THANKS, BUT…
Detroit, Michigan has been the focus of Washington, DC this week with the Detroit Three (formerly referred to as the Big Three) auto company’s executives coming before Congress to plead their case for a financial bailout. All three chief executive officers as well as the head of the United Auto Workers union testified before both the House and the Senate relating to their request for a $25 billion bridge loan.
The reaction from both sides of the isle was harsh. The auto makers failure to adapt to a changing economy and their agreements with the UAW have led to a belief that the leadership of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were asleep at the wheel for the past few years and the soon to be bankruptcy is a just reward.
All four leaders’ testimony was terrible. They were unable to explain what they would do with the money, how they came up with the dollar amount, how it would be split among the three companies, what changes to their business model they were in the process of implementing so that they would not be back before Congress in a year asking for more money. It wasn’t just Republicans demanding answers, but Democrats as well. In fact, certain Democrats asked the tougher questions. Senator Menendez of New Jersey and Representative Sherman of California both questioned the rationale for Congress providing a bridge loan to the companies. The failure of the executives to explain the need for the loan and what changes to their business model they were either implementing or about to implement basically determined their fate.
Two Republican Senators, Kit Bond from Missouri and George Voinovich from Ohio went to work on trying to come up with a compromise plan that would change some of the conditions to money already allocated to the automakers. Instead of using the $25 billion in Energy Department loans to focus on more fuel efficient automobiles, they proposed using that money in the short term for the bridge loan. Initially, Senate majority leader Harry Reid decided not to allow a vote on such a proposal. However, following the involvement of Michigan’s two Democratic senators, Levin and Stabenow, Senator Reid decided to allow a vote Thursday afternoon. Following a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this vote was cancelled. Speaker Pelosi demanded plans for the money to be submitted by early December before a vote could take place. The plans have to be submitted to business leaders, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Both of these men were involved in the credit crisis by their continued support of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two “leaders” refused to allow any changes to the actions of Fannie and Freddie and when both institutions failed miserably over the past six months, they claimed ignorance. Now these two are going to be responsible for overseeing the automakers restructuring plans. The American people are now reliant on these two to protect our tax dollars and make sure that any plans submitted by the automakers are credible and a one time deal. Somehow, I am not confident that they have the capacity to even understand basic financial statements…
The other big news relating to Detroit out of Washington this week was the removal of Representative John Dingell as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Speaker Pelosi, unhappy with Dingell over the past several years for his “failure” to institute extreme environmental procedures that have caused the automakers so many problems, allowed fellow California liberal Representative Henry Waxman to challenge for the chairmanship. A secret vote took place (funny how Democrats support secret balloting when they have to make a decision but not for union considerations…) and Representative Waxman won by 15 votes. The longest serving Democrat in the House, is now no longer the Democratic leader of the Committee for which he has been the longest serving Democratic member since 1981. Since Representative Dingell has been removed in favor of another extreme environmentalist, one can only imagine how soon the automakers have higher café standards to deal with and individual state requirements.
Detroit should give a big thank you to Speaker Pelosi, since she is the driving force behind all the strings attached to any Detroit bailout. The Detroit area and the state of Michigan voted Democratic overwhelmingly this past November and now they get to deal with those results – the last one in Detroit can turn off the lights…
Friday, November 21, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
NOW WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT?
NOW WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT?
With the election of Senator Barack Obama to be our country’s 44th President, a lot of the DC establishment is now trying to figure out what’s next? Most of these folks have nothing better to do than to offer their advice on how good/bad things are in the country. They are typically former journalists, academics, or campaign staffers. They have never created a job, made a payroll, or done much more than pushing some paper around. With the end of the campaign, in order to stay on tv or to be quoted in stories in the Washington Post, they offer their suggestions as to who should make up the new White House staff or cabinet, or what industry the taxpayers should bail out next.
President-elect Obama’s first personnel announcement was that Representative Rahm Emanuel would be his chief of staff. This announcement was met with some questions from Republicans and leading conservatives. Both Minority leader John Boehner and conservative advocate Sean Hannity thought it was a bad signal to send if the Obama administration was serious about all the bi-partisan claims that they announced during the campaign. I think the pick of Emanuel is a great choice. Representative Emanuel spent a lot of time in the White House during the Clinton Administration. He understands the workings of the White House and understands the workings of the federal government. He also has extensive relationships and experience on Capital Hill. This knowledge should help the administration push its agenda and potentially get things done. While Emanuel is a democratic partisan, who did the Republicans think the Obama administration would pick? A Republican? Representative Emanuel was a supporter of welfare reform and free trade during his time in the Clinton Administration. Aren’t these priorities of the Republicans? He has shown an ability to get things done in Washington and isn’t afraid to go against some of the Democrats largest contributors.
As the Obama administration starts to announce their choices for certain staff positions within its administration, I think it would be wise of the Republicans in Congress and conservative pundits to study the policy positions they have but not to denounce the pick without any examination.
One big issue that is currently being debated here in Washington is the potential “bail out” of the Detroit Three. The former Big Three auto companies claim that they need federal support in order to stay out of bankruptcy. Already the Congress has approved $25 billion to help them convert to more fuel efficient cars. They are also asking for as much as $50 billion more to allow them to stay in business. The biggest problem facing the automakers is the incredibly high legacy costs associated with each car produced. Some estimates value these costs at as much as $1,500 per vehicle. These costs include health care and pension liabilities for the workforce. Many retired auto workers do not have to pay a co-pay on their prescriptions or doctor visits. Everyone else pays a small co-pay for these services. Would it be too much for the UAW to agree to have its members pay a small co-pay to reduce some of the health care costs of the Detroit Three?
The big issue surrounding the debate in Washington is if the taxpayers provide the funds to keep them out of bankruptcy, what changes in the business model will they implement so that they don’t run into these problems in a year or two? Most of the conditions being discussed on Capital Hill have to do with executive compensation and bonuses. Nothing about restructuring their contracts with the UAW, nothing about issued such as the job banks that allow workers to not work, but still take home their salaries. Without a complete restructuring of their business models, the Detroit Three are not likely to be successful. Foreign automakers are building cars throughout the US, particularly in the south. Whether it’s Toyota, Honda, or BMW, foreign automakers are building cars more suited to today’s economy. They have less overhead costs to pass onto the buyer of their products.
Folks in Detroit are worried about their futures, and they should be worried. For too long, Detroit’s automakers did not believe that foreign competition was actual competition. Once Toyota and Honda became legitimate alternatives, the Detroit Three decided on the strategy of blaming the American public for not buying their products, then making bigger cars that do not get very good gas mileage, and now begging Congress to bail them out. Not once have they looked at their business models and decided to take the hit now to eliminate some of the problems facing it.
Do we really want Congress to be making decisions as to the business models of the automakers? They have a hard enough time trying to pass a budget, how are they going to make the needed, hard decisions to try and make the auto companies more competitive? The Detroit Three need to look at themselves and decide what they should do to make themselves competitive. They are the only ones that can do this. They should know the business and their customer needs better than anyone else. They have to adjust their products to fulfill the needs of the American public. The taxpayers should not be responsible for the failure of the auto companies to make the tough but needed decisions.
With the election of Senator Barack Obama to be our country’s 44th President, a lot of the DC establishment is now trying to figure out what’s next? Most of these folks have nothing better to do than to offer their advice on how good/bad things are in the country. They are typically former journalists, academics, or campaign staffers. They have never created a job, made a payroll, or done much more than pushing some paper around. With the end of the campaign, in order to stay on tv or to be quoted in stories in the Washington Post, they offer their suggestions as to who should make up the new White House staff or cabinet, or what industry the taxpayers should bail out next.
President-elect Obama’s first personnel announcement was that Representative Rahm Emanuel would be his chief of staff. This announcement was met with some questions from Republicans and leading conservatives. Both Minority leader John Boehner and conservative advocate Sean Hannity thought it was a bad signal to send if the Obama administration was serious about all the bi-partisan claims that they announced during the campaign. I think the pick of Emanuel is a great choice. Representative Emanuel spent a lot of time in the White House during the Clinton Administration. He understands the workings of the White House and understands the workings of the federal government. He also has extensive relationships and experience on Capital Hill. This knowledge should help the administration push its agenda and potentially get things done. While Emanuel is a democratic partisan, who did the Republicans think the Obama administration would pick? A Republican? Representative Emanuel was a supporter of welfare reform and free trade during his time in the Clinton Administration. Aren’t these priorities of the Republicans? He has shown an ability to get things done in Washington and isn’t afraid to go against some of the Democrats largest contributors.
As the Obama administration starts to announce their choices for certain staff positions within its administration, I think it would be wise of the Republicans in Congress and conservative pundits to study the policy positions they have but not to denounce the pick without any examination.
One big issue that is currently being debated here in Washington is the potential “bail out” of the Detroit Three. The former Big Three auto companies claim that they need federal support in order to stay out of bankruptcy. Already the Congress has approved $25 billion to help them convert to more fuel efficient cars. They are also asking for as much as $50 billion more to allow them to stay in business. The biggest problem facing the automakers is the incredibly high legacy costs associated with each car produced. Some estimates value these costs at as much as $1,500 per vehicle. These costs include health care and pension liabilities for the workforce. Many retired auto workers do not have to pay a co-pay on their prescriptions or doctor visits. Everyone else pays a small co-pay for these services. Would it be too much for the UAW to agree to have its members pay a small co-pay to reduce some of the health care costs of the Detroit Three?
The big issue surrounding the debate in Washington is if the taxpayers provide the funds to keep them out of bankruptcy, what changes in the business model will they implement so that they don’t run into these problems in a year or two? Most of the conditions being discussed on Capital Hill have to do with executive compensation and bonuses. Nothing about restructuring their contracts with the UAW, nothing about issued such as the job banks that allow workers to not work, but still take home their salaries. Without a complete restructuring of their business models, the Detroit Three are not likely to be successful. Foreign automakers are building cars throughout the US, particularly in the south. Whether it’s Toyota, Honda, or BMW, foreign automakers are building cars more suited to today’s economy. They have less overhead costs to pass onto the buyer of their products.
Folks in Detroit are worried about their futures, and they should be worried. For too long, Detroit’s automakers did not believe that foreign competition was actual competition. Once Toyota and Honda became legitimate alternatives, the Detroit Three decided on the strategy of blaming the American public for not buying their products, then making bigger cars that do not get very good gas mileage, and now begging Congress to bail them out. Not once have they looked at their business models and decided to take the hit now to eliminate some of the problems facing it.
Do we really want Congress to be making decisions as to the business models of the automakers? They have a hard enough time trying to pass a budget, how are they going to make the needed, hard decisions to try and make the auto companies more competitive? The Detroit Three need to look at themselves and decide what they should do to make themselves competitive. They are the only ones that can do this. They should know the business and their customer needs better than anyone else. They have to adjust their products to fulfill the needs of the American public. The taxpayers should not be responsible for the failure of the auto companies to make the tough but needed decisions.
Monday, November 3, 2008
PLEASE VOTE!
The polls open in just a few hours and soon we will have a new President-elect. So many things have contributed to this being an interesting race, but one that could go down as the biggest mistake in history. All we have heard about in the past few weeks is that this election is over and Senator Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. This may in fact happen, in fact it is likely to happen. However, it is not guaranteed to happen.
Tomorrow evening is going to be pretty interesting in seeing how the different networks call each state. Are they basing their calls strictly on exit polls? Are they making calls before all the polls in the state have closed? Let’s hope that the media does not act as they have in previous elections. Following the 2004 election, the networks examined how the exit polls had over-estimated Senator Kerry’s support by about 5.5%. If this years exit poll sample is as wrong as in 2004, do you think that might make a difference in a state such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, or North Carolina? All of these states have been labeled toss ups at one point in the campaign. If exit polls give Senator Obama wins of 3-5 points in some of these states, and the networks call the race his, what happens if they are again off by 5.5% and Senator McCain in fact wins those states?
A lot of talk has also focused on the fact that the toss-up states are mostly states that President Bush won in 2004. Of course they are. President Bush won more states than needed and if Senator Obama is going to win, he has to win some “red” states. Senator McCain does not need to win all of the Bush, “red” states in order to be elected President. McCain can lose some Bush states, such as New Hampshire or Colorado, Iowa, or New Mexico and still be elected. He can’t afford to lose too many of these states, but he can lose one or two of them.
I feel that the race is going to be a lot closer than the pundits predict. I am not sure if Senator McCain is going to be able to over come all the negative coverage that he has had to deal with from the national media and more importantly all the money that Senator Obama has spent on his campaign for President. The one thing that I am sure about as a result of this election is that public financing of Presidential campaigns is over. Any candidate that takes public money will be so far behind and have such limited resources that it will put their campaigns too far behind before they even start. This is a good thing. Let viable candidates raise their own money and spend it in anyway they choose. If they determine that the state of Ohio is the only toss up state in an election and they want to spend $100 million on ads, personnel, mail, and phones in Ohio, so be it. Let them do whatever they want to do.
If you don’t vote tomorrow, you have no right to complain if your candidate does not win or if the President and the new Congress act on positions you don’t agree with. If you don’t vote, you only have to blame yourself.
Tomorrow evening is going to be pretty interesting in seeing how the different networks call each state. Are they basing their calls strictly on exit polls? Are they making calls before all the polls in the state have closed? Let’s hope that the media does not act as they have in previous elections. Following the 2004 election, the networks examined how the exit polls had over-estimated Senator Kerry’s support by about 5.5%. If this years exit poll sample is as wrong as in 2004, do you think that might make a difference in a state such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, or North Carolina? All of these states have been labeled toss ups at one point in the campaign. If exit polls give Senator Obama wins of 3-5 points in some of these states, and the networks call the race his, what happens if they are again off by 5.5% and Senator McCain in fact wins those states?
A lot of talk has also focused on the fact that the toss-up states are mostly states that President Bush won in 2004. Of course they are. President Bush won more states than needed and if Senator Obama is going to win, he has to win some “red” states. Senator McCain does not need to win all of the Bush, “red” states in order to be elected President. McCain can lose some Bush states, such as New Hampshire or Colorado, Iowa, or New Mexico and still be elected. He can’t afford to lose too many of these states, but he can lose one or two of them.
I feel that the race is going to be a lot closer than the pundits predict. I am not sure if Senator McCain is going to be able to over come all the negative coverage that he has had to deal with from the national media and more importantly all the money that Senator Obama has spent on his campaign for President. The one thing that I am sure about as a result of this election is that public financing of Presidential campaigns is over. Any candidate that takes public money will be so far behind and have such limited resources that it will put their campaigns too far behind before they even start. This is a good thing. Let viable candidates raise their own money and spend it in anyway they choose. If they determine that the state of Ohio is the only toss up state in an election and they want to spend $100 million on ads, personnel, mail, and phones in Ohio, so be it. Let them do whatever they want to do.
If you don’t vote tomorrow, you have no right to complain if your candidate does not win or if the President and the new Congress act on positions you don’t agree with. If you don’t vote, you only have to blame yourself.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Governor Sarah Palin
Governor Sarah Palin, September 4, 2008
Last night, the country was introduced to Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin. The Governor’s speech at the Republican National Convention was an interesting speech that exceeded all expectations. Prior to the speech, many inside the Beltway establishment elites thought that the new Governor was not up to the task of being a Vice Presidential nominee. She is not one of them, someone whose goal in life is to be invited to the Georgetown cocktail parties and to pontificate on the Sunday morning talk shows. Since she is not one of them, they viewed her as unqualified. Over the past week, the establishment has tried to knock her down, and to have Senator McCain drop her from the ticket. The rumors about her son actually being her daughters son, the playing up of the “ethics” investigation over certain firings in Alaska, and the fact that she was just a “small town mayor.” They had this goal, since that would lead to the claim that McCain makes bad decisions. This theory was shot down last night early and often.
Following the speech, a number of different attitudes and reactions from the television commentators came across. On MSNBC, the word that kept coming up was “sarcastic”; FOXNEWS’ Howard Wolfson and CNN’s Anderson Cooper both mentioned that she was able to stick the knife in the back of Senator Obama with a smile on her face. She was able to point out the differences and weaknesses of the Obama campaign in a casual, friendly way. It was not a Pat Buchanan type convention speech.
I found it interesting that MSNBC kept using sarcastic in their evaluation of the speech. Is it sarcastic to point out the differences? Did they phrase it sarcastic when Senator Joe Biden attacked the McCain record last week? No. Why did they use this term? Was it because the establishment did not know how to react to an attractive, young, female Governor who was not afraid to point out the differences between the two campaigns and the Obama news network, aka MSNBC, did not like it? Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews, two liberal commentators who hosted the MSNBC coverage after last weeks Democratic convention basically said the election was over
A couple of lines from the speech last night caught both my attention and the media’s. One line that was released early was, “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.” This line delivered a huge roar from the crowd at the Convention and also led to coverage in the media. CNN had a commentator who spoke of his parents who are community organizers. He mentioned that this line might fire up the inner city machine type politics. From my opinion that is fine. Most people don’t really know what these organizers do. What is the job? What are the responsibilities? What are the accomplishments? Most people in America live in small towns, not big cities. From my background, small towns don’t have many community organizers, rather active citizens. Being active in your local government or community typically is not a job description. Every day that the Obama campaign has to discuss what he did as a community organizer, is another day where the American people will see that he is not qualified to be President. I wish that Governor Palin would have spoken a little bit more about what she has done as both a mayor and Governor. If she had pointed out specific accomplishments during both jobs, it would have been an even stronger point.
Another line that I think really truck a cord with the audience and the American public was, “But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.” This line stresses that Governor Palin is different from the Obama campaign and typical Washington insiders. She is not interested in appealing to the Georgetown crowd, but rather to small town America and those living outside the Beltway. She is not interested in cocktail parties, but rather serving the American public. She is not interested in becoming an entrenched DC power source, but rather someone who comes in and gets the job done.
