Is the A Rod Suspension too much?

I am not a fan of Alex Rodriguez.  I have little sympathy for someone who has made hundreds of millions of dollars playing baseball and who, by his own admission, broke the rules.
But, I think the 162 game suspension is too much. The suspension is not truly tied to baseball's new steroid testing policies. Rodriguez has never flunked a test.  Rather, the now affirmed 162 game suspension rests within more esoteric readings of baseball's Collective Bargaining Agreement. 
While one's first impulse is "get that cheater", one has to wonder exactly what they are punishing Rodriguez for? Again, he did not fail a test which would have brought a 50 game suspension. A second failed test would have meant 100 games.  The number of the original suspension, 211 games, is not referenced in the potential penalties contained in baseball's collective bargaining agreement ("CBA").
So how was the number arrived at?  The Commissioner of Baseball's sense of an appropriate penalty.  The Commissioner's office believes it has evidence that not only was Rodriguez guilty of using banned substances and consorting with a distributor of those substances, he also actively impeded baseball's investigation.  So while Jhonny Peralta and Nelson Cruz got 50 games for consorting with the same clinic, Rodriguez gets 162.
Yes, Ryan Braun got a little more (64 games) than some of the others, but he failed a test and impugned the integrity of the test handler. 
So why does Rodriguez get hit with a suspension three times longer than others involved in the same scandal?
Could it be that Major League Baseball, while drawing some satisfaction from the lack of Hall of Fame votes for alleged steroid users, wants to try and emphatically slam the lid shut on the "steroid era" with a long high profile suspension?  Bonds and Clemens retired before baseball could hand down any discipline.  By effectively kicking Rodriguez out before he can leave on his own, MLB can say "mission accomplished" (although the political junkies among us know that phrase hasn't always worked out so well).
Or could it be that Major League Baseball wants to lend a hand to one of its glamour franchises, the New York Yankees, by giving them some payroll and soap opera relief? The suspension could allow the Yankees to move on from the A-Rod saga and rebuild their lineup (although there is the pesky matter of A-Rod's guaranteed contract for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 seasons).
So what should become of Alex Rodriguez? A-Rod says he is going to seek an injunction and pursue a lawsuit. The lawyer in me recognizes that there are millions of dollars in contractual obligations at stake.  The baseball fan in me sees little way that A-Rod, with declining bat speed and limited defensive value, will be at all effective as a 39 year old player returning in 2015 from a one year layoff. 
So settle it.  Convince A-Rod to retire but make sure he gets his money. Maybe they can structure the payments out over several years to afford the Yankees some payroll relief and A-Rod an income stream into middle age.  I am not worried about either party's finances in this situation, but a contract exists and the money needs to be addressed. It's not going away. Baseball cannot wave a magic wand and make Alex Rodriguez disappear.
But maybe, just maybe, if he gets his money, Alex Rodriguez will.

Parenting advice 101: teach them to throw left handed

I have made a few mistakes as a parent and still have time to make many more, but I already know what my biggest one is: not forcing my sons to throw left handed. 
A left handed pitcher can earn a seven figure salary well into his forties. What other skill promises that type of economic return? We send our children to school with promises of a better future with an education. We gear up to spend hundreds of thousands on college and graduate educations, but it all could be taken care with more time in the yard developing the ability to throw strikes from the left side.
And you don't even have to throw that hard. Sure, it's fun to see Aroldis Chapman hit 105 mph. on the radar gun. I love watching Clayton Kershaw throw a curve ball that looks like it will cross the plate at eye level and ends up being a called strike at the knees.  Yet, Jamie Moyer was able to pitch until he was 49 years old with a fastball that might have been respectable at my son's Little League field.
Even if you can't make it as a starting pitcher, MLB will have jobs for lefthanders requiring them to only face one batter. The Dodgers just signed J.P. Howell, an effective but somewhat nondescript left handed reliever, to a two year $11 million contract.  Jesse Orosco was a one out specialist until he was 47.
Do you still think baseball is not in love with lefthanders? Take the case of Mark Mulder. 
Mulder is a relatively young 36 years old. He just signed a one year contract with the Los Angeles Angels (I still have trouble calling them that).  When I first read the story, I remembered Mulder had some pretty good years with the Oakland A's and the St. Louis Cardinals.  I also had not heard his name in a bit.
Why? He has not pitched in the major leagues since 2008!  He has not won a game since 2006.  For the last several years he has been working as a TV analyst.  He apparently decided this winter that he still wanted to play and auditioned for two or three teams. Presumably when those teams realized he was throwing the ball with his left arm, offers materialized.  He could make up to $6 million this season.
Little League seasons are starting up all over the country. Moms and Dads will head to the backyard or the local park to play catch and get their kids ready. For me, my sons seem stuck throwing right handed. However, for many parents it is not too late: put the ball in their left hand and fabulous riches will come your way.

