If you're not planning on being in front of a television set or radio tomorrow afternoon at 3:15pm Eastern time, the answer to this question is a resounding yes.
Team USA has captivated hockey fans and non-hockey fans alike over the past two weeks as they have continued their improbable undefeated Olympic run toward the gold medal in men's hockey. I've always loved the Winter Olympics, and as a former hockey player and fan (I haven't followed the NHL since the Whalers left town), I always look forward to watching hockey and having a team to pull for. As a proud American, it's especially fun to root for my countrymen.
I must confess, I wasn't all that optimistic about our chances this year. Canada, Sweden, and Russia seemed to be the three medal favorites, and I figured if the US could make it to the bronze medal game that would be a very solid showing.
But Team USA has gelled. They've become an efficient unit that shares the puck well and plays as a team. Lots of analysts pointed to Team USA's lack of superstars, as opposed to the Russians with Alex Ovechkin and the Canadians with Sidney Crosby. But it may be that our lack of superstars has been a blessing in disguise, allowing the Americans to become a true team rather than just a collection of all-stars.
And a collection of all-stars is just what the Canadians are, by their own admission. That makes them a formidable opponent, to be sure, but as anyone who has watched an NHL all-star game or a NFL pro-bowl can attest, the team chemistry element is often lacking.
The USA has had a great run up until this point. They opened with a solid win, if not an entirely convincing or mistake-free one, over an able Switzerland team. They got by Norway easily. Then, they shocked the world by beating Team Canada 5-3 in front of what is essentially a home crowd for the Canadians. That game, regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's gold medal rematch, will go down in my mind as one of the most exciting games I've ever watched, in any sport.
Tomorrow, the stakes are much, much higher. Canada is hungry...you can see it in the players' faces and hear it in the cheers of the spectators. Canadian fans have been waiting for this moment, this chance to win gold in their national sport on their home turf, since Vancouver was chosen as the 2010 venue way back in 2003. And the Canadians appear to have shaken off most of the jitters that they showed in the preliminary rounds- they smoked the Russians, who many believed were the gold medal favorites, and they held a commanding 3-0 lead against Slovakia last night before allowing the jitters to resurface temporarily. They escaped with a scary 3-2 victory.
So the USA faces a real challenge tomorrow afternoon. Beating as good a team as Canada twice in the course of a week is an incredibly tall order. But the USA is still going strong, as their gritty 2-0 win over the Swiss and their dominant 6-1 obliteration of a solid Finland squad shows.
Can they get one more win and bring home the gold? I hope so. You gotta believe.
And if you consider yourself an American, you better set aside two and a half hours of your day tomorrow to cheer on our guys. Wear red, white, and blue. Put your flag up outside. Start a USA chant in your living room or go outside and start one in your neighborhood.
Enjoy it. This one's special.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Crist/Bayh in 2012?
Now, let me preface this by saying that what I'm about to suggest is pure speculation and therefore not all that useful. In fact, this isn't even speculation, because speculation often implies some level of prediction, and I am not making a serious prediction here. Nor do I necessarily wish this to happen. This is more of an interesting thought exercise than anything else. But it's a fun one.
Oh and by the way, in the event that this actually happens, disregard my opening paragraph disclaimer about this not being a prediction. I'll look like an absolute genius. Genius.
Behold:
I read online today a very credible rumor that the current governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, a Republican, will make the switch to Independent in his bid for US Senate.
For those of you who haven't followed the Senate campaign unfolding in Florida, it's fascinating. Back in 2008, Crist was a very popular governor of an influential battleground state. Crist's endorsement of John McCain in the run-up to the Florida primary helped give McCain a boost and put him over the top in Florida, a key victory that effectively cleared McCain's path to the GOP nomination. Crist's name was subsequently batted about as a possible VP selection, and he was seen by many as a rising star in Republican politics. He was conservative enough (or so it seemed, at the time) for much of the party's base, with a centrist-y, pragmatic streak that appealed to GOP moderates and independents (and perhaps a few Democrats too).
But in 2009, with the unexpected rise of the influential Tea Party movement, Crist's political fortunes changed dramatically. Crist came under intense fire from the energized fiscal conservative wing of the GOP for his public support of the president's "stimulus" bill. He earned the infamous RINO label ("Republican In Name Only") and became a favorite target of conservatives disenchanted with the GOP's agenda of reckless spending during the Bush years. The argument that was made by these conservatives (and is still being made right now) is that Republicans will only win again by returning to their limited government principles, not by becoming "Democrat Lite."
Enter Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida state house. Rubio is a young, charismatic Latino with solid conservative credentials. Upon announcing his primary challenge to Governor Crist in the Senate race, Rubio quickly became a darling of the Tea Party movement, riding the anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-big government wave sweeping the nation. With incredible speed, Rubio went from an unknown long-shot, to a viable contender for the Republican nomination...and now, to the overwhelming favorite to win not only the GOP nomination, but the seat as well (the Democrat, Kendrick Meek, is polling weakly in a prospective head-to-head match-up with Rubio).
A few days ago, some of Crist staffer's left the campaign, claiming that the campaign was "going in a different direction." Now, today, a completely believable rumor about Crist running for Senate as an Independent. It makes sense. Rubio has opened up an insurmountable lead in GOP primary polls against Crist, so Crist can either a) stay the course, lose the Republican primary, and in all likelihood fade away, b) pull an Arlen Specter party switch, run as a Democrat, and in all likelihood lose to Rubio in the general election (or perhaps even to Meek in the Dem. primary), c) drop out of the race immediately and in all likelihood fade away or d) go the Joe Lieberman independent route, make the election into a chaotic, 3-way Rubio-Meek-Crist battle, and hope to peel off enough Democratic voters and hold enough centrist-y Republicans to eke out a win over Rubio. I think that's highly unlikely, too, since Rubio would have the vocal support of virtually every important Republican in the state and country, the vast fund-raising opportunities and turnout operations that come with that, and the ever-important twin pillars of enthusiasm and MO-MEN-TUM.
In other words, if you're Charlie Crist, you're up shit's creek. And yes, you have no paddle. Or do you?
And this is where the fun starts.
Let's say Crist runs as an Independent, as it appears he will. Let's also assume he loses to Rubio in November, which at this point seems like a decent bet, given the polls in Florida, the current political climate, and the mood of the electorate. Finally, let's imagine Crist is determined to keep his political career, now on life-support, alive, because, well, the guy's a politician, and that's what politicians do, God love 'em.
