It is not too soon to declare the Boston RedSox' firm, likely recurring grip at the top of the major leagues' greased flagpole of the present and near future--in the modern parlance of short-lived phenomena, "a dynasty".
Perhaps it is too soon to declare this the Red Sox' century, in the sense that the 20th--at least since the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees--was the Yankees' Century. 24 or so World championships in 78 years for the Cranks: Botox so far in the 21st has two of seven (remember, 2000 was so last century), so a similar pace. A couple-three Series Championships a decade is all it takes to stand alone, above.
They are the only team with two titles since the new millennium, however one defines that milestone. It also looks as though there will be more to come: Dustin Pedroia, Jacoby Ellsbury, and now Jon Lester being the key indicators. Moneyball combines with Steinbrenner-like funding and Theo Epstein is elevated above all.
Let the legends begin: "When John Henry was a little baby...."
The only question seems to be whether to upgrade 3B from Mike Lowell to A-Rod. I'm a Lowell fan and have watched his flirtation with fame; here's a guy who was perennially underrated (unless you expected something from him, in which case he underperformed). This was his best regular season yet, and he topped it off with a brilliant postseason performance. He will certainly be overpaid next year, but I'm happy for him wherever he may go.
As for A-Rod, I would say his announcement last night showed excellent timing given today's news. This way, it doesn't seem as though he didn't want to play for Joe Girardi (which he may need to do in a couple of years for some other team). Just not these Yankees. The fact that it will cost Steinbrenner $20 million or so in Rangers' subsidies can only be the icing on the cake.
The thing I'm happiest about in the World Series was the clutch homer by Garrett Atkins in the 8th inning of Game 4 to bring the Rockies within one. In his last at-bat of the season, he might have saved his job--and my Rotisserie team--for 2008.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Lady V. Speaks (Redacted)
Valerie Plame Wilson's book has come out, heavily redacted. Haven't seen it yet, but I cheer her on: very few have such a clear bone to pick with the Bushites, and does she pick it!
A good time to remind viewers of the link to one of my finest posts on this site: The Lady V., and the Bald Man of WHIG.
Justice is waiting......
A good time to remind viewers of the link to one of my finest posts on this site: The Lady V., and the Bald Man of WHIG.
Justice is waiting......
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Republican Prez Endorsement
I made the mistake in 2000 of taking pleasure in George W. Bush's campaign undermining that of John McCain. McCain was the tough foe I didn't relish Gore taking on; Bush was the lame-o that would be easy meat.
I made a similar error in 1980, though I was out of the country for most of the campaign. I saw Reagan as one of the Republicans' weaker choices and assumed that meant he had little chance of winning, even to the point that I could vote for John Anderson.
The mistake is twofold--one is believing that the American voters will discern the weaknesses in Republican national candidates on their own, i.e. without it being rammed down their throats. The second is to think that it doesn't matter so much which aging white guy sneaks into the White House when we're so busy yelling at ourselves.
Every Republican candidate has to establish his viability in terms of opposition to the Bushite administration in some form. There are so many areas from which a Republican can separate himself from Dubya, though, and he really only needs to pick one or two. Taking issue with the President in too many areas would make one seem disloyal to the party, which is a candidacy-killer. From my point of view, though, purging all possible elements of Bushite Misrule is the top priority for the 2008 Presidential election.
The main facets of Bushite Misrule and the main types of principled distancing are from the following:
1) Bush The Incompetent of Katrina; and its corollary,
1A) Bush the Political Hack.
2) Bush The Neo-Imperialist Neo-Con;
3) Bush The Usurper and Trampler of Constitutional Rights;
4) Bush The Big Spending Phony Conservative; and
5) Bush The Hidden Plutocrat, and its corollary,
5A) Bush the Pollution/Global Warming Enabler.
Examining the anti-Bushite content (if any) of the Republican Presidential candidates' positions and image projections should help identify our preferred nominee--in serious--to help ensure the most anti-Bushite administration possible in 2009, come what may in the intervening 15 months.
So, let's quickly review the candidates and accentuate their good sides--which Bushite facets they oppose:
Giuliani--1) and 4). Of course, Rudy's burnishing his phony conservative credentials, but he hits pretty hard on the fiscal conservatism line. His total endorsement of Bushite GWOT and tendency to create discord make him the worst candidate going. I feel he'd invade Iran, if we haven't already done so by 2009.