A final line that really was a hit was, “But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.” This line points out two big issues that the McCain team has been trying to highlight – Senator Obama’s celebrity and his lack of experience. Much has been made of Governor Palin’s lack of Washington experience and the line turns the questions directly back on Senator Obama. If he is such a change leader in Washington, how come he has authored no legislation? If he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and has no legislative experience, how is he going to lead this country? The fact that he has written two memoirs shows that he is a media celebrity. The fact that the American public is willing to purchase these books, show that he is an interesting character. However, does this mean that he is ready to be President? The speech by Sarah Palin was an important speech. A lot was made that she was not ready for prime time since she was just a first term governor from Alaska. However, with her introductory speech last week in Dayton and her speech last night in Minnesota, Governor Sarah Palin has shown that she is not a light weight. She relishes the upcoming campaign and has the ability to activate the base of the Republican Party and make in roads with independents and women. She has changed the tenor of the campaign and given the McCain campaign a huge lift. Now it is up to Senator McCain to deliver tonight in his acceptance speech and for the campaign to schedule her in swing states across the country. As MSNBC now proclaims, “A GOP Star is Born.”
The Democrats and the Obama campaign probably are not real excited about the upcoming two months. In what they thought was going to be an easy campaign with the help of the media establishment, now is going to be a tough fight between the two campaings. Senator Obama is no longer the "rock star" of this campaign. Governor Palin has taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the Democrats and given a lot of hope to the McCain campaign and other Republicans.
Last night, the country was introduced to Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin. The Governor’s speech at the Republican National Convention was an interesting speech that exceeded all expectations. Prior to the speech, many inside the Beltway establishment elites thought that the new Governor was not up to the task of being a Vice Presidential nominee. She is not one of them, someone whose goal in life is to be invited to the Georgetown cocktail parties and to pontificate on the Sunday morning talk shows. Since she is not one of them, they viewed her as unqualified. Over the past week, the establishment has tried to knock her down, and to have Senator McCain drop her from the ticket. The rumors about her son actually being her daughters son, the playing up of the “ethics” investigation over certain firings in Alaska, and the fact that she was just a “small town mayor.” They had this goal, since that would lead to the claim that McCain makes bad decisions. This theory was shot down last night early and often.
Following the speech, a number of different attitudes and reactions from the television commentators came across. On MSNBC, the word that kept coming up was “sarcastic”; FOXNEWS’ Howard Wolfson and CNN’s Anderson Cooper both mentioned that she was able to stick the knife in the back of Senator Obama with a smile on her face. She was able to point out the differences and weaknesses of the Obama campaign in a casual, friendly way. It was not a Pat Buchanan type convention speech.
I found it interesting that MSNBC kept using sarcastic in their evaluation of the speech. Is it sarcastic to point out the differences? Did they phrase it sarcastic when Senator Joe Biden attacked the McCain record last week? No. Why did they use this term? Was it because the establishment did not know how to react to an attractive, young, female Governor who was not afraid to point out the differences between the two campaigns and the Obama news network, aka MSNBC, did not like it? Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews, two liberal commentators who hosted the MSNBC coverage after last weeks Democratic convention basically said the election was over
A couple of lines from the speech last night caught both my attention and the media’s. One line that was released early was, “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.” This line delivered a huge roar from the crowd at the Convention and also led to coverage in the media. CNN had a commentator who spoke of his parents who are community organizers. He mentioned that this line might fire up the inner city machine type politics. From my opinion that is fine. Most people don’t really know what these organizers do. What is the job? What are the responsibilities? What are the accomplishments? Most people in America live in small towns, not big cities. From my background, small towns don’t have many community organizers, rather active citizens. Being active in your local government or community typically is not a job description. Every day that the Obama campaign has to discuss what he did as a community organizer, is another day where the American people will see that he is not qualified to be President. I wish that Governor Palin would have spoken a little bit more about what she has done as both a mayor and Governor. If she had pointed out specific accomplishments during both jobs, it would have been an even stronger point.
Another line that I think really truck a cord with the audience and the American public was, “But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.” This line stresses that Governor Palin is different from the Obama campaign and typical Washington insiders. She is not interested in appealing to the Georgetown crowd, but rather to small town America and those living outside the Beltway. She is not interested in cocktail parties, but rather serving the American public. She is not interested in becoming an entrenched DC power source, but rather someone who comes in and gets the job done.
A final line that really was a hit was, “But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.” This line points out two big issues that the McCain team has been trying to highlight – Senator Obama’s celebrity and his lack of experience. Much has been made of Governor Palin’s lack of Washington experience and the line turns the questions directly back on Senator Obama. If he is such a change leader in Washington, how come he has authored no legislation? If he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and has no legislative experience, how is he going to lead this country? The fact that he has written two memoirs shows that he is a media celebrity. The fact that the American public is willing to purchase these books, show that he is an interesting character. However, does this mean that he is ready to be President? The speech by Sarah Palin was an important speech. A lot was made that she was not ready for prime time since she was just a first term governor from Alaska. However, with her introductory speech last week in Dayton and her speech last night in Minnesota, Governor Sarah Palin has shown that she is not a light weight. She relishes the upcoming campaign and has the ability to activate the base of the Republican Party and make in roads with independents and women. She has changed the tenor of the campaign and given the McCain campaign a huge lift. Now it is up to Senator McCain to deliver tonight in his acceptance speech and for the campaign to schedule her in swing states across the country. As MSNBC now proclaims, “A GOP Star is Born.”
The Democrats and the Obama campaign probably are not real excited about the upcoming two months. In what they thought was going to be an easy campaign with the help of the media establishment, now is going to be a tough fight between the two campaings. Senator Obama is no longer the "rock star" of this campaign. Governor Palin has taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the Democrats and given a lot of hope to the McCain campaign and other Republicans.
Friday, August 29, 2008
I LIKE THE PICK
Today, Senator John McCain picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice President, surprising all the supposed experts. I like the pick. I think it was an under the radar, outside DC choice that has left the Obama campaign saying, "Huh?" It caught them flat footed and also doesn't allow them to run the same type of ads that McCain was able to run showing the disagreements between Biden and Obama. I think the Obama response was fascinating in that the campaign Communications director went after small town America. This is the second time that his campaign has basically made fun of small towns and enhances the elists perception that America has about Obama. I think the pick also goes against the Obama slogan of Change. Their campaign is two men from the most exclusive club in the world, the US Senate. Two members of the DC establishment don't really personify changing Washington. She is also the only person running with executive experience.
The McCain campaign did a great job of teasing America about who the pick was going to be and when the pick was going to be announced. Yesterday, when all the rumors started flying that he would make the announcement through a TV ad placed last night, the Obama campaign called it campaign malpractice, since it would take away from Obama's speech. The talk continued last night about Romney jumping on a plane with an overnight bag, and Pawlenty canceling his schedule for today, which just fueled the talk about the McCain campaign as opposed to Obama's speech. Then to have the McCain team place the congratulatory ad by McCain to Obama last night instead of a VP announcement ad also got a lot of positive press coverage and got the Obama people on the defensive. The ability to keep the choice a secret until about 10:30am this morning was really impressive and completely changed the story of the day. Instead of the cable talk sows talking about how great Obama's speech was last night, it was all about who the pick was going to be. The McCain choice is the story of the day and that should be a positive for McCain. I think she appeals to social conservatives; there was an interview on CNN this morning where a reporter from the Christian Broadcast Network was speaking about how excited the grassroots social conservatives were over the pick. If they are motivated to get out and help, it is a huge benefit to McCain. Also, if she is able to pick off any of the 18 million Clinton supporters, that is just icing on the cake. It should be interesting, but she needs to get a crash course in foreign policy and economic policy that she can articulate as opposed to Obama and Biden.
The McCain campaign did a great job of teasing America about who the pick was going to be and when the pick was going to be announced. Yesterday, when all the rumors started flying that he would make the announcement through a TV ad placed last night, the Obama campaign called it campaign malpractice, since it would take away from Obama's speech. The talk continued last night about Romney jumping on a plane with an overnight bag, and Pawlenty canceling his schedule for today, which just fueled the talk about the McCain campaign as opposed to Obama's speech. Then to have the McCain team place the congratulatory ad by McCain to Obama last night instead of a VP announcement ad also got a lot of positive press coverage and got the Obama people on the defensive. The ability to keep the choice a secret until about 10:30am this morning was really impressive and completely changed the story of the day. Instead of the cable talk sows talking about how great Obama's speech was last night, it was all about who the pick was going to be. The McCain choice is the story of the day and that should be a positive for McCain. I think she appeals to social conservatives; there was an interview on CNN this morning where a reporter from the Christian Broadcast Network was speaking about how excited the grassroots social conservatives were over the pick. If they are motivated to get out and help, it is a huge benefit to McCain. Also, if she is able to pick off any of the 18 million Clinton supporters, that is just icing on the cake. It should be interesting, but she needs to get a crash course in foreign policy and economic policy that she can articulate as opposed to Obama and Biden.
ROCK STAR CELEBRITY
ROCK STAR CELEBRITY, August 29, 2008
Last night, Senator Barack Obama delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. In a speech that lasted about 45 minutes, Obama attempted to prove that he is ready to be President. It was a good speech, but I think that it missed a few critical points.
Senator Obama started off his speech with a little personal background. He spoke of being raised by a single mom and his grandparents. He talked of the attributes that his grandmother instilled in him which has driven him in his life. He then went on the attack against Senator John McCain. According to MSNBC, 19 different attacks were provided. The final part of the speech, which I thought was by far the best portion of the speech, was similar to the old Reagan speeches of a shining city on a hill. He talked of the greatest that America is, and how we need to get back to that ideal. This was a speech that very few people in the world could ever give. It was before about 85,000 people at Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium in Denver, where the Broncos play. The weather was perfect, and the celebrities including Oprah, Will I Am, Sheryl Crow, Matthew Modine was all there. The stage was developed by the same production company that designed the set for the last Brittany Spears concert tour. It was an event that was staged incredibly.
There were two lines in the speech that stood out for me. The first line from Senator Obama was, “If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.” This line is interesting because less than two months ago, Senator McCain suggested to Senator Obama that they have a town hall debates across the country that would give the American public the opportunity to see both candidates together and allow them to ask questions. Obviously, Senator Obama declined this offer. Now two months later, with his poll numbers dropping, Senator Obama offers up almost the same request. Strange…
The second line that stood out to me was, “Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” One thing that stood out during the Democratic convention was that there was no one who said that they had know Senator Obama for years and this is what he believes in. There was no one from the Senate or the Illinois State House that came forward and said this is who he is and what he believes in. What does this mean, it means that very few people know the Senator and the Senator has a very light resume. Senator Obama’s lack of experience is one of his greatest challenges during this campaign. One of the reasons he picked Senator Joe Biden as his Vice President was hi slack of foreign policy experience. The Obama pick was meant to shore up one of his biggest weaknesses.
This morning has also brought the McCain campaign’s pick for Vice President, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The mother of five children, including a new born recently diagnosed with Down Syndrome and another one who last year signed up for the Army, brings a youthful, female candidate to the ticket. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats try to define her. If they state that she is inexperienced, they then will have to deal with the same issue themselves. She does have executive experience, she is from outside Washington, and she is the only women. It should be a very interesting campaign over the past few months.
Last night, Senator Barack Obama delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. In a speech that lasted about 45 minutes, Obama attempted to prove that he is ready to be President. It was a good speech, but I think that it missed a few critical points.
Senator Obama started off his speech with a little personal background. He spoke of being raised by a single mom and his grandparents. He talked of the attributes that his grandmother instilled in him which has driven him in his life. He then went on the attack against Senator John McCain. According to MSNBC, 19 different attacks were provided. The final part of the speech, which I thought was by far the best portion of the speech, was similar to the old Reagan speeches of a shining city on a hill. He talked of the greatest that America is, and how we need to get back to that ideal. This was a speech that very few people in the world could ever give. It was before about 85,000 people at Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium in Denver, where the Broncos play. The weather was perfect, and the celebrities including Oprah, Will I Am, Sheryl Crow, Matthew Modine was all there. The stage was developed by the same production company that designed the set for the last Brittany Spears concert tour. It was an event that was staged incredibly.
There were two lines in the speech that stood out for me. The first line from Senator Obama was, “If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.” This line is interesting because less than two months ago, Senator McCain suggested to Senator Obama that they have a town hall debates across the country that would give the American public the opportunity to see both candidates together and allow them to ask questions. Obviously, Senator Obama declined this offer. Now two months later, with his poll numbers dropping, Senator Obama offers up almost the same request. Strange…
The second line that stood out to me was, “Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” One thing that stood out during the Democratic convention was that there was no one who said that they had know Senator Obama for years and this is what he believes in. There was no one from the Senate or the Illinois State House that came forward and said this is who he is and what he believes in. What does this mean, it means that very few people know the Senator and the Senator has a very light resume. Senator Obama’s lack of experience is one of his greatest challenges during this campaign. One of the reasons he picked Senator Joe Biden as his Vice President was hi slack of foreign policy experience. The Obama pick was meant to shore up one of his biggest weaknesses.
This morning has also brought the McCain campaign’s pick for Vice President, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The mother of five children, including a new born recently diagnosed with Down Syndrome and another one who last year signed up for the Army, brings a youthful, female candidate to the ticket. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats try to define her. If they state that she is inexperienced, they then will have to deal with the same issue themselves. She does have executive experience, she is from outside Washington, and she is the only women. It should be a very interesting campaign over the past few months.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
DNC DAY 2
DNC Convention, Days 1 & 2, August 27, 2008
The Democratic convention in Denver has been rather strange as compared to “normal” national party conventions. Most of the press coverage has been over the perceived rift between the Obama and Clinton campaigns. The fact that everyone is talking about the rift, should cause the Democrats a lot of concern. In this election year, the Democrats should be ahead of all Republicans by a wide margin. According to public polls, the Obama and McCain campaigns are within the margin of error, 44-43. Obama has a slight lead, but one would expect him to be up by at least 7 or 8 points at this point.
The Obama campaign did not get any bounce after the Biden announcement. In fact, on Tuesday, the daily tracking poll had McCain ahead by a point. Michelle Obama’s speech Monday night was an impressive speech by a non-politician. However, the one thing that she did not really speak about was who Senator Obama really is. A lot of us believed that she should give us a little background or stories to personify Senator Obama. The only “story” she told was of the drive home after the birth of their first child. This type of story, I think, is what America was striving for. Americans don’t know Senator Obama that well and the person that knows him the best, didn’t really tell us much about him. Last night, the Democrats moved the time of the keynote address by former Virginia Governor and current Senate candidate Mark Warner since he decided he was not going to be a hatchet man for the Obama campaign. I can’t remember a time when a party switched the schedule due to the fact that a speaker wasn’t aggressive enough. Governor Warner was thought to be a serious Presidential candidate and many also thought that he would be on most short lists for Vice President. Obviously, the Obama campaign had other thoughts.
The big speech on Tuesday was by New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton gave Obama her full support, but spent the majority of her speech talking about herself, not Senator Obama. Her basic message was that Senator Obama basically agrees with her on most issues, and in fact has taken her position on most issues so he can’t be too bad. She did not talk about how her opinion during the primary campaign of Senator Obama that he was not qualified to be President, was wrong or that he was in fact ready to be President today. The speech seemed to be a speech laying out her 2012 or 2016 campaign for President. She struck the liberal positions on health care, trade, taxes, corporate greed, and women rights. She gave a positive speech for her possible upcoming campaigns.
The speeches shown on the news have been impressive in terms of the way they were given. However, many issues were missing and not much was given in terms of what the Obama-Biden ticket would do for the American people. There have not been policy proposals that would address concerns of America – energy policy, foreign policy, national security issues. Nothing has been said on the issues that Americans care about. Is it because the Obama campaign doesn’t have the experience and the policy positions that Americans want? He has changed his view on drilling to appease the strong American concern with $4 a gallon gasoline, however this position is not the position of the liberal, environmentalists that support the Democrats. I guess they didn’t want to alienate some of their strongest supporters even though most Americans believe that this position is wrong.
I guess that is what this convention is all about, not rocking the boat. In the meantime however, the McCain campaign has been aggressively portraying Obama as inexperienced. They are out in force in Denver and have been putting out a new television ad every day. The ads have a Clinton delegate to the convention (who lost her spot at the convention) talking about her support for McCain. Today during the “national security” portion of the convention they released an ad, “Tiny” where the words of Obama about Iran being a tiny country and not much of a threat. This ad doesn’t really do much to strengthen the view of Obama’s character and show his foreign policy experience. The McCain team seems to have won the first few days of the campaign; this seems evident in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll that has the race tied 44-44. If I were part of the Obama team, I would be rather worried at this point.
The Democratic convention in Denver has been rather strange as compared to “normal” national party conventions. Most of the press coverage has been over the perceived rift between the Obama and Clinton campaigns. The fact that everyone is talking about the rift, should cause the Democrats a lot of concern. In this election year, the Democrats should be ahead of all Republicans by a wide margin. According to public polls, the Obama and McCain campaigns are within the margin of error, 44-43. Obama has a slight lead, but one would expect him to be up by at least 7 or 8 points at this point.
The Obama campaign did not get any bounce after the Biden announcement. In fact, on Tuesday, the daily tracking poll had McCain ahead by a point. Michelle Obama’s speech Monday night was an impressive speech by a non-politician. However, the one thing that she did not really speak about was who Senator Obama really is. A lot of us believed that she should give us a little background or stories to personify Senator Obama. The only “story” she told was of the drive home after the birth of their first child. This type of story, I think, is what America was striving for. Americans don’t know Senator Obama that well and the person that knows him the best, didn’t really tell us much about him. Last night, the Democrats moved the time of the keynote address by former Virginia Governor and current Senate candidate Mark Warner since he decided he was not going to be a hatchet man for the Obama campaign. I can’t remember a time when a party switched the schedule due to the fact that a speaker wasn’t aggressive enough. Governor Warner was thought to be a serious Presidential candidate and many also thought that he would be on most short lists for Vice President. Obviously, the Obama campaign had other thoughts.
