Oratorical Animal

Camelot Redux

Several weeks ago, Caroline Kennedy announced that she would accept an appointment to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat. That was the high point of her pseudo-campaign. Since then, things have gone steadily downhill, as critics have questioned her qualifications, her attitude, and her inaccessibility. Putting aside the "should she be appointed" question, what's interested me most about this process is the light it shines on the performative aspects of public office. Kennedy's problems have grown, I think, not because she's become less qualified over the past month but rather because she's so bad at meeting our performative expectations for the U.S. Senate. And this is no ordinary Senate seat.

Let's begin there. Ms. Kennedy is not seeking an Illinois Senate seat on E-Bay. Oh no. She wants the role of New York's designated national politician. Since the turn of the last century, New York has had one, occasionally two, celebrity politicos serving as governor, senator, or mayor of NYC. Theodore Roosevelt. Al Smith. Franklin Roosevelt. Robert Wagner. Averell Harriman. Nelson Rockefeller. Robert Kennedy. John Lindsay. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Mario Cuomo. Rudy Guiliani. Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy wishes to join their company--or rather, because Michael Bloomberg has turned into a doof, that's her only real calling card. There is not, given sex scandal, prestigious appointments, presidential campaign failures, obligations to financial interests (Schumer), etc., a national New York politician at this moment. Caroline Kennedy has only a few other qualifications. Should she become a senator, she'll be expected to make New York important, as these people did.

Note what they have in common. First, with two possible exceptions, all were/are articulate and charismatic. In fact, most were/are annoyingly loud--like New York. Second, many were/are public intellectuals; TR and Moynihan wrote more books between them than most departmental faculties in the country. Third, they were/are politicians to the core; every person on this list (excepting possibly Harriman) loved political fights. Fourth, nearly all cared/care passionately about issues/ideology and fought/fight ferociously on their behalf. TR and the Square Deal. FDR and the New Deal. Wagner and labor. Kennedy and poverty. Guiliani and order. Clinton and health care. Loud, articulate, passionate, obnoxious, ruthless, tough, political--these people possessed such qualities.

Caroline Kennedy has failed to display a single one of them in her various appearances and interviews. Potentially? She's a constitutional lawyer, she's written books, she campaigned well for Obama, and she's worked on education. It's easy to see what she could do; she could speak passionately and angrily about constitutional violations and torture and/or crusade on education as Moynihan did on welfare.

She can't or won't do it. She'll explain, for instance, that she's qualified because she's a mother and lawyer, but she never connects that to anything that we care about--or to any larger cause. To borrow from John McCain, Kennedy has not articulated any cause greater than herself. And, oddly, the call to service has been the hallmark of her public life and her family's public life in recent decades. People expect a US Senator, especially this sort of Senator, to draw attention, to be at the cutting edge of national politics, to articulate controversial positions, to lead not just the state but the nation. This is NEW YORK. She's not doing any of that. She shows no signs that she cares about people and issues, even if she does care. We won't know what she has if she won't show it to us. I suspect she's spent her entire life carefully not showing the public anything. That's a problem now.

My advice? Take on the press corps at every stop and make fun of yourself as you do it. Develop a set piece on the two or three big issues you want to pursue as Senator. Hammer them with passion. In short, no matter what it looks like, this is a campaign with two more to follow in 2010 and 2012. Show you want this seat, Ms. Kennedy, if indeed you do. Fight for it the way TR fought the trusts and Taft. Not to mention BEARS. Otherwise, head on back to your kids and their schools. Because this is New Yawk, lady. You gotta show us what you got.    

Angellic Seasons

Twas to St. Paul for Christmas and, when we're in St. Paul, we inevitably make time for Common Good Books, G. Keillor, prop. As I wandered through the baseball section, I discovered the impossible--a Roger Angell book that I had somehow missed, Five Seasons. The Minnesota-nice, baseball fanatic desk clerk told me that Bison Books, an imprint of the University of Nebraska Press, has a baseball series, bless their hearts, and they're bringing back any number of out of print classics. 

This is a collection of Angell's columns and articles from 1972-1976. Now I became a Cubs fan in 1969 (roughly, horribly speaking) and started to notice the rest of baseball throughout this period. The book has been a joy--vague, half-remembered players from my past. Joe Ferguson, Doug Radar, Jose Cardenal (a big favorite), and the tragic Steve Blass. Like Rick Ankiel, Blass mysteriously lost the ability to throw a strike; unlike Ankiel, he couldn't hit, either. Game and career over. Plus, of course, there are lines about my Cubs that could apply to any year: "The Cubs, a team of elders that has wasted an enormous early-summer lead..." Yes, that would be 1973. Or not. 

