Democratic Debate, Cleveland ’08: Silence Speaking Volumes

I promised a review of last evening’s Democratic debate written from the perspective of one who paid close attention to what the candidate’s would not say. Last night’s was the 20th debate in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have participated in this primary season, and I was confident in knowing what to expect from them both. The primary focus of the discussion so far has focused on three main issues; 1) the economy generally, 2) the war in Iraq, and 3) health care. The issues of health care and the economy can effectively be considered as one issue for the purposes of this discussion, leaving us with two primary issues; the Economy, and Iraq. The candidates have clearly established where they stand on these issues, and, in doing so, have revealed that they stand in quite similar places. In contrast, the differences between Democrats and Republicans on these issues have rarely been starker. For instance, last night, Obama dismissed presumptive Republican nominee John McCain’s chances in the general election because McCain has “tethered himself to Bush on Iraq and the Economy.” In view of these differences, it is clear that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will eventually have to answer a number of important, simple, and obvious questions raised by their positions on these issues, many being subquestions raised by the broader questions of exactly what it mean to be tethered to Bush on Iraq and the economy and, why is it a bad thing to be so tethered. We all understand that there are, and will always be, problems in the world, and it is easy for the candidates to point to these problems, as they so often do. But what a worthy candidate must do is explain to us why we would be any better off against these problems with that candidate's own policies in place. I realize that it is an article of faith for many people that, whatever it means, it is bad to be “tethered to” President Bush on Iraq, the economy, or anything else. But there are a great many people who don’t believe this, or at least admit that they are unsure. These are the people that the Democratic nominee will have to address to win the general election.

In the debates that I had watched previous to last night’s, neither candidate had substantively addressed questions about their differences with Republicans. With Hillary on the ropes, with the Ohio and Texas primaries looming as the decisive battles in this primary, and with the candidates’ positions on the main issues having been made as clear as they would ever be with respect to one another, we had reason to expect something different last night. Electability is always an issue in primary campaigns – indeed, it was seemingly the dominant issue in McCain’s victory over Mitt Romney. Last night presented a tremendous opportunity for each nominee; Barack could have landed a decisive knockout punch, and last night might have been Hillary’s last best chance to resuscitate her flailing campaign. Last night we might have rightly expected one or both of the candidates to explain why one is more likely than the other to beat John McCain in November by explaining how they would address Mr. McCain’s positions on the issues. Last night, neither candidate did this. Instead we saw the same old story; Barack continued to sell “hope,” while Hillary peddled “experience.” It is nothing short of remarkable that neither candidate even approached discussing where they differ with Republicans in any substantive way.

At the very least, the candidates’ silence last evening on their differences with Republicans raises serious questions beyond those about the issues themselves. We must ask what it means that the applicants for “the most important job in the world” did not discuss these differences on such a big stage, at such a crucial time. Surely the questions raised by this silence are many, and some of them complicated. Here I will suggest only one: Why shouldn’t an independent-minded voter interpret the Democratic nominees’ silence on their differences with Republicans as indicative of moral and/or intellectual bankruptcy with respect to these differences? In other words, why should we take this silence as anything other than a reason to distrust these nominees on these crucial issues? Understanding that a discussion of the issues is necessary to even begin answering this question, I will lay out a roadmap of the questions raised by these issues below. These are the questions that any worthy President must be able to answer. These were the questions that were not so much as approached by the candidates last night. To the extent that these questions have been answered by the Democratic candidates in the past – please, fill me in. Please, let's have the discussion that we did not have last night.

Issue #1 -- The Economy: Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama: A staple of your campaigns, a common staple of a great number of political campaigns, is the heartbreaking tale of the individual unfortunate American. Hillary used her final statement last evening to discuss the plight of “a mother in Lorain.” Obama has spoken at length about unemployed factory workers in Youngstown, and promised us that as president he will “give people the chances they deserve to have.” We knew that you would both tell us stories about unfortunate Americans last evening. We all, generally, feel bad for these folks. Relatedly, we all feel bad for those who need health care but do not have access to it. Large groups of people share a number of sharply contrasting ideas as to how to minimize these problems. The existence of this contrast was not apparent in last night's discussion.

1. We know that Republicans and Democrats alike would rather not have factories close and would rather not, generally, see people suffer. It is obvious that both parties have different ideas as to the best way to minimize this suffering. Republicans favor a free market system, Democrats favor government intervention and forced income redistribution. Why is forced income redistribution generally preferable to a free market? It can't be because certain individuals suffer. Suffering has existed since the beginning of time, and will surely continue to exist as long as humans do. Surely you can’t be suggesting that the existence of some unfortunate cases means that we are all generally worse off, are you? Isn’t that “making the perfect the enemy of the good” in a very real sense?

