October 17, 2010
The most dramatic baseball game ever played, Part Four -- Mantle's moxey
Hal Smith's three-run homer had barely landed before Casey Stengel headed to the mound to pull Jim Coates and bring in Ralph Terry. Among Stengel's many questionable decision during this Series was his preference for Coates over Terry (assuming he wasn't going to use Luis Arroyo) when he pulled Bobby Shantz earlier in the eighth inning. Terry was better than Coates during the regular season and pitched well as a starter in Game 4. But Stengel left him warming up in the bullpen when it came time to replace Shantz.
In fact, Terry had done quite a bit of warming before Stengel finally summoned him. It was reported that he had been up five different times and had pitched roughly half a game in the bullpen. But Terry nonetheless retired Don Hoak on a fly ball to end the eighth. Heading to the ninth inning, it was Pirates 9, Yankees 7.
Danny Murtaugh now had to make a pitching decision of his own. In the eighth, Murtaugh had finally lifted Elroy Face, for pinch-hitter Gino Cimoli. Now he had to pick between Harvey Haddix and Bob Friend.
Haddix seemed like the logical choice because Friend had started the previous game. But Murtaugh was as conservative as Stengel was mercurial. Ever since Murtaugh had taken over the Pirates, in mid-1957 when they were among the very worst teams in baseball, his mainstays had been Law, Face, and Friend. They were the ones who had "brung him" to this stage. Now that he was there, playing one game for the championship of baseball, Murtaugh had already placed his faith in Law and Face. Next, he would place it in Friend.
But Friend had nothing to repay it with. Bobby Richardson led off with a single. Ex-Pirate Dale Long, pinch-hitting for Joe DeMaestri who had replaced the injured Tony Kubek, singled as well. After four pitches, Friend was done and Haddix was in.
Stengel arguably had over-managed all Series, but now he under-managed. He left the lumbering 34 year-old Long, who represented the tying run, in the game instead of going with a pinch-runner.
Haddix got Maris on a pop-up. But Mantle ripped a single to right-center. Long made it to third. Seeing him runing the bases helped Stengel realized the error of his ways. He sent Gil McDougald in to replace the veteran first-baseman.
Next, with Yogi Berra at the plate, came one of the most famous and fascinating plays in baseball history. Here's the short version. Berra hit a shot down the first-base line. Rocky Nelson fielded it on a hop. He stepped on the bag to retire Berra and take away the force play at second. Mantle, realizing that the force was off, dived back into first-base, avoiding Nelson's tag. In came McDougald with the tying run.
I've always considered Mantle's play to be one of the best pieces of base-running ever. But as I thought about it, in preparation for this post, it seemed to me that Mantle's play was too risky. The safe play was to remain between first and second base. That way, he could not be retired without McDougald, who was breaking for the plate, tying the game. By diving back to first, Mantle gave Nelson the opportunity, through a tag that normally can be made easily, to end the World Series with the Yankees on the short end.
Thus, it seemed to me that Mantle made a poor decision, but bailed himself out by acrobatically avoiding Nelson's tag.
But I needed more facts to confirm this analysis. Where, in relation to first base, was Nelson when he fielded the ball? Where, exactly, was Mantle? And how about McDougald?
Fortunately, a film of Game 7 recently was uncovered in the wine cellar of then-Pirate part-owner Bing Crosby (1960 was a very good year). Crosby couldn't make it Game 7 because he was out of the country (in some accounts he did not attend out of superstition). So he had someone film the television broadcast.
Unfortunately, the film has not yet been aired - I understand it will be shown later this year on the Major League Baseball network. But the New York Times was as curious as I am about Mantle's play. So it reviewed the film and interviewed some of the players who witnessed it (Mantle and Nelson are both dead). The Times even asked the great first-baseman Keith Hernandez for his take on Rocky Nelson's decision to tag first instead of trying to start a game-ended second-to-first double play and his decision, after stepping on first, not to throw home to cut-off McDougald and the tying run. The Times also posted three pictures of the attempted tag play.
The still pictures tend to confirm, I think, that Mantle exercised bad judgment. To be sure, Nelson's momentum in fielding Berra's shot took him into foul territory. But the pictures suggest that Nelson, although not in an ideal position, was in a much more advantageous one than Mantle. It seems to have taken an astonishingly bit of athleticism, and perhaps a little bit of luck, for Mantle to evade the tag.
As for Nelson, his best play probably would have been to throw to second initially and then complete the double play. The ball was hit so hard that Berra would have been hard-pressed to beat the return throw. But being so close to first base when he fielded the ball, it's easy to understand why he instinctively stepped on the bag.
One can certainly make the case that Nelson then should have thrown home. But once he saw Mantle stranded near first base and preparing to dive back to the bag, it was reasonable to think that his odds of tagging the Mick out were at least as good as his odds of throwing McDougald out at the plate.
