September 11, 2008
Winning, Not Whining (Bob Franken)
Oct. 11, 2003. The Red Sox and the Yankees. The pitchers that day were two of baseball's best, Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens.
It was nasty. When Boston's Martinez threw at a New York batter's head, Clemens came back and fired at the next Boston player.
It quickly turned into a literal brawl. Both sides realized that if they backed down they had no chance of winning.
To show you how juvenile a fan can be: It was exquisite … one of my favorite games, ever. To show you how shameless a writer can be about sports metaphors, it is easy to compare it to that other great rivalry.
Except that when Republicans unleash their beanballs, as they always do, the Democrats fail to respond by taking their own shots. Instead, they freeze. Then they complain how unfairly the other team is playing. They're terrific when they take on each other, but when the real hardball starts, they usually do nothing but protest and get ready to forfeit.
It's happening again. As soon as the GOP rookie Sarah Palin made a hit, Barack Obama and Joe Biden looked like all the energy had been sucked out of them. To further torture this analogy, they began playing only defense. Instead of keeping up their own attack, they spent all their time defending against the McCain rally, instead of grabbing the bat and going after the other guys with it.
Enough of the baseball contrivance: The truth is that ever since the real campaign began less than two weeks ago, and Republicans showed some life and clever tactics, Democrats have looked listless.
What a sudden role reversal! While it is true that one can argue that shameless tactics call into question the moral qualifications of the people who see them, it is also fair to contend that America's adversaries are even more brutish. Surely a president of the United States needs to demonstrate he (and someday she) has the strength to not only withstand an assault but roll over the assailant.
This arena is no place for submissive whiners. To be frank, the Democrats, in the last few days, have looked the part.
What a sad choice it would be if we were left to choose between perceptions of ruthless bullies and weaklings.
Let's not reduce this to Vince Lombardi's claim that "Winning isn't everything — it's the only thing.” That's clever, but it's simple-minded. The way this game is being played again, by BOTH sides, the rest of us are the losers.
Visit Mr. Franken's website at www.bobfranken.tv.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 8 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
A good punch always leaves one disoriented. A little "getting your senses back" time is natural.
I admit Obama has seemed a little listless, but perhaps the Palin media circus has enhanced that perception. The media is more impatient and critical than the general public. Yet, when they rant "where is the counter-punch", the "weak" perception can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Hint: liberal media needs to boycott lipstick.
Don't count Obama out. His team is probably betting the debates will rub some of the makeup off Palin's media makeover.
Call me crazy, but I almost do believe the lipstick and fish remarks were engineered. If you watch Obama's body language before he said it, he put his hand to his brow almost in shame. If you look at today's headlines, Palin is down on the list. Is it possible the subsconcsious associations with made-up farm animals and rotting aquatics pushed the media over the edge? Call it the Peter Frampton effect.
Do you feel like I do?
Comment by Scott Kovarik — September 11, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
This race is not about tactics, it's about not letting a dangerous radical, making baseless promises and hiding behind rhetoric to achieve his real goals, get to the White House.
Comment by Igor R. — September 11, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Igor;
The dangerous radical in this race is McCain/Palin. She used her office to try to get a man fire and when she couldn't she fired one of her appointees. That is abuse of power. She tried to ban books at teh library and when teh librarian wouldn't go along, she fired her. The librarian got her job back but resigned saying that working for Sarah was too stressful. She fired tenured city employees who wouldn't submit to her crazy ideas and she charged rape victims for the rape kits. If that is not radical, tehn your name isn't Igor.
Comment by Mike Coleman — September 11, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
The information we use to base our ideology on is shaped by the media, albeit unconsciously, and we selectively take what we need to bolster our already-present biases, stereotypes. The tactics do not belie the issues … they are a study - a social commentary on the use of power and how it is manipulated to create the dangerous phenomenon of rigid, immovable followers of cast iron ideologies.
Elections exacerbate the illusion of differences in candidates to manipulate the ideas we have that separate us. Real governance happens in the middle whether we like it or not - the rest is campaign rhetoric designed to fan the flames and embolden extremes on both sides. It works, doesn’t it? The banter contained within these blogs is a testament to it. But this is not where reality is and that’s why the name calling and at-the-urinal comparisons are not only intellectually infantile, but counter-productive.
When the smoke clears, we are in no demonstrably better shape at any point in time because we had a democratic or republican president. A new administration is often far too preoccupied with cleaning up the messes of the well-intentioned previous one to make as significant a positive difference or, fortunately for us, a negative one, as its supporters might have hoped. Thank God.
I'll never forget a cartoon my dad had on his wall that read, "man taking great pleasure in restrictions dictated by his own habits".
The greatest threat to us is not some self-aggrandizing illusion of divinely mandated differences between this government or that,. These days they almost seem to be an extension of some overly simplified religious version of the last days and good and evil extended into politics. No, it is ourselves and the limits we place on US, that is our greatest enemy. Ours is a government of the PEOPLE and what we get is a reflection of the mass consciousness of society. Point? Its all about you, not them.
Comment by Scott Kovarik — September 12, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
Scott Kovarik, when Marxists come to power it becomes all about THEM.
Comment by Igor R. — September 12, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
That is certainly something we can agree on. I do think, however, that just as in the case of the elevated paranoia that resulted in McCarthyism, labeling the democrats as Marxists, or republicans as right wing fascists, in sum, is a bit of an over-exaggeration on both accounts. The Constitution has done pretty well at protecting the many against the ill-guided will of the few. Lady liberty will be fine, but I do appreciate your views.
Comment by Scott Kovarik — September 14, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Scott Kovarik, quite often what you call paranoia has real roots but goes too far. As more documents were declassified about the Rosenbergs, it became clear that Julius was REALLY guilty, but Ethel not so much and didn't deserve to die, was in fact a victim of a prosecutor's tactic gone too far. McCarthy did identify many real Communists, but the atmosphere because not very conducive to the exercise of free speech. However those who accused him of witch hunts didn't really acknowledge that he was right in many of his assertions.
When I call Obama a Marxist, that's not the same as calling every democrat a Marxist. I take into consideration his history of learning and teaching Sol Alinsky's methods, his various comments supporting income redistribution, his great interest in "fairness" in paying taxes that manifests itself in claiming that the can lower taxes on people who don't pay any today. Marxism isn't all about violent revolution, it's really about the government determining who gets what.
Comment by Igor R. — September 15, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Igor, interesting comments … I hear you on your first paragraph, however, cutting off an arm to get to a hand isn't good doctoring.
I'm for low taxes, as I think it stimulates commerce. I'm for minimal government, but with a degree of social and economic oversight and responsibility where warranted. But I also realize government waste must be minimized and the deficit cut to strengthen the dollar. Someone has got to help pay it down. Slightly higher taxation where it can be absorbed is only one part of the answer.
Obamas middle class tax cut, though I need to look at it in greater detail, would still inject capital into the economy and take advantage of the multiplier effect, which increases growth as it moves through the money chain and would effect commerce on all levels. I'll have to study Obama's tax plan in a little more detai, though.
I thought Marxism had to do with the means of production. I don't think a little taxation shuffle puts Obama there, but I would be interested in strong evidence that points to the contrary.
Comment by Scott Kovarik — September 15, 2008 @ 1:23 pm