One thing baseball and politics have in common is that certain names, or "brands", are almost always more interesting. A Japanese pitcher might come to the U.S. at a cost of $100 million, who might be involved? The Dodgers and the Yankees. At the recent winter meetings one of the big topics was whether the Dodgers would trade an outfielder. Isn't the Alex Rodriguez mess more intriguing because it involves the Yankees?
Oh, but the Red Sox and the Cardinals played in the World Series? How quaint. Now get me some Dodgers or Yankees news.
Politics is much the same. Soon we will be entering the "exploratory" phase of the 2016 presidential campaign. Sure, there is the sitting vice president who has run twice before. Yes, there is a Latino Senator from Florida who may make a bid, but who are we interested in? The two current name brands of U.S. politics: Clinton and Bush.
Yes, they may be back and, for the sake of our entertainment, let's hope so. While both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are more than qualified to be President, that is not really important. What is important is a 2016 rematch. It's the Dodgers and Yankees in the World Series. Yes, we've seen it before, but we want more.
Some may say a 2016 Clinton-Bush election won't be a brutal battle. Bush 41 and Bill Clinton have become friends. Jeb Bush once jokingly referred to Bill Clinton as his "brother from another mother". George W. Bush cracked that his father was at Bill Clinton's bedside following heart surgery. Jeb even annoyed some Republicans by giving an award to Hillary Clinton. While the Clinton/Bush friendship has been a bipartisan and heartwarming story that has raised millions for charity, we want the rematch.
What a rematch it would be. These families have had the White House. Like the Dodgers and the Yankees, they know the joy of winning and the agony of watching the other guys celebrate.
And let's face it, Bill Clinton has issues. He still hasn't gotten over impeachment (hopefully he's over Monica). Then President Obama beats Hillary in 2008 and many people blame Bill. Hillary being elected President would be verification, vindication, and validation.
The Bushes? Well, Barbara Bush did say that the country has had enough Bushes, but have we really? Even if we have, wouldn't it be fun to come back to the White House after George W. Bush left with an approval rating in the 20s?
Think of the campaign sidebar stories. Will Bill behave himself and not act as though he is the candidate? Will Jeb even be seen with his brother? How many great one liners will Barbara Bush let fly?
The Dodgers and Yankees. The Bushes and the Clintons. Let's face it: we want to see it again.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Phil Robertson is not a First Amendment Champion
Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty sure stepped in duck "you know what" this week. What is even more amazing to me is the politicians who are jumping in to defend him and criticize the A&E Network for suspending him. Somehow our constitutional freedoms are at risk? Really?
An Illinois Republican congressional candidate actually compared Robertson to Rosa Parks. Other than the fact that both of their names contain the letter "R", I don't see that one.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal also jumped to Robertson's defense. Granted, the Duck Dynasty folks are his constituents, but does Governor Jindal really believe that standing by Phil Robertson will launch his campaign for the White House? Yes, John F. Kennedy did make a well timed call to Dr. Martin Luther King in the midst of the 1960 campaign but, again, I am having trouble seeing the similarity.
Talk radio hosts have tripped over themselves trying to ratchet up this "Phil Robertson vs. the politically correct liberal elite" conflict, but again I don't see it.
Far be it from me to advise Governor Jindal or a candidate for Congress in another state, but let me suggest that Phil Robertson's plight is not going to help you get elected. His comments were incredibly ignorant. Attempting to defend it as an inarticulate statement of his religious beliefs doesn't help matters. Politicians might want to actually read what he said before they run out and defend him.
But Phil Robertson certainly had a right to say it. We have heard a lot about First Amendment rights and how the A&E Network is taking away Phil Robertson's, but I think this represents an overly expansive view of this constitutional right. Yes, he has a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants. No law can prohibit that. But A&E also has a business to run. If one of their employees says something that hurts their brand or casts the company in a bad light, they are entitled to take action.