The big speech on Tuesday was by New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton gave Obama her full support, but spent the majority of her speech talking about herself, not Senator Obama. Her basic message was that Senator Obama basically agrees with her on most issues, and in fact has taken her position on most issues so he can’t be too bad. She did not talk about how her opinion during the primary campaign of Senator Obama that he was not qualified to be President, was wrong or that he was in fact ready to be President today. The speech seemed to be a speech laying out her 2012 or 2016 campaign for President. She struck the liberal positions on health care, trade, taxes, corporate greed, and women rights. She gave a positive speech for her possible upcoming campaigns.
The speeches shown on the news have been impressive in terms of the way they were given. However, many issues were missing and not much was given in terms of what the Obama-Biden ticket would do for the American people. There have not been policy proposals that would address concerns of America – energy policy, foreign policy, national security issues. Nothing has been said on the issues that Americans care about. Is it because the Obama campaign doesn’t have the experience and the policy positions that Americans want? He has changed his view on drilling to appease the strong American concern with $4 a gallon gasoline, however this position is not the position of the liberal, environmentalists that support the Democrats. I guess they didn’t want to alienate some of their strongest supporters even though most Americans believe that this position is wrong.
I guess that is what this convention is all about, not rocking the boat. In the meantime however, the McCain campaign has been aggressively portraying Obama as inexperienced. They are out in force in Denver and have been putting out a new television ad every day. The ads have a Clinton delegate to the convention (who lost her spot at the convention) talking about her support for McCain. Today during the “national security” portion of the convention they released an ad, “Tiny” where the words of Obama about Iran being a tiny country and not much of a threat. This ad doesn’t really do much to strengthen the view of Obama’s character and show his foreign policy experience. The McCain team seems to have won the first few days of the campaign; this seems evident in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll that has the race tied 44-44. If I were part of the Obama team, I would be rather worried at this point.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
VP Choice
VP CHOICE, August 26, 2008
As anyone that has ever been involved in national Presidential campaigns, one of the most important decisions a candidate for President must make is who their Vice Presidential nominee will be. Over the weekend, Senator Barack Obama announced that Delaware Senator Joe Biden was his choice.
The Obama campaign created quite a stir in their announcement. In the weeks and days leading up to the announcement in Springfield, IL, the campaign was able to generate thousands of emails from interested parties that were promised that by providing their contact information, they would be the first to know who the choice was. I am not sure how many new email addresses the campaign was able to get, but it can only help in their fundraising attempts to pay for the general election. Word of the Biden choice got out early Friday evening, which kind of deflated the rationale for providing one’s contact information. I wonder how many times each contact address will be hit up for money and to volunteer?
There are many reasons to choose a particular person to be one’s Vice President. A number of the reasons include: age, demographic background, home state that might be in play during the general election, and to strengthen a perceived weakness of the Presidential nominee. The Obama team decided that they needed to shore up a weakness of the Senator – his lack of foreign policy experience. Senator Biden has been a Senator from Delaware since 1972, and is currently the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
I believe that Senator Obama does not really gain anything by having Senator Biden on the ticket. First, very few people have ever even heard of Senator Biden. Those that have, probably remember his disastrous 1988 Presidential campaign where he was forced from the race over a plagiarism charge. Senator Biden has a well deserved reputation of being long-winded. It typically seems that he is trying to prove that he knows more about the subject than the questioner and that he is in fact smarter than the questioner. This however was not Biden’s first run in with plagiarism. According to Slate magazine’s Jack Shafer, “As E.J. Dionne Jr. reported in the previously mentioned Times article, he "plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school" at the Syracuse University College of Law. According to a Dec. 1, 1965, report by the law school, five pages of Biden's 15-page paper were copied without quotation or attribution.” One would think that if they truly believe that they are smarter than would have learned that it is easy to find out if you are copying someone else’s work. I would imagine that the nation will get to know about the plagiarism charges through television ads and comments from the RNC and McCain campaigns.
Another problem with the Biden choice is that he does not bring any state to the Obama side. Delaware was going to vote Democratic this November before the choice of Biden. The Obama campaign has tried to play up the notion that Senator Biden was born in Scranton, PA, hoping that this might keep Pennsylvania in their column. However, on Biden’s Senate website, it does not mention Pennsylvania and in fact states that he grew up in New Castle County, Delaware, not Scranton, Pennsylvania. I know that Obama needs help in Pennsylvania after the problems he had during primary where he had some choice words for small town folks from Pennsylvania.
Another reason for picking Biden was the fact that he is Catholic. The Democrats have seen a decreasing amount of support from Catholics and others of faith. The main reason for this is abortion. By picking Biden, one must assume that Catholics across the country would overlook an issue that many Catholics consider very important – the right to life. If the choice was supposed to appease Catholics, they were wrong. Already, the Arch Bishop of Denver has come out against Biden.
The choice of Biden also highlight’s the lack of experience of Obama. If the choice of Biden was to shore up a weakness, I think with the pick of Biden, it only exaggerates the weakness. If one was to look at their two resumes, one would logically think that Biden was the Presidential candidate while Obama was the Vice Presidential candidate. Biden is more ready to be President than Obama is. It seems that Obama, through his great speeches, has gotten the general public to overlook his lack of a resume. Then again, he is tied in most polls with McCain in a year that Democrats have a decided advantage over Republicans. The American public does not yet trust Obama to be President.
The biggest problem of the Biden choice though has to do with Obama’s primary rivalry with Senator Hillary Clinton. The Clinton supporters are incredibly loyal and are upset at how the campaign ended. They feel that Senator Clinton, after winning 18 million primary votes, should be the nominee. In fact, many of her supporters have told pollsters that they will not vote for Obama. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll stated that only 52 percent of Clinton supporters will definitely vote for Obama. A bigger problem is that 30 percent said that they would vote for McCain or stay home. The McCain campaign already has a television ad up that has a female Clinton supporter who states that she will now vote for McCain. They also have an ad where they use Senator Clinton’s own words against Obama. They seem to really be trying to play up the angst between the two. Many media organizations have played up this issue as often as possible. The television coverage of the first night was all about would the Clinton supporters play nice with the Obama supporters. The fact that this issue still exists, even after Senator Clinton has gone on the road for Senator Obama, should cause most Democrats to be very worried about the chances in November.
Vice Presidential choices typically are not the reason someone votes for a particular candidate. However, with the upcoming election, one has to look at Senator Obama’s choice of Joe Biden and ask the simple question of, ‘Why?’ If Obama really wants to claim to be a new kind of politician why would he have chosen an old Senator? It does not make a whole lot of sense to me, but then again, I am not a Democrat.
As anyone that has ever been involved in national Presidential campaigns, one of the most important decisions a candidate for President must make is who their Vice Presidential nominee will be. Over the weekend, Senator Barack Obama announced that Delaware Senator Joe Biden was his choice.
The Obama campaign created quite a stir in their announcement. In the weeks and days leading up to the announcement in Springfield, IL, the campaign was able to generate thousands of emails from interested parties that were promised that by providing their contact information, they would be the first to know who the choice was. I am not sure how many new email addresses the campaign was able to get, but it can only help in their fundraising attempts to pay for the general election. Word of the Biden choice got out early Friday evening, which kind of deflated the rationale for providing one’s contact information. I wonder how many times each contact address will be hit up for money and to volunteer?
There are many reasons to choose a particular person to be one’s Vice President. A number of the reasons include: age, demographic background, home state that might be in play during the general election, and to strengthen a perceived weakness of the Presidential nominee. The Obama team decided that they needed to shore up a weakness of the Senator – his lack of foreign policy experience. Senator Biden has been a Senator from Delaware since 1972, and is currently the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
I believe that Senator Obama does not really gain anything by having Senator Biden on the ticket. First, very few people have ever even heard of Senator Biden. Those that have, probably remember his disastrous 1988 Presidential campaign where he was forced from the race over a plagiarism charge. Senator Biden has a well deserved reputation of being long-winded. It typically seems that he is trying to prove that he knows more about the subject than the questioner and that he is in fact smarter than the questioner. This however was not Biden’s first run in with plagiarism. According to Slate magazine’s Jack Shafer, “As E.J. Dionne Jr. reported in the previously mentioned Times article, he "plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school" at the Syracuse University College of Law. According to a Dec. 1, 1965, report by the law school, five pages of Biden's 15-page paper were copied without quotation or attribution.” One would think that if they truly believe that they are smarter than would have learned that it is easy to find out if you are copying someone else’s work. I would imagine that the nation will get to know about the plagiarism charges through television ads and comments from the RNC and McCain campaigns.
Another problem with the Biden choice is that he does not bring any state to the Obama side. Delaware was going to vote Democratic this November before the choice of Biden. The Obama campaign has tried to play up the notion that Senator Biden was born in Scranton, PA, hoping that this might keep Pennsylvania in their column. However, on Biden’s Senate website, it does not mention Pennsylvania and in fact states that he grew up in New Castle County, Delaware, not Scranton, Pennsylvania. I know that Obama needs help in Pennsylvania after the problems he had during primary where he had some choice words for small town folks from Pennsylvania.
Another reason for picking Biden was the fact that he is Catholic. The Democrats have seen a decreasing amount of support from Catholics and others of faith. The main reason for this is abortion. By picking Biden, one must assume that Catholics across the country would overlook an issue that many Catholics consider very important – the right to life. If the choice was supposed to appease Catholics, they were wrong. Already, the Arch Bishop of Denver has come out against Biden.
The choice of Biden also highlight’s the lack of experience of Obama. If the choice of Biden was to shore up a weakness, I think with the pick of Biden, it only exaggerates the weakness. If one was to look at their two resumes, one would logically think that Biden was the Presidential candidate while Obama was the Vice Presidential candidate. Biden is more ready to be President than Obama is. It seems that Obama, through his great speeches, has gotten the general public to overlook his lack of a resume. Then again, he is tied in most polls with McCain in a year that Democrats have a decided advantage over Republicans. The American public does not yet trust Obama to be President.
The biggest problem of the Biden choice though has to do with Obama’s primary rivalry with Senator Hillary Clinton. The Clinton supporters are incredibly loyal and are upset at how the campaign ended. They feel that Senator Clinton, after winning 18 million primary votes, should be the nominee. In fact, many of her supporters have told pollsters that they will not vote for Obama. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll stated that only 52 percent of Clinton supporters will definitely vote for Obama. A bigger problem is that 30 percent said that they would vote for McCain or stay home. The McCain campaign already has a television ad up that has a female Clinton supporter who states that she will now vote for McCain. They also have an ad where they use Senator Clinton’s own words against Obama. They seem to really be trying to play up the angst between the two. Many media organizations have played up this issue as often as possible. The television coverage of the first night was all about would the Clinton supporters play nice with the Obama supporters. The fact that this issue still exists, even after Senator Clinton has gone on the road for Senator Obama, should cause most Democrats to be very worried about the chances in November.
Vice Presidential choices typically are not the reason someone votes for a particular candidate. However, with the upcoming election, one has to look at Senator Obama’s choice of Joe Biden and ask the simple question of, ‘Why?’ If Obama really wants to claim to be a new kind of politician why would he have chosen an old Senator? It does not make a whole lot of sense to me, but then again, I am not a Democrat.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
OLYMPIC FEVER
OLYMPIC FEVER, August 12, 2008
The Beijing Summer Olympics started this past weekend and I can only say that I am hooked. I have watched everything from women’s soccer, men and women’s water polo, men and women’s beach volleyball, men and women’s cycling, men’s tennis, men’s basketball, and of course men and women’s swimming. Prior to the Games, most of the focus was on Michael Phelps and his quest for exceeding Mark Spitz’s record seven gold medals in one Olympics. So far, he has met or exceeded all of our expectations.
In the three races that Phelps has competed in so far, he has set three world records and won three gold medals. The 4x100 free relay on Sunday night was one of the best races I have ever seen (I swam growing up). The last 25 meter swim by Jason Lezak was amazing, especially taking into consideration that he caught the French world record holder after spotting him a little over a half a second at the start. The reactions of the US team are what the Olympics are all about. Michael Phelps flexing and screaming, Lezak pumping his fist while still in the pool, and the other two members of the relay team sharing in the moment. As Lezak swam the final 50 meters, the TV coverage focused on the US team cheering on their teammate. It was a sight to see.
However, it has not just been the focus on Phelps that has held my attention. Last night I stayed up to see the end of the men’s gymnastics. The US team was leading after three rotations, in second after four and basically had to hold on to capture the bronze medal on the last apparatus. After two sub-par routines, Alexander Artemev, the last of the Americans to compete, unleashed a big air-style performance on the pommel horse, the final event, to secure the medal. I don’t know anything about gymnastics, but I couldn’t take my eyes off the coverage. I was pumping my fist and screaming at the TV to try and give the US team a little more encouragement. I am sure that my neighbors appreciated my screaming after the first routine… I also watched the women’s soccer teams match this morning against New Zealand. The US team won 4-0. While this might not seem like a big deal, following the US teams 2-0 loss to Norway to open up the games, it was a huge win for the tournament favorites. I have not spent too much time watching the men’s “Redeem Team”, basketball games. I saw bits of both the game against China and today’s game against Angola. I guess that since these games are such blowouts and that the “dream teams” of the past have been such a disappointment, I didn’t want to get to wrapped up in the game. However, I was really impressed that the men’s team participated in the opening ceremony and also attended the women’s team opening game. It shows that they are interested in the rest of the US team and are cheering them on. That seems to be a very different mentality from past Olympics.
So far, these Olympics have been terrific. We can only hope that once the track and field portion starts that the US continues to play well. We can only hope that there are no drug scandals or anything else to take away from what the Olympics are all about. I know that a lot of folks were suspicious of China in hosting the games based upon their human rights record, but this is not the time to raise political issues, instead it is a time to cheer on the great athletes representing our country and each of us.
The Beijing Summer Olympics started this past weekend and I can only say that I am hooked. I have watched everything from women’s soccer, men and women’s water polo, men and women’s beach volleyball, men and women’s cycling, men’s tennis, men’s basketball, and of course men and women’s swimming. Prior to the Games, most of the focus was on Michael Phelps and his quest for exceeding Mark Spitz’s record seven gold medals in one Olympics. So far, he has met or exceeded all of our expectations.
In the three races that Phelps has competed in so far, he has set three world records and won three gold medals. The 4x100 free relay on Sunday night was one of the best races I have ever seen (I swam growing up). The last 25 meter swim by Jason Lezak was amazing, especially taking into consideration that he caught the French world record holder after spotting him a little over a half a second at the start. The reactions of the US team are what the Olympics are all about. Michael Phelps flexing and screaming, Lezak pumping his fist while still in the pool, and the other two members of the relay team sharing in the moment. As Lezak swam the final 50 meters, the TV coverage focused on the US team cheering on their teammate. It was a sight to see.
However, it has not just been the focus on Phelps that has held my attention. Last night I stayed up to see the end of the men’s gymnastics. The US team was leading after three rotations, in second after four and basically had to hold on to capture the bronze medal on the last apparatus. After two sub-par routines, Alexander Artemev, the last of the Americans to compete, unleashed a big air-style performance on the pommel horse, the final event, to secure the medal. I don’t know anything about gymnastics, but I couldn’t take my eyes off the coverage. I was pumping my fist and screaming at the TV to try and give the US team a little more encouragement. I am sure that my neighbors appreciated my screaming after the first routine… I also watched the women’s soccer teams match this morning against New Zealand. The US team won 4-0. While this might not seem like a big deal, following the US teams 2-0 loss to Norway to open up the games, it was a huge win for the tournament favorites. I have not spent too much time watching the men’s “Redeem Team”, basketball games. I saw bits of both the game against China and today’s game against Angola. I guess that since these games are such blowouts and that the “dream teams” of the past have been such a disappointment, I didn’t want to get to wrapped up in the game. However, I was really impressed that the men’s team participated in the opening ceremony and also attended the women’s team opening game. It shows that they are interested in the rest of the US team and are cheering them on. That seems to be a very different mentality from past Olympics.
So far, these Olympics have been terrific. We can only hope that once the track and field portion starts that the US continues to play well. We can only hope that there are no drug scandals or anything else to take away from what the Olympics are all about. I know that a lot of folks were suspicious of China in hosting the games based upon their human rights record, but this is not the time to raise political issues, instead it is a time to cheer on the great athletes representing our country and each of us.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
A TRUE AMERICAN HERO
A TRUE AMERICAN HERO, July 24, 2008
Yesterday, the US Army announced that it had reversed its decision to allow recent graduate, 2nd Lt. Caleb Campbell to play professional football while at the same time serving as a recruiter for the Army on his days off. The Army believed that the public relations gained by Campbell would offset some of his service. He would be given the option to buy out his final three years of service for about $120,000 and also have to serve six years in the reserves. The army allowed him to participate in the NFL Combine early this year and allowed him to appear at this past year’s NFL Draft in New York in uniform and get interviewed by both the NFL Network and ESPN. The crowd started chanting, “USA” following the Detroit Lions choice of Campbell in the seventh round. During the interviews, Campbell showed why he is a hero. He stated his desire to continue his service to his country as an officer in the Army, but also his excitement at the opportunity to play professional football for the Lions.
The Army had an opportunity to have Campbell serve as a public relations machine for the Army. His ability to recruit young men and women into the Army as a member of the Detroit Lions would be a huge advantage to the Army. The biggest problem with this decision is the timing of it. If the Army preferred that he serve his country in combat overseas, then they should not have allowed him to go to the combine, the draft, and participate in the Lions off season team activities. The fact that the decision came the opening day of training camp for the Lions and among wispers that both the Air Force and Navy were upset at the publicity he was gaining and would continue to gain and the benefit the army would get by having the “alternative service option” shows how effective the program could be. In a city like Detroit, where football is still king and the economy is the worst in the country, having a recruiter like Campbell might have dramatically increased the number of recruits from the metropolitan Detroit area.