2. If you admit that we will never be able to eliminate all suffering, don’t you have to at least pay lip service to the question of why “more redistribution” is a better policy than “a freer market.” There is at least some evidence out there that proves that forced income redistribution is a policy disaster (see, generally, the former U.S.S.R.). There is also an argument to be made that the United States is the most well off/powerful country in the world because it’s markets are the freest. Adam Smith, Tocqueville, and others have made this argument persuasively, and as far as I know, it has not been disproven (many smart folks still read and teach from the books these guys wrote). Even Hillary Clinton seems to understand this, or at least once did, when she supported NAFTA. Why, Mr. Obama, do you conclusorily attack her for this? I can trust the Republicans stance on this because it makes sense to me. If you, as you say, plan to take more money away from some Americans, and give it to others, can you explain to me why we should trust you to do so, over the Republicans, who at least pitch us a coherent narrative regarding incentives, and the benefits of freer markets? (Was the word "incentive" uttered by either candidate last night? Hmmm.)

3. Relatedly, Mr. Obama, is it possible for you to explain just how you will “give people the chances they deserve to have”? While you’re at it, would you be so kind as to tell us how you know just who it is that deserves just what chances? You give us some clue as to who you think deserves what when you rail against “job killing” policies, and factories closing in America to open up elsewhere. You rail against exports, you rail against “special interests,” and, Mr. Obama, you claim that you “will be an advocate for workers.” This raises another set of questions:

4. It is Economics 101 that we are generally better off when the producer of any given product is the one who can produce that product the cheapest and the fastest. This frees up other resources for better use. Can we at least discuss Economics 101 before we make you President? Economics 101 makes sense to us. The Republicans seem to understand; that if a factory closes because someone else can run that same factory better somewhere else, then we might not want policies to allow factories to reopen where they failed because someone could do it better. Of course it is hard for the people who lose their jobs at any given time, but isn't this a necessity of a dynamic economy in a world of scarce resources? Isn’t there good reason to suggest that the people who formerly worked in these factories would more productive if they worked at something else? Wouldn’t the whole world be better off if they did so? If not, why not?

5. Also, what’s wrong with exports? I like getting stuff from other countries that I can’t get here. I even pay more for it because I can’t get it here. Presumably people in other countries feel the same way. If I made stuff that people in other countries wanted, I would like to export it to them. Why is this bad?

6. Finally, if you “will be an advocate for workers,” Mr. Obama, will you share with us your definition of what a “worker” is? Almost every adult American can be said to "work" at something. Is the "worker" that you are concerned about any more worthy of Americans’ earned resources than folks who work at any of a number of things, for instance, folks who invent things that make our lives better (like cures for diseases, or new ways to take care of ourselves)? What about folks who run businesses that make our lives easier and more enjoyable? If certain “workers” are less worthy of your advocacy than others, can you tell us why, and to what extent?

The Republicans stance on the economy, generally, whether right or wrong, makes at least some sense to me, and others. Unless you can answer the above questions, your stance on the economy will continue to make no sense to me, and I will not be able to vote for you.

Issue #2 -- Iraq: Dear Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton, as you might know, the issue of Iraq is inextricably bound with the broader issue of the Economy at large. As such, your answers to our questions about the economy will go a long way toward helping us understand your positions on Iraq. In view of the relation between the issues, our questions about Iraq are more specific. One of the easiest predictions we could have made before last nights debate would have been that Mr. Obama would tell us that “he was right about Iraq from the beginning,” and that Ms. Clinton would tell us that, in hindsight, she would reverse her Senatorial vote in support of the War in Iraq. Neither candidate began to approach a discussion of the reasons for their position. Obviously, this raises questions:

1. Also obvious is that people generally feel quite strongly about the War. Relatedly, people generally dislike human combat, death, and the resulting human suffering. Regardless of one’s position on the War in Iraq, or wars in general, doesn’t one have to at least acknowledge the possibility that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the millions who supported and still support this war have a good faith reason for doing so?

2. To elaborate on this good faith reason: There is an argument to be made that promoting democracy is the only credible strategy in the war on terror. Relatedly, there is an argument that removing Saddam Hussein was the most logical way to plant the seed of Democracy in the place where it would have the most positive impact (For more info follow this link to the Chief Source and scroll down to post titled "Our Oil Under Their Sand"). Put another way, there is a good reason to view the US decision to depose Saddam as a worthy act of pre-emptive global hygiene by ridding the middle east of a murderous megalomaniac who 1) gassed, terrorized, tortured, and killed hundreds of thousands of people, 2) provided untold levels of support for terrorists, including the harboring of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, 3) flagrantly violated UN resolutions, tossing out UN weapons inspectors, 4) invaded Kuwait, 5) attacked Iran, 6) plotted to kill a former American President, 7) retained the infrastructure and desire for making WMD, 8) bribed the leaders of France, Russia and other countries with UN subsidies designated to feed his people, and 9) “harbored a grudge against the United States that could have played out in many ways to harm Americans.” In view of this reasonable justification for the War, can either of you explain why you did not, and or if you could go back in time would not, support the War “from the beginning”?