Bush v. Clinton: The Dodgers and the Yankees of American Politics

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. 

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. 

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".

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.  

Hall of Fame

The 2014 Hall of Fame ballot went out last week.
One of the debates in the Hall of Fame voting process is the accumulation of statistics vs. domination for a short period of time. Sandy Koufax dominated, but for only 6-7 years. Nobody disputes his status in the Hall.  Last year's "missed it by that much" candidate was Craig Biggio. Biggio racked up 3000 hits in 20 seasons with the Houston Astros.  3000 hits generally assures election to the Hall, but some seem to doubt Biggio's credentials.  Accumulation rather than true dominance.
Biggio belongs in the Hall of Fame. Aside from the 3000 hits, he was a starter at three different positions and an All Star at all three of them.  Moreover, the positions were all very different: catcher, second base and the outfield.  To play any one of those spots at the major league level is something, to play them all and be an All Star is Hall of Fame stuff. 
Biggio didn't change positions because the Astros were trying to figure out ways to keep his bat in the lineup in spite of a weak glove.  He did it because it helped the ball club win. 
3000 hits, 20 years with one team and nobody alleges that any of Biggio's 3000 hits were aided by performance enhancing drugs. He belongs in the Hall.
Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux are also on the ballot. 300 game winners, multiple post season appearances, Cy Young and Silver Slugger Awards, and no allegations of PEDs.  Maddux' fastball was thrown at the speed of a good Little Leaguer late in his career, yet he was still winning games. Glavine squeaked across the 300 win finish line, so there may be some resistance in his first year on the ballot. Maddux should be a no brainer.
Short term dominance? Well, I noticed that Eric Gagne is on the ballot. The most dominant closer in baseball for three years. 84 consecutive saves before blowing one.
BUT...he went from a mediocre fastball, barely hanging on starter, to a mid 90s flamethrower in one offseason. Oh, he looked a tad bigger while doing it.  No plaque in Cooperstown for you Eric.
Then there are the names that are just fun to see again. Richie Sexson, Ray Durham and Jacque Jones. Hey, getting to the major leagues is an accomplishment.  Actually having a "career" is even more impressive, but none of these guys' names scream "all time great".  
This summer look for Biggio, Maddux and Glavin to be taking their rightful place in Cooperstown.  All time greats, all of them.

Justice Clinton?

The President has another Supreme Court pick to make. This will not be a pick that upends the current conservative (5)/liberal (4) balance as Justice Stevens regularly voted with the liberal bloc. Still, as it seems anything the President does incites controversy on the left and right, this will be a delicate challenge.

I am certain the President is eagerly awaiting my advice,, so I will give it: nominate Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court.

Yes, she already has a job, but Barak Obama is really his own Secretary of State. He is the visible player on the world stage. Hillary is respected and I am sure her counsel is taken seriously, but the Democrats do not lack for foreign policy figures who could take over the State Department. John Kerry yearned for the job. Bill Richardson seems to have put his potential legal troubles behind him. The short list of successors is rather long.

Why would Hillary do it? In reality, she probably would not, but then again she did not want to be Secretary of State. It would probably be more appealing if the Chief Justice slot were available, but a Supreme Court seat is pretty prestigious nonetheless.

She would not be a trailblazer, there have already been two women appointed to the Court. She likely would not be the first female chief justice as John Roberts is younger than she is.

Still, the Supreme Court might be a fitting capstone to her career. Unlike her husband, Hilary Clinton actually practiced law. She has been First Lady, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State and capping it off with a seat on the Supreme Court would surely leave her mark on history.

