Friday, November 28, 2014
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Of course, former Obama aides went ape-$hit over this on the internet criticizing Schumer. I mean, how could the good Senator propose that Democrats not do health care? To be totally fair, I support the ACA and think it's the best law we've passed in my lifetime- but it's increasingly isolated among three major legislative achievements- Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and the Stimulus- in six full years in office. Sure, there were others, but none quite measure up all the way. George W. Bush certainly had a more consequential presidency, legislatively speaking.Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) remarks Tuesday that Democrats erred by passing Obamacare in 2010 before the economy was fixed did not sit well with Obamaworld."Unfortunately, Democrats lost the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform," the No. 3 Senate Democrat said at the National Press Club, arguing that his party should have focused on middle class woes at the time instead. He added: "It has been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote."
After the ACA passed in 2010, essentially the Presidency ended, in terms of passing good laws. It took all the remaining capital the President had on the Hill, and killed all other initiatives. Yes, the administration of President Obama continued, but he's had no major legislative wins since the end of 2010.
The other thing, right or wrong, is that we're now buried in legislative minorities, not just in Washington, but nationally. Is it worth giving up potentially years of achievements for one big one? Is the fact that no climate change legislation passed, because of the ACA basically, okay? I mean, climate change doesn't just effect millions of people, it effects everyone. Is the fact that the GOP looks poised to dominate Congress for a generation worth it? Schumer is saying no.
I think Schumer is arguing a moot point in the sense that a.) we did pass the ACA, and b.) by the time it was clear the law was going to kill Democrats at the ballot box in 2010, they were way too deep to pull out. I think the premise that health care was the most important issue, no matter what, from day one, was the mistake. You can't go back and change partisan priorities four years later.
Ted Cruz saying he's not "that conservative" would be like Bill Gates saying he's not "that rich." It's absurd. Ted Cruz is a radical, and he knows that can't sell nationally.The Texas Republican and tea party favorite made the unexpected remarks to Jewish donors in New York City, according to the New York Observer.He said: “I don’t think I’m all that conservative. And it’s interesting. Reagan never once beat his chest and said ‘I’m the most conservative guy who ever lived.’ Reagan said, ‘I’m defending common sense principles—small businesses, small towns.'”
In light of the events of Ferguson, Missouri, I think it's time for Democrats to review what it means to be a Democrat on issues of law and order, and in general as a prosecutor. What is the difference between being a Democratic prosecutor and a Republican prosecutor?
I have a short list right now of some core ideals that Democratic candidates for prosecutorial jobs can rally around:
- De-criminalization of marijuana- Whether it be full-scale legalization, or de-criminalization of small amounts, ending the practice of sending young men to jail for small amounts of this drug would be a good start.
- End Mandatory Minimums- Surely our judges are better judges of an appropriate sentence than legislators who are posturing for re-election.
- End "Stand Your Ground"- You always have had the right to defend your own life and well being. All these laws do is make it easier to kill other people.
- Body Cameras for Cops- This isn't just for those interacting with cops, it's good for cops too. Cops are accused of things everyday, they'd be better off being able to put that to bed at the start.
- End all profiling programs- Simply put, these programs are unfair. End them.
I think this is a start, if not a final product for Democratic law enforcement leaders. This process is a long way from done.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
The President was appropriately calm and gave the right message. I know, some on the left want him to be a radical, and go out there and call for massive change within our society. I'm glad he's not a radical, and I recognized that he never was from the start. There are certainly changes that need to be made in light of the events of Ferguson, and other events in recent months, but last night was a time for him to play healer-in-chief. He did that well. He's the President of the United States, not some rag-tag professional protestor. Urging respect for the rule of law and peaceful protest is exactly what he should be doing, not inciting a riot to appease people that are going to criticize him anyway.
I start by thinking back to the moment itself- why? Why did Michael Brown, a kid who had no prior record of trouble with the cops, and who had only committed a petty theft (not the "thug criminal" his detractors like to point out), feel that he should disobey Officer Wilson, and have an altercation with him? What made him feel so negatively toward that cop? By extension, why did Wilson fear Brown? Why, after having shot him twice, did he feel the need to shoot him again? Yes, Brown was a big kid, and yes Brown had an altercation with him already, but let's not pretend he's an NFL Defensive End or something. He was a twice shot, big kid. It's obvious to me that Brown felt extremely negative towards the police in Ferguson, something that didn't randomly just turn up in that one child on that one day. It's also very clear to me that Wilson felt extremely negatively towards the local youth, something born out in his testimony to the grand jury too. Whether Wilson is guilty of murder or not, there are bigger problems in Ferguson.