But Nelson probably wasn't computing odds. Hal Smith, the Pirates catcher, told the Times he thought they had a shot at McDougald, and asked Nelson why he didn't throw him the ball. Nelson told him, "To be truthful, I didn't see you." But Smith added, "I understand Rocky's position, he sees a runner right there and thinks he can get him; he thought he could get Mantle."
Here, according to the Times, is why Nelson didn't get Mantle:
For a split second, Mantle and Nelson eyed each other. Mantle made an initial move toward first, then gave a head fake toward second. He quickly reversed himself, sliding and sprawling toward first on the inner side of the bag with his left hand reaching out. Nelson lunged forward, angling himself toward Mantle instead of moving to the base.
Or, as Keith Hernandez told the Times, "it was like an elephant and a gazelle."
Hernandez concluded that he would have attempted the same play Nelson did -- step on first immediately, then try to tag Mantle to end the game instead of throwing home. "I can't blame the guy," Hernandez explained. "You have to make the play; it's right there in front of you." "Kudos to Mantle," he added. "What a deke."
With that deke, the Yankees had tied the game at 9-9.
Almost heaven?
The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of the West Virginia Senate race puts Republican John Raese slightly ahead of popular Democratic Governor Joe Manchin, 49-46 percent. Rasmussen calls the race a toss-up.
"Many pundits are perplexed as to why Governor Joe Manchin is not clobbering his opponent," writes Erik Root. "The explanation can be placed in two categories: Manchin's actions before Obama's numbers turned south, and his explanations since said numbers turned south." Root explores the race at length and with lots of links in "The trouble with Manchin."
Power Line Bookshelf
Is It Rage, Or Principle?
President Obama and his fellow Democrats tell us that they are about to suffer a historic electoral defeat because Americans are enraged, confused, or fearful. The problem isn't with them, it is with us. As Paul noted last night, insulting the electorate doesn't seem like a very effective strategy. But the Democrats are up against a more fundamental problem than irrationally enraged voters.
Today's Rasmussen Reports illuminates some basic American attitudes that are antithetical to the Democrats: only 16 percent of Americans think the government spends our money wisely and fairly; 70 percent think it does not. (And these are all Americans, not likely voters.) Only 14 percent say the government has too little power and money, while 61 percent think the government already has too much power and money.
In 2008, millions of voters gambled on the hope that the Democrats might have something to offer other than their historic recipe of higher taxes and spending and more government power. Over the last two years, those voters have found out they were wrong. The Democrats have no new ideas; unlike Joe Biden's description of the Republicans, this is your father's Democratic Party (if your father is of the generation of Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy). Thus is is entirely logical, and not the result of some irrational spasm, that independent voters should turn away from the Democrats, and that Republicans should be energized and Democrats--those who had hoped for more, at least--dispirited. It is true that some Americans are fearful; after seeing the Democrats' performance over the last two years, they should be.
A look at Minnesota's First District race
Minnesota's congressional delegations is split between five Democrats and three Republicans. Minnesota's First Congressional District is represented by Democrat Tim Walz, a phony centrist. The Mayo Clinic sits in Minnesota's First Congressional District and the district naturally leans conservative/slightly Republican. Randy Demmer is the Republican candidate challenging Walz.
It has been hard to get a feel for the status of the race in the First District; it hasn't received much attention. Of all the Minnesota congressional races, however, it appears to be the one most likely to produce a turnover. This week the first public poll I have seen on the race makes it look very close indeed.
According to a KSTP/SurveyUSA poll, Demmer is trailing Walz by just five points, 47 to 42 percent. That's within the poll's 4.1 percent margin of error. (The SurveyUSA poll uses a Registration Based Sample that is criticized by Luke Matthews. Matthews argues that the SurveyUSA methodology is likely to overstate Walz's strength this year.)
The race in Minnesota's First District is typical of the many races around the country in which Democratic incumbents are polling under 50 percent and at risk of getting swept out of office in a wave election. Walz was the beneficiary of a wave election that swept him into office in 2006, sending incumbent Republican Gil Gutknecht down to defeat. The damage done to Minnesota Republicans in the elections of 2006 and 2008 was deep.
Like other Minnesota Republican challengers including Teresa Collett (whom I know and believe to be an outstanding person), Lee Byberg, and Chip Cravaack, Demmer is a strong candidate who made a good impression on our local chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition when he appeared before us this summer. Rep. Kevin McCarthy drew attention to Demmer's race here. Please consider supporting Demmer here.
MCLU v. TiZA, cont'd
We've written a lot about the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy K-8 public charter school in suburban St. Paul. It appears to be is an Islamic school operating illegally at taxpayer expense. Among other things, the school's principal is an imam and almost all of its students are Muslim. It is housed in a building that was owned originally by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota. The study of Arabic is required at the school. The Arabic comes in handy for the Koranic studies that follow the regular school day.
The ACLU Minnesota has brought a lawsuit challenging the legality of the school's operation on public funds; the lawsuit is pending in federal court in Minnesota. Prompted by the reportage of then-Star Tribune metro columnist Katherine Kersten, the ACLU Minnesota commenced an investigation of the school. Concluding that the school was in fact operating illegally as a religious institution, the ACLU Minnesota filed the lawsuit. The ACLU Minnesota is represented in the lawsuit by Dorsey & Whitney, one of the most prominent law firms in the state.
