Cuomo says he's not planning to run for governor
Gillibrand says there will be no gubernatorial primary
Okay, I'm sick of this political meddling. First, Schumer got Paterson to nominate Gillibrand because he knew Gillibrand would do whatever Schumer told her to. Now Schumer and Rahm Emanuel are doing their best to make sure that New York Democrats don't get a serious choice for Senate. Now I understand the value of clearing a field to ensure that there won't be a contentious primary race, draining the incumbent's resources. I could live with that for the Senate — in fact, I'm firmly undecided on who I'd vote for in a primary, and may or may not vote for Gillibrand in the primary even if there is a serious challenge. But having no choice in the governor's race is too much to accept.
David Paterson has been nothing but incompetent as governor of New York. I really, really wanted to like Paterson, but his tenure as governor has been absolutely pathetic. From his mishandling of the Caroline Kennedy situation to the budget, Paterson has done virtually nothing right. While I support gay marriage, as does Paterson, his decision to push the issue at a time that the votes simply aren't there shows that Paterson is not a politician savvy enough to break the constant gridlock in Albany — Sheldon Silver completely outmaneuvered him on the budget. Paterson is getting killed in the polls, and Democrats would be foolish to block a primary challenge when Paterson would be a heavy underdog in the general election and any other Democrat would be a heavy favorite. Besides, we need to bring Paterson's failed governorship to an end. I really have no opinion about Cuomo, but he's not Paterson, and that's all that matters.
New York already has an unelected senator appointed by an unelected governor. I would love to have some choices in the Senate race, but I really can't stand the idea of having to choose between Paterson and Giuliani in November. I don't want to have to run against Paterson myself.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Instant Replay in Major League Baseball
I confess to being something of a traditionalist when it comes to sports. When the National Hockey League instituted its post-lockout rule changes, I was dead set against almost all of them. I have since warmed up to most, but I can't see that happening with instant replay in Major League Baseball.
I do not, like some others, decry the intrusion of technology into baseball. Sports must adapt to the times. Marshall McLuhan once predicted that baseball could not survive the television age, but the game adapted and, while not unhurt by the rise of TV — football is even better suited for the medium than baseball, and exploited it to rise in popularity, largely at baseball's expense — has gained tremendous revenue from television broadcasts.
However, I do ask this question: what's the point? The obvious answer is to prevent bad calls from affecting the outcome of the game. But what's so horrible about that? Blown or disputed calls provide some of baseball's most cherished memories, from Sam Rice's famed catch in the 1925 World Series to the Jeffrey Maier fan interference call: remembered with joy on one side, with frustration and even anger on the other, such disputes help make baseball the great game it is — filled with passion, unpredictability, and stories fathers tell sons as they bring them up on the national pastime. The antics of enraged players and managers, from John McGraw to Phillip Wellman, also provide entertainment. Why take all this out of the game?
Major League Baseball says that it will only use replay for some types of calls for now. It would be a terrible mistake to expand its use. Even as it is now, it accomplishes nothing but delaying games at the potential cost of a few great arguments.
I do not, like some others, decry the intrusion of technology into baseball. Sports must adapt to the times. Marshall McLuhan once predicted that baseball could not survive the television age, but the game adapted and, while not unhurt by the rise of TV — football is even better suited for the medium than baseball, and exploited it to rise in popularity, largely at baseball's expense — has gained tremendous revenue from television broadcasts.
However, I do ask this question: what's the point? The obvious answer is to prevent bad calls from affecting the outcome of the game. But what's so horrible about that? Blown or disputed calls provide some of baseball's most cherished memories, from Sam Rice's famed catch in the 1925 World Series to the Jeffrey Maier fan interference call: remembered with joy on one side, with frustration and even anger on the other, such disputes help make baseball the great game it is — filled with passion, unpredictability, and stories fathers tell sons as they bring them up on the national pastime. The antics of enraged players and managers, from John McGraw to Phillip Wellman, also provide entertainment. Why take all this out of the game?
Major League Baseball says that it will only use replay for some types of calls for now. It would be a terrible mistake to expand its use. Even as it is now, it accomplishes nothing but delaying games at the potential cost of a few great arguments.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sarah Palin's Political Future
What's next for Gov. Sarah Palin? Three possible future runs:
2010: Challenging incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in the Republican senatorial primary
There has been much speculation that Palin will do this to prepare for a presidential run in 2012, but it seems unlikely to me. Firstly, polling on a potential Murkowski-Palin matchup has been wildly contradictory: a Research 2000 poll showed Palin leading Murkowski 55-31, while a Dittman Research poll shows Murkowski up 58-31. If Palin is serious about running, she will have to determine what her chances are. A defeat could be crushing for Palin's political future, and it seems unlikely she would risk it unless she was certain she would win.