It's also clear to me that the prosecutor did not want this case from the get-go, and only took it to a grand jury because of public pressure. Charitably speaking, I imagine a prosecutor who has a good relationship to the police in the county, and once he saw some of the evidence knew that taking this to trial would end in an embarrassing loss, and a loss of the good will he had with police. A less charitable view of this is that he just threw the case because he was pre-disposed to side with the cops. I've never seen a prosecutor present both sides of the story at a grand jury, and i'm sure the same courtesy would not have been put forward if the shooting was the other way around here. I do get that the case was not winnable with the evidence they had, but the prosecutor doesn't have to be the one out there defending a grand jury clearing a suspect, and it looked really bad.
And even so, even if the case had no chance, we have to examine the fact that this keeps happening. It happened to Trayvon Martin. It happened to Michael Brown. Unarmed, young, black men are killed by armed men, and then the law finds them to have been the aggressor, and clears their killers. There are some awful racial stereotypes out there about black men, and clearly those stereotypes make black lives less safe within our society. Even beyond these cases, Eric Garner died of a heart attack during a physical altercation with police in Staten Island that both appeared unnecessary, and was prompted by Garner's "non-compliance" in the words of the cops. Why is it that black men are considered so threatening? Even beyond that, it feeds into why we had militarized police in Ferguson to respond to the initial angry protestors. It's very clear that this paranoia by law enforcement escalated a situation that should have never been this tense. It really is time for a discussion of how largely "white" people feel about black people.
It's also time for a conversation inside of the Democratic Party about race relations and police. We had State Senators who were African-American on TV last night criticizing the "party," and clarifying that they meant the white leadership (namely the DA and Governor), for not caring about Michael Brown and African-Americans at-large. There is a huge divide within America's left about the relationship of African-Americans and police, and how to bridge it. On a basic policy level, going along with Republican law enforcement ideas, such as mandatory minimum sentences, the "War on Drugs," and the militarization of police, has left a major constituency of the left feeling isolated and alone in their dealings with police. That surely can't continue.
I'll just never get the people who support Darren Wilson. I won't second guess the grand jury (based on what they saw, I understand their stance), but the man has something wrong with him. His stereotypical speak about Brown as a "hulk," his negative feelings towards the community he served, even his boasting in his first interviews that he would "do it again" all are signs about this man. Is he guilty of murder? Based on the evidence, probably not. This isn't some zero sum ball game though. Even if Wilson was not guilty of a crime, this is not the outcome we desire as a society. Stealing a pack of cigars should not be a death sentence for an 18 year old kid with no prior record, just because he lives in what we deem a "tough" town. Relations between the town and the cops shouldn't be so bad that this happens. Wilson might find it acceptable to "do it again," but it is most certainly not.
I have to confess that I can't believe this guy wasn't at least bound over for trial. Neither can the National Bar Association. At some point, you can empathize with the actual protestors out there, because it really doesn't make sense at all. I can understand why they fear that their lives matter less. There's a legitimate problem in this country that people of color don't think the law represents their needs and interests, or that their lives matter the same. Certainly we can't leave a chunk of our citizens out there living in this condition.
None of this should be confused with me supporting the rioting and looting that did go on last night. A body was found shot up in a car in Ferguson, the only death that I know of, but the burning of cars and businesses in Ferguson had no place in a civilized society. There should be prosecutions where possible. Let's not overstate that issue though. Ferguson has a little more than 21,000 people in the town, and well over 20,000 of them were in their homes last night, while a few hundred were peacefully protesting near municipal buildings. There were legitimate grievances, being aired by legitimately upset people. A few hundred troublemakers at most, some of them not even from Ferguson, some professional protestors, caused the scenes that Fox and others gloriously covered.
What happened in Ferguson is awful. A child was killed by a police officer, and the community does not believe it was justified, even though the courts do. This is a problem. This is a big problem in this country. You can mock it and focus on a messed up convenience store, or you can realize that the problem is much more serious than that.
So, if the Phillies trade Cole Hamels, what would the package look like. I'll give you a look at the prospects the Phillies should get back from several suitors, and what kind of package you can hope for:
Los Angeles Dodgers
- The Phillies would start by asking for Joc Pederson, an outfielder who is considered LA's top prospect. The alternative to Pederson is Corey Seager, the number two prospect, a shortstop with a good bat, who some see as a third baseman because of his very solid arm. Normally I'd say LA will go Seager, but the exit of Hanley Ramirez and an overly deep outfield make me doubt it.
- Next, the Phillies would have to get either Julio Urias or Zach Lee, the third and fourth rated prospects in the system. Urias, a lefty, is younger and further away, but has stuff that makes GM's drool. Lee has been highly rated for a few years, and is closer, but the righty 23 year old did not dominate AAA this year.
- Next, the Dodgers would without question attempt to get the Phillies to take a major league outfielder off of their hands. No, it won't be Puig, as the Dodgers will try to get the Phillies to take Ethier or Crawford off of their hands. Perhaps the Phillies would rather Matt Kemp, but I'd basically run from Ethier.
