Governing in the Age of Obama

I believe it was film critic Roger Ebert who said, “You review the movie you saw, not the movie you wanted made.” We should use the same approach in judging President Obama’s first year in office.

Candidate Obama ran on hope and change and his inauguration last January stimulated the imagination of his supporters. A year later, the word “disappointment” is often used to evaluate President Obama’s first year in office.

If we work under the principle of reviewing who President Obama is, rather than the President Obama we would like him to be, then his first year cannot be considered a disappointment.

In 2008, the Democratic Party had two distinctive candidates running for president. Senator Hillary Clinton was the candidate who would fight on every issue. Senator Obama was the candidate who would be able to bring people together to solve our problems. It was a choice between a steamroller and a conciliator.

I believed electing Mr. Obama president of the United States would restore our image throughout the world because the election would demonstrate we prevailed over our original sin of slavery and racism.

In that sense, his first year was a success. President Obama perceives other world leaders as equals. He has demonstrated a willingness to work with other countries on various global issues. He listens instead of dictating policy like his predecessors. No wonder he is more popular overseas than he is in the United States.

President Obama has a gift, an ability to listen and work with others. This ability may work well in foreign policy, but it is not working well domestically. It is not entirely his fault. Structural problems within our government have nullified his ability.

President Obama is not a steamroller. It is not his nature to force others to accept his position. He believes in argument and persuasion and he will not make a decision until he has heard and analyzed everybody’s opinion.

The Conservative opposition’s notion that President Obama is a radical who intends to create a Marxist/fascist state is ridiculous. He campaigned as a centrist, and he has governed as a centrist.

Health care reform is an example of President Obama’s centrist tendencies. He did not want to impose a single payer, Medicare for all health care bill. Instead, President Obama wanted a bill that protected consumers. Furthermore, the single payer legislation would have eliminated the private health care insurance industry. He is trying to regulate the current health care system, not overthrow it.

President Obama believes in bipartisanship. He will stubbornly continue to seek support from Republicans in Congress. It is frustrating to watch President Obama constantly reach out to Senate Republicans, trying to coax at least one vote for his proposals. Republicans continue to reject his efforts, but President Obama is keeping his promise to work with Republicans.

President Obama said he wanted an administration that was willing to embrace ideas from Republicans as well as Democrats.

Negotiations over last year’s stimulus package was an example of President Obama’s willingness to consider Republican ideas. Most economists argued the stimulus bill should be a pure jobs bill aimed at so-called “shovel ready projects.” Republicans argued for tax cuts. The same economists counter argued that tax cuts were not necessary. Tax cuts would lessen the impact of the stimulus bill. President Obama listened to the Republicans and included tax cuts in the stimulus bill. President Obama’s concession to the Republicans was for naught because they voted against the stimulus bill.

President Obama does not lead in a vacuum. He shares power with Congress, and the Senate is responsible for government inaction during Obama’s first year in office.

Before the inauguration, Senator Harry Reid said that the Senate was not going to rollover for President Obama. That was a bold statement considering the Democrats in the Senate allowed President Bush to prosecute a false war against Iraq.

For a brief period in late 2009 and early 2010, Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate, enough to defeat a filibuster. Even with this tactical advantage, the Senate was unable to pass health care reform in a timely manner.

The problems in the Senate are structural. Senate Republicans have adopted former First Lady Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug mantra of “Just Say No” as a political tactic, and have colluded to vote against President Obama’s proposals. Republicans are forcing the Democrats to vote as a bloc to stop filibusters and enact legislation.

The Republican Party is acting like the Sunnis in Iraq. The Sunnis initially refused to participate in the new Iraqi government. They wanted to continue ruling Iraq, like they did before the American invasion. Republicans do not want to cooperate. They want to run the country, like they did from 2001 to 2006.

Before President Obama, a simple majority (51 votes) was needed to pass legislation. Currently, bills need a supermajority (60 votes) to pass.

The problems in the Senate are exacerbated by a weak Majority Leader. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will never be confused with former Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Democratic senators are not afraid of Mr. Reid. He cannot impose his will on his colleagues. President Obama would be better served if he had a steamroller as Majority Leader in the Senate.

Republicans are betting the economy will not improve in 2010. Voters will blame President Obama. Republicans are gambling voters will punish the Democrats in the fall.

Republicans are aided and abetted by the Mainstream Media (MSM). President Obama’s failures are exaggerated. Republican talking points have a wide platform, greater than Fox News. President Obama’s birth certificate has received an inordinate amount of attention. Several thousand tea-bag protesters are magnified as a vast movement against President Obama. False notions, like death panels in the health care bill, are given constant coverage, thus making it a legitimate issue to cover. A special election in Massachusetts, to replace deceased Senator Ted Kennedy, won by a Republican is reported as a referendum on President Obama’s policies.