Even if Palin wins, it is doubtful that this would have a dramatic effect on her political future. While small-state senators generally get more attention than small-state governors – the reverse is true in large states – Palin is already on the national stage. While a few voters might be reassured by the foreign and national policy experience she would gain in the Senate, it won't be enough to dramatically increase her chances. And she would further alienate the party establishment by knocking off an incumbent, although she's probably burned her bridges to the point that it will not make much of a difference.
2012: Running for President
This run would have two components: the primary and the general election. What are her chances in each? Her chances in the primary may well depend on the mood of the Republicans and the field of candidates, but I would say that the odds of her winning are less than 50%. She would not have the party establishment behind her, due to her actions as McCain's running mate and the fact that she is probably the least electable prominent Republican, but the rank and file are far more open to her. Still, polls have not shown her running away with it; rather, she seems to be virtually tied with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
The general election will be far more difficult, and probably the only way she would have a chance at winning is under circumstances that would make almost any other Republican virtually certain to win, such as the complete failure of an Obama administration. Otherwise, it will be hard for her to convince the American public that she is both competent and not a right-wing extremist.
2014: Challenging Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
This may well be Palin's best option, but it is far from certain that she would succeed. Her once sky-high popularity in her home state was severely damaged by her time as governor, particularly among independents and Democrats. If she runs for President in 2012, this might further damage her chances in 2014, but Alaska is an idiosyncratic state, and a run might enhance her status as a sort of favorite daughter.
More encouraging for Palin is the fact that she remains quite popular and that Alaska is still a rather Republican state. But all indications are that Begich will be a moderate Democrat, and he will side with Republicans on key Alaska issues, such as ANWR, that make it impossible for Democratic presidential candidates to win the state. If Begich has a successful first term, he may well be able to hold off Palin.
2010: Challenging incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in the Republican senatorial primary
There has been much speculation that Palin will do this to prepare for a presidential run in 2012, but it seems unlikely to me. Firstly, polling on a potential Murkowski-Palin matchup has been wildly contradictory: a Research 2000 poll showed Palin leading Murkowski 55-31, while a Dittman Research poll shows Murkowski up 58-31. If Palin is serious about running, she will have to determine what her chances are. A defeat could be crushing for Palin's political future, and it seems unlikely she would risk it unless she was certain she would win.
Even if Palin wins, it is doubtful that this would have a dramatic effect on her political future. While small-state senators generally get more attention than small-state governors – the reverse is true in large states – Palin is already on the national stage. While a few voters might be reassured by the foreign and national policy experience she would gain in the Senate, it won't be enough to dramatically increase her chances. And she would further alienate the party establishment by knocking off an incumbent, although she's probably burned her bridges to the point that it will not make much of a difference.
2012: Running for President
This run would have two components: the primary and the general election. What are her chances in each? Her chances in the primary may well depend on the mood of the Republicans and the field of candidates, but I would say that the odds of her winning are less than 50%. She would not have the party establishment behind her, due to her actions as McCain's running mate and the fact that she is probably the least electable prominent Republican, but the rank and file are far more open to her. Still, polls have not shown her running away with it; rather, she seems to be virtually tied with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
The general election will be far more difficult, and probably the only way she would have a chance at winning is under circumstances that would make almost any other Republican virtually certain to win, such as the complete failure of an Obama administration. Otherwise, it will be hard for her to convince the American public that she is both competent and not a right-wing extremist.
2014: Challenging Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
This may well be Palin's best option, but it is far from certain that she would succeed. Her once sky-high popularity in her home state was severely damaged by her time as governor, particularly among independents and Democrats. If she runs for President in 2012, this might further damage her chances in 2014, but Alaska is an idiosyncratic state, and a run might enhance her status as a sort of favorite daughter.
More encouraging for Palin is the fact that she remains quite popular and that Alaska is still a rather Republican state. But all indications are that Begich will be a moderate Democrat, and he will side with Republicans on key Alaska issues, such as ANWR, that make it impossible for Democratic presidential candidates to win the state. If Begich has a successful first term, he may well be able to hold off Palin.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
When Should the Senate Seat Al Franken?