Following the Army’s decision yesterday, Campbell has not complained. According to some media reports, he had said that, “he was has gotten his orders, and he is ready to report and go.” A true American hero who has put his country above himself and by his actions, allows each and everyone of us to go about our days as we normally do. The Army lost a huge media advantage it potentially could have had if Campbell made the team, just the type of advocate that we all lost when former NFL player Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan in 2005.
Yesterday, the US Army announced that it had reversed its decision to allow recent graduate, 2nd Lt. Caleb Campbell to play professional football while at the same time serving as a recruiter for the Army on his days off. The Army believed that the public relations gained by Campbell would offset some of his service. He would be given the option to buy out his final three years of service for about $120,000 and also have to serve six years in the reserves. The army allowed him to participate in the NFL Combine early this year and allowed him to appear at this past year’s NFL Draft in New York in uniform and get interviewed by both the NFL Network and ESPN. The crowd started chanting, “USA” following the Detroit Lions choice of Campbell in the seventh round. During the interviews, Campbell showed why he is a hero. He stated his desire to continue his service to his country as an officer in the Army, but also his excitement at the opportunity to play professional football for the Lions.
The Army had an opportunity to have Campbell serve as a public relations machine for the Army. His ability to recruit young men and women into the Army as a member of the Detroit Lions would be a huge advantage to the Army. The biggest problem with this decision is the timing of it. If the Army preferred that he serve his country in combat overseas, then they should not have allowed him to go to the combine, the draft, and participate in the Lions off season team activities. The fact that the decision came the opening day of training camp for the Lions and among wispers that both the Air Force and Navy were upset at the publicity he was gaining and would continue to gain and the benefit the army would get by having the “alternative service option” shows how effective the program could be. In a city like Detroit, where football is still king and the economy is the worst in the country, having a recruiter like Campbell might have dramatically increased the number of recruits from the metropolitan Detroit area.
Following the Army’s decision yesterday, Campbell has not complained. According to some media reports, he had said that, “he was has gotten his orders, and he is ready to report and go.” A true American hero who has put his country above himself and by his actions, allows each and everyone of us to go about our days as we normally do. The Army lost a huge media advantage it potentially could have had if Campbell made the team, just the type of advocate that we all lost when former NFL player Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan in 2005.
Monday, July 21, 2008
ENOUGH ALREADY
ENOUGH ALREADY, July 21, 2008
This morning on ESPN, they showed a clip of IRL “star” Danica Patrick getting upset with Milka Duno. Apparently, Patrick who likes to believe she is the world’s best driver got upset that Duno got too close to her in a turn.
Patrick marched over to Duno’s pit with sunglasses on, hair perfectly in place, and likely a pr staffer on her hip and a TV camera following her. She is a media creation that since 2005 has won a total of 1 race, earlier this year in Japan. She is a figment of the media’s creation that happens to be slightly attractive but can’t drive. Earlier this year there was a lot of discussion that she might make the switch from IRL to NASCAR. I would love to see her go after Dale Earnhardt Jr, Jeff Gordon, Kyle Busch, or Tony Stewart the way she went after Duno. First though she would have to get somewhat close to those guys and that isn’t likely to happen except for when they are passing her.
Patrick gets more attention than any other driver in the IRL. Patrick is not even close to being one of the top drivers in terms of points, but she seems to be the only marketable driver that the IRL and the TV networks focus on. This is the second time that I am aware of this year that she has marched towards another drivers pit area. She also did it in Indianapolis following a slight crash coming out of the pits. That time she kept her helmet on; I guess she was going for the Darth Vader look. This time after a few seconds of Danica questioning her, Milka just threw a towel in her face. After this didn’t shut her up, Milka threw it a second time and then her crew basically turned their backs on her. Danica then questions the TV camera as to why they won’t answer her question? Is she kidding? This type of staged pr comes off as petty, childish and the equivalent of third graders. I guess that Danica believes all the hype about her and that whenever she is driving, everyone else should just get out of her way and try and let her win the race. She has let the fact that she is the only TV face of the IRL get to her. Her head seems to be the size of a watermelon and it looks like she believes everything that has shown up in print about her. Of course, ESPN had her as one of the presenters at last nights ESPY Awards that no one watched. I saw a picture of her in a grey snake skin like dress with an ugly yellowish snake skin belt and bright yellow heels. She looked like a box, since her thighs were as wide as her shoulders and her hair. Not a good look.
Let’s just remember what she is – a focus group tested, marketing guru picked pseudo athlete that is more in the league of the Anna Kournacova’s Natalie Gulbis’ of the world who have never really done anything worth while in their sports but are marketing gems.
This morning on ESPN, they showed a clip of IRL “star” Danica Patrick getting upset with Milka Duno. Apparently, Patrick who likes to believe she is the world’s best driver got upset that Duno got too close to her in a turn.
Patrick marched over to Duno’s pit with sunglasses on, hair perfectly in place, and likely a pr staffer on her hip and a TV camera following her. She is a media creation that since 2005 has won a total of 1 race, earlier this year in Japan. She is a figment of the media’s creation that happens to be slightly attractive but can’t drive. Earlier this year there was a lot of discussion that she might make the switch from IRL to NASCAR. I would love to see her go after Dale Earnhardt Jr, Jeff Gordon, Kyle Busch, or Tony Stewart the way she went after Duno. First though she would have to get somewhat close to those guys and that isn’t likely to happen except for when they are passing her.
Patrick gets more attention than any other driver in the IRL. Patrick is not even close to being one of the top drivers in terms of points, but she seems to be the only marketable driver that the IRL and the TV networks focus on. This is the second time that I am aware of this year that she has marched towards another drivers pit area. She also did it in Indianapolis following a slight crash coming out of the pits. That time she kept her helmet on; I guess she was going for the Darth Vader look. This time after a few seconds of Danica questioning her, Milka just threw a towel in her face. After this didn’t shut her up, Milka threw it a second time and then her crew basically turned their backs on her. Danica then questions the TV camera as to why they won’t answer her question? Is she kidding? This type of staged pr comes off as petty, childish and the equivalent of third graders. I guess that Danica believes all the hype about her and that whenever she is driving, everyone else should just get out of her way and try and let her win the race. She has let the fact that she is the only TV face of the IRL get to her. Her head seems to be the size of a watermelon and it looks like she believes everything that has shown up in print about her. Of course, ESPN had her as one of the presenters at last nights ESPY Awards that no one watched. I saw a picture of her in a grey snake skin like dress with an ugly yellowish snake skin belt and bright yellow heels. She looked like a box, since her thighs were as wide as her shoulders and her hair. Not a good look.
Let’s just remember what she is – a focus group tested, marketing guru picked pseudo athlete that is more in the league of the Anna Kournacova’s Natalie Gulbis’ of the world who have never really done anything worth while in their sports but are marketing gems.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
ESPN
ESPN, July 20, 2008
Tonight, ESPN will broadcast its annual awards program, the ESPYs. The show is not a live event, rather the show was taped this past Wednesday. On Wednesday, there were not many live sport events that would pre-empt the broadcast if the network choose. Baseball was in the midst of its All-Star break, the NFL pre-season has not yet started, both the NBA and NHL regular and post seasons had finished. The only real live sports that occurred on Wednesday were NBA rookie league games in Orlando and Las Vegas, Major League Soccer, and the WNBA. None of those leagues would have events that would gain better ratings than the ESPYs.
Why would ESPN give up a live broadcast of its award show? Were they worried that host Justin Timberlake would pull “incident” like he did at the Super Bowl with Janet Jackson? If this was a concern, isn’t that more an indictment of the ESPY producer and ESPN itself in terms of it choice of hosts? Were they concerned that there might be an inappropriate word spoken on air? That’s why they have a 10 second delay in the broadcast. Or did they just assume that their own awards show wasn’t all that important to show live? It probably has to do with the fact that they think they would get better ratings on Sunday as opposed to Wednesday.
However, tonight the broadcast will go against a new episode of HBO’s Generation Kill, NBC’s Dateline, FOX’s Family Guy, ABC’s, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, and CBS’s Cold Case. Also, what happens if ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball game between the Boston Red Sox and the California Angels goes into extra innings and pushes back the start of the ESPY’s? There seem to be too many reasons not to have the show air tonight, but I guess that is why I am not running the network. But they will nto get me to watch the show tonight, instead I’ll be watching HBO…
Another rather interesting episode took place yesterday. Michelle Wei, the “next great hype” of Nike was disqualified from the State Farm Classic in Springfield, IL for failing to sign her score card following Friday’s round. Wie played Saturday’s round while the LPGA determined her fate.. The problem for Wie is that she was playing well and in fact was leading the tournament for part of Saturday. She finished the round only one shot behind the leader. Since she has never won a tournament, yet Nike and the LPGA forced her alleged greatness down our throats, it is too bad that she screwed something so basic up. A lot has been made of Wie’s career path. She has tried to play on the men’s tour and skipped the traditional method of preparation in terms of junior golf and college golf. Other young players such as Morgan Tressell and Paula Creemer took a more traditional course and have won on the LPGA tour and seem to be much more competitive golfers. A lot is typically made about signing an incorrect scorecard, but I have never heard of a problem for not signing the scorecard. One would think that this simple thing would never be overlooked, but I guess that would be a mistake. Someone with so much hype has seemed to fade into oblivion sooner than expected without ever winning anything other than a load of cash from Nike. She is not the best young golfer in the world, nor event the best young female golfer in the world. It's too bad that so much was expected from someone who doesn't seem to deliver. I just wish Nike, the LPGA tour, and ESPN would have paid more attention to some of the other young golfers that were actually winning.
Tonight, ESPN will broadcast its annual awards program, the ESPYs. The show is not a live event, rather the show was taped this past Wednesday. On Wednesday, there were not many live sport events that would pre-empt the broadcast if the network choose. Baseball was in the midst of its All-Star break, the NFL pre-season has not yet started, both the NBA and NHL regular and post seasons had finished. The only real live sports that occurred on Wednesday were NBA rookie league games in Orlando and Las Vegas, Major League Soccer, and the WNBA. None of those leagues would have events that would gain better ratings than the ESPYs.
Why would ESPN give up a live broadcast of its award show? Were they worried that host Justin Timberlake would pull “incident” like he did at the Super Bowl with Janet Jackson? If this was a concern, isn’t that more an indictment of the ESPY producer and ESPN itself in terms of it choice of hosts? Were they concerned that there might be an inappropriate word spoken on air? That’s why they have a 10 second delay in the broadcast. Or did they just assume that their own awards show wasn’t all that important to show live? It probably has to do with the fact that they think they would get better ratings on Sunday as opposed to Wednesday.
However, tonight the broadcast will go against a new episode of HBO’s Generation Kill, NBC’s Dateline, FOX’s Family Guy, ABC’s, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, and CBS’s Cold Case. Also, what happens if ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball game between the Boston Red Sox and the California Angels goes into extra innings and pushes back the start of the ESPY’s? There seem to be too many reasons not to have the show air tonight, but I guess that is why I am not running the network. But they will nto get me to watch the show tonight, instead I’ll be watching HBO…
Another rather interesting episode took place yesterday. Michelle Wei, the “next great hype” of Nike was disqualified from the State Farm Classic in Springfield, IL for failing to sign her score card following Friday’s round. Wie played Saturday’s round while the LPGA determined her fate.. The problem for Wie is that she was playing well and in fact was leading the tournament for part of Saturday. She finished the round only one shot behind the leader. Since she has never won a tournament, yet Nike and the LPGA forced her alleged greatness down our throats, it is too bad that she screwed something so basic up. A lot has been made of Wie’s career path. She has tried to play on the men’s tour and skipped the traditional method of preparation in terms of junior golf and college golf. Other young players such as Morgan Tressell and Paula Creemer took a more traditional course and have won on the LPGA tour and seem to be much more competitive golfers. A lot is typically made about signing an incorrect scorecard, but I have never heard of a problem for not signing the scorecard. One would think that this simple thing would never be overlooked, but I guess that would be a mistake. Someone with so much hype has seemed to fade into oblivion sooner than expected without ever winning anything other than a load of cash from Nike. She is not the best young golfer in the world, nor event the best young female golfer in the world. It's too bad that so much was expected from someone who doesn't seem to deliver. I just wish Nike, the LPGA tour, and ESPN would have paid more attention to some of the other young golfers that were actually winning.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
RANDOM THOUGHTS...
RANDOM THOUGHTS… July 17, 2008
A number of issues came to my attention this week and instead of getting too in depth with each of them, I figured I would put down a few thoughts on some of these issues.
*The All-Star game in New York the other night lasted for almost 5 hours and 15 innings before the American League won once again. The game was scheduled to start at 8:00pm est. When I turned on the game a few minutes after 8:00pm, they were just starting to announce the players. These introductions took 45 minutes. While it was kind of cool to see former All-Stars at each position as the two starters were announced, the fact that the “introductions” took 45 minutes is ridiculous. It was almost 9:00pm before the first pitch was thrown. How does starting the game so late help baseball? While I live on the east coast and don’t want to stay up too late watching tv, I understand that the west coast is likely still at work when the game starts. However, baseball basically lost at least half the country before the game ended, since it was so late. I have the same problem with the NBA during the playoffs. The professional sports leagues need to understand that by starting games so late at night, most of the country is not going to watch the game.
*At the All-Star celebration in New York this week, Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton won the Home Run Contest. Well, not really since Justin Morneau took home the trophy, but Hamilton hit the most home runs including 28 during his first round. The 28 he hit got the crowd behind him and basically made sure that he would hit the most over the course of the contest. Much has been made about Hamilton, the former #1 overall draft pick in 1999 of the then Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Hamilton got involved in drugs and missed three seasons battling his addiction. Last year, Hamilton was chosen by the Chicago Cubs and then traded to the Cincinnati Reds during the Rule 5 draft. This off season, the Reds traded him to Texas for another young all star pitcher, Edinson Volquez. Hamilton is currently a triple-crown threat, batting .310, with 21 home runs and 95 rbi’s. It is a great story that he has overcome his demons and is now a productive member of society. Hopefully, he will continue his play on the field and continue his sobriety off the field as well.
*A lot was made of the All-Star game being played at Yankee Stadium. Yankee Stadium, or the House that Ruth built, is in its last season as home of the Yankees. Words such as shrine, legend, hallowed hall, temple, and others were used to describe the stadium. I have never been to Yankee stadium. However, at the same time all the gushing over Yankee Stadium was going on, another old ball park was seeing its last few days. Detroit’s Tiger Stadium has started to be demolished this past week. The Tigers, who moved into Comerica Park a number of years ago, have moved on, but unfortunately some, such as former Tigers radio announcer Ernie Harwell refuse to allow the stadium at the corner of Michigan and Trumbull to be destroyed for new development. The Detroit City Council seems to be too afraid to officially end the life of Tiger Stadium. Over the past years, ideas such as making it a minor league stadium, making it a museum, turning it into condos have all been floated. Something needs to be done with it and something needs to be done soon. The old stadium has been falling apart over the past several years and has turned into more of an eye sore than anything else. Hopefully, a final decision will be made sooner rather than later on the future use of the corner.
*The Brett Favre saga continues. He has been on Greta Van Susteren’s program on Fox News the past four nights. He has basically been saying that he was forced to retire and has now come out firing against Packer GM Ted Thompson. He has basically called him a liar and it looks like he is trying to get the Packers to release him. However, the Packers in turn filed a tampering charge against the Minnesota Vikings, claiming that Favre has spoken with former Packer qb coach and now the Vikings offensive coordinator, Darrell Bevell. This situation is getting worse each day and while Favre has the right to change his mind, he has to understand the position he has put the Packers in and their desire to move on with Aaron Rodgers.
A number of issues came to my attention this week and instead of getting too in depth with each of them, I figured I would put down a few thoughts on some of these issues.
*The All-Star game in New York the other night lasted for almost 5 hours and 15 innings before the American League won once again. The game was scheduled to start at 8:00pm est. When I turned on the game a few minutes after 8:00pm, they were just starting to announce the players. These introductions took 45 minutes. While it was kind of cool to see former All-Stars at each position as the two starters were announced, the fact that the “introductions” took 45 minutes is ridiculous. It was almost 9:00pm before the first pitch was thrown. How does starting the game so late help baseball? While I live on the east coast and don’t want to stay up too late watching tv, I understand that the west coast is likely still at work when the game starts. However, baseball basically lost at least half the country before the game ended, since it was so late. I have the same problem with the NBA during the playoffs. The professional sports leagues need to understand that by starting games so late at night, most of the country is not going to watch the game.
*At the All-Star celebration in New York this week, Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton won the Home Run Contest. Well, not really since Justin Morneau took home the trophy, but Hamilton hit the most home runs including 28 during his first round. The 28 he hit got the crowd behind him and basically made sure that he would hit the most over the course of the contest. Much has been made about Hamilton, the former #1 overall draft pick in 1999 of the then Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Hamilton got involved in drugs and missed three seasons battling his addiction. Last year, Hamilton was chosen by the Chicago Cubs and then traded to the Cincinnati Reds during the Rule 5 draft. This off season, the Reds traded him to Texas for another young all star pitcher, Edinson Volquez. Hamilton is currently a triple-crown threat, batting .310, with 21 home runs and 95 rbi’s. It is a great story that he has overcome his demons and is now a productive member of society. Hopefully, he will continue his play on the field and continue his sobriety off the field as well.
