If you ever tried to read anything about campaign finance reform (CFR), you probably gave up because you couldn’t figure it out. If you ever tried to sit down and actually study the reasons behind campaign finance reform, you definitely gave up because you couldn’t figure it out. The vast majority of Americans are against CFR, although very, very few can cogently explain their position beyond the clichés “There’s too much money in politics!” and “Special interests decide elections!” arguments. But there is one thing everyone on both sides agree on – CFR laws are not working. The slew of CFR laws has not stemmed one dime from entering a candidate’s coffer.
Yours truly HAS actually spent long hours studying CFR, and part of my day job is working with my company’s Political Action Committee (PAC) that donates funds to some members of Congress. I have learned many things about CFR and can tell you the primary reason why CFR does not work is an error in the very idea of “taking the money out of politics.” What that noble fact overlooks is that we live in a capitalist society, and anyone who has tried to start a business or works at a nonprofit knows that fundraising is absolutely essential to survival. You cannot take the money out of politics the same way you cannot take the money, or the necessity of money, out of Wall Street, non-profits or any business from a small startup to a Fortune 100. And that is why CFR laws do not work and never will work.
But since many Americans have a negative view of Washington, dislike negative political ads and often hear about financial waste and excess in the government, the idea of campaign finance reform is a concept that elicits a positive reaction with people who only follow politics and elections casually. I believe that because CFR is constructed under an unrealistic notion that money will be mitigated from politics, it has led to a series of unintended consequences that have not only failed to stem the money tide, but also led to serious issues that lie at the heart of how politicians are elected and how they communicate with the public.
CFR is an emotional topic, and you hear groups like Common Cause, PIRGs and even some politicians say claims like “Elections are for sale” and “Big money in politics undermines the public interest!” Like many emotional claims, these are made without understanding the situation and I have never seen any of these backed up by hard proof, a single footnote or simple empirical evidence. In the postings to come, I will explain how all of these claims are untrue, and how the unintended consequences of CFR have actually helped millionaires, incumbents, and undermined the First Amendment.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
Reading the Post-Election Tea Leaves
With the recent elections a week removed, I’ve read and heard Republicans saying their victories in New Jersey and Virginia mean the party is back in action. I’ve also read and heard Democrats saying their victory in upstate New York means their party is back in action and the conservative firebrands have been repudiated. None of it really means anything, because it’s the same thing I hear after every non-Presidential election. Here’s what it does mean:
With all due respect (and congratulations) to Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, it would have been pretty difficult to lose to incumbent governors Jon Corzine and Tim Kaine. The Virginia election outcome was never in doubt, and the only strange thing about New Jersey was how close it was. But the outcomes had nothing to do with party, anti-GOP or anti-Obama mobilization. What did matter was (1) a reminder about what makes elections in America unique, (2) all politics remain local, and (3) anti-incumbency ruled the day; the party in charge was irrelevant.
The U.S. is unique among world democracies because it encourages voters to vote for the candidate instead of the party. There are partisans on both sides that will vote for any candidate that calls themselves a Democrat or Republican, but those are the minorities. Here you can vote for whomever you want, which accounts for the huge number of Americans that call themselves independents and usually end up deciding races. In Great Britain, India, Israel and most other democracies everyone belongs to a party and votes for the party they belong to (ballots in other countries sometimes do not have candidate names on them) and the head of that party becomes the man or woman in charge. But it’s different here. Voters can vote for their choice and cross party lines, and you can have candidates who are pro-life Democrats or pro-government health care Republicans.
Second, Tip O’Neill remains correct – all politics is local. I’ve continually ranted about how social conservatives are driving the pro-business and social libertarians out of the Republican Party, especially in the Northeast. So look again at Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell – not only did they not run on the socially conservative dogma espoused by the national GOP, but they rejected offers from the Sarah Palins, Glen Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world to help. They ran respectful campaigns and focused on local issues like property taxes in New Jersey and unemployment in Virginia. There was none of the ridiculous tea parties or equating Obama to Hitler rhetoric we’ve seen elsewhere, because they knew that would have the wrong effect in their states. In contrast, the effect of ignoring local politics in New York’s 23rd district has been well-documented and when a social conservative bumped the correct candidate off the ticket, the GOP lost a seat that had been Republican since 1852. That’s what happens when you ignore the local angle, and think voters place the party in higher esteem than the candidate.
Finally if you look at all three races it was the incumbent who lost (you could view the 23rd seat as a Republican incumbent) and Mayor Bloomberg of NYC barely squeaked by in what was supposed to be a cakewalk. In case you missed it, voters are pretty mad across the country and when unemployment is high, personal finance accounts are low and the economy is in a general rut incumbents have their work cut out for them. It’s not an anti-GOP or anti-Obama fervor hitting the voters, it’s an anti-political system, vote-the-bums-out policy that is targeting everyone in office. This is the anger fueling the votes, and politicians of every stripe and ideology ignore it at their peril.
With all due respect (and congratulations) to Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, it would have been pretty difficult to lose to incumbent governors Jon Corzine and Tim Kaine. The Virginia election outcome was never in doubt, and the only strange thing about New Jersey was how close it was. But the outcomes had nothing to do with party, anti-GOP or anti-Obama mobilization. What did matter was (1) a reminder about what makes elections in America unique, (2) all politics remain local, and (3) anti-incumbency ruled the day; the party in charge was irrelevant.
The U.S. is unique among world democracies because it encourages voters to vote for the candidate instead of the party. There are partisans on both sides that will vote for any candidate that calls themselves a Democrat or Republican, but those are the minorities. Here you can vote for whomever you want, which accounts for the huge number of Americans that call themselves independents and usually end up deciding races. In Great Britain, India, Israel and most other democracies everyone belongs to a party and votes for the party they belong to (ballots in other countries sometimes do not have candidate names on them) and the head of that party becomes the man or woman in charge. But it’s different here. Voters can vote for their choice and cross party lines, and you can have candidates who are pro-life Democrats or pro-government health care Republicans.