I'll have more on the Minnesota senate election when it finally concludes. But soon, the Democrats in the Senate will have to make a decision on whether to seat Al Franken (D-MN) after the state canvassing board certifies the election, probably on Monday. According to Minnesota law, incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), whose term expired yesterday, has the right to contest the election in court, which would prevent Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) from signing the certificate. It appears that Coleman, who trails by 225 votes, will do so.
Some have suggested that the Senate should seat Franken as soon as the state canvassing board certifies the vote totals but before Gov. Pawlenty signs the certificate. This would be a mistake for three reasons:
1) The election is not officially over until Gov. Pawlenty signs the certificate. The Senate should respect this law and wait until the election is fully resolved.
2) As Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight pointed out, seating Franken won't make much of a difference as long as Illinois still doesn't have a second senator. Besides, based on the quick decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court in the course of this disputed election, it shouldn't be too long before all court challenges are resolved, so this move would only cause Franken to be seated a little earlier.
3) Politics. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the new chair of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (RSCC), has promised to filibuster any attempt to seat Franken before the election. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has taken some criticism from liberals for a lack of backbone, but this would be an inapproprite time for him to pick a fight. He would expend too much political capital in a battle he can't win and, as pointed out in 2), isn't that important.
Some have suggested that the Senate should seat Franken as soon as the state canvassing board certifies the vote totals but before Gov. Pawlenty signs the certificate. This would be a mistake for three reasons:
1) The election is not officially over until Gov. Pawlenty signs the certificate. The Senate should respect this law and wait until the election is fully resolved.
2) As Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight pointed out, seating Franken won't make much of a difference as long as Illinois still doesn't have a second senator. Besides, based on the quick decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court in the course of this disputed election, it shouldn't be too long before all court challenges are resolved, so this move would only cause Franken to be seated a little earlier.
3) Politics. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the new chair of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (RSCC), has promised to filibuster any attempt to seat Franken before the election. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has taken some criticism from liberals for a lack of backbone, but this would be an inapproprite time for him to pick a fight. He would expend too much political capital in a battle he can't win and, as pointed out in 2), isn't that important.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
On Warrengate: Why Rick Warren's Selection is not a Setback for Gay Rights
Barack Obama has been taking a lot of criticism for his selection of the Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. While I strongly support gay marriage, and gay rights in general, I do not see this as a setback. In fact, this may ultimately allow Obama to pursue a more strongly pro-gay agenda.
Obama will be the most pro-gay president in our history. This is not saying much; Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bush was most certainly not friendly to the gay community. While words are not enough, Obama has shown a willingness to talk about this issue, which many Democrats consider toxic. His mention of "gay friends in the red states" in his 2004 convention speech, and similar turns of phrase in future speeches, was rather unusual for a politician with national ambitions, and he has been assertive in his support of civil unions.
What the selection of Rick Warren does is give Obama some more political capital on gay rights issues. In essence, by appearing to be anti-gay, Obama is buying himself the political capital to be pro-gay. It will be difficult for Obama to pursue pro-gay initiatives if the country sees him as a radical liberal on these issues. After all, while much of the country supports civil unions, most of it opposes gay marriage, and social conservatives frequently play a major role in elections. By reaching out to the social conservatives, Obama will seem less liberal even as he pursues the same policies. In politics, perception is often as important reality.
During the presidential campaign, Obama was often targeted for his associations with people such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. The same people who were willing to look beyond this — rightly, in my view — should also look beyond the selection of Rick Warren and see Obama for what he truly stands for.
Obama will be the most pro-gay president in our history. This is not saying much; Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bush was most certainly not friendly to the gay community. While words are not enough, Obama has shown a willingness to talk about this issue, which many Democrats consider toxic. His mention of "gay friends in the red states" in his 2004 convention speech, and similar turns of phrase in future speeches, was rather unusual for a politician with national ambitions, and he has been assertive in his support of civil unions.
What the selection of Rick Warren does is give Obama some more political capital on gay rights issues. In essence, by appearing to be anti-gay, Obama is buying himself the political capital to be pro-gay. It will be difficult for Obama to pursue pro-gay initiatives if the country sees him as a radical liberal on these issues. After all, while much of the country supports civil unions, most of it opposes gay marriage, and social conservatives frequently play a major role in elections. By reaching out to the social conservatives, Obama will seem less liberal even as he pursues the same policies. In politics, perception is often as important reality.
During the presidential campaign, Obama was often targeted for his associations with people such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. The same people who were willing to look beyond this — rightly, in my view — should also look beyond the selection of Rick Warren and see Obama for what he truly stands for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