Put yourself in Charlie's shoes. You angered conservative Republican purists, and you probably can't win them back. You'll never win with committed Leftists. But hard-line conservative Republicans and the far-left make up relatively small segments of the populace.
The vast majority of Americans are fed up with BOTH political parties. That is, after all, what the Tea Party movement is all about. But the Tea Partiers are, for the most part, interested in effecting change within the Republican Party rather than through a third party. Let's say they succeed in co-opting the GOP on the presidential level in 2012 and help propel Sarah Palin to the Republican nomination.
Palin, despite being adored by a certain portion of the Republican base, appears to have little appeal among moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats. Barack Obama, if he fails to turn things around, will also have little appeal among moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats come 2012.
And that's when Charlie Crist picks up the phone, calls up moderate Democrat Evan Bayh up in Indiana (at that point, Bayh will be almost two years retired from the Senate), and says something like: "Hey, you know what would be really awesome? If you and I ran for president!"
Naturally, I had to award Crist the top spot and Bayh the VP slot in my ridiculously ridiculous hypothetical scenario because, after all, Charlie was at least a Republican at one point. But if Evan Bayh is the more clever of the two, and he very well might be, perhaps he'll beat Charlie to the punch and Charlie will have to settle for Number 2. That ain't so bad, considering less than two years prior his political career seemed dead.
Let me conclude by recapping the things that have to fall into place for this to happen. Crist must lose the race for the Florida Senate seat. He must desire to keep his political career going. The Republicans must nominate a candidate for president in 2012 who has a devoted throng of core supporters but very little appeal to key portions of their own party as well as independents and moderate Democrats. Barack Obama must continue to govern incompetently and alienate independents as well as moderates in his own party. Evan Bayh must be open to the possibility of running on a ticket with a former Republican, either as president or vice-president. Charlie Crist must be open to the idea of running alongside a (former?) Democrat, either as president of vice-president.
So there you have it. A Crist/Bayh third party campaign for the presidency in 2012 that emphasizes the extent to which partisan rancor and politics-as-usual are causing gridlock in DC and preventing us from solving the problems facing our nation. A campaign that offers voters a third option, a middle way between a right-wing nut-job from Alaska and a pinko commie from Chicago.
You heard it here first.
Oh and by the way, in the event that this actually happens, disregard my opening paragraph disclaimer about this not being a prediction. I'll look like an absolute genius. Genius.
Behold:
I read online today a very credible rumor that the current governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, a Republican, will make the switch to Independent in his bid for US Senate.
For those of you who haven't followed the Senate campaign unfolding in Florida, it's fascinating. Back in 2008, Crist was a very popular governor of an influential battleground state. Crist's endorsement of John McCain in the run-up to the Florida primary helped give McCain a boost and put him over the top in Florida, a key victory that effectively cleared McCain's path to the GOP nomination. Crist's name was subsequently batted about as a possible VP selection, and he was seen by many as a rising star in Republican politics. He was conservative enough (or so it seemed, at the time) for much of the party's base, with a centrist-y, pragmatic streak that appealed to GOP moderates and independents (and perhaps a few Democrats too).
But in 2009, with the unexpected rise of the influential Tea Party movement, Crist's political fortunes changed dramatically. Crist came under intense fire from the energized fiscal conservative wing of the GOP for his public support of the president's "stimulus" bill. He earned the infamous RINO label ("Republican In Name Only") and became a favorite target of conservatives disenchanted with the GOP's agenda of reckless spending during the Bush years. The argument that was made by these conservatives (and is still being made right now) is that Republicans will only win again by returning to their limited government principles, not by becoming "Democrat Lite."
Enter Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida state house. Rubio is a young, charismatic Latino with solid conservative credentials. Upon announcing his primary challenge to Governor Crist in the Senate race, Rubio quickly became a darling of the Tea Party movement, riding the anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-big government wave sweeping the nation. With incredible speed, Rubio went from an unknown long-shot, to a viable contender for the Republican nomination...and now, to the overwhelming favorite to win not only the GOP nomination, but the seat as well (the Democrat, Kendrick Meek, is polling weakly in a prospective head-to-head match-up with Rubio).
A few days ago, some of Crist staffer's left the campaign, claiming that the campaign was "going in a different direction." Now, today, a completely believable rumor about Crist running for Senate as an Independent. It makes sense. Rubio has opened up an insurmountable lead in GOP primary polls against Crist, so Crist can either a) stay the course, lose the Republican primary, and in all likelihood fade away, b) pull an Arlen Specter party switch, run as a Democrat, and in all likelihood lose to Rubio in the general election (or perhaps even to Meek in the Dem. primary), c) drop out of the race immediately and in all likelihood fade away or d) go the Joe Lieberman independent route, make the election into a chaotic, 3-way Rubio-Meek-Crist battle, and hope to peel off enough Democratic voters and hold enough centrist-y Republicans to eke out a win over Rubio. I think that's highly unlikely, too, since Rubio would have the vocal support of virtually every important Republican in the state and country, the vast fund-raising opportunities and turnout operations that come with that, and the ever-important twin pillars of enthusiasm and MO-MEN-TUM.
In other words, if you're Charlie Crist, you're up shit's creek. And yes, you have no paddle. Or do you?
And this is where the fun starts.
Let's say Crist runs as an Independent, as it appears he will. Let's also assume he loses to Rubio in November, which at this point seems like a decent bet, given the polls in Florida, the current political climate, and the mood of the electorate. Finally, let's imagine Crist is determined to keep his political career, now on life-support, alive, because, well, the guy's a politician, and that's what politicians do, God love 'em.
Put yourself in Charlie's shoes. You angered conservative Republican purists, and you probably can't win them back. You'll never win with committed Leftists. But hard-line conservative Republicans and the far-left make up relatively small segments of the populace.
The vast majority of Americans are fed up with BOTH political parties. That is, after all, what the Tea Party movement is all about. But the Tea Partiers are, for the most part, interested in effecting change within the Republican Party rather than through a third party. Let's say they succeed in co-opting the GOP on the presidential level in 2012 and help propel Sarah Palin to the Republican nomination.
Palin, despite being adored by a certain portion of the Republican base, appears to have little appeal among moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats. Barack Obama, if he fails to turn things around, will also have little appeal among moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats come 2012.
And that's when Charlie Crist picks up the phone, calls up moderate Democrat Evan Bayh up in Indiana (at that point, Bayh will be almost two years retired from the Senate), and says something like: "Hey, you know what would be really awesome? If you and I ran for president!"