*A lot was made of the All-Star game being played at Yankee Stadium. Yankee Stadium, or the House that Ruth built, is in its last season as home of the Yankees. Words such as shrine, legend, hallowed hall, temple, and others were used to describe the stadium. I have never been to Yankee stadium. However, at the same time all the gushing over Yankee Stadium was going on, another old ball park was seeing its last few days. Detroit’s Tiger Stadium has started to be demolished this past week. The Tigers, who moved into Comerica Park a number of years ago, have moved on, but unfortunately some, such as former Tigers radio announcer Ernie Harwell refuse to allow the stadium at the corner of Michigan and Trumbull to be destroyed for new development. The Detroit City Council seems to be too afraid to officially end the life of Tiger Stadium. Over the past years, ideas such as making it a minor league stadium, making it a museum, turning it into condos have all been floated. Something needs to be done with it and something needs to be done soon. The old stadium has been falling apart over the past several years and has turned into more of an eye sore than anything else. Hopefully, a final decision will be made sooner rather than later on the future use of the corner.
*The Brett Favre saga continues. He has been on Greta Van Susteren’s program on Fox News the past four nights. He has basically been saying that he was forced to retire and has now come out firing against Packer GM Ted Thompson. He has basically called him a liar and it looks like he is trying to get the Packers to release him. However, the Packers in turn filed a tampering charge against the Minnesota Vikings, claiming that Favre has spoken with former Packer qb coach and now the Vikings offensive coordinator, Darrell Bevell. This situation is getting worse each day and while Favre has the right to change his mind, he has to understand the position he has put the Packers in and their desire to move on with Aaron Rodgers.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
BRETT FAVRE
BRETT FAVRE, July 15, 2008
Much has been made over the past few weeks about the potential return to the NFL of Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre. Over the past few years during the off season, the Packers and Favre have had to determine whether or not Favre would return to the Packers and play the next season. This off season, Favre announced that he had enough and retired from the NFL. The Packers took the resignation and moved forward with former first round draft pick Aaron Rodgers as their new starting quarterback.
Favre spent 17 of his 18 NFL seasons in Green Bay and led the Packers to a Super Bowl Championship in 1997 and a Super Bowl runner up spot in 1998. He has been the face of the team and one of the NFL’s brightest and most marketable stars. Since Favre announced his retirement, the team announced that Rodgers would be the team’s starting quarterback. Rodgers led the Packers this off season at team mini-camps and off season training sessions. Favre, on the other hand, did not show up for any of these team related events, instead settled in his Mississippi farm and tried to enjoy his retirement.
Last week it came out that Favre sent a text message to Packers General manager, Ted Thompson expressing his interest in returning to the team. He said this week that at the time of his retirement he felt pressured by the Packers to make a decision. The Packers, having grown tired of the yearly will he or won’t he play this year dilemma, asked Favre to make a decision so that the Packers could plan for the upcoming year. Favre announced his decision in March and the Packers moved forward with the Aaron Rodgers era and even drafted two additional quarterbacks in this year’s draft. If the Packers anticipated Favre coming back, I doubt that they would have spent two draft choices on his position, particularly when they were so close to making the Super Bowl this past season. The team, in a weak NFC North division, would have been one of the favorites to be in next year’s Super Bowl had Favre returned. But as is the norm in sports, when a team loses its super-star, they must play with the players on its roster. Like the Lions had to struggle without Barry Sanders following his last minute retirement, the Packers had to prepare for the 2008 season under the assumption that Aaron Rodgers was going to be their starting quarterback.
We don’t really know how good Rodgers will be this year. The most that we remember of Rodgers was his draft day fall three years ago where he was the last player in the green room in New York on draft day. The Packers drafted him 24th overall in the 2005 draft. He has been an understudy to Favre the past hew years learning the system. The Packers felt that he was now ready to start and once Favre made his decision, the Packers turned to Rodgers to lead the team.
With Favre’s now decision to try and return to the NFL this year puts the Packers in a tough spot. Obviously, the Packers are better with Favre as their starting quarterback. However, if they allow Favre to come back and start, what does that mean for Rodgers? Does Rodgers stay for the next few years after being proclaimed the starting quarterback and then losing the starting job without doing anything? Also, what does Favre’s coming back do to team morale? Do other players feel that Favre got away without having to show up for any off season workouts? If Favre was able to do it, shouldn’t they also be able to not have to show up? Should the Packers trade Favre? According to GM Thompson, no team has contacted the Packers about trading for Favre, so that likely means that other NFL teams are either anticipating that the Packers will have to release Favre or they will play Favre. Either way, most teams are likely not willing to give up a lot in order to trade for Favre. If the Packers were to release Favre would any team be interested in signing him? Of course, teams like the Bears and the Vikings would likely jump at the opportunity to have the future Hall of Famer join and lead their team. The problem with this scenario is that both of those teams are in the Packers division. Why would the Packers want to help make their competition stronger? They don’t want to and probably will do everything in their power to make sure that Favre doesn’t play for a division rival.
We all make decisions we wish we could take back after. Did the Packers force Favre to retire? Did they put too much pressure on him to make a decision too soon after the season finished? The only ones that know the answer to those questions are the Packers and Favre. The Packers would be crazy to allow Favre to become a free agent and sign with whomever he wants. Favre though wants to play and is still one of the top quarterbacks in the league. If he changed his mind and would like to continue his career, he should be able to. What does this mean? In all likelihood, it means that the Packers will have Brett Favre as their starting quarterback this year. Favre still has 3 years and $39 million left on his contract with the Packers. This is really an easy decision; the Packers must take back Favre and have him be their starting quarterback. He is a Packer legend and he should not be allowed to wear any other team’s jersey. This might suck for Aaron Rodgers, but Aaron Rodgers is no Brett Favre...
Much has been made over the past few weeks about the potential return to the NFL of Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre. Over the past few years during the off season, the Packers and Favre have had to determine whether or not Favre would return to the Packers and play the next season. This off season, Favre announced that he had enough and retired from the NFL. The Packers took the resignation and moved forward with former first round draft pick Aaron Rodgers as their new starting quarterback.
Favre spent 17 of his 18 NFL seasons in Green Bay and led the Packers to a Super Bowl Championship in 1997 and a Super Bowl runner up spot in 1998. He has been the face of the team and one of the NFL’s brightest and most marketable stars. Since Favre announced his retirement, the team announced that Rodgers would be the team’s starting quarterback. Rodgers led the Packers this off season at team mini-camps and off season training sessions. Favre, on the other hand, did not show up for any of these team related events, instead settled in his Mississippi farm and tried to enjoy his retirement.
Last week it came out that Favre sent a text message to Packers General manager, Ted Thompson expressing his interest in returning to the team. He said this week that at the time of his retirement he felt pressured by the Packers to make a decision. The Packers, having grown tired of the yearly will he or won’t he play this year dilemma, asked Favre to make a decision so that the Packers could plan for the upcoming year. Favre announced his decision in March and the Packers moved forward with the Aaron Rodgers era and even drafted two additional quarterbacks in this year’s draft. If the Packers anticipated Favre coming back, I doubt that they would have spent two draft choices on his position, particularly when they were so close to making the Super Bowl this past season. The team, in a weak NFC North division, would have been one of the favorites to be in next year’s Super Bowl had Favre returned. But as is the norm in sports, when a team loses its super-star, they must play with the players on its roster. Like the Lions had to struggle without Barry Sanders following his last minute retirement, the Packers had to prepare for the 2008 season under the assumption that Aaron Rodgers was going to be their starting quarterback.
We don’t really know how good Rodgers will be this year. The most that we remember of Rodgers was his draft day fall three years ago where he was the last player in the green room in New York on draft day. The Packers drafted him 24th overall in the 2005 draft. He has been an understudy to Favre the past hew years learning the system. The Packers felt that he was now ready to start and once Favre made his decision, the Packers turned to Rodgers to lead the team.
With Favre’s now decision to try and return to the NFL this year puts the Packers in a tough spot. Obviously, the Packers are better with Favre as their starting quarterback. However, if they allow Favre to come back and start, what does that mean for Rodgers? Does Rodgers stay for the next few years after being proclaimed the starting quarterback and then losing the starting job without doing anything? Also, what does Favre’s coming back do to team morale? Do other players feel that Favre got away without having to show up for any off season workouts? If Favre was able to do it, shouldn’t they also be able to not have to show up? Should the Packers trade Favre? According to GM Thompson, no team has contacted the Packers about trading for Favre, so that likely means that other NFL teams are either anticipating that the Packers will have to release Favre or they will play Favre. Either way, most teams are likely not willing to give up a lot in order to trade for Favre. If the Packers were to release Favre would any team be interested in signing him? Of course, teams like the Bears and the Vikings would likely jump at the opportunity to have the future Hall of Famer join and lead their team. The problem with this scenario is that both of those teams are in the Packers division. Why would the Packers want to help make their competition stronger? They don’t want to and probably will do everything in their power to make sure that Favre doesn’t play for a division rival.
We all make decisions we wish we could take back after. Did the Packers force Favre to retire? Did they put too much pressure on him to make a decision too soon after the season finished? The only ones that know the answer to those questions are the Packers and Favre. The Packers would be crazy to allow Favre to become a free agent and sign with whomever he wants. Favre though wants to play and is still one of the top quarterbacks in the league. If he changed his mind and would like to continue his career, he should be able to. What does this mean? In all likelihood, it means that the Packers will have Brett Favre as their starting quarterback this year. Favre still has 3 years and $39 million left on his contract with the Packers. This is really an easy decision; the Packers must take back Favre and have him be their starting quarterback. He is a Packer legend and he should not be allowed to wear any other team’s jersey. This might suck for Aaron Rodgers, but Aaron Rodgers is no Brett Favre...
Monday, July 14, 2008
PARTING THOUGHTS...
PARTING THOUGHTS… July 14, 2008
Early Saturday morning, former White House Press Secretary and Fox News host Tony Snow died after a long battle with cancer. Tony was an articulate conservative, always able to best present the conservative point of view in a concise, eloquent couple of sentences.
Tony went to the White House after the failure of Scott McClellan’s tenure as White House Press Secretary. The White House needed an articulate spokesman who understood the media, and could easily express the Administration’s policy positions in a way that played to the cameras in the White House Briefing Room. At the time of his arrival, the situation in Iraq was not going as well as the Administration had hoped and the country believed that it was a mistake and we should get out as soon as possible. While the public still holds this position, it would have been even stronger had someone else been at the podium.
Tony’s briefings were not just a quick statement of Administration policy. Rather they were, in a lot of cases, policy discussions. Tony did not always agree with the premise of the questions or statements from reporters and he often challenged the reporters to prove what they were sating. He typically knew more about the issue than the reporter and it was rather interesting seeing the reporters squirm after pontificating for the camera’s only to be shot down based upon faulty assumptions. However, Tony didn’t shoot them down maliciously; rather he did it with the facts and with humor.
Tony’s tenure at the White House was short. He had a recurrence of colon cancer that forced him to miss some time and following his return, he left to make some money on the public speaking circuit in order to take care of his family. A lot of us grew up reading Tony Snow’s columns in newspapers ranging from the Detroit News, Washington Times, and USA Today. We watched him as he hosted Fox News Sunday, and listened to his Fox radio show. We also listened to the speeches of former President Bush, where Snow ran his speechwriting efforts. He also was a long time fill-in for Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. Tony was able to express the conservative beliefs in a manner that everyone understood.
America lost a public servant this weekend. While you might not agree with his politics, one must respect the effort he put forth and his service to the country. He believed that there were certain things of more importance – family and service to our country. These are traits that we should all live by.
Early Saturday morning, former White House Press Secretary and Fox News host Tony Snow died after a long battle with cancer. Tony was an articulate conservative, always able to best present the conservative point of view in a concise, eloquent couple of sentences.
Tony went to the White House after the failure of Scott McClellan’s tenure as White House Press Secretary. The White House needed an articulate spokesman who understood the media, and could easily express the Administration’s policy positions in a way that played to the cameras in the White House Briefing Room. At the time of his arrival, the situation in Iraq was not going as well as the Administration had hoped and the country believed that it was a mistake and we should get out as soon as possible. While the public still holds this position, it would have been even stronger had someone else been at the podium.
Tony’s briefings were not just a quick statement of Administration policy. Rather they were, in a lot of cases, policy discussions. Tony did not always agree with the premise of the questions or statements from reporters and he often challenged the reporters to prove what they were sating. He typically knew more about the issue than the reporter and it was rather interesting seeing the reporters squirm after pontificating for the camera’s only to be shot down based upon faulty assumptions. However, Tony didn’t shoot them down maliciously; rather he did it with the facts and with humor.
Tony’s tenure at the White House was short. He had a recurrence of colon cancer that forced him to miss some time and following his return, he left to make some money on the public speaking circuit in order to take care of his family. A lot of us grew up reading Tony Snow’s columns in newspapers ranging from the Detroit News, Washington Times, and USA Today. We watched him as he hosted Fox News Sunday, and listened to his Fox radio show. We also listened to the speeches of former President Bush, where Snow ran his speechwriting efforts. He also was a long time fill-in for Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. Tony was able to express the conservative beliefs in a manner that everyone understood.
America lost a public servant this weekend. While you might not agree with his politics, one must respect the effort he put forth and his service to the country. He believed that there were certain things of more importance – family and service to our country. These are traits that we should all live by.
Friday, July 11, 2008
TEAM USA
TEAM USA, July 11, 2008
Last week, NBC and USA networks broadcast the US Olympic trials for both swimming and track and field. A number of spectacular performances were put forth by our Olympic team and we should all be excited about the Olympics when they start August 8, 2008.
Most of the attention at the swimming trials in Omaha, NE originally focused on Club Wolverine’s Michael Phelps and his quest for seven or eight gold medals in Beijing. Phelps did not disappoint. He won all five of his individual events while setting two world records. He will also participate in three relays in Beijing. Katie Hoff of the North Baltimore Aquatic Club also secured spots in Beijing in five individual events, while breaking world and American records. The other major point of discussion prior to the trials was that of the Speedo LZR Racer swim suit. A number of world records have been broken this year, 38 of the 42 records, by wearers of the suit. Speedo developed the suit with the help of NASA and debuted the suit earlier this year. California based TYR filed an anti-trust suit against Speedo, USA Swimming, national team coach Mark Schubert and Olympian Eric Vendt. The suit claims that Speedo and USA Swimming are encouraging athletes to use the Speedo suit over the TYR suits. Since Schubert is a paid consultant to Speedo, TYR believes he can exert too much influence over USA Swimming and participating athletes. Vendt, a former TYR endorser, switched to the Speedo suit. He has countersued TYR. A California court delayed the lawsuit until September, which effectively eliminates any opportunity for TYR to get relief prior to the Olympics. Other apparel companies such as Nike have given its athletes permission to wear the Speedo suit if they believe it will enhance their performance.
At the meet, the best story turned out to be the return to the Olympics for 41 year old Dara Torres. Torres, who first competed in the Olympics in Los Angeles in 1984, won the trials in both the 50 meter and 10 meter freestyles. She will also represent the US in relays. Torres, who has a two year old daughter, will be making her fifth Olympic appearance in Beijing. She is old enough that she could be the mother of a number of Olympians. The rumor at the pool was that her goggles were older than some participants. Another veteran qualifier for the Olympics is Amanda Beard, who qualified for her fourth Olympics in the 200 meter breaststroke.
There were a number of big stories at the track and field trials. From my point of view, the biggest was the running of 16 year old prep star Jordan Hasay. Hasay qualified for the finals of the 1,500 meters by setting a US high school record of 4:14.5 in the semifinals. While she did not make the Olympic team, she showed that she could in fact compete at the highest levels. The crowd in Eugene, sensing the magnitude of her run, started chanting, “Come to Oregon” following her semi-finals race. Another major story of the trials was that of Justin Gay, who set the American record and won the 100 meters but fell in the semi-finals of the 200 meters. Gay suffered a mild strain of his hamstring. He believes that he will be ready for Beijing. Another interesting story was that of Runners World cover story athletes, Kara and Adam Goucher. World class distance runners, Kara qualified for Beijing in the 10,000 meters for finishing second to Shalane Flanagan and then won the 5,000 meters. Following her 5,000 meter win, she was on the track as her husband competed in the finals of the men’s 5,000. Unfortunately for Goucher, he failed to make the Olympic team. A final interesting story from the trials was the men’s 1500 meters, where all three US participants in Beijing are immigrants. This story represents everything that is good with this country. Bernard LAgat, who won the trials came to this country to go to Washington State. He participated in two previous Olympics representing Kenya, but became a US citizen in 2004. Second place finisher, Leonel Manzano was born in Mexico and came to the US when he was four. He is currently a senior at the University of Texas. Third place finisher, Lopez Lomong has perhaps the most amazing personal story. Born in Kimotong, Sudan, Lomong, at the age of six, fled his hometown and spent ten years in a refugee camp in Kenya. In 2001, he wrote an essay on what he would try and accomplish if he were to live in the US. The essay drew attention and he was able to move in with a foster family in northern New York. He was one of the “Lost Boys of Sudan.” He went on to Northern Arizona University and became a US citizen last year. The fact that all three Olympic athletes are immigrants who came to this country looking for a better life, represent everything that is good about the US. Through hard work, each will represent our country at the largest athletic event in the world and we all should be proud to call them countrymen.
Last week, NBC and USA networks broadcast the US Olympic trials for both swimming and track and field. A number of spectacular performances were put forth by our Olympic team and we should all be excited about the Olympics when they start August 8, 2008.
