Among the campaign promises President Obama has failed to fulfill, the one that is most painful to me is any absence of effort to fix college football's Broken Championship S---bag. Seriously, there are more important gaps, but he really should make the BCS illegal by Executive Order, or put out a contract for it to be demolished by a drone or something.
This year's messed up championship game will feature a game that was already played and wasn't very interesting. I don't doubt that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams--basically, the regular season proved that, while there may be more productive offenses, they were the only two with defenses capable of shutting down top offenses.
The results show just how much the SEC now dominates national college football. They could make the whole controversy a lot simpler by just crowning the SEC champion--even simpler, the SEC West champion. No need for conference championship or any of the BCS nonsense.
Actually, I don't really care about the BCS muck-ups, and it's really no worse than the inconclusive Bowl arrangements that preceded it (except they didn't have the slimy sponsorships in their names back then). What I resent is the negative effect on basketball's organization that the unseemly scramble to participate in the automatic-berth BCS football conferences has had. As an ex-hoopster, President Obama needs to stand up and be counted--not to create some new integrity around big-time college football, which corrupts everything that it touches, but to preserve other intercollegiate sports from its stench.
So far, we've had a couple weeks of Nothing Bowls between Whoever and Whatever and sponsored by Who Cares? College football underlined its ineptness by completely punting all its traditional January 1 games to January 2 so as not to offend the networks or Big Daddy NFL. That being said, there are two BCS games that should be entertaining to watch: the Rose Bowl between Oregon and Wisconsin, and the Fiesta Bowl between Oklahoma State and Stanford. I'm pretty resistant to the appeal, but not totally immune.
NBA: Nothing's Been Anticipated
If they hadn't built a new, hard-won 10-year collective bargaining agreement around 82-game regular seasons and their associated economics, I think all would've found the 66-game scramble this year to be a superior product. It's going to be intense--the way it should be--and none of the teams will be able to do much slacking. I like the way the abrupt start to the season has not allowed too much hype to precede the real action, as opposed to, say, the Republican nomination process.
While I was very critical of the owners and their bargaining stance during the lockout, which was basically necessitated by their own incompetence in negotiating and signing talent and their inability to share revenues, I was not as critical of league Commissioner David Stern. Since then, Stern inserted himself controversially in blocking a trade of All-Star point guard Chris Paul to the Lakers, taking advantage of the league's ownership of Paul's 2011 team, the New Orleans Hornets, to prevent a new superteam forming to oppose the player-created monster of last year, the Miami Meltdowns.
Speaking of meltdowns, one of the most interesting storylines will be the Oklahoma City Thunder, which have emerged in their short history since moving from Seattle through the development of the best scorer in the league, Kevin Durant. The Thunder surprised most everyone last year by reaching the Western Conference finals, but then their chemistry deteriorated, and it's unclear whether they will get it back together again. Miami, on the other hand, looks to have learned its lessons, and with a second year of experience playing together, the Big 3 of LeBron, LeWade, and LeBosh are the league favorites once again; this time it appears to be justified.
One team that seems unlikely to stop them this year is the defending champions, the Dallas Mavericks, who lost the key mid-year addition of last year's team, Tyson Chandler, and picked up some unneeded veterans. Similarly appearing unready are perennial contenders San Antonio Spurs and the Lakers themselves.
The team most likely to stop Miami would be the Eastern Conference runner-ups, the Chicago Bulls, which return their nucleus,featuring MVP Derrick Rose, and have added some good additional pieces.
Finally, there are several other teams ascendant, something that warms Stern's heart: the Pacers, the Knicks, the Hawks, the Warriors, the rebuilt Nuggets, and, most importantly, the Clippers, who ended up with Paul in a trade Stern deemed acceptable for league dynamics. None would appear to be championship contenders, but their development makes for better economics and better early-round playoff matchups.
NFL: Networks' Friends Livestrong!
This postseason will mark an important test: whether the dominance of top quarterbacks is absolute or just a feature of the regular season. The Green Bay Packers, with Aaron Rodgers, and the New England Patriots, with Tom Brady, emerge with the best records in each conference, despite having two of the worst defenses (as measured by yards allowed to opposing offenses). The question is whether this formula will allow them to win in the playoffs and reach the Super Bowl, or whether the classic norm, that defenses win chmpionships, will still apply this season.
The Packers and Patriots do have a predecessor, Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts, which were able to outscore opponents and reached two Super Bowls, winning one. And, to be fair, one reason the Packers and Pats allowed so many yards on defense is because their offenses were so efficient in producing quick scores that the defense had to be out there a high percentage of plays. Still, the Saints, whose quarterback Drew Brees was almost as supremely effective as Rodgers, were able to produce better defensive results.
There are a couple of teams in each playoff bracket who would appear to have the required capabilities (an adequate starting quarterback, a good running game to control the ball, and a good defense) to defeat the conferences' number one seeds: San Francisco and New Orleans in the NFC, and Pittsburgh and Baltimore in the AFC. But all teams making the playoffs have a shot (see the Cardinals' success this year in baseball), so it's worth mentioning the improbable qualification of the Giants and Broncos, and the unusual postseason presence of the Texans, Lions, Falcons, and Bengals. Postseason experience does matter, though, so I would not like the chances (vs. the odds) of any of these teams except the Giants (who've won the Super Bowl with Eli Manning).
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Big Top in Iowa
The circus in Iowa is finally reaching its grand finale, and it's clear that there are three rings: 1) the Clown act/trapeze of the rising and falling Tea Party/evangelical dramatic players; 2) the ongoing barker performance of the Romney Show; and 3) the trained dog-and-pony show on the highwire of Ron Paul's libertarians.
I am somewhat amazed by Newt Gingrich's late drop in the polls, as I thought he was somebody that people knew, so that the inevitable dogpile once he emerged from the pack of right-wing hopefuls would not be as effective as it was. I don't even blame Newt for his fall, though his organization was always a vulnerability that massive negative advertising was able to exploit (just like Newt's past).
It is perhaps less surprising that sanctimonious Rick Santorum now has his moment in the sun, even though the polls have recorded only in the last few days; he is a true believer in the religious right credo who has put in his time and effort. The fact that he was routed by 18 points in his last Senate race in Pennsylvania is something he has somehow managed to obscure from those desperate for a trusted white male conservative mouthpiece. Bring him on, I say; we should be so lucky.
Once again, Romney gains from the chaos in the non-Ron Paul/anti-Mitt portion of the Republican electorate. With Romney and Paul each maxed out in the 20-30% range in Iowa, the other 50% could either be split fairly evenly among the four remaining right-wingers (Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Santorum, and Rick Perry), which would ensure Paul and Romney finish 1-2 (or 2-1), or someone can dominate among that group and secure a spot to challenge Romney in future primaries in the South and other favorable terrain (like the Midwest, Rocky Mountain states). Gingrich's fading currently makes it look like no one will emerge in Iowa. This will mean that Florida and South Carolina will be the last chances for a surviving right-winger (a couple should drop out no later than New Hampshire's primary) to challenge Romney head-to-head and prevent an early Mitt victory.
Once again, with Gingrich fading and Santorum rising, Paul at the peak of whatever percentage he can draw, and Bachmann and Perry appearing to be close to the end of their runs, it is unclear around whom the anti-Romney, non-Paul faction will rally, and if they don't get it straight very soon, it will be over. Republican establishment politicians all over the country are in line to endorse Romney and get it over with; they are going to need a pretty strong reason to hold off past January.
I am somewhat amazed by Newt Gingrich's late drop in the polls, as I thought he was somebody that people knew, so that the inevitable dogpile once he emerged from the pack of right-wing hopefuls would not be as effective as it was. I don't even blame Newt for his fall, though his organization was always a vulnerability that massive negative advertising was able to exploit (just like Newt's past).
It is perhaps less surprising that sanctimonious Rick Santorum now has his moment in the sun, even though the polls have recorded only in the last few days; he is a true believer in the religious right credo who has put in his time and effort. The fact that he was routed by 18 points in his last Senate race in Pennsylvania is something he has somehow managed to obscure from those desperate for a trusted white male conservative mouthpiece. Bring him on, I say; we should be so lucky.
Once again, Romney gains from the chaos in the non-Ron Paul/anti-Mitt portion of the Republican electorate. With Romney and Paul each maxed out in the 20-30% range in Iowa, the other 50% could either be split fairly evenly among the four remaining right-wingers (Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Santorum, and Rick Perry), which would ensure Paul and Romney finish 1-2 (or 2-1), or someone can dominate among that group and secure a spot to challenge Romney in future primaries in the South and other favorable terrain (like the Midwest, Rocky Mountain states). Gingrich's fading currently makes it look like no one will emerge in Iowa. This will mean that Florida and South Carolina will be the last chances for a surviving right-winger (a couple should drop out no later than New Hampshire's primary) to challenge Romney head-to-head and prevent an early Mitt victory.
Once again, with Gingrich fading and Santorum rising, Paul at the peak of whatever percentage he can draw, and Bachmann and Perry appearing to be close to the end of their runs, it is unclear around whom the anti-Romney, non-Paul faction will rally, and if they don't get it straight very soon, it will be over. Republican establishment politicians all over the country are in line to endorse Romney and get it over with; they are going to need a pretty strong reason to hold off past January.
Drone Wars
The dramatic increase in use of drones to carry out attacks against terrorists in remote locations--in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia in particular--has brought forward a debate about the morality and future of this form of unmanned warfare.
In its capability to destroy at a distance without much risk to the attacker, it is not that different from missile attacks, which are in turn a direct descendant of artillery fire. Because the remote-control attacker can see the targets at fairly close range before firing, it would seem to have the potential to reduce collateral damage and civilian casualties, a potential upon which today's vague or nonexistent statistics don't convince, one way or the other.
I think that the criticism from some left-wing sources that drones are immoral because they bring no risk for the attackers is wrongheaded. Similarly, I dismiss the argument about how our use of them subjects us to what would be "totally unacceptable" counterattack by other nations' drones sometime in the future. These methods only work because of aerial superiority; they wouldn't be that hard for a defender with strong anti-aircraft or counterforce capability to take out. We are no more wrong to use these forces than we would be to take advantage of our aerial superiority to attack with bombers, cruise missiles, or long-range artillery. So I don't see a qualitative difference in the morality of their use.
Still, like mustard gas, nuclear weapons, or biological weapons, these new capabilities have dangerous implications for the future, and their use could eventually make conflicts more likely and resulting in more casualties. It is not appropriate that the US military may refuse to acknowledge the methods that it uses, or to provide its citizens with data documenting their effectiveness (or lack thereof). I also think that the international community has every reason to seek to regulate their use; I do not know where the discussion will lead--though I think it unrealistic to think there will be universal agreement to ban their use, or that such a ban would be effective--but I think the discussion should be opened, and that we should not be ashamed or furtive about participating in it.
In its capability to destroy at a distance without much risk to the attacker, it is not that different from missile attacks, which are in turn a direct descendant of artillery fire. Because the remote-control attacker can see the targets at fairly close range before firing, it would seem to have the potential to reduce collateral damage and civilian casualties, a potential upon which today's vague or nonexistent statistics don't convince, one way or the other.
I think that the criticism from some left-wing sources that drones are immoral because they bring no risk for the attackers is wrongheaded. Similarly, I dismiss the argument about how our use of them subjects us to what would be "totally unacceptable" counterattack by other nations' drones sometime in the future. These methods only work because of aerial superiority; they wouldn't be that hard for a defender with strong anti-aircraft or counterforce capability to take out. We are no more wrong to use these forces than we would be to take advantage of our aerial superiority to attack with bombers, cruise missiles, or long-range artillery. So I don't see a qualitative difference in the morality of their use.
Still, like mustard gas, nuclear weapons, or biological weapons, these new capabilities have dangerous implications for the future, and their use could eventually make conflicts more likely and resulting in more casualties. It is not appropriate that the US military may refuse to acknowledge the methods that it uses, or to provide its citizens with data documenting their effectiveness (or lack thereof). I also think that the international community has every reason to seek to regulate their use; I do not know where the discussion will lead--though I think it unrealistic to think there will be universal agreement to ban their use, or that such a ban would be effective--but I think the discussion should be opened, and that we should not be ashamed or furtive about participating in it.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Eric Cantor: Tea Party Sophist
The history of the extension of the payroll tax reduction is a tangled one, so we should review the facts to understand what the current developments indicate.
The reduction in the payroll tax, by 2% for the year of 2011, had been agreed in the lame duck session in another pressure-filled compromise, for which the Republicans extracted concessions. President Obama saw by mid-year that the economy's recovery remained weak, so he asked for an extension of that tax reduction for another year. The House passed one, a week or so ago, but with riders on it bad enough that the Administration threatened to veto it. The bill could not get to the floor of the Senate, but the Senate did manage to come to an agreement to extend the tax reduction, with some riders:
This agreement was only for two months, but the aim was to keep the tax cut and insurance extension in place so that a longer duration could be negotiated. The main sticking point in the discussion of the tax cut was how to pay for it--the idea of ending the upper-income tax reduction to pay for it was discarded by Republican insistence--the House bill paid for it with cuts to domestic programs. Obama praised the Senate compromise and asked the House to approve it.
Speaker Boehner had given the Senate a nudge to pass something which the House would take up; then, when they passed the compromise he said the House would vote on it.
The Plot Sickens
Boehner has been rebuffed, not once, but twice this week. First, the Senate's bipartisan compromise that he implicitly endorsed was rejected by his party's caucus; then, it rejected his promise that he would allow a vote on the Senate bill. Boehner is hanging on to his leadership by his fingernails; his only hopes to keep this role are: 1) that his Tea Party members will be rejected in the polls in 2012 (which should encourage him finally to stand up to the more extreme views within his party's caucus); or 2) that Eric Cantor enjoys Boehner taking all the heat, with Cantor pulling his strings like a puppetteer.
The House Republicans, clearly feeling the heat of the American public for resisting the extension of the tax cut, found an ingenious way to turn things back to the mode they find more comfortable--applying the pressure and extorting concessions from their opponents. They decided to reject the bipartisan compromise on the basis that the agreement was two months, not 12 months. Then, they constructed the rules such that the votes would be to commit the bill to conference committee, not on the compromise itself.
The debate is instructive on the difference between the two Houses of Congress. Not just the traditional, envious respectful disrespect with which the members refer to the other, but the fundamental difference. With the current Senate rules, and in the absence of a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators, the leverage lies with the minority of the minority--in today's Senate, with those few moderate Senators who are willing to work with the Democrats selectively. With the House, all the power is with the majority, but specifically now with the majority within the majority, those radical right-wing Republican House members who seek a very extreme agenda. Those two groups have been placed in direct confrontation by this crisis for the Republicans.
The Democrats' stance now is an interesting one: both their leaders, Nancy Pelosi of the House and Harry Reid of the Senate, are taking the position that they will not appoint their party's conferees now, so this resolution of differences that the Republican position ostensibly seeks would not happen this year. Thus, we have, once again, a game of chicken; the Democrats believe that by continuing to apply political pressure, the Republicans will be forced to come to agreement on terms more amenable to the Democrats--this time.
Truth Behind the Talking Points
When the Democrats say, "The Republicans are to blame for the tax cut not being extended", they mean, "We are happy to be able to give the blame to them, and hope people can understand the convoluted chain of logic which would give it to them."
When the Republicans say, "This two-month extension does not give certainty to job creators", they mean, "We are more than happy to create more uncertainty by blocking any temporary solution."
When the Democrats say, "The Republicans will not permit a clear vote on the Senate bill for fear that it would be approved," they mean, "They don't want a vote against the extension of the tax cut on their records, but we do. We know that, if their discipline is this strong, they would reject the Senate bill now."
When the Republicans say, "President Obama requested the one-year extension, and we are supporting that" they mean, "He changed to the two-month extension when he saw that was all that could be approved now; he and the Congressional Democrats want the 12-month extension as much as we do--in fact, more than we do. The main thing is to turn the pressure around and get control over the other items--how the tax cut would be paid for, getting the pipeline approved."
When the Republicans say, "We want the Senate to do its job and come back," they mean, "we want to pass the hot potato to them so we can go on vacation."
When both sides say, "This extension of the tax cut is needed for our economy's recovery," they mean, "this will not do anything more than help prevent a deterioration, but it's much more important as a political flamethrower to burn the other side."
The reduction in the payroll tax, by 2% for the year of 2011, had been agreed in the lame duck session in another pressure-filled compromise, for which the Republicans extracted concessions. President Obama saw by mid-year that the economy's recovery remained weak, so he asked for an extension of that tax reduction for another year. The House passed one, a week or so ago, but with riders on it bad enough that the Administration threatened to veto it. The bill could not get to the floor of the Senate, but the Senate did manage to come to an agreement to extend the tax reduction, with some riders:
an extension of unemployment insurance, up to 99 weeks (not the 59 of the House bill);
delaying a provision which would have otherwise reduced payments for doctors providing Medicare services (a perennial fix needed to hold up that costly house of cards);
and a provision requiring President Obama to accelerate the decision on proceeding with a pipeline for sending Canadian oil-bearing sands to the Southeast refineries--Obama sent back the pipeline proposal (known as Keystone XL) for more study on its potential environmental impact.
This agreement was only for two months, but the aim was to keep the tax cut and insurance extension in place so that a longer duration could be negotiated. The main sticking point in the discussion of the tax cut was how to pay for it--the idea of ending the upper-income tax reduction to pay for it was discarded by Republican insistence--the House bill paid for it with cuts to domestic programs. Obama praised the Senate compromise and asked the House to approve it.
Speaker Boehner had given the Senate a nudge to pass something which the House would take up; then, when they passed the compromise he said the House would vote on it.