Second, Tip O’Neill remains correct – all politics is local. I’ve continually ranted about how social conservatives are driving the pro-business and social libertarians out of the Republican Party, especially in the Northeast. So look again at Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell – not only did they not run on the socially conservative dogma espoused by the national GOP, but they rejected offers from the Sarah Palins, Glen Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world to help. They ran respectful campaigns and focused on local issues like property taxes in New Jersey and unemployment in Virginia. There was none of the ridiculous tea parties or equating Obama to Hitler rhetoric we’ve seen elsewhere, because they knew that would have the wrong effect in their states. In contrast, the effect of ignoring local politics in New York’s 23rd district has been well-documented and when a social conservative bumped the correct candidate off the ticket, the GOP lost a seat that had been Republican since 1852. That’s what happens when you ignore the local angle, and think voters place the party in higher esteem than the candidate.
Finally if you look at all three races it was the incumbent who lost (you could view the 23rd seat as a Republican incumbent) and Mayor Bloomberg of NYC barely squeaked by in what was supposed to be a cakewalk. In case you missed it, voters are pretty mad across the country and when unemployment is high, personal finance accounts are low and the economy is in a general rut incumbents have their work cut out for them. It’s not an anti-GOP or anti-Obama fervor hitting the voters, it’s an anti-political system, vote-the-bums-out policy that is targeting everyone in office. This is the anger fueling the votes, and politicians of every stripe and ideology ignore it at their peril.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
I Think I Remember Rock and Roll Radio
When the once mighty rock station WBCN in Boston disappeared this August, the reply from many was a disappointed shrug – disappointment in how one of the most important rock stations in the country was being transformed into a sports station by CBS, the corporation that owned it, and shrugs in that nobody was really surprised. If anything, many of the comments I’ve linked to ask why it took so long to happen.
This is not a eulogy for rock and roll music. Rock and roll is doing just fine, thank you. New bands like The Mars Volta, The Gaslight Anthem, Mastodon, Death Cab for Cutie and The Foo Fighters show the now-middle aged rock genre remains vibrant. Those are my choices for good rock music these days, and your opinion may differ. But what almost all these bands have in common is that you almost never hear them on the traditional radio stations or MTV. You can find them on the Internet, satellite radio and on tour, but almost never the way you used to.
When I came to Boston in 1987, EVERYONE listened to WBCN. Sure, it was a different time with fewer choices but within a week of being here my ears were opened to all the exciting music Boston had to offer. For every Bruce Springsteen song, they also played one by a great local band called Scruffy the Cat. Much has been written about WBCN being one of the first to break through Boston bands like Aerosmith, the J. Geils Band, The Cars and Til Tuesday. It was the classic story of local stations customizing their playlist to help local bands get known in their hometowns. Since Boston was, to paraphrase Spinal Tap, such a big college town, pushing local rock bands playing at local clubs went over well. WBCN’s practice was noticed by other bands on the edge of stardom, and whenever Bono and Sting played local arenas they always thanked WBCN for being one of the first stations to push them.
Eventually WBCN became part of the CBS empire, and you can guess what happened afterward. By the early 90s the local bands had vanished and it had basically become a classic rock station, playing the same 50 songs by Led Zeppelin and The Doors every other rock station plays. Rock music and the younger generation’s tastes had changed, but WBCN refused to acknowledge it. After the second Woodstock in 1994 there was a reboot, as if the suits finally realized new music existed, and the station went “alternative” just as alternative was becoming the mainstream. Within a few years it was playing the same 50 songs by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana and U2 again and again until CBS pulled the plug. Many were understandably angry.
But in hindsight, I think it was not only a mercy killing, but also pretty symbolic of the whole rut traditional rock radio finds itself in. You can’t goof on classic rock stations for making you sick of “Stairway to Heaven” when so-called modern rock stations do the same things with Pearl Jam’s “Daughter.” That song is now 16 years old, and Pearl Jam hasn’t really been relevant since it came out. Even if you like classic rock, do they play any new music by Dylan, Neil Young, Bowie and Springsteen or just the same old songs again and again?
Part of the problem is that rock is still considered rebellious music for younger generations and the bands being played on the radio are anything but that. It’s also that the programming and playlist decisions are made by middle aged men who are likely old farts when it comes to new music. But what has also happened is the concept of rock music and rock stars themselves have transformed, and the suits behind the rock stations are still mired in their past glory days with their heads in the sand.
The legendary rock journalist Stephen Davis has just come out with a new book on Guns n’ Roses called Watch You Bleed: The Saga of Guns n’ Roses. What Davis nails is that Gn’R was actually the last prototype of the classic rock and roll band. Remember the old Guns n’ Roses? It was the classic tale of poor band gets big, egos get bigger, excess consumes the band, members can’t get along until a classic implosion. All the while, the classic clichés of sex, drugs, lead-singer-as-petulant-idol/rebel and rags to riches worked. Guns n’ Roses also had the classic rock lineup of five guys, including the two guitarists and charismatic frontman.
Of course grunge changed all that and while grunge has come and gone, its changes to the classic rock music and rock band remain. Davis actually isn’t surprised the classic hard rock movement ended with Gn’R, as he writes all musical movements come to an end. But as I said, rock itself is just fine – you only need to look harder. And don’t look for it on commercial radio. WBCN’s demise is indeed the symbolic end of what became a lost era.
This is not a eulogy for rock and roll music. Rock and roll is doing just fine, thank you. New bands like The Mars Volta, The Gaslight Anthem, Mastodon, Death Cab for Cutie and The Foo Fighters show the now-middle aged rock genre remains vibrant. Those are my choices for good rock music these days, and your opinion may differ. But what almost all these bands have in common is that you almost never hear them on the traditional radio stations or MTV. You can find them on the Internet, satellite radio and on tour, but almost never the way you used to.