Most of the attention at the swimming trials in Omaha, NE originally focused on Club Wolverine’s Michael Phelps and his quest for seven or eight gold medals in Beijing. Phelps did not disappoint. He won all five of his individual events while setting two world records. He will also participate in three relays in Beijing. Katie Hoff of the North Baltimore Aquatic Club also secured spots in Beijing in five individual events, while breaking world and American records. The other major point of discussion prior to the trials was that of the Speedo LZR Racer swim suit. A number of world records have been broken this year, 38 of the 42 records, by wearers of the suit. Speedo developed the suit with the help of NASA and debuted the suit earlier this year. California based TYR filed an anti-trust suit against Speedo, USA Swimming, national team coach Mark Schubert and Olympian Eric Vendt. The suit claims that Speedo and USA Swimming are encouraging athletes to use the Speedo suit over the TYR suits. Since Schubert is a paid consultant to Speedo, TYR believes he can exert too much influence over USA Swimming and participating athletes. Vendt, a former TYR endorser, switched to the Speedo suit. He has countersued TYR. A California court delayed the lawsuit until September, which effectively eliminates any opportunity for TYR to get relief prior to the Olympics. Other apparel companies such as Nike have given its athletes permission to wear the Speedo suit if they believe it will enhance their performance.
At the meet, the best story turned out to be the return to the Olympics for 41 year old Dara Torres. Torres, who first competed in the Olympics in Los Angeles in 1984, won the trials in both the 50 meter and 10 meter freestyles. She will also represent the US in relays. Torres, who has a two year old daughter, will be making her fifth Olympic appearance in Beijing. She is old enough that she could be the mother of a number of Olympians. The rumor at the pool was that her goggles were older than some participants. Another veteran qualifier for the Olympics is Amanda Beard, who qualified for her fourth Olympics in the 200 meter breaststroke.
There were a number of big stories at the track and field trials. From my point of view, the biggest was the running of 16 year old prep star Jordan Hasay. Hasay qualified for the finals of the 1,500 meters by setting a US high school record of 4:14.5 in the semifinals. While she did not make the Olympic team, she showed that she could in fact compete at the highest levels. The crowd in Eugene, sensing the magnitude of her run, started chanting, “Come to Oregon” following her semi-finals race. Another major story of the trials was that of Justin Gay, who set the American record and won the 100 meters but fell in the semi-finals of the 200 meters. Gay suffered a mild strain of his hamstring. He believes that he will be ready for Beijing. Another interesting story was that of Runners World cover story athletes, Kara and Adam Goucher. World class distance runners, Kara qualified for Beijing in the 10,000 meters for finishing second to Shalane Flanagan and then won the 5,000 meters. Following her 5,000 meter win, she was on the track as her husband competed in the finals of the men’s 5,000. Unfortunately for Goucher, he failed to make the Olympic team. A final interesting story from the trials was the men’s 1500 meters, where all three US participants in Beijing are immigrants. This story represents everything that is good with this country. Bernard LAgat, who won the trials came to this country to go to Washington State. He participated in two previous Olympics representing Kenya, but became a US citizen in 2004. Second place finisher, Leonel Manzano was born in Mexico and came to the US when he was four. He is currently a senior at the University of Texas. Third place finisher, Lopez Lomong has perhaps the most amazing personal story. Born in Kimotong, Sudan, Lomong, at the age of six, fled his hometown and spent ten years in a refugee camp in Kenya. In 2001, he wrote an essay on what he would try and accomplish if he were to live in the US. The essay drew attention and he was able to move in with a foster family in northern New York. He was one of the “Lost Boys of Sudan.” He went on to Northern Arizona University and became a US citizen last year. The fact that all three Olympic athletes are immigrants who came to this country looking for a better life, represent everything that is good about the US. Through hard work, each will represent our country at the largest athletic event in the world and we all should be proud to call them countrymen.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
WELCOME TO THE LEAGUE, ROOK...
WELCOME TO THE LEAGUE, ROOK…July 1, 2008
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell this weekend had some interesting comments relating to rookie salaries. Specifically, he was commenting on the contract signed by Jake Long, the first overall draft pick of the Miami Dolphins out of the University of Michigan. Long’s five year contract includes up to $57.75 million in salary, with $30 million guaranteed. With this contract, Long becomes one of the highest paid offensive lineman in the league. This is without ever playing a down. Is this fair to the veterans who have shown their ability to be productive players in the NFL against NFL competition?
I think Long is going to be a great player. I feel that he will be in the league for at least 10 years protecting the blind side of his college teammate and quarterback, Chad Henne, the soon to be starter in Miami. But is Long better than Chris Samuels in Washington, or even Jeff Bachus in Detroit? We don’t know. Obviously, the Dolphins feel he is as good, if not better than those two lineman. They are basing this evaluation on his play at Michigan, but not against NFL caliber players. They are taking a huge chance on the fact that his play at Michigan will translate into a similar level of play in the NHL. Michigan has a history of sending good offensive lineman to the NFL. Steve Hutchison, Jon Jansen, Maurice Williams, Jeff Bachus, John Runyan are just some of the Michigan grads currently lining up for NFL teams.
Wouldn’t you think that the NFL Players Association would prefer to have established NFL players make more money than a rookie? What other business pays employees fresh out of college more than someone who has been doing the job for four to ten years? With the veteran, you know what you are getting and therefore probably can pay him his proper value. Each year, the paychecks for the top picked rookies goes up. If Commissioner Goodell is serious about reducing the initial contracts for the top picks each year, he should stipulate that the money be paid to established veterans. He should not allow teams to pocket that money, but should instead make sure that the teams use the “savings” on its experienced veterans. When the collective bargaining agreement expires in a few years, I would imagine that this issue is one that gets a lot of publicity. I would imagine that veteran players and the majority of the general public agree that you need to earn your contract. In other words, sign an initial contract for three to five years and then get the big money if you have proven that you are as good as your draft value. Don’t you think that the 49ners might be hesitant to pick Vernon Davis #6 overall based upon his performance the past two years? Don’t you think that they would rather have CB Antonio Cromartie or WR Santonio Holmes both of whom were first round picks? Or maybe the NFL just likes to punish those teams like the Lions and Cardinals who are usually at their normal spot at the top of the draft?
"He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said. "Now, with the economics where they are, the consequences if you don't evaluate that player, you can lose a significant amount of money. ... And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous." Pretty strong opinion and probably an issue that is not going to go away, especially since rookies, when they are drafted are not members of the Players Association who negotiates the collective bargaining agreement with the league.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell this weekend had some interesting comments relating to rookie salaries. Specifically, he was commenting on the contract signed by Jake Long, the first overall draft pick of the Miami Dolphins out of the University of Michigan. Long’s five year contract includes up to $57.75 million in salary, with $30 million guaranteed. With this contract, Long becomes one of the highest paid offensive lineman in the league. This is without ever playing a down. Is this fair to the veterans who have shown their ability to be productive players in the NFL against NFL competition?
I think Long is going to be a great player. I feel that he will be in the league for at least 10 years protecting the blind side of his college teammate and quarterback, Chad Henne, the soon to be starter in Miami. But is Long better than Chris Samuels in Washington, or even Jeff Bachus in Detroit? We don’t know. Obviously, the Dolphins feel he is as good, if not better than those two lineman. They are basing this evaluation on his play at Michigan, but not against NFL caliber players. They are taking a huge chance on the fact that his play at Michigan will translate into a similar level of play in the NHL. Michigan has a history of sending good offensive lineman to the NFL. Steve Hutchison, Jon Jansen, Maurice Williams, Jeff Bachus, John Runyan are just some of the Michigan grads currently lining up for NFL teams.
Wouldn’t you think that the NFL Players Association would prefer to have established NFL players make more money than a rookie? What other business pays employees fresh out of college more than someone who has been doing the job for four to ten years? With the veteran, you know what you are getting and therefore probably can pay him his proper value. Each year, the paychecks for the top picked rookies goes up. If Commissioner Goodell is serious about reducing the initial contracts for the top picks each year, he should stipulate that the money be paid to established veterans. He should not allow teams to pocket that money, but should instead make sure that the teams use the “savings” on its experienced veterans. When the collective bargaining agreement expires in a few years, I would imagine that this issue is one that gets a lot of publicity. I would imagine that veteran players and the majority of the general public agree that you need to earn your contract. In other words, sign an initial contract for three to five years and then get the big money if you have proven that you are as good as your draft value. Don’t you think that the 49ners might be hesitant to pick Vernon Davis #6 overall based upon his performance the past two years? Don’t you think that they would rather have CB Antonio Cromartie or WR Santonio Holmes both of whom were first round picks? Or maybe the NFL just likes to punish those teams like the Lions and Cardinals who are usually at their normal spot at the top of the draft?
"He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said. "Now, with the economics where they are, the consequences if you don't evaluate that player, you can lose a significant amount of money. ... And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous." Pretty strong opinion and probably an issue that is not going to go away, especially since rookies, when they are drafted are not members of the Players Association who negotiates the collective bargaining agreement with the league.
Friday, June 27, 2008
DC v. HELLER
DC v. HELLER, June 27, 2008
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court announced its decision in one of the most anticipated cases it took on this year, DC v. Heller. In this case, Dick Heller, a special police officer, objected to the DC law that prohibits the ownership of handguns. The DC law subjecting all legal firearms to licensing, banning all hand guns, and requiring all legally permitted weapons, such as rifles and shotguns, to be kept in homes only if "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device". He viewed this law as depriving him of the chance to defend himself effectively against threats in his home. In one of its final decisions of the term, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the DC law prohibiting ownership of handguns does not jibe with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which declares: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This decision seems completely reasonable. The idea behind the law was that by eliminating guns, the city would be safer. However, almost the exact opposite has been the case. DC has a large number of homicides each year, and the fact that there is not supposed to be any guns in the city, does seem to be practical. The idea that if it is against the law to own or posses a handgun, then there would be a drop in crime does not hold up. What the law has done though, is give criminals a free reign of terror over the citizens of DC. If criminals know that there is zero chance of the target of their crime spree would shoot them, they are much more likely to engage in illegal behavior, since the consequences would not likely include being shot.
This ruling gives the residents of DC a chance to defend themselves and their homes. This is a basic notion of what everyone in this country believes. If someone tries to cause you harm, you have the right to defend yourself. The former law did not do anything to protect DC citizens. Criminals still used handguns and the law abiding citizens were unable to defend themselves. Crime was rampant and the rationale for the law seemed misguided. One must remember that guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun needs to be fired and that takes an individual. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true.
I do not own a hand gun and probably never will. Guns scare me. However, if I am trained and keep the hand gun in a safe place, I feel there is no reason for me to not have the right to own a handgun. Now, if criminals think that they can just terrorize the citizens of our nations capital with very little possible impact, maybe they will think twice if they now realize that this type of behavior can lead to being shot and possibly death.
Obviously, the previous law did not protect the citizens of DC and was not effective in reducing crime in the city. Maybe, with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the citizens of DC will see a decrease in crime and an overall improvement in the quality of life in our nations capital.
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court announced its decision in one of the most anticipated cases it took on this year, DC v. Heller. In this case, Dick Heller, a special police officer, objected to the DC law that prohibits the ownership of handguns. The DC law subjecting all legal firearms to licensing, banning all hand guns, and requiring all legally permitted weapons, such as rifles and shotguns, to be kept in homes only if "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device". He viewed this law as depriving him of the chance to defend himself effectively against threats in his home. In one of its final decisions of the term, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the DC law prohibiting ownership of handguns does not jibe with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which declares: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This decision seems completely reasonable. The idea behind the law was that by eliminating guns, the city would be safer. However, almost the exact opposite has been the case. DC has a large number of homicides each year, and the fact that there is not supposed to be any guns in the city, does seem to be practical. The idea that if it is against the law to own or posses a handgun, then there would be a drop in crime does not hold up. What the law has done though, is give criminals a free reign of terror over the citizens of DC. If criminals know that there is zero chance of the target of their crime spree would shoot them, they are much more likely to engage in illegal behavior, since the consequences would not likely include being shot.
This ruling gives the residents of DC a chance to defend themselves and their homes. This is a basic notion of what everyone in this country believes. If someone tries to cause you harm, you have the right to defend yourself. The former law did not do anything to protect DC citizens. Criminals still used handguns and the law abiding citizens were unable to defend themselves. Crime was rampant and the rationale for the law seemed misguided. One must remember that guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun needs to be fired and that takes an individual. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true.
I do not own a hand gun and probably never will. Guns scare me. However, if I am trained and keep the hand gun in a safe place, I feel there is no reason for me to not have the right to own a handgun. Now, if criminals think that they can just terrorize the citizens of our nations capital with very little possible impact, maybe they will think twice if they now realize that this type of behavior can lead to being shot and possibly death.
Obviously, the previous law did not protect the citizens of DC and was not effective in reducing crime in the city. Maybe, with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the citizens of DC will see a decrease in crime and an overall improvement in the quality of life in our nations capital.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
FRIENDS OF ANGELO
FRIENDS OF ANGELO, June 24, 2008
Much has been made about the current financial crisis and its alleged instigator, Countrywide Financial. Countrywide’s Chief Executive Officer, Angelo Mozilo had a program, “Friends of Angelo” where important individuals received better financial terms on their loans. Two participants in this “FOA” program are Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Kent Conrad. Senator Dodd is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs while Senator Conrad is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and is also a member of the Finance Committee.
Not much has been made of the fact that two prominent members of the Senate have received special interest rates on their mortgages. The only reason they got these special rates were that they were part of the “Friends of Angelo” program. One would think that since they received a special deal, that they would have notified the Senate Ethics Committee of these sweetheart deals. These deals reduced the amount of fees that they paid by thousands of dollars.
Senator Dodd has acknowledged that he was part of the program, but did not know what his participation in such a program basically meant. According to the Washington Post, “ Dodd borrowed $506,000 at 4.25 percent to refinance a Capitol Hill townhouse, originally purchased in 1999, and $275,042 at 4.5 percent to refinance a home in East Haddam, Conn. Rather than requiring him to pay the full amount to obtain the reduced mortgage rates, as other customers must, Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan and a quarter-point, or $700, on the second.”
As the Chairman of the Senate Committee dealing with housing issues, one would have to be a complete moron to believe that Senator Dodd believed that he cold get mortgages at 4.25 and 4.5 percent. If he is to believed, one would also have to assume that as Chairman, he has no idea what he is doing or what he is supposed to be overseeing. Mortgage rates were not 4.25 percent, but he was able to negotiate such a deal? He must be a hell of a negotiator.
Senator Conrad also benefited from the program. According to the same Washington Post article, “Conrad spoke to Mozilo about his mortgage in 2002, but the deals under scrutiny were not finalized until 2004. Mozilo ordered one point waived on a loan for a more than $1 million vacation home in Bethany Beach, Del., providing a $10,700 benefit to Conrad. Conrad also received financing in 2004 for an eight-unit apartment building in North Dakota from Countrywide, in apparent contradiction of the company's rules prohibiting mortgages for any dwelling with more than four units, according to Conrad's staff. Mozilo ordered subordinates to approve the apartment-building loan, according to an internal e-mail obtained by Portfolio, because "the borrower is a senator."
Due to his position, Senator Conrad reduced his fee by one point, which meant he saved $10,700. IS this a gift from Countrywide? I would imagine it was, but the Senator did not notify the Senate Ethics Committee of such a gift. Also, since Countrywide gave him a mortgage on a property they would not typically finance, one must assume that due to his role as a Senator, he got a special deal from Countrywide. This type of deal was not available to those of us, normal citizens who are trying to find affordable mortgages to purchase our residences.
Both Senators claim that they did nothing wrong and the press seems to buying this response. However, if either one of these Senators was a Republican Chairman, one could safely assume that the Washington Post and New York Times would be demanding their resignations. Either the two Senators are not telling us the truth, or they are about the dumbest people on the face of the earth. They would have to be oblivious to everything around them if they did not know what their mortgage payments were or what the interest rate was. I get a monthly statement from my mortgage company that states the interest rate as well as the breakdown of where each of my payments is going – whether towards interest, principal balance, or my escrow account to payoff my taxes. Now maybe both of their wives handle their finances, but you would have to suspend all belief to believe that neither of them knew that they got such a deal.
“Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a liberal watchdog group, filed a complaint Friday with the Senate ethics committee requesting an investigation of the Countrywide loans. It cited Senate rules that allow for "loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public.’” The Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Barbara Boxer stated that a complaint had been filed and the Committee was looking into the situation. Looking into the situation? What more do they want? A federal conviction or something on that order before they will look into the possible wrong doing by one of their own? We all know that the Senate is the most exclusive club in America and that they all do whatever they can to protect each other, but this is ridiculous.
Why haven’t Senate Republicans been demanding an investigation? One local news station stated that the Republicans were worried where the investigation would go and that some of their members might also have benefited from such deals. Is this not enough evidence that those who are elected to represent us in Washington are completely out of touch with reality and should all be replaced with more responsive and ethical leaders?
Much has been made about the current financial crisis and its alleged instigator, Countrywide Financial. Countrywide’s Chief Executive Officer, Angelo Mozilo had a program, “Friends of Angelo” where important individuals received better financial terms on their loans. Two participants in this “FOA” program are Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Kent Conrad. Senator Dodd is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs while Senator Conrad is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and is also a member of the Finance Committee.
Not much has been made of the fact that two prominent members of the Senate have received special interest rates on their mortgages. The only reason they got these special rates were that they were part of the “Friends of Angelo” program. One would think that since they received a special deal, that they would have notified the Senate Ethics Committee of these sweetheart deals. These deals reduced the amount of fees that they paid by thousands of dollars.
Senator Dodd has acknowledged that he was part of the program, but did not know what his participation in such a program basically meant. According to the Washington Post, “ Dodd borrowed $506,000 at 4.25 percent to refinance a Capitol Hill townhouse, originally purchased in 1999, and $275,042 at 4.5 percent to refinance a home in East Haddam, Conn. Rather than requiring him to pay the full amount to obtain the reduced mortgage rates, as other customers must, Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan and a quarter-point, or $700, on the second.”
As the Chairman of the Senate Committee dealing with housing issues, one would have to be a complete moron to believe that Senator Dodd believed that he cold get mortgages at 4.25 and 4.5 percent. If he is to believed, one would also have to assume that as Chairman, he has no idea what he is doing or what he is supposed to be overseeing. Mortgage rates were not 4.25 percent, but he was able to negotiate such a deal? He must be a hell of a negotiator.