What's in it for the President? First, she can probably be confirmed. Yes, Republicans on the right still go apoplectic at the mention of the name "Clinton", but the Senate confirmed her for Secretary of State. Second, as a former U.S. Senator, senatorial privilege would likely grease the skids for her confirmation. Third, she is qualified. A former lawyer, Senator and Secretary of State: hard to argue she should not have a seat on the Court.

Better yet, it would remove the Clintons from presidential politics once and for all. No, she will not challenge President Obama in 2012, but if his political standing is weak, there may be those who try to persuade him to step aside, opening the door for a Hillary revival. If she were on the Supreme Court, she would not run and the option of pushing the President aside for Hillary would be off the table. Although a Clinton candidacy in 2016 seems remote, it is not out of the question and she would be battling whomever is President Obama's preferred successor for the Democratic nomination (an early guess: he won't be backing Joe "F'ing big Deal" Biden). Presidential politics without the Clintons? Yes, it would be a lot less entertaining, but the Democratic Party and the Country would likely benefit.

I am sure the list for this nomination will include several liberal judges and attorneys. I think the best way for a confirmation is to nominate Hilary Clinton.

You are welcome Mr. President. Next we'll discuss an ambassadorship for "F'ing" Biden.

That is what elections are for

I caught a little bit of the health-care summit this past week.

I must admit I did not have the full seven hours to devote to watching this on television or the Internet. I do commend the president of the United States for sitting in a room with members of Congress for seven hours. The hot air had to be stifling. For that matter, I commend the members of Congress who sat in the same room with the President (and Vice President Biden) for seven hours.

There are couple of suggestions I might make to liven up the program next time he decides to do this: First, how about Ryan Seacrest reading off the results of a nationwide vote about every hour or so and one member of Congress or the Administration getting kicked out of the room? Second, perhaps we could have Donald Trump and come in and fire one of the participants every hour or so. I do believe one of these might make for a little more compelling television.

The president said one thing that I do agree with: "that's what elections are for". I do not understand the Republican strategy of attempting to filibuster or derail the health-care bill. The president and the Democrats won the 2008 election. They have large majorities in both houses. This is their signature initiative. I agree with many of the Republicans' reservations and objections to the health-care plan but, the Democrats did win the last election. So I say to the Republicans: let them pass it and, more importantly, let them defend it.

There seems to be some fear amongst Republicans that the creation of this large entitlement program might ultimately be something that the American public likes. Let's face it, although many Americans profess to be fiscal conservatives, many Americans like their government services. We just don't like paying for government services for other states, cities or voters.

There is probably a legitimate fear amongst Republicans that, once the health-care plan gets embedded in the American way of life, the public will grow to like the benefits they receive and a Republican president and Republican Congress will not be able to undo it in the future. Let's face it, Ronald Reagan vowed to abolish the Department of Education and it is still around, bigger and more expensivethan ever. George W. Bush in eight years did little to reduce the size and cost of government.

If the American people finally like this large new entitlement program that is their prerogative. Again, as the president said that is what elections are for.

If however the American public finds come as I believe they will, that they are spending much more on health insurance and receiving much less, there will be a price to pay. The Democrats, having passed this on a strict party line vote will be the ones to pay the price. The Republicans must avoid the temptation to take a paternalistic attitude and try to "protect" the American people from themselves. If ultimately the American people do not like Obama care, President Obama and his party will pay the polls in 2010 and 2012.

So what should the Republicans do? I say participate vigorously in the debate. Set forth the reasons you object to the bill as proposed. Put forth your alternatives to Obama care. Then, the Congress vote and if it passes but the president signed. We had an election in 2008 he won.

The Democrats are going to try to pass health care in the US Senate through a process known as reconciliation. Honestly I believe the vast majority of the American people, including this writer, do not understand the reconciliation is, or if we do we think it is something that Charlie Sheen and his wife are doing. Therefore, I'm not sure that Republican objection to reconciliation is an effective argument that is going to resonate with the American people. Again, the Republicans should focus on their plan and the reasons they don't support Obama care, then let Congress vote, and let the President sign it.

And, as the president said, that's what elections are for. Maybe we can get Ryan Seacrest to read the results in November 2010.

