a little arrogance or hubris. The United States can do things no other nation can. That is not always a bad thing.

Coming Clean

Mark McGwire admitted today that he used steroids at various points throughout his career . This is not a shocking admission as this has been suspected for many years. In fact it's an admission that is a long time in coming.

For McGwire, the question is whether this will really change things for his Hall of Fame candidacy. I recently stated my opinion that he was not a Hall of Famer based on statistics alone. His lone Hall of Fame justifying statistic is the 586 career home runs which now, by his own admission, are questionable.

Still, I believe it was wise for McGwire to acknowledge that he used steroids. He is attempting to return to professional baseball this spring as the hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals. I believe he should be allowed this opportunity to return to major-league baseball. Everything I've heard about Mark McGwire is that he is a nice man and a class act. He is also somebody who made a mistake or error in judgment. He should be allowed to admit it and move forward.

McGwire's admission would have been better had it come four years ago. In his statement today he said he took human growth hormone in an effort to try and heal from his injuries. Mark McGwire's career was racked by injuries. He missed the equivalent of several full seasons with injuries. Had he been able to stay healthy and on the field, he likely would have passed 700 home runs and possibly broken Henry Aaron's record.

So I believe McGwire's statement about why he took steroids. Here was one of the best athletes in the world who found himself unable to play the game. When offered something that might have allowed him to get back on the field of play is not unreasonable to expect that he would try it. Yes, it was probably illegal. Yes, he should not have done it. But, can we say anyone of us, when denied the opportunity to pursue something we love and something that will provide for our family for generations, would do whatever it to continue to pursue it? At best, we probably cannot say for sure.

When he reports to spring training as the hitting instructor for the Cardinals, McGwire will likely still have to do a drop dead press conference. He is going to have to stand there and answer all the reporters' questions. I believe if he does he can put the issue to rest. Once he answers all the questions I think the public will lose interest. It is not important to me how and when he took each injection.

I hope therefore that Mark McGwire's admission allows him to get on with his life and his career. For baseball I hope this may be a starting point in getting beyond the steroid era. There is still going to be criminal trial of Barry Bonds, a possible indictment of Roger Clemens and the names of the various alleged steroid users on the Hall of Fame ballot. Hopefully however Mark McGwire has started baseball on to a path out of the steroid era.

My vote for the Hall

I don't get a vote for the baseball Hall of Fame, but I think I should. In lieu of a vote, I will share here who I think should be in.

Putting aside my Pete Rose argument ("Isn't it Time" July 2009) there are a group of interesting candidates this time around. Nobody sticks out as obvious. There are no 300 game winners, or 3000 hit collectors and no iron men. We are left with a group who had good to almost great careers and solid Hall of Fame credentials.

Of course, I think Bert Blyleven needs to be in. Take a look at the pitching record books and you see his name everywhere. 287 wins on some pretty bad teams. Near the top in innings pitched (remember when pitchers pitched nine innings?) and strikeouts. The man is a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher. This is his 13th year on the ballot, come on baseball writers, let;'s get it right this time.

Another one who came close last time and should be inducted this year is Andre Dawson. I admit I had to do a little review of his career before I was sold. He toiled in Montreal for many years which meant playing most of his games away from communication with the rest of the baseball world. He moved on to the Cubs, but the it is easy to become anonymous playing where the ballpark is the attraction. Frankly, I just forgot about him.

If a player is forgettable, then is he a Hall of Famer? Well, I should not have forgotten about Dawson. He had nearly 2800 career hits. Yes, not quite 3000, but you need to play a long time at a high level to amass that many hits. He had over 400 career home runs. Yes, not 500 but in the post 1990-early 2000 era of expansion, small parks and steroids, are we still stuck on 500 as the minimum for induction? Dawson hit a lot of those home runs in Montreal's Olympic stadium, one of the more forgettable baseball venues of all time.

Early on he had a great arm in the outfield. In short, he was a complete player and I am sold on Andre Dawson as a Hall of Famer.

The 800 pound gorilla in the Hall of Fame room is Mark McGwire. 586 home runs, steroid allegations although no definitive proof and no violation of baseball's rules at the time. What to do? I say no on McGwire, but not because of the allegations. He ran up a lot of home runs in an era when balls were flying out of parks, The fact is however, that was all he contributed. He was a minimally adequate defense first baseman. Had he not gone to the Cardinals he probably would have spent the last ten years of his career as a designated hitter in the American League. Basically McGwire is known for hitting home runs in an era when home runs came faster and easier than ever before. Not enough for the Hall of Fame.

Of the first time eligibles, Roberto Alomar is expected to be voted in. Although I still have trouble getting past him spitting in the face of an umpire, the umpire involved seems to have forgiven him, so perhaps I should not hold a grudge. He was the best second baseman of his era, a Gold Glove fielder who contributed offensively. He did it over a 10-12 year period. Roberto Alomar is in.

I like Barry Larkin, but I think he may have to be on the ballot awhile. He put together a solid career, spending it all with one team (something I like). He was overshadowed by Ripken and then A-Rod at the shortstop position in his era. Larkin however, has an Andrew Dawson type resume of offensive and defense excellence over an extended period of time.

While I like Barry Larkin for induction, I cannot say the same for Alan Trammell. There are those pushing Trammell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, he had a 20 year career and was one of the mainstays of the Detroit Tigers' great 1984 team, but his candidacy appears based more on sheer longevity. A nice career, even a good career, is not a Hall of Fame career. I don't think Trammell makes it.

It seems like the hall of Fame is getting more difficult each year. As more of the steroid, expansion era players retire, it will be harder to compare offensive numbers against the past. On the defensive side, pitchers nowadays don't go nine innings and don't win 20 games, so the 300 win career may also be a thing of the past. Sure Glavine, Maddux and randy Johnson will be easy when they become eligible, but what about Mike Mussina and Andy Pettite?

And let's not even start on Barry Bonds...