Is what Phil Robertson said bad for business? I don't have access to A&E's ratings demographics to know whether they think they will lose viewers or sponsors because of him. I suspect the audience for Duck Dynasty does not skew too heavily towards liberal, gay or African American viewers, but that's just my supposition. Are they caving in to pressure from certain interest groups? Maybe.
The point is, A&E can protect its brand when employees do or say stupid things.
They can also reinstate Phil Robertson when they think that is good for business.
The First Amendment protects our free speech rights, but it does not protect us from the consequences of exercising that right.
An Illinois Republican congressional candidate actually compared Robertson to Rosa Parks. Other than the fact that both of their names contain the letter "R", I don't see that one.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal also jumped to Robertson's defense. Granted, the Duck Dynasty folks are his constituents, but does Governor Jindal really believe that standing by Phil Robertson will launch his campaign for the White House? Yes, John F. Kennedy did make a well timed call to Dr. Martin Luther King in the midst of the 1960 campaign but, again, I am having trouble seeing the similarity.
Talk radio hosts have tripped over themselves trying to ratchet up this "Phil Robertson vs. the politically correct liberal elite" conflict, but again I don't see it.
Far be it from me to advise Governor Jindal or a candidate for Congress in another state, but let me suggest that Phil Robertson's plight is not going to help you get elected. His comments were incredibly ignorant. Attempting to defend it as an inarticulate statement of his religious beliefs doesn't help matters. Politicians might want to actually read what he said before they run out and defend him.
But Phil Robertson certainly had a right to say it. We have heard a lot about First Amendment rights and how the A&E Network is taking away Phil Robertson's, but I think this represents an overly expansive view of this constitutional right. Yes, he has a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants. No law can prohibit that. But A&E also has a business to run. If one of their employees says something that hurts their brand or casts the company in a bad light, they are entitled to take action.
Is what Phil Robertson said bad for business? I don't have access to A&E's ratings demographics to know whether they think they will lose viewers or sponsors because of him. I suspect the audience for Duck Dynasty does not skew too heavily towards liberal, gay or African American viewers, but that's just my supposition. Are they caving in to pressure from certain interest groups? Maybe.
The point is, A&E can protect its brand when employees do or say stupid things.
They can also reinstate Phil Robertson when they think that is good for business.
The First Amendment protects our free speech rights, but it does not protect us from the consequences of exercising that right.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
No, Republicans weren't "for" apartheid
The recent events in South Africa surrounding the passing of Nelson Mandela reminded me of an event from my days at Occidental College in the 1980s.
At the time, Mandela was still in prison and apartheid still ruled South Africa. Many colleges debated the idea of "divestment": having their endowments sell off any investments in companies that did business in South Africa. At Occidental this was a hot topic.
The campus anti-apartheid activists planned to hold a rally in the Quad. One night I got a call in my dorm from one of the event organizers asking me if I would speak at the rally. I was known as one of the active Republicans on campus (I think there were six of us). This earnest organizer assured me that they wanted to allow the "opposing viewpoint" to be heard.
I asked him if he thought that meant I was going to speak in support of apartheid? An awkward silence followed which said to me that was exactly what he thought I was going to do. Clearly he assumed that Republicans are for apartheid, aren't they? I agreed to speak at the rally but warned him that he would probably be disappointed.
When I was introduced as a representative of the College Republicans, I was not booed, but boy it was quiet. I spoke in support of President Reagan's policy of "constructive engagement" i.e. using economic ties as leverage to force change in a society. If this seems like a nutty right wing idea to my liberal friends, read President Obama's statements on the loosening of sanctions against Iran and you'll feel better about the idea if you think it came from him.
My remarks received polite applause. A professor who followed me launched into a diatribe about how we had apartheid in America when Dan Quayle could be nominated for Vice President, but not Jesse Jackson. I wanted to grab the mike back and point out that it was the Democratic nominee for President who passed over Jesse Jackson, but I resisted the temptation. Why interrupt a good diatribe against racist Republicans with facts?