Bye Bayh for Now

It is not a good year to be a United States senator and a Democrat. With President Obama dropping in the polls and the United States Congress even less popular, several prominent Democratic senators have decided it is time to retire rather than run for another term. Perhaps the most surprising announcement came today from Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Bayh is one of those Senators who has an outstanding profile for a presidential candidate. He came into political office as the son of a prominent senator from his home state of Indiana. He ran for governor and was a successful two-term governor. He then ran for and was elected to the United States Senate. In the last three elections he has apparently been on the short list of potential Democratic nominees for vice president.

He is a fairly moderate senator from a state that normally leans Republican. He has managed to win there by taking more moderate positions on economic issues than the rest of his party. He has frequently been an advocate of responsible fiscal policy and controlling government spending. These positions are frequently set him apart from the rest of his party, particularly Democrats in Congress.

Still, it was a surprise today when he said he was through. He cited the excessive partisanship in Washington DC as the reason for his retirement. He noted that partisanship prevents anything substantive from getting done.

The way he is going out, sending warning about excessive partisanship along with a responsible fiscal record makes me wonder if we have seen the last of Evan Bayh. Let's fast forward ahead to 2012. I will say at the very beginning that incumbent presidents generally when renomination even in the face of relatively strong challenges from within their party. Jimmy Carter fought off the icon of Democratic liberalism Ted Kennedy in 1980. Gerald Ford held off the icon of Republican conservatism, Ronald Reagan, in 1976. Beating an incumbent president for the party's nomination is difficult and rare.

Evan Bayh however may be very well positioned to do just that. Polls are showing that President Obama's popularity is sinking rapidly. The perception has arisen that his Administration is engaged in reckless spending and growth of big government at home and a weak foreign-policy abroad. Critics both within and without the Democratic Party have questioned his pursuit of health care reform ahead of jobs creation. Likewise, many responsible critics have questioned the effort to turn the war on terror into a criminal investigation and prosecution rather than a more. Finally, the Nobel Prize seems to be simply a taunt from the rest of the world and a punchline here at home.

Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors and democratic state legislators may become very concerned about their own electoral well-being in 2012. The prospect of an unpopular president Obama at the top of the ticket may begin to frighten them and they may discuss finding a candidate who can win.

What would be the alternatives within the Democratic Party to Barack Obama in 2012? By serving in the Cabinet, Hilary Clinton has effectively taken herself out of the running. She now takes ownership of the Obama administration's policies and would be perceived as extremely disloyal for running against him. She lacks any real credibility if she were to try and discount her role in the administration. The 22nd amendment prevents Bill Clinton from pulling a Teddy Roosevelt and trying to challenge one of his successors in a party primary. So who is there that could challenge Barack Obama?

Evan Bayh may be that person. A candidate with executive experience as a governor and a relatively fiscally conservative record as a senator. He hails from the Midwest, an area where Democrats need to win to break up the Reagan coalition and retain the White House. He is young, articulate and telegenic. It would be hard to dismiss him as a cook, a crank or an egomaniac for challenging the President within his own party.

This may be, and probably is, far-fetched but if you read sometime next year that Bayh is giving a speech in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, the White House should get very nervous.

At least they're not President

I have not been a fan of Pres. Obama but the bookshelves this week and give me reason to be happy he's president is opposed to at least two other people: Mark Sanford and John Edwards.

Two books are out this week by people close each of the former presidential contenders. The Edwards book is written by a former aide and the Sanford book was written by his soon-to-be ex-wife. I have not, and probably will not, read the books, but I have seen and read interviews with the authors. Apparently both books detail extramarital affairs being carried on by both presidential contenders. In Edwards' case the extramarital affair also produced a child that he now acknowledges is his. In the Sanford case the extramarital affair produced the now infamous "hiking trip" and the confession that his mistress was his "soul mate".

Yes, I am really glad these two are not President and will never be president. I am not going to get into the moral discussion of their behavior and the violation of their wedding bows. That seems rather obvious. To me, what shows that these men are not fit to be president and never were is the sheer arrogance, coupled with stupidity, of their actions.