Naturally, I had to award Crist the top spot and Bayh the VP slot in my ridiculously ridiculous hypothetical scenario because, after all, Charlie was at least a Republican at one point. But if Evan Bayh is the more clever of the two, and he very well might be, perhaps he'll beat Charlie to the punch and Charlie will have to settle for Number 2. That ain't so bad, considering less than two years prior his political career seemed dead.
Let me conclude by recapping the things that have to fall into place for this to happen. Crist must lose the race for the Florida Senate seat. He must desire to keep his political career going. The Republicans must nominate a candidate for president in 2012 who has a devoted throng of core supporters but very little appeal to key portions of their own party as well as independents and moderate Democrats. Barack Obama must continue to govern incompetently and alienate independents as well as moderates in his own party. Evan Bayh must be open to the possibility of running on a ticket with a former Republican, either as president or vice-president. Charlie Crist must be open to the idea of running alongside a (former?) Democrat, either as president of vice-president.
So there you have it. A Crist/Bayh third party campaign for the presidency in 2012 that emphasizes the extent to which partisan rancor and politics-as-usual are causing gridlock in DC and preventing us from solving the problems facing our nation. A campaign that offers voters a third option, a middle way between a right-wing nut-job from Alaska and a pinko commie from Chicago.
You heard it here first.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Harry Reid (Flip-flopper, Nev.)
Yes, as the title of this post suggests, we have a new designation for our country's beloved Senate Majority Leader. Wait, did I say beloved? I meant reviled. His favorability rating in his home state of Nevada stands at 35/58, which is abysmal. I'm actually surprised Reid didn't follow Chris Dodd out the door with a retirement announcement last month to save whatever face he has left, but oh well. More fun for us this November when we get to watch the Majority Leader go down in flames... Hey, maybe he ought to try out a "Negro dialect" and see if that restores his image in the eyes of Nevadans.
If being a complete bumbling idiot was an Olympic sport, we all know Leader Reid would have accrued countless gold medals by now. And guess what? He earned yet another one today, in a statement to CBS News. (link: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6235624.shtml)
Here's Reid's eloquent advice to Republicans who are criticizing the Democrats' new commitment to using a procedure known as reconciliation to circumvent the filibuster's 60 vote threshold: "They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before."
In other words: "Shut up," Reid explained.
Now, first of all, let's clear one thing up. Yes, reconciliation has been used before...but it is a budgetary procedure. It has been used to enact things like tax cuts, not pass comprehensive legislation that would change our health care system. Reid's being dishonest by acting like ramming through a gigantic and unpopular health reform bill that the American people don't want by circumventing the filibuster rule is just business as usual. It's not. Even Olympia Snowe, the most moderate Republican legislator in the Senate who originally helped move the Democrats' health care legislation forward, has said using reconciliation would be a terrible move.
Another senator offered a particularly useful defense of the filibuster and highlighted the perils of ignoring long-standing institutional rules. I'll quote from that senator's floor speech (via Naked Emperor News):
"Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government...
"When legislation is supported by a majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster's delay. But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation, prevents a senator from ramming it through, and gives the American people enough time to join the opposition...
"The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick, it's part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate...The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution, and in our own rules...
"But no, we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this...administration...
"[The Founders] established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control...They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that that's true."
So who's the wise senator who made this floor speech?
These words belong to none other than Harry Reid. He spoke them on the Senate floor on May 18, 2005. They were meant as a criticism of the Republicans in Congress and the Republican in the White House.
And now, fast-forward to 2010, and gone are Reid's concerns about the "check on power" that the filibuster provides. Gone are Reid's hang-ups about "preserv[ing] our limited government." The filibuster used to be indispensable as a mechanism for stopping senators from "ramming through" legislation that is not supported by a majority of Americans, but suddenly Reid has changed his tune. Why? Because the Democrats' health care reform legislation isn't supported by a majority of Americans, as every poll shows.
And you've got to love the part about legislation that's supported by a majority always overcoming a filibuster. Harry, go back and listen to yourself. Or perhaps even you yourself can't bear to listen to your own stupidity.
In the coming days, we'll see if the Democrats are seriously going to try using reconciliation to pass this bill. At this point, it's unclear whether the Democrats have enough votes to pass the bill in the House, of all places. I suspect the use of reconciliation might turn off enough Democrats in the Senate to make it a close vote there too...but apparently Reid has the 50 votes required to do it.
Is this all a bunch of political posturing to save face and blame the health care reform failure on the GOP's obstructionist tactics? Or are the Democrats seriously going to try this?
If being a complete bumbling idiot was an Olympic sport, we all know Leader Reid would have accrued countless gold medals by now. And guess what? He earned yet another one today, in a statement to CBS News. (link: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6235624.shtml)
Here's Reid's eloquent advice to Republicans who are criticizing the Democrats' new commitment to using a procedure known as reconciliation to circumvent the filibuster's 60 vote threshold: "They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before."
In other words: "Shut up," Reid explained.
Now, first of all, let's clear one thing up. Yes, reconciliation has been used before...but it is a budgetary procedure. It has been used to enact things like tax cuts, not pass comprehensive legislation that would change our health care system. Reid's being dishonest by acting like ramming through a gigantic and unpopular health reform bill that the American people don't want by circumventing the filibuster rule is just business as usual. It's not. Even Olympia Snowe, the most moderate Republican legislator in the Senate who originally helped move the Democrats' health care legislation forward, has said using reconciliation would be a terrible move.
Another senator offered a particularly useful defense of the filibuster and highlighted the perils of ignoring long-standing institutional rules. I'll quote from that senator's floor speech (via Naked Emperor News):
"Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government...
"When legislation is supported by a majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster's delay. But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation, prevents a senator from ramming it through, and gives the American people enough time to join the opposition...
"The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick, it's part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate...The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution, and in our own rules...
"But no, we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this...administration...
"[The Founders] established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control...They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that that's true."
So who's the wise senator who made this floor speech?
These words belong to none other than Harry Reid. He spoke them on the Senate floor on May 18, 2005. They were meant as a criticism of the Republicans in Congress and the Republican in the White House.
And now, fast-forward to 2010, and gone are Reid's concerns about the "check on power" that the filibuster provides. Gone are Reid's hang-ups about "preserv[ing] our limited government." The filibuster used to be indispensable as a mechanism for stopping senators from "ramming through" legislation that is not supported by a majority of Americans, but suddenly Reid has changed his tune. Why? Because the Democrats' health care reform legislation isn't supported by a majority of Americans, as every poll shows.
And you've got to love the part about legislation that's supported by a majority always overcoming a filibuster. Harry, go back and listen to yourself. Or perhaps even you yourself can't bear to listen to your own stupidity.
