"The list is life."--Ben Kingsley in Schindler's List
In compiling my list of the 25 best albums of the year, I discovered it was a pretty damn good year for music. Multiple albums on this list have the potential to be regarded as "classics" some day, and a wide range of genres are represented. You may have noticed that this list will only include albums. No singles, downloads, best song from a Saab commercial or your favorite tune from a Grey's Anatomy episode will be represented. If you lack the stamina to sit through an artist's entire recording, then move right along, nothing to see here. As for the rest of you, I will call you "friend."
First things first, the near misses:
Broken Bells/S-T: Multiple moments of brilliance from the marriage of Danger Mouse and the lead singer/songwriter of The Shins, James Murcer. But not enough overall.
Robert Randolph/We Walk This Road: Just short of making my list. T-Bone Burnett's classy production results in better songs than on Randolph's previous album, Colorblind, but also overly restrains the pedal steel virtuoso's scorching guitar heroics. Yes, there is such a thing as too much class.
Hole/Nobody's Daughter: Way, way better than anyone had a right to expect. There's life in this wild child yet.
Stone Temple Pilots/S-T: See my comments directly above.
The Roots/How I Got Over: Why, of why can't I quite fall in love with The Roots? For all the massive talent on display, they always leave me wanting more.
James/Night Before-Morning After: Still pumping out terrific records way past their relevancy in America. Our loss, big time. This collection of two separate EPs may not reach all the way back to the glory days of Laid, but it comes damn close.
Ra Ra Riot/The Orchard: A slight come down from 2008's The Rhumb Line. For now, they will have to settle for being a poor man's Arcade Fire.
Vampire Weekend/Contra: Very creative band that elicits smiles from me whenever I listen to them. Unfortunately, they need to break through being pleasant and cute. Just not enough heft for me.
Ryan Bingham/Junky Star: I have no doubt that this alt-country rocker who won an out of left field Oscar for his song from Crazy Heart has a great album in him. This is almost it.
Sade/Soldier Of Love: Content to pop up once or twice a decade and put out pretty much the exact same album she did last time. Still, it's a pretty damn good album.
Brandon Flowers/Flamingo: Sort of a low key sequel to The Killers second album, Sam's Town, this second ode to Las Vegas has ten fine songs, but misses the muscle of his band.
Ryan Adams/III-IV: Essentially left overs recorded during the making of 2007's great Easy Tiger, this double album further proves my suspicions that this guy rolls out of bed and writes three songs before he cracks an egg or grinds a bean. Not as cohesive as a "proper" album perhaps, but definitely his most rockin' since 2003's Rock N Roll.
Second thing, the brutal disappointments:
Weezer/Hurley: Weezer by the numbers. Not bad, but nothing exceptional here. It's been rumored that some deep pocketed businessman has offered the band $5,000,000 to quit. If they can't do better than this, then maybe they should take it.
M.I.A./Maya: Three killer tunes and a bunch of hard and ultimately unrewarding work. Still, you do get the feeling that she's really trying here. Better luck next time.
Interpol/S-T: Oh, dear. I was really excited about this one. It's not awful, but the best song here is not as good as the weakest song on their first two albums. Maybe they should follow the path of bassist, Carlos D, and quit before they get further behind.
MGMT/Congratulations: Stunningly bad, to the point of being almost unlistenable. Almost entirely devoid of hooks and melody. After their triumphant debut, Oracular Spectacular, they seemingly canned their original brand of strange and wonderful dance rock and decided to become The Grateful Dead of the aughts? Did anyone ask for that? I think not.
Now, on with the show:
25) The Hold Steady/Heaven Is Whenever: The little pub band that could still can. Raised on Westerberg and Springsteen, these guys may never quite hit the heights of their idols, but that doesn't mean they can't get close. This album is the sound of close.
24) Bryan Ferry/Olympia: The suave crooner's first album of primarily original material in 16 years reminds us why we ever liked him in the first place. Collaborating with three of the founding members of his legendary band, Roxy Music (including his former frienemy, Brian Eno!), Ferry came back with his best record in nearly a quarter century.
23) Black Rebel Motorcycle Club/Beat The Devil: Their mixture of blues and Jesus and Mary Chain inspired rock is still a winning stew. Not sure where they came up with the idea for that blend, but it definitely works. Not as good as their 2005 breakout classic, Howl, but within shouting distance.
22) John Legend and The Roots/Wake Up!: One of the two finest old school soul singers (Maxwell being the other), connects with the finest band in late night to cover a cluster of message songs from years gone by. The decision to select songs that were less than obvious was an inspired one. The album feels more like a collection of originals than a grab bag of best known cuts. You've also never heard John Legend being so funky. Here's to hoping The Roots back up the Leg on his next record too.
21) The New Pornographers/Together: A nice bounce back from the relative disappointment of 2007's Challengers. AC Newman, Dan Bejar, Neko Case, and crew remembered where they left their hooks and put them on full display, creating inspired power pop. One has to wonder how big they might be if they called themselves anything else. Like, say, Toad The Wet Sprocket.
20) Scissor Sisters/Night Work: The sisters returned with a brand new mix of ultra-catchy disco influenced pop tunes. Studio 54, where are you?
19) Titus Andronicus/The Monitor: I wouldn't have expected these garage punkers to follow 2008's brilliant, The Airing Of Grievances, with a song cycle about the Civil War, but here it is. While I'm not 100% sure it all works, no rock album this year was more ambitious. The mix of olde timey instruments next to roaring guitars and tonsil shredding vocals is one hell of a ride.
18) Taylor Swift/Speak Now: Yes, I know, all my cred may be lost with this selection. But please tell me the name of the pop singer/songwriter who scripts better tunes than this faux-hillbilly heartbreaker? She is a relentless, self-contained, chart busting apparatus. And I defy you to hear even one song of hers and not spend half the day trying to get it out of your head like shower water in your ear.
17) Grinderman/2: Another year, and another sterling Nick Cave album. This punkier offshoot of his Bad Seeds band improves upon their 2007 debut by being even nastier than that gnarly beast of a record. The cover photo of a seriously edged wolf trapped in a domestic setting may be the best and most evocative of the year. These guys belong to a time when you could kill a man in Reno, just to watch him die.
16) Gorillaz/Plastic Beach: While Damon Albarn's cartoon band may lack a killer single like Clint Eastwood or Feel Good Inc. from their previous two albums, they did come up with their most consistent set of tunes. Using the great and gritty soul legend, Bobby Womack, on two cuts was genius. But using Lou Reed on the brilliant track, Some Kind Of Nature? Well, no other musical surprise this year pleased me more.
15) Broken Social Scene/Forgiveness Rock Record: At first I was a little underwhelmed by this new album from these Canadian art rockers. However, repeated listens convinced me otherwise. While not as strange or off-kilter as their previous releases, the songs are more consistent (if a bit more conventional), and their willingness to record the vocals in a way that made you believe they were no longer embarrassed at the sound of the human voice, proved quite successful. As usual, fellow canucks Feist and Emily Haines of Metric supply sterling support.
14) Gaslight Anthem/American Slang: Another grower. Perhaps not as immediate as their 2008 breakthrough '59 Sound, Slang rewards the patient listener. These Jersey born, Springsteen inspired kinda-sorta punk rockers may be more restrained overall on this record, but no song on any album this year defies my ability to maintain the posted speed limit than Slang's powerhouse divorce anthem, Bring It On.
13) Against Me/White Crosses: Carrying the flag for left wing, politically inspired punk rock, this Florida band proves that force and volume need not sacrifice melody. Produced by studio genius, Butch Vig, this latest batch of rollicking tunes written by frontman, Tom Gabel, delivers the best collection of fist pumpers and table pounders of the year.
12) Kid Cudi/Man On The Moon II-The Legend Of Mr. Rager: Unfairly classified as a Kanye West protege, Kid Cudi continues to make his own variation of highly creative hip-hop tunes. To be fair though, calling Cudi a hip-hop artist is a bit like calling a whale a pretty big fish. It's not really pure hip-hop, he doesn't always rap (or even rhyme), and your just as likely to find live instrumentation as well as a liberal use of sampling. In fact, Moon's first single Erase Me has far more in common with 80's alt-rock than it does with any typical rap artist. This is anything can happen music. Keep your eye on this guy.
11) Robert Plant/Band Of Joy: For my money, this new opus of Appalachia and olde timey (yes, I realize I used olde timey twice in the same article) tunes is even better than the landmark record, Raising Sand, that the one-time Zep wailer recorded with Alison Krauss in 2007. Looser and more beguiling than that admittedly great album, Band Of Joy may be the last word on the Led Zeppelin reunion that so many AOR aged minions have been hoping for. He just doesn't need it.
10) Pete Yorn/S-T: I had all but left Yorn for dead. When your previous album was a duet thingy with Scarlett Johansson, and that album was actually superior to your previous proper solo record, well...dark times, man. But apparently nothing that Black Francis of The Pixies couldn't fix. Easily his best album since his terrific debut in 2001, Yorn plugged in and got raw. No matter what happens from here on out, this album proves that Yorn has more than one trick in the bag. Thank you Black Francis for opening the sack.
9) Kings Of Leon/Come Around Sundown: An unjustly maligned album from an unjustly maligned band. Sundown may not reach the same anthemic peaks as 2008's Only By The Night, but it is every bit as consistent. In turn both muted and bright, Sundown brought back some of the southern sound that KOL purists have found missing from their previous two albums. Whatever, purity-shmurity. These are 13 expertly crafted rockers in what is likely to be considered one day as their "fame hangover" album. Regardless, the morning after was worth the night before.
8) Cee-Lo Green/The Ladykiller: Don't be fooled by the wondrous viral sensation that was The Ladykiller's first single, F*** You, this is no novelty album. Chock full of classic soul, modern production, and that one of a kind Cee-Lo weirdness, this is the best album of his career. His one of a kind voice is more confident in sound and tone, and every tune is a keeper. I once thought that Gnarls Barkley's Crazy would be his mountain top. And there wouldn't be a damn thing wrong with that if it were. Well, to my own amazement, I was wrong.
7) LCD Soundsystem/This Is Happening: I wasn't quite on the James Murphy train before This Is Happening. The previous two proper albums by the one man band had some inspired moments of danceable rock, but also some notable lulls. Well, This is a lull free zone. Nine songs ranging in length from the 3:42 of the hilarious first single, Drunk Girls, to the 9:06 of the all kinds of awesome You Wanted A Hit, this is the sound of Murphy really going for it...and getting there. I should also add that the staggering lead off track Dance Yrself Clean is my favorite opening track off of any album this year. It starts out all quiet and slow then explodes when you least expect it. Be careful if you listen to this for the first time while driving. Controlling your vehicle during that propulsive sneak attack. Staying on the road may be a challenge.
6) Mumford & Sons/Sigh No More: The inventers of the folk rock anthem. No success in 2010 was more out of left field than this one. Four guys from London mixing folk, country, rock and bluegrass? Who would bet on that? What you need to know is this: No other artist has advanced the art of folk music since someone suggested to Bob Dylan, "How 'bout you plug this here geetar into that there amp?" It really is that good.
5) The National/High Violet: This Ohio born, now New York based band is on one hell of a winning streak. Their previous two albums, 2007's Boxer and 2005's Alligator set the standard for moody, almost (but not quite), anthemic alt-rock. Frontman Matt Berninger sings as if he's just been woken from an all night bender and can't seem to shake the effects. The push-pull of Berninger's restraint and the band's slow build to a soar feels much like a futile grasp for some sort of...freedom? Release? Something more mysterious? I'm not sure, but never has futility sounded so grand.
4) The Black Keys/Brothers: Another band born in Ohio (although still based there). This duo of guitarist/frontman, Dan Auerbach and drummer, Patrick Carney, always seemed destined (to me anyway) to end up in the consistently overpraised pile. Sure, their swampy two-man blues rock was good. Very good, even. But did it really add much to the musical landscape? Well, they have now. The secret, appears to be the most obvious one. Write a bunch of great songs and simply be less slavish to convention. The result, Brothers, is a revelation. From the killer opening cut, Everlasting Light (reminiscent of the great Spoon track, I Turn My Camera On), to the lovely closer, These Days, no album was more consistently satisfying this year.