When I came to Boston in 1987, EVERYONE listened to WBCN. Sure, it was a different time with fewer choices but within a week of being here my ears were opened to all the exciting music Boston had to offer. For every Bruce Springsteen song, they also played one by a great local band called Scruffy the Cat. Much has been written about WBCN being one of the first to break through Boston bands like Aerosmith, the J. Geils Band, The Cars and Til Tuesday. It was the classic story of local stations customizing their playlist to help local bands get known in their hometowns. Since Boston was, to paraphrase Spinal Tap, such a big college town, pushing local rock bands playing at local clubs went over well. WBCN’s practice was noticed by other bands on the edge of stardom, and whenever Bono and Sting played local arenas they always thanked WBCN for being one of the first stations to push them.
Eventually WBCN became part of the CBS empire, and you can guess what happened afterward. By the early 90s the local bands had vanished and it had basically become a classic rock station, playing the same 50 songs by Led Zeppelin and The Doors every other rock station plays. Rock music and the younger generation’s tastes had changed, but WBCN refused to acknowledge it. After the second Woodstock in 1994 there was a reboot, as if the suits finally realized new music existed, and the station went “alternative” just as alternative was becoming the mainstream. Within a few years it was playing the same 50 songs by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana and U2 again and again until CBS pulled the plug. Many were understandably angry.
But in hindsight, I think it was not only a mercy killing, but also pretty symbolic of the whole rut traditional rock radio finds itself in. You can’t goof on classic rock stations for making you sick of “Stairway to Heaven” when so-called modern rock stations do the same things with Pearl Jam’s “Daughter.” That song is now 16 years old, and Pearl Jam hasn’t really been relevant since it came out. Even if you like classic rock, do they play any new music by Dylan, Neil Young, Bowie and Springsteen or just the same old songs again and again?
Part of the problem is that rock is still considered rebellious music for younger generations and the bands being played on the radio are anything but that. It’s also that the programming and playlist decisions are made by middle aged men who are likely old farts when it comes to new music. But what has also happened is the concept of rock music and rock stars themselves have transformed, and the suits behind the rock stations are still mired in their past glory days with their heads in the sand.
The legendary rock journalist Stephen Davis has just come out with a new book on Guns n’ Roses called Watch You Bleed: The Saga of Guns n’ Roses. What Davis nails is that Gn’R was actually the last prototype of the classic rock and roll band. Remember the old Guns n’ Roses? It was the classic tale of poor band gets big, egos get bigger, excess consumes the band, members can’t get along until a classic implosion. All the while, the classic clichés of sex, drugs, lead-singer-as-petulant-idol/rebel and rags to riches worked. Guns n’ Roses also had the classic rock lineup of five guys, including the two guitarists and charismatic frontman.
Of course grunge changed all that and while grunge has come and gone, its changes to the classic rock music and rock band remain. Davis actually isn’t surprised the classic hard rock movement ended with Gn’R, as he writes all musical movements come to an end. But as I said, rock itself is just fine – you only need to look harder. And don’t look for it on commercial radio. WBCN’s demise is indeed the symbolic end of what became a lost era.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Putting Out Fires with Gasoline
Most kids know that words will never hurt them. Can someone please tell the White House?
Obama’s press office has decided to treat Fox News like an enemy, saying it is “not a legitimate news organization but a wing of the Republican Party.” Fox News, the undisputed leader in cable news whose ratings are up 20%, probably couldn’t be happier. And you’d think the guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize wouldn’t want to add a war with the media to his other wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Doesn’t all this seem a little beneath an American president and his office? There hasn’t been a single one in history that didn’t go through the media gauntlet unscathed. Look back 100 years ago to the age of yellow journalism and you’ll find things that would shock Glen Beck.
The White House posturing conjures up dozens of worn but true clichés: Never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Never let them see you sweat. Don’t let it get under your skin, etc. Has the White House forgotten how low the public regards the media? Outside of a very noisy minority of diehard partisans, does anyone take Glen Beck seriously? What would the president gain by giving him more attention than he deserves? Will it ever come out unspoiled in a mud wrestling match with Sean Hannity?
But there’s an even bigger mistake the White House is making. George W. Bush actually said it best. One day in Texas he invited some media to a barbecue. An editor there asked that if he didn’t read the papers, how would he know what the public thinks? Bush said, “You’re making a huge assumption – that you represent what the public thinks.”
If Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly and the rest of Fox News’ on-air talent had that much pull, how come McCain isn’t in the White House? In fact, why isn’t Fred Thompson in the White House? Limbaugh and his cronies pushed for Thompson, then Romney, then Hillary Clinton after McCain won the nomination. I don’t doubt the ratings of these guys, I’m sure they have plenty of fans and they make for good TV. But never think elections and bill debate are won and lost in the media. Don’t think Fox News represents the Republican Party. Obama needs to work with and influence the Republican Party, not Fox News. If you’re reading this and you like Rush Limbaugh, do you do every single thing he tells you to do and agree with everything he says? Of course not. Why on earth would the White House believe it?
I’ve worked with the media for years and can tell you that George W. Bush is absolutely right. Not only does the media not represent the public, but people outside the media who drink that Kool Aid are in serious trouble when it comes to gauging public opinion. It’s been disheartening to watch Republican leaders kowtow to people like Limbaugh and Hannity who they believe represents their Party, their voters and the so-called “Real America.” It’s beyond baffling to watch the White House press corps make the same mistake.
