The fun part about watching John McCain win the Republican nomination for President is to see the anguished outcries expressed by conservative TV pundits like Glenn Beck and Hannity & Combs on the Fox News Channel. Before 2008, I never gave the Fox News Channel a first glance let alone a second glance but now I watch it every night there is a primary just to see the collective gnashing of teeth and the hypocritical moaning from these paradigms of conservative values.
In their eyes it isn’t right that John McCain has freely and fairly gained the Republican nomination by the consent of the governed; it isn’t right that McCain has attained the nomination by appealing (unlike the other G.O.P. candidates) to moderates and even disillusioned Democrats to cross over and join his campaign; it isn’t right that McCain, if elected President—something not inconceivable—is the only Republican who has the potential to achieve a bi-partisan coalition that could get the necessary legislation passed to get the country moving again.
In many ways John McCain’s successful campaign is one of the most remarkable political comebacks in the annals of Presidential politics. To see a parallel one must go back to 1968 when Richard Nixon defied the odds and his own self-destructiveness to win the Republican nomination and the Presidency. Interestingly, Mitt Romney invoked the ghost of Richard Nixon when he was still campaigning against McCain in the race, saying that McCain was using Nixonian tactics (i.e. Watergate tactics) against him. Romney erred only slightly. Yes, McCain did use Nixonian tactics but not the Nixon from the Watergate era but the Richard Nixon who won the Presidential race in 1968. McCain, like Nixon, had lost a Presidential campaign eight years before and had been written off politically. McCain, like Nixon, had to go to great lengths to shake off a loser’s image. McCain, like Nixon, had to appeal to conservative voters by blatantly pandering to their core issues (Richard Nixon in 1968 packaged himself far more conservatively than when he ran in 1960. McCain’s rightward turn made pundits and supporters wince but, so far, it has worked to get him the nomination. Now whether this will get him the Presidency remains to be seen but McCain still has that ability to grab voters from the center and the left than his opponents). McCain, like Nixon, ran a vigorous grassroots campaign which resulted in key wins in the right states which in turn allowed him to receive those key endorsements that guaranteed future victories—each victory opening up new possibilities and new avenues of support for a campaign that had been declared dead one year ago. McCain, like Nixon, campaigned on a platform that supported an unpopular war and demanded a more vigorous and more effective application of American military forces in that war.
And what if John McCain loses in November? Then it’s a brand new ballgame for the Republican Party and that means there is a vacancy which either Mike Huckabee or Jeb Bush will fill in 2012. Huckabee’s campaign continued to amaze after Super Tuesday, winning Southern states and gaining conservative supporters (voting in protest against John McCain) despite low funding. It begs the question: if Huckabee had the money that a Jeb Bush or a Mitt Romney possessed, it would have been more likely that Huckabee would be the presumptive G.O.P. nominee and not McCain—a possibility which would have made Fox News Channel delirious with ecstasy. Huckabee’s failure to win the South Carolina and Florida primaries ensured his defeat. Even though he lost by narrow margins in both states, the winner-take-all rules gave McCain plenty of breathing space in terms of delegates. Had Huckabee won those contests then the tables would have turned. Although he cannot win the nomination, Huckabee remains in the race to make the case for himself as McCain’s running mate and, even more likely, to get a running start in 2012 campaign. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Huckabee is asked to be the keynote speaker of the 2008 Republican convention. He would certainly do a great job in delivering the keynote address. Huckabee’s ability to articulate conservative values is excellent and he must not be underestimated. You will be seeing more of him in the near and far distant political future.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Consent of the Governed I: Democrats
At last! An interesting Presidential race! On both sides! Not since 1976 has there been a prolonged duel for both political parties in the Presidential primaries. Despite the predictions by the pundits that the massive front-loading of the primaries would result in a premature end to the campaign, the opposite has occurred with splendid results for the quest of enhancing political debate and voter participation.
I played my role in the political process by voting in the New Jersey Primary last February 5th. It was the first time in my memory that my vote actually counted for something. In the past the New Jersey Presidential primary was held in June and the nominations for both parties were usually resolved by that time which made my vote moot.
Not this time. To paraphrase a Maureen McGovern song, I was torn between two candidates. Don’t laugh. It wasn’t funny. For the first time ever I really had to think about who I wanted to run for the Presidency. In the weeks preceding the primary I had to do some serious soul-searching. Although I am anti-war I didn’t consider Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vote to approve President Bush’s use of force a significant reason to reject her. (Don’t forget Democrat George McGovern campaigned for President against the Vietnam War in 1972 even though in 1964 he had voted to approve the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which got America into the war in the first place).
Even though Barack Obama is the far better orator than Hillary is and I had the opportunity to listen to Obama speak on C-Span I wasn’t going to let Obama’s elocutionary talents to be the sole criterion for selecting him. I need more than eloquence to make a decision. (Although Obama is very good on the stump I don’t consider him in the same league as John F. Kennedy, FDR, or Abraham Lincoln: the greatest Presidential speakers of all time…or even the late Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X for that matter!)
And yet….
And yet my local newspaper The Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Obama and the brother and daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy—Senator Ted and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, respectively--endorsed Obama for the Presidency. But part of me wonders about that endorsement? Do the Kennedys really consider Obama more worthy of the Oval Office or are they afraid that Hillary Rodham Clinton (as did her husband before her) will go a long way in eclipsing the rather thin Presidential legacy that the late John F. Kennedy left behind? A very distinct possibility if Hillary wins the nomination and the Presidency.
In the end my decision came down to who could best withstand the hellfire—and that’s the best word to describe it—of a Presidential election and being President itself. For all his attainments—Barack Obama hasn’t really been tested yet. It’s all well and good to run neck and neck for the race so far but what happens if he gets the nomination and has to face the Republican nominee in the fall? Even if he wins in November, does Obama have the inner fortitude to withstand the verbal putrefaction of conservatives and the political obstructionism that is soon to come? If you think the conservative attacks against Bill Clinton in the 1990’s were bad the attacks on Obama will be even worse—much worse. I don’t think Obama really knows what political opposition in the 21st century is really about. He thinks he knows but he really doesn’t—not yet.