It's lovely writing. As always with Angell. Thank you, Bison Books. And G. Keillor.

Disagreeable?

President-elect Obama has been catching a good deal of grief for his choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Inaugural. Warren has compared gay marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy. He is also not exactly a theologian and does not hold views that accord with the president-elect's perspective.

Mr. Obama claims that he picked Warren to illustrate an important principle: that we must learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

Yes, Mr. President-elect, the good reverend was certainly not being disagreeable when he likened gays and lesbians to animals or child abusers. A perfectly agreeable message. A model of public debate. One we should all imitate. No wonder you invited him. You betcha.  

Great Idea

I love this idea. Sadly, paying F-Rod to go away is probably illegal. But it may well be the best solution to the problem, as Brown notes. F-Rod won't quit, impeachment will take forever, and the Illinois Supreme Court has punted. So, ask the loser what it'll take to make him go away. Seriously. Potential fathers-in-law do this--heck, F-Rod's father-in-law probably wishes he had done it--so why not the people of Illinois?

So, what'll it take, Rod? Cold, hard cash. Let's call it pay-n-go. Time to make a deal.  

Over It

I've noticed that bleedcubbieblue has entered my morning blog rotation again. I hit the MLB rumors section on SI and  the Tribune Cubs section. Sigh. It took longer than usual this year, but it's lemming time again. Over the cliff I go.

RIP

Dr. Jan Kemp died yesterday in Athens, GA. She was 59 years old. In an awful irony, she died of complications from Alzheimer's disease. A woman the University of Georgia spent decades ferociously forgetting lost her memories somewhere along the way.

In 1981, Dr. Kemp claimed that the University of Georgia intervened to change the grades of nine football players. That change allowed them to pass a remedial English class they had failed; it kept them eligible for the Sugar Bowl against the University of Pittsburgh. Happily, the Pitt Panthers led by quarterback Dan Marino won that game. 

UGA not only ignored Kemp's complaint; they fired her. She sued and eventually won a million bucks and her job. Remarkably, she stayed at the University and retired in 1990. I never knew her. I sure knew of her.

People literally whispered her name. She was, perhaps, the most present absence I have ever seen. Seldom would anyone say her name, except for those moments on sportstalk radio when some idiot would attack her. Sometime in my first couple of years, I finally asked somebody about the name and received a hushed, clearly edited account of the story. Occasionally, one of my more sardonic (but deeply supportive of athletics) colleagues would mutter about dealing with a "Jan Kemp" level athlete.

You see, she pointed out that the emperors had no clothes; her very presence in town or on campus indicted them. The University worshiped its president of the time, Fred C. Davison, and the athletic director and football coach, Vince Dooley. Why, I'll never quite understand. Both were mediocre at their jobs. Davison kept the university parochial and southern (probably why they loved him) and it only started to improve in the 1990s. Dooley found a troubled young man, Herschel Walker, and rode him to one national championship and to that 1982 Sugar Bowl. Other than that, Dooley was overshadowed in the SEC by coaches like Bear Bryant and Steve Spurrier. Dooley in no way measured up to those coaches or to the great football coaches of his era, like a Tom Osborne.

Perhaps more important, the investigation done after Jan Kemp's charges, and her trial, revealed the extraordinary plantation mentality that governed university athletic operations. Read a couple of the quotations in that NYT obit and you'll see what I mean. It's no wonder that this place later hired Jim Harrick and other such winners. Dooley set the pattern.

I still root for UGA football and I loved my time there. But I've seldom been witness to a more powerful effort at collective memory erasure than that one. Otherwise liberal people who chafed at Georgia and the South disparaged Kemp. Dooley is still idolized. The current president of the university, a real bonehead, permanently damaged his standing when he finally forced Dooley out, a necessary move but one that could have been handled a wee bit more carefully, shall we say. The people of the town and the university always talked of Jan Kemp as crazy, mentally unbalanced, a nut for doing what she did and of Vince Dooley and Fred Davison as paragons of Georgia virtue. If Kemp had troubles, it's clear who created them.