The MSM constantly give a platform to the Republican opposition who use the coverage to portray President Obama’s agenda as radical. Republicans use code words to inflame the public, like radical, socialist, and fascist. Big government becomes totalitarian. Repeat code words enough, and President Obama’s approval ratings will drop.

This tired tactic is not even original. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and current political pundit Bill Kristol used these tactics against the Clinton Administration.

President Obama is not beyond criticism. He prides himself on considering all options before making a decision, but in two instances he did not consider all the options available to him.

First, the health care reform bill. President Obama did not include the single payer option in negotiations with Congress. Also, President Obama did not include a provision to purchase cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Europe. Furthermore, he did not include a provision to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs with pharmaceutical companies.

Second, the war in Afghanistan. President Obama limited his choices to no escalation, and escalating troop levels by 20, 40 or 60 thousand troops. Withdrawing troops, the best option in my opinion, was never considered.

President Obama has demonstrated the tendency to limit his policy decisions to a group of second best options while completely ignoring the best options. He tries to build consensus by seeking policy options that are not disagreeable.

Liberals and progressives were expecting another FDR, but Mr. Obama never campaigned as a progressive. He wanted to bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives and he’s trying. It is not his fault Republicans are refusing to cooperate.

He wanted to tone down the rhetoric in Washington. President Obama has not resorted to denigrating the opposition, but the Republicans are.

During the presidential campaign, he figured out independent voters were not interested in ideological solutions. Voters wanted someone who could manage the country and the economy. President Obama is trying to be a nonpartisan manager.

President Obama is trying to be the president he campaigned to be. The problem has been governing. The inability to govern is not entirely his fault. President Obama’s most neglected accomplishment during his first year in office was demonstrating our system of government is obsolete and is in need of repair.

Please go to the enclosed link for a list of President Obama’s achievements during his first year: http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270003?lid=1092301&rid=40913829

McGwire Wrong About Steroids

In the summer of 1998, it became obvious that Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa was going to break Roger Maris’ single season home run record. I remember a conversation I had with a friend that summer. I said it was a shame a steroid user was going to break that record. Almost twelve years later, Mark McGwire confirmed “what people have suspected.”[i] He used steroids during most of his career.

McGwire was hired as the hitting coach for the St Louis Cardinals. He had to address the steroid issue before spring training. McGwire released a statement to the media in which he admitted to using steroids during the off season in 1989 and 1990, in 1993, and throughout the rest of the decade, including 1998, the year he broke the single season home run record.

In his statement, and later in an interview with Bob Costas on the MLB Network, McGwire stated he used steroids to overcome a series of injuries that limited his playing time. He thought steroids would allow his body to heal faster. Once healthy, and able to play for a full season, McGwire continued using steroids because he believed steroids helped his body recover after games, and allowed his body to withstand the rigors of a 162 game season.

I have always argued steroids help baseball players recover energy faster. McGwire is the first baseball player to actually admit to using steroids as a method of sustaining physical performance during a baseball season. “I took very, very low dosages because I wanted my body to feel normal,” McGwire said. “The wear and tear of 162 ballgames… and what I had to go through to get through all these injuries…”[ii]

But McGwire did not make the connection between steroids and performance. In his mind, steroids helped him recover from injuries and from the grind of the long baseball season. He believes that he would have hit 70 home runs in a season or almost 600 home runs in his career without steroids. McGwire is wrong.

First, steroids are performance enhancing drugs. That is why steroids are banned from every sport. Taking McGwire’s statement at face value, steroids allowed him to take the field because steroids helped heal his body. “During the mid-90s, I [McGwire] went on the DL seven times and missed 228 games over five years. I experienced a lot of injuries, including a rib cage strain, a torn left heel muscle, a stress fracture of the left heel, and a torn right heel muscle.”[iii]

In the interview with Bob Costas, McGwire admitted he contemplated retiring from baseball in 1996. Without steroids, McGwire’s career would have been shortened due to injury. In that sense, McGwire is wrong about steroids.

Second, McGwire used steroids to get through the 162 game season. Steroids helped his body recover after each game, and he was able to perform at peak physical condition by the end of the season. That created an unfair advantage.