In the coming days, we'll see if the Democrats are seriously going to try using reconciliation to pass this bill. At this point, it's unclear whether the Democrats have enough votes to pass the bill in the House, of all places. I suspect the use of reconciliation might turn off enough Democrats in the Senate to make it a close vote there too...but apparently Reid has the 50 votes required to do it.
Is this all a bunch of political posturing to save face and blame the health care reform failure on the GOP's obstructionist tactics? Or are the Democrats seriously going to try this?
Monday, February 22, 2010
This, My Friends, Is What a Credibility Gap Looks Like...
This New York Times/CBS poll was released earlier this month, but it surfaced again today at the Washington Examiner and I felt it merited a blog post.
The poll, unsurprisingly, shows an American public that has completely lost faith in the current Congress and is growing impatient with the Obama administration. The approval rating for Congress stands at...15%. Ouch. Not a good sign if you're an incumbent, especially if you're a member of the party in power. Come to think of it, Evan Bayh's "I'm quitting" announcement that I wrote about last night occurred shortly after this poll was released. Hmmmmmm...
The news, believe it or not, gets worse for legislators. Seriously. 80% of those polled say that Congress is more interested in pleasing special interest lobbies, while just 13% believe legislators are more focused on serving the people who elected them. And if incumbents weren't frightened enough already, let them feast their eyes on this one: just 8% believe most members of Congress merit reelection in November. We'd probably be one lucky nation if 9 out of every 10 members of Congress lost their reelection bids in November. Of course that's not going to happen- it's common in our politics for people to view their own congressman more favorably than other folks' congressmen. But the numbers are still staggering.
President Obama's approval rating, meanwhile, stands at 46%, with 45% disapproving. Better than Congress, of course, but hardly impressive, especially considering the heights that he reached during and shortly after his inauguration. Yes, the presidential honeymoon wears off for every president, but the precipitous decline of Obama's poll numbers has been pretty extraordinary.
Consider the following. In April 2009, he was at 68%/23% approval/disapproval. By October, a few months after the angry town hall meetings had begun, with the health care debate dragging on, he was still at a solid 56/34 split. By December he was down to 50/39. Now, it's 46/45. The robust 68% approval rating can be chalked up to the honeymoon period, and the decline to 56% approval in the fall can be attributed to the honeymoon wearing off. But the continued dive to the lowest approval rating and the highest disapproval rating yet after more than a full year in office suggests that this president is losing the confidence of Americans.
Remember the enthusiasm back in 2008 after Barack Obama's election and inauguration? Barely? Well, just 3% (!) now say they are enthusiastic about the way things are unraveling in DC, while a whopping 70% are "dissatisfied" or "angry." To quote Sarah Palin: "How's that hopey-changey stuff working out for ya?"
The news is even worse for President Obama when you dig a little deeper into the approval ratings on his handling of specific issues. While he's doing fairly well on terrorism (55/34) and foreign policy (47/34), surprisingly well, in my opinion, considering that civilian trials for terrorists and closing Gitmo don't seem to play well with a majority of Americans, Obama's numbers on the issues that matter most to Americans right now should alarm his advisers. On the economy, voters disapprove 42/52. On health care, the issue on which he has spent so much time and political capital, he's at 35/55. And on the deficit, he's at 31/58.
On the far more vague issue of "change" (gag), the centerpiece of candidate Obama's presidential campaign, Americans give the president underwhelming marks. Just 9% see lots of change, 30% see "some" (and that could mean anything- remember, even John McCain, despite Barack Obama's campaign strategy of painting him as "4 more years of Bush," would have ushered in "some" "change"), while 30% see "not much" (is there any meaningful way to differentiate "not much" from "some"?). 20% see none at all.
In a nation with double-digit unemployment, you'd figure the president would go to great lengths to convince the people that he was serious about job growth. But only 39% think Obama has a plan to create jobs, while 56% doubt it.
Wait, what's that you say? He already had his plan passed? Oh yeahhhh...the stimulus plan. Remember that $787 billion bill that was supposed to create jobs and prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%? Well, just 6% of those polled believe it has created jobs. Stop rubbing your eyes. You read that correctly. 6% believe the stimulus package created jobs. This, despite all of those statements on Sunday talk shows by Obama advisers and Obama himself that the "Recovery Act" saved 2 million jobs.
That, my friends, is a credibility gap.
The poll, unsurprisingly, shows an American public that has completely lost faith in the current Congress and is growing impatient with the Obama administration. The approval rating for Congress stands at...15%. Ouch. Not a good sign if you're an incumbent, especially if you're a member of the party in power. Come to think of it, Evan Bayh's "I'm quitting" announcement that I wrote about last night occurred shortly after this poll was released. Hmmmmmm...
The news, believe it or not, gets worse for legislators. Seriously. 80% of those polled say that Congress is more interested in pleasing special interest lobbies, while just 13% believe legislators are more focused on serving the people who elected them. And if incumbents weren't frightened enough already, let them feast their eyes on this one: just 8% believe most members of Congress merit reelection in November. We'd probably be one lucky nation if 9 out of every 10 members of Congress lost their reelection bids in November. Of course that's not going to happen- it's common in our politics for people to view their own congressman more favorably than other folks' congressmen. But the numbers are still staggering.
President Obama's approval rating, meanwhile, stands at 46%, with 45% disapproving. Better than Congress, of course, but hardly impressive, especially considering the heights that he reached during and shortly after his inauguration. Yes, the presidential honeymoon wears off for every president, but the precipitous decline of Obama's poll numbers has been pretty extraordinary.
Consider the following. In April 2009, he was at 68%/23% approval/disapproval. By October, a few months after the angry town hall meetings had begun, with the health care debate dragging on, he was still at a solid 56/34 split. By December he was down to 50/39. Now, it's 46/45. The robust 68% approval rating can be chalked up to the honeymoon period, and the decline to 56% approval in the fall can be attributed to the honeymoon wearing off. But the continued dive to the lowest approval rating and the highest disapproval rating yet after more than a full year in office suggests that this president is losing the confidence of Americans.
Remember the enthusiasm back in 2008 after Barack Obama's election and inauguration? Barely? Well, just 3% (!) now say they are enthusiastic about the way things are unraveling in DC, while a whopping 70% are "dissatisfied" or "angry." To quote Sarah Palin: "How's that hopey-changey stuff working out for ya?"