The Athens Banner Herald provided a pretty decent obit, although the contradictions she created in life are evident in her death. The generally decent reporter still felt compelled to interview Dooley. He still claims that she lied and he does so in a story about her death. Southern chivalry, indeed.

About Bias

Our old friend Aristotle says in his Rhetoric: "[There is persuasion] through character whenever the speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of credence; for we believe fair-minded people to a greater extent and more quickly [than we do others] on all subjects in general and completely so in cases where there is not exact knowledge but room for doubt." The proposal to loan the Big Three automakers $15 billion generates doubt, but the credence given to some speakers and the extent of their fairmindedness is yet more dubious.

I could pick any number of news stories to prove my point, but I'll turn to an AP report I saw in my local paper yesterday. After an account of the package, the report finds an opponent: "Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said today that 'I don't know if this is going to pass.'" Corker went on to note that bankruptcy might be the best choice. Similarly, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, a Republican, has also appeared in a variety of outlets and on television (although not in the AP story) decrying the bailout and arguing that the free market should be allowed to do its work. Meanwhile, the AP story then turns to a supporter of the loan package: "Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., an ally of the car industry, said..." Of course, what he said then doesn't matter because the AP has indicted his character; any artistic proof of ethos that Levin might offer was eliminated by the AP's assertion of bias.

I suppose the AP can use such identifications if they want, but they need to be "fairminded." Corker and Shelby are not virtuous advocates of the free market, sharp-eyed custodians of public dollars. They're working for Nissan and Volkswagen. Over the past 15 years or so, a new auto corridor has developed in the South, running through Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Apart from the Spring Hill Saturn plant (which is probably toast under any bailout/reorganization plan), all are foreign-owned plants with, um, compliant work forces. Coincidentally, I am sure, Shelby of Alabama, Corker of TN, and McConnell of Kentucky hate the bailout package and speak endlessly of late about the virtues of the free market.

I say "of late" because their virtuous states offered "incentives" to bring Nissan, Volkswagen, Toyota, etc., to their "right to work" states and pimped out their citizens to such corporations. Somehow, when it's time to fill the coffers of some automakers, the "free market" is no barrier at all. Now, of course, we have to bow at its altar. "Loans" to the Big Three automakers with union work forces and good benefits=bad. "Incentives" to other car manufacturers with anti-union policies and bad benefits=good. Hmmmm.

Somehow, I have yet to see an "objective" news story on this issue that fails to label Senator Levin or Governor Granholm as "allies" or "supporters," of the Big Three and decides to label Shelby, Corker, or McConnell as "allies" or "supporters" of automakers with plants in their states. The Big Three Southern Senators have their own interests at stake here and it might be nice if someone, somewhere, noted that fact. Character, indeed.    

I'm Annoyed

Of course, the title might describe every day. But several items running through the news have annoyed me of late--as opposed to feeling appalled by Blago--and I wanted to get them off my chest. So, here goes.

First, my extended family is pretty conservative and my immediate family has grown steadily more liberal over the years. All of us voted for Obama, for instance. Perhaps more important, the 30-40 people gathered at my cousin's for Thanksgiving enjoy their middle class lifestyle primarily because of my maternal grandfather, a steamfitter and proud union man for 70 years. If the union had not been there, we would not be here. So, I found myself a bit flummoxed when everyone--everyone--attacked the Employee Free Choice Act. In a rare moment, I was both discreet and inarticulate--the opposite is generally the case. Happily, publius has now made the argument that I wish I had made. Unhappily, it resulted from a very bad WP article. I'm annoyed at the Post.

I'm also annoyed at the other mainstay of the so-called liberal media, the New York Times. Several weeks ago, Andrew Ross Sorkin was a bad journalist. He wrote an article that uncritically accepted the false claim that auto workers made 73 bucks an hour--Jim Aune noted that in my comments a while ago. Today, the Times ran a front page article from the generally admirable David Leonhardt that explained just why that figure was crap. To be blunt. His lead: "Seventy-three dollars an hour. That figure--repeated on television and in newspapers as the average pay of a Big Three autoworker--has become a big symbol in the fight over what should happen in Detroit." Um, David? It was YOUR damn paper, the paper of record, that popularized and legitimated the figure. The Times did this. How about a bit of honesty, big guy? Would that hurt so much?