3. Relatedly, if one accepts the good faith reasons for going into Iraq, one must also accept that the attempt to remove one of the world’s most brutal dictators to plant democracy in the heart of the Middle East is an attempt at one of the, if not the, greatest feat of social engineering that any nation has ever undertaken. This feat would necessarily take years to accomplish. As such, would it not take at least a decade before we can begin to fully understand or at least generally agree upon the broad consequences of this decision? How, at this point in time, is it possible for anyone to say with a straight face that he “was right about Iraq from the beginning?” How is it possible for anyone to evaluate the truth of this claim? Every time you "elaborated" on your reasons for your position on Iraq last evening, you did not help to answer these questions, but rather only raised further questions. For instance:

4. You say that the War in Iraq has not made us safer. Why is this so? Were we safer at 8AM e.s.t. on the morning of 9/11/01 than we are today? Is it not true that attacks on American interests, both at home, and globally, have been substantially less in the years since we deposed Saddam than in the years before?

5. Mr. Obama, you admit that “if Al-Qaeda was forming a base in Iraq” that it would be worth intervening there. But Al-Qaeda is in Iraq right now. Further, why is an Al-Qaeda base in Iraq any more dangerous than Saddam, who had direct control of billions of dollars of oil revenue and repeatedly demonstrated his intent and ability to use this money to harm Americans and American interest? Al-Qaeda quite obviously has nothing approaching the resources that Saddam had at his disposal. Surely they are both bad, but isn’t Saddam worse?

6. Finally, Mr. Obama, you claim that you will be, as America needs, “a champion for the ‘small man’ in the White House.” Is there anyone in America who is “smaller” than the person in Iraq who lived under Saddam’s boot? Who is smaller than the man who is tied up and forced to watch Saddam’s sons and their friends rape his wife and daughters? Weren’t these people all, generally, worse off than any American? If so, then isn’t President Bush more of a “champion for the small man” than you are? If not, then why not?

In sum, Mr. Obama, it seems dishonest when you say that you were right from the beginning about such a complex issue, about which it is probably impossible to know who is “right” or “wrong.” It makes me distrust you. It seems even worse when you do not put effort into explaining why you are and/or were right about this issue, especially when, as last night against Ms. Clinton who did once support the war, you have a great incentive to. The Republicans tell a coherent story about Iraq. Right or wrong, I can at least understand a coherent set of interlocking reasons as to why America might be there, and why people, both here and in Iraq, want us to stay there. I do not understand your story about Iraq. I do not understand why you want America to abandon this grand and quite possibly necessary social experiment now, after we have devoted so many resources to its success, and are finally seeing demonstrable progress. Until you answer the above questions about Iraq, I will not begin to be able to understand your position on the issue, and I will not be able to vote for you.

As stated above, the democratic candidate’s silence as to the answers to these important, simple, and obvious questions serves only to breed mistrust among many (if not most) independent-minded Americans in the candidates’ positions on these issues. Again, I am forced to wonder whether the candidates’ failure to even discuss answers to these questions in last night’s debate could be a result of anything other than an inability to address them with clarity, or at least as much clarity as the Republicans discuss these issues with. I do not ask this because I think that any given American who is not running for or voting for a President is “right” or “wrong” to ask, or to not ask these questions; or to ask or answer a whole set of different questions. I ask because it is a fact that these questions are shared, in some significant part, by a substantial portion of our fellow citizens – at least close to 50% of us if the results of the last few elections are any indication. As such, we will not only understand our leaders better by discussing potential answers to these questions, we will understand each other better. By understanding each other better through this discussion, we will then be in a position to demand and secure more effective leadership.

Update: Welcome Keeler Report readers!

Update: Welcome Chief Source readers!

Update: Dan Henninger nails it in today's Wall Street Journal: "Hillary's politics is the world of Eleanor Roosevelt, when it was all being born anew. The Washington of LBJ's Great Society in the mid-1960s was alive with policy debates -- among Democrats. By now, the Democratic Party's ideas are largely generic. Everyone noticed that the Democratic presidential candidates were largely singing from the same script. Health care, public schools, green energy, the eternal shafting of the middle class, the unions, protecting Social Security and Medicare. This common script means that the Democratic primaries are largely an audition. The candidates are reading for a role. The lines are known.