- Finally, the Phillies would probably take a fourth prospect in this deal as well, looking at the likes of five other pitchers in the Dodgers top ten, or high end athlete James Baldwin III.
- In short, I'd walk away thrilled with only three players if two of them are Pederson and Urias. I doubt LA will do that though, so if you get Pederson, take Lee, and if you get Seager, insist on Urias. My ideal outcome would probably be a Pederson, Lee, OF'er (obviously I prefer Kemp, but doubt that), and one of the other top ten arms.
Boston Red Sox
- While I was very down on a deal with Boston, now that they've went on a spending spree, their willingness to kick in the extra prospect has probably improved. This deal should start a top pitching prospect named Henry Owens, a lefty who has now reached the upper levels of the minors. The alternative to Owens is another pair of lefties named Eduardo Rodriguez and Brian Johnson. The Phillies should stick on Owens though, as he is my favorite prospect in Boston's system.
- Next is the big position prospect, and there are many options here. Either Blake Swihart or Christian Vazquez are catching options, Mookie Betts could be considered an outfielder or second baseman, and Xander Boagerts could play at either left-side infield position. Betts as a second baseman is the most enticing to me of the group, followed by the catchers.
- Jackie Bradley Jr. and Will Middlebrooks could be considered in a potential deal as well. Consider them against other pitching prospects Matt Barnes and Anthony Ranaudo.
- Finally, Boston will almost certainly want to move someone from their crowded outfield. I'd obviously love for it to be Rusney Castillo, but that won't happen. You're looking at a Daniel Nava, Shane Victorino, Yoenis Cespedes type of field.
- If this deal is to happen, you have to get two of Owens, Swihart/Vazquez, Betts, and Boagerts, with a strong bias towards Owens being one of them, to me. I could settle for a Owens, Swihart/Vazquez, Bradley, and any of the OF'er package.
Chicago Cubs
- The Cubs are loaded with big time prospects, from Javier Baez, to Addison Russell, to Arismendy Alcantara who play up the middle. They also have Starlin Castro already there. The ability to get a minimum of one of these guys in a deal has to be there.
- Next is the logjam at third base for the Cubs moving forward. Top prospect Kris Bryant is a third baseman, as is Mike Olt, a player the Phillies have long coveted from his times as a Rangers top prospect. The Phillies could reasonably get one of these two as well.
- The Phillies will want Aroldys Vizcaino or Jorge Soler in this deal. Both have made it up to the big leagues now, and would be tough to get. 20 year old Albert Almora, an OF'er, did struggle a bit in AA this year, but could be an option, as could C.J. Edwards, a righty who just had a strong AFL season.
- Right-hander Pierce Johnson and first-baseman Dan Vogelbach could be options for the Phillies as well.
- My ideal deal would bring Russell, Olt, Almora, and Johnson to Philadelphia. My sense though is that Chicago won't rush into that deal early in the off-season.
St. Louis Cardinals
- I would have wanted to start this deal for Shelby Miller, but that is no longer an option. Carlos Martinez is now the top arm available here, and has a big league season under his belt. Marco Gonzales wouldn't be a bad pick either.
- Stephen Piscotty would be the top target for the Phillies positionally, especially coming off of a good year in AAA ball. He would almost have to be in this deal.
- Alex Reyes, a fire-baller, and Tim Cooney, a control freak, are both decent options to look at. Rob Kaminsky is also an option here.
- Randal Grichuk and Charlie Tilson could be options as minor league outfielders go, but for that matter, the Phillies have always liked both Bourjos and Jay from their big league roster.
- My ideal deal is Piscotty, Martinez, Reyes, and Grichuk, but my guess is that if you got the first two, you're looking at Bourjos and one of the rest.
Toronto Blue Jays
- This deal would start with either Dan Norris or Aaron Sanchez, both of whom reached the bigs at age 21, after advancing several levels through the minors. It's a matter of whether you want a lefty or a righty at the top of this deal really.
- Next would be outfielder Dalton Pompey, who also reached the big leagues after advancing across several minor league stops.
- While very young, catcher Max Pentecost and pitcher Jeff Hoffman have tremendous upside and would interest the Phillies.
- Sean Nolin and Kendall Graveman are both MLB ready starters, and the Phillies have been linked to Nolin before.
- I'd be looking for Norris, Pompey, Pentecost, and Nolin from Toronto, which is a steep haul for them, given their reliance on home-grown talent. We'd probably have to throw someone else into this deal to make it work.
Cleveland Indians
- Another team who's been linked to interest lately, they have both a solid system and a young team. They have a log-jam in the middle infield, with 2013 All-Star Jason Kipnis (just 27) coming off of a rough season, Jose Ramirez having taken over the job at short, and top prospect Francisco Lindor at short in AAA. One would have to be in the deal.
