Yesterday I was preparing to post my views on the big question of the NBA playoffs as they began: Would it be Chicago or Miami? Could any team stop either one from making the Eastern Conference finals again? What team would emerge from the wide-open Western Conference playoffs, and could that team compete with Chicago/Miami in the finals?
The first day of the playoffs has already changed some of the points I was preparing to make. It's not the results of the games that changed things, as one game's result can be very misleading for the current round, let alone the series to come. But there were two injuries to key players yesterday--some of the parallels are striking but, as they say, it takes three data points to make a trend. Nevertheless, the big news in both the NBA's season and the early season results in baseball is a rash of injuries, and what may be causing that.
Rose and Shumpert
Late in the fourth quarter of the Chicago Bulls-Philadelphia 76ers game, a game the Bulls had won, point guard Derrick Rose planted his foot (to make a pass), and blew out his left knee. In the third quarter of the Miami Heat-New York Knicks game, a game the Knicks had already lost, shooting guard Iman Shumpert planted his foot (to make a fancy dribble move), and blew out his left knee.
So you see: some aspects that were the same, and those that were different. Clearly their occurrence in the same day, the first of the playoffs, is a coincidence, but the big news of this off-kilter NBA season has been the number of prolonged or serious injuries. Rose (who missed nearly half of the regular season games), Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudamire, Rajan Rondo, Manu Ginobili, and, of course, the comet that was Jeremy Lin--this is a partial list of major players who missed large portions of the season. Blame was placed on the improvised schedule, with its too-brief training period and its too-heavy concentration of weekly/monthly games. My counter would be that professional players should keep themselves fit and ready to start at all times. The regular season is a grind, to be sure--I would favor shortening it to about the 66 games played this season, spread out over six months instead of this year's four months. But I have to wonder whether the physical preparation that the players get is suited to the physical stresses required. Another alternative would be to expand the squads to 15 players, and encourage greater substitution and reducing the minutes of starters, in the way that professional hockey rotates players constantly.
Anyway, The Implications
Knicks-Heat was looking to be one of the more interesting first-round matchups; not necessarily one for which the outcome was in doubt, but good to watch. Shumpert's key role was in playing man-to-man defense on Dwayne Wade; without him, the Heat's path looks much easier. Two other good first-round matchups still remain interesting: Oklahoma City vs. defending champions Dallas--the first game was indicative of the close, intense battle we should expect; Indiana vs. Orlando would've been the clearest pick for an upset if Howard were playing, but it still may be close.
In the second round, look for interesting matches in three of the four projected combinations: Chicago-Boston, San Antonio-Memphis, and Los Angeles-Oklahoma City (or Dallas). If the Celtics are healthy, I think they will give the Rose-less Bulls a serious challenge (and if they are not, they will probably fall to the Atlanta Hawks in the first round). The Spurs were the biggest positive surprise of the season, rebuilding around their big three (Duncan-Ginobili-Parker) with a new, high-scoring approach featuring volatile addition Stephen Jackson; the Grizzlies (certainly no sure thing against the Clippers in round one) are a team that could break up their rhythm. The Lakers may be too large for either Dallas or OKC, but I question their team chemistry, and any team that can successfully ballhawk Kobe may be able to take them down.
The conference finals--still projected as Bulls-Heat, with Lakers-Spurs the most probable of the many possible combinations in the West--should both be exciting and hard-fought. Miami is looking like a strong pick for the championship now, especially in the absence of Rose. Unless the injury bug hits one of their Big Three.
Baseball: The Early Going
The NBA had a ready excuse for their injury-plagued early season; baseball not so much. Nearly every day brings news of a new injury--most of the stories ending with the words "Tommy John surgery" and "2013". It's not even all pitchers, but the list of those who have gone down or not yet recovered is lengthy and prominent.
I have a theory for this injury problem, too: the slider. It's something many pitchers are tempted to pick up as pros (few come up having mastered it), and it's difficult and taxing on the arm. If the mechanics are not right, the tendency to overthrow leads to injuries very quickly. That being said, I don't have an easy solution: a well-thrown slider is extremely tough to get good wood upon, even for major league hitters. Pitching coaches need to make sure pitchers have the motion down, consistently, and the strength and flexibility to use it.