The news is even worse for President Obama when you dig a little deeper into the approval ratings on his handling of specific issues. While he's doing fairly well on terrorism (55/34) and foreign policy (47/34), surprisingly well, in my opinion, considering that civilian trials for terrorists and closing Gitmo don't seem to play well with a majority of Americans, Obama's numbers on the issues that matter most to Americans right now should alarm his advisers. On the economy, voters disapprove 42/52. On health care, the issue on which he has spent so much time and political capital, he's at 35/55. And on the deficit, he's at 31/58.
On the far more vague issue of "change" (gag), the centerpiece of candidate Obama's presidential campaign, Americans give the president underwhelming marks. Just 9% see lots of change, 30% see "some" (and that could mean anything- remember, even John McCain, despite Barack Obama's campaign strategy of painting him as "4 more years of Bush," would have ushered in "some" "change"), while 30% see "not much" (is there any meaningful way to differentiate "not much" from "some"?). 20% see none at all.
In a nation with double-digit unemployment, you'd figure the president would go to great lengths to convince the people that he was serious about job growth. But only 39% think Obama has a plan to create jobs, while 56% doubt it.
Wait, what's that you say? He already had his plan passed? Oh yeahhhh...the stimulus plan. Remember that $787 billion bill that was supposed to create jobs and prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%? Well, just 6% of those polled believe it has created jobs. Stop rubbing your eyes. You read that correctly. 6% believe the stimulus package created jobs. This, despite all of those statements on Sunday talk shows by Obama advisers and Obama himself that the "Recovery Act" saved 2 million jobs.
That, my friends, is a credibility gap.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Evan Bayh the Quitter
Several days ago, I was shocked to learn that Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana has chosen to retire from the Senate rather than seek reelection to a third term.
Once upon a time, Bayh was a popular moderate governor of a red state, a rising star in the Democratic party, with a family name that, while never reaching the level of Kennedy or Bush, is a household one in the Midwest (his father, Birch Bayh, was a three-term senator). Bayh was good-looking, smart, had a telegenic family, quite a bit of money, and superb fund-raising connections. He was touted as a possible VP selection in the last three presidential elections.
Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic presidential primaries signaled a leftward shift within the Democratic Party. Obama, despite his post-partisan, "I'm a unifier" campaign rhetoric, was quite clearly a leftist ideologue throughout his entire life, an inconvenient truth that many in the mainstream media went to great lengths to cover up or obscure. The media was pretty successful at doing that, and they were no doubt aided by John McCain's lackluster campaign.
Barack Obama's decision to effectively cede much of his legislative agenda to his fellow leftist, the uncharismatic (boy, am I being charitable or what?) Nancy Pelosi, allowed the Democrat-controlled House to pass big-government bill after big-government bill. Voters got angry, and Obama tried to remain above the fray as much as possible. Obama succeeded in distancing himself enough from the legislative process to piss off the left for not being enough of a leader/failing to bring Hopenchange to DC, but not distancing himself far enough to prevent his approval ratings from cratering worse than any president in the modern era during his first year in office (most significantly among independents, the very voters who put him over the top in 2008). Quite the feat indeed, Barry!
Getting back to the point, though: Evan Bayh, as a centrist Democrat from a mostly-red state (Indiana did go for Obama, barely, in '08), was forced to take tough votes in the Senate on the uber-liberal House legislation. Evan Bayh had a choice: he could throw his lot in with the people of Indiana, who clearly weren't enthused about the big-government agenda being pushed in DC, or he could throw his lot in with Barack Obama. Bayh chose Obama. His support for the Senate health care reform bill cost him with voters in his home state, as polls showed potential Republican candidates running a close race against Bayh. Many therefore speculated that the political climate, which is extremely unfavorable for Democrats, led Bayh to resign. Why risk losing an election, an event that might tarnish your image (Bayh has never lost an election- he was governor for two terms and then senator for two) and damage your political future.
This might be true. Maybe Bayh seriously thought he was in danger of losing in November, which given his name, his history, and his enormous war-chest (he apparently has more than $10 million on hand), is a testament to how bleak the future looks for Democrats.
Now, politicians are often truth-challenged and less than candid, but it's only fair that we give Mr. Bayh the opportunity to explain his decision to quit in his own words. He did that yesterday in the New York Times. In an article entitled "Why I'm Leaving the Senate," Bayh proceeds to discuss the reasons why he believes Congress must be "reformed" and how we ought to go about doing it. Bayh's certainly entitled to his opinion, but the article begs the question: if things have gotten so bad in Congress, and the Senate in particular, would Bayh be in a better position to work for positive reforms from within the walls of the Senate or outside them? Logic would say the best way to overcome the "institutional inertia" that Bayh rails against in the Times piece is from within, not from without.
And anyway, all of this "government is broken" stuff coming from Democrats and their pals in the liberal media is getting way, way, waaaaay old. Think about it: Barack Obama is on record as having argued last autumn that his legislative and executive accomplishments in the first few months of his presidency were the most productive and plentiful in a generation. Does that boast suggest that our institutions are breaking down? Noooope.
George Will, one of my favorite columnists/commentators, said it best (as usual) today on ABC News: "With metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments all have one thing in common: the Left is having trouble enacting its agenda. No one, when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security, said, oh, that's terrible, the government's broken."
Will's exactly right, and Obama's braggadocio about his administration's numerous legislative accomplishments in 2009 proves the point. The "government is broken" trope is code for "damn, why can't we jam through this government takeover of the American health care system" OR "shit, you mean we can't reorder the American economy by levying enormous taxes on carbon emissions?". The fact that two enormously unpopular, big-government bills couldn't be rammed down the throats of Americans who are clearly saying NO (even with the Democratic Party's huge majority in the House AND filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate!!!) isn't indicative of a government that's broken. It's indicative of a party that has totally lost touch with the American electorate it claims to serve.
So, to finish up this admittedly all-over-the-place post, I'm not sure why Evan Bayh quit the Senate. Maybe he really is fed up with the Senate and eager to get into the private sector. Maybe he felt he actually might lose in November and couldn't bear the thought of it. Or, to delve deeper into the realm of speculation, perhaps Bayh is setting up some sort of third party challenge down the road. It could also be that Bayh is banking on Obama losing in 2012 and thinking about casting himself as the pragmatic, centrist Democrat in the 2016 presidential race. Who knows?
Once upon a time, Bayh was a popular moderate governor of a red state, a rising star in the Democratic party, with a family name that, while never reaching the level of Kennedy or Bush, is a household one in the Midwest (his father, Birch Bayh, was a three-term senator). Bayh was good-looking, smart, had a telegenic family, quite a bit of money, and superb fund-raising connections. He was touted as a possible VP selection in the last three presidential elections.
Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic presidential primaries signaled a leftward shift within the Democratic Party. Obama, despite his post-partisan, "I'm a unifier" campaign rhetoric, was quite clearly a leftist ideologue throughout his entire life, an inconvenient truth that many in the mainstream media went to great lengths to cover up or obscure. The media was pretty successful at doing that, and they were no doubt aided by John McCain's lackluster campaign.
Barack Obama's decision to effectively cede much of his legislative agenda to his fellow leftist, the uncharismatic (boy, am I being charitable or what?) Nancy Pelosi, allowed the Democrat-controlled House to pass big-government bill after big-government bill. Voters got angry, and Obama tried to remain above the fray as much as possible. Obama succeeded in distancing himself enough from the legislative process to piss off the left for not being enough of a leader/failing to bring Hopenchange to DC, but not distancing himself far enough to prevent his approval ratings from cratering worse than any president in the modern era during his first year in office (most significantly among independents, the very voters who put him over the top in 2008). Quite the feat indeed, Barry!
Getting back to the point, though: Evan Bayh, as a centrist Democrat from a mostly-red state (Indiana did go for Obama, barely, in '08), was forced to take tough votes in the Senate on the uber-liberal House legislation. Evan Bayh had a choice: he could throw his lot in with the people of Indiana, who clearly weren't enthused about the big-government agenda being pushed in DC, or he could throw his lot in with Barack Obama. Bayh chose Obama. His support for the Senate health care reform bill cost him with voters in his home state, as polls showed potential Republican candidates running a close race against Bayh. Many therefore speculated that the political climate, which is extremely unfavorable for Democrats, led Bayh to resign. Why risk losing an election, an event that might tarnish your image (Bayh has never lost an election- he was governor for two terms and then senator for two) and damage your political future.
This might be true. Maybe Bayh seriously thought he was in danger of losing in November, which given his name, his history, and his enormous war-chest (he apparently has more than $10 million on hand), is a testament to how bleak the future looks for Democrats.
Now, politicians are often truth-challenged and less than candid, but it's only fair that we give Mr. Bayh the opportunity to explain his decision to quit in his own words. He did that yesterday in the New York Times. In an article entitled "Why I'm Leaving the Senate," Bayh proceeds to discuss the reasons why he believes Congress must be "reformed" and how we ought to go about doing it. Bayh's certainly entitled to his opinion, but the article begs the question: if things have gotten so bad in Congress, and the Senate in particular, would Bayh be in a better position to work for positive reforms from within the walls of the Senate or outside them? Logic would say the best way to overcome the "institutional inertia" that Bayh rails against in the Times piece is from within, not from without.
And anyway, all of this "government is broken" stuff coming from Democrats and their pals in the liberal media is getting way, way, waaaaay old. Think about it: Barack Obama is on record as having argued last autumn that his legislative and executive accomplishments in the first few months of his presidency were the most productive and plentiful in a generation. Does that boast suggest that our institutions are breaking down? Noooope.
George Will, one of my favorite columnists/commentators, said it best (as usual) today on ABC News: "With metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments all have one thing in common: the Left is having trouble enacting its agenda. No one, when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security, said, oh, that's terrible, the government's broken."
Will's exactly right, and Obama's braggadocio about his administration's numerous legislative accomplishments in 2009 proves the point. The "government is broken" trope is code for "damn, why can't we jam through this government takeover of the American health care system" OR "shit, you mean we can't reorder the American economy by levying enormous taxes on carbon emissions?". The fact that two enormously unpopular, big-government bills couldn't be rammed down the throats of Americans who are clearly saying NO (even with the Democratic Party's huge majority in the House AND filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate!!!) isn't indicative of a government that's broken. It's indicative of a party that has totally lost touch with the American electorate it claims to serve.
So, to finish up this admittedly all-over-the-place post, I'm not sure why Evan Bayh quit the Senate. Maybe he really is fed up with the Senate and eager to get into the private sector. Maybe he felt he actually might lose in November and couldn't bear the thought of it. Or, to delve deeper into the realm of speculation, perhaps Bayh is setting up some sort of third party challenge down the road. It could also be that Bayh is banking on Obama losing in 2012 and thinking about casting himself as the pragmatic, centrist Democrat in the 2016 presidential race. Who knows?
Thoughts on CPAC 2010...
Over the past few days, the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) was held in Washington D.C. I followed the events/speeches at CPAC via my favorite blog, Hot Air. Ed Morrissey, one of Hot Air's two main bloggers, won Blogger of the Year, an award that he very much deserved. Ed had lots of good interviews with various political figures and activists on the Right, and the Hot Air coverage of the event was terrific. I highly recommend checking it out.
From what I've seen, the gathering was a success. Politicians, alternative media figures (bloggers, radio/TV people), and activists showed up en masse to offer up a healthy amount of criticism aimed at the Left and to speak about the challenges that conservatives face moving forward.
Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from CPAC was the difficulty that the Right faces in projecting a unified front. People like to say the Republican Party is a big tent that (ideally) incorporates social/religious conservatives, small-government libertarians, and national security hawks...but CPAC made it clear that "conservatism" is potentially even a bigger tent than that.
There were social conservatives dedicated to opposing abortion and gay marriage. There were economic conservatives whose main focus is lowering taxes and reducing the size and scope of government. There were national security conservatives who argue for a strong national defense and an aggressive/interventionist foreign policy. There were pragmatic conservatives like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty, who have spent time doing the dirty work of governing and working for bipartisan solutions. There were enthusiastic Ron Paul Revolution supporters, who turned out in large numbers to cheer on their guy when he spoke and propel him to victory in the straw poll. These Paulites tend to be small-government, isolationist libertarians who stand directly opposed to national security hawks like Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich (both of whom ALSO spoke).
So there was considerable diversity at CPAC, and that diversity was simultaneously encouraging and troubling. Encouraging, because it speaks to the fact that the Right has a philosophy of governance that has broad appeal to the American electorate and can elicit support among people of all ages, people with divergent foreign policy views, and social conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Troubling, because the diversity of opinion on the Right means it will be difficult to bring everyone into the Republican fold without alienating key constituencies.
With all the foreign policy differences and the disagreements over social issues, there is one single theme that unites those on the Right: opposition to Barack Obama. Left-wing commentators have repeatedly (and perhaps somewhat disingenuously) painted this opposition as a personal antipathy toward the president driven by racism. That's both untrue and despicable. This isn't about skin color. Barack Obama is the latest ideologue to join what was formerly a triumvirate in American politics: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. All three of these men worked for and achieved drastic expansions in the size and scope of government. But their progressive, big-government agenda has fallen out of favor with the majority of Americans, as Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress found out during the health care debate (and to a lesser extent, the bailouts, the stimulus plan, and the cap and trade legislation).