Obama’s press office has decided to treat Fox News like an enemy, saying it is “not a legitimate news organization but a wing of the Republican Party.” Fox News, the undisputed leader in cable news whose ratings are up 20%, probably couldn’t be happier. And you’d think the guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize wouldn’t want to add a war with the media to his other wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Doesn’t all this seem a little beneath an American president and his office? There hasn’t been a single one in history that didn’t go through the media gauntlet unscathed. Look back 100 years ago to the age of yellow journalism and you’ll find things that would shock Glen Beck.
The White House posturing conjures up dozens of worn but true clichés: Never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Never let them see you sweat. Don’t let it get under your skin, etc. Has the White House forgotten how low the public regards the media? Outside of a very noisy minority of diehard partisans, does anyone take Glen Beck seriously? What would the president gain by giving him more attention than he deserves? Will it ever come out unspoiled in a mud wrestling match with Sean Hannity?
But there’s an even bigger mistake the White House is making. George W. Bush actually said it best. One day in Texas he invited some media to a barbecue. An editor there asked that if he didn’t read the papers, how would he know what the public thinks? Bush said, “You’re making a huge assumption – that you represent what the public thinks.”
If Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly and the rest of Fox News’ on-air talent had that much pull, how come McCain isn’t in the White House? In fact, why isn’t Fred Thompson in the White House? Limbaugh and his cronies pushed for Thompson, then Romney, then Hillary Clinton after McCain won the nomination. I don’t doubt the ratings of these guys, I’m sure they have plenty of fans and they make for good TV. But never think elections and bill debate are won and lost in the media. Don’t think Fox News represents the Republican Party. Obama needs to work with and influence the Republican Party, not Fox News. If you’re reading this and you like Rush Limbaugh, do you do every single thing he tells you to do and agree with everything he says? Of course not. Why on earth would the White House believe it?
I’ve worked with the media for years and can tell you that George W. Bush is absolutely right. Not only does the media not represent the public, but people outside the media who drink that Kool Aid are in serious trouble when it comes to gauging public opinion. It’s been disheartening to watch Republican leaders kowtow to people like Limbaugh and Hannity who they believe represents their Party, their voters and the so-called “Real America.” It’s beyond baffling to watch the White House press corps make the same mistake.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Dave's Mighty 2009 NFL Predictions
Has it only been seven months since the great sport of football last graced our televisions? Do you remember looking back on my predictions that stated the Arizona Cardinals would be NFC Champions at 9-7? That Kerry Collins would come off the bench and lead Tennessee to a 13-3 record? You don’t? Well, how about where I compared Matt Millen to a box of rocks and said Detroit had nothing to be proud of? I nailed that one.
If you haven’t done so, it’s time to stimulate the economy like I did and start watching football on a REALLY BIG TV. I can even read the player’s tattoos.
So here we go, along with my dark horse picks. Just a warning: My political musings are usually more accurate than my NFL ones.
NFC EAST
1) NY Giants: You’re going to notice a trend this year. Good teams have good defenses and good running games. Bad teams have neither. The Giants are a study in the former. Is there a better offensive or defensive line in football? Brandon Jacobs loves to hit people, and he’s not even on defense. Eli Manning is streaky, but tends to just squeak through in the clutch.
2) Philadelphia: Wild Card Team. I’ll say this for Philly this year – they won’t be boring. I don’t think the players have the slightest idea what’s going to happen if McNabb enters a funk and Vick is on the bench. That said, I’m not sure how much gas Westbrook has left, and Jim Johnson’s death leaves a mighty big void.
3) Dallas: There’s no T.O., but they’re not getting younger, especially on the offensive line. They’ve got some talent at RB with Marion Barber and Felix Jones (when Barber’s healthy) and DeMarcus Ware is great, but after Ware the defense kind of slacks off. Look out Wade!
4) Washington: The good news is they have Albert Haynesworth, although Dan Snyder overpaid as usual. But it’s not good when Snyder tries to dump the QB that the coach is trying to build around. If Jason Campbell heats up the Skins might surprise us, but there’s not enough pop in the team.
NFC NORTH
1) Green Bay: Surprise! The Packers were 6-10 last year but Aaron Rodgers played well and the offense is great, with Greg Jennings and Ryan Grant. They’ve switched to the 3-4 defense which might take a game or two to settle in but will provide more flexible to LBs Nick Barnett and AJ Hawk. And as nice as the people in Wisconsin are, don’t you just know what’s going to happen when Farve shows up?
2) Minnesota: Wild Card Team. Yes, Farve makes the Vikings better. Yes, everyone has forgotten how he single-handedly destroyed the Jets late last year with bad mistakes. The defense is actually pretty good, provided their best player – Pat Williams – doesn’t get suspended.
3) Chicago: Lots of people are picking the Bears as their NFC Champion because of Jay Cutler. This is the same Jay Cutler that led the Broncos to a mighty 8-8, and that’s when he actually had someone good to throw to. Cutler won’t solve the Bears’ defensive and injury woes either.
4) Detroit: For years I laughed at Detroit because of Matt Millen’s bonehead mind, decisions, leadership, scouting and overall football knowledge. But when the Lions finally got what they deserved and threw him out, now I actually feel bad for them and want them to win. I’m tempted to make them my Dark Horse team because if they win three games, they’re the most improved. I’ll resist the temptation, but three wins sounds right.
NFC SOUTH
1) Atlanta: It will be tougher this year and this is a good division. But there are too many new stars on this team; Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, Roddy White on offense (plus Tony Gonzalez joined), plus John Abraham, Mike Peterson and Curtis Lofton on defense. Atlanta just seems hungrier than the other teams here.
2) New Orleans: No problem on offense with Drew Brees gunslinging, but the defense stinks more than a Bourbon Street gutter. And their best defensive players – Will Smith and Charles Grant – will likely be suspended for four games. That’s too big a hole to climb out of.
3) Carolina: Tough ride for QB Jake Delhomme. He’s solid, but I think the beating they took in the playoffs last year still stings. A great RB with DeAngelo Williams and a mean defensive line, but they lack the eye of the tiger.