3) Arcade Fire/The Suburbs: The great rock hope delivers again. Not since Radiohead disappeared up their own backsides and stopped writing songs you could sing along to has more responsibility been hoisted upon a rock band. Critics and music snobs alike have been looking for the next important rock band. One that was about more than their music. That genuinely stood for something. U2 and Pearl Jam are getting long in the tooth, and the jury is still out on Coldplay. That leaves us with Arcade Fire. Whom, unlike Radiohead, do not fear that mantle, they actually embrace it. On The Suburbs, you get a sense of a band considering the weight of expectation and giving you both what you want, but not exactly what you expect. If their first album, Funeral, was built around the loss of family, and their second album, Neon Bible, around Bush's failed America (my theory anyway), then The Suburbs is about the big now what? What does all this mean? Where do we go from here? And what do we do when we get there? The key to being a great band is in the reach, not the grasp. And it's clear, that Arcade Fire still haven't found what they are looking for. Here's to the expedition. Wherever it may take us.
2) Jamie T./Kings and Queens: Ok, obviously this is a pretty obscure choice--on this side of the Atlantic anyway. So, I should probably describe what the working class fun house that is Jamie T. sounds like. Imagine if you will, the Arctic Monkeys being fronted by Joe Strummer if Joe were once a member of The Beastie Boys. Marble mouthed and British to the core, Jamie T.'s Kings And Queens is as enjoyable record that I have heard in a long time. You will probably need to refer to the lyrics to figure out what the hell he is going on about, but song titles like The Man's Machine, Castro Dies, and British Intelligence probably give you some idea of the things that concern him in life. Half rapped, half sung, with ideas swirling in from seemingly all over the place, this bratty, deceptively smart assed, limey may never make it on our shores. But that doesn't mean he should be ignored. So there.
1) Kanye West/My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy: Yes, I know, he's a douchebag. If you don't believe it, just ask him. He'll confess to you in song. He is also the most fascinating and mercurial artist in popular music since Prince wore ruffles and said "That ain't Lake Minnetonka." I'm not even sure this is a perfect record. I could've probably done without the Chris Rock profane spoken word routine on the back portion of the album (and I love Chris Rock). That being said, I can't imagine a more ambitious and contradictory album than this one. Eminem's head must be positively spinning. Lacerating both himself and the doubters with an ego that knows no bounds, there really isn't anything else like this out there. I know for some, his theft of poor little Taylor Swift's Grammy moment (get over it, she got a great song out of it and seems to be doing just fine, thank you), will forever be too much for them. And here's the thing, I wouldn't bet against him doing something even more stupid in the future. But if he keeps making albums with songs like Power, Runaway, Monster, and All Of The Lights on it, I'll probably have to forgive him. For me, he is the Allen Iverson of popular music. I will root for him in spite of all better sense because I know what he is capable of. And what he is capable of is true, unadulterated greatness. A capability on full display here and now. It just cannot be denied. So, I won't.
So there it is, that's the list. Feel free to share you own list and know that in the end, the only list that matters is your own.
Sumo-Pop
December 29, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
A DREAM Deferred
Today was a very good day for the President.
In the same week that he took heated criticism on the left for the compromise he brokered with Republicans on the Bush Tax Cuts, he saw the congress finally repeal the discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.
Created by President Clinton in 1993 as a compromised measure to advance (if only incrementally) gay service in the military, the policy has been roundly denounced as un-American, bigoted, and worse. The very idea that one must lie about and cover up who they are to serve our country on the field of battle flies in the face of not only what this country is supposed to stand for, but in that of human decency as well.
Well, the end has begun today. Previously, Senate Democrats had attempted to force the policy change by attaching it to the military funding bill that hit the floor this week. As usual, Senate Republicans filibustered the bill and blocked its procession. That could have been the end of it. Not only for now, but for years to come. With the House set to change control over to Republican hands and the Democrat's owning a slimmer margin in the Senate, it would have likely been another four years before this issue would be taken up again. Four years of dismissals of qualified military personnel while we are fighting two wars. Many of whom are absolutely integral to our Middle Eastern policy.
However, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid struck a compromise with Maine Republican, Susan Collins, on a "stand alone" bill to repeal DADT. The measure quickly passed the House and cleared the Senate at 3:30 PM today by a vote of 63-31. In the end, Republicans Scott Brown (MA), Olympia Snowe (ME), George Voinovich (OH), and Mark Kirk (IL), joined Collins and the entirety of the Democratic Caucus (minus Joe Manchin (WV) who voted against and Ron Wyden (OR) who was having cancer related surgery) in passing the repeal.
This is a huge victory for the President. This keeps a promise that he made during the campaign and may even make some of those angry liberals smile--for the moment anyway. But, we should also acknowledge the other the vote that took place today that did not go the President's way.
Prior to the DADT repeal vote, the Senate took up the DREAM ACT which would create a path to citizenship for children who were brought to this country before the age of 16 and who complete two years of service in the military or a four year college degree within a six year period. The argument for the bill is that these children were brought illegally to this country by no fault of their own, have assimilated into our culture, and have something to offer to society. The bill was defeated as Democrats could not gain the 60 votes needed to get past the Republican filibuster.
The failure of the DREAM ACT to receive passage could be considered a defeat for President Obama. But is it really?
Legislatively, there can be no argument that it was indeed a disappointment for the President (not to mention the scores of immigrants who would have been helped by the bill). But politically, this may actually be a win for the President.
How, you might ask?
Well, if a Republican wants to beat the President in 2012, he/she will need at least 40% of the Hispanic vote to overtake the incumbent. I would argue that today, the Republican Party can kiss that vote goodbye.
There is no one constituency that would have been more positively impacted by (and was more in favor of) The DREAM ACT than Latinos. In winning the election in 2000 (sort of) and 2008, George W. Bush reached out effectively to Hispanics through his support of comprehensive immigration reform and even speaking Spanish at rallies. It is accurate to say that the inroads he made with the Latino community (along with Supreme Court intervention--I know, I know, let it go) played a huge part in his election "victories." Say what you want about Bush, but he was fairly forward thinking on the issue of Hispanic outreach.
As of today, that is all gone.
For this, you can credit Harry Reid with bringing the cloture vote to the floor in the first place. Reid knew that the measure would not pass (5 Democrats joined their Republican counterparts), but he also knew that he would get them on the record. And that he did. Not a single Republican supported an "up or down" vote.
This may play well with their base at the moment, but long term this vote today is a serious loser for them. There is no demographic in the United States that is growing at a faster rate than that of Hispanics. While--by far--most of them are already legal citizens, they know many among their number who are not. These people are friends and loved ones who came to this country seeking a better life, just like the Europeans who crested the waves of these shores oh so long ago. And what the Republicans have told them today is that even if it's not your fault, even if you have broken no other laws, and even if you have assets to share with this country, you are not welcome.
I bet the Cherokee would have liked to have had the same option when Plymouth Rock landed on them.
I suppose that it may be a bit crass to discuss the political implications of this vote when it will adversely affect so many. But just like DADT when it was adopted nearly 20 years ago, this vote could likely lead to another that will find favor. Maybe in this President's second term.
A term that Republicans have all but secured today.
Sumo-Pop
December 18, 2010
In the same week that he took heated criticism on the left for the compromise he brokered with Republicans on the Bush Tax Cuts, he saw the congress finally repeal the discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.
Created by President Clinton in 1993 as a compromised measure to advance (if only incrementally) gay service in the military, the policy has been roundly denounced as un-American, bigoted, and worse. The very idea that one must lie about and cover up who they are to serve our country on the field of battle flies in the face of not only what this country is supposed to stand for, but in that of human decency as well.
Well, the end has begun today. Previously, Senate Democrats had attempted to force the policy change by attaching it to the military funding bill that hit the floor this week. As usual, Senate Republicans filibustered the bill and blocked its procession. That could have been the end of it. Not only for now, but for years to come. With the House set to change control over to Republican hands and the Democrat's owning a slimmer margin in the Senate, it would have likely been another four years before this issue would be taken up again. Four years of dismissals of qualified military personnel while we are fighting two wars. Many of whom are absolutely integral to our Middle Eastern policy.
However, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid struck a compromise with Maine Republican, Susan Collins, on a "stand alone" bill to repeal DADT. The measure quickly passed the House and cleared the Senate at 3:30 PM today by a vote of 63-31. In the end, Republicans Scott Brown (MA), Olympia Snowe (ME), George Voinovich (OH), and Mark Kirk (IL), joined Collins and the entirety of the Democratic Caucus (minus Joe Manchin (WV) who voted against and Ron Wyden (OR) who was having cancer related surgery) in passing the repeal.
This is a huge victory for the President. This keeps a promise that he made during the campaign and may even make some of those angry liberals smile--for the moment anyway. But, we should also acknowledge the other the vote that took place today that did not go the President's way.
Prior to the DADT repeal vote, the Senate took up the DREAM ACT which would create a path to citizenship for children who were brought to this country before the age of 16 and who complete two years of service in the military or a four year college degree within a six year period. The argument for the bill is that these children were brought illegally to this country by no fault of their own, have assimilated into our culture, and have something to offer to society. The bill was defeated as Democrats could not gain the 60 votes needed to get past the Republican filibuster.
The failure of the DREAM ACT to receive passage could be considered a defeat for President Obama. But is it really?
Legislatively, there can be no argument that it was indeed a disappointment for the President (not to mention the scores of immigrants who would have been helped by the bill). But politically, this may actually be a win for the President.
How, you might ask?
Well, if a Republican wants to beat the President in 2012, he/she will need at least 40% of the Hispanic vote to overtake the incumbent. I would argue that today, the Republican Party can kiss that vote goodbye.
There is no one constituency that would have been more positively impacted by (and was more in favor of) The DREAM ACT than Latinos. In winning the election in 2000 (sort of) and 2008, George W. Bush reached out effectively to Hispanics through his support of comprehensive immigration reform and even speaking Spanish at rallies. It is accurate to say that the inroads he made with the Latino community (along with Supreme Court intervention--I know, I know, let it go) played a huge part in his election "victories." Say what you want about Bush, but he was fairly forward thinking on the issue of Hispanic outreach.
As of today, that is all gone.
For this, you can credit Harry Reid with bringing the cloture vote to the floor in the first place. Reid knew that the measure would not pass (5 Democrats joined their Republican counterparts), but he also knew that he would get them on the record. And that he did. Not a single Republican supported an "up or down" vote.
This may play well with their base at the moment, but long term this vote today is a serious loser for them. There is no demographic in the United States that is growing at a faster rate than that of Hispanics. While--by far--most of them are already legal citizens, they know many among their number who are not. These people are friends and loved ones who came to this country seeking a better life, just like the Europeans who crested the waves of these shores oh so long ago. And what the Republicans have told them today is that even if it's not your fault, even if you have broken no other laws, and even if you have assets to share with this country, you are not welcome.
I bet the Cherokee would have liked to have had the same option when Plymouth Rock landed on them.
I suppose that it may be a bit crass to discuss the political implications of this vote when it will adversely affect so many. But just like DADT when it was adopted nearly 20 years ago, this vote could likely lead to another that will find favor. Maybe in this President's second term.
A term that Republicans have all but secured today.
Sumo-Pop
December 18, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Christmas For The Last Responders
"And so this is Christmas, and what have you done?"--John Lennon
Post 9/11, no political group has made more hay out of that terrible event than the Republican Party.
They used it as justification for a war against a country that did not attack us.
They used it as justification to pass legislation that infringes upon our civil liberties.
They used it as justification for the torture and denial of due process of suspected terrorist combatants.
They used it for the justification of the denial of religious freedom.
And they used it as a justification to label anyone that would argue against their justifications as socialists, communists, un-American, and worse.