The Plot Sickens
Boehner has been rebuffed, not once, but twice this week. First, the Senate's bipartisan compromise that he implicitly endorsed was rejected by his party's caucus; then, it rejected his promise that he would allow a vote on the Senate bill. Boehner is hanging on to his leadership by his fingernails; his only hopes to keep this role are: 1) that his Tea Party members will be rejected in the polls in 2012 (which should encourage him finally to stand up to the more extreme views within his party's caucus); or 2) that Eric Cantor enjoys Boehner taking all the heat, with Cantor pulling his strings like a puppetteer.
The House Republicans, clearly feeling the heat of the American public for resisting the extension of the tax cut, found an ingenious way to turn things back to the mode they find more comfortable--applying the pressure and extorting concessions from their opponents. They decided to reject the bipartisan compromise on the basis that the agreement was two months, not 12 months. Then, they constructed the rules such that the votes would be to commit the bill to conference committee, not on the compromise itself.
The debate is instructive on the difference between the two Houses of Congress. Not just the traditional, envious respectful disrespect with which the members refer to the other, but the fundamental difference. With the current Senate rules, and in the absence of a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators, the leverage lies with the minority of the minority--in today's Senate, with those few moderate Senators who are willing to work with the Democrats selectively. With the House, all the power is with the majority, but specifically now with the majority within the majority, those radical right-wing Republican House members who seek a very extreme agenda. Those two groups have been placed in direct confrontation by this crisis for the Republicans.
The Democrats' stance now is an interesting one: both their leaders, Nancy Pelosi of the House and Harry Reid of the Senate, are taking the position that they will not appoint their party's conferees now, so this resolution of differences that the Republican position ostensibly seeks would not happen this year. Thus, we have, once again, a game of chicken; the Democrats believe that by continuing to apply political pressure, the Republicans will be forced to come to agreement on terms more amenable to the Democrats--this time.
Truth Behind the Talking Points
When the Democrats say, "The Republicans are to blame for the tax cut not being extended", they mean, "We are happy to be able to give the blame to them, and hope people can understand the convoluted chain of logic which would give it to them."
When the Republicans say, "This two-month extension does not give certainty to job creators", they mean, "We are more than happy to create more uncertainty by blocking any temporary solution."
When the Democrats say, "The Republicans will not permit a clear vote on the Senate bill for fear that it would be approved," they mean, "They don't want a vote against the extension of the tax cut on their records, but we do. We know that, if their discipline is this strong, they would reject the Senate bill now."
When the Republicans say, "President Obama requested the one-year extension, and we are supporting that" they mean, "He changed to the two-month extension when he saw that was all that could be approved now; he and the Congressional Democrats want the 12-month extension as much as we do--in fact, more than we do. The main thing is to turn the pressure around and get control over the other items--how the tax cut would be paid for, getting the pipeline approved."
When the Republicans say, "We want the Senate to do its job and come back," they mean, "we want to pass the hot potato to them so we can go on vacation."
When both sides say, "This extension of the tax cut is needed for our economy's recovery," they mean, "this will not do anything more than help prevent a deterioration, but it's much more important as a political flamethrower to burn the other side."
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
It's Finally Happening
My horse in the 2012 Republican nomination race is finally getting some attention. Ron Paul has kept to his business and true to his principles, while all the other Tea Party flaves came and went. Newt's time is still in full blossom, but my sense is that his flavor will be unpalatable to many TP'ers--too unreliable, poor moral sense, too much the man on the white horse for the libertarian flange of the right wing--and many of the supporters of failed candidates like Herman Cain and Rick Perry will drift Paul's way, as someone they can trust at least to uphold his principles--intelligently--whether he has any chance or not.
The latest Iowa poll results have Gingrich at 25%, Paul at 18%, Romney at 16%, but that leaves 41% undecided or clinging to driftwood. I think that Michele Bachmann will stay the course in Iowa and draw about 10%, while about 10% will end up "committed" to non-starters like Rick Santorum, Perry, Huntsman, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and whatever remains of Cain's candidacy (not officially dead, just practically dead). I believe that Paul, among the three front-runners, will draw the largest share of the remaining 21%, some of whom will be backing lesser candidates but will need to re-group to another candidate when theirs does not meet minimum threshold levels. For one thing, Paul's organization on the ground is superior to Gingrich's, while Romney's organization is flummoxed by its sudden loss of clear front-runner status.
Thus, I now make my official prediction for Iowa: Gingrich 32%, Paul 27%, Romney 21%, Bachmann 11%, Others/Uncommitted 9%. The major media will spin this as a win for Gingrich and Paul and a defeat for the rest. Paul and Gingrich will then battle for a distant second-place finish in New Hampshire a week later. This, and Paul's demonstrated record of fund-raising success, will give him enough impetus to stay in the primaries at least through February and March; all of those, by rule, will have somewhat proportional allotment of delegates.
He should therefore have 10-15% of delegates selected before the "winner take-all" primaries start in April, and potentially 5-7% of delegates if he stayed in the race to the end. This quantity, though small and not enough to get him ever in serious discussion as the nominee, quite possibly could be enough to leave the outcome in doubt if the likely pattern--Gingrich wins big in the South, Romney wins most of the other states--ends up in a close division of delegates.
The question I can't answer is how Paul would utilize his delegate base if he finds himself suddenly in a strategically decisive position. I can't imagine he would want to end his campaign by supporting either one of those guys in such a situation (though I guess he will endorse either once he's won it). In the meantime, for example, Paul logically will spend a lot of time and money going after Gingrich, who is his principal competitor for votes from the right wing. (I would still bet that either Romney or Gingrich would yield to the other, though, taking the VP slot, if it were clear that they could not win--both are consumed with ambition and ideological chameleons.)
Intrade now has Romney with 45% chance of winning the nom (down a third from my last quote here in October), Gingrich up to 35%, Huntsman at 8% (I don't see it), and Paul at 7%, with Bachmann at 2% or so, Santorum at 1%, and nobody else above 0.5%. Though the punditry has missed the significance of Paul's campaign with great consistency, I can't argue that he has a higher chance of ultimately winning than that 7%--in fact, it's probably a bit high. If I were betting, I would've bought into Paul's chances earlier, when he was cheaper (like the 1.7% he had in April), and be looking to take profits the day after the Iowa caucuses, when it will peak.
I would be looking now at a long-shot bet on either Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana or Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, two names that Republi-cons generally of all stripes (and backers of the "Ron Paul Revolution" in particular) could rally behind if Romney-Gingrich looks like a stalemate in the weeks leading up to the convention. Daniels, for example, didn't run after being widely courted because he didn't want to go through the exhausting campaign; Ryan basically said he was too busy being a Congressional scourge. I suspect either would accept the nomination if handed on a silver platter, and neither would be a pushover for President Obama in a general election campaign--Ryan is telegenic and smart, but green; Daniels smart, experienced, and the opposite of telegenic.
The latest Iowa poll results have Gingrich at 25%, Paul at 18%, Romney at 16%, but that leaves 41% undecided or clinging to driftwood. I think that Michele Bachmann will stay the course in Iowa and draw about 10%, while about 10% will end up "committed" to non-starters like Rick Santorum, Perry, Huntsman, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and whatever remains of Cain's candidacy (not officially dead, just practically dead). I believe that Paul, among the three front-runners, will draw the largest share of the remaining 21%, some of whom will be backing lesser candidates but will need to re-group to another candidate when theirs does not meet minimum threshold levels. For one thing, Paul's organization on the ground is superior to Gingrich's, while Romney's organization is flummoxed by its sudden loss of clear front-runner status.
Thus, I now make my official prediction for Iowa: Gingrich 32%, Paul 27%, Romney 21%, Bachmann 11%, Others/Uncommitted 9%. The major media will spin this as a win for Gingrich and Paul and a defeat for the rest. Paul and Gingrich will then battle for a distant second-place finish in New Hampshire a week later. This, and Paul's demonstrated record of fund-raising success, will give him enough impetus to stay in the primaries at least through February and March; all of those, by rule, will have somewhat proportional allotment of delegates.
He should therefore have 10-15% of delegates selected before the "winner take-all" primaries start in April, and potentially 5-7% of delegates if he stayed in the race to the end. This quantity, though small and not enough to get him ever in serious discussion as the nominee, quite possibly could be enough to leave the outcome in doubt if the likely pattern--Gingrich wins big in the South, Romney wins most of the other states--ends up in a close division of delegates.
The question I can't answer is how Paul would utilize his delegate base if he finds himself suddenly in a strategically decisive position. I can't imagine he would want to end his campaign by supporting either one of those guys in such a situation (though I guess he will endorse either once he's won it). In the meantime, for example, Paul logically will spend a lot of time and money going after Gingrich, who is his principal competitor for votes from the right wing. (I would still bet that either Romney or Gingrich would yield to the other, though, taking the VP slot, if it were clear that they could not win--both are consumed with ambition and ideological chameleons.)
Intrade now has Romney with 45% chance of winning the nom (down a third from my last quote here in October), Gingrich up to 35%, Huntsman at 8% (I don't see it), and Paul at 7%, with Bachmann at 2% or so, Santorum at 1%, and nobody else above 0.5%. Though the punditry has missed the significance of Paul's campaign with great consistency, I can't argue that he has a higher chance of ultimately winning than that 7%--in fact, it's probably a bit high. If I were betting, I would've bought into Paul's chances earlier, when he was cheaper (like the 1.7% he had in April), and be looking to take profits the day after the Iowa caucuses, when it will peak.
I would be looking now at a long-shot bet on either Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana or Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, two names that Republi-cons generally of all stripes (and backers of the "Ron Paul Revolution" in particular) could rally behind if Romney-Gingrich looks like a stalemate in the weeks leading up to the convention. Daniels, for example, didn't run after being widely courted because he didn't want to go through the exhausting campaign; Ryan basically said he was too busy being a Congressional scourge. I suspect either would accept the nomination if handed on a silver platter, and neither would be a pushover for President Obama in a general election campaign--Ryan is telegenic and smart, but green; Daniels smart, experienced, and the opposite of telegenic.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Euro Faces Its Music At Last
I think it was Warren Buffett who said that when the tide goes out, you can see who's been bathing without their swimsuits. So it has been with Europe in these days: we are now seeing the continental Empire's New Clothes to be much less substantial than we thought.
The sins of the Euro, as regards Greece and Italy, were largely committed long ago. The rules of admission, having to do with size of budget deficit and national debt (as a percentage of GDP) were fudged for Italy at the Euro's founding in 1999; then
more brazenly so for Greece when it joined just a couple of years later, then these sins were swept under the rug since.
Now, having let these serial road-can-kickers in the club in the first place, and having compounded the mistake making their admissions irrevocable (instead of maintaining their old currencies, the lira and the drachma, on a shadow basis), the European authorities really have no choice but to make good on their sovereign debts, while compelling the national governments to start to follow the fiscal requirements they should have had to follow all along.
Politically, this is unpalatable in a variety of ways. Most significantly, though, it is that the situation has forced the regional powers that be (really it's the national governments in Germany and France) to impose rather nakedly their power through the European Central Bank. The requirements--for revenue enhancements and spending cuts, particularly for employees in government agencies and enterprises-- placed upon these governments have caused each country's parliamentary government to lose political control, succeeded now by willing, bankerly technocrats without political constituencies.
The austerity being imposed upon Italy and Greece, and the unelected governments that have been chosen to impose them, will no doubt be bitterly--even violently--resented and resisted by those two volatile societies. The irony, commented upon and lamented by some in these days, is that these two nations which in ancient times defined our original notion of what a "republic" is, now have lost political control of their economic destiny.
The fact is that these two countries have had very weak democracies throughout the postwar period; their people were poorly led and not doing much following, either. Like the Soviet workers who pretended to work while their government pretended to pay them, in Greece and Italy the companies and individuals pretended to pay their taxes and their governments pretended to have authority.
For Italy, at least, this crisis has already had one good outcome: what appears to be the definitive exodus from government of the Great Clown, that "Bounder", the Gentleman who is no gentleman, Silvio Berlusconi (it also appears that Umberto Bossi, head of the odious Lega Nord, will oppose the new government, a big plus as far as I'm concerned). The former political opposition, the center-left coalition which has traditionally governed with ineffectual honesty, as the alternative to Berlusconian disrepute and corruption, will have a good opportunity to provide implicit support for the needed reforms in the national interest, so they can claim credit if they work and disavow them if they don't--clearly a good position. Italy is not a player on the world stage, but it is a first-class prize for Europe, and as one of the original six members (with France, Germany, and the Benelux), dismissing it from the club would be unthinkable.
For the Greeks, the failure of the Socialist government will be borne bitterly, as it will be felt to have betrayed its supporters, then fell short of its aims. The right will gain power as a result of the Socialists' failure, but the timing will make its ascension a poison pill. Politically, I see the country wandering in the political wilderness for a long while, which could make it vulnerable both to vindictive forces in Europe looking to punish it, and to its hostile neighbor, Turkey, which now has a well-founded grudge against the EU. If the EU were to punish Greece beyond its capacity to accept humiliation, look for a shocker--a "historic compromise" with the Turks!
What the whole story illustrates is the internal contradiction in today's European Union, with its combination of strong and weak national economies, a centralized currency, and a weak central government. For those who remember the early days of American history, I would suggest that Europe is going through its Articles of Confederation moment. Even the Euro's legitimacy within the EU has big problems: think of how problematic the dollar would have been in those days if Virginia (think: the U.K.) had stayed out. We realized we needed a stronger central government, but it didn't come easily. Our Constitution, mighty as it is today, barely passed in several of the states, and we had to weather our Shay's Rebellion, our Burr-led Western Secession movement.
History doesn't exactly repeat itself, and it could go the other way with Europe, toward fragmentation and reasserted national sovereignty. The stakes are higher today; we're not talking about fledgling republics with a toehold on an undeveloped continent. I say that Americans should continue to provide quiet support and patience for them to work it out, and, most of all, refrain from gloating.
The sins of the Euro, as regards Greece and Italy, were largely committed long ago. The rules of admission, having to do with size of budget deficit and national debt (as a percentage of GDP) were fudged for Italy at the Euro's founding in 1999; then
more brazenly so for Greece when it joined just a couple of years later, then these sins were swept under the rug since.
Now, having let these serial road-can-kickers in the club in the first place, and having compounded the mistake making their admissions irrevocable (instead of maintaining their old currencies, the lira and the drachma, on a shadow basis), the European authorities really have no choice but to make good on their sovereign debts, while compelling the national governments to start to follow the fiscal requirements they should have had to follow all along.
Politically, this is unpalatable in a variety of ways. Most significantly, though, it is that the situation has forced the regional powers that be (really it's the national governments in Germany and France) to impose rather nakedly their power through the European Central Bank. The requirements--for revenue enhancements and spending cuts, particularly for employees in government agencies and enterprises-- placed upon these governments have caused each country's parliamentary government to lose political control, succeeded now by willing, bankerly technocrats without political constituencies.
The austerity being imposed upon Italy and Greece, and the unelected governments that have been chosen to impose them, will no doubt be bitterly--even violently--resented and resisted by those two volatile societies. The irony, commented upon and lamented by some in these days, is that these two nations which in ancient times defined our original notion of what a "republic" is, now have lost political control of their economic destiny.
The fact is that these two countries have had very weak democracies throughout the postwar period; their people were poorly led and not doing much following, either. Like the Soviet workers who pretended to work while their government pretended to pay them, in Greece and Italy the companies and individuals pretended to pay their taxes and their governments pretended to have authority.
For Italy, at least, this crisis has already had one good outcome: what appears to be the definitive exodus from government of the Great Clown, that "Bounder", the Gentleman who is no gentleman, Silvio Berlusconi (it also appears that Umberto Bossi, head of the odious Lega Nord, will oppose the new government, a big plus as far as I'm concerned). The former political opposition, the center-left coalition which has traditionally governed with ineffectual honesty, as the alternative to Berlusconian disrepute and corruption, will have a good opportunity to provide implicit support for the needed reforms in the national interest, so they can claim credit if they work and disavow them if they don't--clearly a good position. Italy is not a player on the world stage, but it is a first-class prize for Europe, and as one of the original six members (with France, Germany, and the Benelux), dismissing it from the club would be unthinkable.
For the Greeks, the failure of the Socialist government will be borne bitterly, as it will be felt to have betrayed its supporters, then fell short of its aims. The right will gain power as a result of the Socialists' failure, but the timing will make its ascension a poison pill. Politically, I see the country wandering in the political wilderness for a long while, which could make it vulnerable both to vindictive forces in Europe looking to punish it, and to its hostile neighbor, Turkey, which now has a well-founded grudge against the EU. If the EU were to punish Greece beyond its capacity to accept humiliation, look for a shocker--a "historic compromise" with the Turks!
What the whole story illustrates is the internal contradiction in today's European Union, with its combination of strong and weak national economies, a centralized currency, and a weak central government. For those who remember the early days of American history, I would suggest that Europe is going through its Articles of Confederation moment. Even the Euro's legitimacy within the EU has big problems: think of how problematic the dollar would have been in those days if Virginia (think: the U.K.) had stayed out. We realized we needed a stronger central government, but it didn't come easily. Our Constitution, mighty as it is today, barely passed in several of the states, and we had to weather our Shay's Rebellion, our Burr-led Western Secession movement.
History doesn't exactly repeat itself, and it could go the other way with Europe, toward fragmentation and reasserted national sovereignty. The stakes are higher today; we're not talking about fledgling republics with a toehold on an undeveloped continent. I say that Americans should continue to provide quiet support and patience for them to work it out, and, most of all, refrain from gloating.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Today Is Admission of Failure Day
Sometime today, probably in the evening, the co-chairs of the Supercommittee of 12, Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, will come forward, together or separately, and admit that the group has failed in its appointed task to come up with a package of deficit reduction proposals for Congress to review and approve. Technically, they have two more days to get the proposals passed, but House rules require posting a bill 48 hours before it's voted upon, so no posting today means no bill by the deadline of the 23rd, thus its failure.