But it does point out something about the history of our political parties and race. We all know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and the post-Civil War Amendments ending slavery were pushed through Congress by Republicans. 100 years later Lyndon Johnson would not have been able to sign the Civil Rights Act if Republican votes in the House and Senate had not ensured its passage. Yet 20 years after that, a well educated young activist and one of his professors still assumed Republicans were pro apartheid racists.
Today, 25 years after that, after Colin Powell becoming the first African American Secretary of State in a Republican Administration and Condeleeza Rice serving a Republican President as the first female African American National Security advisor and Secretary of State, we hear of "racist" (i.e. the Tea Party) elements in the Republican Party.
Why? After assuring the passage of constitutional Amendments and laws that opened the doors of access to all Americans, Republicans have not signed on to the broader expansion of the welfare state in the name of "civil rights". Republicans have favored policies that would lead, perhaps too gradually for some, to change. Constructive engagement with South Africa was an example of that. Rhetorical flourishes in the name of "civil rights" have not been in the Republican playbook. Branding other issues such as minimum wage or education funding, as civil rights issues have not been the Republican way. Republicans have made our arguments on policy grounds, not emotion.
That is why, even today, I think if Occidental College held a tribute to Nelson Mandela on campus, some young Republican will be getting an invitation to present the "opposing viewpoint".
At the time, Mandela was still in prison and apartheid still ruled South Africa. Many colleges debated the idea of "divestment": having their endowments sell off any investments in companies that did business in South Africa. At Occidental this was a hot topic.
The campus anti-apartheid activists planned to hold a rally in the Quad. One night I got a call in my dorm from one of the event organizers asking me if I would speak at the rally. I was known as one of the active Republicans on campus (I think there were six of us). This earnest organizer assured me that they wanted to allow the "opposing viewpoint" to be heard.
I asked him if he thought that meant I was going to speak in support of apartheid? An awkward silence followed which said to me that was exactly what he thought I was going to do. Clearly he assumed that Republicans are for apartheid, aren't they? I agreed to speak at the rally but warned him that he would probably be disappointed.
When I was introduced as a representative of the College Republicans, I was not booed, but boy it was quiet. I spoke in support of President Reagan's policy of "constructive engagement" i.e. using economic ties as leverage to force change in a society. If this seems like a nutty right wing idea to my liberal friends, read President Obama's statements on the loosening of sanctions against Iran and you'll feel better about the idea if you think it came from him.
My remarks received polite applause. A professor who followed me launched into a diatribe about how we had apartheid in America when Dan Quayle could be nominated for Vice President, but not Jesse Jackson. I wanted to grab the mike back and point out that it was the Democratic nominee for President who passed over Jesse Jackson, but I resisted the temptation. Why interrupt a good diatribe against racist Republicans with facts?
But it does point out something about the history of our political parties and race. We all know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and the post-Civil War Amendments ending slavery were pushed through Congress by Republicans. 100 years later Lyndon Johnson would not have been able to sign the Civil Rights Act if Republican votes in the House and Senate had not ensured its passage. Yet 20 years after that, a well educated young activist and one of his professors still assumed Republicans were pro apartheid racists.
Today, 25 years after that, after Colin Powell becoming the first African American Secretary of State in a Republican Administration and Condeleeza Rice serving a Republican President as the first female African American National Security advisor and Secretary of State, we hear of "racist" (i.e. the Tea Party) elements in the Republican Party.
Why? After assuring the passage of constitutional Amendments and laws that opened the doors of access to all Americans, Republicans have not signed on to the broader expansion of the welfare state in the name of "civil rights". Republicans have favored policies that would lead, perhaps too gradually for some, to change. Constructive engagement with South Africa was an example of that. Rhetorical flourishes in the name of "civil rights" have not been in the Republican playbook. Branding other issues such as minimum wage or education funding, as civil rights issues have not been the Republican way. Republicans have made our arguments on policy grounds, not emotion.