It is opposition to this president's AGENDA, not his skin color, that has unified the Right in favor of smaller government. We saw this at CPAC.
I'll close with this: there was one moment at CPAC that was for me both a low-light AND a highlight. Ryan Sorba, the leader of a group called the California Young Americans for Freedom, was introduced to talk about his involvement in an investigation of ACORN (a worthy endeavor indeed), but instead Sorba changed the topic and launched into a minute-long, moronic tirade against gay people. He offered up a condemnation of CPAC for inviting a conservative, gay rights group called GOProud to attend the conference. Sorba, who seemed much more like a dumb jock high-school baseball star than a thoughtful college graduate, responded to the jeering audience by stating that "the lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do."
The Sorba spectacle was a sad one. It's the 21st century. Those who oppose gay marriage are unquestionably fighting a losing battle. Times have changed, as the military brass's decision to end Don't Ask Don't Tell shows. Still, we should have a civil debate in this country about legalizing gay marriage, because altering the traditional definition of marriage is a big deal. It needs to be done carefully and respectfully. But what Sorba did was inexcusable. He didn't get up and articulate why he feels gay marriage ought to be opposed. He instead engaged in the same sort of ugly name-calling and shouting that the Left so often does (and I so often criticize).
There's no place for people like Sorba at CPAC or ANY gathering of intelligent Americans who are interested in solving the real problems our nation faces. As far as I'm concerned, those problems are skyrocketing deficits, an enormous national debt, unions that are too powerful, onerous regulatory/tax burdens that are preventing real economic growth, the continued shrinking of our individual liberties, and the very real threat that radical Islamic terrorists pose to our way of life. It's time to stop worrying about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they're not hurting anyone else.
So while Sorba's rant first seemed like a low-light, it was also a highlight, because the crowd at CPAC made it clear that they didn't support his views. At a time when our president and our Congress are threatening to take this country in a direction that so many of us reject, we need to stand together. And if a gay individual wants to stand with us against the disastrous Obama-Pelosi-Reid big-government agenda, it seems the height of folly to tell them, no, we don't want you on our side.
From what I've seen, the gathering was a success. Politicians, alternative media figures (bloggers, radio/TV people), and activists showed up en masse to offer up a healthy amount of criticism aimed at the Left and to speak about the challenges that conservatives face moving forward.
Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from CPAC was the difficulty that the Right faces in projecting a unified front. People like to say the Republican Party is a big tent that (ideally) incorporates social/religious conservatives, small-government libertarians, and national security hawks...but CPAC made it clear that "conservatism" is potentially even a bigger tent than that.
There were social conservatives dedicated to opposing abortion and gay marriage. There were economic conservatives whose main focus is lowering taxes and reducing the size and scope of government. There were national security conservatives who argue for a strong national defense and an aggressive/interventionist foreign policy. There were pragmatic conservatives like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty, who have spent time doing the dirty work of governing and working for bipartisan solutions. There were enthusiastic Ron Paul Revolution supporters, who turned out in large numbers to cheer on their guy when he spoke and propel him to victory in the straw poll. These Paulites tend to be small-government, isolationist libertarians who stand directly opposed to national security hawks like Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich (both of whom ALSO spoke).
So there was considerable diversity at CPAC, and that diversity was simultaneously encouraging and troubling. Encouraging, because it speaks to the fact that the Right has a philosophy of governance that has broad appeal to the American electorate and can elicit support among people of all ages, people with divergent foreign policy views, and social conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Troubling, because the diversity of opinion on the Right means it will be difficult to bring everyone into the Republican fold without alienating key constituencies.
With all the foreign policy differences and the disagreements over social issues, there is one single theme that unites those on the Right: opposition to Barack Obama. Left-wing commentators have repeatedly (and perhaps somewhat disingenuously) painted this opposition as a personal antipathy toward the president driven by racism. That's both untrue and despicable. This isn't about skin color. Barack Obama is the latest ideologue to join what was formerly a triumvirate in American politics: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. All three of these men worked for and achieved drastic expansions in the size and scope of government. But their progressive, big-government agenda has fallen out of favor with the majority of Americans, as Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress found out during the health care debate (and to a lesser extent, the bailouts, the stimulus plan, and the cap and trade legislation).
It is opposition to this president's AGENDA, not his skin color, that has unified the Right in favor of smaller government. We saw this at CPAC.
I'll close with this: there was one moment at CPAC that was for me both a low-light AND a highlight. Ryan Sorba, the leader of a group called the California Young Americans for Freedom, was introduced to talk about his involvement in an investigation of ACORN (a worthy endeavor indeed), but instead Sorba changed the topic and launched into a minute-long, moronic tirade against gay people. He offered up a condemnation of CPAC for inviting a conservative, gay rights group called GOProud to attend the conference. Sorba, who seemed much more like a dumb jock high-school baseball star than a thoughtful college graduate, responded to the jeering audience by stating that "the lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do."
The Sorba spectacle was a sad one. It's the 21st century. Those who oppose gay marriage are unquestionably fighting a losing battle. Times have changed, as the military brass's decision to end Don't Ask Don't Tell shows. Still, we should have a civil debate in this country about legalizing gay marriage, because altering the traditional definition of marriage is a big deal. It needs to be done carefully and respectfully. But what Sorba did was inexcusable. He didn't get up and articulate why he feels gay marriage ought to be opposed. He instead engaged in the same sort of ugly name-calling and shouting that the Left so often does (and I so often criticize).
There's no place for people like Sorba at CPAC or ANY gathering of intelligent Americans who are interested in solving the real problems our nation faces. As far as I'm concerned, those problems are skyrocketing deficits, an enormous national debt, unions that are too powerful, onerous regulatory/tax burdens that are preventing real economic growth, the continued shrinking of our individual liberties, and the very real threat that radical Islamic terrorists pose to our way of life. It's time to stop worrying about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they're not hurting anyone else.
So while Sorba's rant first seemed like a low-light, it was also a highlight, because the crowd at CPAC made it clear that they didn't support his views. At a time when our president and our Congress are threatening to take this country in a direction that so many of us reject, we need to stand together. And if a gay individual wants to stand with us against the disastrous Obama-Pelosi-Reid big-government agenda, it seems the height of folly to tell them, no, we don't want you on our side.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Tiger
Wow, I haven't posted on here for over a week, which is disappointing.