That Being Said
Although teams have played twenty games or more, I am very reluctant to draw conclusions about the pennant races at this point. There are a few teams that have started badly that are legitimately bad, but also some that could still rally if they get their acts together (Angels and Red Sox being two of them). The Texas Rangers, last year's World Series loser, have recovered from their devastating failures in games 6 and 7 of the World Series and started out extremely well. Similarly, World Series winners the St. Louis Cardinals seem to have kept their rhythm despite the departure of their all-time great Albert Pujols; I'm both rooting for and expecting some fall-off from the Cards, though.
The big news in baseball is the change to two wild cards per league, with a one-game playoff between them to determine the fourth team in the (best-of-seven) playoffs that go from there. When the wild cards started in the '60's, they never did very well, but in the last 10 years or so, that has changed dramatically. There has tended to be tight races for the last playoff spot, so that the wild cards have tended to come into the playoffs with momentum and carry it forward--last year's Cardinals being a good example. The new format is an attempt to handicap the wild cards a bit, plus to add another team to the mix. It is always better for the pennant races to have more teams competing for entry to the postseason, and it is better for the seriousness of the regular season to favor division winners, so I think the changes are overall a smart move.
I see no reason at this point to change my preseason picks: AL - Division winners Tampa Bay, Detroit, and Los Angeles; wild cards New York and Texas. Pennant winner: Detroit (the best starting pitching). NL - Division winners Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Arizona; wild cards Atlanta and Milwaukee. Pennant winner: Philadelphia (best starting pitching). World Series winner: Detroit Tigers.
A Little Consideration from Big-Time College Football
The news that the NCAA is going to adopt some sort of national championship playoff is welcome--among other things, it will be one more campaign promise fulfillment that President Obama could cite. The fact that it's four teams is a bit lame, but I expect nothing more. What I would like to see is that the four teams in it be the winners of the biggest bowl games around New Years's Day: Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton. The Fiesta Bowl--always promoted, never taking on much character--could be the site of one semifinals, while the Superdome would be the natural site of the finale. The New Year's Day-type bowls should be opened up to some extent in order to let in "mid-majors" who have earned a berth. This approach would allow two, or even three, SEC teams to make the new Final Four, which they deserve based on the quality of their postseason and inter-conference performance in recent years.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Chelsea!
In one of the most tense, but satisfying, games I have ever watched (in any sport), Chelsea used the old Italian "catenaccio" strategy to complete a two-game defeat of the great Barcelona team in Europe's soccer Champions League semifinals. The 2-2 final score today at Barcelona combined with a similarly dramatic and shocking 1-0 defeat the Blues inflicted on them at home last week to send Chelsea through to the final. Chelsea's hugely improbable win combined skill, pluck, and luck in equal measures.
Football's version of Muhammad Ali's "rope-a-dope" was executed to perfection by Chelsea, which has rallied strongly in the past few weeks to save a failing season since the change of coaches to one of its former stars, Roberto di Matteo. They packed in their defense close in their penalty area, allowing Barcelona to dominate ball possession overwhelmingly, but still looking for opportunities to break downfield. When those occurred Barcelona's defense was thin and uncoordinated, which gave Chelsea real opportunities to score. In contrast, Barcelona's pinpoint short-passing game gave them lots of views of the goal, but few uncontested chances, and the defensive pressure contributed to them missing several shots, while giving them very little chance to surprise. Chelsea's last line of defense, goalie Petr Cech, was the final element required; he made several critical saves, particularly in the second half of today's game, when one goal would have put us back into a deficit (and a man short--more on that later).
Nevertheless, there was every reason to doubt the ultimate success of Chelsea's bold venture until injury time of the last game, when Fernando Torres broke free for a goal that clinched the victory. Chelsea held the edge, nominally at least, throughout the second half, as their "away goal" scored late in the first half of the first game had given them the tiebreaker in the combined two-game score of 2-2, but the outcome was on a knife-edge, and Barcelona was the one wielding the blade. They never found the opening to make the killing stroke.
For Barcelona fans, their worst moment was when their superstar Leonel Messi missed a penalty kick midway through the second half. Despite various Cech attempts to distract and throw him off, and despite Cech's accurate guess of the direction, Cech was beaten by the shot high to his left, but the shot caromed directly off the woooden crossbar and was safely cleared by Chelsea. The penalty call on that play was dubious--the player went down but there was little to no contact from Didier Drogba (another brilliant game for the striker, this time mostly on defense in their outer circle). The referee was also generous to the home side when he gave an immediate red card to Chelsea captain and central defender John Terry midway through the first half (he kneed a much shorter player in the back, but it was not malicious, just awkward). That came in the middle of a nightmarish ten-minute span 30-40 minutes into the first half when Barcelona scored both its goals, taking the lead in the series and threatening to break it open.