Hell, one Republican candidate for President (Giuliani) used it so much that then Democratic Presidential hopeful, Joe Biden, referred to Giuliani's method of speech as consisting of "A noun, a verb, and a 9/11."
To a large degree, the Republicans have owned this issue. They have pushed their agenda through propagating fear of a second attack. They speak of a "post 9/11" mindset whenever anyone objects to their methods.
And they speak of heroes. The heroes in our military and those that were on the ground in New York City on that awful, fateful day. And they speak of those who bravely and soberly sifted through rubble breathing in noxious fumes searching for survivors and the remains of victims. They did so tirelessly in spite of the increasingly grim work it became. They did so even though the risk to their own health was considerable. Now, for many, the tariff created by that exposure has come due.
These selfless citizens have begun to suffer from the effects of breathing while working on Ground Zero. Respiratory issues and Cancer afflictions abound among their number. Many of them have lost their health care due to their conditions and inability to hold jobs.
These people are heroes.
To help these poor souls, a bill named after first responder and former NYC Police Officer James Zadroga is before the Senate today. This bill will provide desperately needed funding to address the various maladies affecting those that walked upon that hallowed ground in an often in vain effort to save lives. One would think this bill would be a "slam dunk."
One would be wrong.
And irony of ironies, it's not the feckless Democrats in congress who are holding up the bill's passage. No. It's those same Republicans who have used 9/11 as a wedge issue in our politics who have withheld aid from the first responders.
Why, you might ask?
Well, the first argument was that it needed to be paid for. So, the Democrats closed a corporate tax loop hole to pay for the bill. Not good enough said the Republicans. Apparently, Republicans didn't like the idea of using a tax increase for funding. So, Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, has countered with a 2% procurement fee for corporate contracts with certain nations. Therefore, there should be nothing else standing in the way.
That is, except Christmas.
Yes, the holiest of holidays is all that seemingly stands between this bill and its passage. Senate Republicans, John Kyl (AZ), and Jim DeMint (SC), have complained that attempting to get all of this legislation through during the holiday season is an affront to Christians. In other words, there just isn't enough time to do the people's business before they take their Christmas vacations.
This has been the argument against ratifying the START Treaty with Russia, repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and even funding the government. It's also, the reason why we can't seem to get to this bill passed for the first responders. There simply aren't enough days left on the calendar.
So, how did it come to this? Priorities is the answer. During the so called "Lame Duck Congress," Republicans stated that they would block all legislation until a compromise on the Bush Tax Cuts was reached. The sticking point being they couldn't stomach the idea of taxes going up for the top 2% of earners and therefore would allow no other business to go forward.
They have placed the need for tax relief for the wealthy above national security, equality, and the health care of the heroes they are so often eager to invoke when it suits their needs.
It is a disgrace.
There is not a single Democrat opposing this legislation. Yet, the most recent vote to bring the bill to a final "up or down" vote was filibustered by 42 Senate Republicans, keeping it from the President's desk.
To be honest, Democrats are to be blamed as well. Not for where they stand on the issue, but for not hammering away at Republicans for their position. They should have beaten them over the head with this on a daily basis. Not that shame works with Republicans, but politics does. And it is not good politics to deny health care to first responders. As usual, the Democrats have not been very good at playing the game. My only guess is that they couldn't have possibly expected this issue to become a partisan one. To this I say, "Have you not been paying attention for the last two years?!?" They have made EVERYTHING into a partisan issue. Even this.
You see, the Republicans have become the last responders. Part of this is due to the reactive nature of being in the congressional minority. The other part is due to a sort of nastiness behind their "Just say no" philosophy. They believe by saying "no" to everything that they will reap a political benefit. And the sad truth is, they did. The mid-terms resulted in a clear routing of the Democrats, flipping the House and narrowing their margin in the Senate. "No" worked.
But I have a feeling that "no" may be running out of support. At least where clearly popular legislation is concerned. And the Zadroga Bill is certainly that.
So I would suggest to Republicans who are concerned about their holiday plans to consider not just the many people who are out of work who would be more than glad to have the problem of working up until Christmas, but to also reflect on what going home without passing a bill to address the health concerns of first responders would mean. They have already staked out a claim to the anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and anti-Obama vote, but do they want to scratch around under rocks to appeal to the anti-first responder vote? I don't think they will find much benefit courting that constituency.
I have no doubt that if--God forbid--we are attacked tomorrow, the police officers, fire fighters, EMTs, and volunteers will come to the site of the devastation without any regard for their own health or safety. And I also have no doubt that the Republicans in congress will proceed with no regard for the health and the safety of these brave individuals either. At least not until it becomes so feasibly untenable for them to put it off any longer.
Well, that time is now. While they have delayed and obstructed this bill for months, they do have one last chance to respond before Christmas. One last chance to set this right.
Last responders, it is time to respond. Give the gift that will keep on giving.
Pass the damn bill.
Sumo-Pop
December 20, 2010
Post 9/11, no political group has made more hay out of that terrible event than the Republican Party.
They used it as justification for a war against a country that did not attack us.
They used it as justification to pass legislation that infringes upon our civil liberties.
They used it as justification for the torture and denial of due process of suspected terrorist combatants.
They used it for the justification of the denial of religious freedom.
And they used it as a justification to label anyone that would argue against their justifications as socialists, communists, un-American, and worse.
Hell, one Republican candidate for President (Giuliani) used it so much that then Democratic Presidential hopeful, Joe Biden, referred to Giuliani's method of speech as consisting of "A noun, a verb, and a 9/11."
To a large degree, the Republicans have owned this issue. They have pushed their agenda through propagating fear of a second attack. They speak of a "post 9/11" mindset whenever anyone objects to their methods.
And they speak of heroes. The heroes in our military and those that were on the ground in New York City on that awful, fateful day. And they speak of those who bravely and soberly sifted through rubble breathing in noxious fumes searching for survivors and the remains of victims. They did so tirelessly in spite of the increasingly grim work it became. They did so even though the risk to their own health was considerable. Now, for many, the tariff created by that exposure has come due.
These selfless citizens have begun to suffer from the effects of breathing while working on Ground Zero. Respiratory issues and Cancer afflictions abound among their number. Many of them have lost their health care due to their conditions and inability to hold jobs.
These people are heroes.
To help these poor souls, a bill named after first responder and former NYC Police Officer James Zadroga is before the Senate today. This bill will provide desperately needed funding to address the various maladies affecting those that walked upon that hallowed ground in an often in vain effort to save lives. One would think this bill would be a "slam dunk."
One would be wrong.
And irony of ironies, it's not the feckless Democrats in congress who are holding up the bill's passage. No. It's those same Republicans who have used 9/11 as a wedge issue in our politics who have withheld aid from the first responders.
Why, you might ask?
Well, the first argument was that it needed to be paid for. So, the Democrats closed a corporate tax loop hole to pay for the bill. Not good enough said the Republicans. Apparently, Republicans didn't like the idea of using a tax increase for funding. So, Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, has countered with a 2% procurement fee for corporate contracts with certain nations. Therefore, there should be nothing else standing in the way.
That is, except Christmas.
Yes, the holiest of holidays is all that seemingly stands between this bill and its passage. Senate Republicans, John Kyl (AZ), and Jim DeMint (SC), have complained that attempting to get all of this legislation through during the holiday season is an affront to Christians. In other words, there just isn't enough time to do the people's business before they take their Christmas vacations.
This has been the argument against ratifying the START Treaty with Russia, repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and even funding the government. It's also, the reason why we can't seem to get to this bill passed for the first responders. There simply aren't enough days left on the calendar.
So, how did it come to this? Priorities is the answer. During the so called "Lame Duck Congress," Republicans stated that they would block all legislation until a compromise on the Bush Tax Cuts was reached. The sticking point being they couldn't stomach the idea of taxes going up for the top 2% of earners and therefore would allow no other business to go forward.
They have placed the need for tax relief for the wealthy above national security, equality, and the health care of the heroes they are so often eager to invoke when it suits their needs.
It is a disgrace.
There is not a single Democrat opposing this legislation. Yet, the most recent vote to bring the bill to a final "up or down" vote was filibustered by 42 Senate Republicans, keeping it from the President's desk.
To be honest, Democrats are to be blamed as well. Not for where they stand on the issue, but for not hammering away at Republicans for their position. They should have beaten them over the head with this on a daily basis. Not that shame works with Republicans, but politics does. And it is not good politics to deny health care to first responders. As usual, the Democrats have not been very good at playing the game. My only guess is that they couldn't have possibly expected this issue to become a partisan one. To this I say, "Have you not been paying attention for the last two years?!?" They have made EVERYTHING into a partisan issue. Even this.
You see, the Republicans have become the last responders. Part of this is due to the reactive nature of being in the congressional minority. The other part is due to a sort of nastiness behind their "Just say no" philosophy. They believe by saying "no" to everything that they will reap a political benefit. And the sad truth is, they did. The mid-terms resulted in a clear routing of the Democrats, flipping the House and narrowing their margin in the Senate. "No" worked.
But I have a feeling that "no" may be running out of support. At least where clearly popular legislation is concerned. And the Zadroga Bill is certainly that.
So I would suggest to Republicans who are concerned about their holiday plans to consider not just the many people who are out of work who would be more than glad to have the problem of working up until Christmas, but to also reflect on what going home without passing a bill to address the health concerns of first responders would mean. They have already staked out a claim to the anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and anti-Obama vote, but do they want to scratch around under rocks to appeal to the anti-first responder vote? I don't think they will find much benefit courting that constituency.
I have no doubt that if--God forbid--we are attacked tomorrow, the police officers, fire fighters, EMTs, and volunteers will come to the site of the devastation without any regard for their own health or safety. And I also have no doubt that the Republicans in congress will proceed with no regard for the health and the safety of these brave individuals either. At least not until it becomes so feasibly untenable for them to put it off any longer.
Well, that time is now. While they have delayed and obstructed this bill for months, they do have one last chance to respond before Christmas. One last chance to set this right.
Last responders, it is time to respond. Give the gift that will keep on giving.
Pass the damn bill.
Sumo-Pop
December 20, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Obama Vs. Clinton (Both Of 'Em)
An interesting thing happened Friday at the joint press conference held by President Obama and former President Clinton. After making his opening remarks and answering a couple of questions, Obama gave the floor to Clinton so he could answer a few queries as well. Then, after a reporter directed a question back to Obama, the current President quickly deferred his answer, made a comment about not wanting to keep the first lady waiting, and then ceded the entire presser to Clinton. And for a few brief moments, it was 1994 all over again.
Clearly in his element, POTUS 42 took to the spotlight like Elvis in Vegas, holding the reporters in the palm of his hand and charming their socks off. I dare say, he did a better job of explaining the Obama tax cut compromise than the guy who had just exited "stage left."
As skilled a communicator as Obama can be at times, no one breaks down complex policy decisions quite like William Jefferson Clinton. He's "The Natural" when it comes to politics.
I bring this up not just because it was a fascinating moment, but because after the announcement of the tax deal between the Obama Administration and Senate Republicans, there has been a relatively significant amount of Clinton nostalgia (Bill) and buyer's remorse (Hillary) among Democrats and progressives.
Some Democrats wish they could have Bill back, and many are wondering if they backed the wrong Democrat in '08.
So is this mini-wave of Clinton fetishizing warranted? Or, even accurate?
I would say clearly and heartily, no.
Now, please understand, as a lefty myself, I voted for President Clinton in '92 and '96 and have no regrets. I also would have supported Hillary against McCain without (much) reservation. That being said, the perspective that we would be better off with a Clinton instead of Obama only makes sense if you take the rosiest of backward views.
Of course that's not to say that the Clinton Presidency was unsuccessful. There are a number of worthy accomplishments that one can point to during his two terms.
Here are some of the unequivocally positive measures created by the Clinton Administration:
--The Family and Medical Leave act of 1993 which required large employers to grant unpaid leave to their workers--without the fear of job loss--in the case of a serious medical condition suffered by themselves or a family member.
--The Brady Bill of 1993 signed by President Clinton required a 5 day waiting period for purchasers of hand guns.