Hillary Rodham Clinton does know; has known since 1993. People talk about the Bill Clinton administration. Actually it was the two of them together running the country. Bill Clinton could never have won in 1992 and 1996 without Hillary. There is no debating that question. He could never have survived the impeachment and trial in the Senate as a result of the Lewinsky scandal without Hillary at his side. The hellfire Bill Clinton faced Hillary faced as well.
The real root of conservative hatred for Hillary Rodham Clinton is based on this: both Bill and Hillary Clinton succeeded politically where others before them failed. They succeeded because they had the wisdom and audacity to beat the conservative movement by using their own weapons against them. There is a substantive legacy of achievement which came as a result of their success. We can only speculate whether Obama can move the country again. We know Hillary can because she and Bill Clinton did so in the 1990’s.
In the end, I chose for the person who has been tested by the hellfire and emerged strengthened, shriven, and sharper than before. When I entered the voting booth on February 5, I pulled the lever for Hillary. Even if she falls short of the nomination—a distinct possibility, I won’t regret it. If Obama gets the nomination over Hillary I will vote for Obama but my heart went with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I played my role in the political process by voting in the New Jersey Primary last February 5th. It was the first time in my memory that my vote actually counted for something. In the past the New Jersey Presidential primary was held in June and the nominations for both parties were usually resolved by that time which made my vote moot.
Not this time. To paraphrase a Maureen McGovern song, I was torn between two candidates. Don’t laugh. It wasn’t funny. For the first time ever I really had to think about who I wanted to run for the Presidency. In the weeks preceding the primary I had to do some serious soul-searching. Although I am anti-war I didn’t consider Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vote to approve President Bush’s use of force a significant reason to reject her. (Don’t forget Democrat George McGovern campaigned for President against the Vietnam War in 1972 even though in 1964 he had voted to approve the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which got America into the war in the first place).
Even though Barack Obama is the far better orator than Hillary is and I had the opportunity to listen to Obama speak on C-Span I wasn’t going to let Obama’s elocutionary talents to be the sole criterion for selecting him. I need more than eloquence to make a decision. (Although Obama is very good on the stump I don’t consider him in the same league as John F. Kennedy, FDR, or Abraham Lincoln: the greatest Presidential speakers of all time…or even the late Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X for that matter!)
And yet….
And yet my local newspaper The Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Obama and the brother and daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy—Senator Ted and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, respectively--endorsed Obama for the Presidency. But part of me wonders about that endorsement? Do the Kennedys really consider Obama more worthy of the Oval Office or are they afraid that Hillary Rodham Clinton (as did her husband before her) will go a long way in eclipsing the rather thin Presidential legacy that the late John F. Kennedy left behind? A very distinct possibility if Hillary wins the nomination and the Presidency.
In the end my decision came down to who could best withstand the hellfire—and that’s the best word to describe it—of a Presidential election and being President itself. For all his attainments—Barack Obama hasn’t really been tested yet. It’s all well and good to run neck and neck for the race so far but what happens if he gets the nomination and has to face the Republican nominee in the fall? Even if he wins in November, does Obama have the inner fortitude to withstand the verbal putrefaction of conservatives and the political obstructionism that is soon to come? If you think the conservative attacks against Bill Clinton in the 1990’s were bad the attacks on Obama will be even worse—much worse. I don’t think Obama really knows what political opposition in the 21st century is really about. He thinks he knows but he really doesn’t—not yet.
Hillary Rodham Clinton does know; has known since 1993. People talk about the Bill Clinton administration. Actually it was the two of them together running the country. Bill Clinton could never have won in 1992 and 1996 without Hillary. There is no debating that question. He could never have survived the impeachment and trial in the Senate as a result of the Lewinsky scandal without Hillary at his side. The hellfire Bill Clinton faced Hillary faced as well.
The real root of conservative hatred for Hillary Rodham Clinton is based on this: both Bill and Hillary Clinton succeeded politically where others before them failed. They succeeded because they had the wisdom and audacity to beat the conservative movement by using their own weapons against them. There is a substantive legacy of achievement which came as a result of their success. We can only speculate whether Obama can move the country again. We know Hillary can because she and Bill Clinton did so in the 1990’s.
In the end, I chose for the person who has been tested by the hellfire and emerged strengthened, shriven, and sharper than before. When I entered the voting booth on February 5, I pulled the lever for Hillary. Even if she falls short of the nomination—a distinct possibility, I won’t regret it. If Obama gets the nomination over Hillary I will vote for Obama but my heart went with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Price of War
Despite President Bush’s optimism about the American economy when he gave his final State of the Union address two nights ago, the sad truth is that the latest economic downturn is a reaffirmation of the amoral bankruptcy of the Bush Administration’s economic policies.
Even though the American economy was already slowing down before Bush took over as President in 2001, it is also true that despite his massive tax cuts and the trimming of interest rates by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. economy has not regained the robustness it experienced during the Clinton Administration in the 1990’s or the Reagan years from 1983-1987.
In the case of Ronald Reagan, Bush’s failure to achieve the same results as Reagan did when pursuing the same fiscal policies poses an interesting question: why?
There are several possible answers: the U.S. dollar was in far better shape during the Reagan years as opposed to the present Bush Administration. The national debt wasn’t as huge under the Reagan administration as it is now under George W. Bush (although the national debt rose dramatically during the Reagan administration). Reagan also benefited from a glut in oil exports which kept energy prices down whereas energy prices have spiked to obscene levels in this decade. But I think the most compelling answer as to why the economy thrived under Ronald Reagan when it hasn’t under George W. Bush is this: Ronald Reagan kept the peace during his administration and George W. Bush didn’t.