Then came the sublime moment when Chelsea turned it around. As in the first game's goal, Lampard started the break with a steal at midfield and a perfect pass down to Ramires. This time, instead of threading the needle with a crossing pass through defenders to Drogba, Ramires broke free from the defense and floated a shot over Barcelona's goalie when he came out to challenge, scoring from some 20 yeards and giving Chelsea back the lead, which they never gave away. And that was the theme: they never gave it away. Particularly inspiring for our defense was left back Ashley Cole.
As a result of referee decisions in this game, four key Chelsea players--Terry, Ramires, stalwart central defender Ivanovic and defensive-oriented midfielder Raul Meireles--will all be unavailable for the championship game, to be played in Munich in three weeks. In the meantime, they still have an outside chance of winning a Champions League spot, if they can move up from 6th to 4th in the Premier League standings. Otherwise, they will need to win the final to remain in Champions League play next year. Failing to do that--particularly if they fail to finish 5th or win the F.A. Cup final vs. Liverpool in late May, one of which would be required to qualify for the B-level "Europa League"--could start a downward spiral toward mediocrity after these years of marked success. What they really need, though, is to complete the dream of their moneybag owner Roman Abramovich and finally take the Champions League title.
Posted a day late. (I refrained from calling out the traditional "Chelsea Rules O.K.!" in the title--I used it once before, in the season when Chelsea similarly had won through to the Champions League final, in 2008. It ended very cruelly and unluckily in penalty kicks against Man U., and I want to break free from any associated jinx.)
Football's version of Muhammad Ali's "rope-a-dope" was executed to perfection by Chelsea, which has rallied strongly in the past few weeks to save a failing season since the change of coaches to one of its former stars, Roberto di Matteo. They packed in their defense close in their penalty area, allowing Barcelona to dominate ball possession overwhelmingly, but still looking for opportunities to break downfield. When those occurred Barcelona's defense was thin and uncoordinated, which gave Chelsea real opportunities to score. In contrast, Barcelona's pinpoint short-passing game gave them lots of views of the goal, but few uncontested chances, and the defensive pressure contributed to them missing several shots, while giving them very little chance to surprise. Chelsea's last line of defense, goalie Petr Cech, was the final element required; he made several critical saves, particularly in the second half of today's game, when one goal would have put us back into a deficit (and a man short--more on that later).
Nevertheless, there was every reason to doubt the ultimate success of Chelsea's bold venture until injury time of the last game, when Fernando Torres broke free for a goal that clinched the victory. Chelsea held the edge, nominally at least, throughout the second half, as their "away goal" scored late in the first half of the first game had given them the tiebreaker in the combined two-game score of 2-2, but the outcome was on a knife-edge, and Barcelona was the one wielding the blade. They never found the opening to make the killing stroke.
For Barcelona fans, their worst moment was when their superstar Leonel Messi missed a penalty kick midway through the second half. Despite various Cech attempts to distract and throw him off, and despite Cech's accurate guess of the direction, Cech was beaten by the shot high to his left, but the shot caromed directly off the woooden crossbar and was safely cleared by Chelsea. The penalty call on that play was dubious--the player went down but there was little to no contact from Didier Drogba (another brilliant game for the striker, this time mostly on defense in their outer circle). The referee was also generous to the home side when he gave an immediate red card to Chelsea captain and central defender John Terry midway through the first half (he kneed a much shorter player in the back, but it was not malicious, just awkward). That came in the middle of a nightmarish ten-minute span 30-40 minutes into the first half when Barcelona scored both its goals, taking the lead in the series and threatening to break it open.
Then came the sublime moment when Chelsea turned it around. As in the first game's goal, Lampard started the break with a steal at midfield and a perfect pass down to Ramires. This time, instead of threading the needle with a crossing pass through defenders to Drogba, Ramires broke free from the defense and floated a shot over Barcelona's goalie when he came out to challenge, scoring from some 20 yeards and giving Chelsea back the lead, which they never gave away. And that was the theme: they never gave it away. Particularly inspiring for our defense was left back Ashley Cole.