The part, however, is challenging. The Democratic platform may be familiar, but it is also infused with the quality of a dream. Actually, the word "dream" gets used a lot in Democratic rhetoric. What are essentially bureaucratic arrangements, such as health insurance or after-school programs, are promised as "universal." Meanwhile, "the middle class" is being offered a version of never-never land -- total public protection from the traps and betrayals of the private sector, which has been reduced to a kind of Grimm's Fairy Tale abstraction, the wolves.
If you are selling a dream you need the best possible salesman to make it seem somehow possible. They found him in Barack Obama."

A Warm Front Blowing In...

The blizzard that hit Northeast Ohio while most of us slept should provide a useful buffer against the blustering hot air that will be swirling madly about Cleveland tonight. That’s right folks, all eyes are on Browns Town as Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama take the stage at Cleveland State University for their twentieth debate of this primary season (9PM, NBC). Because Ohio will be blamed no matter what happens, it might be worth paying some attention to this evening’s proceedings. As such, check back here tomorrow for a breakdown of tonight’s debate. We’ll be paying special attention to what the candidates do not say.

Related: Tim Russert of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” one of this evening's moderators, is a graduate of Cleveland State University’s law school, and received an undergraduate degree from John Carrol University.

Wallyball!

One thing that I find unsettling about the NBA, in comparison with the other major sports, is how dramatically the character and quality of a team can change in an instant with one (or two) big trade(s) or free agent signing(s). Shaq’s moves to the Lakers and then to the Heat, LeBron joining the Cavs via the draft, and this year’s Celtics are good recent examples of this phenomenon -- which bothers me much less when it’s my own favorite team that is the beneficiary. Yesterday’s blockbuster between the Cavs, Sonics, and Bulls might be the most recent example. There is little question in my mind that the Cavs are a much better team after sending Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden, Ira Newble, Shannon Brown and Cedric Simmons packing for Ben Wallace, Wally Szczerbiak, Delonte West, and Joe Smith.

Anyone who doesn’t think that the Cavs are substantially better likely overestimates the contributions of Hughes and Gooden, who both came out of college with their games focused entirely on scoring points -- almost entirely from mid-to-close-range. Neither of them shoots a consistent three pointer, and neither is a dominating physical presence inside. Neither Hughes nor Gooden does anything that LeBron does not already do much better (see Exhibit A below), yet both demanded their shots, and complained when they didn’t get them. They both seemed to think that they were there to play the same role as LeBron, which is somewhat understandable because this was the role that they both played in college. Neither adjusted to being second fiddle. Gooden was rarely in the lineup at the end of close games, and little needs to be said of Hughes blog-inspiring performance in last year’s playoffs. Finally, neither Hughes nor Gooden carried themselves on the court in a way that projected any discernable veteran leadership.

Ben Wallace and Wally Szczerbiak each bring something to the Cavaliers that was missing before. Szczerbiak gives the Cavs a three point threat that they have not had in the LeBron era. He has improved his shooting percentage from behind the arc in each of the last five seasons, and is shooting 42.8% from downtown so far this season. Szczerbiak will open the floor for LeBron and Z inside, and instantly makes the Cavs a more dangerous team on offense. Wallace brings a physical presence that is matched by very few in the league. While he has been a disappointment in Chicago, the Cavs do not need him to be the same player that he was when he was four-time Defensive Player of the Year in Detroit. Wallace can bang with any big man in the league --East or West -- something else the Cavs have not had in the LeBron era. Moreover, a change of scenery is particularly likely to rejuvenate Wallace, who was a bad fit in Chicago from the start. Recall that former Bulls coach Scott Skiles would not let Wallace wear a headband in games. Would you not be disgruntled if you had hair like Ben Wallace's and Skiles told you that you weren't allowed to pull it back with a headband? Wallace will be treated like a grown man on the Cavs, who should reap the benefits of Ben’s new outlook.

Delonte West and Joe Smith are also good additions. Before he was shipped to Seattle from Boston in the Ray Allen trade, West was steadily developing into a solid pro, improving every year in Boston before moving to an uncertain situation in Seattle. The Tacoma News Tribune describes West as “a good shooter (37% career on 3 pointers) who – at 6-foot-3 – jumps well, can drive to the basket and defends bigger players well.” We’ll take it. Thanks. Joe Smith should help too. A former number one draft pick, Smith is a solid veteran who is having an excellent season. As NBA guru John Hollinger reports, Smith will consistently hit an open 17 footer, and, along with Szczerbiak and West, “will reduce the number of “five on one” defenses that LeBron has to face.”

Finally, all four of these newcomers arrive in Cleveland, oasis of hoops promise (LeBron makes it so), having been saved from depressing situations in Chicago and Seattle. If these players stay healthy, they will do things for the Cavs that the players they will replace did not and would not have done (as pictured in Exhibit B, below). We know that with LeBron, anything is possible in the Playoffs. Cavaliers fans should be very excited about these possibilities after this trade.