Discussing the lawsuit, ACLU Minnesota executive director Chuck Samuelson observed: "The issue with TiZA, frankly, was the incredible commingling of church and state. It's a theocratic school. It is as plain as the substantial nose on my face." As a result of Samuelson's statement of the ACLU Minnesota's position in the lawsuit, TiZA alleged that Samuelson and the ACLU had defamed it, asserting several counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota for amounts in excess of $100,000 (i.e., an unlimited amount).
The ACLU Minnesota's lawsuit against TiZA is predicated on the establishment clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I was quite sure that there was another clause of the First Amendment that applied to TiZA's counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota, but even the common law of defamation provides that truth is a defense.
in the event, Minnesota federal district Judge Donovan Frank summarily dismissed TiZA's counterclaims. In an order issued this past December, Judge Frank held that, as a public school, TiZA could not assert a claim for defamation.
As to the merits of TiZA's defamation and defamation-related claims, Judge Frank held that "the allegedly defamatory statements all reflect Plaintiff's belief [that TiZA is illegally operating as a religious school] and TiZA has alleged no facts that would demonstrate that Plaintiff entertains any doubts as to the truth of its statements." TiZA therefore had "wholly failed" to allege facts making out the actual malice constitutionally required to support a claim of defamation by a public official or, Judge Frank held, a public school.
In asserting its defamation and defamation-related counterclaims against Samuelson and the ACLU Minnesota, TiZA was taking a leaf from the old Islamist playbook written by CAIR. The irony in this case is that TiZA pretends to be a nonsectarian institution; it is this pretense that goes to the heart of the pending lawsuit.
In a subsequent Star Tribune op-ed column, Kersten reported on affidavits filed in the pending lawsuit against TiZA. The affidavits suggest that TiZA is engaged in serious acts of intimidation to prevent the truth about the school from emerging.
Kersten reported that the ACLU Minnesota "sought a protective order, telling the court that intimidation by TiZA was discouraging potential witnesses from appearing. On February 10, the court barred witness harassment or intimidation by either party." Yes, as anyone who has met the affable Chuck Samuelson knows, the Minnesota chapter of the ACLU can really be a bitch.
In her Star Tribune op-ed column today, Kersten updates the story regarding the court's disposition of issues related to TiZA's attempt to prevent witnesses from testifying or otherwise disclosing information relevant to the issues in the lawsuit. The court has entered an order providing in part: "[TiZA's] behavior during the discovery process thus far ... has not been consistent with a good faith search for the truth." You might almost think that the imam running the school has something to hide.
Kersten quotes the Dorsey firm's assessment of the evidence uncovered in the case so far in a letter filed with the court on a discovery-related issue: "The ACLU believes Mr. Zaman's testimony relating to control of virtually every significant event at TiZA, MAS-MN, MET and MET's subsidiaries, coupled with his efforts to hide such control, constitute powerful evidence against TiZA's denials that it is a Muslim school and that it funnels state and federal money to other Muslim organizations." Now Islamic organizational allies of TiZA, incidentally, are seeking to have the law firm representing the ACLU Minnesota removed from the lawsuit.
Kersten concludes: "Every time we read about this lawsuit, we have to pinch ourselves and say: We're talking about a public, taxpayer-funded school." The pending lawsuit is important, and not just for the result to which it might give rise when it is concluded. Along the way it is producing revelations that deserve attention regardless of the result.
October 16, 2010
Our psycho-babbler-in-chief
President Obama is blaming his political woes, and those of his Party, on the inability of Americans to "think clearly." But Obama declined to come down too hard on Americans for being so obtuse. It's not that we're always stupid; rather the bad economy has clouded our reason:
Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does [sic] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared.
Obama did not point out that the height of the national panic probably occurred in the fall of 2008, when the banking system seemed to be on the verge of collapse and the stock market was plummeting. It was then that the nation elected an inexperienced, smooth-talking leftist to its highest office.
What Obama fails to grasp here is that arrogance does not sit well with the public under any economic circumstances. Thus, Obama's self-serving attempt to reduce the national displeasure with left-liberal goverance to an unwillingness, caused by fear, to permit "facts and science and argument" (i.e., Obama's position) to win the day is self-defeating.
Perhaps the single biggest complaint against Obama and his Party by the portion of the electorate that has turned against them is that the Dems haven't listened to them, most notably when they pushed Obamacare through despite its obvious unpopularity. When Obama condescendingly accuses voters of disregarding facts, science, and good arguments, and tops off his disdain by offering a pyscho-physiological explanation for their defective thinking, he reinforces the very perception that is driving down his standing.
"The people have spoken, the bastards," probably captures the sentiment of nearly all elected officials when public opinion turns against them. But mature, stable leaders keep this sentiment to themselves, at least while they are still in office. Only officials who are unfit to lead openly attribute their political problems to a "national malaise" or to the hard-wired irrationality of the American people.