Let's start with Sen. Edwards. He had a natural profile for high public office: very successful trial lawyer who won election to the U.S. Senate from a state that is fairly conservative. He managed to land a spot on the 2004 Democratic ticket as the vice presidential candidate and was viewed by many as just the type of moderate Southerner in the Democratic Party needed to reclaim the White House. The problem was, he was not real moderate in certain areas.

It is alleged that he carried a lengthy affair and got his mistress pregnant all while running for president. He never considered for one moment dropping out of the race even when confronted with his infidelities and the pregnancy of his mistress. His former aide alleges that an elaborate scheme was hatched to hide the mistress at various locations throughout the country while Edwards continue to campaign for the presidency. Only the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire state Democratic Party, and possibly the country, from a gripping scandal. Now it is just salacious and amusing, but what if Edwards was the Vice President or President of the United States? Thank you Iowa, thank you New Hampshire and thank you Barack Obama (bet you never thought I would say that).

I just have to shake my head when I hear the Edwards story. How could this man think that he could carry out a campaign for president of the United States and not get caught? In this day and age, how could he think the media would not eventually track down the story and publish it? As I said, it is either the height of arrogance or the height of stupidity. With that level of arrogance and stupidity, I'm thankful that he is not a person who will ever sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.

With Sanford, the story involves arrogance and stupidity mixed with just plain pathetic. Again, we have a man who was by all accounts was making plans to run for President of the United States. He has apparently been carrying on a relationship with this woman from Argentina over the course of several years. The whole thing came to light when the governor disappeared for a week.

When you're a governor of a state you cannot just disappear for a week. Literally nobody knew where he was including his own security detail. When the governor reappeared he initially said he was hiking to clear his head. He only later did he admit that he had been down in Argentina visiting his mistress. The governor had left the country and nobody knew about it.

Next however, the Sanford story seems to be slightly different from Edwards's. Sanford did not intend to continue a presidential campaign. He went on another type of campaign that was simply pathetic. He began doing a series of televised confessionals. Going on television and admitting he had been unfaithful to his wife would have been bad enough, but he went further. He went on to tell the world that his mistress was in fact his "soul mate". He said he was going to "try" to fall back in love with his wife. I think most of us watching those interviews were ready to draw the divorce papers for Mrs. Sanford for free.

For now, it appears these two are done with politics, particularly presidential politics. Remember, America does love a come back story. John Edwards already managed to get down to the earthquake ravaged Haiti and get himself in front of the cameras. I'm not convinced we've seen the last of him.

Sanford seems content serving out his term as governor and then hopefully going away. That said, there's no guarantee he will not find some cause to do his "good work" and an eventually turn up on Oprah to tell all of America that he has learned so much from all of his mistakes.

We do love comebacks.

For all my criticisms of President Obama, I can truly say I am glad he is president and not either of these two guys.

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...

T'Was the Week Before Christmas

T'was the week before Christmas and all through the air,
Were concerns of the Democrats about passing health care,

The President called in his elves Nancy and Harry,
It's my signature initiative, the bill you must carry,

Nancy went back to the House and got her job done
Over in the Senate, for Harry less fun,

He needed sixty to make a bill go,
not just fifty plus vice President Joe,



Lieberman was a pill,
Byrd was out ill,
the Republicans wanted a filibuster fight,
It was a cold winter's night,



In to Harry's office came a Senator named Ben,
"I'll make him an offer" Harry thought, "I'll get his vote then",

O.K. Ben, your President needs a good deed,
come sit by the fire, what do you need?

"The states must pay more for Medicaid on this bill for health care,
I don't want my state to pay its share"

"Ho, Ho, Ho" said Harry, "consider it done",
"Hmm" thought Senator Ben "this could be fun"

"Wait" said Ben "there is something more,
You know it is abortion that I abhor
For the procedure I don't want the government to pay,
That's what I want for my vote, otherwise no way,
So give me the amendment, make the language tight
and you'll have my vote on this cold winter's night"

Harry said "that will be hard"
"Abortion is Barbara Boxer's calling card,

But she is here tonight, standing under the tree,
I will talk to her and we shall see"

Barbara exclaimed, "You have my vote Harry
I'll give it for free,
I am a Democrat from California,
I'll get re-elected easily"

Boomed Harry "call the White House, we have a deal!"
They setup the podium, hung the presidential seal,

Obama would announce it, who knows if they got it right,
The important thing is Harry had sixty votes on this cold winter's night,

The President proclaimed "I don't want to taunt,
I know this is a reform you don't really want
Incremental reforms, sure we had the capacity,
but did you read my book, I'm all about audacity,

So thanks to Harry, Nancy and me,
we have fixed health care, oh it's not free,
Your premiums will go up, your company may shut down,
that will just mean more work for us in this government town,

For now the government takeover is within our sight,
we have passed health care, Merry Christmas and good night."