As a result of referee decisions in this game, four key Chelsea players--Terry, Ramires, stalwart central defender Ivanovic and defensive-oriented midfielder Raul Meireles--will all be unavailable for the championship game, to be played in Munich in three weeks. In the meantime, they still have an outside chance of winning a Champions League spot, if they can move up from 6th to 4th in the Premier League standings. Otherwise, they will need to win the final to remain in Champions League play next year. Failing to do that--particularly if they fail to finish 5th or win the F.A. Cup final vs. Liverpool in late May, one of which would be required to qualify for the B-level "Europa League"--could start a downward spiral toward mediocrity after these years of marked success. What they really need, though, is to complete the dream of their moneybag owner Roman Abramovich and finally take the Champions League title.
Posted a day late. (I refrained from calling out the traditional "Chelsea Rules O.K.!" in the title--I used it once before, in the season when Chelsea similarly had won through to the Champions League final, in 2008. It ended very cruelly and unluckily in penalty kicks against Man U., and I want to break free from any associated jinx.)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Circus Nears Finale
I don't like repeating myself on the blog, so I've been saving myself the time and trouble of commenting week by week on the ups and downs of the Republican nomination process. So, I haven't been saying:
or
Now Romney can begin the long transition from pretend-right-wing-extremist primary candidate to reasonably-toned-safe-hands moderate general election candidate. He will be able to cross the rhetorical gap, but will the moderate voters--the ones who decide the general elections--find his change of costume credible? I am certain that the Obama campaign will be prepared to spend large sums of money and bring an impressive array of researched evidence to make sure that does not happen.
Romney begins the general election campaign with a large deficit, particularly among women and in the crucial swing states. National opinion polls are all over the place; a long string of polls through the Republican primary season showing Obama ahead was broken by two recent polls--by Fox News and Rasmussen, which does not invalidate the results but does suggest raised eyebrows at the source--with Romney ahead. Real Clear Politics' poll aggregator has Obama ahead by 2.6% in its weighted composite rating. The normal pattern would be for Romney to make up some ground in late summer, buoyed by the party convention, and with Obama probably hobbled by some economic or legislative bad news. But Romney's chances will depend on his ability to win some key swing states.
Veepstakes Preview
There is one item left to come out of the Republican camp which is of more than trivial interest: who will Mitt Romney choose as his running mate?
The importance of the VP selection may easily be overstated, but it is one of the clear degrees of freedom the nominee has, an indicator of the kind of campaign and kind of campaign strategy intended. The key dimension of the decision will be on the level of risk Romney takes: will he go for a safe, reassuring choice (Dubya choosing Dick Cheney, Clinton choosing Al Gore) or one designed to shake things up (Bob Dole choosing Jack Kemp, Poppy Bush with Dan Quayle, John McCain with Sarah Palin)?
I would say that--with one exception noted below--I see no reason for Romney to reach out to the right wing of the party and choose a Tea Party candidate. Maybe if he had failed to win control of the nomination process, things might have been different, but I would think that the last thing Romney should want to show with his selection is that he is beholden to the right wing.
The overriding facts that Romney must face, though, are his opponent, an incumbent with all the advantages that can bring, plus being a good campaigner, along with an excellent campaign organization, and a pretty good Electoral College position. The Associated Press had an unsigned analysis this weekend showing Obama ahead, 242-191 (with 105EV in 10 states as tossup), including states clearly leaning to one direction or the other. I would add NM and CO as states Obama figures to win, which would mean Obama would need just one of: VA or NC or OH or FL or the combination of IA, NH, and NV (out of the AP tossup states) to lock it up. So, Romney had better focus on something that will turn around that math.
I will review his choices briefly around possible Electoral College strategies and suggest some of the choices that are a) boring and low-risk (i.e., a close match to Romney in style) or b) interesting/risky. These are in reverse order of likelihood from my point of view:
1) Counter the Obama forays in the South or West: In the West, which was a strong area for Romney in the primaries, the idea would be to lock up Arizona and deny Obama Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. In the South, it would be to take back Virginia and North Carolina. The Southern approach could well succeed, but might not even require the special effort of a VP choice, while the Western angle, which really needs close to a sweep of those states to be successful, would require a game-changer.
Boring choices: Jon Kyl, retiring Arizona senator; Bob McDonnell, term-limited Virginia governor.
Risky choice: Susana Martinez, New Mexico governor.