Desperately Seeking A Message
On Tuesday, we linked to a New York Times story captioned "Obama Message In Flux As Election Day Nears." The Times criticized President Obama for trying out one ineffectual campaign theme after another. Near the end of the article, the Times quoted Democratic strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, who wrote a "polling memo" to the effect that Obama should switch to a more effective message:
Mr. Carville and the Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg went further in their criticism in a polling memo over the weekend, writing that Mr. Obama was too focused on the wrong underlying argument. They say he could help win over undecided voters with a promise to change Washington on behalf of the middle class and to oppose Republicans who support tax breaks for big companies that export jobs.
It didn't take long for Obama to follow wherever the polls may lead. Today, the Associated Press reported on the President's Saturday radio address: "Obama: End tax breaks to stop overseas hiring."
End tax breaks that reward some U.S. companies with overseas subsidiaries and encourage those businesses to create jobs in other countries, President Barack Obama is telling Congress. ...
Obama singled out Republican opposition....
How pathetic! This is what "hope and change" has come to: a poll-driven political hack, willing to adopt any demagoguery urged upon him by the likes of James Carville, waving survey results from last weekend.
Whatever Happened to Miss Teen South Carolina?
Maybe she got a job at the New York Times. A cloud of unknowing obscures the geography of exotic places like Iowa and North Dakota. From yesterday's Corrections section:
An article on Sunday about the length of the men's college hockey season misidentified the university that was the runner-up to last season's N.C.A.A. champion, Boston College. It is Wisconsin, not Miami of Ohio. The article also misidentified a city in North Dakota where hockey is popular. It is Grand Forks -- not Sioux City, which is in Iowa. (The University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux play in Grand Forks. And a minor league hockey team, the Musketeers, play in Sioux City.)
Grand Forks, Sioux City--who can tell the difference? I think the problem is that some people out there at the New York Times don't have maps.
Miller and Murkowski are "even"
Rasmussen's latest poll of the Alaska Senate race shows a virtual deadlock between Republican nominee Joe Miller and incumbent Lisa Murkowski, a write-in candidate. The results of this survey are Miller 35, Murkowski 34, Scott McAdams (the Democrat) 28.
These numbers don't mean that the race is actually even. Murkowski's supporters must write her name on the ballot, after remembering to fill in a "bubble" indicating that they wish to vote for a write-in candidate. This seems fair enough, by the way. Miller defeated Murkowski in the Republican primary.
Miller's core supporters presumably are energized and will turn out, as they did in the primary (unless, perhaps, his rift with Todd Palin dampens enthusiasm). Murkowski's supporters may or may not be energized. She is casting her campaign as a crusade, but it isn't necessarily an ideological one the way Miller's is.
Still, Murkowski must be quite heartened by this latest poll. Less than a month ago, just after she commenced her write-in campaign, Miller was 15 points ahead of her at 42-27, with McAdams at 25 percent.
The new Rasmussen results comport with the observations of Greta Van Susteren, who has been spending time in Alaska covering the race, including a debate. Even prior to seeing the new poll, she had expressed doubts about Miller's prospects.
I don't know whether Van Susteren's impressions are a reliable indicator but, in light of Rasmussen's poll numbers, there can be little doubt that the complexion of this race has changed.
O'Donnell makes up ground
A new Rasmussen poll has Christine O'Donnell trailing Chris Coons by a 51-40 margin. This represents a significant improvement over polls that, prior to the O'Donnell-Coons debates, had O'Donnell behind by 16 to 21 points. However, Rasmussen's previous poll, taken three weeks ago, showed O'Donnell behind by 9 points.
The apparent improvement in O'Donnell's position from a week or so ago probably stems from this week's debates. O'Donnell was clearly superior to Coons in the first debate, I thought.
Being 11 points down this close to election day certainly isn't where a candidate wants to be. But perhaps now there is at least some realistic hope of an O'Donnell victory.
Delaware results will, I imagine, be among the early ones to be reported on election night. If O'Donnell is even close to Coons, it could signal a huge night for Republicans. If O'Donnell isn't close, the result probably doesn't have implictions beyond Delaware, since she is (or is considered to be) such an atypical candidate.
From black helicopters to pink helmets
Republican challenger Sharron Angle is reputedly the wack job in the race for the seat held by the Senate Majority Leader, but she acquitted herself well in her debate with Harry Reid this week. The Las Vegas Sun has now posted a transcript of the debate between Angle and Senator Reid. Here is the Senate Majority Leader of the United States on the subject of health insurance coverage mandates -- Angle is against them -- responding to the question posed by moderator Mitch Fox:
Mitch, insurance companies. Insurance companies don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it out of a profit motive and they have almost destroyed our economy. Twenty percent of all costs, prior to our passing our health insurance reform, was because of health care costs. If we didn't do something to change it, it would go up by, in less than 15 years, to 36 cents of every dollar. It would break us.