This result is certainly no surprise; I predicted as much as soon as the concept was announced in the Big Deal Deal of August, even before the members of the committee were named (which basically clinched inertia). I don't fear in the slightest the "mandatory" cuts which must, by law, follow this absence of legislation. I would describe the billion dollars in spending cuts, half from defense, some from discretionary spending, and a tiny bit from Medicare, as "a good start". They won't kick in until 2013, anyway, and the lame duck Congress will change them at the end of 2012, or if not then, whatever Congress comes in after the 2012 elections will change them in 2013. Or not, and I'm fine with that, too.
I would suggest that the Democrats make a surprise ploy in the final hours, one last-ditch attempt to do the Big Deal for real. Half a billion in phased tax increases, half a billion more from restructuring the tax code (details TBD), half a billion from defense, half a billion from discretionary, half a billion in interest saving, and half a billion from Medicare and Social Security combined. It would never pass the committee, or the House, or the Senate, but it has the benefits of simplicity and fairness, and would put the Democrats on the right side of the moral divide.
In time, I think the collapse of the supercommittee's deliberations will be seen as the Pyrrhic victory of Grover Norquist. His "no tax increase" pledge bound all of the relevant Republican Congresspeople such that they could not propose anything that was reasonable. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania did make a late proposal for $300 billion in increased revenue through removing some tax deductions; I have the feeling he got a waiver from Norquist because it included a clause to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, something which would lose much more than the $300 billion in revenue he claimed to produce, as compared to letting the tax cuts expire through inaction--something which now seems very likely.
It will be Pyrrhic because Norquist's Folk (sounds like a tribe of dwarves), now to be known not as the GOP but the "GNP", as in Grover Norquist Party, will bear the brunt of the failure--which will be manifested by end of day today or tomorrow in the form of a big market sell-off and downgrading of US debt. A few more Republicans will dare to leave his camp of indentured servants, and a few more will end up paying the political price next year. Pretty soon it will be like having voted for the invasion of Iraq--a political embarrassment for those who can't effectively repudiate it. Unpopular as tax increases are, and will remain, the Pledge will be an albatross, an artifact of the decrepit House of Orange.
This result is certainly no surprise; I predicted as much as soon as the concept was announced in the Big Deal Deal of August, even before the members of the committee were named (which basically clinched inertia). I don't fear in the slightest the "mandatory" cuts which must, by law, follow this absence of legislation. I would describe the billion dollars in spending cuts, half from defense, some from discretionary spending, and a tiny bit from Medicare, as "a good start". They won't kick in until 2013, anyway, and the lame duck Congress will change them at the end of 2012, or if not then, whatever Congress comes in after the 2012 elections will change them in 2013. Or not, and I'm fine with that, too.
I would suggest that the Democrats make a surprise ploy in the final hours, one last-ditch attempt to do the Big Deal for real. Half a billion in phased tax increases, half a billion more from restructuring the tax code (details TBD), half a billion from defense, half a billion from discretionary, half a billion in interest saving, and half a billion from Medicare and Social Security combined. It would never pass the committee, or the House, or the Senate, but it has the benefits of simplicity and fairness, and would put the Democrats on the right side of the moral divide.
In time, I think the collapse of the supercommittee's deliberations will be seen as the Pyrrhic victory of Grover Norquist. His "no tax increase" pledge bound all of the relevant Republican Congresspeople such that they could not propose anything that was reasonable. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania did make a late proposal for $300 billion in increased revenue through removing some tax deductions; I have the feeling he got a waiver from Norquist because it included a clause to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, something which would lose much more than the $300 billion in revenue he claimed to produce, as compared to letting the tax cuts expire through inaction--something which now seems very likely.
It will be Pyrrhic because Norquist's Folk (sounds like a tribe of dwarves), now to be known not as the GOP but the "GNP", as in Grover Norquist Party, will bear the brunt of the failure--which will be manifested by end of day today or tomorrow in the form of a big market sell-off and downgrading of US debt. A few more Republicans will dare to leave his camp of indentured servants, and a few more will end up paying the political price next year. Pretty soon it will be like having voted for the invasion of Iraq--a political embarrassment for those who can't effectively repudiate it. Unpopular as tax increases are, and will remain, the Pledge will be an albatross, an artifact of the decrepit House of Orange.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Devil We Know
This Month's Flavor is Amphibian, Hypocritical
I've been avoiding it, trying not to admit it, but the baton has been picked up, this time by someone who knows how to run with it and is unlikely to let it drop.
I have long--very long--kicked around in my mind an idea for a future-oriented story that I probably will never write. The heroes of the story are a couple--an interracial couple--who defy tradition and local custom and dare to become celebrities, working as a team, and put their love out there--too much. Their "transgressions" cause a rupture in society, and a right-wing demagogic leader, called "The Perfesser", leads forces of reaction in the country, rises to power, and brings things to a definitive, self-righteous confrontation with the rest of the world--the only way we can really lose. The Perfesser is the "intellectual" who unleashes the atavistic, anti-intellectual tendencies lying hidden within our society.
This idea goes back beyond the '90's, and I never really saw the Newt as the incarnation of my bad daydream--until now. I didn't see him as that great a threat to our way of life, even at the peak of his power in the 1994-1996 period. He seemed like someone whose appeal was too peripheral, who inspired little trust even among those who were his political allies. His career since that period, on the edge of significance, hasn't suggested the potential that he could re-emerge and do massive damage. His Presidential campaign hardly seemed serious; he seemed more interested in selling his books than convincing us he could win, and he turned over his whole staff in the early days; they left saying that he was not serious.
Perhaps not, but he's just kept up his ego-driven, impassioned, self-righteous invective, and now, with the fading of the other anti-Romney candidacies--Herman Cain being just the latest to lose his shine--Gingrich has risen to the top, like algae. Surely he can be stopped--he can fall short of the target, just as others have done, and his ceiling, in terms of his favorability rating and in the portion of the electorate that might ultimately vote for him would seem relatively low. One thing about Newt, though, is that he will persevere; his campaign to date has shown that.
I would give him little chance in a head-to-head race against President Obama; though Gingrich is a capable debater, he would find Obama more than a match, intellectually, and far better in other dimensions (humanity, military leadership, diplomacy, public policy, familial and moral virtue, etc.) The possibility that a third-party could arise and draw support of moderates could make the election's outcome unpredictable, though.
Gingrich is certainly vulnerable on all these counts. I also give some credence to the notion that, just as Rick Perry seemed less attractive to the right-wing when it came out that he had a human side, willing to help illegal immigrants go to college or young people get HPV vaccines, so Newt Gingrich's history may disqualify him in the minds of some purists for his willingness to peddle influence for Freddie Mac, a government-backed enterprise the right-wing places right at the heart of the causation of the economic crisis of 2008.
I certainly hope so. Because of his ruthless nature, his knowledge of legislative strategy, his big ideas, I consider Gingrich absolutely the most dangerous and destructive of the candidates if he were elected. In Romney and also in Gingrich I see a Nixonian quality: the real person is hidden behind screens, the arguments are for whatever will advance the personal cause, the ambition is relentless. Gingrich is worse than Romney, though, in that personal virtue is totally lacking in him, and I have to believe that he does know what he wants to do. And what he wants scares me.
I was wrong about whose balloon would rise after Cain's, inevitably, began to lose air (his has not totally deflated, but, as a gasbag capable of holding his air, his has little future). I thought it would be Ron Paul's turn, and that may still happen; I'm thinking it may surge with good, though not great, results in Iowa and New Hampshire, particularly if Gingrich turns off his current band of followers, and they turn to someone with greater moral authority and consistent political philosophy.
That would likely be too late, though, if Romney can spin his likely close second-place finish in Iowa as a tactical victory, which will be followed by a big win in New Hampshire. That combination might give him enough momentum to pull off a win on the difficult turf of South Carolina (Cain, Gingrich, and even Perry would seem to have the advantage there): if Romney wins there, it would all be over. Though South Carolina has a track record of deciding contested Republican races, I'd be betting that it will have an inconclusive result this year, which would then make Florida the likely decisive result.
I've been avoiding it, trying not to admit it, but the baton has been picked up, this time by someone who knows how to run with it and is unlikely to let it drop.
I have long--very long--kicked around in my mind an idea for a future-oriented story that I probably will never write. The heroes of the story are a couple--an interracial couple--who defy tradition and local custom and dare to become celebrities, working as a team, and put their love out there--too much. Their "transgressions" cause a rupture in society, and a right-wing demagogic leader, called "The Perfesser", leads forces of reaction in the country, rises to power, and brings things to a definitive, self-righteous confrontation with the rest of the world--the only way we can really lose. The Perfesser is the "intellectual" who unleashes the atavistic, anti-intellectual tendencies lying hidden within our society.
This idea goes back beyond the '90's, and I never really saw the Newt as the incarnation of my bad daydream--until now. I didn't see him as that great a threat to our way of life, even at the peak of his power in the 1994-1996 period. He seemed like someone whose appeal was too peripheral, who inspired little trust even among those who were his political allies. His career since that period, on the edge of significance, hasn't suggested the potential that he could re-emerge and do massive damage. His Presidential campaign hardly seemed serious; he seemed more interested in selling his books than convincing us he could win, and he turned over his whole staff in the early days; they left saying that he was not serious.
Perhaps not, but he's just kept up his ego-driven, impassioned, self-righteous invective, and now, with the fading of the other anti-Romney candidacies--Herman Cain being just the latest to lose his shine--Gingrich has risen to the top, like algae. Surely he can be stopped--he can fall short of the target, just as others have done, and his ceiling, in terms of his favorability rating and in the portion of the electorate that might ultimately vote for him would seem relatively low. One thing about Newt, though, is that he will persevere; his campaign to date has shown that.
I would give him little chance in a head-to-head race against President Obama; though Gingrich is a capable debater, he would find Obama more than a match, intellectually, and far better in other dimensions (humanity, military leadership, diplomacy, public policy, familial and moral virtue, etc.) The possibility that a third-party could arise and draw support of moderates could make the election's outcome unpredictable, though.
Gingrich is certainly vulnerable on all these counts. I also give some credence to the notion that, just as Rick Perry seemed less attractive to the right-wing when it came out that he had a human side, willing to help illegal immigrants go to college or young people get HPV vaccines, so Newt Gingrich's history may disqualify him in the minds of some purists for his willingness to peddle influence for Freddie Mac, a government-backed enterprise the right-wing places right at the heart of the causation of the economic crisis of 2008.
I certainly hope so. Because of his ruthless nature, his knowledge of legislative strategy, his big ideas, I consider Gingrich absolutely the most dangerous and destructive of the candidates if he were elected. In Romney and also in Gingrich I see a Nixonian quality: the real person is hidden behind screens, the arguments are for whatever will advance the personal cause, the ambition is relentless. Gingrich is worse than Romney, though, in that personal virtue is totally lacking in him, and I have to believe that he does know what he wants to do. And what he wants scares me.
I was wrong about whose balloon would rise after Cain's, inevitably, began to lose air (his has not totally deflated, but, as a gasbag capable of holding his air, his has little future). I thought it would be Ron Paul's turn, and that may still happen; I'm thinking it may surge with good, though not great, results in Iowa and New Hampshire, particularly if Gingrich turns off his current band of followers, and they turn to someone with greater moral authority and consistent political philosophy.
That would likely be too late, though, if Romney can spin his likely close second-place finish in Iowa as a tactical victory, which will be followed by a big win in New Hampshire. That combination might give him enough momentum to pull off a win on the difficult turf of South Carolina (Cain, Gingrich, and even Perry would seem to have the advantage there): if Romney wins there, it would all be over. Though South Carolina has a track record of deciding contested Republican races, I'd be betting that it will have an inconclusive result this year, which would then make Florida the likely decisive result.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
2011 Elections: It Don't Mean a Thing....
...if you can't get that swing.
Doppa-doppa do-bap a-bop bap boop.
That's the take-away from this week's voting in several states, and the theme for the 2012 elections: the return of the moderate voter, and the essential importance of the swing states' electoral behavior. It's not that the offyear elections we had yesterday were unimportant; sorry, if my title suggested that.
The facts in the key election contests are well documented, because there weren't really that many contests of note.
In Ohio, the voters sided with public employee unions and against Gov. John Kasich and the state legislature, which turned heavily toward the Republicans in 2010. A bill they had passed this year limiting the range of topics those unions could include in collective bargaining was decisively repealed; however, in the other direction, in the same state, ths voters chose in a symbolic vote to support an initiative negating the health insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a "Obamacare"). That vote is symbolic because the mandate's constitutionality will be determined in the Supreme Court, and state laws about it will ultimately be superseded by Federal law.
In Mississippi, an extremist anti-abortion referendum giving legal protection to all fertilized zygotes went down to defeat. Even strongly pro-life Republican politicians expressed qualms about the referendum, though the state's new governor and pandering Mitt Romney said they supported it.
In Arizona, the state Senator who authored the odious anti-immigrant legislation, Russell Pearce, lost his seat in a recall vote. The person who defeated him was another Republican!
In Maine, another statehouse that had turned Republican in 2010, the law that blocked Maine's beloved same-day voter registration was repealed. In Kentucky, one of the redder states, a Democratic moderate governor won big.
The common thread in all these results was the re-emergence of the voice of the moderate voter. In 2006 and 2008, the swing voters rejected Bushite Misrule and chose Democrats. In 2010, they either rejected perceived excess from the Democrats or, disappointed, stayed home. This year, they seem to have found some topics which moved them.
Committed Democrats and committed Republicans can be counted on to turn out and vote their political passions in any contest where they are at stake. The swing voters can never be taken for granted, but in our political system, anytime they show up to vote and swing to one side or the other, their influence is decisive. This fact explains the persistent effort of President Obama to try to appease moderate factions of the Republicans, to seek compromise, to avoid full expression of his more left-wing views, and to take positions which he knows will irritate his left-wing supporters: It's all about getting and keeping the swing voters, whether independents or moderates from either party.
Next Year: What Could Swing it from Being a Swing Thing
The most probable scenario for next year is a close Presidential election, with serious contests for control of the Senate and the House. The Republicans have the edge for each house of Congress, though the dynamics of the two differ somewhat. The Presidential race, I hope to show, favors Obama as the incumbent, but it is likely to be close and depend on the outcome of a limited number of state contests.
There are four events which would change that scenario--three of them would favor Obama and the Democrats, while only one would put the Republicans in position to take decisive control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The events which would favor the Democrats, in increasing order of probability are as follows:
1) A dramatic improvement in the US economy, with GDP growth over 5% and unemployment dropping from today's 9% to something below 7%.
2) An outbreak of open warfare in Asia, possibly involving some kind of craziness in Pakistan, but more likely involving Israel fighting against (in decreasing order) Iran, Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, or Egypt. Such hostilities would emphasize Obama's superior handling of international issues (and the Republican candidates unpreparedness); otherwise domestic issues would predominate.
3) The nomination of a looney-tune Tea Party nominee by the Republicans, or the fracturing of the Republicans' unity and a major third-party candidacy by the someone capturing the rump (losing) part of the party. In the category of the former, I would name (in increasing order of likelihood) Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, or Cain.
The nomination of any of these candidates should ensure an easy Obama victory, probable retention of the Senate, and likely recapture of the House. A split in the Republican party, which could occur either with one of these jokers winning the nomination, or with Romney or Huntsman winning the nomination but not the hearts of the Tea Party, would ensure an easy victory for Obama but Congress would still be in play, as Congressional races would play out tactically according to their local dynamics.
In the other sense, severe additional deterioration in the US economy, with unemployment breaking double digits and negative GDP growth, would likely doom Obama's chances, regardlsss of the degree to which anything he did or failed to do caused that recession.
But Swing Most Likely Be the Thing
Except for the economic alternatives, it is possible for more than one of the above to occur; the economic deterioration would take priority over anything else, but any other combination of would work in Obama's favor. I'd say the chances of none of them happening is upwards of 60%, which prompts our discussion of the states which will decide things in a close race for the Presidency and for control of the Senate.
One-Horse Races
There are a whole bunch of states which are really not expected to be contested in the Presidential race next year. You know, I know, everybody knows--I don't really have to recite them, but I will tell you that sum of their electoral votes, newly reallocated after the 2010 Census, totals 172 electoral votes for the Democrats and 151 for the Republicans. Failure to win any of them, as McCain somehow did with Indiana in 2008, is a clear signal for a landslide win.
There are a couple of important Senate races in these states, though most of them will not end up being close. Two very important ones will be the Democrats' attempt to reclaim the Senate seat held for some five decades by Ted Kennedy but lost to Scott Brown in a special election (Elizabeth Warren looks like a favorite to gain the seat to me, though it might help Brown if Romney is the nominee), and a possible close contest in North Dakota--the seat being given up by Kent Conrad is certainly endangered for the Democrats, but they have a plausible candidate.
Big Leans
These states will have fairly narrow margins, but the direction they should be expected to fall is clear from the outset.
Democrats: New Jersey (14); Minnesota (10). Except for Obama's home state of Illinois, Minnesota is the safest of the upper Midwest states, and Amy Klobuchar should be able to retain her Senate seat. New Jersey could be very close, but I like Dems' chances.