Senator Conrad also benefited from the program. According to the same Washington Post article, “Conrad spoke to Mozilo about his mortgage in 2002, but the deals under scrutiny were not finalized until 2004. Mozilo ordered one point waived on a loan for a more than $1 million vacation home in Bethany Beach, Del., providing a $10,700 benefit to Conrad. Conrad also received financing in 2004 for an eight-unit apartment building in North Dakota from Countrywide, in apparent contradiction of the company's rules prohibiting mortgages for any dwelling with more than four units, according to Conrad's staff. Mozilo ordered subordinates to approve the apartment-building loan, according to an internal e-mail obtained by Portfolio, because "the borrower is a senator."
Due to his position, Senator Conrad reduced his fee by one point, which meant he saved $10,700. IS this a gift from Countrywide? I would imagine it was, but the Senator did not notify the Senate Ethics Committee of such a gift. Also, since Countrywide gave him a mortgage on a property they would not typically finance, one must assume that due to his role as a Senator, he got a special deal from Countrywide. This type of deal was not available to those of us, normal citizens who are trying to find affordable mortgages to purchase our residences.
Both Senators claim that they did nothing wrong and the press seems to buying this response. However, if either one of these Senators was a Republican Chairman, one could safely assume that the Washington Post and New York Times would be demanding their resignations. Either the two Senators are not telling us the truth, or they are about the dumbest people on the face of the earth. They would have to be oblivious to everything around them if they did not know what their mortgage payments were or what the interest rate was. I get a monthly statement from my mortgage company that states the interest rate as well as the breakdown of where each of my payments is going – whether towards interest, principal balance, or my escrow account to payoff my taxes. Now maybe both of their wives handle their finances, but you would have to suspend all belief to believe that neither of them knew that they got such a deal.
“Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a liberal watchdog group, filed a complaint Friday with the Senate ethics committee requesting an investigation of the Countrywide loans. It cited Senate rules that allow for "loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public.’” The Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Barbara Boxer stated that a complaint had been filed and the Committee was looking into the situation. Looking into the situation? What more do they want? A federal conviction or something on that order before they will look into the possible wrong doing by one of their own? We all know that the Senate is the most exclusive club in America and that they all do whatever they can to protect each other, but this is ridiculous.
Why haven’t Senate Republicans been demanding an investigation? One local news station stated that the Republicans were worried where the investigation would go and that some of their members might also have benefited from such deals. Is this not enough evidence that those who are elected to represent us in Washington are completely out of touch with reality and should all be replaced with more responsive and ethical leaders?
FLIP FLOPS?
FLIP FLOPS, June 24, 2008
A lot has been made this past week over the apparent “flip flops” that both major candidates for President experienced this week. Senator McCain decided to support off shore drilling and Senator Obama’s decided not to take public money to support his campaign. A lot of the media pundits have been relatively quiet on these decisions. Why?
Senator McCain’s decision is a smart one, but not enough. With current gas prices of over $4 per gallon, most Americans are feeling the squeeze of higher energy costs. I filled up my Ford Escape yesterday at $4.129 a gallon and it cost me over $55. I currently don’t drive a whole lot, so it is not a huge issue for me at this point. However, if I needed to fill up each week, this would begin to have a serious impact on my personal finances. Senator McCain switched his position this past week on this issue. I am surprised that more members of congress have not done the same. Over the past ten years, a number of times legislation has been pushed to diversify America’s energy policy. Drilling in ANWAR was passed in 1997 but vetoed by President Clinton, who said that the legislation would produce no new oil for five to seven years. Well if that legislation had been signed into law, today we would have about an additional one million of barrels of oil on the market. While this is about five percent of the US daily consumption, this would still reduce the overall cost of a barrel of oil. According to a recent editorial by Michigan representative, Candice Miller a co-sponsor of the No More Excuses Energy Act, the legislation would “lift the moratorium on exploring for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf, which could produce as much as 17 billion barrels of oil. It would also open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil and natural gas exploration, which could produce as much as 1 million barrels of oil per day for several decades.”
Is drilling to solution to all our current energy problems? No, the US needs to diversify it energy consumption. We need to see an increase in oil production, natural gas production, nuclear energy development, and renewable energy development. None of these will reduce the cost of oil today however. These are all long-term solutions to the current problem. While the announcement of additional drilling either in ANWAR or on the Outer Continental Shelf might reduce the price per barrel some since the anticipation of increased supply, it will not have a dramatic impact. That seems to be the problem in Washington these days. There is no short term, quick solution that will drop the price per barrel closer to the $40-50. Senator McCain’s statement got a quick reaction as a “flip-flop” from Democrats, and the environmental lobby. Senator McCain should basically come out and say, “You’re right; I did change my mind on this issue. When I had previously stated my opposition, the price of gas was not over $4 per gallon. American families were not struggling to figure out how to pay the increased cost of gasoline with other increases in basic necessities, like food. The current situation demands that we look at alternative methods of satisfying the increased demand for gasoline.”
The US currently does not have the ability to inexpensively convert most renewable sources of energy into usable energy. I explored the cost of adding solar panels to my house to reduce the cost of heating my home. I was told that the cost would be about $15,000 to add a few solar panels to my roof and it would take about seven to ten years to payoff this cost with respect to the energy savings. Can we run our cars on batteries? Not yet, Detroit has not yet figured out how to develop an engine that will run on a renewable energy source as effectively and as long as a normal gallon of gasoline. We have seen an increase in ethanol gasoline, but that has led to an increase in food prices as corn grower’s shift their product away from food to energy.
The US needs to diversify its energy consumption and production. Do we really want our dollars going to the Middle-East or Venezuela in order to support our daily need of oil? No, but we are also not going to be able to produce our daily oil needs domestically. Also, with the amount of oil that developing countries such as China and India consume, the demand for oil is only going to increase. We should start using more renewable sources of energy – solar, wind, biomass so that as we increase our consumption and use of these types of energy, we will continue to develop more cost efficient sources of energy. Senator McCain will likely not be hurt by his change in opinion, but he could have scored a bigger win had he expanded his view on changing the US energy plan. He could have forced Senator Obama to either dismiss the talk as not doing anything to reduce the daily cost of oil (which is what his response was) and putting the onus on Senator Obama to come up with a plan that would reduce gas prices. Obama’s belief that reducing the tax breaks for oil companies or an excessive profit tax for these same companies would do nothing to reduce the cost and would dramatically impact the US economy because they would in fact raise the price of oil.
Senator Obama last week decided that he would not take the $84 million to finance his general election campaign. He decided that he would rather take money from his supporters to finance his campaign. I totally agree with his decision. If the Senator feels he can effectively raise enough money to finance his campaign without taking our tax dollars, I feel that is a great idea. The Senator has shown a remarkable ability to raise money throughout the primary campaign and he should be able to raise in excess of $100 million in about a week. He has over one million current contributors who could all donate to his general election campaign. The Senator’s campaign states that most of his donors are small dollar donors who give less than $200. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, forty-five percent of his one and a half million donors fit into this category. The Obama campaign believes that it will be able to raise a substantial amount of money from its supporters to overcome the change in position.
I believe that the campaign made the right call. Let’s assume that the campaign keeps the 45% small donor base and gets 50% of its primary donors to donate to the general election campaign. Let’s also assume that his small donors give $100 to the campaign while the large donors give an average of $750 to the campaign. He would likely raise over $343 million for the campaign to spend over the eight week general election campaign. This is a low estimate since I would imagine that with the energy on the Democratic side, he would likely get more than 50% of his donors to commit to his general election campaign and I would imagine that at least with his larger donors, they would max out their contributions of $2,300. Could he possibly spend that much money? Sure, he would likely be on TV in most states and he could also finance state operations in states that he may not win, but that could help with the get out the vote operation and help down the ticket Democratic candidates. He could possibly take over the operation that the DNC is supposed to do since he would have the financial capabilities to do so.
This financial advantage would drastically help Obama in that he would not have to conserve any money and would not have to make tough decisions as to whether or not to go up with an ad in a state that he might not win. He could also force McCain to spend money in states that he did not anticipate he would have to spend money in. He could put a number of “safe” McCain states in play and force McCain to make tough choices as to where to spend his limited resources.
I think that a candidate for President needs to have the support of the American people and the best way to measure that support is through financial donations. If a candidate is unable to raise sufficient funds, they are not a serious candidate. The American taxpayer should not be financing such candidates. A candidate such as Obama has shown that he has a broad range of support from across America. He can easily find his campaign and he should. I don’t think that paying for elections is a smart use of American tax dollars. Particularly when the country is facing so many issues including the war of terror, an economic slow down, an energy supply problem, broken infrastructure that desperately needs government action to fix. All of these problems need money to solve and I think it is a better use of our money to work on those problems as opposed to funding a campaign.
While Obama might take some heat and criticism from a few in the press, it is not likely to make a big difference. The 4-1 cash advantage that he likely would have would allow him to focus on other more important issues, like trying to get elected. Hopefully Obama’s decision to not take federal funding for both his primary and general election campaigns will eliminate the need for future candidates to take public financing and instead focus on raising enough on their own to support their campaigns.
Both of these decisions were the right ones to make by the different campaigns. Is anything going to happen due to these decisions, not likely. Is either campaign going to be negatively effected? Not likely. The biggest potential problem would be if either of the campaigns changes their opinion on another issue and it can be turned into a more general theme, much like Senator Kerry found out in 2004.
A lot has been made this past week over the apparent “flip flops” that both major candidates for President experienced this week. Senator McCain decided to support off shore drilling and Senator Obama’s decided not to take public money to support his campaign. A lot of the media pundits have been relatively quiet on these decisions. Why?
Senator McCain’s decision is a smart one, but not enough. With current gas prices of over $4 per gallon, most Americans are feeling the squeeze of higher energy costs. I filled up my Ford Escape yesterday at $4.129 a gallon and it cost me over $55. I currently don’t drive a whole lot, so it is not a huge issue for me at this point. However, if I needed to fill up each week, this would begin to have a serious impact on my personal finances. Senator McCain switched his position this past week on this issue. I am surprised that more members of congress have not done the same. Over the past ten years, a number of times legislation has been pushed to diversify America’s energy policy. Drilling in ANWAR was passed in 1997 but vetoed by President Clinton, who said that the legislation would produce no new oil for five to seven years. Well if that legislation had been signed into law, today we would have about an additional one million of barrels of oil on the market. While this is about five percent of the US daily consumption, this would still reduce the overall cost of a barrel of oil. According to a recent editorial by Michigan representative, Candice Miller a co-sponsor of the No More Excuses Energy Act, the legislation would “lift the moratorium on exploring for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf, which could produce as much as 17 billion barrels of oil. It would also open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil and natural gas exploration, which could produce as much as 1 million barrels of oil per day for several decades.”
Is drilling to solution to all our current energy problems? No, the US needs to diversify it energy consumption. We need to see an increase in oil production, natural gas production, nuclear energy development, and renewable energy development. None of these will reduce the cost of oil today however. These are all long-term solutions to the current problem. While the announcement of additional drilling either in ANWAR or on the Outer Continental Shelf might reduce the price per barrel some since the anticipation of increased supply, it will not have a dramatic impact. That seems to be the problem in Washington these days. There is no short term, quick solution that will drop the price per barrel closer to the $40-50. Senator McCain’s statement got a quick reaction as a “flip-flop” from Democrats, and the environmental lobby. Senator McCain should basically come out and say, “You’re right; I did change my mind on this issue. When I had previously stated my opposition, the price of gas was not over $4 per gallon. American families were not struggling to figure out how to pay the increased cost of gasoline with other increases in basic necessities, like food. The current situation demands that we look at alternative methods of satisfying the increased demand for gasoline.”
The US currently does not have the ability to inexpensively convert most renewable sources of energy into usable energy. I explored the cost of adding solar panels to my house to reduce the cost of heating my home. I was told that the cost would be about $15,000 to add a few solar panels to my roof and it would take about seven to ten years to payoff this cost with respect to the energy savings. Can we run our cars on batteries? Not yet, Detroit has not yet figured out how to develop an engine that will run on a renewable energy source as effectively and as long as a normal gallon of gasoline. We have seen an increase in ethanol gasoline, but that has led to an increase in food prices as corn grower’s shift their product away from food to energy.
The US needs to diversify its energy consumption and production. Do we really want our dollars going to the Middle-East or Venezuela in order to support our daily need of oil? No, but we are also not going to be able to produce our daily oil needs domestically. Also, with the amount of oil that developing countries such as China and India consume, the demand for oil is only going to increase. We should start using more renewable sources of energy – solar, wind, biomass so that as we increase our consumption and use of these types of energy, we will continue to develop more cost efficient sources of energy. Senator McCain will likely not be hurt by his change in opinion, but he could have scored a bigger win had he expanded his view on changing the US energy plan. He could have forced Senator Obama to either dismiss the talk as not doing anything to reduce the daily cost of oil (which is what his response was) and putting the onus on Senator Obama to come up with a plan that would reduce gas prices. Obama’s belief that reducing the tax breaks for oil companies or an excessive profit tax for these same companies would do nothing to reduce the cost and would dramatically impact the US economy because they would in fact raise the price of oil.
Senator Obama last week decided that he would not take the $84 million to finance his general election campaign. He decided that he would rather take money from his supporters to finance his campaign. I totally agree with his decision. If the Senator feels he can effectively raise enough money to finance his campaign without taking our tax dollars, I feel that is a great idea. The Senator has shown a remarkable ability to raise money throughout the primary campaign and he should be able to raise in excess of $100 million in about a week. He has over one million current contributors who could all donate to his general election campaign. The Senator’s campaign states that most of his donors are small dollar donors who give less than $200. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, forty-five percent of his one and a half million donors fit into this category. The Obama campaign believes that it will be able to raise a substantial amount of money from its supporters to overcome the change in position.
I believe that the campaign made the right call. Let’s assume that the campaign keeps the 45% small donor base and gets 50% of its primary donors to donate to the general election campaign. Let’s also assume that his small donors give $100 to the campaign while the large donors give an average of $750 to the campaign. He would likely raise over $343 million for the campaign to spend over the eight week general election campaign. This is a low estimate since I would imagine that with the energy on the Democratic side, he would likely get more than 50% of his donors to commit to his general election campaign and I would imagine that at least with his larger donors, they would max out their contributions of $2,300. Could he possibly spend that much money? Sure, he would likely be on TV in most states and he could also finance state operations in states that he may not win, but that could help with the get out the vote operation and help down the ticket Democratic candidates. He could possibly take over the operation that the DNC is supposed to do since he would have the financial capabilities to do so.
This financial advantage would drastically help Obama in that he would not have to conserve any money and would not have to make tough decisions as to whether or not to go up with an ad in a state that he might not win. He could also force McCain to spend money in states that he did not anticipate he would have to spend money in. He could put a number of “safe” McCain states in play and force McCain to make tough choices as to where to spend his limited resources.
I think that a candidate for President needs to have the support of the American people and the best way to measure that support is through financial donations. If a candidate is unable to raise sufficient funds, they are not a serious candidate. The American taxpayer should not be financing such candidates. A candidate such as Obama has shown that he has a broad range of support from across America. He can easily find his campaign and he should. I don’t think that paying for elections is a smart use of American tax dollars. Particularly when the country is facing so many issues including the war of terror, an economic slow down, an energy supply problem, broken infrastructure that desperately needs government action to fix. All of these problems need money to solve and I think it is a better use of our money to work on those problems as opposed to funding a campaign.
While Obama might take some heat and criticism from a few in the press, it is not likely to make a big difference. The 4-1 cash advantage that he likely would have would allow him to focus on other more important issues, like trying to get elected. Hopefully Obama’s decision to not take federal funding for both his primary and general election campaigns will eliminate the need for future candidates to take public financing and instead focus on raising enough on their own to support their campaigns.
Both of these decisions were the right ones to make by the different campaigns. Is anything going to happen due to these decisions, not likely. Is either campaign going to be negatively effected? Not likely. The biggest potential problem would be if either of the campaigns changes their opinion on another issue and it can be turned into a more general theme, much like Senator Kerry found out in 2004.
Monday, June 23, 2008
US Olympic Basketball Team
US OLYMPIC BASKETBALL TEAM, June 23, 2008
Today, the US Olympic Basketball team was announced. The team of 12 meant that many NBA stars were left off the squad. One can’t really argue with the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmello Anthony, and Josh Howard you don’t need very much else to have a pretty good chance to win the Gold medal. I have just a few comments on the team: 1) Jason Kidd is the planned starting point guard? During the playoffs for Dallas he was slow, couldn’t guard anyone, and didn’t really score. While his sole role will be to keep the other four guys on the court happy by trying to equally distribute the ball to each of them, there is no way he is one of the top three point guards that the US has. If I am Coach K, I think Chris Paul and Deron Williams both likely play a lot more than Kidd. Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas, or Allen Iverson all seem to be better point guards at this point in time than Kidd. Maybe the coaches are just looking for a veteran presence that won’t act selfishly and will be a role model for the young stars chosen for the team. 2) Lack of dominant center and power forwards – the centers chosen for the team include: Dwight Howard and Carlos Boozer while the sole true power forward is Chris Bosh. Dwight Howard is a star, no question about it. However, there is no dominant defensive center patrolling the paint and just daring opponents to try and drive the lane. Maybe there just isn’t much driving in the international game and in the last Olympics the US was done in by sharp outside shooting, but if my memory is right, Puerto Rican point guard Carlos Arroyo helped PR beat the US with his quickness and his ability to penetrate the lane and if necessary dish to an open outside shooter. This lack of defensive presence might allow opposing point guards to penetrate and if there is no help, either score or pass off to an open shooter. This issue is also a problem if Jason Kidd is in the game and can’t seem to guard anyone. It seems like the selection committee wanted hybrid type players – forwards that can play the 3 or 4 spot, centers that can play the 4 or 5 spot, and guards that can play either the point or shooting guard or the 2 and 3 spot. 3) This is a team of small forwards – Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmello Anthony, Tayshaun Prince all are capable defenders and the first three are dominant scorers. This is where the team will win or lose. If Bryant and James play like they are capable – they are the two best players in all of basketball, the US team has a chance to dominate any opponent. 4) Outside shooting – Michael Redd made this team because he is the best outside shooter and after the problems in Athens; the US team needed someone who can break up a zone defense with lights-out shooting. The hope seems to be that in addition to Redd, that James, Bryant, Anthony, or Dwayne Wade will also be able to hit an open 15 footer. One would assume, based on just the names on the back of the jersey, that the US team will be the favorite for the gold medal. However, it is the Olympics, and strange things typically happen to the US team. Let’s just hope that the twelve players play as a team and put aside personal statistics and just play for the gold medal.