2) Florida: I see FL as a must-win state for Romney; therefore, no effort should be spared. Contrary to the strategy document that the Obama campaign sent me this past winter, I believe they are planning an advertising saturation campaign there without precedent, as winning the state would shift their chances from "likely" to "near-certain". I have the feeling the Romney campaign will feel that they can win the state without naming their VP from there, but I see two interesting candidates which could tempt his choice:
Jeb Bush--Basically, Romney is at core just like a Bushite--a big-money, establishment Republican with conventional conservative views. I think Jeb would actually take the job if offered it, and he's probably one of the best choices Romney could make from the point of view of qualifications and intelligence; it's a risk for Romney to go with him, though, because it works against the story line that this election is "about Obama's failures, not Bush's".
Marco Rubio --I sill see him as the best choice Romney could make, but it may not be in the cards--and there's some doubt that he's ready to go for it. Rubio's not officially a Tea Party guy, but he's close enough to make them happy, and he's popular enough in Florida to make a difference. I see Rubio and Jeb as the two most likely 2016 candidates (assuming Romney loses; I don't buy the Chris Christie argument), so it puts Mitt in a potential position of giving a boost to the fortunes of one of them (if you call being the VP candidate on a likely losing ticket a boost, which is highly doubtful).
3) Change the dynamic in the North: This has several variations and is probably overall the most likely direction for Romney to go: he's a Northerner himself, and it's a target-rich environment (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota are all states Obama won which are not out of reach for the Republicans at this point).
Boring Choices: Rob Portman (Senator from Ohio), Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota governor), and Mitch Daniels (retiring governor of Indiana) are just three of the many boring, safe white guys Romney could choose. Daniels, in particular, would be a respected, moderate choice that would suggest good governance if Romney is going in that direction, though Indiana is the one state of those I listed which he should be able to win anyway.
Interesting/Risky choices: Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin would be a provocative choice: not quite a captive of the Tea-Baggers, but he has been a formative influence, and I'd say don't believe those denials of interest. His fate may be determined in June by the recall election of Gov. Walker in Wisconsin; if Walker should fall, it would indicate that Wisconsin may be too fired by Democratic forces up to be a plausible Republican pick-up.
Former Senator Rick Santorum (yes, that one!) could be a ticket complement for Romney, as he might bring some of the blue-collar, folksy appeal that has eluded Mitt. The idea of playing to win in PA is highly tempting to the Republicans. Finally, if you're a Machiavellian Republican advisor, thinking of how to win in 2016, Santorum as VP would be a sneaky-but-smart play: it would move him from "next guy in line" (the usual winner, as with Romney this year, in the Republican nomination game) to "failed VP candidate" (which buys you nothing), and the reason for wanting that change: the Santorum we saw in the primaries would be a disaster as a national Presidential candidate, a 40-state loser. As a VP-candidate, his right-wing stances would be less of a handicap, would help solidify the base, and if Romney-Santorum should win, he could change his perception among the political classes that he is a loser.
It maight take something as radical as Santorum in 2016 to shake the Republicans out of their post-Bushite stupor (reinforced by their misleading 2010 Congressional and state wins) and do something to reformulate their failing brand, but I think that the whipping they are likely to take this year might do the trick.
Bottom line: My guesses are, if he goes for boring--Daniels; if exciting--Rubio.
--Despite the win(s) today in XXX state, Rick Santorum is not going to win the nomination. Mitt Romney has much more money, a much better organization, a strategy for winning it, and has more delegates than all his opponents combined.
or
--The win in XXX makes it ever more certain that Mitt Romney will end up with the nomination. Though Rick Santorum contested the state vigorously and gained support from the right wing of his party, his disadvantages in money, organization, and lack of support from the Republican establishment doom him in the long run.
Now Romney can begin the long transition from pretend-right-wing-extremist primary candidate to reasonably-toned-safe-hands moderate general election candidate. He will be able to cross the rhetorical gap, but will the moderate voters--the ones who decide the general elections--find his change of costume credible? I am certain that the Obama campaign will be prepared to spend large sums of money and bring an impressive array of researched evidence to make sure that does not happen.
Romney begins the general election campaign with a large deficit, particularly among women and in the crucial swing states. National opinion polls are all over the place; a long string of polls through the Republican primary season showing Obama ahead was broken by two recent polls--by Fox News and Rasmussen, which does not invalidate the results but does suggest raised eyebrows at the source--with Romney ahead. Real Clear Politics' poll aggregator has Obama ahead by 2.6% in its weighted composite rating. The normal pattern would be for Romney to make up some ground in late summer, buoyed by the party convention, and with Obama probably hobbled by some economic or legislative bad news. But Romney's chances will depend on his ability to win some key swing states.