Republicans: Montana (3), Arizona (11), Georgia (16), and Missouri (10). Montana and Missouri have critical Senate races for the Democrats to hold (Tester, McCaskill) if they hope to retain control of the Senate. They will be narrow underdogs in both races, but this extra value in the state will make the Obama campaign work hard there, no matter what their assessment of the overall state of the race. Obama campaign folks claim that they can make Arizona and Georgia competitive because of their strong minority votes, but I don't see it, except in a blowout situation.
(Cumulative: Democrats 196, Republicans 191)
Moderate Leans The election may effectively be won by the ability of the parties to hold these states; if they can't, a break or two in the 50-50 atates won't do the trick.
Democrats: Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9). Obama will go into the campaign with small leads in these states, and he must hold them. If he does, he will be very close to victory. Two Senate seats the Democrats must hold to keep their majority--the New Mexico one Jeff Bingaman is giving up, and the Wisconsin one Herb Kohl is yielding--will be extremely tough ones, as the Republicans are likely to run moderates--Heather Wilson in NM and Tommy Thompson in WI--who will make things very tough. I see Pennsylvania as the most vulnerable one of this group in the Presidential race, and its loss would be catastrophic.
Republicans: Florida (29), North Carolina (15). The importance of these two is reflected in the parties' choice of Tampa and Charlotte for the Republican and Democratic national conventions next year. I expect the Republicans to name Marco Rubio as their V.P. nominee, to further attempt to lock up that state, without which they will little chance to win. If they don't name him, it will mean something bad about Rubio, or an extremely high level of confidence about the state. Still, they should want to put maximum effort there to try and take the Senate seat from Bill Nelson.
(Cumulative: Democrats 256, Republicans 235).
Total War: The True Swing States
The final five states--New Hampshire (4), Nevada (6), Virginia (13), Iowa (6), and, of course, Ohio (18)--are the ones we'll be watching if the most likely scenarios play out. With the states above allocated as I've shown, Ohio would be an absolute necessity for the Republicans, but the Democrats could win without it. Note that three of them (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada) are among the first five states to have primaries this year, so their early sentiments will be keenly watched.
If they were not already important enough, three of them--Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio--will have critical Senate races, as well. Nevada is a rare chance for a Democratic gain, while Virginia's battle for Jim Webb's seat--expected to be Tim Kaine vs. George Allen--will be one of the closest, and closest watched. I like Sherrod Brown's chances to hold his Ohio seat, but it will be well contested and his opponent very well financed. I like Iowa for the Democrats and New Hampshire for the Republicans (especially if it's Romney), which would make winning Virginia or Ohio decisive for Obama. I think he can win both, and Nevada, for a final tally of Obama 299, Romney 239, and I think Romney would do better than any other candidate.
As far as the Senate's concerned, I see the Democrats losing Ben Nelson's seat in Nebraska (good riddance), the seat in North Dakota, and I make them slight underdogs in New Mexico, Montana, and Wisconsin, while I make them slight favorites in Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, and for the possible pick-ups of Massachusetts and Nevada. If it plays out that way, the Republicans would net a gain of 3, making it a 50-50 result, with the V.P. breaking the tie for control.
The House is more difficult to handicap than this--and this has not been easy--but I would summarize by saying that the Democrats will find it very difficult to pick up the 25 seats they need without a decisive electoral victory for Obama and the Democratic party. The Democrats' best hope is for more Tea Party candidates--as the Presidential nominee, and in the House.
Doppa-doppa do-bap a-bop bap boop.
That's the take-away from this week's voting in several states, and the theme for the 2012 elections: the return of the moderate voter, and the essential importance of the swing states' electoral behavior. It's not that the offyear elections we had yesterday were unimportant; sorry, if my title suggested that.
The facts in the key election contests are well documented, because there weren't really that many contests of note.
In Ohio, the voters sided with public employee unions and against Gov. John Kasich and the state legislature, which turned heavily toward the Republicans in 2010. A bill they had passed this year limiting the range of topics those unions could include in collective bargaining was decisively repealed; however, in the other direction, in the same state, ths voters chose in a symbolic vote to support an initiative negating the health insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a "Obamacare"). That vote is symbolic because the mandate's constitutionality will be determined in the Supreme Court, and state laws about it will ultimately be superseded by Federal law.
In Mississippi, an extremist anti-abortion referendum giving legal protection to all fertilized zygotes went down to defeat. Even strongly pro-life Republican politicians expressed qualms about the referendum, though the state's new governor and pandering Mitt Romney said they supported it.
In Arizona, the state Senator who authored the odious anti-immigrant legislation, Russell Pearce, lost his seat in a recall vote. The person who defeated him was another Republican!
In Maine, another statehouse that had turned Republican in 2010, the law that blocked Maine's beloved same-day voter registration was repealed. In Kentucky, one of the redder states, a Democratic moderate governor won big.
The common thread in all these results was the re-emergence of the voice of the moderate voter. In 2006 and 2008, the swing voters rejected Bushite Misrule and chose Democrats. In 2010, they either rejected perceived excess from the Democrats or, disappointed, stayed home. This year, they seem to have found some topics which moved them.
Committed Democrats and committed Republicans can be counted on to turn out and vote their political passions in any contest where they are at stake. The swing voters can never be taken for granted, but in our political system, anytime they show up to vote and swing to one side or the other, their influence is decisive. This fact explains the persistent effort of President Obama to try to appease moderate factions of the Republicans, to seek compromise, to avoid full expression of his more left-wing views, and to take positions which he knows will irritate his left-wing supporters: It's all about getting and keeping the swing voters, whether independents or moderates from either party.
Next Year: What Could Swing it from Being a Swing Thing
The most probable scenario for next year is a close Presidential election, with serious contests for control of the Senate and the House. The Republicans have the edge for each house of Congress, though the dynamics of the two differ somewhat. The Presidential race, I hope to show, favors Obama as the incumbent, but it is likely to be close and depend on the outcome of a limited number of state contests.
There are four events which would change that scenario--three of them would favor Obama and the Democrats, while only one would put the Republicans in position to take decisive control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The events which would favor the Democrats, in increasing order of probability are as follows:
1) A dramatic improvement in the US economy, with GDP growth over 5% and unemployment dropping from today's 9% to something below 7%.
2) An outbreak of open warfare in Asia, possibly involving some kind of craziness in Pakistan, but more likely involving Israel fighting against (in decreasing order) Iran, Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, or Egypt. Such hostilities would emphasize Obama's superior handling of international issues (and the Republican candidates unpreparedness); otherwise domestic issues would predominate.
3) The nomination of a looney-tune Tea Party nominee by the Republicans, or the fracturing of the Republicans' unity and a major third-party candidacy by the someone capturing the rump (losing) part of the party. In the category of the former, I would name (in increasing order of likelihood) Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, or Cain.
The nomination of any of these candidates should ensure an easy Obama victory, probable retention of the Senate, and likely recapture of the House. A split in the Republican party, which could occur either with one of these jokers winning the nomination, or with Romney or Huntsman winning the nomination but not the hearts of the Tea Party, would ensure an easy victory for Obama but Congress would still be in play, as Congressional races would play out tactically according to their local dynamics.
In the other sense, severe additional deterioration in the US economy, with unemployment breaking double digits and negative GDP growth, would likely doom Obama's chances, regardlsss of the degree to which anything he did or failed to do caused that recession.
But Swing Most Likely Be the Thing
Except for the economic alternatives, it is possible for more than one of the above to occur; the economic deterioration would take priority over anything else, but any other combination of would work in Obama's favor. I'd say the chances of none of them happening is upwards of 60%, which prompts our discussion of the states which will decide things in a close race for the Presidency and for control of the Senate.
One-Horse Races
There are a whole bunch of states which are really not expected to be contested in the Presidential race next year. You know, I know, everybody knows--I don't really have to recite them, but I will tell you that sum of their electoral votes, newly reallocated after the 2010 Census, totals 172 electoral votes for the Democrats and 151 for the Republicans. Failure to win any of them, as McCain somehow did with Indiana in 2008, is a clear signal for a landslide win.
There are a couple of important Senate races in these states, though most of them will not end up being close. Two very important ones will be the Democrats' attempt to reclaim the Senate seat held for some five decades by Ted Kennedy but lost to Scott Brown in a special election (Elizabeth Warren looks like a favorite to gain the seat to me, though it might help Brown if Romney is the nominee), and a possible close contest in North Dakota--the seat being given up by Kent Conrad is certainly endangered for the Democrats, but they have a plausible candidate.
Big Leans
These states will have fairly narrow margins, but the direction they should be expected to fall is clear from the outset.
Democrats: New Jersey (14); Minnesota (10). Except for Obama's home state of Illinois, Minnesota is the safest of the upper Midwest states, and Amy Klobuchar should be able to retain her Senate seat. New Jersey could be very close, but I like Dems' chances.
Republicans: Montana (3), Arizona (11), Georgia (16), and Missouri (10). Montana and Missouri have critical Senate races for the Democrats to hold (Tester, McCaskill) if they hope to retain control of the Senate. They will be narrow underdogs in both races, but this extra value in the state will make the Obama campaign work hard there, no matter what their assessment of the overall state of the race. Obama campaign folks claim that they can make Arizona and Georgia competitive because of their strong minority votes, but I don't see it, except in a blowout situation.
(Cumulative: Democrats 196, Republicans 191)
Moderate Leans The election may effectively be won by the ability of the parties to hold these states; if they can't, a break or two in the 50-50 atates won't do the trick.
Democrats: Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9). Obama will go into the campaign with small leads in these states, and he must hold them. If he does, he will be very close to victory. Two Senate seats the Democrats must hold to keep their majority--the New Mexico one Jeff Bingaman is giving up, and the Wisconsin one Herb Kohl is yielding--will be extremely tough ones, as the Republicans are likely to run moderates--Heather Wilson in NM and Tommy Thompson in WI--who will make things very tough. I see Pennsylvania as the most vulnerable one of this group in the Presidential race, and its loss would be catastrophic.
Republicans: Florida (29), North Carolina (15). The importance of these two is reflected in the parties' choice of Tampa and Charlotte for the Republican and Democratic national conventions next year. I expect the Republicans to name Marco Rubio as their V.P. nominee, to further attempt to lock up that state, without which they will little chance to win. If they don't name him, it will mean something bad about Rubio, or an extremely high level of confidence about the state. Still, they should want to put maximum effort there to try and take the Senate seat from Bill Nelson.
(Cumulative: Democrats 256, Republicans 235).
Total War: The True Swing States
The final five states--New Hampshire (4), Nevada (6), Virginia (13), Iowa (6), and, of course, Ohio (18)--are the ones we'll be watching if the most likely scenarios play out. With the states above allocated as I've shown, Ohio would be an absolute necessity for the Republicans, but the Democrats could win without it. Note that three of them (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada) are among the first five states to have primaries this year, so their early sentiments will be keenly watched.
If they were not already important enough, three of them--Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio--will have critical Senate races, as well. Nevada is a rare chance for a Democratic gain, while Virginia's battle for Jim Webb's seat--expected to be Tim Kaine vs. George Allen--will be one of the closest, and closest watched. I like Sherrod Brown's chances to hold his Ohio seat, but it will be well contested and his opponent very well financed. I like Iowa for the Democrats and New Hampshire for the Republicans (especially if it's Romney), which would make winning Virginia or Ohio decisive for Obama. I think he can win both, and Nevada, for a final tally of Obama 299, Romney 239, and I think Romney would do better than any other candidate.
As far as the Senate's concerned, I see the Democrats losing Ben Nelson's seat in Nebraska (good riddance), the seat in North Dakota, and I make them slight underdogs in New Mexico, Montana, and Wisconsin, while I make them slight favorites in Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, and for the possible pick-ups of Massachusetts and Nevada. If it plays out that way, the Republicans would net a gain of 3, making it a 50-50 result, with the V.P. breaking the tie for control.
The House is more difficult to handicap than this--and this has not been easy--but I would summarize by saying that the Democrats will find it very difficult to pick up the 25 seats they need without a decisive electoral victory for Obama and the Democratic party. The Democrats' best hope is for more Tea Party candidates--as the Presidential nominee, and in the House.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Sports Update
With baseball over, NBA unable to get its act together (see below), and college hoops just in its early, it's-really-exchibition-though-the-games-technically-count phase, I'm more or less forced to watch football (thank goodness for soccer, though). So, we'll start with a few comments, and my annual pathetic attempt to pick against the point spread in NFL games.
The Shame of College Football
This season, the question is which is the greatest shame that the sport has suffered? Apart from the usual dose of inappropriate favors to players tolerated by college athletic officials (Ohio State was hit, not nearly hard enough, I'd say), there is also the usual shame of the Big Cheesy Series and the unremediated selection process for the quote-unquote National Championship game. This year, as the candidates progressively eliminate themselves, the quote-unquote looks to be a choice between the blowout matchup of LSU-Oklahoma State or a repeat of the recent "Game of the Century" snoozefest game between LSU and Alabama.
The tragedy of Penn State reached its ugly climax this week, and it was shameful in so many ways: the acts alleged to have been committed, over a very long period, by one of the top assistant coaches; the cover-up, the humiliation imposed on Joe Paterno after 45 hugely successful seasons of coaching; the behavior of the students who rioted in favor of the principle of concealing sexual assaults against children; and let's not even consider the victims' emotional devastation. I've never been much of a fan of the Nittany Lions, though I may have supported them situationally in certain games (and they usually provided good value, as in having sufficient beef to bang with the best of them). Now I've got a new team to root against.
I would select as the greatest shame, though, the unseemly scramble among the various colleges changing conference "loyalties". It's a derivative effect of the BCS folly: most of it is about the colleges from the conferences whose winners do not get one of the eight automatic BCS berths trying to upgrade their status. That, and for all of the major colleges, trying to make sure that their conference has the requisite 12 teams so they can have their big-money playoff game to earn that berth.
The culmination of this travesty is the invitations apparently offered to Boise State and Texas Christian University to be part of the no-longer Big no-longer East. Louisville and Cincinnati (and DePaul and Notre Dame) were pushing it, in basketball, but the departures of the likes of Syracuse and Pittsburgh for greener pastures meant this proud conference was headed the way of the dead-and-buried Southwest Conference and the doomed Big 12. You can't tell the conference players without a scorecard, and it's getting so nobody should even care.
Although there are some partial arrangements, in which some colleges participate in conferences for only certain sports, the part that disturbs me most is how the distortions of the BCS have affected the relatively intact other college sports. This somewhat includes men's basketball, but I suspect there will be ugly echoes in many others: women's basketball, baseball, soccer, etc.
NFL at the Halfway Point
The lockout suffered by the NFL was settled in time for the regular season's planned start; only a week of preseason games was lost, and that is less than nothing. The deal, I must admit, was quite fair to the players and much better than I expected. So, I'm not feeling too much guilt in enjoying the NFL games, which I have done on a few occasions--more than I usually do--this fall.
I would say that the stories so far are these:
1) The 8-0 unbeaten start of the defending champion Green Bay Packers. As one of the Tribune beat writers noted, their pass defense is too weak for the team to go undefeated, but their scoring punch should get them through most challenges and makes them a favorite with a good chance to repeat.
2) The Detroit Lions have emerged from--years? decades? generations? of mediocrity and have surged to a playoff-worthy start in the same division as Green Bay.
3) The Indianapolis Colts' weak defense has been fully exposed by the injury to Peyton Manning and they have lost all their games, mostly by large margins.
4) The AFC in general seems to be in decline, with the exception of the Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers.
My system relies upon difficulty of schedule balancing out by this point in the year, and the weakness of the AFC makes that assumption invalid this year. An easy schedule is mostly defined by playing lots of AFC teams, and one should avoid picking AFC teams in inter-conference matchups. That being said, here are my picks against the spread this week:
1) Houston Texans giving 3 at Tampa Bay (I have them winning by 10);
2) Cincinnati Bengals getting 3 at home vs. the Steelers;
3) 49ers giving 3 1/2 at home vs. the Giants; and
4) Lions getting 3 at the Bears. This last one is probably the most controversial pick (though the Steelers may be due for a big game against their familiar patsy). The Tribune had eight writers and the results of a video game as guides to the game: all the writers picked the Bears, but the game had the Lions by 7. I'm going with the machine here.
Soccer: Chelsea Going Down?
The Blues are in fourth, just behind Newcastle (in whom I believe very little), but it is their style which makes me doubtful. They lost 5-3 to Arsenal in a game full of defensive lapses, then failed to win vs. Genk in the Champions League. If this season doesn't improve, I think they will end up keeping their young coach and jettisoning their veterans in a rebuilding move. The players to watch will be Drogba and Cech--if they go, Lampard and Terry will follow soon after.
Manchester City is the new team made with money; they look to be a terror upon the league after their 6-1 defeat of Manchester United two weeks ago. They have not lost in the Premier League yet, and some are thinking they may never do so this year.
Finally, the NBA?
The next few days will probably determine whether there will be a regular season worth talking about this year for the NBA. We have seen the owners' best offer, and it is spurned. 50-50 did have a certain charm, but the technical aspects--how the owners would hamstring the movement of free agents, protecting themselves from their own mistakes--were too many. I don't feel that the players will do well to sit this one out. If the season must be cancelled, let's see them put together their own barnstorming league of a few teams, whatever arenas they can find, and a squad of insurance claims agents and medical cut men to fix any problems. These are valuable commodities.
The Shame of College Football
This season, the question is which is the greatest shame that the sport has suffered? Apart from the usual dose of inappropriate favors to players tolerated by college athletic officials (Ohio State was hit, not nearly hard enough, I'd say), there is also the usual shame of the Big Cheesy Series and the unremediated selection process for the quote-unquote National Championship game. This year, as the candidates progressively eliminate themselves, the quote-unquote looks to be a choice between the blowout matchup of LSU-Oklahoma State or a repeat of the recent "Game of the Century" snoozefest game between LSU and Alabama.