We need them to be forced to do mammograms. That's why you see breast cancer awareness month, you see the baseball players wearing pink shoes and you see the football players having pink helmets. It's because people dread breast cancer and you don't get breast cancer, you correct breast cancer, you detect it, if you do mammograms.
Colonoscopies - if you do colonoscopies, colon cancer does not come cause you snip off the things they find when they go up and - no more. And we need to have the insurance companies do this, it'll save money in the long run to do this.
There is much that could be said about this response, but I'm stuck on the pink football helmets. Put to one side the fact that Reid pointed to his shoulders when he referred to pink football helmets (video below).
I view pink football helmets as akin to black helicopters. I've never seen one. Is this what Reid is talking about?
In any event, Harry Reid is worse than wacky. He is a tool and a menace.
Video via John McCormack/Weekly Standard.
Who will rescue us from Obamacare?
Robert Goldberg is the vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. He has forwarded a column with his thoughts on "what the Chilean miners can teach us about Obamacare."
in his message forwarding the piece, Goldberg provides a kind of executive summary: "Private-sector innovators from around the world contributed their expertise to the rescue effort in Chile, and the result was nothing short of miraculous. Yet when it comes to rescuing our health care system, President Obama and his allies are hellbent on limiting -- if not eliminating -- the role of private-sector innovation. America's leaders should take note of Chile's example -- and reverse their cynical, government-heavy course."
Goldberg writes:
Nearly a billion people watched as the 33 Chilean miners were rescued from their accidental prison below the earth. And millions more made their safe escape possible through innovations in medicine, telecommunications and engineering.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger observed: "If those miners had been trapped a half-mile down like this 25 years ago anywhere on earth, they would be dead. What happened over the past 25 years that meant the difference between life and death for those men?"
His answer: market-driven innovation.
Henninger continued:
The Center Rock drill, heretofore not featured on websites like Engadget or Gizmodo, is in fact a piece of tough technology developed by a small company in it for the money, for profit. That's why they innovated down-the-hole hammer drilling. If they make money, they can do more innovation.
This profit = innovation dynamic was everywhere at that Chilean mine. The high-strength cable winding around the big wheel atop that simple rig is from Germany. Japan supplied the super-flexible, fiber-optic communications cable that linked the miners to the world above.
Samsung of South Korea supplied a cellphone that has its own projector. Jeffrey Gabbay, the founder of Cupron Inc. in Richmond, Va., supplied socks made with copper fiber that consumed foot bacteria, and minimized odor and infection.
Chile's health minister, Jaime Manalich, said, "I never realized that kind of thing actually existed."
As Henninger notes: "[W]ithout the year-over-year progress embedded in these capitalist innovations, those trapped miners would be dead."
But there is another lesson to be learned that is woven in the fabric of this fundamental insight: Both the technologies used to save the miners and the rapid development of a rescue plan were made possible because millions of people around the world exchanged time, money, ideas and inventions to create a solution.
As Matt Ridley writes in his wonderful book The Rational Optimist, the exchange of ideas and things is essential to generating the prosperity and technology that made the rescue possible along with the tax revenues that allow governments to function. Because finding more efficient ways to improve the creation of products and delivery of services in response to human wants and needs has always been the path to improving well-being.
Ultimately, societies thrive when innovation occurs without much interference and where governments are not seeking to centralize and manage the exchange of ideas and resources according to some master plan. The $20 million spent to rescue the miners will generate greater wealth and longer life for thousands and millions of people in the years ahead. The rescue is a model of how people around the planet can solve problems and improve life if left to their own devices.
Absent government interference, the rescue was not only flawless -- it took less time than expected. Compare the speed and efficiency of the Chilean operation to, say, the government's response to the BP oil spill. The administration, abiding regulations and chain of command inured to one way of doing things, requiring a test before introducing a new technology, made matters worse before they got better. Ultimately the Gulf response was organized around the belief that resources are finite and that government must regulate human activities to protect the commons.
The belief that government must control the pace and use of innovation to avoid financial Armageddon explains why Obamacare is organized to redistribute health care spending and limit it according to government-produced rules. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine observed: "The antagonism toward cost-per-QALY comparisons also suggests a bit of magical thinking -- the notion that the country can avoid the difficult trade-offs that cost-utility analysis helps to illuminate.... It represents another example of our country's avoidance of unpleasant truths about our resource constraints."
In fact, advances in surgical procedure, the introduction of medicines that reduce the need for hospitalization, including drugs for a host of diseases that were once fatal, have made medicine more efficient and valuable. Greater gains in efficiency and value are on the way. We will be able to predict which of us could eventually have disease, preventing them or treating them before they cascade. But such innovations are the disease, according to those in charge of Obamacare: They will drain limited resources and must be regulated.
Isaiah Berlin wrote: "Disregard for the preferences and interests of individuals today in order to pursue some distant social goal that their rules have claimed is their duty to promote has been a common cause of misery for people throughout the ages."