--The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 created Americorps which paid for tuition costs for recent college graduates in return for a term of service in an area of need (inner cities, education, etc.)
--The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) of 1997 which provided states with matching funds to cover the health care of children whose family income was modest, but above the level required to receive Medicare.
--The air strikes in Yugoslavia ordered by Clinton in 1999 helped end the reign of Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, and his policy of ethnic cleansing.
--Clinton also played an integral part in helping Northern Ireland reach a peace accord in 1999 (known as The Belfast Agreement) that largely put an end to the years upon years of violence in the region.
--Clinton left office in 2000 with a domestic surplus and a balanced budget.
Clinton also had some "mixed" successes during his eight years as well:
--The Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy was implemented in 1993 allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they didn't expose their sexuality. While this policy has remained highly controversial since it's creation, it has laid the groundwork for the possibility of open service by homosexuals.
--The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 was hailed as a success at the time, but critics of the agreement will point to the job losses in the domestic manufacturing sector and the ongoing outsourcing of American jobs as clear negatives.
--While many will credit Clinton with being a "good steward" of the economy (and that is largely true), his signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which was created during the depression to keep depositor banks and investment banks separate. If you want to understand where "Too big to fail" came from, then start here. Clinton's signature upon this bill set the table for the financial melt down of 2008 and necessitated the very unpopular bank bail outs.
--There was also the compromise with the Republican majority on Welfare Reform that many progressives absolutely despised. This is where the creation of the Clintonian term "Triangulation" came from.
And let's not forget, Clinton was impeached in 1998 under charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance of office for giving false testimony to the Independent Counsel during the Whitewater Land Deal investigation. To be clear, that investigation was a bit of a witch hunt that resulted in no finding of wrong doing regarding the actual land deal, but because of Clinton's illicit behavior and attempted cover up of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, the sitting President's second term became about survival and not about progress. Clinton's eventual acquittal was perhaps the biggest success of his final years in office. A sad truth.
And what of Mrs. Clinton? While the political career of Hillary Clinton has largely been represented by being the spouse of a well known politician, she has certainly stepped out on her own in the last decade.
Beginning with her election as the junior Senator from New York in 2000, Mrs. Clinton has certainly forged her own path. While in the Senate, Clinton was able to move past her divisive public persona and became known as a real team player. As effective as she may have been, further investigation of her senate career reveals considerable negatives as well as positives.
Since the Senate was controlled by the right side of the aisle, and the sitting President was George W. Bush, Clinton's best votes were typically the ones she made against Republican initiatives.
Mrs. Clinton--quite rightly, I believe--voted against both major tax cut initiatives introduced by the Republican leadership--calling them fiscally irresponsible. She also voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement because it lacked sufficient environmental and labor standards. And she voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that prohibited same sex marriage.
As for items she was in favor of, those included the Immigration Reform Act of 2007, the Dream Act, and TARP.
All of the preceding for/against votes were quality positions taken by the Senator.
However, it's also important to mention two particular votes taken by Senator Clinton that were as wrong headed and anti-progressive as any Democrat could have made.
In 2001, Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of the Patriot Act that resulted from the terrorist attacks on 9/11. A law that resulted in unwarranted wire tapping of American citizens (including soldiers), and a general reduction in the freedom of privacy. This knee-jerk, fear based vote compromised our civil liberties as Americans, and has set a dangerous precedent.
The second unsavory vote was her support of the authorization of the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. This measure allowed the United States to pre-emptively strike against a sovereign nation that did not attack us, was not involved in 9/11, and did not have weapons of mass destruction. This war devolved into a quagmire that we have only recently begun to remove ourselves from. The cost to this country measure in lives and treasure--not to mention our international standing--has been enormous.
While it is fair to say that both measures would have likely passed without her support, they are two votes that she would soon live to regret.
When Senator Clinton decided to run for President in 2008, she held every possible advantage a candidate could ask for. Name recognition? Check. Cash on hand? Check. Overwhelming polling differential over her adversaries? Check. A high level of experience? Check, again.
What she also had was the vulnerability of casting a vote in favor of the Iraq war. This didn't hurt her against the person who was originally considered her main adversary, John Edwards, who had voted for the same, but it did create an opening for a charismatic Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. Obama had given a speech very early on during the lead up to the Iraq War that was a clear, full throated denunciation of the military action. This was his "in" with voters.
Coupled with his soaring rhetoric, appeal to minorities, fund raising ability, and just the sense that he was...different, the Obama campaign caught Clinton and her supporters flat footed.
What followed was one of the great, slow burning melt downs in modern campaign history. After losing the Iowa caucus, Clinton broke down in tears prior to the New Hampshire primary. One of her main advisers, Mark Penn, devised a plan to take her appeal to low-income whites as the African American vote began to move to Obama. This direction resulted in some extremely unpleasant race baiting by the Clinton campaign as well as the candidate herself, and even her husband (see South Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky). It got so uncomfortable that former Clinton advisor and current CNN analyst, David Gergen, made an on air plea for Clinton to reject such methods. There were staff shake ups and backroom drama. Mismanagement of funds and a sense that the candidate had lost control of her own campaign. She even went as far as to give a half-assed endorsement of Republican nominee John McCain's bona fides over her democratic challenger (she would later reverse herself).
Hell, she couldn't even admit that she had lost. Her continually divisive campaign kept going way past the point of mathematical delegate count relevance.
Now, I'm not saying that poor campaign management would result in the leader of said campaign being a poor President, but it sure as hell doesn't help.
So, that brings us to President Obama. What has he done to support my hypothesis?
--We can start with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 that made it easier for workers to seek equal pay redress against offending employers.
--He not only reauthorized SCHIP in 2009, but expanded it to cover an additional four million children.
--He signed into law the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which expanded upon previous legislation to include crimes based on gender and sexual orientation.
--He ended the subsidizing of private banks in the administering of student loans, allowing a more streamlined process for students by cutting out the unnecessary middle man.
--Also in 2009, the President stepped in to save (or bail out) the struggling auto industry. While this effort was met with a chorus of boos, the result has been a major success. The big three automakers have begun to show profits, and are paying back their government loans with interest.
--In August of this year, the President began the orderly withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. While there is still much to be done to extricate ourselves from this folly, this does qualify as a promise kept.
--The President also negotiated a new START Treaty with Russia in 2010 that commits to further reducing nuclear arms and help with the prevention of loose nukes.
While START has yet to be ratified by congress, it is my belief that the Republicans in congress will come to their senses (yes, I'm a dreamer) and vote in favor of a treaty originally negotiated by their President Reagan.
Now of course there are things left undone. The President has not been able to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. DADT faces an uncertain repeal in congress. Immigration Reform is unlikely to pass anytime soon. CAP and Trade is effectively dead. And the unemployment rate is still unacceptably high. One could certainly argue that this President is too quick to compromise and doesn't get enough when he does.
Which brings us to the four most thorny accomplishments of Obama's half term, Health Care Reform, Financial Sector Reform, the Stimulus Bill, and the recent compromise on tax cuts.
In three of these four measures, most republicans were squarely against them and many Democrats and progressives feel that they all fell short.
While Health Care Reform was passed in 2009, the President never pushed for single payer, and the bill passed without as much as a public option. However, these criticisms ignore the political reality. There was never--and I mean NEVER--a chance for single payer. And thanks to members of the democratic caucus such as Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, there was never a filibuster proof majority for a public option either. But there are things that we did get. An end to coverage denial due to pre-existing conditions. A measure of control regarding the raising of insurance rates. The end of getting dropped by your carrier for getting sick (seems so obvious, doesn't it?). A closing of the Medicare "doughnut hole." And extended health care benefits to children and those with low incomes. It's not perfect, but it sure is better than what we had.
The Financial Reform Bill is largely criticized for not breaking up the banks and reinstituting the Glass-Stegall Act (which would have fixed Clinton's error). While that's true, the bill did create a Consumer Protection Agency, a Financial Stability Oversight Council, an Orderly Liquidation Authority, and numerous other regulations that banks weren't crazy about. Once again, better than what we had before.
Perhaps nothing has created more criticism on the left than the Obama Administration's tax cuts deal with congressional Republicans. The compromises includes two admittedly noxious pieces--an extension of the Bush era tax cuts for the rich, and a reduction of the estate tax for the wealthy. That's the bad. And it's pretty damn bad for sure. But that's not the whole deal. Despite having a weak hand due to congressional democrats dragging their feet until after the mid-terms to address this issue, the President got 13 months of unemployment benefits for the out of work. A payroll tax holiday. And a variety of measures that essentially create a "back door stimulus" for the economy. This last bit is particularly significant, as most democrats and progressives believed the original stimulus to be too small to fully address the financial crisis. Conservative estimates by a wide spectrum of economists have stated that they expect these steps to add 2.2 million jobs over the next two years and decrease unemployment by 1.5%. Lefties have been crying out for a second stimulus all year and now they got it. Even noted liberal critics of the Obama administration such as Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman have expressed a begrudging support of the compromise. Noted conservative David Brooks has done the same, and right wing Obama slammer, Charles Krauthammer thinks the Republicans absolutely got bamboozled.
Certainly, one could argue that this Obama vs. Clinton argument is largely an academic one. No one can really know how one person might perform in the shoes of another. But on health care, I think we have a pretty good idea.
In 1992, President Clinton's signature goal was to bring universal health care to the masses. When looking for a point person to craft this bill, he chose his wife, Hillary. There were several clear advantages the President had going into the debate. A Democratically controlled congress, general favorability among the public, and a far less intractable Republican opposition. And boy did they manage to screw the pooch. They were criticized by the left side of congress for being exclusionary in the crafting of the legislation. When the Republicans--led by Bob Dole--offered a compromise, it was dismissed out of hand. And in the end, they got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Less than zero.
17 long years had to pass before another President would have the courage to take up the issue. Like Clinton, he had a Democratically controlled congress and general public approval on the issue. Unlike Clinton, he had a completely obstructionist Republican opposition that made up lies (death panels), and went forth with the intention of making HCR "Obama's Waterloo." Still, the President persisted. He included congress in the writing of the bill, attempted to reach out (futilely) to Republicans, and ended up using the reconciliation process to pass the most sweeping health care reform legislation in a generation.
What we got in the end was a bill very similar to the Republican authored compromise in 1992. Is that great? No. But if the Clintons had swallowed hard and accepted some variation of that alternative in 1992, we would be much further along then we are now.
And to be honest, when you stack up Obama's two years against Clinton's eight, he's already ahead of the former President (at least legislatively). Sure, we may not know how all of these accomplishments will work out for several years to come. But what we do know, is that if you want something done, if you are seeking some true measure of forward progress, then Obama is your guy.
Sure, many democrats and particularly progressives will argue otherwise. But if not Obama, then who?
Who do you have that can get elected that would be better?
I will patiently await the generous sounds of crickets.
Clearly in his element, POTUS 42 took to the spotlight like Elvis in Vegas, holding the reporters in the palm of his hand and charming their socks off. I dare say, he did a better job of explaining the Obama tax cut compromise than the guy who had just exited "stage left."
As skilled a communicator as Obama can be at times, no one breaks down complex policy decisions quite like William Jefferson Clinton. He's "The Natural" when it comes to politics.
I bring this up not just because it was a fascinating moment, but because after the announcement of the tax deal between the Obama Administration and Senate Republicans, there has been a relatively significant amount of Clinton nostalgia (Bill) and buyer's remorse (Hillary) among Democrats and progressives.
Some Democrats wish they could have Bill back, and many are wondering if they backed the wrong Democrat in '08.
So is this mini-wave of Clinton fetishizing warranted? Or, even accurate?
I would say clearly and heartily, no.
Now, please understand, as a lefty myself, I voted for President Clinton in '92 and '96 and have no regrets. I also would have supported Hillary against McCain without (much) reservation. That being said, the perspective that we would be better off with a Clinton instead of Obama only makes sense if you take the rosiest of backward views.