Update: Hughes continues to complain -- 2/23 Akron Beacon Journal, Page C4: "It's no secret that my style of play didn't fit the system. . . . I felt I could be more productive. There wasn't as much ball movement and player movement. There was just a lot of 'space the court and wait.' That's just not how I like to play." Gosh Larry, it must have been awful playing with LeBron, having to play in the NBA Finals and everything. We wish you the best in finding a team that lets you play how you like to play.

A Cleveland Frowns Valentine: Freeze Your Eggs?

One thing about Cleveland Frowns Valentines is that they sometimes arrive three days late. Another thing about them is that they sometimes arrive in the form of thought-provoking Wall Street Journal Op-ed pieces like this one, by Dr. Ronald Dworkin. In this piece, called “The Next Sexual Revolution,” Dr. Dworkin asks the question: What happens when motherhood over 50 becomes commonplace?” Dworkin answers his question by explaining why he thinks that “vitrification,” technology that will soon provide “a practical method of storing unfertilized human eggs,” will have “enormous sociological consequences.” According to Dworkin,

“Freezing unfertilized eggs gives women a way out of a complicated cultural maze. Decades ago, the lives of men and women diverged at adolescence. Men prepared for careers while women prepared for domestic life. Today, many young men and women go through high school, college and professional school often mistakenly assuming no differences in their respective trajectories.

Our culture encourages women to pursue high-powered careers. Many women must pursue at least some kind of career: With the divorce rate over 50%, women can no longer rely on the integrity of the family unit to support them. The culture paints a rosy image about career and family. Then biological truth breaks through, by which time these women have lost a decade of their best childbearing years.

Women who opt to freeze their unfertilized eggs will gain those years back -- and more -- giving them the freedom to leisurely follow the male career trajectory. No more late night panicking. No more marrying a man you don't love "just to have the baby." No more lurching from Harvard to the mommy track. . . .

[M]ost middle-aged people know that many careers can be pretty dull, without much chance to create. Following rules and procedures until midnight in a law firm may seem acceptable when you're 25, but not when you're 50. Armed with this insight, money and perfect eggs -- and with an expected life span of 86 years -- many women will likely choose to create a family.”

Folks have critiqued this piece as being wrongly dismissive of the importance of starting a family and the impact that childbearing has on the human body. These critiques go too far. Dr. Jennifer Morse, a former Yale Professor who advertises herself as “Your Coach for the Culture Wars” (wars have coaches!) suggests that “[i]nstead of taking the economy as given and adapting our bodies around the workplace . . . we (should) take women's fertility as given, and organize the economy around women's bodies.” Candice Watters of Focus on the Family is “bothered” because she thinks that “our whole culture is OK” with “the career first babies later time-line.” But neither Dworkin nor anyone reasonable would suggest that women sacrifice their health for the sake of their careers, or that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to the “career or babies first?” question. A person’s health is the combination of many factors, personal satisfaction certainly being one of them. To the extent that medical technology like vitrification can provide us with more flexibility in choosing our own individual paths then it must be considered a positive development, if not the “revolution” that Dr. Dworkin makes it out to be.

One's work is an elemental part of one’s being. A career choice has a great influence on a person’s life and health. To the extent that we are able to choose and develop careers that are “better for us” as individuals, we are able to become better parts of better couples. Technology, changed and changing attitudes about women in the workplace, and evolving approaches to personal and public health continue make it easier for us to take our time and do this -- if we want to. It was not long ago that a 50 year old American was considered to be a very old person. This is not so today, and should continue to be less so in the future, which is a good reason for any individual or combination of individuals to celebrate on this Valentine’s Day.

Why Some People Hate Sports

Whitney Houston was right. Children are the future. Elements of a "bizarre prison culture" like the one referenced in this story from CNN.com can begin to develop on any elementary school playground. For the sake of our prison system, and our collective ability to pull together a weekend game of softball (or football, or basketball, or stickball, or badminton, etc.), let's all pitch in to nip this sort of behavior in the bud.

Some excerpts:

First, the Headline: "Ex-Florida prison boss: Drunken orgies tainted system." Looks promising, but not sports related; Until one reads further.

"McDonough described a bizarre prison culture among those that ran the system -- one that he says seemed obsessed with inter department softball games and the orgies after games. . . .

'I cannot explain how big an obsession softball had become,' he said. 'People were promoted on the spot after a softball game at the drunken party to high positions in the department because they were able to hit a softball out of the park a couple times.' . . .

The connection between the softball and the parties and the corruption and the beatings was greatly intertwined. . .