Romney--1) and 5). I've detected some sympathy for the underprivileged in Romney's debate performances. It won't help him; of course he himself would be an obvious choice as Chief Plutocrat, in this case not hidden at all. Of course, who can believe anything he says?
Thompson--3) and maybe 4). His nouveau federalist line insulates him a bit from the big spender charge, and logically would also suggest he would come down in favor of some limitations on executive authority. I haven't seen that much evidence that he's opposed Bushite civil liberties abuses, though. Instead, he is associated with Chief Justice Roberts, whose strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitutions allow them somehow.
McCain--3) and 4). He's clearer on his opposition to Bushite civil liberties abuses, and on big spending Republicans.
Brownback--sorry, he's gone. His role as champion of right-wing anti-Bushites has gone, somewhat surprisingly to me, to
Huckabee--2)? Unlike most of the candidates, who earnestly seek new enemies to attack, I feel that Huckabee is looking to reduce our overextended military commitments. He really hasn't separated himself much from Bushite policy much, though; more like he appears to be sensible. This is pretty big for a Republican. He's probably anti-bushite on 1), too.
Hunter, Tancredo--basically no anti-Bushite credentials (except for Tancredo's opposition to Bush's immigration stance, which counts as a negative in my book). No chance for them, either.
We are left with Ron Paul, a bit of a wacko, but who gets credit for 2), 3), and 4). Very strongly so, too. He is likely to pull down the GOP flag and run independently, but that's OK: my recommendation to all Republicans is to vote for Ron Paul, both in the primaries and the general election.
Thompson and McCain seem at least to be honest and respectable and to be capable of forming their own opinions independently of interest-group pressures. Huckabee, too, unless this smiling face is just a mask. These I would accept as worthy of being major-party nominees of this nation, even if their election would be undesirable at this or any other time.
I made a similar error in 1980, though I was out of the country for most of the campaign. I saw Reagan as one of the Republicans' weaker choices and assumed that meant he had little chance of winning, even to the point that I could vote for John Anderson.
The mistake is twofold--one is believing that the American voters will discern the weaknesses in Republican national candidates on their own, i.e. without it being rammed down their throats. The second is to think that it doesn't matter so much which aging white guy sneaks into the White House when we're so busy yelling at ourselves.
Every Republican candidate has to establish his viability in terms of opposition to the Bushite administration in some form. There are so many areas from which a Republican can separate himself from Dubya, though, and he really only needs to pick one or two. Taking issue with the President in too many areas would make one seem disloyal to the party, which is a candidacy-killer. From my point of view, though, purging all possible elements of Bushite Misrule is the top priority for the 2008 Presidential election.
The main facets of Bushite Misrule and the main types of principled distancing are from the following:
1) Bush The Incompetent of Katrina; and its corollary,
1A) Bush the Political Hack.
2) Bush The Neo-Imperialist Neo-Con;
3) Bush The Usurper and Trampler of Constitutional Rights;
4) Bush The Big Spending Phony Conservative; and
5) Bush The Hidden Plutocrat, and its corollary,
5A) Bush the Pollution/Global Warming Enabler.
Examining the anti-Bushite content (if any) of the Republican Presidential candidates' positions and image projections should help identify our preferred nominee--in serious--to help ensure the most anti-Bushite administration possible in 2009, come what may in the intervening 15 months.
So, let's quickly review the candidates and accentuate their good sides--which Bushite facets they oppose:
Giuliani--1) and 4). Of course, Rudy's burnishing his phony conservative credentials, but he hits pretty hard on the fiscal conservatism line. His total endorsement of Bushite GWOT and tendency to create discord make him the worst candidate going. I feel he'd invade Iran, if we haven't already done so by 2009.
Romney--1) and 5). I've detected some sympathy for the underprivileged in Romney's debate performances. It won't help him; of course he himself would be an obvious choice as Chief Plutocrat, in this case not hidden at all. Of course, who can believe anything he says?
Thompson--3) and maybe 4). His nouveau federalist line insulates him a bit from the big spender charge, and logically would also suggest he would come down in favor of some limitations on executive authority. I haven't seen that much evidence that he's opposed Bushite civil liberties abuses, though. Instead, he is associated with Chief Justice Roberts, whose strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitutions allow them somehow.
McCain--3) and 4). He's clearer on his opposition to Bushite civil liberties abuses, and on big spending Republicans.