For all the outcries about how the Iraqi war has harmed America’s image abroad and our ability to influence world affairs, the war has also had the most deleterious effect on our domestic economy. For all the money we throw at defending ourselves from without, the irony is that America is collapsing from within as a result of our own belligerent exertions. Even if we achieve a military and political victory in Iraq (a long shot if there is one) we will still remain undone by the financial and human losses this war has inflicted on the American way of life.
It’s a price we will be forced to pay for a very long time.
Even though the American economy was already slowing down before Bush took over as President in 2001, it is also true that despite his massive tax cuts and the trimming of interest rates by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. economy has not regained the robustness it experienced during the Clinton Administration in the 1990’s or the Reagan years from 1983-1987.
In the case of Ronald Reagan, Bush’s failure to achieve the same results as Reagan did when pursuing the same fiscal policies poses an interesting question: why?
There are several possible answers: the U.S. dollar was in far better shape during the Reagan years as opposed to the present Bush Administration. The national debt wasn’t as huge under the Reagan administration as it is now under George W. Bush (although the national debt rose dramatically during the Reagan administration). Reagan also benefited from a glut in oil exports which kept energy prices down whereas energy prices have spiked to obscene levels in this decade. But I think the most compelling answer as to why the economy thrived under Ronald Reagan when it hasn’t under George W. Bush is this: Ronald Reagan kept the peace during his administration and George W. Bush didn’t.
For all the outcries about how the Iraqi war has harmed America’s image abroad and our ability to influence world affairs, the war has also had the most deleterious effect on our domestic economy. For all the money we throw at defending ourselves from without, the irony is that America is collapsing from within as a result of our own belligerent exertions. Even if we achieve a military and political victory in Iraq (a long shot if there is one) we will still remain undone by the financial and human losses this war has inflicted on the American way of life.
It’s a price we will be forced to pay for a very long time.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wisdom and Wondering on the Campaign Trail
The past week has made for great theater both political parties. The American electorate may be in for a very rare treat: a truly interesting and competitive primary season. The result of Iowa and New Hampshire compels me to ponder the following issues: I was surprised that the pundits have not speculated what impact Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama had on his victory in Iowa. Was it a factor? Interestingly, the press has not raised the subject so far.
Mitt Romney’s failure to win New Hampshire ends whatever hopes he had in capturing the G.O.P. nomination. When a candidate cannot win a primary in his own backyard then you have to question his viability as a national candidate. A question that intrigues me is that Romney belongs to the wrong political party. If Romney were a Democrat his Mormonism would never have been as huge a factor for Democratic voters as it has for Christian conservative G.O.P. voters; also his moderate policies as Governor of Massachusetts would have stood him in better stead among Democrats than it has for Republicans. His flip-flopping on his past gave his opponents ample ammunition to destroy him.
John McCain’s victory in New Hampshire provides a wicked flashback to 2000 when McCain beat George W. Bush and, for a brief shining moment, seemed poised to capture the G.O.P. nomination (and the Presidency. Don’t laugh: if McCain had won the G.O.P. nomination in 2000 he would have won the popular vote against Al Gore. I remember being sorely tempted to change my party registration from Democrat to Republican just so I could vote for McCain). The problem for McCain is he doesn’t want to repeat what happened to him in 2000 where he was buried by George W. Bush in the South Carolina and Super Tuesday primaries. Yes, McCain won the New Hampshire and the Michigan primaries in 2000 and he has a solid chance to win Michigan in 2008 but McCain’s real challenge are the South Carolina and Florida primaries later this month. If McCain is to attain the G.O.P. nomination then he must win both primaries. He has to win the votes of Christian conservatives who form the vanguard of G.O.P. southern voters. If he fails then it’s déjà vu all over again.
And that’s where Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee comes in. Huckabee fascinates me and he seems to intrigue conservative pundits as well. Despite his lack of experience in foreign policy Huckabee has, so far, been the stealth candidate of the Republicans and his method of campaigning intrigues me greatly. He has avoided using the predictable tactics that other G.O.P. candidates have used. His decision not to air an attack on Romney was seen as a gamble but it paid off brilliantly for him. I watched an interview of Huckabee basking in the glow of his Iowa victory where he explained his reasons for not going negative on Romney and I sensed a great shrewdness and an intuitive feel for what G.O.P. voters want from their candidates. Huckabee articulates Christian conservative values without the muscular bellicosity that typecasts the Pat Robertsons, the Ralph Reeds, and the James Dobsons of the world. Huckabee, drawing from his Baptist faith, has the ability to calm the waters and in my mind, that quality can take him very far. If anything, it is my belief that the American people are tired of the partisan shouting and screaming from both sides; they are tired of the crescendo of chaos; they are tired of constantly living in the atmosphere of fear brought on by 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The American people want peace and quiet and a chance to breathe and reconstitute themselves after a long, exhaustive war.
Huckabee has the potential to offer the healing balm for that need—if he makes the right moves—which I believe he can do. The South Carolina, Florida, and Super Tuesday primaries are the vehicles for Mike Huckabee to make his statement in American politics and if he wins big in those primaries then he will be well on his way to attaining the G.O.P. nomination.
And now for Hillary Rodham Clinton: like so many others, I thought Hillary was finished after losing in Iowa but her comeback win in New Hampshire shows that she, like her husband, has the ability to re-invent herself when faced with adversity. The famous emotional display can be interpreted in many ways (depending on one’s political views). Was it calculated? Who knows and who cares? What is certain is that any display of emotional vulnerability on the campaign trail is always a crap-shoot. There is only a thin membrane of triumph and disaster when a candidate’s emotional state stands naked in the unblinking stare of the TV cameras. Hillary, gambling for her very political survival, stood emotionally naked, was shriven by the press, and emerged victorious to campaign anew.
Presidencies past have been won because of lesser gambles.