4) Tampa Bay: It’s not a good sign when I couldn’t remember the last team in this division. When I did, I also remembered the new offensive coordinator got fired last week, longtime defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin is gone and Byron Leftwich is the starting QB. Next!
NFC WEST
1) Arizona: True, I did not pick the Cardinals to win the division last year but they were my dark horse team. And in what could be the weakest division, another 9-7 season could clinch it again. Offensively the Cards are fun to watch and Kurt Warner is the perfect QB for the spread offense they use, although the running could be better. Defense is another story, but when your division opponents are the three teams below how good do you need to be?
2) San Francisco: Dark Horse Team. I’m picking the Niners to surprise a few teams and finish around .500 because of coach Mike Singletary. If he is half as scary on the sidelines as he was on the field, the Niners will not only fear for their lives but he will become the meanest player to become a good coach since Jack Del Rio. He’s not afraid to bench starters and probably screams louder than anyone else in the locker room. It’s not good when the starting QB is someone named Shaun Hill, but Frank Gore is the RB and there’s signs of life on defense.
3) Seattle: No team got hurt more last year than the Seahawks. QB Matt Hasselback returns and can throw to TJ Houshmandzadeh. The defense is good. But the starting RB is Julius Jones.
4) St. Louis: Best of luck to former Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo on his new gig. It’s good there’s no pressure on him this year, because turning the Rams defense into something respectable is at least 365 days away. RB Steven Jackson can’t do it all, and I think Marc Bulger has been quarterback since Kurt Warner left town.
AFC EAST
1) New England: Not a tough pick, but methinks trouble looms ahead on defense. Longtime leaders Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour, Rodney Harrison, Teddy Bruschi and Junior Seau are gone. That said, Belichick is good at making lemonade and Brady is back with Wes Welker, Randy Moss and Joey Galloway. The league’s best offense should overcome.
2) Miami: Two reasons they won’t repeat. First, they went from a last place schedule to a first place schedule, and second, everyone’s ready for the Wildcat now. But the offensive line is good and Ronnie Brown is a great RB.
3) NY Jets: The focus is on new QB Mark Sanchez (who, by the way, only has WR Jerricho Cotchery to throw at. Hello, double coverage?). But look at the rest of the Jets team; they’re…good. Not great, but good. RB Thomas Jones got 1500 yards but is 31. DT Kris Jenkins is good but won’t start anyone’s fantasy league.
4) Buffalo: Everyone is excited about T.O. and the no-huddle offense. When Buffalo last run a no-huddle, they had the league’s best offensive line and Jim Kelly was QB. This time they have the league’s worst offensive line and Trent Edwards is QB. RB Marshawn Lynch is suspended for three or four games. Looks like another long winter.
AFC NORTH
1) Pittsburgh: Not a tough pick, part two. Everyone is back from last year, but I’m curious to see if teams try to spread the Steelers mighty defense across the field this time after the Cardinals almost pulled it off in the Super Bowl. How cool are James Harrison and Troy Polamalu?
2) Baltimore: Wild Card Team. Ferocious defense? Check (Haloti Ngati, Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs). Good QB? Check (Joe Flacco). Good RB? Maybe (Ray Rice and Laron McClain, no relation to the Arizona senator). If one of those RBs shines, look out Pittsburgh.
3) Cincinnati: Well, there’s Carson Palmer and that Ochocinco guy and then, uh, who’s on defense? Wasn’t Marvin Lewis supposed to fix that five or six years ago?
4) Cleveland: I understand that new head coaches usually start with a bad team, but not even Bill Walsh could turn this team around. Besides the QB debacle, can you name one player? And if you can, does he impress you?
AFC SOUTH
1) Indianapolis: This was a tough pick, because Tony Dungy and Marvin Harrison are gone. But Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Adam Vinatieri and Dwight Freeney are still there. But the Colts are no longer elite and I don’t see them going far in the playoffs, let alone against New England or Pittsburgh.
2) Tennessee: Wild Card Team. I just can’t see the Titans going 13-3 again, especially without Albert Haynesworth and Jim Schwartz on defense. And as much as I like Kerry Collins, his age and streakiness don’t bode well in the long run.
3) Houston: Dark Horse Team. In a weaker division, the Texans would be in the playoffs this year, and they may sneak in if the Titans or Colts screw up. Matt Schaub has become a solid QB and Andre Johnson is one of the best WRs in football. The defense is great with future stars DT Mario Williams and LB DeMeco Ryans. If they can cut the turnovers and get a good divisional record, they could pull it off.
4) Jacksonville: Two years ago Jacksonville was 11-5 and I thought 2008 was their year. Then their best offensive lineman got shot the first week of the season and injuries flattened the rest of them. The new GM has cleaned house and while everyone likes RB Maurice Jones-Drew, this is what they call a “rebuilding year.” Eh.
AFC WEST
1) San Diego: This is how bad this division is. The Chargers won with an 8-8 record. As predicted, Coach Norv Turner has underachieved as usual, although it would be tough to mess up a club with Philip Rivers, Antonio Gates, LaDanian Tomlinson and Shawne Merriman.
2) Kansas City: Look at this way – when you have four games against Denver and Oakland you can go 4-12 and in this division, 4-12 is good enough for second. The Chiefs seem to have the fewest problems among the three doormats here provided QB Matt Cassell gets healthy fast, and with Dwayne Bowe and Larry Johnson the offense could show signs of life.
3) Denver: Let’s see. New coach Josh McDaniels got rid of the starting QB for…Kyle Orton. The best remaining player, WR Brandon Marshall, wants a trade. Except for new CB Champ Bailey, there is no defense to speak of, and I’ve never heard of the RB. Apart from that, everything’s peachy.