The rescue of the Chilean miners was the product of leadership encouraging collective intelligence and innovation on a global scale. In America, an elite is using government to consolidate its ability to impose its grand vision about health care on the nation. Who will rescue us from this fate?
It's a question that couldn't be more timely. I would like to think that help is on the way come November 2.
October 15, 2010
Tough nuts to crack in California and Washington
Less than a week ago, I predicted that Carly Fiorina, who then trailed Barbara Boxer by about 5 points, would "surge" in the polls. I based this prediction based on intuition, informed by Boxer's weak approval rating and the fact that Dino Rossi had surged from about 5 points behind in his race to unseat Patty Murray. The two races seemed comparable to me, and I saw no reason why Fiorina couldn't match Rossi's spike in the polls.
Since then, Fiorina's poll performance has improved, though not to the point where you can say she's surging. A Reuters poll has Fiorina within one point of Boxer, 45-46, while a Rasmussen poll (using a larger sample) has it Fiorina 46, Boxer 49.
Unfortunately, however, recent polling from Washington shows Murray surging ahead of Rossi. I discount an Elway poll (whatever that is) that has Murray up by 15 points. But attention should be paid to a new Survey USA poll that has her up by 3 points, and to a Time/CNN poll that has her up by 8. This is particularly true because in Washington most voting is done by mail, and people are voting right now. Thus, current poll results should reflect actual, not projected, voting.
It's possible that California and Washington may prove too "blue" to defeat a Democratic incumbent this year. Of all the other states where Republicans are considered to have a good chance for a pick-up - North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin, Nevada, Illinois, and West Virginia - only Wisconsin (a) has an entrenched Democratic incumbent and (b) might be considered truly blue. And even if Wisconsin is truly blue, it's not as blue as Washington and California.
Still, I'm hardly giving up on either California or Washington. Both Boxer and Murray have "upside-down" approval ratings, so despite their leads in the polls, I consider both races to be toss-ups
SCOTT adds: MIckey Kaus spots a harbinger of doom for Boxer.
What's Our Position On Domestic Violence?
We are against it. But then, we aren't liberal reporters. If we were, we would need more information before we could take a position.
At Townhall, Guy Benson writes an open letter to reporter John McArdle of Congressional Quarterly:
We've never met, so allow me to introduce myself. I'm the Political Editor over at a small right-leaning outfit called Townhall.com. Anyway, I noticed that earlier today, you posted an item on your political blog that engages in speculation about the sealed divorce records of a Republican candidate running in GA-08's very close House election:
Scott's six-year old divorce records have become a subject of heightened interest in the 8th district contest ever since a Democratic activist filed a motion earlier this month asking that they be unsealed. A state Superior Court Judge has scheduled a hearing on the motion for the week before Election Day.
In an interview Thursday afternoon with Roll Call, [Democrat Jim] Marshall said that now that the divorce issue has come up, the public should have a right to know what's in the sealed documents
"I've heard consistent allegations of what's in there and it's not pretty stuff," Marshall said. "There are things that go on in marriages that can shed light on the character of the individual."
Since you've apparently taken such a keen interest in one Congressional candidate's possibly messy divorce, I thought I'd tip you off about another Congressional candidate's documented messy divorce. In Ohio's sixth Congressional District, recently uncovered court documents reveal that Rep. Charlie Wilson, a
Democrat[Party Affiliation Redacted], repeatedly abused his ex-wife during their 27-year marriage. I know that you're aware of this race, John, because you wrote about it last week. Yet, like virtually all of your colleagues in the mainstream media, you've managed to overlook this story--which broke two days ago.What's really interesting about the spousal abuse allegations against Congressman Wilson, John, is that they're fully chronicled in unsealed files--and all the documentation you'd need to verify this possibly game-changing development is conveniently provided by the source that originally reported the story.
Benson is right; the liberal media have averted their eyes from the Charlie Wilson affair. The headline of this New York Times story explains why: "For Democrats, Even 'Safe' Seats Are Shaky."
Republicans are expanding the battle for the House into districts that Democrats had once considered relatively safe, while Democrats began a strategy of triage on Monday to fortify candidates who they believe stand the best chance of survival. ...
For months, Bill Johnson, the Republican challenger to Mr. [Charlie] Wilson, has drawn little notice and has struggled to raise money. But last week, things began to change.
He was invited to be the guest speaker at a weekly meeting of conservative leaders in Washington that is organized by Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform. Then he appeared on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show, which he said helped his fund-raising efforts, as did an endorsement from Sarah Palin.
The last thing liberal reporters want to do is report news that increases the likelihood that an upstart Republican might defeat a formerly "safe" Democrat. The rumor-mongering that liberal reporters are engaged in, in connection with the Republican candidate whom Guy Benson refers to, reminds me of the Minneapolis Star Tribune's effort to bury the candidacy of Republican Alan Fine, who opposed Keith Ellison for what was then an open seat in 2006. Whether newspapers want to publish illegally leaked court files or, for that matter, publicly available court records, depends entirely on whose political party is being gored.