The tragedy of Penn State reached its ugly climax this week, and it was shameful in so many ways: the acts alleged to have been committed, over a very long period, by one of the top assistant coaches; the cover-up, the humiliation imposed on Joe Paterno after 45 hugely successful seasons of coaching; the behavior of the students who rioted in favor of the principle of concealing sexual assaults against children; and let's not even consider the victims' emotional devastation. I've never been much of a fan of the Nittany Lions, though I may have supported them situationally in certain games (and they usually provided good value, as in having sufficient beef to bang with the best of them). Now I've got a new team to root against.
I would select as the greatest shame, though, the unseemly scramble among the various colleges changing conference "loyalties". It's a derivative effect of the BCS folly: most of it is about the colleges from the conferences whose winners do not get one of the eight automatic BCS berths trying to upgrade their status. That, and for all of the major colleges, trying to make sure that their conference has the requisite 12 teams so they can have their big-money playoff game to earn that berth.
The culmination of this travesty is the invitations apparently offered to Boise State and Texas Christian University to be part of the no-longer Big no-longer East. Louisville and Cincinnati (and DePaul and Notre Dame) were pushing it, in basketball, but the departures of the likes of Syracuse and Pittsburgh for greener pastures meant this proud conference was headed the way of the dead-and-buried Southwest Conference and the doomed Big 12. You can't tell the conference players without a scorecard, and it's getting so nobody should even care.
Although there are some partial arrangements, in which some colleges participate in conferences for only certain sports, the part that disturbs me most is how the distortions of the BCS have affected the relatively intact other college sports. This somewhat includes men's basketball, but I suspect there will be ugly echoes in many others: women's basketball, baseball, soccer, etc.
NFL at the Halfway Point
The lockout suffered by the NFL was settled in time for the regular season's planned start; only a week of preseason games was lost, and that is less than nothing. The deal, I must admit, was quite fair to the players and much better than I expected. So, I'm not feeling too much guilt in enjoying the NFL games, which I have done on a few occasions--more than I usually do--this fall.
I would say that the stories so far are these:
1) The 8-0 unbeaten start of the defending champion Green Bay Packers. As one of the Tribune beat writers noted, their pass defense is too weak for the team to go undefeated, but their scoring punch should get them through most challenges and makes them a favorite with a good chance to repeat.
2) The Detroit Lions have emerged from--years? decades? generations? of mediocrity and have surged to a playoff-worthy start in the same division as Green Bay.
3) The Indianapolis Colts' weak defense has been fully exposed by the injury to Peyton Manning and they have lost all their games, mostly by large margins.
4) The AFC in general seems to be in decline, with the exception of the Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers.
My system relies upon difficulty of schedule balancing out by this point in the year, and the weakness of the AFC makes that assumption invalid this year. An easy schedule is mostly defined by playing lots of AFC teams, and one should avoid picking AFC teams in inter-conference matchups. That being said, here are my picks against the spread this week:
1) Houston Texans giving 3 at Tampa Bay (I have them winning by 10);
2) Cincinnati Bengals getting 3 at home vs. the Steelers;
3) 49ers giving 3 1/2 at home vs. the Giants; and
4) Lions getting 3 at the Bears. This last one is probably the most controversial pick (though the Steelers may be due for a big game against their familiar patsy). The Tribune had eight writers and the results of a video game as guides to the game: all the writers picked the Bears, but the game had the Lions by 7. I'm going with the machine here.
Soccer: Chelsea Going Down?
The Blues are in fourth, just behind Newcastle (in whom I believe very little), but it is their style which makes me doubtful. They lost 5-3 to Arsenal in a game full of defensive lapses, then failed to win vs. Genk in the Champions League. If this season doesn't improve, I think they will end up keeping their young coach and jettisoning their veterans in a rebuilding move. The players to watch will be Drogba and Cech--if they go, Lampard and Terry will follow soon after.
Manchester City is the new team made with money; they look to be a terror upon the league after their 6-1 defeat of Manchester United two weeks ago. They have not lost in the Premier League yet, and some are thinking they may never do so this year.
Finally, the NBA?
The next few days will probably determine whether there will be a regular season worth talking about this year for the NBA. We have seen the owners' best offer, and it is spurned. 50-50 did have a certain charm, but the technical aspects--how the owners would hamstring the movement of free agents, protecting themselves from their own mistakes--were too many. I don't feel that the players will do well to sit this one out. If the season must be cancelled, let's see them put together their own barnstorming league of a few teams, whatever arenas they can find, and a squad of insurance claims agents and medical cut men to fix any problems. These are valuable commodities.
Monday, November 07, 2011
2011 Oscars (almost entirely through) Previews
Now is the time for all good movies to rise to the service of their studios, if they want an Oscar. This Friday, the numerologically propitious 11/11/11, will mark the serious beginning of the serious movie season. I'd say that a couple of longer-shot contenders have come out, one last weekend and one several months ago (I'll get to those later), but the real players will be opening in the next six/seven weeks.
I've been reading from some critics that the Era of Movies is over and that television rules our visual popular culture. I don't agree with that, but I would say that the annual cycle of movies has become too predictable while TV, which now has new programs popping up in all seasons, with annual series of all different lengths, has a much more interesting seasonal execution plan. The problem with movies is that there is no plan, and that all the studios with major product are looking at the same promised land.
As I don't care much for splatter or most action pablum, I skip most of the movies released in the period starting February and ending October, but I have seen three or four respectable ones which had the previews for most of the big releases coming up this Oscar season. Those trailers, and a couple of season previews (I recommend the week-by-week one imdb.com has in its "Coming Soon" feature, at least if you look now, no critiques but a fairly complete list, as a research resource), give me enough material--without any special access--to have a good idea
what's coming, and on the Oscar outlook. It's presumptuous, not to say pretentious, to pick the Oscars purely off the trailers and the hype, but presumption and pretense are what the Academy Awards are all about. That, and entertainment.
As Warner Wolf used to say, Let's Go to the Video Tape!
Released Too EarlyAnything already out there has two strikes against it from an Oscars point of view. There are exceptions in the nominations, but very few in the actual awards. I'm suggesting here there may be basis for one this year, but I suppose I'll eventually be proved wrong once again in thinking that Oscars voters have a memory that extends beyond two months.
Melancholia--the Lars Von Trier end-of-the-world drama is getting some good commentary from the Film Festival circut. Von Trier isn't popular, but lead actress Kirsten Dunst could get a nomination (though probably not the prize).
Contagion--Soderbergh made it thoughtfully and well, but it wasn't sufficiently gross or scary to be popular; a movie like this has to cut a swath through society like the plague in order to make an impression.
Ides of March--It could've been a winner in a different scenario, but the cynical story didn't fit in 2008, and (despite some parallels with the breaking Cain story, and an overall increase in the level of disillusionment) it still doesn't. We could all see the fall of both the candidate and his handler from the first 15 minutes, we just weren't sure what the mechanism of their destruction would be. The answers--sex with an intern, ambition for the handler--were not imaginative enough, and that is the fault of the original play. I thought Clooney did well both acting and directing, but I don't see any awards coming.
Moneyball--I'm a huge baseball fan, I love Michael Lewis' storytelling, and I felt "The Blind Side" deserved its accolades, I even like Brad Pitt's acting, but I've never had any desire to watch this film. I was lukewarm about the book, and I feel its time (and those of Billy Beane and of the A's)passed some years ago.
Tree of Life--Watching this movie was excruciating: it was agonizingly slow, confusing, and also emotionally wrenching. I was glad when it was over, but I have been returning to it in my thoughts ever since (5 months ago). Is this the exception, or will it prove the rule (two different things, as far as I'm concerned)? Because of its early release, it could get shut out completely, but I think it could be a multiple nominee and could even win some major awards: Supporting Actress Jessica Chastain (few speaking lines, but unforgettable visual images), director Terence Malick, cinematographer, sound. Not, however, for its big stars--Pitt and Sean Penn.
"Tree of Life" brings to mind "2001: A Space Odyssey" in many of its aspects (tedium, obsessive attention to sensual detail, all-encompassing perspective), and I think that, like "2001" and regardless of Oscar, it will be marked as a classic and remembered through the years, mostly by people who have never sat through it. All of Malick's movies are near-masterpieces, and this one is unmistakably so.
Anonymous--It looked interesting, but the November 4 release date suggests the producers of this fantasy about the "real author" of Shakespeare may feel insecure about its prospects. I will see it and hope for the best, which would be a more thought-provoking "Shakespeare in Love".
Misguided Family Missives and/or Skewing Young
War Horse--I can't believe Spielberg is going to flog this one. It's a story of a horse that survives the horrors of World War I and returns to domestic life. I'm sure it will look good, and as always with Spielberg, it will manipulate your emotions mercilessly. It just seems a little too obvious for me.
Sherlock Holmes 2--There's some subtitle, I forget. The return of the cast of the debut album (Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law/Rachel McAdams), plus Professor Moriarty, suggests a big hit. I could be terribly wrong, but I think this one will be a bit too clearly repetitious of the formula that made 1 a success.
Hugo--Scorsese doing a sci-fi Jules Verne-y Paris kid story in a Metro hideout in 3-D. I'm disbelieving the hype.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo--The Swedish mystery thriller trilogy has already been produced, and apparently well; this will be the big-money promoted version. The preview looks good, and I haven't been spoiled by reading the books.
Star Turns
I would expect that the preponderance of Best Actor and Best Actress nominations, as well as the eventual winners, will come from these big screen character profiles.
Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy--Gary Oldman in the star role of the John LeCarre spy novel. It seems as though Oldman is an Oscar waiting to happen, and this could be the one.
Iron Lady--Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher: Her nomination is guaranteed; I think this could be a tough win this year, though, and Thatcher is not much of a crowd-pleasing persona, really.
My Week with Marilyn--Michele Williams as Marilyn Monroe. See "Iron Lady", except that I think Williams will win. She certainly looks the part, and there's a lot of residual sympathy for her out there since Heath Ledger's passing during the season of "Brokeback Mountain" (hers) and "The Dark Knight" (his).
J. Edgar--Leonardo DiCaprio playing J. Edgar Hoover, with direction by Clint Eastwood. This could be "The Aviator" all over again, though Eastwood has won before. What I want to know is how it took this long to have a major production of Hoover's life story, which would be impossible if it weren't true. The only way this could miss would be a failure to face up properly to Hoover's latent homosexuality, or whatever the dressing up in women's underwear stuff is supposed to represent. Somehow, I don't think they'll miss the story; DiCaprio would be my pre-viewing pick for Best Actor, and there could be more here.
W.E.--Madonna directed this story of Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII, which you'll remember from "The King's Speech" last year. I'm sure they're looking for similar results, and reports are that relative unknown Andrea Riseborough as young Wallis could surprise in the Best Actress category. I have the feeling that anti-Madonna feelings, which I think are pretty strong in Hollywood, could poison Riseborough's chances after she gets the nomination.
Serious Stuff
In the Land of Blood and Honey--This movie, with Angelina Jolie directing a story of a cover-up of sex crimes in wartorn Bosnia, is a real dark horse. It could be a dramatic masterpiece or an overblown monstrosity. I'm fascinated, and, if it was filmed on location, should at least be scenic.
Pariah--another Film Fest fave, being released on Dec. 28 suggests its handlers like its chances for some "Precious"-type Oscar buzz. I hope it's good.
The Descendants--Alexander Payne ("Sideways") directing George Clooney. A humorous and bitter story set in Hawaii; I think this one has serious Best Picture potential.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close--when you look at the cast (including Tom Hanks, Max von Sydow, Sandra Bullock), the director (Stephen Daldry--"The Hours"), the storyline (a polymath kid's experience with the 9/11 disaster that killed his dad), you have to conclude that this is the early betting favorite for Best Picture. I'm extremely sure that it will be incredibly central to the Oscar balloting, and may be deservedly so.
I was a bit dismissive of some of these efforts, and I may have underrated several of them. Nevertheless, I think this looks to be quite a good Oscar season, really. I'm also looking forward to January, 2012, when the flawed efforts come out--some of those may be very interesting.
I've been reading from some critics that the Era of Movies is over and that television rules our visual popular culture. I don't agree with that, but I would say that the annual cycle of movies has become too predictable while TV, which now has new programs popping up in all seasons, with annual series of all different lengths, has a much more interesting seasonal execution plan. The problem with movies is that there is no plan, and that all the studios with major product are looking at the same promised land.
As I don't care much for splatter or most action pablum, I skip most of the movies released in the period starting February and ending October, but I have seen three or four respectable ones which had the previews for most of the big releases coming up this Oscar season. Those trailers, and a couple of season previews (I recommend the week-by-week one imdb.com has in its "Coming Soon" feature, at least if you look now, no critiques but a fairly complete list, as a research resource), give me enough material--without any special access--to have a good idea
what's coming, and on the Oscar outlook. It's presumptuous, not to say pretentious, to pick the Oscars purely off the trailers and the hype, but presumption and pretense are what the Academy Awards are all about. That, and entertainment.
As Warner Wolf used to say, Let's Go to the Video Tape!
Released Too EarlyAnything already out there has two strikes against it from an Oscars point of view. There are exceptions in the nominations, but very few in the actual awards. I'm suggesting here there may be basis for one this year, but I suppose I'll eventually be proved wrong once again in thinking that Oscars voters have a memory that extends beyond two months.
Melancholia--the Lars Von Trier end-of-the-world drama is getting some good commentary from the Film Festival circut. Von Trier isn't popular, but lead actress Kirsten Dunst could get a nomination (though probably not the prize).
Contagion--Soderbergh made it thoughtfully and well, but it wasn't sufficiently gross or scary to be popular; a movie like this has to cut a swath through society like the plague in order to make an impression.
Ides of March--It could've been a winner in a different scenario, but the cynical story didn't fit in 2008, and (despite some parallels with the breaking Cain story, and an overall increase in the level of disillusionment) it still doesn't. We could all see the fall of both the candidate and his handler from the first 15 minutes, we just weren't sure what the mechanism of their destruction would be. The answers--sex with an intern, ambition for the handler--were not imaginative enough, and that is the fault of the original play. I thought Clooney did well both acting and directing, but I don't see any awards coming.
Moneyball--I'm a huge baseball fan, I love Michael Lewis' storytelling, and I felt "The Blind Side" deserved its accolades, I even like Brad Pitt's acting, but I've never had any desire to watch this film. I was lukewarm about the book, and I feel its time (and those of Billy Beane and of the A's)passed some years ago.
Tree of Life--Watching this movie was excruciating: it was agonizingly slow, confusing, and also emotionally wrenching. I was glad when it was over, but I have been returning to it in my thoughts ever since (5 months ago). Is this the exception, or will it prove the rule (two different things, as far as I'm concerned)? Because of its early release, it could get shut out completely, but I think it could be a multiple nominee and could even win some major awards: Supporting Actress Jessica Chastain (few speaking lines, but unforgettable visual images), director Terence Malick, cinematographer, sound. Not, however, for its big stars--Pitt and Sean Penn.
"Tree of Life" brings to mind "2001: A Space Odyssey" in many of its aspects (tedium, obsessive attention to sensual detail, all-encompassing perspective), and I think that, like "2001" and regardless of Oscar, it will be marked as a classic and remembered through the years, mostly by people who have never sat through it. All of Malick's movies are near-masterpieces, and this one is unmistakably so.
Anonymous--It looked interesting, but the November 4 release date suggests the producers of this fantasy about the "real author" of Shakespeare may feel insecure about its prospects. I will see it and hope for the best, which would be a more thought-provoking "Shakespeare in Love".
Misguided Family Missives and/or Skewing Young
War Horse--I can't believe Spielberg is going to flog this one. It's a story of a horse that survives the horrors of World War I and returns to domestic life. I'm sure it will look good, and as always with Spielberg, it will manipulate your emotions mercilessly. It just seems a little too obvious for me.
Sherlock Holmes 2--There's some subtitle, I forget. The return of the cast of the debut album (Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law/Rachel McAdams), plus Professor Moriarty, suggests a big hit. I could be terribly wrong, but I think this one will be a bit too clearly repetitious of the formula that made 1 a success.
Hugo--Scorsese doing a sci-fi Jules Verne-y Paris kid story in a Metro hideout in 3-D. I'm disbelieving the hype.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo--The Swedish mystery thriller trilogy has already been produced, and apparently well; this will be the big-money promoted version. The preview looks good, and I haven't been spoiled by reading the books.
Star Turns
I would expect that the preponderance of Best Actor and Best Actress nominations, as well as the eventual winners, will come from these big screen character profiles.
Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy--Gary Oldman in the star role of the John LeCarre spy novel. It seems as though Oldman is an Oscar waiting to happen, and this could be the one.
Iron Lady--Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher: Her nomination is guaranteed; I think this could be a tough win this year, though, and Thatcher is not much of a crowd-pleasing persona, really.
My Week with Marilyn--Michele Williams as Marilyn Monroe. See "Iron Lady", except that I think Williams will win. She certainly looks the part, and there's a lot of residual sympathy for her out there since Heath Ledger's passing during the season of "Brokeback Mountain" (hers) and "The Dark Knight" (his).
J. Edgar--Leonardo DiCaprio playing J. Edgar Hoover, with direction by Clint Eastwood. This could be "The Aviator" all over again, though Eastwood has won before. What I want to know is how it took this long to have a major production of Hoover's life story, which would be impossible if it weren't true. The only way this could miss would be a failure to face up properly to Hoover's latent homosexuality, or whatever the dressing up in women's underwear stuff is supposed to represent. Somehow, I don't think they'll miss the story; DiCaprio would be my pre-viewing pick for Best Actor, and there could be more here.