- Outfielder Bradley Zimmer was the 21st overall pick in last year's draft, and could be a piece the Phillies want, as could Mike Papi, another high pick last year.
- Lefty T.J. House would most likely have to be in the deal. Cleveland won't want to part with Justus Sheffield.
- Catcher Francisco Mejia and first baseman Bobby Bradley are very young, but show promise. Clint Frazier is also young, and rates out even better.
- Ramirez or Kipnis, Zimmer, House, and any of the kids would make a nice package.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Amen. Phil Puckett's legacy in public life is denying 400,000 people access to health care. I hope he can sleep easy tonight."Hey, Phil? Terry McAuliffe," the governor said in what the Post described as a "seething voice message" to Puckett. "I want you to know we just lost the vote, 20 to 19, in the Senate. Medicaid is done. I hope you sleep easy tonight, buddy."
Washington, DC – Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz today announced the finalist cities under consideration to host the 2016 Democratic National Convention: Columbus, New York, and Philadelphia. The announcement comes after a round of site visits by the DNC’s Technical Advisory Group to five cities.Good. I've always preferred Philadelphia, with Brooklyn being my second choice. I would have put Phoenix into this group, not Columbus, but that's fine.
“We’re thrilled to move to the next step of the selection process to determine where Democrats will come together to nominate the 45th President of the United States,” said Wasserman Schultz. “We are fortunate to have such a diverse and vibrant group of cities interested in hosting this special event and we thank Phoenix and Birmingham for showcasing their special communities. We look forward to working with Columbus, New York, and Philadelphia as we go forward.”
You pick based on the logistical capabilities of the city, what it says about your coalition, and what broader themes your nominee will put forward from that choice. You don't pick a city based on it's "electoral value." Conventions just don't have electoral values.
Philadelphia is the right choice for it's strong union background, it's place as our original capitol, and it's diverse, working class citizenry. It's got great mass-transit, the site would be secure and easy to reach, and it's got great entertainment options for the delegates. Brooklyn would obviously be awesome too, but it isn't Philly.
I think Hagel was a solid choice, and I will start by taking aim at the conservatives. I think Hagel should have smacked John McCain back by saying "the surge" was still a mistake. All it did was prolong the road to the current outcome in Iraq, which was unavoidable once we went into the war. Hagel was right as a Senator to oppose the continued activity in Iraq, and that good judgment should have been defended.
As for the left, the folks who didn't want a Republican/man/white guy in the job, completely missed the point. This job is leading our entire military. It requires a major figure, which a former Senator provides. Hagel was the person the President had confidence in, and that should have carried more weight than some sort of social point.
As for Hagel's job performance, it was a tough job. I don't think he did a bad job in office. I disagree with some of the decisions made on foreign policy matters during his tenure (particularly on Syria), however not all of that is on him. I think handling issues like ISIS are not black and white issues.
I do find it funny though that Hagel's defenders today include people like John McCain- people who called Hagel a lightweight and anti-semite. That's a commentary on our politics more than the people involved, but watching conservatives rush to the side of a former Republican Senator because he's being pushed out of a Democratic administration is pretty disgusting.
As for my view on Hagel's ouster, cabinet members serve at the discretion of the President. If he no longer represented the President with his leadership, he had to go. This is how cabinet posts work. The reality is that Hagel was not providing a voice in the public realm that was adequate, as is born out in opinion polling. This is what happens when that happens.
First, to the broader event itself- Michael Brown being shot isn't an isolated incident. It is, for the sense of the law, but make no mistake, everything that happened here is part of a larger issue. Michael Brown's attitude toward that cop, according to testimony, was a product of his perception of how the officer would treat him. Darren Wilson's decision to shoot him, out of fear for safety, was a product of his perception of Brown and the situation. That protestors poured into the streets was surely about more than one incident, and more so a product of an overall environment that was unhealthy. The scenes of militarized cops was also a product of perceptions from a broader feeling amidst the community. In short, Ferguson has a race problem, in it's government and police force, and in it's community. They don't trust each other, and that is unacceptable. With that said, the problem lies on the side of the government there. That must be fixed, by mobilization of the public to the ballot box.
To the incident itself though- it is not a matter of the police force on the whole, or a matter of Michael Brown as a kid. An unarmed 18 year old kid was shot by an armed officer of the law. The victim's color did not matter legally, but it absolutely matters to the situation. Unfortunately, there is no way to make everyone accept the legal justification here. You can't. Some people are just going to believe what they believe. That's it.
My personal feeling is that Darren Wilson was probably never going to be convicted. I also think he should have been indicted. Based on the evidence submitted, it appears that the most plausible, consistent witnesses were the ones who said Brown charged Wilson. I'm not going to get into calling some people liars and other people not, however just the fact that we're talking about different accounts means Wilson was going to win at trial. Even more important though are the forensics. The forensics pretty much made a conviction impossible. If there was blood in the car, it's pretty plausible to say the officer was in an altercation with the victim when he first shot him. Reasonable doubt would have been easy. Now I would love to know why we never heard exactly why Wilson felt threatened (and won't), as I would think that intent matters here. With that said, I want to know that for my own purposes, not for the purposes of guessing the jury's final verdict. With the evidence, and inconsistency in it, Wilson was never going to be convicted of a crime.