Interestingly, Hillary has outdone her own husband with regards to Presidential campaigning. People forget that Bill Clinton finished third in New Hampshire (losing to the late Paul Tsongas) only to win big in the South and attaining the Democratic nomination because Tsongas lacked Clinton’s financial resources to run a sustained and successful Presidential campaign. Bill Clinton won because he outlasted the opposition. Hillary won in New Hampshire because she triumphed over her public image of cool, ruthless efficiency—but don’t forget it was that cool, ruthless efficiency that helped Bill Clinton win in 1992 and 1996 and Hillary win in 2000 her Senate seat. Cool, ruthless efficiency can be a great asset if harnessed correctly.
As for me, I am left with an interesting dilemma. The New Jersey primary is coming up on February 5 and I still haven’t decided between Obama and Clinton! If Obama had won New Hampshire I was going to go for him but now the race has become interested and I still have to make a choice. Used to be by the time the New Jersey primary came around the primary campaign was already resolved by then. Not this time!
The best is yet to come.
Mitt Romney’s failure to win New Hampshire ends whatever hopes he had in capturing the G.O.P. nomination. When a candidate cannot win a primary in his own backyard then you have to question his viability as a national candidate. A question that intrigues me is that Romney belongs to the wrong political party. If Romney were a Democrat his Mormonism would never have been as huge a factor for Democratic voters as it has for Christian conservative G.O.P. voters; also his moderate policies as Governor of Massachusetts would have stood him in better stead among Democrats than it has for Republicans. His flip-flopping on his past gave his opponents ample ammunition to destroy him.
John McCain’s victory in New Hampshire provides a wicked flashback to 2000 when McCain beat George W. Bush and, for a brief shining moment, seemed poised to capture the G.O.P. nomination (and the Presidency. Don’t laugh: if McCain had won the G.O.P. nomination in 2000 he would have won the popular vote against Al Gore. I remember being sorely tempted to change my party registration from Democrat to Republican just so I could vote for McCain). The problem for McCain is he doesn’t want to repeat what happened to him in 2000 where he was buried by George W. Bush in the South Carolina and Super Tuesday primaries. Yes, McCain won the New Hampshire and the Michigan primaries in 2000 and he has a solid chance to win Michigan in 2008 but McCain’s real challenge are the South Carolina and Florida primaries later this month. If McCain is to attain the G.O.P. nomination then he must win both primaries. He has to win the votes of Christian conservatives who form the vanguard of G.O.P. southern voters. If he fails then it’s déjà vu all over again.
And that’s where Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee comes in. Huckabee fascinates me and he seems to intrigue conservative pundits as well. Despite his lack of experience in foreign policy Huckabee has, so far, been the stealth candidate of the Republicans and his method of campaigning intrigues me greatly. He has avoided using the predictable tactics that other G.O.P. candidates have used. His decision not to air an attack on Romney was seen as a gamble but it paid off brilliantly for him. I watched an interview of Huckabee basking in the glow of his Iowa victory where he explained his reasons for not going negative on Romney and I sensed a great shrewdness and an intuitive feel for what G.O.P. voters want from their candidates. Huckabee articulates Christian conservative values without the muscular bellicosity that typecasts the Pat Robertsons, the Ralph Reeds, and the James Dobsons of the world. Huckabee, drawing from his Baptist faith, has the ability to calm the waters and in my mind, that quality can take him very far. If anything, it is my belief that the American people are tired of the partisan shouting and screaming from both sides; they are tired of the crescendo of chaos; they are tired of constantly living in the atmosphere of fear brought on by 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The American people want peace and quiet and a chance to breathe and reconstitute themselves after a long, exhaustive war.
Huckabee has the potential to offer the healing balm for that need—if he makes the right moves—which I believe he can do. The South Carolina, Florida, and Super Tuesday primaries are the vehicles for Mike Huckabee to make his statement in American politics and if he wins big in those primaries then he will be well on his way to attaining the G.O.P. nomination.
And now for Hillary Rodham Clinton: like so many others, I thought Hillary was finished after losing in Iowa but her comeback win in New Hampshire shows that she, like her husband, has the ability to re-invent herself when faced with adversity. The famous emotional display can be interpreted in many ways (depending on one’s political views). Was it calculated? Who knows and who cares? What is certain is that any display of emotional vulnerability on the campaign trail is always a crap-shoot. There is only a thin membrane of triumph and disaster when a candidate’s emotional state stands naked in the unblinking stare of the TV cameras. Hillary, gambling for her very political survival, stood emotionally naked, was shriven by the press, and emerged victorious to campaign anew.
Presidencies past have been won because of lesser gambles.
Interestingly, Hillary has outdone her own husband with regards to Presidential campaigning. People forget that Bill Clinton finished third in New Hampshire (losing to the late Paul Tsongas) only to win big in the South and attaining the Democratic nomination because Tsongas lacked Clinton’s financial resources to run a sustained and successful Presidential campaign. Bill Clinton won because he outlasted the opposition. Hillary won in New Hampshire because she triumphed over her public image of cool, ruthless efficiency—but don’t forget it was that cool, ruthless efficiency that helped Bill Clinton win in 1992 and 1996 and Hillary win in 2000 her Senate seat. Cool, ruthless efficiency can be a great asset if harnessed correctly.
As for me, I am left with an interesting dilemma. The New Jersey primary is coming up on February 5 and I still haven’t decided between Obama and Clinton! If Obama had won New Hampshire I was going to go for him but now the race has become interested and I still have to make a choice. Used to be by the time the New Jersey primary came around the primary campaign was already resolved by then. Not this time!
The best is yet to come.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Random Musings at Year's End
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto comes as no surprise. Indeed her murder serves as a reminder of the seething socio-political-sectarian struggles within the Islamic world as a whole. Even if the United States or Israel did not exist, the tensions we behold now on our TV screens would still be taking place.