W.E.--Madonna directed this story of Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII, which you'll remember from "The King's Speech" last year. I'm sure they're looking for similar results, and reports are that relative unknown Andrea Riseborough as young Wallis could surprise in the Best Actress category. I have the feeling that anti-Madonna feelings, which I think are pretty strong in Hollywood, could poison Riseborough's chances after she gets the nomination.
Serious Stuff
In the Land of Blood and Honey--This movie, with Angelina Jolie directing a story of a cover-up of sex crimes in wartorn Bosnia, is a real dark horse. It could be a dramatic masterpiece or an overblown monstrosity. I'm fascinated, and, if it was filmed on location, should at least be scenic.
Pariah--another Film Fest fave, being released on Dec. 28 suggests its handlers like its chances for some "Precious"-type Oscar buzz. I hope it's good.
The Descendants--Alexander Payne ("Sideways") directing George Clooney. A humorous and bitter story set in Hawaii; I think this one has serious Best Picture potential.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close--when you look at the cast (including Tom Hanks, Max von Sydow, Sandra Bullock), the director (Stephen Daldry--"The Hours"), the storyline (a polymath kid's experience with the 9/11 disaster that killed his dad), you have to conclude that this is the early betting favorite for Best Picture. I'm extremely sure that it will be incredibly central to the Oscar balloting, and may be deservedly so.
I was a bit dismissive of some of these efforts, and I may have underrated several of them. Nevertheless, I think this looks to be quite a good Oscar season, really. I'm also looking forward to January, 2012, when the flawed efforts come out--some of those may be very interesting.
That $4 Trillion Thing
Out of nowhere comes a report that gives great hope. It appears that the Republican leaders in Congress, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, have come to the conclusion that the thing that President Obama most fears is a comprehensive debt reduction agreement on a large scale--like $4 trillion over ten years--such as has been proposed repeatedly in the past.
Therefore, since they perceive Obama is against it, they're now for it. This after months when it appeared they would block a deal 70% less than that because it would be too difficult to pass.
I never realized that the "Tar-Baby" approach would work so well: all Obama had to do to get a deal was have some of his people suggest it was the thing he feared most. He needs to stick to this line long enough for something to come out of the Supercommittee (and that means a few well-placed whispers in the ears of Supercommittee Democrats). Then, once the Gang of 12 votes it out, he can give his support--and the rules will prevent a filibuster!
We're not in agreement with those of the left who are opposed to any deal like this. It does have to be the right kind of deal, though: reductions in military spending, reductions in "tax expenditures" (loopholes) or an increase in tax rates (the former is more likely), and sensible adjustments in Social Security and, in particular, in Medicare. We've been backing such a deal for a long time. President Obama needs to support such a deal, as the best way to provide for our future, and I believe he will. Just not too soon in the process.
Therefore, since they perceive Obama is against it, they're now for it. This after months when it appeared they would block a deal 70% less than that because it would be too difficult to pass.
I never realized that the "Tar-Baby" approach would work so well: all Obama had to do to get a deal was have some of his people suggest it was the thing he feared most. He needs to stick to this line long enough for something to come out of the Supercommittee (and that means a few well-placed whispers in the ears of Supercommittee Democrats). Then, once the Gang of 12 votes it out, he can give his support--and the rules will prevent a filibuster!
We're not in agreement with those of the left who are opposed to any deal like this. It does have to be the right kind of deal, though: reductions in military spending, reductions in "tax expenditures" (loopholes) or an increase in tax rates (the former is more likely), and sensible adjustments in Social Security and, in particular, in Medicare. We've been backing such a deal for a long time. President Obama needs to support such a deal, as the best way to provide for our future, and I believe he will. Just not too soon in the process.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Let the High-Tech Lynching Begin!
Herman Cain is the Clarence Thomas of Presidential candidates: a political embarrassment to his race, a really bad shaggy dog story that just won't end. Now, with the news that he has his own alleged sexual harassment story, the equivalent of his own Anita Hill, the analogy is complete.
Cheer up, Herman; Clarence passed through his klieg-lit trial of fire and got his big power gig, which he has managed to fill despite never making any public utterance for years, and so far is surviving a nasty piece of news about failing to disclose his wife's career as a paid lobbyist. He wouldn't seem to be anyone's idea of a brilliant Supreme Court Justice, except Herman Cain's.
I just don't think it's going to work for Cain to clam up this early in the process and shut out the media, which made him as a candidate.
Complete this series: Trump, Bachman, Perry, Cain....does the Anyone but Romney Right-wing Darling of the Month Club need to find a new flavor, can Cain survive after being banished East of Eden, or can one of the current flavors out there somewhere rise up from polltaking mediocrity? I would point out that Ron Paul is the unacknowledged heir to the title, as he is a solid third in every poll now (behind Cain and Romney). The difference is, Paul has staying power. The other differences are that Paul really represents something different, and that he is not considered a legitimate contender by most of the pros. His moment may finally be coming.
Cheer up, Herman; Clarence passed through his klieg-lit trial of fire and got his big power gig, which he has managed to fill despite never making any public utterance for years, and so far is surviving a nasty piece of news about failing to disclose his wife's career as a paid lobbyist. He wouldn't seem to be anyone's idea of a brilliant Supreme Court Justice, except Herman Cain's.
I just don't think it's going to work for Cain to clam up this early in the process and shut out the media, which made him as a candidate.
Complete this series: Trump, Bachman, Perry, Cain....does the Anyone but Romney Right-wing Darling of the Month Club need to find a new flavor, can Cain survive after being banished East of Eden, or can one of the current flavors out there somewhere rise up from polltaking mediocrity? I would point out that Ron Paul is the unacknowledged heir to the title, as he is a solid third in every poll now (behind Cain and Romney). The difference is, Paul has staying power. The other differences are that Paul really represents something different, and that he is not considered a legitimate contender by most of the pros. His moment may finally be coming.
Friday, October 28, 2011
It Was Theirs To Lose, And They Did
I am reeling from the dramatic sixth game of the World Series played last night. The Texas Rangers had a 3-2 lead in games over the St. Louis Cardinals and the opportunity to win the series and gain their first baseball World Championship.
Playing on the road, the Rangers struck first, and, with the exception of a first-inning two-run homer by Lance Berkman, Rangers' starting pitcher Colby Lewis did well and gave his team a chance to win. Rangers' hitters produced repeatedly with big longballs and timely hits when presented the chance by Cardinal miscues, giving the team leads of 1-0, 3-2, 4-3, 7-4, and then finally, in extra innings, 9-7.
Somehow, the Rangers bullpen managed to blow all five of those leads. The worst was Rangers closer Neftali Feliz allowing the Cardinals to score two runs in the bottom of the ninth with two out to tie the score at 7. The indelible memory I will keep of the game was of Rangers outfielder Nelson Cruz drifting over, gloved arm outstretched for David Freese's long flyball, with the ball dropping a foot or two out of reach. Freese got a triple that scored the two tying runs, and the game went on.
When Josh Hamilton then hit a two-run homer in the tenth inning, it should have been over, but again the Rangers bullpen failed to seal the deal. This time it was less dramatic, with the balance of sloppy play now shifting to the Rangers' side, but once again the key hit came with two out and two strikes, this time a single from Berkman.
Finally, Freese put all of us out of our misery in the bottom of the 11th with a homer.
The word for the game is not "classic"--it was much too ugly for that--but something suggesting the manic excitement and sensation of risk of a roller coaster or a joyride in a stolen car. How about "cringeworthy"?
It is hard to imagine that the Rangers can put such a devastating loss behind them so quickly as to win the decisive Game 7 which will be played today. It would, however, fit with the improbable story line.
I should close by mentioning the most famous 10-9 baseball game prior to this one. It was Game 7 of the 1960 World Series between the Pirates and the Yankees, won by a walk-off homerun by Bill Mazeroski of the Pirates in the bottom of the ninth. I wasn't there, or barely cognizant, at the time, but the game appears to have had the same kind of topsy-turvy, back-and-forth dynamic (I don't know about the errors.) I'm not sure this will surpass it, because the truly decisive game is yet to be played, so in that regard it may be more like Game 6 of the Reds-Red Sox series won 7-6 by the BoSox by Carlton Fisk's homer, though I see that game as being more "classic" in terms of the quality of play.
Playing on the road, the Rangers struck first, and, with the exception of a first-inning two-run homer by Lance Berkman, Rangers' starting pitcher Colby Lewis did well and gave his team a chance to win. Rangers' hitters produced repeatedly with big longballs and timely hits when presented the chance by Cardinal miscues, giving the team leads of 1-0, 3-2, 4-3, 7-4, and then finally, in extra innings, 9-7.
Somehow, the Rangers bullpen managed to blow all five of those leads. The worst was Rangers closer Neftali Feliz allowing the Cardinals to score two runs in the bottom of the ninth with two out to tie the score at 7. The indelible memory I will keep of the game was of Rangers outfielder Nelson Cruz drifting over, gloved arm outstretched for David Freese's long flyball, with the ball dropping a foot or two out of reach. Freese got a triple that scored the two tying runs, and the game went on.
When Josh Hamilton then hit a two-run homer in the tenth inning, it should have been over, but again the Rangers bullpen failed to seal the deal. This time it was less dramatic, with the balance of sloppy play now shifting to the Rangers' side, but once again the key hit came with two out and two strikes, this time a single from Berkman.
Finally, Freese put all of us out of our misery in the bottom of the 11th with a homer.
The word for the game is not "classic"--it was much too ugly for that--but something suggesting the manic excitement and sensation of risk of a roller coaster or a joyride in a stolen car. How about "cringeworthy"?
It is hard to imagine that the Rangers can put such a devastating loss behind them so quickly as to win the decisive Game 7 which will be played today. It would, however, fit with the improbable story line.
I should close by mentioning the most famous 10-9 baseball game prior to this one. It was Game 7 of the 1960 World Series between the Pirates and the Yankees, won by a walk-off homerun by Bill Mazeroski of the Pirates in the bottom of the ninth. I wasn't there, or barely cognizant, at the time, but the game appears to have had the same kind of topsy-turvy, back-and-forth dynamic (I don't know about the errors.) I'm not sure this will surpass it, because the truly decisive game is yet to be played, so in that regard it may be more like Game 6 of the Reds-Red Sox series won 7-6 by the BoSox by Carlton Fisk's homer, though I see that game as being more "classic" in terms of the quality of play.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Two Sorts of Mideast Extrication
In a single week, the US' prospective global participation level dropped by a couple of messy Middle Eastern affairs. Former Libyan dictator Qadhafi was captured and killed near his home in Libya, effectively ending our military involvement there, and President Obama announced that the US will withdraw its military forces completely from Iraq by the end of the year.
At least for the time being, the events in Libya should mean an end to hostilities in the civil conflict. The NATO alliance had its most successful military engagement there, achieving its objectives with a minimum of fuss and casualties to the alliance's member forces. The future for the country is far from assured, but the result gives it a chance for self-government, and, after it reactivates its oil economy, it could gain a degree of prosperity.
In the case of Iraq, we didn't really have a choice in the outcome, though Obama was quick to accept the Iraqis' decision to request our military's complete departure, which allowed him to claim fulfillment of one of his campaign promises. There were discussions to change the 2008 agreement between the Iraqis' government at the time, more or less the same they have now, and the Bush Administration, which required this departure by year-end. The negotiations broke down on the issue of whether US military would be given immunity against prosecution for crimes against Iraqis. It's a very likely premise to wreck any such discussion, basically a fundamental requirement for us to occupy another country and an unthinkable notion for any self-respecting nation which has not just suffered the indignity of being conquered.
In other words, the only terms Iraq under which it could have kept significant US forces would have been a surrender of its sovereignty. Not surprisingly, getting our forces out was one thing all of Iraq's factions could agree upon. There are still real potential problems going forward, besides a clear possibility of a reopening of internal conflict: We will have a substantial number of CIA operatives and Blackwater-type consultants operating in the country, with risks both to those individuals and possibly to Iraqis, and the largest embassy in the world is an attractive target for terrorists. The powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has threatened the embassy already, and there may still need to be a reckoning with him and his forces, if they destabilize the government or try to bring it too close to Iran's orbit of influence.
Although the circumstances and recent history are quite divergent, I'm struck by some of the similarities between Iraq's case and Libya's. Both countries' dictators were found hiding in holes and were rather brutally disposed of by their countrymen. Both countries are riven by tribal loyalties and breakaway tendencies from regions remote from the capital. Their national futures are cloudy but hopeful due to the potential oil revenues.
I'm beginning be to think there may some sort of Mideast multi-national political initiative in the offing, involving the nations recently liberated from their dictators (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya) and such possible partners as Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and (if it can shake its bonds) Syria. Such an alliance could be a powerful counter-force against an intransigent Israel and could even pose a challenge to Europe, which has rather clearly chosen to draw a clear line to keep its predominantly Muslim neighbors at a distance. As always, the trick for the US is to provide influence in a positive direction to these nations, helping to lead them toward what they should want to do for themselves, without being seen too clearly as directing their behavior.
At least for the time being, the events in Libya should mean an end to hostilities in the civil conflict. The NATO alliance had its most successful military engagement there, achieving its objectives with a minimum of fuss and casualties to the alliance's member forces. The future for the country is far from assured, but the result gives it a chance for self-government, and, after it reactivates its oil economy, it could gain a degree of prosperity.
In the case of Iraq, we didn't really have a choice in the outcome, though Obama was quick to accept the Iraqis' decision to request our military's complete departure, which allowed him to claim fulfillment of one of his campaign promises. There were discussions to change the 2008 agreement between the Iraqis' government at the time, more or less the same they have now, and the Bush Administration, which required this departure by year-end. The negotiations broke down on the issue of whether US military would be given immunity against prosecution for crimes against Iraqis. It's a very likely premise to wreck any such discussion, basically a fundamental requirement for us to occupy another country and an unthinkable notion for any self-respecting nation which has not just suffered the indignity of being conquered.
In other words, the only terms Iraq under which it could have kept significant US forces would have been a surrender of its sovereignty. Not surprisingly, getting our forces out was one thing all of Iraq's factions could agree upon. There are still real potential problems going forward, besides a clear possibility of a reopening of internal conflict: We will have a substantial number of CIA operatives and Blackwater-type consultants operating in the country, with risks both to those individuals and possibly to Iraqis, and the largest embassy in the world is an attractive target for terrorists. The powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has threatened the embassy already, and there may still need to be a reckoning with him and his forces, if they destabilize the government or try to bring it too close to Iran's orbit of influence.
Although the circumstances and recent history are quite divergent, I'm struck by some of the similarities between Iraq's case and Libya's. Both countries' dictators were found hiding in holes and were rather brutally disposed of by their countrymen. Both countries are riven by tribal loyalties and breakaway tendencies from regions remote from the capital. Their national futures are cloudy but hopeful due to the potential oil revenues.
I'm beginning be to think there may some sort of Mideast multi-national political initiative in the offing, involving the nations recently liberated from their dictators (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya) and such possible partners as Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and (if it can shake its bonds) Syria. Such an alliance could be a powerful counter-force against an intransigent Israel and could even pose a challenge to Europe, which has rather clearly chosen to draw a clear line to keep its predominantly Muslim neighbors at a distance. As always, the trick for the US is to provide influence in a positive direction to these nations, helping to lead them toward what they should want to do for themselves, without being seen too clearly as directing their behavior.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Fruity Fisticuffs
I managed actually to watch the Republican debate tonight. There were plenty of potentially vomit-inducing statements, but also enough fireworks to keep my attention. The first set had to do with Herman Cain's controversial tax plan, where he dismissed concerns about his nine percent national sales tax being piled on top of existing state sales taxes by saying that was "mixing apples and oranges". Mitt Romney got him, though, by responding that "you get a fruit basket, with both apples and oranges, and Nevada doesn't want them". Cain's argument that low- and middle-class people would pay less under his plan "just won't fly", as Rick Perry said.
The real problems Cain faces were illustrated in that discussion. His program is simple and largely understandable, which makes it a problem: Cain can either disguise its regressive nature (which he's trying to do), or he can acknowledge it. He's a Republican, he may as well as admit it, and it is eventually going to come out that he is a former member of the Federal Reserve Board (it doesn't seem to have come up yet), and thus a card-carrying member of the moneyed elite--the group that would benefit most from his program.
The fisticuffs were between Romney and Perry; they were not thrown, but I'd bet a closeup would show they both had their fists clenched. Romney got slammed as a hypocrite by Perry for having had illegals mowing his lawn; Perry got back a dig about how he was just getting testy because he had "a couple of bad debates". Perry's look in response to that was purely feral; Romney got frustrated with Perry's willingness to get in his face and interrupt him.
Actually, though, the glove that did touch Romney was Rick Santorum's, with his accusation that Romney has no credibility in his attacks on "Obamacare", having been a principal in the development and legislation of a healthcare coverage law in Massachusetts that closely paralleled the Affordable Care Act. It put Romney in a difficult position of having to defend the success and popularity of his Massachusetts law while condemning Obama's very similar one. It will come back.
I was impressed with how lame all of the answers were for several of the questions: on foreign aid, on what to do about the foreclosures in Nevada, about the Occupy Wall Street movement, about what any of them possibly have to offer for Latino voters. But that was to be expected, I guess.
So, especially for those who couldn't stomach it, I must answer the simple question: who won, and who lost? Bachmann, whose answers were largely irrelevant except for a couple of appeals to emotional, conservative women, and Santorum, except for his jab at Romney, were further marginalized. Ron Paul got some good points in, but he is clearly not mainstreaam Republican. Jon Huntsman definitely lost by not showing up; his absence was hardly noticed.