The parties and orgies were often carried out at a waterfront ranch house built on prison grounds for a former warden with taxpayer dollars, McDonough said. The house was complete with a bar, pool table and hot tub. . . . [E]mployees who didn't attend softball games or play on the teams were 'isolated' and 'pushed aside."

Yeesh.

Make sure to check back tomorrow for a special Cleveland Frowns Valentine.

Cousin Larry drops 40. Now we do the Dance of Joy!

Who was that Perfect Stranger who dropped 40 on the Magic in the Cavs 118-111 road win over the Orlando Magic? It’s wonderful to see Cousin Larry Hughes pulling his weight for the Cavaliers fam, especially the day after being embarrassed at home by the Nuggets. Eschewing his usual strategy of clanging 15+ foot jumpers off the rim, Hughes relentlessly attacked the bucket, and there was little Orlando could do to stop him. Hughes shot 12-13 from the free throw line. Let's hope this is the start of a trend.

Relatedly, will we ever see a show like Perfect Strangers again? Back in the 80s and 90s it was OK to make fun of people from different cultures in a prime time sitcom. Perfect Strangers was a show about the misadventures of a Balkan immigrant from the fictional island of Mypos, the moronic sheepherder Balki Bartokomous who comes to America to live in Chicago with his American cousin, Larry Appleton. Balky tells Larry that "Philo, (his) fifth cousin three times removed is the step-uncle to (Larry's) father on (Balki's) mother’s side, two continents removed." Cousin Philo! Like the dough! Get it? Presumably to make Balki a more believable character, ("What would someone from Mypos sound like?"), he spoke with an affected immigrant accent. “Patience ees a veergin, Coosin Lahree.” A show about a Balkan immigrant named Balki -- roughly the equivalent of a show about a Chinese immigrant named Chinky. For better or worse, anyone who thinks that we’ll see another Perfect Strangers anytime soon should consider the reaction to the Salesgenie commercial that aired during last week’s Super Bowl.

I wonder what Mr. Twinkacetti would say about this.

Remember the Jordanaires

With the 2008 NBA trade deadline approaching, the Cavaliers front office faces increased pressure to make a deal from sources that seem to have no regard for whether that deal will improve the franchise’s health in the long term. For instance, Phil Taylor in this week’s Sports Illustrated wrote of the front office’s “sluggishness . . . in failing to upgrade the roster over the summer.” Worse, ESPN.com ran an absurdly pointless piece on the Cavs reaction to this week’s Shaq trade, the purpose of the article apparently being to let us know that LeBron James and the Cavs would like to add another star player to their roster. We’re left to wonder how this desire to add a star makes the Cavs different from any other NBA contender.

Much of this nonsense is due to the national media’s burning desire to see LeBron leave Cleveland. These outlets constantly watch for fodder for the storyline that LeBron would be better off elsewhere, and it’s easy to understand why they are quick to run unsupported pieces to reinforce this theme. To the extent that pressure on the front office comes from Cleveland fans, we can chalk it up to impatience and paranoia -- also understandable. Fortunately for Cavs fans, this pressure is unwarranted.

Evaluating the Cavs decision to stand pat with their roster requires a look at the deals that were/are available to them. At best, the Cavs would have to trade Daniel Gibson, Drew Gooden, Ira Newble (with his expiring contract) and perhaps even Larry Hughes to even have a chance to pick up one of two veteran guards, Jason Kidd (in his 15th year as a pro) or Mike Bibby (a 10 year pro), to fill the hole at the point guard position. Leaving aside the question of whether either the Nets or Kings would be willing to make a deal like this, it is unclear that dealing a pile of young and (with the exception of Hughes) inexpensive talent for an aged veteran would make the Cavs better off in the long run. If LeBron and the Cavs are to meet our lofty expectations, i.e., win multiple championships in Cleveland past 2010 (when LeBron’s current contract expires), it will take more than adding Jason Kidd or Mike Bibby in 2008.

The decision to sit tight now must also be judged in view of the next two offseasons, when $35 million of contracts set to expire in 2008-09 will have the Cavaliers in excellent position to strengthen their roster. By this time, the Cavaliers will have had at least one more year to come together as a team, and the organization will have a better idea of the value of the pieces that they have in place. Remember that Michael Jordan did not win a Championship until his seventh season in the NBA. His teammates, like LeBron’s today, were widely considered a fatally inferior supporting cast, and were dubbed “The Jordanaires.” This disparaged group is nearly the exact same supporting cast that was good enough to help Jordan and the Bulls win three consecutive NBA titles from 1991-94.