Now, with that said, I'm not totally clearing the prosecutor. First, I think many of his critics are playing into local politics. Robert McCulloch has been St. Louis County District Attorney for a while, and yes, he's pro-cop. Most DA's are. He's also being attacked in no small part for backing a white candidate against the African-American County Executive in this year's primary. So yes, that's a defense of him. I won't defend the case though. He failed to get an indictment on a cop for shooting an unarmed teenager, and that is partially because he was overly balanced in presenting his case. I wonder if the average African-American in St. Louis who shoots someone will have ALL of the evidence presented to a grand jury by a prosecutor. Seriously, he presented evidence helpful to the defense in his presentation. I do see why a prosecutor would rather lose at the grand jury by presenting too much evidence against a cop, rather than prosecuting them and losing. That's not an excuse to do it. He bungled the case, a case in which he probably could have received an indictment, if not a guilty verdict.
Tomorrow, opinions on this awful situation will largely fall along partisan, racial, ideological lines. If you watched FOX, and watched people looting the Ferguson Market, you'll talk about "thugs" and "criminals." If you watched MSNBC, you'll hear about "protestors." Let me say this- a kid was killed. That kid was black. He was killed by a white cop. No verdict will change the suspicions and real issues we have in our society over issues just like this. Many will believe the fix was in. The fact is, young black men have to worry about being shot by a police officer a lot more than I do. Whether Officer Darren Wilson should have been tried or not for killing Michael Brown was left to the grand jury, and I'd like to believe they did their job well. That's not the point though, because many people are where they started the day on this issue, because of what they perceive here. That is the problem, and that needs to be addressed. We need equal justice, and a lot of people don't feel they got it here, and a lot wouldn't have if the shoe was on the other foot. It's bad for America to let this continue.
All that to say he was tough on ebola. I bet it's a nice ad in Iowa.The state paid more than 500 hours of overtime during a three-week period to Human Services police officers who were stationed around the clock at a former psychiatric hospital in Hunterdon County after it was identified as a location to quarantine West African travelers who had contact with Ebola patients, NJ Advance Media has learned.So far, Gov. Chris Christie's administration has not needed to use the former Hagedorn Psychiatric Hospital in Lebanon Township as a quarantine area. Only Doctors Without Borders Nurse Kaci Hickox has been quarantined in New Jersey after arriving at Newark Liberty International Airport, and she was held at an isolated tent at University Hospital in Newark from Oct. 24-27.
Lehigh Valley Congressman Charlie Dent, who appears to have been the token conservative participating in an otherwise one-sided forum, gently reminded that audience that wealth disparity is the necessary result of a free market economy. "We've always had it," he noted. He also cautioned against changing that approach to one in which power is concentrated. Under other systems, "You will see less prosperity and a heckuva' lot more cronyism," he warned, in an obvious reference to totalitarian regimes.I basically agree with Dent here. Yes, really. We don't want to go communist to eliminate wealth inequality.
But he conceded that the disparity has increased in recent years. "We have to fix the policies that make it harder for people to make more money," he argued.
The policies that made it "harder for people to make more money" though are the ones he spent his political career championing. Tearing down government services, slashing tax rates, and generally supporting de-regulation are why we're in this mess. I should hope that Congressman Dent will begin to support policies that lift people up- a rising minimum wage, a fair tax system, and a government that works.
So now, a President prioritizing to keep five million families together is equal to putting Japanese-Americans in an internment camp. Right.Paul made the comments on Friday, a day after Obama formally announced the executive actions, at the Kentucky Association of Counties conference in Lexington, Kentucky."I care that too much power gets in one place. Why? Because there are instances in our history where we allow power to gravitate toward one person and that one person then makes decisions that really are egregious," Paul said. "Think of what happened in World War II where they made the decision. The president issued an executive order. He said to Japanese people 'we're going to put you in a camp. We're going to take away all your rights and liberties and we're going to intern you in a camp.'""We shouldn't allow that much power to gravitate to one individual. We need to separate the power."
Paul's not done with crazy. Some of you probably think Rand Paul has a positive record on fighting for peace. He really doesn't, and now he's introducing a declaration of war against ISIS. He wants his cake, and to eat it too. He'll get no cake here.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
It's hard to not watch that video and think you're looking at a great candidate for President. In truth, you are. In a vacuum, most left-leaning voters would love to vote for an economic populist candidate like Warren. In reality, I don't think she's the right messenger.