Here in Minnesota, we are experiencing a remarkable instance of how discreet liberals can be when it comes to a candidate's personal life. Mark Dayton is running for Governor of this state, and his history of mental illness and substance abuse is hiding in plain sight--he has freely acknowledged these problems to almost-complete strangers, yet Minnesota's reporters and editors have carefully avoided confusing the voters with information that might not reflect well on a Democrat. Somehow one senses a pattern here.
Enforcing anti-Israeli orthodoxy at the United Nations
I haven't gotten around to commenting on this report from earlier in the week that Canada's increasing ties with Israel and its position regarding Jerusalem have cost it a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Canada has been elected to the most prestigious United Nations body in every decade since 1948 until this one (if we include 2010 as part of the first decade of this century).
Canada lost out to Portugal after Portugal's natural ally, Brazil, lobbied Islamic countries with warnings that Canada's vote on Israel-related issues would be no different than that of the United States. Portugal, the argument went, would be more "balanced."
The argument is accurate, except that it implies an overstatement of the extent to which the Obama administration can be expected to support Israel at the U.N. Under Prime Minister Harper, Canada is a reliable ally of Israel than the U.S. is right now. In fact, shortly before the vote, its international trade minister visited Israel and then announced his intention to tighten Canada's already close trade relations with Israel.
As for Portugal, Israeli diplomats view it as among those EU nations that all too often goes with the anti-Israel flow. In addition to the Arab and Muslim states, Portugal had the backing fo Cuba and Venezuela.
Where was the U.S. while this was going down? According to the above-referenced report, we were nowhere to be found.
South Africa, which consistently voted against Israel during its last stint, will also join the new Security Council. Israel has more reason than ever not to pay any attention to the U.N. on issues that relate to its security and well-being.
The most dramatic baseball game ever played, Part Three -- Shantz, Chance, and Smith
Vern Law set the Yankees down one-two-three in the top of first inning of Game 7. Bob Turley retired the first two Pirate batters, but then walked Bob Skinner. Rocky Nelson followed with a home run. The insertion by Danny Murtaugh of the two left-handed hitters had given the Bucs a quick 2-0 lead, one that Law seemed quite capable of holding for a good while.
In the top of the second, Law again set the Yanks down in order. When Smokey Burgess led off the Pirates half of the inning with a single, the trigger-happy Casey Stengel had seen enough. Righty Bill Stafford and lefty Bobby Shantz had been warming up since the beginning of the game. Which one would Casey bring in?
The smart money must have been on Shantz. Stafford, a rooke, had pitched only 60 innings, albeit to a 2.25 ERA. Shantz, once a top-notch starter, was now a top-notch reliever (2.79 ERA). Given his experience and his status as a relief pitcher, he might have seemed like the better candidate to pitch his way out of the second inning and continue effectively for several more. Plus, as lefty, Shantz might negate Murtaugh's strategy of using extra left-handed batters. However, the next batters (Hoak, Mazeroski, and Law) were right-handed. Stengel must have figured that Stafford was his best bet to retire them. He could then consider pinch-hitting for Stafford in the top of the third.
Stafford walked Hoak, however, and Maz bunted for a hit to load the bases. Law was a decent hitter and had contributed with the bat in Game 4. But this time he hit a grounder to Stafford, who started a home-to-first double play. That left it up to left-handed hitting Bill Virdon. The future Yankee manager delivered a two run single. Law now had a four run lead.
Through four innings, the Yankees couldn't touch him. Skowron homered to lead off the fifth, but there was no further damage that inning.
Meanwhile, Shantz, who came on in the bottom of the third after Lopez pinch-hit for Stafford, had the Pirates on lock-down. In his first three inning (the third through the fifth), he gave up no hits, no outfield outs, and faced the minimum number of batters. Thus, the score was Pittsburgh 4, New York 1 going into the top of the sxith.
By then, Law's ankle was causing him obvious distress. After Richardson led off with a single and Law walked Kubek, Murtaugh pulled his pitcher and called on Elroy Face.
Face had already recorded three long saves (6 outs, 8 outs, and 8 outs). He had rested for two days after his Game 5 save, but did Murtaugh think Face could deliver a 12 out save?
Pehaps not. Perhaps, he just wanted Face to pitch out of this jam and hold the Yankees until, say, the eighth inning. Then, Murtaugh could call on one of his starters to close out the game (presumably he wasn't about to use relievers like Clem Labine, Tom Cheney, and Fred Green who had been demolished in the Yankee routs).
But the Yankees jumped on Face almost immediately. After Maris popped up, Mantle singled and Berra homered. It was now New York 5, Pittsburgh 4.
Shantz continued his magic, setting down the Pirates in order in the bottom of the sixth. In the seventh he gave up his first hit (to Smokey Burgess) but then got Hoak on a fly ball and Mazeroski and pinch-runner Joe Christopher on a double play. Hal Smith replaced Burgess behind the plate.