4) Oakland: Richard Seymour just got traded here and he has refused to report to the team. Can you blame him? Oh, and the team got rid of QB Jeff Garcia so JaMarcus Russell can keep up his good work.
If you haven’t done so, it’s time to stimulate the economy like I did and start watching football on a REALLY BIG TV. I can even read the player’s tattoos.
So here we go, along with my dark horse picks. Just a warning: My political musings are usually more accurate than my NFL ones.
NFC EAST
1) NY Giants: You’re going to notice a trend this year. Good teams have good defenses and good running games. Bad teams have neither. The Giants are a study in the former. Is there a better offensive or defensive line in football? Brandon Jacobs loves to hit people, and he’s not even on defense. Eli Manning is streaky, but tends to just squeak through in the clutch.
2) Philadelphia: Wild Card Team. I’ll say this for Philly this year – they won’t be boring. I don’t think the players have the slightest idea what’s going to happen if McNabb enters a funk and Vick is on the bench. That said, I’m not sure how much gas Westbrook has left, and Jim Johnson’s death leaves a mighty big void.
3) Dallas: There’s no T.O., but they’re not getting younger, especially on the offensive line. They’ve got some talent at RB with Marion Barber and Felix Jones (when Barber’s healthy) and DeMarcus Ware is great, but after Ware the defense kind of slacks off. Look out Wade!
4) Washington: The good news is they have Albert Haynesworth, although Dan Snyder overpaid as usual. But it’s not good when Snyder tries to dump the QB that the coach is trying to build around. If Jason Campbell heats up the Skins might surprise us, but there’s not enough pop in the team.
NFC NORTH
1) Green Bay: Surprise! The Packers were 6-10 last year but Aaron Rodgers played well and the offense is great, with Greg Jennings and Ryan Grant. They’ve switched to the 3-4 defense which might take a game or two to settle in but will provide more flexible to LBs Nick Barnett and AJ Hawk. And as nice as the people in Wisconsin are, don’t you just know what’s going to happen when Farve shows up?
2) Minnesota: Wild Card Team. Yes, Farve makes the Vikings better. Yes, everyone has forgotten how he single-handedly destroyed the Jets late last year with bad mistakes. The defense is actually pretty good, provided their best player – Pat Williams – doesn’t get suspended.
3) Chicago: Lots of people are picking the Bears as their NFC Champion because of Jay Cutler. This is the same Jay Cutler that led the Broncos to a mighty 8-8, and that’s when he actually had someone good to throw to. Cutler won’t solve the Bears’ defensive and injury woes either.
4) Detroit: For years I laughed at Detroit because of Matt Millen’s bonehead mind, decisions, leadership, scouting and overall football knowledge. But when the Lions finally got what they deserved and threw him out, now I actually feel bad for them and want them to win. I’m tempted to make them my Dark Horse team because if they win three games, they’re the most improved. I’ll resist the temptation, but three wins sounds right.
NFC SOUTH
1) Atlanta: It will be tougher this year and this is a good division. But there are too many new stars on this team; Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, Roddy White on offense (plus Tony Gonzalez joined), plus John Abraham, Mike Peterson and Curtis Lofton on defense. Atlanta just seems hungrier than the other teams here.
2) New Orleans: No problem on offense with Drew Brees gunslinging, but the defense stinks more than a Bourbon Street gutter. And their best defensive players – Will Smith and Charles Grant – will likely be suspended for four games. That’s too big a hole to climb out of.
3) Carolina: Tough ride for QB Jake Delhomme. He’s solid, but I think the beating they took in the playoffs last year still stings. A great RB with DeAngelo Williams and a mean defensive line, but they lack the eye of the tiger.
4) Tampa Bay: It’s not a good sign when I couldn’t remember the last team in this division. When I did, I also remembered the new offensive coordinator got fired last week, longtime defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin is gone and Byron Leftwich is the starting QB. Next!
NFC WEST
1) Arizona: True, I did not pick the Cardinals to win the division last year but they were my dark horse team. And in what could be the weakest division, another 9-7 season could clinch it again. Offensively the Cards are fun to watch and Kurt Warner is the perfect QB for the spread offense they use, although the running could be better. Defense is another story, but when your division opponents are the three teams below how good do you need to be?
2) San Francisco: Dark Horse Team. I’m picking the Niners to surprise a few teams and finish around .500 because of coach Mike Singletary. If he is half as scary on the sidelines as he was on the field, the Niners will not only fear for their lives but he will become the meanest player to become a good coach since Jack Del Rio. He’s not afraid to bench starters and probably screams louder than anyone else in the locker room. It’s not good when the starting QB is someone named Shaun Hill, but Frank Gore is the RB and there’s signs of life on defense.
3) Seattle: No team got hurt more last year than the Seahawks. QB Matt Hasselback returns and can throw to TJ Houshmandzadeh. The defense is good. But the starting RB is Julius Jones.
4) St. Louis: Best of luck to former Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo on his new gig. It’s good there’s no pressure on him this year, because turning the Rams defense into something respectable is at least 365 days away. RB Steven Jackson can’t do it all, and I think Marc Bulger has been quarterback since Kurt Warner left town.
AFC EAST
1) New England: Not a tough pick, but methinks trouble looms ahead on defense. Longtime leaders Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour, Rodney Harrison, Teddy Bruschi and Junior Seau are gone. That said, Belichick is good at making lemonade and Brady is back with Wes Welker, Randy Moss and Joey Galloway. The league’s best offense should overcome.
2) Miami: Two reasons they won’t repeat. First, they went from a last place schedule to a first place schedule, and second, everyone’s ready for the Wildcat now. But the offensive line is good and Ronnie Brown is a great RB.
3) NY Jets: The focus is on new QB Mark Sanchez (who, by the way, only has WR Jerricho Cotchery to throw at. Hello, double coverage?). But look at the rest of the Jets team; they’re…good. Not great, but good. RB Thomas Jones got 1500 yards but is 31. DT Kris Jenkins is good but won’t start anyone’s fantasy league.