Of course that's not to say that the Clinton Presidency was unsuccessful. There are a number of worthy accomplishments that one can point to during his two terms.
Here are some of the unequivocally positive measures created by the Clinton Administration:
--The Family and Medical Leave act of 1993 which required large employers to grant unpaid leave to their workers--without the fear of job loss--in the case of a serious medical condition suffered by themselves or a family member.
--The Brady Bill of 1993 signed by President Clinton required a 5 day waiting period for purchasers of hand guns.
--The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 created Americorps which paid for tuition costs for recent college graduates in return for a term of service in an area of need (inner cities, education, etc.)
--The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) of 1997 which provided states with matching funds to cover the health care of children whose family income was modest, but above the level required to receive Medicare.
--The air strikes in Yugoslavia ordered by Clinton in 1999 helped end the reign of Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, and his policy of ethnic cleansing.
--Clinton also played an integral part in helping Northern Ireland reach a peace accord in 1999 (known as The Belfast Agreement) that largely put an end to the years upon years of violence in the region.
--Clinton left office in 2000 with a domestic surplus and a balanced budget.
Clinton also had some "mixed" successes during his eight years as well:
--The Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy was implemented in 1993 allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they didn't expose their sexuality. While this policy has remained highly controversial since it's creation, it has laid the groundwork for the possibility of open service by homosexuals.
--The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 was hailed as a success at the time, but critics of the agreement will point to the job losses in the domestic manufacturing sector and the ongoing outsourcing of American jobs as clear negatives.
--While many will credit Clinton with being a "good steward" of the economy (and that is largely true), his signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which was created during the depression to keep depositor banks and investment banks separate. If you want to understand where "Too big to fail" came from, then start here. Clinton's signature upon this bill set the table for the financial melt down of 2008 and necessitated the very unpopular bank bail outs.
--There was also the compromise with the Republican majority on Welfare Reform that many progressives absolutely despised. This is where the creation of the Clintonian term "Triangulation" came from.
And let's not forget, Clinton was impeached in 1998 under charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance of office for giving false testimony to the Independent Counsel during the Whitewater Land Deal investigation. To be clear, that investigation was a bit of a witch hunt that resulted in no finding of wrong doing regarding the actual land deal, but because of Clinton's illicit behavior and attempted cover up of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, the sitting President's second term became about survival and not about progress. Clinton's eventual acquittal was perhaps the biggest success of his final years in office. A sad truth.
And what of Mrs. Clinton? While the political career of Hillary Clinton has largely been represented by being the spouse of a well known politician, she has certainly stepped out on her own in the last decade.
Beginning with her election as the junior Senator from New York in 2000, Mrs. Clinton has certainly forged her own path. While in the Senate, Clinton was able to move past her divisive public persona and became known as a real team player. As effective as she may have been, further investigation of her senate career reveals considerable negatives as well as positives.
Since the Senate was controlled by the right side of the aisle, and the sitting President was George W. Bush, Clinton's best votes were typically the ones she made against Republican initiatives.
Mrs. Clinton--quite rightly, I believe--voted against both major tax cut initiatives introduced by the Republican leadership--calling them fiscally irresponsible. She also voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement because it lacked sufficient environmental and labor standards. And she voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that prohibited same sex marriage.
As for items she was in favor of, those included the Immigration Reform Act of 2007, the Dream Act, and TARP.
All of the preceding for/against votes were quality positions taken by the Senator.
However, it's also important to mention two particular votes taken by Senator Clinton that were as wrong headed and anti-progressive as any Democrat could have made.
In 2001, Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of the Patriot Act that resulted from the terrorist attacks on 9/11. A law that resulted in unwarranted wire tapping of American citizens (including soldiers), and a general reduction in the freedom of privacy. This knee-jerk, fear based vote compromised our civil liberties as Americans, and has set a dangerous precedent.
The second unsavory vote was her support of the authorization of the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. This measure allowed the United States to pre-emptively strike against a sovereign nation that did not attack us, was not involved in 9/11, and did not have weapons of mass destruction. This war devolved into a quagmire that we have only recently begun to remove ourselves from. The cost to this country measure in lives and treasure--not to mention our international standing--has been enormous.
While it is fair to say that both measures would have likely passed without her support, they are two votes that she would soon live to regret.
When Senator Clinton decided to run for President in 2008, she held every possible advantage a candidate could ask for. Name recognition? Check. Cash on hand? Check. Overwhelming polling differential over her adversaries? Check. A high level of experience? Check, again.
What she also had was the vulnerability of casting a vote in favor of the Iraq war. This didn't hurt her against the person who was originally considered her main adversary, John Edwards, who had voted for the same, but it did create an opening for a charismatic Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. Obama had given a speech very early on during the lead up to the Iraq War that was a clear, full throated denunciation of the military action. This was his "in" with voters.
Coupled with his soaring rhetoric, appeal to minorities, fund raising ability, and just the sense that he was...different, the Obama campaign caught Clinton and her supporters flat footed.
What followed was one of the great, slow burning melt downs in modern campaign history. After losing the Iowa caucus, Clinton broke down in tears prior to the New Hampshire primary. One of her main advisers, Mark Penn, devised a plan to take her appeal to low-income whites as the African American vote began to move to Obama. This direction resulted in some extremely unpleasant race baiting by the Clinton campaign as well as the candidate herself, and even her husband (see South Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky). It got so uncomfortable that former Clinton advisor and current CNN analyst, David Gergen, made an on air plea for Clinton to reject such methods. There were staff shake ups and backroom drama. Mismanagement of funds and a sense that the candidate had lost control of her own campaign. She even went as far as to give a half-assed endorsement of Republican nominee John McCain's bona fides over her democratic challenger (she would later reverse herself).
Hell, she couldn't even admit that she had lost. Her continually divisive campaign kept going way past the point of mathematical delegate count relevance.
Now, I'm not saying that poor campaign management would result in the leader of said campaign being a poor President, but it sure as hell doesn't help.
So, that brings us to President Obama. What has he done to support my hypothesis?
--We can start with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 that made it easier for workers to seek equal pay redress against offending employers.
--He not only reauthorized SCHIP in 2009, but expanded it to cover an additional four million children.
--He signed into law the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which expanded upon previous legislation to include crimes based on gender and sexual orientation.
--He ended the subsidizing of private banks in the administering of student loans, allowing a more streamlined process for students by cutting out the unnecessary middle man.
--Also in 2009, the President stepped in to save (or bail out) the struggling auto industry. While this effort was met with a chorus of boos, the result has been a major success. The big three automakers have begun to show profits, and are paying back their government loans with interest.
--In August of this year, the President began the orderly withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. While there is still much to be done to extricate ourselves from this folly, this does qualify as a promise kept.
--The President also negotiated a new START Treaty with Russia in 2010 that commits to further reducing nuclear arms and help with the prevention of loose nukes.
While START has yet to be ratified by congress, it is my belief that the Republicans in congress will come to their senses (yes, I'm a dreamer) and vote in favor of a treaty originally negotiated by their President Reagan.
Now of course there are things left undone. The President has not been able to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. DADT faces an uncertain repeal in congress. Immigration Reform is unlikely to pass anytime soon. CAP and Trade is effectively dead. And the unemployment rate is still unacceptably high. One could certainly argue that this President is too quick to compromise and doesn't get enough when he does.
Which brings us to the four most thorny accomplishments of Obama's half term, Health Care Reform, Financial Sector Reform, the Stimulus Bill, and the recent compromise on tax cuts.
In three of these four measures, most republicans were squarely against them and many Democrats and progressives feel that they all fell short.
While Health Care Reform was passed in 2009, the President never pushed for single payer, and the bill passed without as much as a public option. However, these criticisms ignore the political reality. There was never--and I mean NEVER--a chance for single payer. And thanks to members of the democratic caucus such as Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, there was never a filibuster proof majority for a public option either. But there are things that we did get. An end to coverage denial due to pre-existing conditions. A measure of control regarding the raising of insurance rates. The end of getting dropped by your carrier for getting sick (seems so obvious, doesn't it?). A closing of the Medicare "doughnut hole." And extended health care benefits to children and those with low incomes. It's not perfect, but it sure is better than what we had.
The Financial Reform Bill is largely criticized for not breaking up the banks and reinstituting the Glass-Stegall Act (which would have fixed Clinton's error). While that's true, the bill did create a Consumer Protection Agency, a Financial Stability Oversight Council, an Orderly Liquidation Authority, and numerous other regulations that banks weren't crazy about. Once again, better than what we had before.
Perhaps nothing has created more criticism on the left than the Obama Administration's tax cuts deal with congressional Republicans. The compromises includes two admittedly noxious pieces--an extension of the Bush era tax cuts for the rich, and a reduction of the estate tax for the wealthy. That's the bad. And it's pretty damn bad for sure. But that's not the whole deal. Despite having a weak hand due to congressional democrats dragging their feet until after the mid-terms to address this issue, the President got 13 months of unemployment benefits for the out of work. A payroll tax holiday. And a variety of measures that essentially create a "back door stimulus" for the economy. This last bit is particularly significant, as most democrats and progressives believed the original stimulus to be too small to fully address the financial crisis. Conservative estimates by a wide spectrum of economists have stated that they expect these steps to add 2.2 million jobs over the next two years and decrease unemployment by 1.5%. Lefties have been crying out for a second stimulus all year and now they got it. Even noted liberal critics of the Obama administration such as Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman have expressed a begrudging support of the compromise. Noted conservative David Brooks has done the same, and right wing Obama slammer, Charles Krauthammer thinks the Republicans absolutely got bamboozled.
Certainly, one could argue that this Obama vs. Clinton argument is largely an academic one. No one can really know how one person might perform in the shoes of another. But on health care, I think we have a pretty good idea.
In 1992, President Clinton's signature goal was to bring universal health care to the masses. When looking for a point person to craft this bill, he chose his wife, Hillary. There were several clear advantages the President had going into the debate. A Democratically controlled congress, general favorability among the public, and a far less intractable Republican opposition. And boy did they manage to screw the pooch. They were criticized by the left side of congress for being exclusionary in the crafting of the legislation. When the Republicans--led by Bob Dole--offered a compromise, it was dismissed out of hand. And in the end, they got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Less than zero.
17 long years had to pass before another President would have the courage to take up the issue. Like Clinton, he had a Democratically controlled congress and general public approval on the issue. Unlike Clinton, he had a completely obstructionist Republican opposition that made up lies (death panels), and went forth with the intention of making HCR "Obama's Waterloo." Still, the President persisted. He included congress in the writing of the bill, attempted to reach out (futilely) to Republicans, and ended up using the reconciliation process to pass the most sweeping health care reform legislation in a generation.
What we got in the end was a bill very similar to the Republican authored compromise in 1992. Is that great? No. But if the Clintons had swallowed hard and accepted some variation of that alternative in 1992, we would be much further along then we are now.
And to be honest, when you stack up Obama's two years against Clinton's eight, he's already ahead of the former President (at least legislatively). Sure, we may not know how all of these accomplishments will work out for several years to come. But what we do know, is that if you want something done, if you are seeking some true measure of forward progress, then Obama is your guy.
Sure, many democrats and particularly progressives will argue otherwise. But if not Obama, then who?
Who do you have that can get elected that would be better?
I will patiently await the generous sounds of crickets.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
That Winter Chill Obama's Feeling Ain't No Hypothetical
That nip in the air that the President is feeling today has less to do with the December weather than it does the harsh reaction from progressives in congress--and around the nation--in reaction to the compromise he brokered with republicans on the Bush tax cuts.
Progressives are mad, steamed to the bone and ready to jump ship. How could the President extend tax cuts for the top 2% of earners in this country? What is he thinking? Has he lost his mind?
No. He's simply doing the math.
Republicans in the senate have made it clear that they would filibuster, delay, and obstruct any other initiative until the Bush tax cuts were extended for everyone. Of course, they don't really care about everyone. They really care about the rich ones. Also known as their base.