I'd like her to not run though. I don't believe she's the right messenger for the general election, and I think she'd have to define herself as a more "lefty" candidate in the primary, which would make that problem worse. Warren would be putting her platform, right now as the leading messenger in the party on populist messages, into the fray for something I don't think would work out. I'm obviously open to hearing what she'd say on this if she enters, but I have real doubts.
I'd like to see Senator Warren remain in the Senate, concentrate on a long and impactful career, and become a leader there. Yes, she can be an impact in the primary, but I am not sure that's best for the party at this stage, nor is it best for the country right now. Things can change. They haven't yet. At this point, I hope she stays put.
 |
| The President in 2008 |
There's a reason why the President and the former Secretary of State were the best two politicians in the country when they went head-to-head, and that shows when you hear talk like this. Hillary Clinton went into his administration and was a good soldier for him. He's now saying that he'll be a good soldier for the nominee- as he should be.Host George Stephanopolous asked Obama if he would give Hillary Clinton room to "separate" from him on certain issues if she needs to.
"And I am very interested in making sure that-- I've got a Democratic successor. So I'm gonna do everything I can, obviously, to make sure that-- whoever the nominee is is successful," Obama responded. "And she's not gonna agree with me on-- on everything. And, you know, one of the benefits of-- running for president is you can stake out your own positions."
Regardless of who the nominee is, President Obama can have a key role in rallying parts of our base vote, and getting them to the polls in 2016. He remains fairly popular with the base of the party, even if he's not with the general public. The gridlock with Congress should help his standing over time, as will the oncoming nostalgia for his early Presidency. If used right, the President can be a big player in this oncoming fight. He seems ready to do just that.
 |
| Then Congressman Graham arguing the Clinton impeachment trial |
Yes, Lindsey Graham says the House Intelligence committee is wrong to say there is no scandal over Benghazi.
Lindsey Graham is a partisan hack, and probably knows better than what he's saying, but knows it's good politics in a conservative state to say this. Let's review here- Benghazi is a terrible event, but people die at consulates in nations that are having a civil war, particularly in that region of the world, and they have died before. This happens in every Presidency. There was no cover-up, the President called it terrorism the next morning, and clearly it was a failure within the bureaucracy. The House Intelligence Committee, to it's credit, is having a rare moment of serious fact-finding. What Lindsey Graham is doing is fanning flames to make himself important.The senator insisted that members of the administration altered the Benghazi talking points after the attack.
"I'm saying that anybody who has followed Benghazi at all knows that the CIA deputy director did not come forward to tell Congress what role he played in changing the talking points," he said. "And the only way we knew he was involved is when he told a representative at the White House, I'm going to do a hard review of this, a hard rewrite."
CNN host Gloria Borger then told Graham that the House report concludes that the administration received bad information at first and did not lie.
"That's a bunch of garbage," Graham shot back. "That's a complete bunch of garbage."
Graham, not too long ago, was trying to be the "serious" person in Washington who wasn't engaging in this behavior. He wanted to be taken seriously at least then. Now he wants to be a quack, and Senator Jeff Flake is the new "false moderate" of the GOP. Despite a solidly GOP voting record, Flake is trying to make himself the new "serious voice." So, he of course is under-cutting the partisan-hack from South Carolina:
"Well, I've always thought the biggest problem with Benghazi is how it was cast by the administration and the remarks that Susan Rice just really threw in the face of what we knew was going on," Flake responded. "But with regard to the other things that were addressed by this report, well, yes, I thought for a long time that we ought to move beyond that."When an Arizona Senator is shooting down your wild-eyed conspiracy theory talk, Senator Graham, it's time to shut up and sit down.
Are those fingers also what cause him to make stupid statements like the one in the picture above? Or did those fingers make him finally join his political party? Either way, this man is a nut-job.Washington (CNN) -- Dr. Ben Carson, a devout Christian, renowned neurosurgeon, and now, possible presidential 2016 candidate, says he's sensing a 2016 campaign covenant from the man upstairs."I feel fingers," Carson said an interview with Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody published Thursday, when asked if he's feeling the push from God to run for president. "But it's mostly me. I have to be sure and it's part of my personality that says always look before you leap but don't leap before you have to."In 2013, Carson told Fox's Sean Hannity that "If the Lord grabbed me by the collar and made me do it (run for president)," he would do it.Now, Carson said he hasn't quite felt a tug, but he is getting a feeling.Earlier this month, Carson announced he would be leaving Fox News as he mulls a run for the Oval Office.To add to the speculation, Carson officially switched parties from registered independent to Republican, though he's long sided with the GOP.