Newt Gingrich showed that he is the best debater, but that it won't matter in the nomination battle--he probably did well enough to keep him in the race until the balloting starts in January. Rick Perry gained by keeping himself in the ring; he didn't make any friends, but his money will buy continued viability. Cain did enough to stay in the top three, but I still see his position as a losing one. Romney came in the leader and left as the leader, but he failed to knock Perry out, and he will be bruised in a long battle with him (more than if Cain is the surviving leader of the anti-Romney forces).
The winner, because his most plausible opponent's long-term position got weaker, was Barack Obama. Except for Bachmann, most of them were too busy attacking each other to say anything intelligent about Obama's shortcomings, and there will be more of this to come.
The real problems Cain faces were illustrated in that discussion. His program is simple and largely understandable, which makes it a problem: Cain can either disguise its regressive nature (which he's trying to do), or he can acknowledge it. He's a Republican, he may as well as admit it, and it is eventually going to come out that he is a former member of the Federal Reserve Board (it doesn't seem to have come up yet), and thus a card-carrying member of the moneyed elite--the group that would benefit most from his program.
The fisticuffs were between Romney and Perry; they were not thrown, but I'd bet a closeup would show they both had their fists clenched. Romney got slammed as a hypocrite by Perry for having had illegals mowing his lawn; Perry got back a dig about how he was just getting testy because he had "a couple of bad debates". Perry's look in response to that was purely feral; Romney got frustrated with Perry's willingness to get in his face and interrupt him.
Actually, though, the glove that did touch Romney was Rick Santorum's, with his accusation that Romney has no credibility in his attacks on "Obamacare", having been a principal in the development and legislation of a healthcare coverage law in Massachusetts that closely paralleled the Affordable Care Act. It put Romney in a difficult position of having to defend the success and popularity of his Massachusetts law while condemning Obama's very similar one. It will come back.
I was impressed with how lame all of the answers were for several of the questions: on foreign aid, on what to do about the foreclosures in Nevada, about the Occupy Wall Street movement, about what any of them possibly have to offer for Latino voters. But that was to be expected, I guess.
So, especially for those who couldn't stomach it, I must answer the simple question: who won, and who lost? Bachmann, whose answers were largely irrelevant except for a couple of appeals to emotional, conservative women, and Santorum, except for his jab at Romney, were further marginalized. Ron Paul got some good points in, but he is clearly not mainstreaam Republican. Jon Huntsman definitely lost by not showing up; his absence was hardly noticed.
Newt Gingrich showed that he is the best debater, but that it won't matter in the nomination battle--he probably did well enough to keep him in the race until the balloting starts in January. Rick Perry gained by keeping himself in the ring; he didn't make any friends, but his money will buy continued viability. Cain did enough to stay in the top three, but I still see his position as a losing one. Romney came in the leader and left as the leader, but he failed to knock Perry out, and he will be bruised in a long battle with him (more than if Cain is the surviving leader of the anti-Romney forces).
The winner, because his most plausible opponent's long-term position got weaker, was Barack Obama. Except for Bachmann, most of them were too busy attacking each other to say anything intelligent about Obama's shortcomings, and there will be more of this to come.
Man of Nor and Gold
My wife picked me up from work the other day very excited. "I found this great guy on the radio--he's a Socialist!" It turns out that it was my longtime friend, Norman Goldman, or as he gives his handle on his Talk Radio program "NOR-man GOLD-man".
For the record, Norm is not exactly a Socialist (not that there is anything anti-American about advocating some Socialism--it's not illegal anymore). His program, which is repeated frequently on the program and on his website, NormanGoldman.com, is a very simple, populist one:
1 Tax the Rich--Also
2 Stop Corporate Welfare
3 Downsize the Global Empire
4 Bring the Jobs Home
All pretty self-explanatory. He is a fervent backer of the new Occupy (fill in the blank) Movement. He castigates the "Republi-Cons"--a great coinage, "con" meaning not convict but "con men", and it's such a true description of the politicians of that party. I like it so much I'm going to use it as the label to identify my posts about the party's politics for the 2012 election--when I do, my tribute to his insight shown in that label will always be implicit.
You may be somewhat surprised, though, when you hear him light into the Democratic politicians, which he does just as often and almost as vehemently, because they are not true to their professed principles. He is looking for a New Politics, and he is trying to capture the 99%-ers' aims in his 4-point program.
When I met Norm, he was an intern in the City Planning Department of New York (I'm going to guess mid-80's); later, I knew him as a storefront lawyer struggling against the crooked lawyers representing the insurance and banking industries. He used to fill in for Ed Schultz sometimes in the days of Air America (have I got that right?), the attempt at Progressive Talk Radio that featured Al Franken for awhile. Some of the content, as you can see above, matches up well with Ed's, but his style is radically different: highly urban, educated, but also colloquial.
He's a big baseball fan (Cleveland Indians) and a great guy, a fine American, and I'm happy for him: he really sounds like he's having the time of his life. I wish him a long run, but we all should know he's up against some big opponents, taking on both parties as strongly as he does. Let's hope there remains a place for Norm on our air waves.
For the record, Norm is not exactly a Socialist (not that there is anything anti-American about advocating some Socialism--it's not illegal anymore). His program, which is repeated frequently on the program and on his website, NormanGoldman.com, is a very simple, populist one:
1 Tax the Rich--Also
2 Stop Corporate Welfare
3 Downsize the Global Empire
4 Bring the Jobs Home
All pretty self-explanatory. He is a fervent backer of the new Occupy (fill in the blank) Movement. He castigates the "Republi-Cons"--a great coinage, "con" meaning not convict but "con men", and it's such a true description of the politicians of that party. I like it so much I'm going to use it as the label to identify my posts about the party's politics for the 2012 election--when I do, my tribute to his insight shown in that label will always be implicit.
You may be somewhat surprised, though, when you hear him light into the Democratic politicians, which he does just as often and almost as vehemently, because they are not true to their professed principles. He is looking for a New Politics, and he is trying to capture the 99%-ers' aims in his 4-point program.
When I met Norm, he was an intern in the City Planning Department of New York (I'm going to guess mid-80's); later, I knew him as a storefront lawyer struggling against the crooked lawyers representing the insurance and banking industries. He used to fill in for Ed Schultz sometimes in the days of Air America (have I got that right?), the attempt at Progressive Talk Radio that featured Al Franken for awhile. Some of the content, as you can see above, matches up well with Ed's, but his style is radically different: highly urban, educated, but also colloquial.
He's a big baseball fan (Cleveland Indians) and a great guy, a fine American, and I'm happy for him: he really sounds like he's having the time of his life. I wish him a long run, but we all should know he's up against some big opponents, taking on both parties as strongly as he does. Let's hope there remains a place for Norm on our air waves.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Some Current Intrade Quotes
The wagerers at Intrade agree with my assessment that the rise of Herman Cain's candidacy (combined with the collapse of Rick Perry's) is the best news yet for Mitt Romney's candidacy. He had hovered in the 30-35% range on the probability of winning the Republican nomination until the last month; now he's given a 67% chance. Perry, who for a brief period was seen as having a better chance of winning the nod, still has second highest at 14%, Cain is at 8%, and the others are quoted at less than 5%.
In terms of the Presidency, President Obama's chances of winning the 2012 election are rated at 47%, while the Republican nominee, whoever it will be, is at 49.5%. Romney is granted a 34% chance of becoming the 45th President. Perry quotes at 7%, Cain at 4%, and none of the others are even close to that.
The betting is leaning heavily toward the view that each house of Congress will have a Republican majority: 77% for the House of Representatives, and 75% for the Senate. I am less convinced about this than the majority of Intrade wagerers seem to be, but more on this later. In what will surely be one of the highlighted races next year, Scott Brown's chances of holding his Massachusetts Senate seat for the Republicans next year has fallen sharply, from 65% to 35%, since the entry into the race of his nemesis, Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Finally, on the Republican VP nominee, Marco Rubio leads the betting, but only at 27%--Cain is second at 8%. Rubio's chances are the only one of those I've named here that I'd actually bet on--even, from the point of gambling investment, Barack Obama's.
In terms of the Presidency, President Obama's chances of winning the 2012 election are rated at 47%, while the Republican nominee, whoever it will be, is at 49.5%. Romney is granted a 34% chance of becoming the 45th President. Perry quotes at 7%, Cain at 4%, and none of the others are even close to that.
The betting is leaning heavily toward the view that each house of Congress will have a Republican majority: 77% for the House of Representatives, and 75% for the Senate. I am less convinced about this than the majority of Intrade wagerers seem to be, but more on this later. In what will surely be one of the highlighted races next year, Scott Brown's chances of holding his Massachusetts Senate seat for the Republicans next year has fallen sharply, from 65% to 35%, since the entry into the race of his nemesis, Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Finally, on the Republican VP nominee, Marco Rubio leads the betting, but only at 27%--Cain is second at 8%. Rubio's chances are the only one of those I've named here that I'd actually bet on--even, from the point of gambling investment, Barack Obama's.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
This Month's Flavor Combination is Redneck, Black
If it seems like a contradiction in terms, it is. Herman Cain is surely the most outlandish idea for a Republican front-runner yet. He's never been elected to anything; his sole claim to fame was as the CEO of a mediocre pizza chain; his idea of a great Supreme Court justice (as he told David Gregory on Meet the Press this week) is Clarence Thomas; and his natural constituency is about as broad as Thomas's-the 5-10% of African-Americans (some 12% of the voting-eligible population) who like policies that are clearly directed against the interests of their own minority, and the people who think that our biggest problem is that we don't have a black President sufficiently willing to help the moneyed elite.
This blog will be coming up to its 666th post shortly; we will devote it to a review of the Republican field: the Devils we know, the ones we don't, and the other candidates for Antichrist; Cain's "9-9-9" will certainly figure into that discussion.
All I have to say right now is that Cain's ascendancy is a dream come true for Mitt Romney's candidacy. The one thing that would stop Romney is someone uniting the stop-Romney factions of libertarians, right-wing paranoids, and evangelicals (now broadly referred to now as the Tea Party faction of the party), currently split among the likes of Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, and Santorum. If someone from that wing could emerge from the pack and pull together the various anti-Romney forces, he/she could pose a serious threat to what seems otherwise the most likely scenario: Romney's likely steady march through the primaries, competing and scoring respectably in all of them, drawing most of the support of the major party leaders, and winning big where the primary vote does not swing to the extreme right.
I absolutely cannot imagine those forces rallying around Cain. For one thing, if he somehow won the nomination, it would almost certainly provoke a split among the Republicans, ensuring their defeat, and even if it didn't, he'd get wiped out by Obama in a two-way race. I think Cain's best-case result is to win a couple of primaries, show up for a few more, and be in a position to take the second spot in the ticket if he throws his support to one of the other would-be Romney-stoppers. Even that seems unlikely: Cain's ego seems too big to accept the #2 spot, and I can't imagine any nominee, from any shade of the red spectrum, choosing anyone other than Marco Rubio as running mate (Florida being what it is, a huge swing state).
Unlike Perry, Bachmann, or even Romney, Cain communicates well, with forceful convictions, plentiful sound bites and ready formulaic answers, and with only occasional major gaffes. So it may not be easy to put his candidacy down, but it will assuredly happen--I'm guessing because he won't get the backing of the big money backers when the campaign shifts from retail politicking to expensive regional and national television.
In the debates, Bachmann, Perry, & Co. have a difficult task, as they must seek to undercut Cain's support but should avoid giving him the prestige of being the most prominent target. Attack on him for lack of public sector experience probably isn't going to work among this crowd. I would say Perry would have the best chance by showing how he's been able to manipulate Texas' legislature into giving him what he wants, and by having some semblance of a coherent national domestic and foreign policy. That's probably giving him too much credit, but surely his big bucks can get him some quality political advice, even if the Bushes and Roves of the party have turned him out. Much as I despise and fear Perry, I'm rooting for him to rebound and overtake Cain, as the best hope to stop Romney, whom I see as the only Republican candidate with a decent chance of beating Obama.
This blog will be coming up to its 666th post shortly; we will devote it to a review of the Republican field: the Devils we know, the ones we don't, and the other candidates for Antichrist; Cain's "9-9-9" will certainly figure into that discussion.
All I have to say right now is that Cain's ascendancy is a dream come true for Mitt Romney's candidacy. The one thing that would stop Romney is someone uniting the stop-Romney factions of libertarians, right-wing paranoids, and evangelicals (now broadly referred to now as the Tea Party faction of the party), currently split among the likes of Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, and Santorum. If someone from that wing could emerge from the pack and pull together the various anti-Romney forces, he/she could pose a serious threat to what seems otherwise the most likely scenario: Romney's likely steady march through the primaries, competing and scoring respectably in all of them, drawing most of the support of the major party leaders, and winning big where the primary vote does not swing to the extreme right.
I absolutely cannot imagine those forces rallying around Cain. For one thing, if he somehow won the nomination, it would almost certainly provoke a split among the Republicans, ensuring their defeat, and even if it didn't, he'd get wiped out by Obama in a two-way race. I think Cain's best-case result is to win a couple of primaries, show up for a few more, and be in a position to take the second spot in the ticket if he throws his support to one of the other would-be Romney-stoppers. Even that seems unlikely: Cain's ego seems too big to accept the #2 spot, and I can't imagine any nominee, from any shade of the red spectrum, choosing anyone other than Marco Rubio as running mate (Florida being what it is, a huge swing state).
Unlike Perry, Bachmann, or even Romney, Cain communicates well, with forceful convictions, plentiful sound bites and ready formulaic answers, and with only occasional major gaffes. So it may not be easy to put his candidacy down, but it will assuredly happen--I'm guessing because he won't get the backing of the big money backers when the campaign shifts from retail politicking to expensive regional and national television.
In the debates, Bachmann, Perry, & Co. have a difficult task, as they must seek to undercut Cain's support but should avoid giving him the prestige of being the most prominent target. Attack on him for lack of public sector experience probably isn't going to work among this crowd. I would say Perry would have the best chance by showing how he's been able to manipulate Texas' legislature into giving him what he wants, and by having some semblance of a coherent national domestic and foreign policy. That's probably giving him too much credit, but surely his big bucks can get him some quality political advice, even if the Bushes and Roves of the party have turned him out. Much as I despise and fear Perry, I'm rooting for him to rebound and overtake Cain, as the best hope to stop Romney, whom I see as the only Republican candidate with a decent chance of beating Obama.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
President Obama's American Jobs Act legislation failed to get close to the 60 votes it would need to move to debate on the floor. It will come back in pieces, and a few of them may eventually be passed. I'm thinking that the payroll tax cut (tax cuts are always welcomed by both parties), probably the portion for building and modernizing schools and hospitals, and perhaps the incentive for hiring will pass in some form resembling the one that Obama originally proposed. The revenue piece designed to offset this spending, raising increase in tax rates for the wealthiest, will not, of course.
I'm not sure that the result will achieve any of the objectives: most importantly, employment may be bumped up a notch or two (or a bump down may be offset), but it seems certain the official rate of those without will still be upwards of 8% on Election Day 2012. The record of the vote will be a mushy political weapon: many Senators, even many Democrats, had things they didn't like in such a multi-faceted piece of legislation, and a couple of Democrats even voted against it—others indicated they might have voted against it if it had reached the floor. Obama will certainly be able to claim that he has been hamstrung by a “do-nothing Congress”, a claim which may resonate but will not necessarily buy him, or his party, much in the way of political gain.
Following my general observance of the Talking Heads' Psycho-killer philosophy (“Say something once, why say it again?”) I will not go into too much detail, but I will refer you to one of my better posts, two years ago this month, in which I diagnosed and prescribed for this jobless recovery.
I will repeat and expand my suggestion that the Federal government provide sponsorship for community programs which would restore neighborhoods ravaged by foreclosure and abandonment. Banks should be required to provide support, in the form of contribution of some percentage of owned real estate properties to be turned over and sold for public benefit or conversion to public low-income housing, as well as wages for skilled and unskilled labor doing the restoring. In return, they should get CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) credit, improved value on neighboring properties to which they would retain ownership, and tax deductions for their expenses. It's the least they should be required to do, and it might improve the public's view of their utility and relieve the pressure on them (see below).
Occupy: Is it all about Occupation?
The Chicago Tribune posted me to this site, which lists the “demands” of the Occupy Chicago movement, as follows (I could not find on the site that these “proposed demands” were actually adopted, but I assume they were):
My comments. I really only oppose the last one, which is impracticable and basically an unconstitutional confiscation of legitimate debt (“only” some $900 billion, they say), and #8, which would excessively limit the right of employment for public servants. I would favor some limited version of that one, in which incoming public servants would agree not to work for certain specified companies or narrow industry code definitions for some period of time (like 5 years), and I would favor some legislated reduction of the debt burden for many student borrowers.
On the other hand, I strongly support #9, #7, #4, and #2, although they might require major legislation (thus, unlikely to happen anytime soon) and #9 or #4 might require a Constituional amendment. I strongly support #10 and #11, though I think they have no chance with either party. I support #1, though I think its importance is overstated; it was seriously considered for the Financial Reform legislation in 2010 but other areas were considered more critical, with good reason. #6, #5, and #3 are commendable in intent but too vague to have much meaning (except the Buffett rule, which I support).
What's missing is anything that would create any jobs, though I admit I'm not sanguine about the chances of any political argument claiming to do that on a lasting basis and large scale here. I think it's a fair criticism to suggest that the Occupy Chicago movement isn't really that interested in getting jobs for its participants (who, clearly, have none)—not that they have to seek them. It just might make the movement a bit more appealing to the working stiffs that make up a good portion of the 99% they suggest that they represent.
