I confess to being something of a traditionalist when it comes to sports. When the National Hockey League instituted its post-lockout rule changes, I was dead set against almost all of them. I have since warmed up to most, but I can't see that happening with instant replay in Major League Baseball.
I do not, like some others, decry the intrusion of technology into baseball. Sports must adapt to the times. Marshall McLuhan once predicted that baseball could not survive the television age, but the game adapted and, while not unhurt by the rise of TV — football is even better suited for the medium than baseball, and exploited it to rise in popularity, largely at baseball's expense — has gained tremendous revenue from television broadcasts.
However, I do ask this question: what's the point? The obvious answer is to prevent bad calls from affecting the outcome of the game. But what's so horrible about that? Blown or disputed calls provide some of baseball's most cherished memories, from Sam Rice's famed catch in the 1925 World Series to the Jeffrey Maier fan interference call: remembered with joy on one side, with frustration and even anger on the other, such disputes help make baseball the great game it is — filled with passion, unpredictability, and stories fathers tell sons as they bring them up on the national pastime. The antics of enraged players and managers, from John McGraw to Phillip Wellman, also provide entertainment. Why take all this out of the game?
Major League Baseball says that it will only use replay for some types of calls for now. It would be a terrible mistake to expand its use. Even as it is now, it accomplishes nothing but delaying games at the potential cost of a few great arguments.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sarah Palin's Political Future
What's next for Gov. Sarah Palin? Three possible future runs:
2010: Challenging incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in the Republican senatorial primary
There has been much speculation that Palin will do this to prepare for a presidential run in 2012, but it seems unlikely to me. Firstly, polling on a potential Murkowski-Palin matchup has been wildly contradictory: a Research 2000 poll showed Palin leading Murkowski 55-31, while a Dittman Research poll shows Murkowski up 58-31. If Palin is serious about running, she will have to determine what her chances are. A defeat could be crushing for Palin's political future, and it seems unlikely she would risk it unless she was certain she would win.
Even if Palin wins, it is doubtful that this would have a dramatic effect on her political future. While small-state senators generally get more attention than small-state governors – the reverse is true in large states – Palin is already on the national stage. While a few voters might be reassured by the foreign and national policy experience she would gain in the Senate, it won't be enough to dramatically increase her chances. And she would further alienate the party establishment by knocking off an incumbent, although she's probably burned her bridges to the point that it will not make much of a difference.
2012: Running for President
This run would have two components: the primary and the general election. What are her chances in each? Her chances in the primary may well depend on the mood of the Republicans and the field of candidates, but I would say that the odds of her winning are less than 50%. She would not have the party establishment behind her, due to her actions as McCain's running mate and the fact that she is probably the least electable prominent Republican, but the rank and file are far more open to her. Still, polls have not shown her running away with it; rather, she seems to be virtually tied with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
The general election will be far more difficult, and probably the only way she would have a chance at winning is under circumstances that would make almost any other Republican virtually certain to win, such as the complete failure of an Obama administration. Otherwise, it will be hard for her to convince the American public that she is both competent and not a right-wing extremist.
2014: Challenging Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
This may well be Palin's best option, but it is far from certain that she would succeed. Her once sky-high popularity in her home state was severely damaged by her time as governor, particularly among independents and Democrats. If she runs for President in 2012, this might further damage her chances in 2014, but Alaska is an idiosyncratic state, and a run might enhance her status as a sort of favorite daughter.
More encouraging for Palin is the fact that she remains quite popular and that Alaska is still a rather Republican state. But all indications are that Begich will be a moderate Democrat, and he will side with Republicans on key Alaska issues, such as ANWR, that make it impossible for Democratic presidential candidates to win the state. If Begich has a successful first term, he may well be able to hold off Palin.
2010: Challenging incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in the Republican senatorial primary
There has been much speculation that Palin will do this to prepare for a presidential run in 2012, but it seems unlikely to me. Firstly, polling on a potential Murkowski-Palin matchup has been wildly contradictory: a Research 2000 poll showed Palin leading Murkowski 55-31, while a Dittman Research poll shows Murkowski up 58-31. If Palin is serious about running, she will have to determine what her chances are. A defeat could be crushing for Palin's political future, and it seems unlikely she would risk it unless she was certain she would win.