So a Boston reporter continues to assert that the Red Sox and Phillies are serious about Hamels. Ok, I'll humor the suggestion. The Red Sox supposedly aren't making a serious offer to Lester, which would mean that they will be out on him at some point soon. That would make them a suitor for Hamels again, if you follow this, or don't think it's completely stupid on it's face. Fair enough.Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe says that the right offer for Hamels simply has not come yet:The Phillies just want a fair package for Hamels, one of the best pitchers in baseball, and they haven’t heard one. GM Ruben Amaro is often criticized for holding out for too much, but some of the offers presented to him are really not good deals for a team that needs to rebuild. It would hurt the Red Sox to part with at least one among Xander Bogaerts, Mookie Betts, Henry Owens, and Blake Swihart to get a deal done, let alone two. So they’d rather steer the conversation toward Matt Barnes, Anthony Ranaudo, and a young positional playerA couple weeks ago I suggested Blake Swihart could be a centerpiece in a Hamels deal.The Red Sox would be foolish not to at least try a lesser package for Hamels, especially after seeing what the Phillies settled for in exchange for ace Cliff Lee just a few years ago. The Red Sox already once insulted ace Jon Lester with last year's contract offer, and this offseason's offer to Lester appears to be underwhelming. At six years and $110 to $120 million, the average annual value would be much lower than Hamels' current deal, which seems to be reasonable given the marketplace.I would expect the Chicago Cubs or St. Louis Cardinals to outbid the Red Sox for Lester. At that point, the Red Sox may be willing to give up one of those players to make a deal with the Phillies.
The Phillies have reportedly been making proposals to Boston for a Hamels trade, and I'm sure they've asked for each of the players listed above, and probably at least two at a time. Clearly Boston has said no. Given Boston's reluctance to trade at least two of them in a deal, that should be enough to walk away. Not one of these prospects should be good enough on their own to headline a package for a 31 year old ace who will still be good in three years when the Phillies should be back to winning.
Just for a second though, who are these guys?
- Henry Owens is a left-handed starting pitcher who is 22 years old, and is generally considered between the 30th and 40th best prospect by the rankers. I find him to easily be the best of their bunch, and he would have to be in any acceptable package for Hamels.
- Mookie Betts is a 22 year old who hasn't yet stuck at a specific position for Boston, but hit .291 in the big leagues, mostly aided by a strong finish. If you made him a second baseman (and managed to trade Chase Utley), I see a very plus career there. I'm not as high on him as an outfielder. Couple him with Owens and I could start to buy in, though i'd still not be content. On his own, he was generally considered a 60-75 prospect in all of baseball, or similar to say, Jesse Biddle, before 2014.
- Blake Swihart is a 22 year old catcher who is blocked within his own organization by a young catcher who took over in 2014 instead of Swihart (Christian Vazquez). Swihart had really plus numbers offensively in High-A and AA, but was pre-season ranked in about the exact same place as Betts. He could be a part of a deal, much like Betts, but I really wouldn't take a package where he's the main piece.
- Xander Bogaerts is a 22 year old shortstop or third baseman who a year ago I would have told you I'd trade Hamels away to get for sure. A .240/.297/.362/.660 season later and I see a mediocre player who isn't as good of a future option as Crawford or Franco at either position, frankly. I'd run away from any deal that is centered around him, we're fine on the left side of the infield.
- Matt Barnes is a 24 year old right-handed pitcher who is generally considered a top 100 prospect, but has pitched to about a four ERA over the last two seasons in AA and AAA. He'd be a nice piece as your third guy in a trade, but I'd be livid if you centered the deal around him.
- Anthony Ranaudo is a 25 year old right-handed pitcher who is from Freehold, NJ. He's had some very solid numbers the last couple of seasons in the minors, but hasn't been rated in the top 100 in a couple of years. He'd be similar to Barnes for me.
So, other than Bogaerts i'm not ruling them totally out, but as you can see, none of them jumps off the page the way you'd like to see a package do so for Hamels. Given that the Phillies have probably already asked for two of the "premium" (and I use that word loosely here) prospects in the discussions, and that Boston has probably already said no, I don't see much to do here. You don't keep trolling around and allow yourself to possibly fall for a lesser package, just to say you made a deal. MLB isn't the NBA, and there's no point in "tanking" on purpose unless you're actually building towards a new championship group. Getting a higher pick is basically unimportant in baseball.
Besides all of that, as Frank said, Chicago and St. Louis are both out there looking for an arm. Both are going to bid on Lester and Scherzer I'm sure, as will others. If either of them misses on those arms, both have much better prospects than Boston that would be better to get. Even if you only got one premium prospect from St. Louis or the Cubs, they'd both be better than what's here.
Sure if you said Owens, Swihart, and Ranaudo I'd be inclined to say yes, but even then, why not wait and see if St. Louis, Chicago, the Dodgers, or any number of other teams could come up with a better deal? Talk to Pittsburgh, see if there's any way to make a deal (maybe throw in Ruiz with them, or the Cubs for that matter), and get a good package. Try some other avenues.