And Then There's Mr. Jobs Himself
It's time for me to pay my respects to the late Steve Jobs. First, I must express my sympathy for his family and friends, and my admiration for his determined efforts to carry on despite his debilitating and painful disease.
Respects is most of what I will pay, though; I'm excessively proud of the fact that I don't think I've ever directly paid for any of his products. I find them too expensive for what they do, most of which I don't need. I keep waiting for the price of his laptops to come into range, and they haven't followed the usual pattern. I got an iPod for one of my round-number birthdays from my sister: I said (and say) “thanks”, but I didn't use it much and eventually gave it to my daughter, who appreciates and needs it more. OK, I may buy an iPad before too long if the price comes into line (maybe that's more likely than their laptops' prices do).
What I did do, a few months ago, was buy a few shares. There's no doubt that Apple has the consuming public, and the investment market, too, in thraldom. Not even Jobs' demise could derail the stock, and that was what I was counting upon.
I may not be a big fan of Apple's products, but there's no denying the transformation he brought about, in this country and beyond. Is it healthy? I don't know, but it's certainly what we'd call “progress”, and that should be appealing to a progressive like me.
I haven't done a study of the jobs he's created, but there must be a lot (maybe even in the US). He's certainly created a lot of wealth here, and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Finally, let's salute his success--supposed by Fitzgerald to be rare in America--in performing a hugely successful second act--and third--for himself!
I'm not sure that the result will achieve any of the objectives: most importantly, employment may be bumped up a notch or two (or a bump down may be offset), but it seems certain the official rate of those without will still be upwards of 8% on Election Day 2012. The record of the vote will be a mushy political weapon: many Senators, even many Democrats, had things they didn't like in such a multi-faceted piece of legislation, and a couple of Democrats even voted against it—others indicated they might have voted against it if it had reached the floor. Obama will certainly be able to claim that he has been hamstrung by a “do-nothing Congress”, a claim which may resonate but will not necessarily buy him, or his party, much in the way of political gain.
Following my general observance of the Talking Heads' Psycho-killer philosophy (“Say something once, why say it again?”) I will not go into too much detail, but I will refer you to one of my better posts, two years ago this month, in which I diagnosed and prescribed for this jobless recovery.
I will repeat and expand my suggestion that the Federal government provide sponsorship for community programs which would restore neighborhoods ravaged by foreclosure and abandonment. Banks should be required to provide support, in the form of contribution of some percentage of owned real estate properties to be turned over and sold for public benefit or conversion to public low-income housing, as well as wages for skilled and unskilled labor doing the restoring. In return, they should get CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) credit, improved value on neighboring properties to which they would retain ownership, and tax deductions for their expenses. It's the least they should be required to do, and it might improve the public's view of their utility and relieve the pressure on them (see below).
Occupy: Is it all about Occupation?
The Chicago Tribune posted me to this site, which lists the “demands” of the Occupy Chicago movement, as follows (I could not find on the site that these “proposed demands” were actually adopted, but I assume they were):
1. Pass a bill to reinstate Glass-Steagall, a safeguard separating banks' commercial lending and investment operations. “Its repeal in 1999 is considerted the major cause of the global financial meltdown of 2008-09”, the group states.
2. Repeal Bush-era tax cuts.
3. Prosecute “the Wall Street criminals who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.”
4. Overturn the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations “to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns”.
5. Pass the Warren Buffett rule on fair taxation, close corporate tax loopholes, prohibit hiding funds offshore.
6. Give the Securities and Exchange Commission stricter regulatory power, strengthen the Consumer Protection bureau and help victims of predatory lending whose home loans have been foreclosed.
7. Take steps to limit the influence of lobbyists and eliminate the practice of lobbyists writing legislation.
8. Eliminate (the) right of former government regulators to work for the corporations or industries they once regulated.
9. Eliminate corporate personhood.
10. Insist the Federal Elections Commission “ensure that political candidates are given equal time for free at reasonable intervals during campaign season”.
11. Pass the Fair Elections Now Act.
12. Forgive student debt.
My comments. I really only oppose the last one, which is impracticable and basically an unconstitutional confiscation of legitimate debt (“only” some $900 billion, they say), and #8, which would excessively limit the right of employment for public servants. I would favor some limited version of that one, in which incoming public servants would agree not to work for certain specified companies or narrow industry code definitions for some period of time (like 5 years), and I would favor some legislated reduction of the debt burden for many student borrowers.
On the other hand, I strongly support #9, #7, #4, and #2, although they might require major legislation (thus, unlikely to happen anytime soon) and #9 or #4 might require a Constituional amendment. I strongly support #10 and #11, though I think they have no chance with either party. I support #1, though I think its importance is overstated; it was seriously considered for the Financial Reform legislation in 2010 but other areas were considered more critical, with good reason. #6, #5, and #3 are commendable in intent but too vague to have much meaning (except the Buffett rule, which I support).
What's missing is anything that would create any jobs, though I admit I'm not sanguine about the chances of any political argument claiming to do that on a lasting basis and large scale here. I think it's a fair criticism to suggest that the Occupy Chicago movement isn't really that interested in getting jobs for its participants (who, clearly, have none)—not that they have to seek them. It just might make the movement a bit more appealing to the working stiffs that make up a good portion of the 99% they suggest that they represent.
And Then There's Mr. Jobs Himself
It's time for me to pay my respects to the late Steve Jobs. First, I must express my sympathy for his family and friends, and my admiration for his determined efforts to carry on despite his debilitating and painful disease.
Respects is most of what I will pay, though; I'm excessively proud of the fact that I don't think I've ever directly paid for any of his products. I find them too expensive for what they do, most of which I don't need. I keep waiting for the price of his laptops to come into range, and they haven't followed the usual pattern. I got an iPod for one of my round-number birthdays from my sister: I said (and say) “thanks”, but I didn't use it much and eventually gave it to my daughter, who appreciates and needs it more. OK, I may buy an iPad before too long if the price comes into line (maybe that's more likely than their laptops' prices do).
What I did do, a few months ago, was buy a few shares. There's no doubt that Apple has the consuming public, and the investment market, too, in thraldom. Not even Jobs' demise could derail the stock, and that was what I was counting upon.
I may not be a big fan of Apple's products, but there's no denying the transformation he brought about, in this country and beyond. Is it healthy? I don't know, but it's certainly what we'd call “progress”, and that should be appealing to a progressive like me.
I haven't done a study of the jobs he's created, but there must be a lot (maybe even in the US). He's certainly created a lot of wealth here, and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Finally, let's salute his success--supposed by Fitzgerald to be rare in America--in performing a hugely successful second act--and third--for himself!
Friday, October 07, 2011
Redeeming the Promise of '08
I am hardly one of those who regret their 2008 support of President Obama based on his performance in the job, or who condition their support for 2012.
Some criticism is justified, and I will get to that, but first, some deserved praise. His conduct of the most important area under his control, the diplomatic/military sphere, has earned a solid A grade.
International Wins
Last week he called for the trigger to be pulled on Anwar al-Awlaki, who imagined that he could threaten his native land safely from a desert retreat. There are legal issues about signing a finding authorizing his death by covert means, but this is another case where the result was fully justified. The previous example, last month's stunning victory by the Libyan rebels vindicated his middle-ground strategy there: encouraged by the U.N. and the Arab League, he chose to provide critical, timely support, preventing general reprisals and massacres, allowing the rebels the time to develop a winning strategy and overthrowing a bloody dictator. Most importantly, he achieved that success with minimal risk to American lives.
Back on the military side, Obama's administration won the big prize in May with the successful raid into Pakistan which took out Osama Bin Laden. He has successfully wound down the Iraq occupation, and he is on a path to achieve a reasonably successful extraction from the other inherited counterinsurgency quagmire, Afghanistan.
Not everything has gone well. Diplomatically, his policy toward Iran has not yet worked, and the country still poses a major destabilizing threat. With the critical nation of Pakistan the results are mixed, at best: the civilian regime is an ally, but a weak one, unable to overcome the nation's historic tendencies toward insubordinate security forces and regional troublemaking. There has been no progress toward resolution of the Israel-Palestine mess, which means more steps backwards. Finally, the illegal prison in Guantanamo has not been closed; though that is more a domestic failing, in the eyes of the world it's clearly a black eye on our reputation he hasn't been able to heal.
All these areas would be better served, though, from a continuation of Obama/Clinton handling rather than any foreseeable alternative. Hillary Clinton has been an excellent Secretary of State, and if she can be persuaded to serve out a second term, could rank as one of the best ever in the position.
Domestic Woes
As good as the advice, strategy, and results have been for most of the foreign/military projects abroad, that's how bad most of the domestic initiatives have been. The first responses to the economic crisis--the Bank bailout (actually before his inauguration, though passage would've been very difficult if he'd opposed them), the auto industry assistance, the stimulus plan--these were reasonable compromises made because the urgency of the situation did not allow for prolonged consideration. Some of it--the bailouts--achieved their immediate aims, and the stimulus was not a failure--just not quite enough of a boost (though it's questionable any amount would've been sufficient, and certainly doubtful if much more could've passed Congress).
The accomodative pattern from those early, critical acts was very evident in the signature domestic legislation of his first Congress, the Affordable Care Act. Here I disagree with the notion that speed was essential, or even possible; they were in a big hurry and it still took a year or more to bring to law, not to mention the legal challenges which will take about two years to resolve.
The piece missing from the legislation, which may end up being required if, as I see being quite likely, the Supreme Court rules that the mandate to buy private health insurance is beyond Congress' authority (and thus unconstitutional) is the public option. Unfortunately, in his zeal to get a bill done, I think that Obama and his advisers made a bad deal with the private insurers--no private option, and the insurers lobby would not try to block it.
The Christmas deal to keep the tax cuts in place was one made under duress: the House was just about to be taken over by a heavily Tea-flavored Republican majority. The deal extended the tax reductions for the wealthy and for the middle class, basically an unacceptable compromise. Worse was to come with the next big deal under duress, for the debt ceiling; though the Administration rejected the confrontational approach of challenging the need for the ceiling--something which might not have worked, the deal may still produce something acceptable in the form of the desired combination of cuts and revenue enhancements, but I wouldn't count upon it. As I feared, the roster of the membership of the "Gang of 12" supercommittee seems designed to continue the partisan logjam. What that will mean, though, is a set of mandatory cuts in both domestic programs and military spending--a sharing of pain, no real gain.
Obama's tax policy lacks a coherent direction. His December, 2010 extension of the tax cuts for the rich broke a campaign promise, one he didn't so much betray as reveal that he couldn't deliver. With the backing of friendly billionaire Warren Buffett, he has come up with a modest proposal to create a new Alternative Minimum Tax for those with income over $1 million. More complication, little likelihood of success--the AMT we already have is a headache, little more, and this one will never pass through the current Congress (I can hear it now: "if the rich--excuse me, 'job creators'--knew they had to pay tax, it wouldn't be worth making a million a year".) Obama seems to welcome the idea of a revision of the tax code, but isn't providing the kind of push it would need, no doubt because he doesn't want this House anywhere near it.
The worst, for me, has been temporizing on Obama's moral and value-based position as the best protector of our greatest possession, our natural resources. He is blocking regulations of ozone and greenhouse gas emissions proposed by one of his best Cabinet members, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. He also seems to be greasing the way for oil exploration off the Arctic coast, and relaxing protection of endangered species. This sort of behavior, favoring the coal, gas, and oil interests, is less than I expected; Ohio and Pennsylvania may be important for his re-election (West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Alaska and Kentucky are not) but I am not convinced that the voters of any of these states want Obama to gain them prosperity through the sacrifice of their natural inheritance.
Obama has finally thrown down the gauntlet to this Congress with his Jobs Act. It won't pass, but the strategy of challenging the Republicans to do something about unemployment may work in the long run. While the weakness of the field of possible/likely Republican opponents for 2012 means that Obama is likely to eke out a win without taking forceful positions moving from a cautious, centrist approach, only a strong battling stance as leader of his party would give the Democrats a chance of regaining control of Congress for a second Obama term. And, without that, that second Obama term is never going to fulfill the promise his candidacy, and his inauguration, originally promised--something his first term has clearly not done.
My standard is moderately high: I expect him to be the best President we have seen in my lifetime. It's still there to be achieved--which means he has not yet done so.
Some criticism is justified, and I will get to that, but first, some deserved praise. His conduct of the most important area under his control, the diplomatic/military sphere, has earned a solid A grade.
International Wins
Last week he called for the trigger to be pulled on Anwar al-Awlaki, who imagined that he could threaten his native land safely from a desert retreat. There are legal issues about signing a finding authorizing his death by covert means, but this is another case where the result was fully justified. The previous example, last month's stunning victory by the Libyan rebels vindicated his middle-ground strategy there: encouraged by the U.N. and the Arab League, he chose to provide critical, timely support, preventing general reprisals and massacres, allowing the rebels the time to develop a winning strategy and overthrowing a bloody dictator. Most importantly, he achieved that success with minimal risk to American lives.
Back on the military side, Obama's administration won the big prize in May with the successful raid into Pakistan which took out Osama Bin Laden. He has successfully wound down the Iraq occupation, and he is on a path to achieve a reasonably successful extraction from the other inherited counterinsurgency quagmire, Afghanistan.
Not everything has gone well. Diplomatically, his policy toward Iran has not yet worked, and the country still poses a major destabilizing threat. With the critical nation of Pakistan the results are mixed, at best: the civilian regime is an ally, but a weak one, unable to overcome the nation's historic tendencies toward insubordinate security forces and regional troublemaking. There has been no progress toward resolution of the Israel-Palestine mess, which means more steps backwards. Finally, the illegal prison in Guantanamo has not been closed; though that is more a domestic failing, in the eyes of the world it's clearly a black eye on our reputation he hasn't been able to heal.
All these areas would be better served, though, from a continuation of Obama/Clinton handling rather than any foreseeable alternative. Hillary Clinton has been an excellent Secretary of State, and if she can be persuaded to serve out a second term, could rank as one of the best ever in the position.
Domestic Woes
As good as the advice, strategy, and results have been for most of the foreign/military projects abroad, that's how bad most of the domestic initiatives have been. The first responses to the economic crisis--the Bank bailout (actually before his inauguration, though passage would've been very difficult if he'd opposed them), the auto industry assistance, the stimulus plan--these were reasonable compromises made because the urgency of the situation did not allow for prolonged consideration. Some of it--the bailouts--achieved their immediate aims, and the stimulus was not a failure--just not quite enough of a boost (though it's questionable any amount would've been sufficient, and certainly doubtful if much more could've passed Congress).
The accomodative pattern from those early, critical acts was very evident in the signature domestic legislation of his first Congress, the Affordable Care Act. Here I disagree with the notion that speed was essential, or even possible; they were in a big hurry and it still took a year or more to bring to law, not to mention the legal challenges which will take about two years to resolve.
The piece missing from the legislation, which may end up being required if, as I see being quite likely, the Supreme Court rules that the mandate to buy private health insurance is beyond Congress' authority (and thus unconstitutional) is the public option. Unfortunately, in his zeal to get a bill done, I think that Obama and his advisers made a bad deal with the private insurers--no private option, and the insurers lobby would not try to block it.
The Christmas deal to keep the tax cuts in place was one made under duress: the House was just about to be taken over by a heavily Tea-flavored Republican majority. The deal extended the tax reductions for the wealthy and for the middle class, basically an unacceptable compromise. Worse was to come with the next big deal under duress, for the debt ceiling; though the Administration rejected the confrontational approach of challenging the need for the ceiling--something which might not have worked, the deal may still produce something acceptable in the form of the desired combination of cuts and revenue enhancements, but I wouldn't count upon it. As I feared, the roster of the membership of the "Gang of 12" supercommittee seems designed to continue the partisan logjam. What that will mean, though, is a set of mandatory cuts in both domestic programs and military spending--a sharing of pain, no real gain.
Obama's tax policy lacks a coherent direction. His December, 2010 extension of the tax cuts for the rich broke a campaign promise, one he didn't so much betray as reveal that he couldn't deliver. With the backing of friendly billionaire Warren Buffett, he has come up with a modest proposal to create a new Alternative Minimum Tax for those with income over $1 million. More complication, little likelihood of success--the AMT we already have is a headache, little more, and this one will never pass through the current Congress (I can hear it now: "if the rich--excuse me, 'job creators'--knew they had to pay tax, it wouldn't be worth making a million a year".) Obama seems to welcome the idea of a revision of the tax code, but isn't providing the kind of push it would need, no doubt because he doesn't want this House anywhere near it.
The worst, for me, has been temporizing on Obama's moral and value-based position as the best protector of our greatest possession, our natural resources. He is blocking regulations of ozone and greenhouse gas emissions proposed by one of his best Cabinet members, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. He also seems to be greasing the way for oil exploration off the Arctic coast, and relaxing protection of endangered species. This sort of behavior, favoring the coal, gas, and oil interests, is less than I expected; Ohio and Pennsylvania may be important for his re-election (West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Alaska and Kentucky are not) but I am not convinced that the voters of any of these states want Obama to gain them prosperity through the sacrifice of their natural inheritance.
Obama has finally thrown down the gauntlet to this Congress with his Jobs Act. It won't pass, but the strategy of challenging the Republicans to do something about unemployment may work in the long run. While the weakness of the field of possible/likely Republican opponents for 2012 means that Obama is likely to eke out a win without taking forceful positions moving from a cautious, centrist approach, only a strong battling stance as leader of his party would give the Democrats a chance of regaining control of Congress for a second Obama term. And, without that, that second Obama term is never going to fulfill the promise his candidacy, and his inauguration, originally promised--something his first term has clearly not done.
My standard is moderately high: I expect him to be the best President we have seen in my lifetime. It's still there to be achieved--which means he has not yet done so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