4) Buffalo: Everyone is excited about T.O. and the no-huddle offense. When Buffalo last run a no-huddle, they had the league’s best offensive line and Jim Kelly was QB. This time they have the league’s worst offensive line and Trent Edwards is QB. RB Marshawn Lynch is suspended for three or four games. Looks like another long winter.
AFC NORTH
1) Pittsburgh: Not a tough pick, part two. Everyone is back from last year, but I’m curious to see if teams try to spread the Steelers mighty defense across the field this time after the Cardinals almost pulled it off in the Super Bowl. How cool are James Harrison and Troy Polamalu?
2) Baltimore: Wild Card Team. Ferocious defense? Check (Haloti Ngati, Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs). Good QB? Check (Joe Flacco). Good RB? Maybe (Ray Rice and Laron McClain, no relation to the Arizona senator). If one of those RBs shines, look out Pittsburgh.
3) Cincinnati: Well, there’s Carson Palmer and that Ochocinco guy and then, uh, who’s on defense? Wasn’t Marvin Lewis supposed to fix that five or six years ago?
4) Cleveland: I understand that new head coaches usually start with a bad team, but not even Bill Walsh could turn this team around. Besides the QB debacle, can you name one player? And if you can, does he impress you?
AFC SOUTH
1) Indianapolis: This was a tough pick, because Tony Dungy and Marvin Harrison are gone. But Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Adam Vinatieri and Dwight Freeney are still there. But the Colts are no longer elite and I don’t see them going far in the playoffs, let alone against New England or Pittsburgh.
2) Tennessee: Wild Card Team. I just can’t see the Titans going 13-3 again, especially without Albert Haynesworth and Jim Schwartz on defense. And as much as I like Kerry Collins, his age and streakiness don’t bode well in the long run.
3) Houston: Dark Horse Team. In a weaker division, the Texans would be in the playoffs this year, and they may sneak in if the Titans or Colts screw up. Matt Schaub has become a solid QB and Andre Johnson is one of the best WRs in football. The defense is great with future stars DT Mario Williams and LB DeMeco Ryans. If they can cut the turnovers and get a good divisional record, they could pull it off.
4) Jacksonville: Two years ago Jacksonville was 11-5 and I thought 2008 was their year. Then their best offensive lineman got shot the first week of the season and injuries flattened the rest of them. The new GM has cleaned house and while everyone likes RB Maurice Jones-Drew, this is what they call a “rebuilding year.” Eh.
AFC WEST
1) San Diego: This is how bad this division is. The Chargers won with an 8-8 record. As predicted, Coach Norv Turner has underachieved as usual, although it would be tough to mess up a club with Philip Rivers, Antonio Gates, LaDanian Tomlinson and Shawne Merriman.
2) Kansas City: Look at this way – when you have four games against Denver and Oakland you can go 4-12 and in this division, 4-12 is good enough for second. The Chiefs seem to have the fewest problems among the three doormats here provided QB Matt Cassell gets healthy fast, and with Dwayne Bowe and Larry Johnson the offense could show signs of life.
3) Denver: Let’s see. New coach Josh McDaniels got rid of the starting QB for…Kyle Orton. The best remaining player, WR Brandon Marshall, wants a trade. Except for new CB Champ Bailey, there is no defense to speak of, and I’ve never heard of the RB. Apart from that, everything’s peachy.
4) Oakland: Richard Seymour just got traded here and he has refused to report to the team. Can you blame him? Oh, and the team got rid of QB Jeff Garcia so JaMarcus Russell can keep up his good work.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Why I'll Miss Ted Kennedy
“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which much be recognized--the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old…When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”
Ted Kennedy, August 3, 1971
I am not from Massachusetts and never bought into the Kennedy mystique. He was, at the end of the day, a politician – and one who, like the example above shows, flip flopped as much as any other. He cared about the environment, but opposed putting a wind farm off Nantucket Sound. When his fellow Massachusetts senator John Kerry was close to winning the presidency in 2004, he got his home state to change the law to make sure the then-Republican governor couldn’t appoint anyone to the position, but on his deathbed tried to change the very law he championed when a Democrat was governor. His drinking and sexual indulgences lasted into his 50s. And you could argue that Kennedy’s crusade against Robert Bork in 1987 set the stage for the hyperpartisan gnashing and voting that greets any Supreme Court nominee today.
Why then, will I miss Ted Kennedy? Well, first as a selfish Massachusetts resident Kennedy certainly had the chops to bring both the pork and bacon home to his constituents. But most importantly – and unlike his late brothers – Kennedy spent his career in the Senate and understood the art of compromise and the importance of deal-making in order to get things accomplished. The best advice I ever heard on negotiating was if someone offers you at least 51% of what you want, take it. Kennedy grasped this, and was unafraid to cross the aisles to work with Republicans to get him at least more than halfway to his eventual goal. I would divide Kennedy’s life in half. The first is pre-1980, when he literally got away with murder, was more known for boozing than legislating and embarked on a truly misguided presidential campaign and one of the most liberal convention speeches in history that gave Reagan the election on a silver platter.
But afterward, Kennedy became the new Henry Clay. He never renounced his liberalism but always strove to get things accomplished. Instead of going for the Hail Mary touchdown pass of liberalism he described in his convention speech, perhaps the 1980 campaign and election seemed to awaken the understanding that going yard by yard was a better way to get things done. Much has been written about how universal health care was his lifelong goal. That was never achieved – and it seems increasingly unlikely it will be achieved again this year. But look at Kennedy’s incremental health care accomplishments – Americans with Disabilities Act, SCHIP, COBRA, the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Those are impressive accomplishments that not only extend the liberal notion of health care access but are causes that nobody could refute.