How her death affects our involvement in the internecine struggles for power in Pakistan, people forget that America has long had an involved relationship with Pakistan. Ever since its creation in 1948, America has been a sponsor of Pakistan’s successive dictatorships. This came about when India maintained a policy on non-alignment during the Cold War with the former Soviet Union and Communist China under Mao Zedong. Presidents from Truman to Nixon viewed India’s neutrality with suspicion and courted Pakistan as an ally in the ideological struggle. Indeed, when India and Pakistan fought one another in 1971 over the independence of Bangladesh, America supplied arms and military advisers to Pakistan.
The problem is: the fact that America is so heavily involved in Pakistani affairs merely serves as fodder for the rise in Islamic extremism. Just as America’s support for the late Shah of Iran fueled the rise of the Iran’s fundamentalist revolution in 1979, so too does our involvement in Pakistan adds seasoning to the boiling pot of revolution. In many ways, we are trapped. Increasing our presence in Pakistan merely fans the flames. Total withdrawal from Pakistan would hasten the takeover of Pakistan by the same Talibanic elements that launched 9/11 on America.
* * *
I watched the New England Patriots finish the 2007 regular season undefeated at 16-0. Seeing the Patriots come back from a 28-16 margin to defeat the Giants 38-35 brings back memories of the 1972 Miami Dolphins. The 1972 NFL season was the first season where I became aware of NFL football. I was nine years old then and remember falling in love with the Miami Dolphins team. I remember fondly, Bob Griese, Earl Morrall, Larry Csonka, Jim Kiick, and Garo Yepremian (the first soccer-style kicker in NFL history). But having seen the Patriots become the first NFL team to go undefeated in a sixteen game season, I have to believe that they are the greatest NFL team of all time. I may be premature with my forecast but if the Patriots win the Super Bowl then they will go a long way in cementing that claim of being the greatest team that ever lived.
You cannot compare NFL eras. The game has changed so much since 1972. (Indeed it was the last season where the goalposts were located on the goal-line and kickers kicked off from the forty-yard line). In terms of overall size and speed you cannot compare the 1972 Dolphins with the 2007 Patriots. But the 2007 Patriots possess talents, styles, and tactics that not even the 1972 Dolphins could have counter-acted even if their players were the same size as today’s Patriots are.
The 1972 Dolphins beat their opponents through attrition, combining a devastating running game with a phalanx-like defense. (The 1972 Dolphins were the first NFL team ever to have two 1,000 yard rushers in their backfield: Larry Csonka and Mercury Morris, with Jim Kiick gaining over 500 yards rushing as well). The Dolphins were so ball-control minded that there were several games where quarterback Bob Griese would make less than ten pass attempts. (Unheard of in today’s game).
I don’t see how such an offensive style could work against the 2007 Patriots.
Bob Griese was a splendid quarterback and a magnificent leader but he lacked the same superstar quality that a Tom Brady has. Griese never generated the numbers that a Joe Namath or Sonny Jurgensen or even Johnny Unitas generated during that era. Brady has proven since 2001 that he can generate the same numbers and even more.
Also the 1972 Dolphins No-Name defense didn’t possess the aggressive turnover abilities that the 2007 Patriots possess. In terms of ball-hawking, the Patriots get the nod in my opinion.
Simply put, the 2007 Patriots have too much offense and too much defense. They are the total package and should be revered as such by true football purists.
Fans may complain that the Patriots are boring but guess what the 1972 Dolphins were just as boring in their style of winning as the 2007 Patriots are. Actually watching both teams in action reminds me of what the late President Kennedy once said on the subject of success, “The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence”.
The 2007 Patriots are the living embodiment of what President Kennedy was alluding to that day in 1963.
* * *
I’ve always hated New Year’s Eve. I can only recall one, maybe two New Year’s Eves where I have truly enjoyed myself. Mostly what New Year’s Eve reminds me of is how lonely and isolated my life has truly been. Recently, I’ve taken to going to the movies on New Year’s Eve but this year no movie tickles my fancy.
And so……
I will usher in 2008 in a more banal fashion.
I will work a normal work day and do absolutely nothing.
Hubba, Hubba, Hubba.
* * *
Oh yes: my predictions for 2008.
1) The insurgents in Iraq will launch a major offensive on or near the same day President Bush will give his State of the Union address where he will say that the surge worked and that real progress is being made in Iraq and that we cannot pull out now. Not only will it embarrass President Bush it may also throw a monkey wrench in Republican candidate John McCain’s Presidential campaign since he is basing his candidacy on a more vigorous application of America’s military strength in Iraq. McCain has made political capital on the success of the surge. A major (and successful) insurgent offensive could damage McCain’s credibility.
2) The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary will not decide the nominations for either party. The contests in South Carolina, Florida, and Super Tuesday will be the real deciding contests in the 2008 Presidential races for both parties.
3) Do not discount the G.O.P. in the 2008 Presidential race. Despite the setbacks in Iraq and the rises in energy and food prices, and the collapse in the housing market, 2008 will not be a banner year for the Democrats. There is ample room for failure on their parts as well.
4) Like the actor Val Kilmer once said in the movie The Doors, “hatred is a very underestimated emotion” you will see more hatred than you will ever see in 2008—in all aspects of life—and we as a people living on this planet Earth will suffer enormously for it.
Let us pray.
Happy New Year.
How her death affects our involvement in the internecine struggles for power in Pakistan, people forget that America has long had an involved relationship with Pakistan. Ever since its creation in 1948, America has been a sponsor of Pakistan’s successive dictatorships. This came about when India maintained a policy on non-alignment during the Cold War with the former Soviet Union and Communist China under Mao Zedong. Presidents from Truman to Nixon viewed India’s neutrality with suspicion and courted Pakistan as an ally in the ideological struggle. Indeed, when India and Pakistan fought one another in 1971 over the independence of Bangladesh, America supplied arms and military advisers to Pakistan.