With over $35 million in contracts set to expire between now and 2009, the Cavs won’t have to rely on their current supporting cast to win a Championship between now and 2010, but it’s far from an impossibility. LeBron is, like Jordan, a singular talent who makes all of his teammates better, and has already shown a marked improvement in his game from last season when he dominated the Eastern Conference Championship. As LeBron and his teammates continue to improve, the NBA Playoffs in Cleveland will continue to be interesting. With the potential for an explosive roster upgrade between now and 2009, the Cavaliers patience in 2007 and 2008 is entirely reasonable.

Who's Fired up for this Pro Bowl???

We are!!! We are!!!

So fired up. If anyone can bring a "Pete Rose bowls over Ray Fosse" moment to this year's Pro Bowl, it's K2.

The Pick: AFC -3.

(Update: Please remind me before next year's Pro Bowl that the third string quarterbacks just might play the entire second half. Derek Anderson's line: 10-26 for 103 yards, O TD, 1 INT. Nice.)

Why the Long Face, Brownie?

The success of a city or region's sports teams can be intimately related to a city or region's civic pride, which is a big part of what makes following sports interesting for many people. Many of us, when we wear our teams' gear, wear these items to represent for our city more so than any particular player or team. In view of this, briefly consider the suffering that Cleveland sports fans have recently endured as a result of our affiliations with our local teams...

The Drive: 1986-87 AFC Championship Game -- Trailing by a touchdown, pinned on his own 2-yard line with 5:32 left to play in the game John Elway leads the Broncos on a 15 play 98 yard drive to tie the game with 38 seconds left, in front of a rabid crowd in Cleveland Stadium. Denver goes on to win the game in overtime.

The Fumble: 1987-88 AFC Championship Game -- With 1:12 left in the game, Earnest Byner appears to be heading into the endzone for a game-tying touchdown when he is stripped by Denver's Jeremiah Castille. The Broncos recover the fumble and win the game. In fairness to Byner, he played an outstanding game before fumbling, totalling 67 yards rushing, 7 receptions for 120 yards, and 2 touchdowns. The Fumble is often attributed to Browns receiver Webster Slaughter's failure to block Castille.


The Shot: 1989 Eastern Conference Finals, Game 5 -- With 3.2 seconds left in the deciding game of the series the Bulls inbound the ball to Michael Jordan who hits the game winner over Craig Ehlo, setting off the Bulls dynasty and sending home what was perhaps the best Cavaliers squad in team history. The Bulls were winless in six games against the Cavaliers in the 1988-89 regular season.


The Move: Coming off a playoff season when the Browns lost to rival Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC Divisional Playoffs, hopes were high entering the 1995 season, until Browns owner Art Modell announced his plans to move the beloved Browns to Baltimore. Modell moved the Browns, who became the Baltimore Ravens, despite constant sellout crowds and rabid fan support in Cleveland. The Ravens won Superbowl XXXV in 2001.



Game Seven: 1997 World Series, Game Seven -- Leading 2-1 entering the bottom half of the 9th inning, Jose Mesa surrenders the tying run on a Craig Counsell sacrifice fly. Counsell reaches base in the 11th inning when Tony Fernandez misplays his slow rolling ground ball, and eventually scores the winning run for the Florida Marlins, who become World Series Champions in their fifth year of existence.

There is also Red Right 88, losing a 3-1 lead over the Red Sox in the '07 ALCS, the Buckeyes' embarrassing losses to SEC teams in the last two BCS Championship games, and a whole lot more.


It’s certainly worth a good pensive frown in wondering why we continue to allow our hearts to be broken by ballplayers in this way. It's also worth wondering what effect the results on the ballfields have had on the way both locals and outsiders feel about our city, which is repeatedly sh*t on by the national media, celebrities, and random average joes, many of whom have never been here. It seems that many who live in the area fail to appreciate what it has to offer. Its tragic sports history aside, our city has surely been through challenging times in recent decades, and there will be struggles ahead. But Cleveland served our country well in its former role as a global manufacturing hub and way-station between the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. A bit of common courtesy and patience is in order as we make the transition with the rest of America from a manufacturing to a service economy -- a transition that's more difficult for Cleveland than most of America due to the unique role that it played in the old economy. It will be interesting to see how our local sports teams and figures will figure into this transition, and as we make it, we at Cleveland Frowns will continue to love our town, our teams, our river valley, our neighbors, our beer, and all four of our seasons -- and like Brownie up there, who knows that sometimes sh*t happens, we'll do our best to see our way through it.

Super Bowl XLII: Why Tom Brady Is Not the Best Quarterback in NFL History and Why the Browns Should Let Derek Anderson Walk

Super Bowl Sunday, 2008: A Patriots victory over the Giants today and the volume will be turned up on the claim that Tom Brady is the best quarterback in NFL history. Leaving aside the obvious difficulties in evaluating whether this claim is true, the frequency with which this claim is made reflects just how easily people will overlook a fundamental reality about the game of football, and in doing so, over or underestimate the value of an individual quarterback. This willingness to view a quarterback in isolation from the rest of his team is also a primary contributing factor to the calls by Browns fans and sportswriters for the Browns to sign Derek Anderson to an expensive long-term deal. This would be a huge mistake. A quick look at the claim that Tom Brady is the best quarterback in NFL history helps to demonstrate why.