And if you look not only at those accomplishments, but also at Kennedy’s more recent achievements like No Child Left Behind and the immigration bill that did not become law, you notice they were all bipartisan. Most were also achieved with people like John McCain, Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum – Republicans who also understood the art of the deal and the importance of compromise.
It’s a sad comparison to the state of Congress today, where both parties are headed by rabid hyperpartisans unversed in dealmaking and wanting an all-or-nothing approach. Much has been said that if Kennedy were still able to attend Senate hearings the last few months, a health care bill would have been passed. I would say that if Kennedy were still around, he’d be working on a compromise with Republican colleagues that would ensure something effective would be passed. It would probably not be everything the president wants, but it would be at least 51% of it.
More Info: Some people have said Kennedy is burning in hell. I haven’t seen such blind partisan hatred for the departed since, well, since liberals hoped Jerry Falwell was burning in hell.
Friday, August 21, 2009
It's the Message, Stupid!
How can the Obama team, which did such a good job staying on message during the campaign, have lost the messaging war in the health care debate? Let us count the ways.
First, simplicity is always important. Selling a simple message like “Change” is easy. Selling a tough message like “health care reform” is a lot tougher. Just as many people dislike Congress but like their Congressman, many people think health care should be reformed but the 90% of people with health care insurance seem largely satisfied. They also seem to like their doctors and seniors with Medicare also don’t want things to change. Perhaps they could have used something like health care cost reform or health insurance reform, but it’s a bit late for that now.
Second, know your audience. You don’t have to convince all the people in an election, but if you’re president you need to speak to the people who didn’t vote to you. Since we all know what the Republican base is like and what most Americans value, it shouldn’t surprise many that getting Americans to understand the specifics of health care reform isn’t easy. This recent poll about American beliefs on health care reform says it all:
· 45% believe the government will decide when to stop providing medical treatment to senior citizens
· 55% believe the bill will extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants
· 54% believe the overhaul will lead to a “complete” government takeover of the health care system
All three of those items are absolutely wrong and have been debunked by those on the right and left alike. But people still believe them. Clearly the administration is not controlling the debate.
Finally, in PR we have what is called the “elevator pitch.” The story goes that if you’re riding in an elevator with an editor or Congressman, you have to clearly state what you want or what makes your company great, and get him to understand it before the elevator door opens. When the opposition says things like “death panels” and “costing over one trillion dollars,” it’s got the elevator pitch down cold. Average Americans understand elevator pitches. They will not understand long, drawn-out points. This is an unfortunate but standard fact of life that the President seems to have forgotten.
There are also three health care reform bills in Congress, which makes it complicated for people who understand long, drawn-out points. Mr. President, what is your ultimate goal with this bill? Lower costs? Coverage for all? A government-run system for people who can’t get or afford coverage? Making insurance companies accept all comers regardless of the risk? I don’t think anyone is quite sure. It may be all of that.
So if the president is reading, I advise him to regroup and repackage a single bill that has three or five easy to understand points that any American can grasp in about 60 seconds. And something about how he would pay for it would be nice too.
More Info: I’ve never blogged about Massachusetts’ universal health care law, but it was championed by former Governor Mitt Romney before he started flip flopping. An excellent NGO is Health Care for All, whose former leader (John McDonough) has a Ph.D. on health care costs and was instrumental in putting this important legislation together. Oh yeah, and he’s a very liberal Democrat who hates single-payer coverage. Here’s an old interview with him just before the Mass. law was passed.
First, simplicity is always important. Selling a simple message like “Change” is easy. Selling a tough message like “health care reform” is a lot tougher. Just as many people dislike Congress but like their Congressman, many people think health care should be reformed but the 90% of people with health care insurance seem largely satisfied. They also seem to like their doctors and seniors with Medicare also don’t want things to change. Perhaps they could have used something like health care cost reform or health insurance reform, but it’s a bit late for that now.
Second, know your audience. You don’t have to convince all the people in an election, but if you’re president you need to speak to the people who didn’t vote to you. Since we all know what the Republican base is like and what most Americans value, it shouldn’t surprise many that getting Americans to understand the specifics of health care reform isn’t easy. This recent poll about American beliefs on health care reform says it all:
· 45% believe the government will decide when to stop providing medical treatment to senior citizens
· 55% believe the bill will extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants
· 54% believe the overhaul will lead to a “complete” government takeover of the health care system
All three of those items are absolutely wrong and have been debunked by those on the right and left alike. But people still believe them. Clearly the administration is not controlling the debate.
Finally, in PR we have what is called the “elevator pitch.” The story goes that if you’re riding in an elevator with an editor or Congressman, you have to clearly state what you want or what makes your company great, and get him to understand it before the elevator door opens. When the opposition says things like “death panels” and “costing over one trillion dollars,” it’s got the elevator pitch down cold. Average Americans understand elevator pitches. They will not understand long, drawn-out points. This is an unfortunate but standard fact of life that the President seems to have forgotten.
There are also three health care reform bills in Congress, which makes it complicated for people who understand long, drawn-out points. Mr. President, what is your ultimate goal with this bill? Lower costs? Coverage for all? A government-run system for people who can’t get or afford coverage? Making insurance companies accept all comers regardless of the risk? I don’t think anyone is quite sure. It may be all of that.
So if the president is reading, I advise him to regroup and repackage a single bill that has three or five easy to understand points that any American can grasp in about 60 seconds. And something about how he would pay for it would be nice too.
More Info: I’ve never blogged about Massachusetts’ universal health care law, but it was championed by former Governor Mitt Romney before he started flip flopping. An excellent NGO is Health Care for All, whose former leader (John McDonough) has a Ph.D. on health care costs and was instrumental in putting this important legislation together. Oh yeah, and he’s a very liberal Democrat who hates single-payer coverage. Here’s an old interview with him just before the Mass. law was passed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