When is it time?

Just as Stephen Strasburg signs a record deal with the Nationals, two sure fire Hall of Famers seem near the end. One looks like he has accepted it, the other no. Whether it is the money or just the competitive juices, it is hard to know when it is time to say goodbye.
Tom Glavine has won over 300 games. He is a class act. He was not overpowering, just effective. Despite an injury he was attempting one last comeback with the Atlanta Braves. He pitched well in a minor league rehab start, but the Braves released him. To date he has not been picked up. This may mean a lack of interest, although I doubt that, or that Glavine has realized it is time to start running that five year clock on the Hall of Fame.
His former teammate, John Smoltz is not going so quietly into the night. A comeback with the Red Sox was a disaster, producing an E.R.A. of over 8.00. He was released and is apparently out there looking for another team to pitch for. Baseball being in desperate need of pitching, witness giving a college kid $15 million before he throws a professional pitch, I imagine someone will pick him up. What will be different? With a 2 or three week layoff will that fastball suddenly return to form? Will the slider remind us of the mid 1990s John Smoltz? Doubtful.
Knowing when to say goodbye is tough. The money seems to make it even harder. I remember Dave Winfield ending his career in a Twins or Indians uniform and Steve Carlton pitching middle relief for the Twins. Even before the really big money however, Babe Ruth suited up for the Boston Braves, Warren Spahn wound down with the mid 1960s Mets and Willie Mays stumbled in the outfield for the Mets.
Maybe Stephen Strasburg will be a Hall of Famer. With his signing bonus he should never have to worry about working again. Let's hope that whenever the times comes, he knows how to say goodbye.

No Greater Joy

Obviously I love the game of baseball. I played it as a kid up through high school. Limited height, lack of speed, in other words reality; shut down the dreams of a major league career, but did not sour my love of the game.
I have now discovered an even greater thrill: watching my son play the game. This week my eight year old son attended a baseball camp. I was fortunate enough to be able to spend some time at the ballpark watching. There is nothing better.
I always worry about being one of those "Little League dads" we read about: obsessive about the development of my son's skills, pushing him and eventually taking all of the fun out of the game. I try really hard to make sure it stays fun. After camp I don't ask how he did, but whether he had fun. I also try to focus on whether he liked the coaches and the other kids. The answer to both questions is yes.
The high point of the week was his competitive pitching debut in the camp games. He wants to pitch. I think he is a middle infielder, but life is about trying things out, so he goes for it. Unexpectedly he took the mound to start the first camp game. I happened to stop by just in time.
I must admit my stomach was a little nervous. My son is hard on himself and I feared that not pitching well might spoil his whole week. No problem. He struck out two and retired the third on a comebacker with an easy flip to first base.
After the inning he came up to fill his water bottle and I tried to congratulate him with a high five or fist bump (I am at least smart enough to know a hug would be so uncool!). He barely acknowledged me (he is too cool), but I could tell he felt about six feet tall.
His later pitching performances were not as strong as the first outing, but his bat came around. The best part however, was the smiles and watching him interact with his fellow ballplayers. The kids seem to bond over the week and really form a ball club. The great things is it is a ball club with no big contracts, no holdouts and no prima donnas. Just a bunch of kids learning the game and loving it.
Who knows whether any of these kids will play pro ball, or even college ball. Who cares? The important thing is that they are out there for love of the game.
I don't need my son to pitch a perfect inning or get a big hit to validate me as a parent. I do need him to do what he loves to do, and if baseball is that wonderful. If it is something else, equally wonderful. For now, watching your own flesh and blood play the game you love, there is no greater joy.

Isn't it Time?