Finally, I'm annoyed at a third mainstay of the liberal media, Rachel Maddow. I love Rachel. But last night reminded me that she knows only as much journalism as her guests know. Her guest last night, Michael Isikoff, did by far the worst reporting of the Lewinsky case and he outdid himself last night. Despite the fact that the US Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said Barack Obama had nothing to do with Blago's scandal, despite the fact that Obama said he had nothing to do with it, and despite the fact that Blago said of Obama and his team, "F*** them" and said that the President-elect had an inappropriately intimate relationship with his mother, Isikoff asserted Obama was in trouble because of his relationship and that of his team with Blago and that FBI agents would show up at the White House door to question people. Maddow nodded sagely. She then "reenacted" the above excerpts that showed how wrong Isikoff was when he claimed that Blago and Obama were linked. She also claimed Rahm Emmanuel tipped the FBI off, a report that was denied three hours before her showtime. I know scandal is fun, Rachel. I know you're trying to broaden the typical guest list. But there's a reason people shun Isikoff. He's bad at his job. He's foreign to facts. Don't use him.

Whew. I feel better.

Cold Solace for Texas Fans

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II

(This has been circulating virally and without attribution.)

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

“Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work—including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule—our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking.”

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated “The US only had two major victories— Japan and Germany . The computer models, unlike humans, aren’t influenced by head-to-head contests—they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event.”

German Chancellor Adolph Hiter said “Yes, we lost to the US ; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks.” Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn ‘style points’ to enhance Germany ’s rankings. Hitler protested “Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces.”

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented ” France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2.”

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

(This has been circulating virally and without attribution.)

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

“Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work—including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule—our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking.”

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated “The US only had two major victories— Japan and Germany . The computer models, unlike humans, aren’t influenced by head-to-head contests—they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event.”

German Chancellor Adolph Hiter said “Yes, we lost to the US ; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks.” Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn ‘style points’ to enhance Germany ’s rankings. Hitler protested “Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces.”

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented ” France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2.”

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

(This has been circulating virally and without attribution.)

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

“Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work—including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule—our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking.”

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated “The US only had two major victories— Japan and Germany . The computer models, unlike humans, aren’t influenced by head-to-head contests—they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event.”

German Chancellor Adolph Hiter said “Yes, we lost to the US ; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks.” Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn ‘style points’ to enhance Germany ’s rankings. Hitler protested “Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces.”

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented ” France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2.”

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

The Bright Side of Life

So, our Governor is a crook. Not only is he a crook, he is a perfectly awful, remarkable crook, the sort of crook who appears in Grisham novels and Pollack movies. But this is actually good news. Really.

First, Blago's impossible to spell or pronounce name, as well as his Bushian incompetence, are permanently removed from the scene. Finally. Hallelujah.

Second, Jon Stewart is not in reruns. This is very good news. 

Third, we'll be witness to one of the most entertaining trials of the 21st century. Seriously. Blago, like Drago, won't go down without a fight. I'm betting he's got records of all sorts of deals; if he's going to hit the canvass, a lot of others are going down with him. His chief of staff might even be better positioned to roll.

Fourth, the deadlock in the legislature is likely to be broken. The House and Senate might agree with a new Governor on a budget--at least, they'll agree on impeachment and conviction if necessary--and my humble university might finally know just how bad it's going to be. That seems like cold comfort, but living without any real budget for several years has been even less fun.

Fifth, we might get a real Senator. No one will be saddled with the title "Blago's pick." Rather, if Dick Durbin has his way, there will be an election--and fast--and good people like Tammy Duckworth or a number of others will get a real shot at this.

Finally, I suspect for the good to come out of this, Senator Durbin, Mayor Daley, David Axelrod, and, yes, Barack Obama will need to do the right thing. They've tried to ignore the problems in Springfield and play on larger fields--they're too important to get their hands dirty in state government. But if Durbin and Obama want to concentrate on Washington, they'll need to clean up the mess at home--or get Axelrod and Plouffe to do it for them. If Daley wants the Olympics for Chicago, as he does, then he'll need a non-felonious governor to help. They need to get their hands dirty and solve this problem. The state Republican Party is moribund--although this might help them recover--and will be of no help. Durbin and Daley, in particular, need to step up to the plate.  

Hey, and as part of Obama's infrastructure economic stimulus package, maybe will get a new "Governors' Wing" at the state prison!