I might stand in the minority here to say that all of this Boston talk sounds crazy to me. If you believe the press reports, we chose Boston sometime last Summer and haven't done our due diligence in seeking a better deal since. This with a system that is habitually over-rated, and has maybe produced two or three good prospects whom they traded away in the last decade. The Phillies can do a lot better, and I have to hold out hope that Pat Gillick wouldn't sign off on a deal with them. I'm holding out hope that basically the Boston writer is pumping up Boston's odds a bit with his writing.
No, you can't leave an undefeated Florida State out of the Final Four Playoff system for college football though.
They're the only major undefeated team left. They're in what we consider a "Power 5 conference." They're the defending National Champions. While you think Jameis is an idiot, and he is, he's never lost at FSU. I hate them too. I think it's ridiculous how they get calls and remain unbeaten. It doesn't matter though. If they can win out and win the ACC as an unbeaten, FSU has to make the Final Four. There's no debating it. There's no discretion. They should be the first team in, even if you think Mississippi State will crush them. Good, let them! It has to happen on the field though. You can't re-write their record as having a loss.
I'll give you my projection right now:
- Alabama-Mississippi State
- Oregon-Florida State
- Next four out: Baylor, Ohio State, TCU, UCLA
 |
| Are you smiling? |
The bad thing is, Carter-Williams is back, and playing reasonably decent on the stat sheet. This team just can't beat anyone. They have 69 games remaining this season, and to avoid their own record for futility (9 wins), they have to go 10-59. That's .145 ball, which is terrible, but do you think this team can win 15% of it's remaining games? I'm struggling with that. If anything, it's more likely than not that they do break the record for worst seasons. It's also more than possible that this team can break their own record for consecutive losses. Futility is abundant!
I stand by my assessment that only Carter-Williams, Noel, Embiid, Wroten, and McDaniels of this current crop look like they have any future here. The rest of the roster is basically D-League level talent, if that, and could possibly lose to a team of our over-seas "assets" that we own the rights to. That's pathetic.
 |
| Part 1- the travel |
 |
| Part 2- pre-game |
 |
| Part 3- the venue |
 |
| Part 4- the seats. |
 |
| Part 5- the game. |
 |
| Part 6- Leaving the Bronx, game aftermath. |
 |
| Part 7- The Empire State Building and Going Home |
So, I will say this- Lafayette and Lehigh put on quite a show. This was an event worthy of a 150th game. In an era where college football rivalries get dropped over the all-mighty dollar, that did not happen to this rivalry. Instead they've been smart enough to keep it going, and they put on a first-class event to commemorate it. Great job by the schools, and good luck in taking this to game 200.
 |
| The view out into the Bronx from upstairs. |
I had a good time in the Bronx yesterday. Yes, it's a blue collar neighborhood around Yankee Stadium, but for me that's the charm. It's gritty, it's working class, and it's got character. While I'm not a Yankee fan, I do have a lot of respect for keeping the stadium in the neighborhood, amongst actual residents, and therefore creating an economy there. People ask about the value of sports, I'd say the hundreds of people who were working on River Avenue last night after the game might be able to tell you.
The Bronx is old-school New York. It's not hipster Williamsburg, or banker South Manhattan, it's working-class people who work hard for what they have. Yes, the old immigrant neighborhoods are now much more Hispanic, but the same basic principle is involved. They work, they earn a living, and they live off of that living. The Bronx is what New York has always been about. I enjoy taking a trip up there for any purpose I can.
- The Sixers are a hopeless mess. How bad will it be?
- Don't blame the Sanchize, The Eagles are just not contenders.
- Yes, contrary to talking points on Fox, government works.
- Do not trade Cole Hamels to Boston. A realistic off-season outlook.
- Yes, the bank bailouts did work.
- What scares the GOP about immigration executive actions.
- Our clueless pundits, rewarding obstruction.
- Viva il papa! Welcome to America!
- Check out the new Foo Fighters song.
- More evidence the Affordable Care Act works- Medicaid Expansion edition.
- How does Frank Fina do it?
- Stupid talk from Politico on Leader Pelosi.
- Hillary Clinton's electoral map for 2016.
- The GOP's 2016 electoral map.
- About white working-class voters.
- Bi-partisanship is awesome to DC pundits, but only them.
- Keystone XL and Senator Landrieu.
- Yes, the Holderness family sucks, but it represents something more.
- Daesh (ISIS) isn't going to become an oil power.
- Spot on, Senator Warren.
- I support the President's speech and action.
- Why the President is right to act.
- Yes, a Republican said the executive action will lead to "ethnic cleansing."
- Tom Coburn talking about anarchy and violence.
- Cicero deserved better than Ted Cruz.
- President Bush on immigration reform.
- Holy shit level conservative crazy.
- Senator Menendez on immigration reform.
- Our deadbeat Speaker should #PassABill.
- The Republican position on immigration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