Mike Piazza was a gifted offensive player. He produced great offensive numbers during the early part of the season with the New York Mets, but as Piazza got older, his numbers routinely dropped off in August and September. Piazza was a catcher. He used to get hit with foul balls, errant baseball bats, blocked pitches in the dirt, and was run over by opposing players. The wear and tear of the 162 game season physically drained Piazza. Piazza was a baseball player that did not take steroids. His late season performances are a testimony to that statement. McGwire had an offensive advantage Piazza did not have.

Third, steroids increase strength. McGwire argues his ability to hit home runs was due to hand-eye coordination, but McGwire does not talk about another important factor in hitting – bat speed.

McGwire’s muscle mass increased when he used steroids. He became stronger, therefore he was able to generate greater bat speed after he got stronger. After using steroids, McGwire was able to make contact, through greater bat speed, earlier in the hitting zone, and had better success driving the baseball. Pitches that used to jam him, or he used to hit off the end of the bat suddenly became tape measured home runs – which brings me to…

Fourth, McGwire was a pure home run hitter. He hit over .300 once – over a full season. In 1998, he hit .299. He was a fly ball hitter. Early in his career, McGwire admittedly “hit wall scrapping home runs.”[iv] He attributed his unfathomable home run production in the late 90’s to better technique. But he got stronger through steroids, even if it was low dosages, and he was able to hit the baseball harder. Fly balls that normally would have been caught at the warning track became home runs.

McGwire never got more than 161 hits in a season. Early in his career, the percentage of home runs in relation to hits was in the 30% range. But the percentage increased to over 40% when he was using steroids. McGwire was getting about 145 hits per season during the late stages of his career, but over 40% of those hits were home runs.

McGwire refuses to acknowledge the connection between steroids and performance because then he would have to admit his career statistics are illegitimate. McGwire believes he could have hit 70 home runs in a baseball season without steroids, but steroids helped him stay healthy, improved his stamina, increased his bat speed, and gave him the strength to hit tape measured home runs.

But I do not blame McGwire for tainting some of Major League Baseball’s most treasured home run records. He played during a time when Commissioner Bud Selig, the Major League Player’s Association, the media and fans casually ignored steroid use. They were all caught up in an orgy of tape measured home runs, and refused to acknowledge the infestation of steroids.

I can forgive McGwire for using steroids, but I cannot and will not accept his rationalization that steroids did not impact his performance during his career.


[i] Mark McGwire statement to the media, January 11, 2010.
[ii] “Transcript: McGwire Interview,” MercuryNews.com, January 11, 2010.
[iii] Mark McGwire statement to the media, January 11, 2010.
[iv] “Transcript: McGwire Interview,” MercuryNews.com, January 11, 2010.

If I Had a Ballot

The National Baseball Hall of Fame will announce the 2010 inductees on January 6, 2010. Candidates must appear on 75% of the ballots to be elected. Members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) can vote for up to 10 candidates.

I am not a member of the BBWAA, but if I was, these are the candidates I would vote for:

Roberto Alomar
This is Alomar’s first year on the ballot. He was clearly the best second baseman of his era. He won 10 Gold Gloves. Alomar had incredible range. I never saw a second baseball that could cover as much ground as he did.

He was a career .300 hitter. In 17 seasons, Alomar hit over .300 nine times. His 2,724 career hits ranks 53rd on the all time hits list. He won four Silver Slugger awards.

He was the starting second baseman in nine All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in three All Star Games.

Barry Larkin
This is Larkin’s first year on the ballot. He was the best shortstop National League of his era. He was a career .295 hitter with 2,340 total hits. He was the first shortstop to hit over 30 home runs and steal over 30 bases in the same season (1996).

Larkin won the National League’s Most Valuable Player Award in 1995. He won 3 Gold Gloves and 9 Silver Slugger awards. He was the starting NL shortstop in five All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in seven All Star Games.

I am partial to the American League; therefore I did not have the opportunity to watch Barry Larkin play, but as an avid baseball fan, I read about Larkin, and was aware of his greatness as a player.

Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin are the definite first ballot candidates of the 2010 class, but there are other first ballot candidates that are not as obvious.

Fred McGriff
This is McGriff’s first year on the ballot. Fred McGriff home run numbers will suffer in comparison to the steroid inflated home run totals generated by other players during his career.

From 1987 through 1999, McGriff hit over 30 home runs 8 times, and a total of 390. By comparison, Barry Bonds hit over 30 home runs 9 times and a total of 445 home runs during the same period.

During this 12-year period, the best player in baseball out homered McGriff by 55. In other words, Bonds hit 4.5 more home runs per year than McGriff.

McGriff was a throw back home run hitter. He consistently hit over 30 home runs each year when 30 home runs meant something.