The problem is: the fact that America is so heavily involved in Pakistani affairs merely serves as fodder for the rise in Islamic extremism. Just as America’s support for the late Shah of Iran fueled the rise of the Iran’s fundamentalist revolution in 1979, so too does our involvement in Pakistan adds seasoning to the boiling pot of revolution. In many ways, we are trapped. Increasing our presence in Pakistan merely fans the flames. Total withdrawal from Pakistan would hasten the takeover of Pakistan by the same Talibanic elements that launched 9/11 on America.
* * *
I watched the New England Patriots finish the 2007 regular season undefeated at 16-0. Seeing the Patriots come back from a 28-16 margin to defeat the Giants 38-35 brings back memories of the 1972 Miami Dolphins. The 1972 NFL season was the first season where I became aware of NFL football. I was nine years old then and remember falling in love with the Miami Dolphins team. I remember fondly, Bob Griese, Earl Morrall, Larry Csonka, Jim Kiick, and Garo Yepremian (the first soccer-style kicker in NFL history). But having seen the Patriots become the first NFL team to go undefeated in a sixteen game season, I have to believe that they are the greatest NFL team of all time. I may be premature with my forecast but if the Patriots win the Super Bowl then they will go a long way in cementing that claim of being the greatest team that ever lived.
You cannot compare NFL eras. The game has changed so much since 1972. (Indeed it was the last season where the goalposts were located on the goal-line and kickers kicked off from the forty-yard line). In terms of overall size and speed you cannot compare the 1972 Dolphins with the 2007 Patriots. But the 2007 Patriots possess talents, styles, and tactics that not even the 1972 Dolphins could have counter-acted even if their players were the same size as today’s Patriots are.
The 1972 Dolphins beat their opponents through attrition, combining a devastating running game with a phalanx-like defense. (The 1972 Dolphins were the first NFL team ever to have two 1,000 yard rushers in their backfield: Larry Csonka and Mercury Morris, with Jim Kiick gaining over 500 yards rushing as well). The Dolphins were so ball-control minded that there were several games where quarterback Bob Griese would make less than ten pass attempts. (Unheard of in today’s game).
I don’t see how such an offensive style could work against the 2007 Patriots.
Bob Griese was a splendid quarterback and a magnificent leader but he lacked the same superstar quality that a Tom Brady has. Griese never generated the numbers that a Joe Namath or Sonny Jurgensen or even Johnny Unitas generated during that era. Brady has proven since 2001 that he can generate the same numbers and even more.
Also the 1972 Dolphins No-Name defense didn’t possess the aggressive turnover abilities that the 2007 Patriots possess. In terms of ball-hawking, the Patriots get the nod in my opinion.
Simply put, the 2007 Patriots have too much offense and too much defense. They are the total package and should be revered as such by true football purists.
Fans may complain that the Patriots are boring but guess what the 1972 Dolphins were just as boring in their style of winning as the 2007 Patriots are. Actually watching both teams in action reminds me of what the late President Kennedy once said on the subject of success, “The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence”.
The 2007 Patriots are the living embodiment of what President Kennedy was alluding to that day in 1963.
* * *
I’ve always hated New Year’s Eve. I can only recall one, maybe two New Year’s Eves where I have truly enjoyed myself. Mostly what New Year’s Eve reminds me of is how lonely and isolated my life has truly been. Recently, I’ve taken to going to the movies on New Year’s Eve but this year no movie tickles my fancy.
And so……
I will usher in 2008 in a more banal fashion.
I will work a normal work day and do absolutely nothing.
Hubba, Hubba, Hubba.
* * *
Oh yes: my predictions for 2008.
1) The insurgents in Iraq will launch a major offensive on or near the same day President Bush will give his State of the Union address where he will say that the surge worked and that real progress is being made in Iraq and that we cannot pull out now. Not only will it embarrass President Bush it may also throw a monkey wrench in Republican candidate John McCain’s Presidential campaign since he is basing his candidacy on a more vigorous application of America’s military strength in Iraq. McCain has made political capital on the success of the surge. A major (and successful) insurgent offensive could damage McCain’s credibility.
2) The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary will not decide the nominations for either party. The contests in South Carolina, Florida, and Super Tuesday will be the real deciding contests in the 2008 Presidential races for both parties.
3) Do not discount the G.O.P. in the 2008 Presidential race. Despite the setbacks in Iraq and the rises in energy and food prices, and the collapse in the housing market, 2008 will not be a banner year for the Democrats. There is ample room for failure on their parts as well.
4) Like the actor Val Kilmer once said in the movie The Doors, “hatred is a very underestimated emotion” you will see more hatred than you will ever see in 2008—in all aspects of life—and we as a people living on this planet Earth will suffer enormously for it.
Let us pray.
Happy New Year.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
College Football: How to Remove the B.S. from the BCS
It is college bowl time again football fans and once again I am renewing my losing battle against the current BCS system that decides (rightly or wrongly) which college football team is the best in the nation.
My major complaint against the present BCS (which, year-by-year, requires constant tinkering, which merely confirms its fundamentally flaws and biases) is that it relies on a suspiciously convoluted computer ranking system that factors in strength-of-scheduling along with other factors. The BCS has done a great deal to perpetuate the stranglehold of the major college football powers while denying smaller colleges like Rutgers University (last year), Boise State, etc. from competing in the BCS championship even though those teams compiled undefeated records.
I would like to propose a new system (which would never see the light of day simply because it is much fairer than the present system) for determining which college football team is the best in the nation. The system I propose is inspired by the present British soccer league. In 1992 the major British soccer teams created the Premier League whereby the best 20 teams in the country would play one another for the soccer championship. The other teams would be divided into lesser divisions whereby they would vie with one another for promotion or relegation status. Any team in the Premier League that did poorly would be relegated to a lower level whereas the top teams in the lower divisions would move upward with the potential for playing for the championship.