This is where the right drew their line in the sand. This is what they stand for: Tax cuts for the rich. Oh sure, they say they care about the deficit. But when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy..."deficit, what deficit?" They will argue that the tax cuts will pay for themselves by creating growth and jobs. Just like they have for the last seven years. What's that you say? The economy tanked, unemployment soared, and the auto and banking industries almost disappeared since those growth creating Bush tax cuts? Oh, come on. This time will be different. This time, the republicans ride in on unicorns and sprinkle fairy dust on the economy and this time it will work. You just wait and see.
Now, back to the math. I hear a lot of wailing from democrats in congress right now about how the President gave away too much and didn't fight hard enough. Well, I would ask these suddenly courage afflicted and outraged souls: Why didn't you push for this vote months ago when the President wanted it and you had more leverage. Oh, that's right. You guys punted the issue until after the mid-terms because you didn't want to take any more "tough" votes before the election, you poor babies. Now you have the stones to toss angry words at the President you left holding the bag.
Okay, okay. This time the math...really. Last weekend the senate took two votes that were alternatives to this admittedly sickening compromise. The first was a measure that would have only extended the tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000. It failed. The second was an option that extended tax cuts for those who made less than $1,000,000. It failed too. Neither vote could muster more than 53 yeas from our oh so esteemed senators. And here's the thing: There are 58 democrats in the senate right now. Think about that, they couldn't hold together their own caucus to even come up two votes short of breaking the filibuster promised by the fleece patrol on the right. But yeah, it's the President's fault.
The same way it was his fault that Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson wouldn't support a public option for health care reform.
It's math, people. And the votes didn't add up.
So, the President was left with the choice of negotiating a deal that would allow 13 months of uninterrupted unemployment benefits for the out of work, a 2% payroll tax cut, and a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the middle class in exchange for a two year extension for the wealthy. Or, he could have stomped his feet and put on a show and got nothing.
Now, some would argue that the republicans would have eventually given in and extended unemployment benefits for the jobless. Let's assume that presumption is correct and the republicans would have eventually approved unemployment benefits in January before the new congress starts. That would mean millions of people would have went 6-8 weeks without a check. They would be out in the cold...literally. Unless of course, you think the mortgage lenders and land lords would be offering a forbearance on their notes. This may be a crap deal, but it's the best deal out there for those living at risk.
I was recently debating this issue with a self proclaimed progressive who said "The President can't rule the country just for the 10%." Never mind what an interesting choice of words "rule" is, these are people not a statistic. And mind you, unemployment benefits are one of the best stimulative maneuvers you can provide the marketplace with. Every dollar paid out in unemployment is worth a buck .60 to the economy. Last I checked, the economy affected all of us, not just the 10%. See, I got stats too.
You know, this isn't a hypothetical. My dad went without a job for two years. During that time the only work he could find was two soul sucking, demeaning temp jobs. Only last month, he finally got a permanent gig. If not, he and my mom would have been living in my basement by now. Oh sure, if he were still unemployed and the republicans had eventually given in on unemployment benefits, it would have been retroactive and he would have received back pay. But you try going two months without any income during the winter season when the cost of heat rises and the bills don't stop. And some of you want to tell me that the President didn't stand up for the American people today? What American people are you referring too? Give me a break.
Some would argue that this President is no different than the republican that preceded him. That democrats and republicans are essentially the same. But I will tell you there is one clear difference between us and the republicans. They will walk arm in arm in unison even if their destination is over a cliff. They stick together for better and (usually) worse. To be honest, some on the far left (which I typically consider myself to be), are just as hung up on ideology, purity, and perfection as the "teabaggers" they profess to hate so much. They are led by emotion, not facts, nuance, or complexity. And they will be forever left in the marginal wilderness of history along with the Green Party, the Socialist Party of America, and the hippies. Oh yeah, they had big plans...and minuscule results.
But I get it, you're angry. So angry you can't hardly stand to be in your own skin and you feel the need to lash out.
I would suggest you save your venom for those that deserve it the most, the republicans whose only principle seems to be giving this country to the wealthy, the corporations, and the special interests. Or, if you must throw verbal stones at the democrats, aim them for that weak kneed bunch in both houses who were too fragile to take a difficult vote until all their leverage had been lost during a brutal election cycle.
As for this President, the guy who saved the auto industry, made it harder for your health insurance provider to screw you over and kept the unemployed in their homes--quite literally saving lives--there are two words you should say to him...Thank You.
Sumo-Pop
December 7, 2010
Progressives are mad, steamed to the bone and ready to jump ship. How could the President extend tax cuts for the top 2% of earners in this country? What is he thinking? Has he lost his mind?
No. He's simply doing the math.
Republicans in the senate have made it clear that they would filibuster, delay, and obstruct any other initiative until the Bush tax cuts were extended for everyone. Of course, they don't really care about everyone. They really care about the rich ones. Also known as their base.
This is where the right drew their line in the sand. This is what they stand for: Tax cuts for the rich. Oh sure, they say they care about the deficit. But when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy..."deficit, what deficit?" They will argue that the tax cuts will pay for themselves by creating growth and jobs. Just like they have for the last seven years. What's that you say? The economy tanked, unemployment soared, and the auto and banking industries almost disappeared since those growth creating Bush tax cuts? Oh, come on. This time will be different. This time, the republicans ride in on unicorns and sprinkle fairy dust on the economy and this time it will work. You just wait and see.
Now, back to the math. I hear a lot of wailing from democrats in congress right now about how the President gave away too much and didn't fight hard enough. Well, I would ask these suddenly courage afflicted and outraged souls: Why didn't you push for this vote months ago when the President wanted it and you had more leverage. Oh, that's right. You guys punted the issue until after the mid-terms because you didn't want to take any more "tough" votes before the election, you poor babies. Now you have the stones to toss angry words at the President you left holding the bag.
Okay, okay. This time the math...really. Last weekend the senate took two votes that were alternatives to this admittedly sickening compromise. The first was a measure that would have only extended the tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000. It failed. The second was an option that extended tax cuts for those who made less than $1,000,000. It failed too. Neither vote could muster more than 53 yeas from our oh so esteemed senators. And here's the thing: There are 58 democrats in the senate right now. Think about that, they couldn't hold together their own caucus to even come up two votes short of breaking the filibuster promised by the fleece patrol on the right. But yeah, it's the President's fault.
The same way it was his fault that Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson wouldn't support a public option for health care reform.
It's math, people. And the votes didn't add up.
So, the President was left with the choice of negotiating a deal that would allow 13 months of uninterrupted unemployment benefits for the out of work, a 2% payroll tax cut, and a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the middle class in exchange for a two year extension for the wealthy. Or, he could have stomped his feet and put on a show and got nothing.
Now, some would argue that the republicans would have eventually given in and extended unemployment benefits for the jobless. Let's assume that presumption is correct and the republicans would have eventually approved unemployment benefits in January before the new congress starts. That would mean millions of people would have went 6-8 weeks without a check. They would be out in the cold...literally. Unless of course, you think the mortgage lenders and land lords would be offering a forbearance on their notes. This may be a crap deal, but it's the best deal out there for those living at risk.
I was recently debating this issue with a self proclaimed progressive who said "The President can't rule the country just for the 10%." Never mind what an interesting choice of words "rule" is, these are people not a statistic. And mind you, unemployment benefits are one of the best stimulative maneuvers you can provide the marketplace with. Every dollar paid out in unemployment is worth a buck .60 to the economy. Last I checked, the economy affected all of us, not just the 10%. See, I got stats too.
You know, this isn't a hypothetical. My dad went without a job for two years. During that time the only work he could find was two soul sucking, demeaning temp jobs. Only last month, he finally got a permanent gig. If not, he and my mom would have been living in my basement by now. Oh sure, if he were still unemployed and the republicans had eventually given in on unemployment benefits, it would have been retroactive and he would have received back pay. But you try going two months without any income during the winter season when the cost of heat rises and the bills don't stop. And some of you want to tell me that the President didn't stand up for the American people today? What American people are you referring too? Give me a break.
Some would argue that this President is no different than the republican that preceded him. That democrats and republicans are essentially the same. But I will tell you there is one clear difference between us and the republicans. They will walk arm in arm in unison even if their destination is over a cliff. They stick together for better and (usually) worse. To be honest, some on the far left (which I typically consider myself to be), are just as hung up on ideology, purity, and perfection as the "teabaggers" they profess to hate so much. They are led by emotion, not facts, nuance, or complexity. And they will be forever left in the marginal wilderness of history along with the Green Party, the Socialist Party of America, and the hippies. Oh yeah, they had big plans...and minuscule results.
But I get it, you're angry. So angry you can't hardly stand to be in your own skin and you feel the need to lash out.
I would suggest you save your venom for those that deserve it the most, the republicans whose only principle seems to be giving this country to the wealthy, the corporations, and the special interests. Or, if you must throw verbal stones at the democrats, aim them for that weak kneed bunch in both houses who were too fragile to take a difficult vote until all their leverage had been lost during a brutal election cycle.
As for this President, the guy who saved the auto industry, made it harder for your health insurance provider to screw you over and kept the unemployed in their homes--quite literally saving lives--there are two words you should say to him...Thank You.
Sumo-Pop
December 7, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
My 2011 Major League Baseball Hall Of Fame Ballot (Not That It Counts)
Last week, Major League Baseball produced their yearly Hall Of Fame nominees. The group of players included on the list represent a smattering of no doubters, three confirmed steroid juicers, and--by my count--better than ten borderline candidates.
So, before we get to my list of the most deserving candidates, let's do a little housecleaning.
First, the baseball writers list can include no more than ten candidates. This means that I had to leave off two deserving players off my ballot. I firmly believe that long time reliever, Lee Smith, and all-time greatest designated hitter, Edgar Martinez are deserving of enshrinement. But the rules are the rules, and only ten can make the list.
Secondly, I would have no problem voting for the three most prominent steroid users on this year's group of nominees. 1st time nominees, Rafael Palmeiro and Juan Gonzalez have great statistical arguments as does hold over, Mark McGwire. That being said, on my list I will favor those that have not been proven guilty of using performance enhancers, and because I know that these three are not likely to get anywhere near enough votes to get close to election, I will not waste a vote on them...this year.
Many would argue that those unholy three should not be considered at all. That they "cheated" and are "dirty." True enough, but were they worse people than vicious racists (and Hall Of Famers), Ty Cobb and Cap Anson? Nope. Did they cheat any more than noted spit baller (and HOFer), Gaylord Perry? I would argue no again. But my biggest frustration with those that don't think these statistically and physically inflated former superstars deserve enshrinement is simply this: You can't say a thing that happened didn't happen. Someone hit all those home runs and won all those games. As distasteful as the steroid era was, it is a part of the game's history. And for most of that time, it wasn't even against the rules. That is baseball's fault and baseball's shame. And I don't see the logic behind holding the players responsible for the sport's lack of due diligence. So, put them in the Hall Of Fame, establish a separate wing, and put their transgression on their plaques. If those that oppose this opinion do so because they think it shames and embarrasses the game, well, the game has earned it.
There are also three "close but no cigar" candidates on the ballot this year. I would love to vote for Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. But the truth is, they were great for a very short period of time, and did not add enough good years on top of those admittedly dominant ones. Also, former Mets and Reds reliever, John Franco, would miss my ballot on his first year of eligibility. He may have been the greatest lefty closer ever though, and I reserve the right to reconsider him in the future.
Now, the last bit. My vote doesn't count, caries no weight, and effectively means nothing. But that's never stopped me before.
So, here is my completely inconsequential ballot. My candidates are ranked in order of merit.