McGriff yearly totals do not compare favorably with Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Jose Canseco, and Juan Gonzalez. But the home run was cheapened during McGriff’s playing career. Hitting 50 home runs in a season became the norm due to steroids.

Hitting 500 home runs was the magic number. It meant automatic induction in the Baseball Hall of Fame. McGriff hit 493 home runs. Steroids have overshadowed McGriff’s career. There are seven players, who were suspected or accused of using steroids, ahead of McGriff on the all time home run list.

Critics will mention McGriff never won the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award, but he was in the top ten in MVP votes six times.

McGriff had the unfortunate luck of playing in the same league as Barry Bonds from 1991 to 1997. Bonds won two MVP awards (1992 and 1993). Ken Caminiti, an admitted steroid user, won the MVP in 1996. Larry Walker won the MVP in 1997. Walker’s offensive numbers were inflated because played for the Colorado Rockies.

McGriff had over 100 RBI’s five times in his career. His 1,550 RBI is ranked 41st on the all time list. He is front of Hall of Famer Willie Stargell and right behind Hall of Famer Willie McCovey on the RBI list. Also, six players suspected or accused of using steroids are ahead of McGriff on the RBI list.

McGriff was the starting first baseman on three All Star Games, and he was selected as a reserve in two other All Star Games. McGriff won the 1994 All Star Game MVP on the basis of one at-bat.

The 1994 All Star Game was played in Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh. The American League was leading 7-5 going to the bottom of the ninth inning. Lee Smith was pitching in relief. Marquis Grissom led off the inning with a walk. Craig Biggio grounded to third base, and Grissom was forced out at second.

Manager Jim Fregosi kept McGriff on the bench because he wanted McGriff to face Lee Smith in the ninth inning. McGriff hit a home run off Lee Smith to left-center, and tied the game. The National League won the game in the bottom of the tenth inning, 8-7.

McGriff was not the most dominant first baseman of his era. He was not the most prolific power hitter of his era, but his reputation as a home run hitter was diminished due to the steroid era.

Edgar Martinez
This is Martinez’s first year on the ballot. He was primarily a Designated Hitter during his 18-year career. It was not due poor defensive skills. He was a third baseman by trade, but unfortunately Martinez was as a fragile as glass. It seemed he got hurt every time he put on a glove and was asked to play the field.

My most vivid memory of Edgar Martinez was during the 1995 playoffs against the New York Yankees. Martinez massacred the Yankee pitching staff. Anything over the plate was hit hard. It felt like he was hitting with runners in scoring position in every inning. His batting average in that series was .571. He hit two home runs and drove in 10 RBI.

Martinez was a late bloomer. He did not become a regular until he was 27 years old. Otherwise his career numbers might be more impressive. His career batting average is .312. He hit over .300 ten times during his career. He won two batting titles. Martinez drove in over 100 RBI’s six times. He ranks 41st on the all time doubles list.

Martinez was the starting DH in four All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in three All Star Games.

Andre Dawson
This is Andre Dawson’s ninth year on the ballot. I have heard that Dawson’s .323 On Base Percentage (OBP) is the statistic that is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. If it’s true, then it is one of the most ridiculous baseball related argument ever made. Andre Dawson is a Hall of Famer.

Sometimes statistics do not tell the whole story. In 21 seasons, Dawson hit over 30 home runs three times. He drove in over 100 RBI’s four times. He batted over .300 four times. These numbers do not appear impressive.

But Andre Dawson was a five-tool baseball player. He could hit for average, hit for power, play great defense, had a great throwing arm, and could run – until artificial turf ruined his knees.

Dawson was a dominant player. He was the best player on the Montreal Expos and the Chicago Cubs.

Dawson won the Rookie of the Year Award in 1977. He won the MVP Award in 1987 while playing on a sixth place team. He was the top ten in MVP votes three times. He was the starting outfielder in seven All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in one All Star Game. Dawson won eight Gold Gloves and four Silver Slugger awards.

Dawson’s career statistics are more impressive. He is 36th on the all time home run list with 438; 45th on the all time hit list with 2,774; 34th on the all time RBI list with 1,591; 25th on the all time total bases list with 4,787; and 48th on the all time doubles list with 503. He stole 314 bases. Dawson is in the top 50 of five all time offensive categories.

Dawson last played over 140 games in 1992. Baseball has changed a lot since 1992. A baseball player who averages 27 home runs, 98 RBI’s with a .279 batting average will not look impressive next to the gaudy numbers produced in an offensive laden, small ballpark, inferior pitching, steroid era. But if you saw Andre Dawson play, you saw a Hall of Famer.