My proposed system for NCAA football would do the same. My proposal would eliminate the traditional conferences like the Big Ten or Big Eight or PAC-10 and replace them with four super conferences composed of twelve teams a piece. The conferences could be composed either regionally or (more interestingly) a mix of teams from all four regions of the U.S. If the latter model was selected then one could see a super conference composed of Boston College vying with USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, and Michigan for a shot at the BCS title. The twelve teams in each conference would play a twelve game schedule where each team plays its conference rivals once. The conference team with the best record would earn a shot at the BCS championship. If there was a tie between two teams for a super-conference title then whoever won the head-to-head competition would get the nod for the title. Four super conferences mean four super conference champions. The four super conference champions would play one another on Christmas Day in order to decide which two teams would compete on New Year’s Day for the BCS championship. The losing teams on Christmas would also play on New Year’s Day to decide third and fourth place rankings and/or money.
And what about those teams which have losing records in the four super conferences? Those teams with losing records would be relegated to the next lower division whereby they would serve for a year in the hopes of improving their record and gain promotion back to BCS status meanwhile the top teams in the next lower division would be promoted to BCS status and have the honor of competing for the BCS title the following season.
The advantages to my proposed system are as follows: it would eliminate the built-in biases and vagaries perpetuated by the present BCS system that reward the major colleges while discriminating against the smaller colleges. Those teams competing in my proposed super conference system would be required to face top-notch competition every week whereas in the present college system, a powerhouse like the University of Miami could fatten its record by beating small colleges like Temple or East Carolina by ridiculous scores like 85-0. My system would eliminate such mismatches. Powerhouses like Michigan and USC would be forced to play for high stakes every single weekend. The challenge of winning the BCS title would be greater but would also eliminate the unfairness of the present system. The championship would be determined not by a computer or in corporate board rooms but on the football field where it belongs. My proposed system would also provide smaller colleges that prove themselves on the football field to vie for the BCS title. It would bring new excitement, new competition to college football. It would vastly improve the quality of TV coverage of college football. Every Saturday would be fraught with BCS title ramifications as the four super-conference teams played against one another.
My present system also eliminates a bulky unwieldy college football playoff system. Weeks ago I saw a proposal for an eight team college football playoff system. Mine simplifies the system. It also would go a long way towards restoring the status of the traditional college bowl games. I would eliminate the present BCS title game and have a round robin system whereby the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, and Fiesta Bowls would take turns hosting the BCS title game on New Year’s Day. The other lesser bowl games could be used by the lower division teams in my proposed system to decide which teams would earn promotion or relegation which would make those games more important to watch.
My proposed system would not interfere with student-athletes taking their exams in early December. Under my proposed system the regular season would be over by Thanksgiving. The BCS competitors could rest and lick their wounds, complete their exams before playing one another on Christmas and New Year’s for the title.
My proposed system is not inconceivable. Actually one university has been playing under my proposed system for decades. Every year Notre Dame University has a schedule where they challenge the best teams from all over the country with mixed results. My system would require all the major football powers to do the same. One interesting by-product of my proposed system would probably make the possibility of a team going totally undefeated much harder but if a super-conference team did go undefeated then it would show the true strength of that university.
The main point of my proposed system is that college football champions need to be decided on the grass, mud, dirt, snow, and freezing rain by student-athletes and not inside some computer bank or in some smoke-filled conference room filled with men-in-suits carrying brief cases.
On any given Saturday….
My major complaint against the present BCS (which, year-by-year, requires constant tinkering, which merely confirms its fundamentally flaws and biases) is that it relies on a suspiciously convoluted computer ranking system that factors in strength-of-scheduling along with other factors. The BCS has done a great deal to perpetuate the stranglehold of the major college football powers while denying smaller colleges like Rutgers University (last year), Boise State, etc. from competing in the BCS championship even though those teams compiled undefeated records.
I would like to propose a new system (which would never see the light of day simply because it is much fairer than the present system) for determining which college football team is the best in the nation. The system I propose is inspired by the present British soccer league. In 1992 the major British soccer teams created the Premier League whereby the best 20 teams in the country would play one another for the soccer championship. The other teams would be divided into lesser divisions whereby they would vie with one another for promotion or relegation status. Any team in the Premier League that did poorly would be relegated to a lower level whereas the top teams in the lower divisions would move upward with the potential for playing for the championship.
My proposed system for NCAA football would do the same. My proposal would eliminate the traditional conferences like the Big Ten or Big Eight or PAC-10 and replace them with four super conferences composed of twelve teams a piece. The conferences could be composed either regionally or (more interestingly) a mix of teams from all four regions of the U.S. If the latter model was selected then one could see a super conference composed of Boston College vying with USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, and Michigan for a shot at the BCS title. The twelve teams in each conference would play a twelve game schedule where each team plays its conference rivals once. The conference team with the best record would earn a shot at the BCS championship. If there was a tie between two teams for a super-conference title then whoever won the head-to-head competition would get the nod for the title. Four super conferences mean four super conference champions. The four super conference champions would play one another on Christmas Day in order to decide which two teams would compete on New Year’s Day for the BCS championship. The losing teams on Christmas would also play on New Year’s Day to decide third and fourth place rankings and/or money.
And what about those teams which have losing records in the four super conferences? Those teams with losing records would be relegated to the next lower division whereby they would serve for a year in the hopes of improving their record and gain promotion back to BCS status meanwhile the top teams in the next lower division would be promoted to BCS status and have the honor of competing for the BCS title the following season.
The advantages to my proposed system are as follows: it would eliminate the built-in biases and vagaries perpetuated by the present BCS system that reward the major colleges while discriminating against the smaller colleges. Those teams competing in my proposed super conference system would be required to face top-notch competition every week whereas in the present college system, a powerhouse like the University of Miami could fatten its record by beating small colleges like Temple or East Carolina by ridiculous scores like 85-0. My system would eliminate such mismatches. Powerhouses like Michigan and USC would be forced to play for high stakes every single weekend. The challenge of winning the BCS title would be greater but would also eliminate the unfairness of the present system. The championship would be determined not by a computer or in corporate board rooms but on the football field where it belongs. My proposed system would also provide smaller colleges that prove themselves on the football field to vie for the BCS title. It would bring new excitement, new competition to college football. It would vastly improve the quality of TV coverage of college football. Every Saturday would be fraught with BCS title ramifications as the four super-conference teams played against one another.