Veepstakes Preview
There is one item left to come out of the Republican camp which is of more than trivial interest: who will Mitt Romney choose as his running mate?
The importance of the VP selection may easily be overstated, but it is one of the clear degrees of freedom the nominee has, an indicator of the kind of campaign and kind of campaign strategy intended. The key dimension of the decision will be on the level of risk Romney takes: will he go for a safe, reassuring choice (Dubya choosing Dick Cheney, Clinton choosing Al Gore) or one designed to shake things up (Bob Dole choosing Jack Kemp, Poppy Bush with Dan Quayle, John McCain with Sarah Palin)?
I would say that--with one exception noted below--I see no reason for Romney to reach out to the right wing of the party and choose a Tea Party candidate. Maybe if he had failed to win control of the nomination process, things might have been different, but I would think that the last thing Romney should want to show with his selection is that he is beholden to the right wing.
The overriding facts that Romney must face, though, are his opponent, an incumbent with all the advantages that can bring, plus being a good campaigner, along with an excellent campaign organization, and a pretty good Electoral College position. The Associated Press had an unsigned analysis this weekend showing Obama ahead, 242-191 (with 105EV in 10 states as tossup), including states clearly leaning to one direction or the other. I would add NM and CO as states Obama figures to win, which would mean Obama would need just one of: VA or NC or OH or FL or the combination of IA, NH, and NV (out of the AP tossup states) to lock it up. So, Romney had better focus on something that will turn around that math.
I will review his choices briefly around possible Electoral College strategies and suggest some of the choices that are a) boring and low-risk (i.e., a close match to Romney in style) or b) interesting/risky. These are in reverse order of likelihood from my point of view:
1) Counter the Obama forays in the South or West: In the West, which was a strong area for Romney in the primaries, the idea would be to lock up Arizona and deny Obama Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. In the South, it would be to take back Virginia and North Carolina. The Southern approach could well succeed, but might not even require the special effort of a VP choice, while the Western angle, which really needs close to a sweep of those states to be successful, would require a game-changer.
Boring choices: Jon Kyl, retiring Arizona senator; Bob McDonnell, term-limited Virginia governor.
Risky choice: Susana Martinez, New Mexico governor.
2) Florida: I see FL as a must-win state for Romney; therefore, no effort should be spared. Contrary to the strategy document that the Obama campaign sent me this past winter, I believe they are planning an advertising saturation campaign there without precedent, as winning the state would shift their chances from "likely" to "near-certain". I have the feeling the Romney campaign will feel that they can win the state without naming their VP from there, but I see two interesting candidates which could tempt his choice:
Jeb Bush--Basically, Romney is at core just like a Bushite--a big-money, establishment Republican with conventional conservative views. I think Jeb would actually take the job if offered it, and he's probably one of the best choices Romney could make from the point of view of qualifications and intelligence; it's a risk for Romney to go with him, though, because it works against the story line that this election is "about Obama's failures, not Bush's".
Marco Rubio --I sill see him as the best choice Romney could make, but it may not be in the cards--and there's some doubt that he's ready to go for it. Rubio's not officially a Tea Party guy, but he's close enough to make them happy, and he's popular enough in Florida to make a difference. I see Rubio and Jeb as the two most likely 2016 candidates (assuming Romney loses; I don't buy the Chris Christie argument), so it puts Mitt in a potential position of giving a boost to the fortunes of one of them (if you call being the VP candidate on a likely losing ticket a boost, which is highly doubtful).
3) Change the dynamic in the North: This has several variations and is probably overall the most likely direction for Romney to go: he's a Northerner himself, and it's a target-rich environment (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota are all states Obama won which are not out of reach for the Republicans at this point).
Boring Choices: Rob Portman (Senator from Ohio), Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota governor), and Mitch Daniels (retiring governor of Indiana) are just three of the many boring, safe white guys Romney could choose. Daniels, in particular, would be a respected, moderate choice that would suggest good governance if Romney is going in that direction, though Indiana is the one state of those I listed which he should be able to win anyway.
Interesting/Risky choices: Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin would be a provocative choice: not quite a captive of the Tea-Baggers, but he has been a formative influence, and I'd say don't believe those denials of interest. His fate may be determined in June by the recall election of Gov. Walker in Wisconsin; if Walker should fall, it would indicate that Wisconsin may be too fired by Democratic forces up to be a plausible Republican pick-up.