1) Roberto Alomar (second year on the ballot)
The Numbers: 2724 hits, 1508 runs, 210 home runs, 1134 RBI, .300 batting average
The Awards: 12 time all star, 10 gold gloves, 4 silver sluggers, 1992 ALCS MVP
Quite simply, the greatest modern second baseman this side of Joe Morgan. Aside from all the great personal accolades listed above, he was also a great clutch player. His career playoff batting average is .313, and includes two World Series victories with the Toronto Blue Jays. A great hitter, slick fielder, and a winner. So why didn't he get in last year? Because of one terrible incident in his career. Once, after being called out on strikes, Alomar spat on home plate umpire, John Hirschbeck. It was ugly and awful--and completely out of character. Eventually, Alomar not only apologized to Hirschbeck, but contributed regularly to Hirschbeck's cancer foundation, set up in honor of his departed son. Which of course means that the Hirschbeck could forgive him but the baseball writers could not. Ridiculous. Alomar was only 1.3% short of the 75% required for enshrinement, and now that he has served his one year of "punishment" from the writers, I do not expect to be writing about this silliness next year.
2) Jeff Bagwell (1st year)
The Numbers: 449 home runs, 1529 RBI, 1517 runs, .297 batting average, .408 on base %, .540 slugging %
The Awards: 1991 Rookie Of The Year, 1994 MVP, four time all star, 3 silver sluggers, one gold glove
Bagwell is a sabremetrician's dream. The new breed of statistical over analyzers who have created stats like OPS, WAR, and TZR, love Bagwell. As well they should. Bagwell was one of the most complete players of his era. He was a tremendous hitter, a good fielder, and a surprisingly good base runner (202 career stolen bases). The only argument against Bagwell is that he didn't accumulate--due to a career ending shoulder injury--the "slam dunk" milestones (3,000 hits, 500 homers) that typically guarantee enshrinement. I also get the feeling that some writers may hold the steroid era against him. While there is no proof or even a great deal of suspicion around Bagwell, his peak era stats and a body frame that was similar to other users, may be held against him. Which of course, is unfair. To me it's as simple as this: In two years, Bagwell's Houston Astro teammate Craig Biggio will likely be a first ballot hall of famer (3,000 career hits all but guarantees it). And Biggio was probably 90% of the player that Bagwell was. Bags is easily the best Astro of all time. That should be enough.
3) Barry Larkin (2nd year)
The Numbers: 2340 hits, 1329 runs, 198 homers, 960 RBI, 379 stolen bases, .295 batting avg.
The Awards: 12 time all star, 9 silver sluggers, 3 gold gloves, 1995 MVP
For more than a decade, Larkin was the gold standard of Major League shortstops. He did everything exceedingly well. He hit for average and power, fielded his position with aplomb, and ran the bases as well as anyone who has ever played the game. The one knock on Larkin was his health. When Larkin played he was great. Unfortunately, his body often let him down, resulting in a lot of missed games and holding his career statistical accumulation down. However, most baseball historians rank the former Red great between 4th and 9th on the list of the greatest shortstops to ever play the game. There are more than nine shortstops in the Hall Of Fame already. I rest my case.
4) Alan Trammell (10th year)
The Numbers: 2365 hits, 1231 runs, 185 homers, 1003 RBI, .285 batting avg.
The Awards: 6 time all star, 4 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers, 1984 World Series MVP
The argument for Trammell is almost the exact same one that I made for Larkin. Trammell didn't steal as many bases (236), hit as many homers or for as high an average as Larkin, but he was his equal in all other categories. For my money, he was also the 1987 MVP, despite the voters giving the award to George Bell in what can only be considered a colossal misjudgement. Like Larkin, most historians rank Trammell in or near the top ten of all Major League shortstops. Yet somehow, Trammell has never even received a vote on 25% of the writer's ballots. A real crime. My final argument for Trammell (and Larkin for that matter), is that if I were a General Manager and I had Trammell on my team, and another team offered me Ozzie Smith straight up for Trammell, I would decline. Conversely, if I had Smith and were offered Trammell I would emphatically say yes without hesitation. Smith was a (deserving) first ballot hall of famer and Trammell can't get within shouting distance. Like I said, a crime.
5) Bert Blyleven (14th year)
The Numbers: 287 wins, 3.31 ERA, 242 complete games, 60 shut outs, 3701 strike outs
The Awards: 2 time all star, finished in the top ten in Cy Young voting four times
One of the most undervalued starting pitchers in the history of baseball. A great pitcher on predominantly bad teams over his 22 year career, Blyleven was seldom considered a "dominant" pitcher. But a deeper dive into his career numbers tells a different story. His 3701 strike outs are 5th all time. His 242 complete games are 91st. And most tellingly, he is 9th all time with 60 shut outs. 9th! That's 14 more than Roger Clemens, 23 more than Randy Johnson, 25 more than Greg Maddux, and 35 more than Tom Glavine. So I would ask voters, what is more dominant than a shut out? Blyleven just missed last year by 0.8%. This should finally be his year.
6) Jack Morris (12th year)
The Numbers: 254 wins, 175 complete games, 28 shut outs, 2478 strike outs
The Awards: 5 time all star, 1991 World Series MVP, 7 times in the top ten for Cy Young award
The frustrating candidacy of Jack Morris revolves around one rather silly statistic, ERA. Were it not for his 3.90 career earned run average, I think Morris would already be in. It's the same argument most had against Andre Dawson (only with him it was his on base average). However, I know what I saw with my own two eyes. And hands down, Jack Morris is the toughest S.O.B. I have ever seen. If I had to choose one pitcher to win one game for me and I could pick amongst all the guys I've ever seen, I would take Morris. All you really need to know about Morris is that while pitching for the Minnesota Twins in the 1991 world series, Morris clinched the World Series by throwing 10 shut out innings against the vaunted Atlanta Braves. One word describes this performance: Typical.
*It should also be mentioned at this point that there seems to be a prejudice against the great Tiger teams of the eighties. The only person affiliated with those squads in the Hall Of Fame is manager, Sparky Anderson. By my count, Trammell, Morris, and the criminally overlooked Lou Whitaker should all be in the Hall Of Fame. And a decent case could also be made for Lance Parrish as well.
7) Tim Raines (4th year)
The Numbers: 2605 hits, 1571 runs, 170 homers, 980 RBI, 808 stolen bases, .294 batting avg., .385 on base percentage
The Awards: 7 time all star, one silver slugger, one batting title
Raines exemplary career was largely overshadowed by the greatest lead off hitter ever, Rickey Henderson. Which is only somewhat fair. Sure, Henderson was the best, but Raines was pretty damn great too. The former Expo great is 5th all time in stolen bases and sports an ungodly success rate of 85%. Most writers argue that Raines was not dominant enough. Here's what they are missing: In his career, Raines was intentionally walked 148 times (good for 46th all time). That means that Raines was so feared that pitchers preferred to walk him even though they knew that a free pass to first would probably equal a double after Raines came out of his slide into second base after frustrating another poor catcher.
8) Larry Walker (First year)
The Numbers: 383 homers, 1311 RBI, 1355 runs, .313 batting average, .400 on base %, .565 slugging %,
The Awards: 5 time all star, 7 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers, 3 batting titles, 1997 MVP
Like Bagwell, Walker is also sabremetrician's dream. His batting average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage all scream Hall of Famer. However, I don't expect Walker to make it in his first year on the ballot for two reasons. For one, Walker missed a lot of games in his career with injuries depressing his statistical accumulation. More significantly to voters however, will be where he played, the launching pad of Coors Stadium in Colorado. Which is exceedingly unfair. Do we hold it against Ted Williams that he could take aim at the green monster in Fenway? Or how about all the Yankee greats that had that "short porch" in Yankee stadium that clearly increased their career home run totals? Or, how about all of the players in the Hall of Fame that played prior to integrations and therefore never faced Satchel Paige or any other of the great Negro League players? Walker couldn't help where he played, but he could help his level of production. Which was fantastic. Lost in large part--due to his batting average and power numbers--was how great of an all around player Walker was. He was a feared canon armed right fielder and stole 230 bases in his career as well. It should also be said, that Walker was a terrific hitter in Montreal (before moving to the Rockies), and an effective one at the tail end of his career in Saint Louis. He was not simply a Coors Field wonder.
9) Dave Parker (15th--and last--year)
The Numbers: 2712 hits, 339 homers, 1493 RBI, .290 batting average, .471 slugging %
The Awards: 7 time all star, 1978 MVP, 3 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers, 2 batting titles
Also known as my lost cause. If Dave Parker is overlooked in his final year on the ballot, then he will likely never get in to the Hall Of Fame. Just looking at his career numbers and accomplishments, it's clear that Parker would by no means be the "worst" player (Hello Bill Mazeroski!) to be enshrined, yet still, his support is terribly weak (only 15.2% last year). Why? Because Dave Parker used cocaine and largely gave away three of his peak seasons while suffering from addiction. But here's the thing, Parker did come back from that addiction to average 108 RBI over the next 4 years with the Cincinnati Reds. He also packed on a 97 RBI season with Oakland and a 92 RBI season with Milwaukee in his next to last year. When you couple his late career surge with his first 6 full seasons with the Pirates (where he was often considered the best player in the National League), there is a lot to look at here, and most of it is choice. Besides winning the 1978 MVP with the Pirates, he also finished 2nd in 1985, 3rd in 1975 and 1977 and 5th in 1986. Still, all my verbage here is largely wasted. This year, I started a Facebook page called Dave Parker For The Hall Of Fame Dammit!!, and thus far the page has only garnered 14 fans. Parker has never gotten the sort of ground swell of support that eventually carried Jim Rice and Andre Dawson to the Hall Of Fame. Two players that Parker compares favorably too. Such is life.
10) Fred McGriff (2nd year)
The Numbers: 2490 hits, 493 homers, 1550 RBI, 1349 runs, .284 batting average, .509 slugging %
The Awards: 5 time all star, 3 silver sluggers, 2 home run titles
Perhaps no other player on the ballot is more affected by the steroid era than Fred McGriff. Not that McGriff was ever suspected of using performance enhancers (on the contrary he was thought of as a Mr. Clean). But the inflated numbers that his contemporaries put up make his numbers look comparatively modest. However, I do expect his support to increase over the years as voters will begin to look over McGriff's clean career and find he was only a little behind the juicers of the day. What McGriff may have lacked in eye-popping numbers, he more than made up for with consistency. In his 19 season career, Mcgriff hit 30 or more home runs 10 times (he was in the 20s 5 times). He knocked in 100 runs 8 times. 90 another 4 times, and 80 3 times. I would also say that if McGriff would have hit just 7 more home runs (to hit the magical 500 mark), he would be a shoo-in. With all that McGriff did do, should 7 measly homers make such a difference? I think not.
So there it is, that's my list. If I were a wagering man, I would bet on Blyleven and Alomar getting in for certain, and Larkin, Bagwell, and Morris getting close. All told, I think we'll see three new inductees this year from that group of five. Next year's ballot should see at least one more player from this list getting in as the most prominent new nominee will be Bernie Williiams. After that, Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa will be on the ballot and the arguments will get very, very interesting.
Sumo-Pop
December 5, 2010
So, before we get to my list of the most deserving candidates, let's do a little housecleaning.
First, the baseball writers list can include no more than ten candidates. This means that I had to leave off two deserving players off my ballot. I firmly believe that long time reliever, Lee Smith, and all-time greatest designated hitter, Edgar Martinez are deserving of enshrinement. But the rules are the rules, and only ten can make the list.
Secondly, I would have no problem voting for the three most prominent steroid users on this year's group of nominees. 1st time nominees, Rafael Palmeiro and Juan Gonzalez have great statistical arguments as does hold over, Mark McGwire. That being said, on my list I will favor those that have not been proven guilty of using performance enhancers, and because I know that these three are not likely to get anywhere near enough votes to get close to election, I will not waste a vote on them...this year.
Many would argue that those unholy three should not be considered at all. That they "cheated" and are "dirty." True enough, but were they worse people than vicious racists (and Hall Of Famers), Ty Cobb and Cap Anson? Nope. Did they cheat any more than noted spit baller (and HOFer), Gaylord Perry? I would argue no again. But my biggest frustration with those that don't think these statistically and physically inflated former superstars deserve enshrinement is simply this: You can't say a thing that happened didn't happen. Someone hit all those home runs and won all those games. As distasteful as the steroid era was, it is a part of the game's history. And for most of that time, it wasn't even against the rules. That is baseball's fault and baseball's shame. And I don't see the logic behind holding the players responsible for the sport's lack of due diligence. So, put them in the Hall Of Fame, establish a separate wing, and put their transgression on their plaques. If those that oppose this opinion do so because they think it shames and embarrasses the game, well, the game has earned it.