I'm fresh off a two-day trip to Manhattan to see Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck with family and friends. Great times.
Yesterday, as probably everyone already knows, Tiger Woods made his highly anticipated first public statement about his numerous affairs. It seems like everyone I talk to, golf fan or not, has an opinion on Tiger and "the speech," so I figure it's my duty to join the fray.
First off, I think it was an important step for Tiger to come out of hibernation and get in front of the cameras. Tiger's right that this is first and foremost a matter between husband and wife, but as one of the most dominant, widely-celebrated professional athletes of our time, he's become an icon and a role model for lots of young kids. Whether or not Tiger wanted to become a role model is irrelevant; it simply comes with the territory. And he failed miserably at it.
Yesterday, he admitted that. But here's the thing: anyone can get in front of a camera and read a prepared statement. Tiger Woods stood in front of a tiny, sympathetic audience, read straight off of a piece of paper for 13 minutes, hugged his mother, and walked out of the room. He fielded no questions. He elaborated no further than he saw fit. That's fine, that's Tiger's prerogative, but it was no major achievement.
I went back and watched the speech again today, and I came away from this second viewing with my mind changed a bit: yesterday I thought the address was bad. I now think it was downright terrible. He was wooden, robotic...to the point where you had to wonder whether he had chopped up some onions before walking to the podium in order to generate the mistiness in his eyes.
As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words, and this is a case in point. Tiger said a lot of things yesterday, but what matters are his actions from this point forward. Will he really recommit himself to his wife and his two little children, who he has hurt so badly with his selfish, disgusting actions? Is he really genuinely contrite? And as a golf fan, I also have to wonder whether he will truly seek to change his on-course behavior, which has all too often been petulant, ungracious, and disrespectful of the game, which as golfers are wont to say, is a "gentleman's" one.
In the interests of full disclosure, for those who don't know, I've never been a Tiger Woods fan. One of the reasons I root for ABT (Anybody But Tiger) is because I usually prefer the underdog in any sport, unless it's MY team (and hey, let's face it, when you're a Mets, Jets, and former Whalers fan, your team usually is the underdog anyway). But the main reason I never rooted for or liked Tiger is because of his demeanor on the course, a point that class-act Tom Watson made a few weeks back when he urged Tiger to not only make amends in his personal life but to manifest more openly and regularly a respect for the game in his professional endeavors. Kudos to Tom Watson for that statement.
Tiger fans usually engage in a kneejerk defense of Woods's club-throwing and cursing, brushing it aside because "he's just such a competitor" or "he settles for nothing less than perfection," but that's just a cop-out. There have been many golfing greats down through the years who played the game it was supposed to be played. They were role models. I'm talking about Arnold Palmer. Jack Nicklaus. Tom Watson. Gary Player. The list goes on, and while Tiger Woods has certainly earned a spot next to these men on the greatest golfers of all-time list, he is most certainly not worthy of a place anywhere near these guys on the role models/class-act list. And that's a shame.
So maybe yesterday was the beginning of Tiger growing up and embracing his status within the golfing world and, more broadly, the sports world. Time will tell. He said a lot of the right things, which he's done for much of his career, but his actions thus far have fallen far, far short of the mark both on the course and off of it. Does he really mean it this time? Can Tiger Woods change for the better?
I'm fresh off a two-day trip to Manhattan to see Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck with family and friends. Great times.
Yesterday, as probably everyone already knows, Tiger Woods made his highly anticipated first public statement about his numerous affairs. It seems like everyone I talk to, golf fan or not, has an opinion on Tiger and "the speech," so I figure it's my duty to join the fray.
First off, I think it was an important step for Tiger to come out of hibernation and get in front of the cameras. Tiger's right that this is first and foremost a matter between husband and wife, but as one of the most dominant, widely-celebrated professional athletes of our time, he's become an icon and a role model for lots of young kids. Whether or not Tiger wanted to become a role model is irrelevant; it simply comes with the territory. And he failed miserably at it.
Yesterday, he admitted that. But here's the thing: anyone can get in front of a camera and read a prepared statement. Tiger Woods stood in front of a tiny, sympathetic audience, read straight off of a piece of paper for 13 minutes, hugged his mother, and walked out of the room. He fielded no questions. He elaborated no further than he saw fit. That's fine, that's Tiger's prerogative, but it was no major achievement.
I went back and watched the speech again today, and I came away from this second viewing with my mind changed a bit: yesterday I thought the address was bad. I now think it was downright terrible. He was wooden, robotic...to the point where you had to wonder whether he had chopped up some onions before walking to the podium in order to generate the mistiness in his eyes.
As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words, and this is a case in point. Tiger said a lot of things yesterday, but what matters are his actions from this point forward. Will he really recommit himself to his wife and his two little children, who he has hurt so badly with his selfish, disgusting actions? Is he really genuinely contrite? And as a golf fan, I also have to wonder whether he will truly seek to change his on-course behavior, which has all too often been petulant, ungracious, and disrespectful of the game, which as golfers are wont to say, is a "gentleman's" one.
In the interests of full disclosure, for those who don't know, I've never been a Tiger Woods fan. One of the reasons I root for ABT (Anybody But Tiger) is because I usually prefer the underdog in any sport, unless it's MY team (and hey, let's face it, when you're a Mets, Jets, and former Whalers fan, your team usually is the underdog anyway). But the main reason I never rooted for or liked Tiger is because of his demeanor on the course, a point that class-act Tom Watson made a few weeks back when he urged Tiger to not only make amends in his personal life but to manifest more openly and regularly a respect for the game in his professional endeavors. Kudos to Tom Watson for that statement.
Tiger fans usually engage in a kneejerk defense of Woods's club-throwing and cursing, brushing it aside because "he's just such a competitor" or "he settles for nothing less than perfection," but that's just a cop-out. There have been many golfing greats down through the years who played the game it was supposed to be played. They were role models. I'm talking about Arnold Palmer. Jack Nicklaus. Tom Watson. Gary Player. The list goes on, and while Tiger Woods has certainly earned a spot next to these men on the greatest golfers of all-time list, he is most certainly not worthy of a place anywhere near these guys on the role models/class-act list. And that's a shame.
So maybe yesterday was the beginning of Tiger growing up and embracing his status within the golfing world and, more broadly, the sports world. Time will tell. He said a lot of the right things, which he's done for much of his career, but his actions thus far have fallen far, far short of the mark both on the course and off of it. Does he really mean it this time? Can Tiger Woods change for the better?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