Former Senator Rick Santorum (yes, that one!) could be a ticket complement for Romney, as he might bring some of the blue-collar, folksy appeal that has eluded Mitt. The idea of playing to win in PA is highly tempting to the Republicans. Finally, if you're a Machiavellian Republican advisor, thinking of how to win in 2016, Santorum as VP would be a sneaky-but-smart play: it would move him from "next guy in line" (the usual winner, as with Romney this year, in the Republican nomination game) to "failed VP candidate" (which buys you nothing), and the reason for wanting that change: the Santorum we saw in the primaries would be a disaster as a national Presidential candidate, a 40-state loser. As a VP-candidate, his right-wing stances would be less of a handicap, would help solidify the base, and if Romney-Santorum should win, he could change his perception among the political classes that he is a loser.
It maight take something as radical as Santorum in 2016 to shake the Republicans out of their post-Bushite stupor (reinforced by their misleading 2010 Congressional and state wins) and do something to reformulate their failing brand, but I think that the whipping they are likely to take this year might do the trick.
Bottom line: My guesses are, if he goes for boring--Daniels; if exciting--Rubio.
Real and Phony Gaffes
They say that a gaffe, in politics, is speaking the truth at the wrong time. That certainly was the case when President Obama, meeting with Russian Premier Medvedev (back to P.M., I believe, since Putin's restoration as President), told Medvedev that "after the elections, we will have more flexibility" in our negotiations with them on mutual nuclear arms reduction. Problem was, there was an open microphone nearby and Obama did not know it.
Mitt Romney and others wasted no time in assailing the President's appeasement of "our enemy", calling him everything short of a Commie traitor. His statement's truth was proved by the reaction: how can one negotiate--leave aside the fact that the Russians are our partners in reducing nuclear arms and improving monitoring of nuclear facilities--when the prevailing response is a feral attack mode, forgetting that the Cold War ended 20+ years ago, and when the slightest new indication will be barraged with criticism? This will be true of many more issues going beyond foreign policy, as well: the debt ceiling, taxes, budgeting, etc. Nothing is going to happen until 2013, regardless of who wins the election. Nevertheless, it was truly a mistake, and by the President himself.
Defined by his Friends and a 8" X 10" Toy
A "reset" of a different kind from the one Obama has attempted--with some success--in his dealings with Russia came from one of Mitt Romney's leading campaign officers. In an unguarded moment, he explained to some reporters that Romney's right-wing stance on the issues for the primaries would be no burden in the general election campaign. "He'll be able to reset--like an Etch-a-Sketch" (I paraphrase).
This was one of those truths that would damage anytime or place that it would be spoken in public, particularly coming from Romney's own camp. Of course, the general election now will start with Rick Santorum's suspension of his campaign, so Romney has a transition period of 3-4 months to mix his pretend hard-right posture (though who really knows what's pretend and what is real with him?) with some flavoring of the moderate positions he will want to take on for the main event. It won't be quite "Etch-a-Sketch" fast, but the lingering impression that he gives anyway of a panderer willing to pivot on a dime and say anything to get himself elected was etched into more permanent form by this gaffe.
We Miss You Already, Ozzie
Ozzie Guillen left his position as the Chicago White Sox' manager in the offseason for a new contract with the newly-renamed, newly-ballparked Miami Marlins. He left behind a deep trail of public relations disasters, verbal outbursts, and provocative statements. So, it came as no surprise when he stepped in it verbally this week in an interview with Time Magazine, saying he "loved" Fidel Castro; he didn't mean it romantically, but instead marveled in "respect" for Castro's ability to survive decades of confrontation with his big bad neighbor, the US.
The problem was not what he said, but where he is when he said it. I'm no fan of Castro, who is without doubt a murdering, Stalinist tyrant who has caused incalculable damage to Cuba's economy over the last 50 years, but it is undeniably true that Castro has successfully given us the finger, defeating coup attempts we have sponsored as well as assassination attempts. So, Ozzie was right, but very wrong in provoking the local Cuban refugee population, who define themselves by their hatred for Castro.
Guillen was suspended for five games; he seems to have accepted his punishment, including giving a rambling public apology, rather than stand upon his rights to free speech, which surely have been violated by his employer. This has nothing to do with baseball (though Castro was supposedly a serious major league prospect in the '50's: imagine how history might have changed if he had made it!) or the conduct of his job, and everything with toning down his un-American opinions (he's a native Venezuelan, the current Latin American bugaboos for national zealots) to appease his self-righteous local fan base.