Brownback--sorry, he's gone. His role as champion of right-wing anti-Bushites has gone, somewhat surprisingly to me, to
Huckabee--2)? Unlike most of the candidates, who earnestly seek new enemies to attack, I feel that Huckabee is looking to reduce our overextended military commitments. He really hasn't separated himself much from Bushite policy much, though; more like he appears to be sensible. This is pretty big for a Republican. He's probably anti-bushite on 1), too.
Hunter, Tancredo--basically no anti-Bushite credentials (except for Tancredo's opposition to Bush's immigration stance, which counts as a negative in my book). No chance for them, either.
We are left with Ron Paul, a bit of a wacko, but who gets credit for 2), 3), and 4). Very strongly so, too. He is likely to pull down the GOP flag and run independently, but that's OK: my recommendation to all Republicans is to vote for Ron Paul, both in the primaries and the general election.
Thompson and McCain seem at least to be honest and respectable and to be capable of forming their own opinions independently of interest-group pressures. Huckabee, too, unless this smiling face is just a mask. These I would accept as worthy of being major-party nominees of this nation, even if their election would be undesirable at this or any other time.
The Last Anno Domenici.....
...it's now within sight (apparently will coincide with the conclusion of Larry Craig's list).
I wish Sen. Domenici good luck with his incipient brain-rotting condition, but his foul luck should be the Democrats' good fortune with regard to his seat.
Heather Wilson may be able to hold the strong military and lesbian voting blocs in New Mexico, or at least their intersection, but she should be tasty fodder for a well-schooled Dem with statewide name recognition.
We made our endorsement months ago and will stand by it: Richardson for Senator! He would, of course, deny any interest in the job while he's still running for President. By Feb. 15, though, he should be clear on the likelihood of that occurrence, and by March 1 he should understand the probability of running in the second spot on the national ticket.
Although he's certain to be short-listed, I'd put my money on the second-place finisher between Hillary (that's right, Hillary!) and Obama. Either would make a superb VP choice, while Bill is just a damned fine one.
If Richardson persists in his determination not to seek the job (and assuming Tom Udall will be unshakable in holding on to his comfortable House seat), my next choice would be the mayor of Albuquerque, Martin Chavez.
I wish Sen. Domenici good luck with his incipient brain-rotting condition, but his foul luck should be the Democrats' good fortune with regard to his seat.
Heather Wilson may be able to hold the strong military and lesbian voting blocs in New Mexico, or at least their intersection, but she should be tasty fodder for a well-schooled Dem with statewide name recognition.
We made our endorsement months ago and will stand by it: Richardson for Senator! He would, of course, deny any interest in the job while he's still running for President. By Feb. 15, though, he should be clear on the likelihood of that occurrence, and by March 1 he should understand the probability of running in the second spot on the national ticket.
Although he's certain to be short-listed, I'd put my money on the second-place finisher between Hillary (that's right, Hillary!) and Obama. Either would make a superb VP choice, while Bill is just a damned fine one.
If Richardson persists in his determination not to seek the job (and assuming Tom Udall will be unshakable in holding on to his comfortable House seat), my next choice would be the mayor of Albuquerque, Martin Chavez.
GWOT Thoughts
Tim Russert succeeded at the last debate to pin down Democratic candidates on the specific question of the projected American military presence in Iraq for January 20, 2013. There are lots of ways to go at the answer, but it is hard to say that it is in any way an unfair question. Just thinking about it turns the page to a new phase in the political conversation.
Richardson's answer--as contrasted with the three leading candidates'-- may be the most important development in any debate so far and could still propel him upwards toward first-tierness (in spite of the disregard he gets from the national press).
I think he has a very good point, which is: when does the occupation end? Can we claim to have ended it if we go straight into a permanent or enduring basing situation there?
I don't share in the criticism of Edwards' answer, though he did miss the trenchant point. Obama's answer disturbed me: the first time he included "defending bases" in the future mission he'd define; when he came back to it shortly afterwards he dropped the bases. So, which is it?
Meanwhile, we fume about Iran and ignore the question of Pakistan.
Richardson's answer--as contrasted with the three leading candidates'-- may be the most important development in any debate so far and could still propel him upwards toward first-tierness (in spite of the disregard he gets from the national press).
I think he has a very good point, which is: when does the occupation end? Can we claim to have ended it if we go straight into a permanent or enduring basing situation there?
I don't share in the criticism of Edwards' answer, though he did miss the trenchant point. Obama's answer disturbed me: the first time he included "defending bases" in the future mission he'd define; when he came back to it shortly afterwards he dropped the bases. So, which is it?
Meanwhile, we fume about Iran and ignore the question of Pakistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