There are also three "close but no cigar" candidates on the ballot this year. I would love to vote for Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. But the truth is, they were great for a very short period of time, and did not add enough good years on top of those admittedly dominant ones. Also, former Mets and Reds reliever, John Franco, would miss my ballot on his first year of eligibility. He may have been the greatest lefty closer ever though, and I reserve the right to reconsider him in the future.
Now, the last bit. My vote doesn't count, caries no weight, and effectively means nothing. But that's never stopped me before.
So, here is my completely inconsequential ballot. My candidates are ranked in order of merit.
1) Roberto Alomar (second year on the ballot)
The Numbers: 2724 hits, 1508 runs, 210 home runs, 1134 RBI, .300 batting average
The Awards: 12 time all star, 10 gold gloves, 4 silver sluggers, 1992 ALCS MVP
Quite simply, the greatest modern second baseman this side of Joe Morgan. Aside from all the great personal accolades listed above, he was also a great clutch player. His career playoff batting average is .313, and includes two World Series victories with the Toronto Blue Jays. A great hitter, slick fielder, and a winner. So why didn't he get in last year? Because of one terrible incident in his career. Once, after being called out on strikes, Alomar spat on home plate umpire, John Hirschbeck. It was ugly and awful--and completely out of character. Eventually, Alomar not only apologized to Hirschbeck, but contributed regularly to Hirschbeck's cancer foundation, set up in honor of his departed son. Which of course means that the Hirschbeck could forgive him but the baseball writers could not. Ridiculous. Alomar was only 1.3% short of the 75% required for enshrinement, and now that he has served his one year of "punishment" from the writers, I do not expect to be writing about this silliness next year.
2) Jeff Bagwell (1st year)
The Numbers: 449 home runs, 1529 RBI, 1517 runs, .297 batting average, .408 on base %, .540 slugging %
The Awards: 1991 Rookie Of The Year, 1994 MVP, four time all star, 3 silver sluggers, one gold glove
Bagwell is a sabremetrician's dream. The new breed of statistical over analyzers who have created stats like OPS, WAR, and TZR, love Bagwell. As well they should. Bagwell was one of the most complete players of his era. He was a tremendous hitter, a good fielder, and a surprisingly good base runner (202 career stolen bases). The only argument against Bagwell is that he didn't accumulate--due to a career ending shoulder injury--the "slam dunk" milestones (3,000 hits, 500 homers) that typically guarantee enshrinement. I also get the feeling that some writers may hold the steroid era against him. While there is no proof or even a great deal of suspicion around Bagwell, his peak era stats and a body frame that was similar to other users, may be held against him. Which of course, is unfair. To me it's as simple as this: In two years, Bagwell's Houston Astro teammate Craig Biggio will likely be a first ballot hall of famer (3,000 career hits all but guarantees it). And Biggio was probably 90% of the player that Bagwell was. Bags is easily the best Astro of all time. That should be enough.
3) Barry Larkin (2nd year)
The Numbers: 2340 hits, 1329 runs, 198 homers, 960 RBI, 379 stolen bases, .295 batting avg.
The Awards: 12 time all star, 9 silver sluggers, 3 gold gloves, 1995 MVP
For more than a decade, Larkin was the gold standard of Major League shortstops. He did everything exceedingly well. He hit for average and power, fielded his position with aplomb, and ran the bases as well as anyone who has ever played the game. The one knock on Larkin was his health. When Larkin played he was great. Unfortunately, his body often let him down, resulting in a lot of missed games and holding his career statistical accumulation down. However, most baseball historians rank the former Red great between 4th and 9th on the list of the greatest shortstops to ever play the game. There are more than nine shortstops in the Hall Of Fame already. I rest my case.
4) Alan Trammell (10th year)
The Numbers: 2365 hits, 1231 runs, 185 homers, 1003 RBI, .285 batting avg.
The Awards: 6 time all star, 4 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers, 1984 World Series MVP
The argument for Trammell is almost the exact same one that I made for Larkin. Trammell didn't steal as many bases (236), hit as many homers or for as high an average as Larkin, but he was his equal in all other categories. For my money, he was also the 1987 MVP, despite the voters giving the award to George Bell in what can only be considered a colossal misjudgement. Like Larkin, most historians rank Trammell in or near the top ten of all Major League shortstops. Yet somehow, Trammell has never even received a vote on 25% of the writer's ballots. A real crime. My final argument for Trammell (and Larkin for that matter), is that if I were a General Manager and I had Trammell on my team, and another team offered me Ozzie Smith straight up for Trammell, I would decline. Conversely, if I had Smith and were offered Trammell I would emphatically say yes without hesitation. Smith was a (deserving) first ballot hall of famer and Trammell can't get within shouting distance. Like I said, a crime.
5) Bert Blyleven (14th year)
The Numbers: 287 wins, 3.31 ERA, 242 complete games, 60 shut outs, 3701 strike outs
The Awards: 2 time all star, finished in the top ten in Cy Young voting four times
One of the most undervalued starting pitchers in the history of baseball. A great pitcher on predominantly bad teams over his 22 year career, Blyleven was seldom considered a "dominant" pitcher. But a deeper dive into his career numbers tells a different story. His 3701 strike outs are 5th all time. His 242 complete games are 91st. And most tellingly, he is 9th all time with 60 shut outs. 9th! That's 14 more than Roger Clemens, 23 more than Randy Johnson, 25 more than Greg Maddux, and 35 more than Tom Glavine. So I would ask voters, what is more dominant than a shut out? Blyleven just missed last year by 0.8%. This should finally be his year.
6) Jack Morris (12th year)
The Numbers: 254 wins, 175 complete games, 28 shut outs, 2478 strike outs
The Awards: 5 time all star, 1991 World Series MVP, 7 times in the top ten for Cy Young award
The frustrating candidacy of Jack Morris revolves around one rather silly statistic, ERA. Were it not for his 3.90 career earned run average, I think Morris would already be in. It's the same argument most had against Andre Dawson (only with him it was his on base average). However, I know what I saw with my own two eyes. And hands down, Jack Morris is the toughest S.O.B. I have ever seen. If I had to choose one pitcher to win one game for me and I could pick amongst all the guys I've ever seen, I would take Morris. All you really need to know about Morris is that while pitching for the Minnesota Twins in the 1991 world series, Morris clinched the World Series by throwing 10 shut out innings against the vaunted Atlanta Braves. One word describes this performance: Typical.
*It should also be mentioned at this point that there seems to be a prejudice against the great Tiger teams of the eighties. The only person affiliated with those squads in the Hall Of Fame is manager, Sparky Anderson. By my count, Trammell, Morris, and the criminally overlooked Lou Whitaker should all be in the Hall Of Fame. And a decent case could also be made for Lance Parrish as well.
7) Tim Raines (4th year)
The Numbers: 2605 hits, 1571 runs, 170 homers, 980 RBI, 808 stolen bases, .294 batting avg., .385 on base percentage
The Awards: 7 time all star, one silver slugger, one batting title
Raines exemplary career was largely overshadowed by the greatest lead off hitter ever, Rickey Henderson. Which is only somewhat fair. Sure, Henderson was the best, but Raines was pretty damn great too. The former Expo great is 5th all time in stolen bases and sports an ungodly success rate of 85%. Most writers argue that Raines was not dominant enough. Here's what they are missing: In his career, Raines was intentionally walked 148 times (good for 46th all time). That means that Raines was so feared that pitchers preferred to walk him even though they knew that a free pass to first would probably equal a double after Raines came out of his slide into second base after frustrating another poor catcher.
8) Larry Walker (First year)
The Numbers: 383 homers, 1311 RBI, 1355 runs, .313 batting average, .400 on base %, .565 slugging %,
The Awards: 5 time all star, 7 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers, 3 batting titles, 1997 MVP
Like Bagwell, Walker is also sabremetrician's dream. His batting average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage all scream Hall of Famer. However, I don't expect Walker to make it in his first year on the ballot for two reasons. For one, Walker missed a lot of games in his career with injuries depressing his statistical accumulation. More significantly to voters however, will be where he played, the launching pad of Coors Stadium in Colorado. Which is exceedingly unfair. Do we hold it against Ted Williams that he could take aim at the green monster in Fenway? Or how about all the Yankee greats that had that "short porch" in Yankee stadium that clearly increased their career home run totals? Or, how about all of the players in the Hall of Fame that played prior to integrations and therefore never faced Satchel Paige or any other of the great Negro League players? Walker couldn't help where he played, but he could help his level of production. Which was fantastic. Lost in large part--due to his batting average and power numbers--was how great of an all around player Walker was. He was a feared canon armed right fielder and stole 230 bases in his career as well. It should also be said, that Walker was a terrific hitter in Montreal (before moving to the Rockies), and an effective one at the tail end of his career in Saint Louis. He was not simply a Coors Field wonder.
9) Dave Parker (15th--and last--year)
The Numbers: 2712 hits, 339 homers, 1493 RBI, .290 batting average, .471 slugging %
The Awards: 7 time all star, 1978 MVP, 3 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers, 2 batting titles
Also known as my lost cause. If Dave Parker is overlooked in his final year on the ballot, then he will likely never get in to the Hall Of Fame. Just looking at his career numbers and accomplishments, it's clear that Parker would by no means be the "worst" player (Hello Bill Mazeroski!) to be enshrined, yet still, his support is terribly weak (only 15.2% last year). Why? Because Dave Parker used cocaine and largely gave away three of his peak seasons while suffering from addiction. But here's the thing, Parker did come back from that addiction to average 108 RBI over the next 4 years with the Cincinnati Reds. He also packed on a 97 RBI season with Oakland and a 92 RBI season with Milwaukee in his next to last year. When you couple his late career surge with his first 6 full seasons with the Pirates (where he was often considered the best player in the National League), there is a lot to look at here, and most of it is choice. Besides winning the 1978 MVP with the Pirates, he also finished 2nd in 1985, 3rd in 1975 and 1977 and 5th in 1986. Still, all my verbage here is largely wasted. This year, I started a Facebook page called Dave Parker For The Hall Of Fame Dammit!!, and thus far the page has only garnered 14 fans. Parker has never gotten the sort of ground swell of support that eventually carried Jim Rice and Andre Dawson to the Hall Of Fame. Two players that Parker compares favorably too. Such is life.
10) Fred McGriff (2nd year)
The Numbers: 2490 hits, 493 homers, 1550 RBI, 1349 runs, .284 batting average, .509 slugging %
The Awards: 5 time all star, 3 silver sluggers, 2 home run titles
Perhaps no other player on the ballot is more affected by the steroid era than Fred McGriff. Not that McGriff was ever suspected of using performance enhancers (on the contrary he was thought of as a Mr. Clean). But the inflated numbers that his contemporaries put up make his numbers look comparatively modest. However, I do expect his support to increase over the years as voters will begin to look over McGriff's clean career and find he was only a little behind the juicers of the day. What McGriff may have lacked in eye-popping numbers, he more than made up for with consistency. In his 19 season career, Mcgriff hit 30 or more home runs 10 times (he was in the 20s 5 times). He knocked in 100 runs 8 times. 90 another 4 times, and 80 3 times. I would also say that if McGriff would have hit just 7 more home runs (to hit the magical 500 mark), he would be a shoo-in. With all that McGriff did do, should 7 measly homers make such a difference? I think not.
So there it is, that's my list. If I were a wagering man, I would bet on Blyleven and Alomar getting in for certain, and Larkin, Bagwell, and Morris getting close. All told, I think we'll see three new inductees this year from that group of five. Next year's ballot should see at least one more player from this list getting in as the most prominent new nominee will be Bernie Williiams. After that, Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa will be on the ballot and the arguments will get very, very interesting.
Sumo-Pop
December 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)