There was a story this week, quickly shot down by the Commissioner's office, that Pete Rose's reinstatement was imminent.
I say it's time and the Commissioner should do it.
It has been 20 years since Rose was banned "for life" from baseball. I don't think anyone really thought it would be a lifetime ban. Some stories were that he would be out one, maybe two years and then reinstated. Then Bart Giamatti, the Commissioner who imposed the ban, died. Many of his allies blamed the stress of the Rose situation for his fatal heart attack. It began to appear that only Giamatti had the power to reinstate Rose and with Giamatti gone...
Rose certainly has not helped himself over the past 20 years. First, his insistence on his innocence despite all evidence to the contrary. Second, he only made the admission of guilt in a book and gladly accepted the receipts from book sales. Third, he continued to taunt baseball by showing up and selling memorabilia near the Hall of Fame on induction weekend. Yes, Rose managed to make himself an unsympathetic figure.
But he has served more time for his "crime" than many have for far worse. Gambling on baseball is the unpardonable sin due to the 1919 White Sox fixing a World Series. There has never been a charge that Rose bet against his team or tried to fix games. It appears that he bet on his team, when he was a manager, to win. Yes, if he had money riding on the game he may have managed differently. He might go to his closer earlier than normal. He might adjust his strategy to try and get that win today without regard for the rest of the series or season. Still, it does not appear that he ever tried to throw games. I think that is a distinction worth noting.
By banning Rose however, baseball has tried to pretend he does not exist. Those 4256 hits make that impossible. Any highlight reel from the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s has to include Rose. An All Star at five different positions, leader of the Big Red Machine and member of a Phillies championship team (and who can forget that memorable half season in Montreal?). He was baseball's biggest star for 20 years. Baseball cannot pretend it never happened.
The Hall of Fame voters, now limited to the Veteran's Committee, should have the chance to vote on Rose. Give him a limited reinstatement. Ban him from major league clubhouses. require him to do community service work on behalf of Major League baseball and include a notation on his Hall of Fame plaque (should he be voted in) about the 20 year ban for gambling.
That Rose broke baseball's cardinal rule should not be expunged from the history of the game, but neither should he. It has been 20 years. It is time.

Baseball Odds and Ends

As we near the end of July and the trading deadline approaches, a few thoughts on the 2009 season.

First, boy was I was off on the Oakland A's. I had them picked to go to the World Series. They are locked on last place in the A.L. West and just made the inevitable trade of their best player to a contender. I said it was an "odd hunch". Frankly it was just nuts.

I seem a little off on the A.L. Central where I had Minnesota. While not dead yet, this race looks like the Twins watching the Tigers and White Sox battle it out.

I seem to have the A.L. East and N.L. West right (Dodgers and Yankees). I clearly underestimated the Cardinals in the N.L. Central, but this is still a good four team race.

Now on to the trading deadline. The big players is Roy Halladay. As of tonight the Blue Jays G.M. says he is not going anywhere which means he'll be traded tomorrow. I don't like the idea of the Dodgers ripping apart their roster to get him. Minor leaguers, fine, but when I start hearing Billingsley, Martin or Loney, I get nervous. The Dodgers are in first place by eight games, don't try to reinvent your lineup and clubhouse in late July.

The Blue Jays however, may be overplaying their hand. Yes, they don't have to trade him. They can have this same auction next July and still do pretty well, but by waiting they risk injury to Halladay and a dropping price tag. A few years ago the Washington Nationals tried to gut several teams' farm system in a trade for Alfonso Soriano and ended up blowing all of their leverage. The Blue Jays might do that here.

Speaking of big time pitchers (well, former big time pitchers) Jason Schmidt returned to the mound for the Dodgers. Schmidt, with his $47 million contract, has not pitched in the majors since 2007. He had a reasonably effective start first time out, then got knocked around today.

I will say this for Schmidt, it would have been real easy to coast through rehabilitation and collect the checks. The guys has worked his way back and pitched at such outposts as San Bernardino and Albuquerque. I tip my hat to him for staying with it. He will never be the pitcher he was, but he did not just take the money and mail it in.

Finally, Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice went into the Hall of Fame today. Two great players, one great quote machine (Rickey). Congratulations.