Bert Blyleven
This is Blyleven’s 13th year on the ballot. Winning 300 games is the magic number that gets pitchers inducted into the Hall of Fame. Randy Johnson may be the last pitcher to win at least 300 games.

Blyleven won 287. There may not be another pitcher who will ever approach 287 career wins as well.

Pitching has changed in the time that I have been a baseball fan. Pitchers were expected to pitch complete games and accumulate over 250 innings.

Currently, pitchers are on pitch counts, and are expected to throw for six innings in a game. Instead of innings, pitchers accumulate no decisions.

Bert Blyleven is a dinosaur. Pitch counts did not matter. At the age of 20, Blyleven pitched 278.1 innings. At age 21, 287 innings. At age 22, 325 innings. Compared to pitchers of this era, Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

But is Blyleven a Hall of Famer compared to pitchers of his era? It depends on whom you compare Blyleven to.

Blyleven won 20 games once. He struck out over 200 batters eight times in his career. His ERA was under 3.00 nine times. He pitched over 200 innings sixteen times. An average Blyleven season would be 14 wins, 12 losses, with a 3.31 ERA, 245 innings pitched, and 183 strikeouts. These are not overwhelming statistics.

But compare Blyleven with Hall of Famer Don Sutton. There numbers are similar. Sutton won 20 games once. He struck out over 200 batters five times. His ERA was under 3.00 eight times. Sutton pitched over 200 innings 20 times. An average Sutton year would be 14 wins, 11 losses, with a 3.26 ERA, 235 innings pitched, and 159 strikeouts.

Compared to Sutton, Blyleven’s career statistics and his ranking on several all time lists make him a Hall of Famer.

His 287 career wins – 27th on the all time wins list. Sutton is ranked 24th with 324 wins.

Blyleven career innings pitched is 4,970 – 14th on the all time innings pitched list. Sutton is ranked 7th on the list with 5,282.3.

Blyleven is ranked 4th on the all time strikeout list with 3,701. Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens and Steve Carlton are ahead of Blyleven. Sutton is ranked 7th with 3,574.

Blyleven is ranked 11th in games started with 685. Sutton is ranked 3rd with 756.

Blyleven is ranked 91st in complete games with 242. Sutton is ranked 176th with 178 complete games.

Blyleven is ranked 9th in shutouts with 60. Sutton is ranked 10th with 58 shutouts.

If Don Sutton is a Hall of Famer, then Bert Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

Jack Morris
This is Jack Morris’ eleventh year on the ballot. He was one of my favorite pitchers during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. He was a horse. You could count on Jack Morris to pitch deep into games and accumulate innings during the course of a 162 game season. He was capable of winning a game 1-0. But Morris won plenty of games in which he allowed over four runs.

Unfortunately, his career ERA of 3.90 reflects the fact Morris pitched to the scoreboard with some disregard for his ERA. In seven seasons, Morris’ ERA was over 4.00. In 18 seasons, he never had an ERA under 3.00.

He won 20 or more games three times. He pitched over 200 innings eleven times. He struck out over 200 batters only three times. For a dominant pitcher that is a low number.

He was the ace on three different teams. He started three All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in two other All Star Games. Morris never won the Cy Young Award, but was in the top ten in voting seven times. He was the World Series MVP in 1991. He will be remembered for pitching a classic 7th game of the World Series in which he pitched 10 innings and won the game 1-0 over the Atlanta Braves.

In baseball, statistics are a point of reference. The past is compared with the present through statistics.

Jack Morris was a great pitcher in his era even if the statistics do not support my argument. At times, I witnessed greatness when he pitched.

Ron Santo (Veteran’s Committee)
Ron Santo is no longer on the Hall of Fame ballot. His last year on the ballot was 1998. Only the Veteran’s Committee can elect Ron Santo to the Hall of Fame.

Ron Santo’s played at the same time as Hall of Fame third baseman Brooks Robinson. Maybe Santo is being unfavorably compared to Robinson.

Robinson won 16 Gold Gloves. Santo won 5 Gold Gloves. Robinson also played in six World Series. In the 1970 World Series, Robinson displayed his great fielding ability, and was awarded the MVP. He was also the American League MVP in 1964, and the MVP of the All Star Game in 1966.

Santo never played in a World Series. He never won the MVP. But Santo hit over .300 four times. Robinson hit over .300 twice. Santo hit over 30 home runs four times. Robinson never hit 30 home runs in a season. Santo had four 100 RBI seasons. Robinson had 2.

Santo was overlooked because he played on a team that was not as successful as the Baltimore Orioles (from 1966 to 1974), but Santo was one of the best third baseman of his era.