Face was still pitching in the top of the eighth. With two out, he walked Berra. Skowron followed with a single. Surely, it was time to pull Face, but Murtaugh did no such thing. The exhausted reliever yielded a single to Blanchard (New York 6, Pittsburgh 4) and a double to light-hitting Boyer (New York 7, Pittsburgh 4). Finally, Shantz flied out to end the inning.
Was Stengel tempted to pinch hit for Shantz. Probably not, considering the way he was mowing down the Pirates (plus Shantz was a decent hitter, who had singled earlier in the game). But Shantz had now pitched five full innings. His longest outing of the season had lasted only four.
Gino Cimoli, pinch-hitting for Face, led off the bottom of the eighth with a soft single to right-center. But Virdon followed with a ground ball right at Kubek. "Oh, heck, a double play," is how Virdon reported his first thought. But chance intervened. The ball took a bad bounce on the Forbes Field infield (about which the Yankees had been complaining all Series). It hit Kubek in the throat. Both runners were safe and Kubek, who was splitting blood but wanted to stay in the game, was taken to the hospital. Groat then singled Cimoli home, ending Shantz's day.
Murtaugh now had his two newly-inserted lefties -- Skinner and Nelson -- due up. Stengel had Luis Arroyo, a quality lefty, available (as far as I can tell) to pitch to them (assuming Murtaugh let them bat). Left-handers had batted only .152 (and righties only .223) against Arroyo on the season. But Stengel opted for the right-handed Jim Coates (13-3, 4.28; lefties .274).
Skinner bunted both runners into scoring position. Nelson followed with a fly ball out to right field. It wasn't deep enough to bring in Virdon (at least not when his run would only make the score 7-6, and not with Maris' arm in right).
Clemente was the next hitter. He hit a slow ground ball to Skowron at first. "Moose" had to charge the ball about ten feet wide of the foul line. He was in no position to tag the streaking Clemente and the pitcher did not make it to first base in time. Virdon scored and the Bucs had runners on first and third.
Coates was widely criticized for not getting to first in time. David Maraniss, in his biography of Clemente, says that Coates broke off the mound right away, but had to take a longer path to avoid Skowron.
Hal Smith (now the catcher, after Burgess had been replaced in the seventh for a pinch runner) was the next batter. Murtaugh presumably would rather have had Burgess at the plate, but Smith did hit with power, having homered 11 times in 258 at-bats and slugged .508 in what was his career year.
Smith was a low ball hitter and Coates tried to work him high. On a 1-2 pitch, Smith started to chase a high ball out of the strike zone, but checked his swing.
On 2-2, Coates finally threw one in Smith's zone. Smith blasted it well beyond the 406 sign in left field.
Now it was Pittsburgh 9, New York 7. Smith was about to enter baseball lore for having hit the most dramatic World Series home run ever. The Ed Sullivan show, it has been reported, was already preparing to book Smith for an appearance on Sunday night.
But the most dramatic events were yet to occur.
They ignored us
A reader wrote Jim Geraghty raving about an ad for GOP Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck, and Geraghty concurred. "It's a basic, simple message that I think hits the sweet spot of appealing to conservatives and independents simultaneously." To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, it is a message that has the additional advantage of being true.
Michael Barone comments: "I think this ad, from Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck and spotted by National Review's Jim Geraghty, sums up one reason for the energy and enthusiasm of the tea party and other aroused opponents of the Obama Democrats this year." Barone adds: "Liberals who are puzzled by what's happening should take 30 seconds and watch this ad."
"They heard us, and yet they ignored us," Buck says. "And folks, on November 2 they will ignore us no more."
Another strong shot
Victor Davis Hanson concisely takes the measure of Team Obama in his post "Anatomy of petulance." Pete Wehner's "The art of discontent" is a good companion to Hanson's post.
Toward the end of his post Hanson mentions a congressional race that we have overlooked. Hanson writes:
[A] rare American -- war hero, author, West Point instructor, retired colonel, conservative-- Chris Gibson is running neck and neck in New York's 20th Congressional District [against incumbent Scott Murphy]. I don't get involved in political races per se; but I met Chris during his one-year stay at Stanford, and found him a rare Renaissance figure -- yet another of these idealistic first-time candidates without a political resume who are entering the fray to save this country. I think pundits have not appreciated the fact that this is not quite a red/blue, Republican versus Democratic race, but a historic election in which many of the Republican candidates are first-time politicians, beholden to no one, and not part of the Republican establishment. Their ascendancy should make things very interesting. Chris is a rare candidate, whose integrity is as unquestioned as his talents are boundless. It was an honor to be called his friend. He is an investment in our collective future.
Gibson served in the Army for 24 years, rising (as Hanson notes) to the rank of colonel. His deployments included four combat tours to Iraq and separate deployments to Kosovo, the southwestern United States for a counter-drug operation, and, most recently, to Haiti, where he commanded the 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team during the opening month of that humanitarian relief operation. Among his military decorations are four Bronze Star Medals. He also notes that he earned a Ph.D. in Government at Cornell and taught American politics at West Point.
Gibson's site is here; contribute here.