That is why, even today, I think if Occidental College held a tribute to Nelson Mandela on campus, some young Republican will be getting an invitation to present the "opposing viewpoint".
Saturday, December 7, 2013
The $240 million reason why Dad wanted me to play Second Base
As a kid, my Dad encouraged me to bat left handed. I learned to do it and hit from the left side all through Little League and High School.
My Dad also convinced me that I was not a shortstop or a pitcher. He made me learn to play second base. I did that all through Little League and for the better part of my high school days (apparently I got older and slower earlier than most and moved to first base my senior year).
On Friday a left handed hitting second baseman signed a 10 year $240 million contract. Dad was 40 years ahead of his time!
I feel a kinship with Robinson Cano in that neither of us is worth $240 million. He's probably a little closer at this point, but my goodness, a 42 year old second baseman that the Mariners will be paying $25 million...how is that going to work out?
Cano has had a solid career. According to baseball reference.com his career averages are 24 home runs, 97 RBIs and a .309 batting average Good, but $25 million good?
Cano will also be moving to a hitter's graveyard in Seattle. A text or phone call to Adrian Beltre might have spooked Cano. Beltre followed a 48 home run year in Dodger Stadium, which is not known as a hitter's park, with a 19 home run season in Seattle. Beltre's career seemed doomed even as his numbers improved slightly over the next three seasons. Ultimately, an escape to Boston followed by a free agency move Texas put Beltre back on the road that may lead to Cooperstown.
Why would the Mariners do this? Can't they look down Interstate 5 and see how well a 10 year $240 million deal is working out for the Angels? Didn't the Tigers just hit the eject button on their $200 million deal with Prince Fielder?
The Mariners are seeking relevance. Attendance in Seattle has cratered. Safeco Field is a beautiful ballpark. The area around the stadium is vibrant. The team inside has been terrible. The Griffey Jr./Randy Johnson days are long gone, replaced by dwindling crowds. Attendance in 2013 was half of what it was in 2002.
Does Robinson Cano fire up the Emerald City and put people back in the seats? That seems hard to believe. What is more likely is that a lot of Dads will be taking a cue from mine and turning their right handed hitting shortstops into left handed hitting second baseman.
My Dad also convinced me that I was not a shortstop or a pitcher. He made me learn to play second base. I did that all through Little League and for the better part of my high school days (apparently I got older and slower earlier than most and moved to first base my senior year).
On Friday a left handed hitting second baseman signed a 10 year $240 million contract. Dad was 40 years ahead of his time!
I feel a kinship with Robinson Cano in that neither of us is worth $240 million. He's probably a little closer at this point, but my goodness, a 42 year old second baseman that the Mariners will be paying $25 million...how is that going to work out?
Cano has had a solid career. According to baseball reference.com his career averages are 24 home runs, 97 RBIs and a .309 batting average Good, but $25 million good?
Cano will also be moving to a hitter's graveyard in Seattle. A text or phone call to Adrian Beltre might have spooked Cano. Beltre followed a 48 home run year in Dodger Stadium, which is not known as a hitter's park, with a 19 home run season in Seattle. Beltre's career seemed doomed even as his numbers improved slightly over the next three seasons. Ultimately, an escape to Boston followed by a free agency move Texas put Beltre back on the road that may lead to Cooperstown.
Why would the Mariners do this? Can't they look down Interstate 5 and see how well a 10 year $240 million deal is working out for the Angels? Didn't the Tigers just hit the eject button on their $200 million deal with Prince Fielder?
The Mariners are seeking relevance. Attendance in Seattle has cratered. Safeco Field is a beautiful ballpark. The area around the stadium is vibrant. The team inside has been terrible. The Griffey Jr./Randy Johnson days are long gone, replaced by dwindling crowds. Attendance in 2013 was half of what it was in 2002.
Does Robinson Cano fire up the Emerald City and put people back in the seats? That seems hard to believe. What is more likely is that a lot of Dads will be taking a cue from mine and turning their right handed hitting shortstops into left handed hitting second baseman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)