American football is the ultimate team game, requiring eleven different players to move in eleven different particular ways each time the football is snapped. It is quite often the case that an entire play is ruined if only one man misses his assignment. On a professional football field, at least six men are responsible for blocking defenders on any given play. If only one of these blockers fails, there is a good chance that a quarterback ends up eating dirt. If a receiver fails to run a precise route, cannot break free from a defender, or simply drops a ball, his quarterback’s statistics, likelihood of winning, and perceived performance will suffer in kind. Similarly, if a quarterback’s coaching staff is out-coached by the other side, a quarterback’s chances of winning and perceived performance will suffer. In many cases, the quarterback won’t ever have a chance to succeed. In sum, the quarterback’s performance will be a microcosm of his team’s offensive performance. This makes it difficult to evaluate the worth of an individual quarterback to his team’s success.

Anyone who wants to claim that Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all time has to separate his performance from that of his teammates and coaching staff. First, they must explain how Brady’s performance can be separated from the allegedly brilliant game plans of coaching “genius” (or inveterate cheater) Bill Belichick. Moreover, the Patriots front office is widely recognized as the best front office in football, having made a remarkable series of savvy moves that has left Brady surrounded by a terrific supporting cast of superstars, role players, and all around solid guys with a reputation for putting the team first. It’s no coincidence that Brady’s dream season comes in a year in which his offense received a dramatic upgrade, with superfreak All-Pro Hall of Fame lock Randy Moss joining his receiving corps, along with NFL receptions leader Wes Welker, and talented former Saints first round pick Donte Stallworth. Additionally, Matt Light and Logan Mankins, the left side of Brady’s offensive line, are both Pro Bowl starters this year. Brady’s entire offensive line has been starting together for three full years now, and are recognized as the best offensive line in football. When I watch Tom Brady play, what strikes me most is how much time he has to throw the ball. Brady’s individual success is certainly due in no small part to the performance of his teammates and his coaching staff. It is not difficult to imagine other quarterbacks having similar success if placed in a similar situation, and for my money, I’ll take John Elway over Brady any day of the week.

Which brings us to Derek Anderson, who like Brady, enjoyed a dream season in 2007. Like Brady, Anderson threw to two of the best receivers in football, Pro Bowler Braylon Edwards, and soon-to-be Pro Bowler Kellen Winslow Jr (who catches everything). Like Brady, Anderson threw behind a solid offensive line, with new additions Joe Thomas and Eric Steinbach both having Pro Bowl worthy seasons. Like Brady, Anderson’s success is due in no small part to the skill of his teammates and coaching staff, in Anderson’s case the play calling of new offensive coordinator Rob Chudzinski. Finally, like Brady, people want to overinflate Anderson’s role in the success of his team. As great as this season was, and as much as Anderson got the job done -- for the most part -- the Browns should not overpay him for the success of his teammates and coaching staff, especially not with first round pick Brady Quinn waiting in the wings. Quinn comes in with a better collegiate track record and more physical ability than Anderson, who, let’s not forget, melted down completely in the Brownies’ must win game against Cincinnati in week 16. Patrick McManamon said in the January 10, 2008 Akron Beacon Journal that Matt Schaub’s six-year $48 million contract with the Falcons will be among the deals most discussed when talks with Anderson’s agents become serious. This is absolutely frightening. As Browns fans we can only hope that GM Phil Savage, who won a Superbowl in Baltimore with Trent Dilfer, knows Anderson’s true value to the team, and is committed to Quinn, his own draft pick. But, as Browns fans, we must be ready for anything -- and anything close to a Schaub-like deal for Anderson will be a tremendous waste of the team’s resources.

Speaking of resources, there is a game to pick today. Super Bowl 42. The Patriots are favored over the Giants by 12 points, which seems like a high number given that the majority of the betting public (according to sportsbook.com) is picking the Giants. This means that the wiseguys think that they know something about the Patriots. Even still, I cannot bring myself to ruin a perfectly good Super Bowl by picking the Pats today and thus can only hope that the wiseguys are wrong and that the Gambling Gods will bring one home for America on this most glorious of American holidays. One thing that might help is the recent revelation that the Patriots might have taped a Rams practice before Super Bowl 36. I’ve read Crime and Punishment, and thus know what sort of missteps a guilt-ridden mind is capable of. One time for the good guys. Giants +12.