My present system also eliminates a bulky unwieldy college football playoff system. Weeks ago I saw a proposal for an eight team college football playoff system. Mine simplifies the system. It also would go a long way towards restoring the status of the traditional college bowl games. I would eliminate the present BCS title game and have a round robin system whereby the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, and Fiesta Bowls would take turns hosting the BCS title game on New Year’s Day. The other lesser bowl games could be used by the lower division teams in my proposed system to decide which teams would earn promotion or relegation which would make those games more important to watch.
My proposed system would not interfere with student-athletes taking their exams in early December. Under my proposed system the regular season would be over by Thanksgiving. The BCS competitors could rest and lick their wounds, complete their exams before playing one another on Christmas and New Year’s for the title.
My proposed system is not inconceivable. Actually one university has been playing under my proposed system for decades. Every year Notre Dame University has a schedule where they challenge the best teams from all over the country with mixed results. My system would require all the major football powers to do the same. One interesting by-product of my proposed system would probably make the possibility of a team going totally undefeated much harder but if a super-conference team did go undefeated then it would show the true strength of that university.
The main point of my proposed system is that college football champions need to be decided on the grass, mud, dirt, snow, and freezing rain by student-athletes and not inside some computer bank or in some smoke-filled conference room filled with men-in-suits carrying brief cases.
On any given Saturday….
Monday, December 10, 2007
Oprah: Power Behind the Throne?
I must confess that I’ve never been a starry-eyed worshipper of Oprah Winfrey. Why? I do not know. But for some reason I’ve never been seduced by the image she shows to the public.
Her foray into Presidential politics on behalf of Democratic candidate Barack Obama comes as no surprise to me. It merely confirms what I’ve always suspected about Oprah: that she’s never been content with being the maven of afternoon TV or the ultimate hostess of American culture. Nay, Oprah has always aspired to being a mass media power broker, a 21st century Walter Winchell with the power to make or break celebrities (and now politicians) with a casual word of endorsement.
The footage of Oprah on the hustings fascinates me. Is she really banging the drums for Barack Obama? Or is she really campaigning for herself? In other words does she truly want to help Obama enter the White House or is she more concerned about making herself the ultimate determinant of whom, we, the People, should vote for in every election? Is she really concerned with the future of our country or is this the latest in a series of arrogations of power she has performed on the American consciousness in the past several years? Is she no longer content to become the maven of what books we should (or should not) read? Now it’s politics?
These are legitimate questions voters must ask themselves when they see Oprah strutting her political stuff. Is Oprah truly qualified to decide who is worthy of the White House? (Indeed is any talk show truly qualified or entitled to dictate to the American people whom they should vote for?)
Advocacy is one thing but blatant partisanship alters the equation with regards to her role in American mass culture.
Another question nags at me, does Oprah really want Obama to enter the White House or is she testing the waters for the day when she will campaign for the nomination for the office of President of the United States? Such an idea cannot be discounted. She has all the ingredients for her own future Presidential run. She’s a popular household name accessible to billions of people every week day. She commands a devoted fan base and she is rich enough to finance her own Presidential campaign without breaking a sweat. Does Oprah really only want to be the kingmaker (or in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s case, Queenmaker) of American politics or does she want to be the Queen herself? For those who scoff at the notion just remember in 1980, Ronald Reagan, an elderly former B-movie actor and former Governor of California won the Presidency and went on to achieve apotheosis in American politics. If Reagan could achieve that much what’s to stop Oprah?
But the question remains: is what Oprah’s doing truly a good thing for America, now and in the future?
The jury is out on that question and, personally, I have my doubts. Voters beware.
Her foray into Presidential politics on behalf of Democratic candidate Barack Obama comes as no surprise to me. It merely confirms what I’ve always suspected about Oprah: that she’s never been content with being the maven of afternoon TV or the ultimate hostess of American culture. Nay, Oprah has always aspired to being a mass media power broker, a 21st century Walter Winchell with the power to make or break celebrities (and now politicians) with a casual word of endorsement.
The footage of Oprah on the hustings fascinates me. Is she really banging the drums for Barack Obama? Or is she really campaigning for herself? In other words does she truly want to help Obama enter the White House or is she more concerned about making herself the ultimate determinant of whom, we, the People, should vote for in every election? Is she really concerned with the future of our country or is this the latest in a series of arrogations of power she has performed on the American consciousness in the past several years? Is she no longer content to become the maven of what books we should (or should not) read? Now it’s politics?
These are legitimate questions voters must ask themselves when they see Oprah strutting her political stuff. Is Oprah truly qualified to decide who is worthy of the White House? (Indeed is any talk show truly qualified or entitled to dictate to the American people whom they should vote for?)
Advocacy is one thing but blatant partisanship alters the equation with regards to her role in American mass culture.
Another question nags at me, does Oprah really want Obama to enter the White House or is she testing the waters for the day when she will campaign for the nomination for the office of President of the United States? Such an idea cannot be discounted. She has all the ingredients for her own future Presidential run. She’s a popular household name accessible to billions of people every week day. She commands a devoted fan base and she is rich enough to finance her own Presidential campaign without breaking a sweat. Does Oprah really only want to be the kingmaker (or in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s case, Queenmaker) of American politics or does she want to be the Queen herself? For those who scoff at the notion just remember in 1980, Ronald Reagan, an elderly former B-movie actor and former Governor of California won the Presidency and went on to achieve apotheosis in American politics. If Reagan could achieve that much what’s to stop Oprah?
But the question remains: is what Oprah’s doing truly a good thing for America, now and in the future?
The jury is out on that question and, personally, I have my doubts. Voters beware.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