Today, the US Olympic Basketball team was announced. The team of 12 meant that many NBA stars were left off the squad. One can’t really argue with the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmello Anthony, and Josh Howard you don’t need very much else to have a pretty good chance to win the Gold medal. I have just a few comments on the team: 1) Jason Kidd is the planned starting point guard? During the playoffs for Dallas he was slow, couldn’t guard anyone, and didn’t really score. While his sole role will be to keep the other four guys on the court happy by trying to equally distribute the ball to each of them, there is no way he is one of the top three point guards that the US has. If I am Coach K, I think Chris Paul and Deron Williams both likely play a lot more than Kidd. Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas, or Allen Iverson all seem to be better point guards at this point in time than Kidd. Maybe the coaches are just looking for a veteran presence that won’t act selfishly and will be a role model for the young stars chosen for the team. 2) Lack of dominant center and power forwards – the centers chosen for the team include: Dwight Howard and Carlos Boozer while the sole true power forward is Chris Bosh. Dwight Howard is a star, no question about it. However, there is no dominant defensive center patrolling the paint and just daring opponents to try and drive the lane. Maybe there just isn’t much driving in the international game and in the last Olympics the US was done in by sharp outside shooting, but if my memory is right, Puerto Rican point guard Carlos Arroyo helped PR beat the US with his quickness and his ability to penetrate the lane and if necessary dish to an open outside shooter. This lack of defensive presence might allow opposing point guards to penetrate and if there is no help, either score or pass off to an open shooter. This issue is also a problem if Jason Kidd is in the game and can’t seem to guard anyone. It seems like the selection committee wanted hybrid type players – forwards that can play the 3 or 4 spot, centers that can play the 4 or 5 spot, and guards that can play either the point or shooting guard or the 2 and 3 spot. 3) This is a team of small forwards – Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmello Anthony, Tayshaun Prince all are capable defenders and the first three are dominant scorers. This is where the team will win or lose. If Bryant and James play like they are capable – they are the two best players in all of basketball, the US team has a chance to dominate any opponent. 4) Outside shooting – Michael Redd made this team because he is the best outside shooter and after the problems in Athens; the US team needed someone who can break up a zone defense with lights-out shooting. The hope seems to be that in addition to Redd, that James, Bryant, Anthony, or Dwayne Wade will also be able to hit an open 15 footer. One would assume, based on just the names on the back of the jersey, that the US team will be the favorite for the gold medal. However, it is the Olympics, and strange things typically happen to the US team. Let’s just hope that the twelve players play as a team and put aside personal statistics and just play for the gold medal.
Friday, June 20, 2008
THE WEEK IN SPORTS...
THE WEEK IN SPORTS, June 20, 2008
Earlier this week, two important events happened in the world of sports. First, the Boston Celtics clinched their 17 NBA Championship by humiliating the Los Angeles Lakes in Game 6 of the series, 131-92 Tuesday night. A series that the NBA hoped for, with its two “premier” teams facing off once again in the finals had everything setup perfectly for the NBA. But then it all fell apart, first a former NBA ref claimed that the NBA fixed playoff games in 2002 and 2005. Then the series turned into a snore, blowout series. Teams blew 20 point leads and the final game was a 39 point blowout. This is the best of the NBA? If I am the league, I really would hope not.
Also, Monday Tiger Woods won the US Open at Torrey Pines in a 19 hole playoff against Rocco Mediate. Tiger was playing his first tournament since he had surgery on his knee following the Masters. Tiger’s injured knee includes a double stress fracture in his left leg as well as a torn ACL. He hopes to be back competing on the PGA tour next season. The fact that Tiger was able to win a major tournament, playing an additional 19 holes, under those conditions is truly remarkable. Tiger is the PGA tour in a lot of respects. He is the best player, the biggest draw and drives TV ratings. The tour will survive without Tiger, but it will not grow as much as it would if Tiger was playing. The upcoming British Open, PGA Championship, and the Ryder Cup will all miss having Tiger play, but the bigger issue will be tournaments such as next week’s Buick Open in Grand Blanc, MI and Tiger’s own AT&T National tournament outside Washington, DC. These tournaments flourish if Tiger participates. More spectators attend the tournament, higher TV rating accompany Tiger’s play, more kids get a chance to learn about the game of golf when he hosts clinics near the tournament, and more merchandise is purchased at tournaments he plays. His inability to play in these types of tournaments is a huge drain to the local economy and hurts the overall PGA tour. The PGA tour should hope that one of its young stars – Sergio Garcia, Luke Donald, or another young golfer or established veteran goes on a run where he is competitive each week. Let the PGA develop and promote another one of its players so that it takes some of the pressure and reliance off Tiger Woods.
Earlier this week, two important events happened in the world of sports. First, the Boston Celtics clinched their 17 NBA Championship by humiliating the Los Angeles Lakes in Game 6 of the series, 131-92 Tuesday night. A series that the NBA hoped for, with its two “premier” teams facing off once again in the finals had everything setup perfectly for the NBA. But then it all fell apart, first a former NBA ref claimed that the NBA fixed playoff games in 2002 and 2005. Then the series turned into a snore, blowout series. Teams blew 20 point leads and the final game was a 39 point blowout. This is the best of the NBA? If I am the league, I really would hope not.
Also, Monday Tiger Woods won the US Open at Torrey Pines in a 19 hole playoff against Rocco Mediate. Tiger was playing his first tournament since he had surgery on his knee following the Masters. Tiger’s injured knee includes a double stress fracture in his left leg as well as a torn ACL. He hopes to be back competing on the PGA tour next season. The fact that Tiger was able to win a major tournament, playing an additional 19 holes, under those conditions is truly remarkable. Tiger is the PGA tour in a lot of respects. He is the best player, the biggest draw and drives TV ratings. The tour will survive without Tiger, but it will not grow as much as it would if Tiger was playing. The upcoming British Open, PGA Championship, and the Ryder Cup will all miss having Tiger play, but the bigger issue will be tournaments such as next week’s Buick Open in Grand Blanc, MI and Tiger’s own AT&T National tournament outside Washington, DC. These tournaments flourish if Tiger participates. More spectators attend the tournament, higher TV rating accompany Tiger’s play, more kids get a chance to learn about the game of golf when he hosts clinics near the tournament, and more merchandise is purchased at tournaments he plays. His inability to play in these types of tournaments is a huge drain to the local economy and hurts the overall PGA tour. The PGA tour should hope that one of its young stars – Sergio Garcia, Luke Donald, or another young golfer or established veteran goes on a run where he is competitive each week. Let the PGA develop and promote another one of its players so that it takes some of the pressure and reliance off Tiger Woods.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
IF IT'S SUNDAY...
IF IT’S SUNAY…, June 14, 2008
This past Friday, America lost someone they spent a lot of Sunday mornings with. NBC’s Meet the Press host; Tim Russert suffered a heart attack and passed away Friday at the NBC studios here in Washington. He had just returned from a graduation trip to Europe with his wife and son. Meet the Press was the standard for all Sunday morning talk shows. It was the gold standard and the envy of all the networks. It was copied, but never duplicated.
Candidates, elected officials and community leaders made the decision to take his questions each weekend. There they would be subjected to intense questioning of their previous statements and policy positions. Russert was a master of using the interviewee’s own words as they basis of his line of questions. Meet the Press was the leading Sunday Morning Talk Show in terms of both audience and importance. Russert was tough, probing, but always fair. He was always prepared his research better than everyone else’s, and he always seemed to have a rare quote that the guest had made that contradicted their current opinion. He was able to use the guests own words in contradicting their opinions. There were no softballs, nor puff interviews on Meet the Press. Russert’s thirst for knowledge and understanding of a particular issue allowed him to ask the tough questions, and not accept the bland talking point. One did not go on Meet the Press expecting to pontificate ones position with no in depth, detailed counter arguments, because Russert would have the counter arguments and ask opposing points of view questions.
While I never met Mr. Russert, he is an extraordinary example for those of us that have spent time in public service. Russert worked for both Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Governor Mario Cuomo. While that background might give me or some of his guests a moment of concern, it never seemed that he allowed his personal beliefs interfere with the interview. While he was a former Democratic staffer, most viewers would not have known of his background based upon the questions he would ask. He wanted information and in his thirst for information was usually better prepared and had a better understanding of the issue than the guest. He knew policy and typically asked the questions that everyone wanted asked – why, how, to what extent, and so forth.
Tim Russert is someone we all would like to emulate, someone that we all respected and looked up to. He was someone that we all wished we could be like. He was someone I spent most Sunday mornings listening to, and debating with. Much to my mother’s disappointment, I would rather spend my Sunday morning listening to him than to my local parish priest.
One of the positive things outside of the actual interview that personified Russert was his relationship with his father. He has written two books chronicling his relationship with his father. On this Father’s Day weekend, all of us should personify Russert in making sure that we all tell our Fathers how important they are to each of us and how much they influenced us in our daily lives. And while his death came suddenly to us, perhaps he had accomplished all that God wanted from him and so he brought him up to heaven.
Happy Father’s Day, Dad! I love you!
This past Friday, America lost someone they spent a lot of Sunday mornings with. NBC’s Meet the Press host; Tim Russert suffered a heart attack and passed away Friday at the NBC studios here in Washington. He had just returned from a graduation trip to Europe with his wife and son. Meet the Press was the standard for all Sunday morning talk shows. It was the gold standard and the envy of all the networks. It was copied, but never duplicated.
Candidates, elected officials and community leaders made the decision to take his questions each weekend. There they would be subjected to intense questioning of their previous statements and policy positions. Russert was a master of using the interviewee’s own words as they basis of his line of questions. Meet the Press was the leading Sunday Morning Talk Show in terms of both audience and importance. Russert was tough, probing, but always fair. He was always prepared his research better than everyone else’s, and he always seemed to have a rare quote that the guest had made that contradicted their current opinion. He was able to use the guests own words in contradicting their opinions. There were no softballs, nor puff interviews on Meet the Press. Russert’s thirst for knowledge and understanding of a particular issue allowed him to ask the tough questions, and not accept the bland talking point. One did not go on Meet the Press expecting to pontificate ones position with no in depth, detailed counter arguments, because Russert would have the counter arguments and ask opposing points of view questions.
While I never met Mr. Russert, he is an extraordinary example for those of us that have spent time in public service. Russert worked for both Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Governor Mario Cuomo. While that background might give me or some of his guests a moment of concern, it never seemed that he allowed his personal beliefs interfere with the interview. While he was a former Democratic staffer, most viewers would not have known of his background based upon the questions he would ask. He wanted information and in his thirst for information was usually better prepared and had a better understanding of the issue than the guest. He knew policy and typically asked the questions that everyone wanted asked – why, how, to what extent, and so forth.
Tim Russert is someone we all would like to emulate, someone that we all respected and looked up to. He was someone that we all wished we could be like. He was someone I spent most Sunday mornings listening to, and debating with. Much to my mother’s disappointment, I would rather spend my Sunday morning listening to him than to my local parish priest.
One of the positive things outside of the actual interview that personified Russert was his relationship with his father. He has written two books chronicling his relationship with his father. On this Father’s Day weekend, all of us should personify Russert in making sure that we all tell our Fathers how important they are to each of us and how much they influenced us in our daily lives. And while his death came suddenly to us, perhaps he had accomplished all that God wanted from him and so he brought him up to heaven.
Happy Father’s Day, Dad! I love you!
FIXED?
FIXED GAMES, June 12, 2008
The NBA finals are currently being battled between the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers. The NBA’s “dream match up” is a continuation of the fierce rivalry that defined the NBA during the late 1980’s. As someone who grew up in the Metro Detroit area, I was a fan of neither team. In fact, these two teams were two of the three teams I hated the most (the other being the Chicago Bulls). The NBA marketing team got exactly what it wanted with the finals between these two teams.
However, the one thing the NBA did not want, nor need is the debate that is currently going on involving the NBA and alleged “fixed” games. Former NBA referee, Tim Donaghy accused NBA referees of altering the outcome of certain playoff games in 2002 and 2005. Donaghy has pleaded guilty to betting on games he officiated and receiving cash payments from gamblers. He faces up to 33 months in prison for his crimes and will be sentenced in July. Following his guilty plea, his allegations of additional referees altering the outcome of games has caused a lot of grief for the NBA. Instead of focusing solely on the leagues championship, reporters and fans are now questioning whether or not the games are fixed. This is the worst possible scenario for a professional sports league. This is not the WWE, this is the NBA. If the allegations that the NBA and its referees altered the outcome of games to increase TV ratings or to make sure certain teams advanced in the playoffs, the NBA will basically cease to exist in many peoples minds.
The NBA prides itself on its marketing prowess, and the fact that it has a large audience, both in the US and internationally for its games. No sports league cares more about its marketing of the league and its players than the NBA. It has done a wonderful job marketing its international players – Yao Ming is not only a star of the Houston Rockets, but he is an international star. He is in TV commercials throughout the world and is on billboards across Asia, hyping everything from tennis shoes to credit cards.
NBA Commissioner, following the publication of the allegations made by Donaghy, stated that no one else was involved in any such activities. How does he know that? Prior to the Donaghy case, he had stated that no NBA referee would ever alter games. The fact that I am writing about the fact that the NBA might be fixed is clearly a problem for the NBA. In what should be its greatest week of the season, instead has turned into a nightmare. It doesn’t matter as much as to whether or not the allegations are true or not. The fact that a former NBA referee would even suggest such a scenario gives credibility to all fans who believe that their team is getting screwed by the refs.
All fans criticize officiating whenever calls go against their favorite teams. They blame the refs for the problems their teams face. If a team loses a close game and there are fouls called at the end of the game, fans question the calls and blame the referees for the loss. The sanctity of the NBA was questioned this week by someone who has plead guilty to betting on basketball and taking money from gamblers. While he might not have the best tract record as someone to believe, the mere implication that he has stated could kill the NBA. If people believe that the games are fixed, are they likely to watch? While we all know that the refs give preference to the stars of the league – has anyone ever seen Michael Jordan called for traveling? I don’t think so, but this is much more than just a non-call or two. This is the integrity of the game and the NBA better hope that Donaghy was the only problem it had, because if it turns out that there are additional problems, the league is in real trouble.
The NBA finals are currently being battled between the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers. The NBA’s “dream match up” is a continuation of the fierce rivalry that defined the NBA during the late 1980’s. As someone who grew up in the Metro Detroit area, I was a fan of neither team. In fact, these two teams were two of the three teams I hated the most (the other being the Chicago Bulls). The NBA marketing team got exactly what it wanted with the finals between these two teams.
However, the one thing the NBA did not want, nor need is the debate that is currently going on involving the NBA and alleged “fixed” games. Former NBA referee, Tim Donaghy accused NBA referees of altering the outcome of certain playoff games in 2002 and 2005. Donaghy has pleaded guilty to betting on games he officiated and receiving cash payments from gamblers. He faces up to 33 months in prison for his crimes and will be sentenced in July. Following his guilty plea, his allegations of additional referees altering the outcome of games has caused a lot of grief for the NBA. Instead of focusing solely on the leagues championship, reporters and fans are now questioning whether or not the games are fixed. This is the worst possible scenario for a professional sports league. This is not the WWE, this is the NBA. If the allegations that the NBA and its referees altered the outcome of games to increase TV ratings or to make sure certain teams advanced in the playoffs, the NBA will basically cease to exist in many peoples minds.
The NBA prides itself on its marketing prowess, and the fact that it has a large audience, both in the US and internationally for its games. No sports league cares more about its marketing of the league and its players than the NBA. It has done a wonderful job marketing its international players – Yao Ming is not only a star of the Houston Rockets, but he is an international star. He is in TV commercials throughout the world and is on billboards across Asia, hyping everything from tennis shoes to credit cards.
NBA Commissioner, following the publication of the allegations made by Donaghy, stated that no one else was involved in any such activities. How does he know that? Prior to the Donaghy case, he had stated that no NBA referee would ever alter games. The fact that I am writing about the fact that the NBA might be fixed is clearly a problem for the NBA. In what should be its greatest week of the season, instead has turned into a nightmare. It doesn’t matter as much as to whether or not the allegations are true or not. The fact that a former NBA referee would even suggest such a scenario gives credibility to all fans who believe that their team is getting screwed by the refs.
All fans criticize officiating whenever calls go against their favorite teams. They blame the refs for the problems their teams face. If a team loses a close game and there are fouls called at the end of the game, fans question the calls and blame the referees for the loss. The sanctity of the NBA was questioned this week by someone who has plead guilty to betting on basketball and taking money from gamblers. While he might not have the best tract record as someone to believe, the mere implication that he has stated could kill the NBA. If people believe that the games are fixed, are they likely to watch? While we all know that the refs give preference to the stars of the league – has anyone ever seen Michael Jordan called for traveling? I don’t think so, but this is much more than just a non-call or two. This is the integrity of the game and the NBA better hope that Donaghy was the only problem it had, because if it turns out that there are additional problems, the league is in real trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)