The Chicago press jumped onto the Marlins' side; rather than just "Ozzie's like that, you have to get used to it" or even defending his right to an unpopular opinion (what one should expect from journalists), their opinion was to the effect of "we're so glad you're gone so we don't have to deal with this anymore". Actually, they don't realize that Guillen was broadly popular as a guy daring to speak his mind honestly--a rare quality in public figures these days--and I think it's because they feel guilty for not exposing some of the more lurid things he said back in Chicago.
I've admired the Marlins' past ability to rise to the top (two World Series championships in a fairly short history), then disperse and rebuild, despite a weak fan base and a (previously) crummy stadium. I'm writing them off this time, though.
Mitt Romney and others wasted no time in assailing the President's appeasement of "our enemy", calling him everything short of a Commie traitor. His statement's truth was proved by the reaction: how can one negotiate--leave aside the fact that the Russians are our partners in reducing nuclear arms and improving monitoring of nuclear facilities--when the prevailing response is a feral attack mode, forgetting that the Cold War ended 20+ years ago, and when the slightest new indication will be barraged with criticism? This will be true of many more issues going beyond foreign policy, as well: the debt ceiling, taxes, budgeting, etc. Nothing is going to happen until 2013, regardless of who wins the election. Nevertheless, it was truly a mistake, and by the President himself.
Defined by his Friends and a 8" X 10" Toy
A "reset" of a different kind from the one Obama has attempted--with some success--in his dealings with Russia came from one of Mitt Romney's leading campaign officers. In an unguarded moment, he explained to some reporters that Romney's right-wing stance on the issues for the primaries would be no burden in the general election campaign. "He'll be able to reset--like an Etch-a-Sketch" (I paraphrase).
This was one of those truths that would damage anytime or place that it would be spoken in public, particularly coming from Romney's own camp. Of course, the general election now will start with Rick Santorum's suspension of his campaign, so Romney has a transition period of 3-4 months to mix his pretend hard-right posture (though who really knows what's pretend and what is real with him?) with some flavoring of the moderate positions he will want to take on for the main event. It won't be quite "Etch-a-Sketch" fast, but the lingering impression that he gives anyway of a panderer willing to pivot on a dime and say anything to get himself elected was etched into more permanent form by this gaffe.
We Miss You Already, Ozzie
Ozzie Guillen left his position as the Chicago White Sox' manager in the offseason for a new contract with the newly-renamed, newly-ballparked Miami Marlins. He left behind a deep trail of public relations disasters, verbal outbursts, and provocative statements. So, it came as no surprise when he stepped in it verbally this week in an interview with Time Magazine, saying he "loved" Fidel Castro; he didn't mean it romantically, but instead marveled in "respect" for Castro's ability to survive decades of confrontation with his big bad neighbor, the US.
The problem was not what he said, but where he is when he said it. I'm no fan of Castro, who is without doubt a murdering, Stalinist tyrant who has caused incalculable damage to Cuba's economy over the last 50 years, but it is undeniably true that Castro has successfully given us the finger, defeating coup attempts we have sponsored as well as assassination attempts. So, Ozzie was right, but very wrong in provoking the local Cuban refugee population, who define themselves by their hatred for Castro.
Guillen was suspended for five games; he seems to have accepted his punishment, including giving a rambling public apology, rather than stand upon his rights to free speech, which surely have been violated by his employer. This has nothing to do with baseball (though Castro was supposedly a serious major league prospect in the '50's: imagine how history might have changed if he had made it!) or the conduct of his job, and everything with toning down his un-American opinions (he's a native Venezuelan, the current Latin American bugaboos for national zealots) to appease his self-righteous local fan base.
The Chicago press jumped onto the Marlins' side; rather than just "Ozzie's like that, you have to get used to it" or even defending his right to an unpopular opinion (what one should expect from journalists), their opinion was to the effect of "we're so glad you're gone so we don't have to deal with this anymore". Actually, they don't realize that Guillen was broadly popular as a guy daring to speak his mind honestly--a rare quality in public figures these days--and I think it's because they feel guilty for not exposing some of the more lurid things he said back in Chicago.
I've admired the Marlins' past ability to rise to the top (two World Series championships in a fairly short history), then disperse and rebuild, despite a weak fan base and a (previously) crummy stadium. I'm writing them off this time, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