Even if Palin wins, it is doubtful that this would have a dramatic effect on her political future. While small-state senators generally get more attention than small-state governors – the reverse is true in large states – Palin is already on the national stage. While a few voters might be reassured by the foreign and national policy experience she would gain in the Senate, it won't be enough to dramatically increase her chances. And she would further alienate the party establishment by knocking off an incumbent, although she's probably burned her bridges to the point that it will not make much of a difference.
2012: Running for President
This run would have two components: the primary and the general election. What are her chances in each? Her chances in the primary may well depend on the mood of the Republicans and the field of candidates, but I would say that the odds of her winning are less than 50%. She would not have the party establishment behind her, due to her actions as McCain's running mate and the fact that she is probably the least electable prominent Republican, but the rank and file are far more open to her. Still, polls have not shown her running away with it; rather, she seems to be virtually tied with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
The general election will be far more difficult, and probably the only way she would have a chance at winning is under circumstances that would make almost any other Republican virtually certain to win, such as the complete failure of an Obama administration. Otherwise, it will be hard for her to convince the American public that she is both competent and not a right-wing extremist.
2014: Challenging Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
This may well be Palin's best option, but it is far from certain that she would succeed. Her once sky-high popularity in her home state was severely damaged by her time as governor, particularly among independents and Democrats. If she runs for President in 2012, this might further damage her chances in 2014, but Alaska is an idiosyncratic state, and a run might enhance her status as a sort of favorite daughter.
More encouraging for Palin is the fact that she remains quite popular and that Alaska is still a rather Republican state. But all indications are that Begich will be a moderate Democrat, and he will side with Republicans on key Alaska issues, such as ANWR, that make it impossible for Democratic presidential candidates to win the state. If Begich has a successful first term, he may well be able to hold off Palin.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
On Warrengate: Why Rick Warren's Selection is not a Setback for Gay Rights
Barack Obama has been taking a lot of criticism for his selection of the Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. While I strongly support gay marriage, and gay rights in general, I do not see this as a setback. In fact, this may ultimately allow Obama to pursue a more strongly pro-gay agenda.
Obama will be the most pro-gay president in our history. This is not saying much; Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bush was most certainly not friendly to the gay community. While words are not enough, Obama has shown a willingness to talk about this issue, which many Democrats consider toxic. His mention of "gay friends in the red states" in his 2004 convention speech, and similar turns of phrase in future speeches, was rather unusual for a politician with national ambitions, and he has been assertive in his support of civil unions.
What the selection of Rick Warren does is give Obama some more political capital on gay rights issues. In essence, by appearing to be anti-gay, Obama is buying himself the political capital to be pro-gay. It will be difficult for Obama to pursue pro-gay initiatives if the country sees him as a radical liberal on these issues. After all, while much of the country supports civil unions, most of it opposes gay marriage, and social conservatives frequently play a major role in elections. By reaching out to the social conservatives, Obama will seem less liberal even as he pursues the same policies. In politics, perception is often as important reality.
During the presidential campaign, Obama was often targeted for his associations with people such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. The same people who were willing to look beyond this — rightly, in my view — should also look beyond the selection of Rick Warren and see Obama for what he truly stands for.
Obama will be the most pro-gay president in our history. This is not saying much; Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bush was most certainly not friendly to the gay community. While words are not enough, Obama has shown a willingness to talk about this issue, which many Democrats consider toxic. His mention of "gay friends in the red states" in his 2004 convention speech, and similar turns of phrase in future speeches, was rather unusual for a politician with national ambitions, and he has been assertive in his support of civil unions.
What the selection of Rick Warren does is give Obama some more political capital on gay rights issues. In essence, by appearing to be anti-gay, Obama is buying himself the political capital to be pro-gay. It will be difficult for Obama to pursue pro-gay initiatives if the country sees him as a radical liberal on these issues. After all, while much of the country supports civil unions, most of it opposes gay marriage, and social conservatives frequently play a major role in elections. By reaching out to the social conservatives, Obama will seem less liberal even as he pursues the same policies. In politics, perception is often as important reality.
During the presidential campaign, Obama was often targeted for his associations with people such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. The same people who were willing to look beyond this — rightly, in my view — should also look beyond the selection of Rick Warren and see Obama for what he truly stands for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
