42. Today was Jackie Robinson Day at Dodger Stadium (and around baseball), marking the 65th anniversary of the day that number 42 made his major league debut for the Dodgers, breaking the color barrier and changing baseball forever. It was altogether fitting and proper then that today's heroes were Dee Gordon, with a walk off single and Matt Kemp, with his 6th home run of the season, all while wearing 42 with the rest of their teammates.
But the reality is that Jackie Robinson changed more than just baseball (a game at which he excelled). Robinson broke the color barrier a year before the military was ordered de-segregated, 8 years before Brown v. Board of Education, nearly two decades before the Voting Rights Act was passed. Does all of that happen if Jackie did not first lead the way in baseball--and lead the Dodgers, whose white working class fans were willing to cheer on any player that would help their bums win, to 6 pennants and a world championship?
44. I write this from Des Moines, Iowa, because I have arrived to begin work on the Obama 2012 campaign, and that too seems altogether fitting and proper. I wonder if not for Jackie, could Barack Obama be President today?
Number 42 seems forever tied to number 44. Tomorrow, I start working to get 270.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Two Billion, One Hundred Fifty Million Dollars
If any person, anywhere, ever, buys a professional sports franchise, and wants to make sure that the first things that they said were right, in every way, they should simply read what Magic Johnson, Stan Kasten, and Mark Walter said after it was announced that they had won the bid to become the new owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers.
And then repeat it.
Verbatim.
* "If we wanted to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and have the privilege of being the custodians of it, we had to do it," Walter said.
* "I'd like the Dodgers to become a multigenerational thing that this partnership owns, that our grandkids own," Walter said. "That we are good community citizens, maybe be a platform for positive change in different areas of philanthropy. As much as you can do philanthropy from any platform, I believe that you can help causes get more positive benefit when you're doing it from a platform like the Dodgers."
* ''Part of the special character of this investment is what Dodger Stadium is, and we hold it in the same esteem as the fans,'' Kasten said.
* Walter said he will remain in the background of the club's daily operations, allowing Kasten to oversee baseball and business matters while Johnson is the caretaker of the image.
"I'm a baseball fan, but I'm not qualified to make baseball decisions, and I don't want to pretend to be,'' said Walter. ''I'm here to support and help my people as much as I can. I'm here to cheer as loud as I can.''
* Walter, CEO of investment manager Guggenheim Partners, which is providing the primary funding for the purchase, was asked if there is any money left to acquire and pay players after the record-breaking purchase price for a North American sports franchise.
"There is," Walter said. "I know Stan is an expert on this topic, as far as what should be done building a roster. My job is to help Stan and Magic accomplish all of our goals, and that's not only on the field, but in the community and philanthropy.
Each of the three stories linked above is worth reading. For a Dodger fan, in the 15 years since the O'Malley family sold the team, there has been tremendous question over what happens to this most storied of franchises. And now there are new owners, lead by three people:
--Magic Johnson. LA loves Magic. And wherever you are, if you do not at least like Magic Johnson, you probably do not have a soul. As the face of the franchise, this is good. But Magic, while planning to be heavily involved, is not putting up the big money or making the baseball decisions.
--Stan Kasten. Kasten led the Braves from 1987 to 2003, as well as some other Turner-owned sports teams in Atlanta. You can look at the Braves during that period. 3 NL West championships, followed by 9 consecutive NL East championships, 5 pennants and one world championship. And several franchise players--Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, David Justice, Chipper Jones, etc. These were not rent a teams, or tear-down and rebuilds, but every year growing the farm teams, and bringing in players through free agency and trade who were there to become part of the team not just for a 2-month pennant run, but for years.
--Mark Walter. The least known, but most important , member of the ownership group. Walter runs a huge financial services firm, and he is putting up the big chunk of this absolutely astounding sale price of $2.15 Billlion. When Magic retires, and Magic retires, Walter's money will still own the Dodgers. Read everything that each of these three men say, but particularly re-read Walter's response to the question of whether the $2.15 Billion paid for the Dodgers (which shatters the record of sale price for a sports franchise set by the $1.1 Billion sale of the Dolphins, and is nearly 2.5 times the recent sale price of the Cubs) was a gross overpayment.
"If we wanted to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and have the privilege of being the custodians of it, we had to do it [pay the $2.15 Billion."
The "privilege" (a right granted as a peculiar benefit or favor) not to be the owners, but to be the "custodians" (one that guards and protects or maintains).
Right now, these are just words. What the new owners do with the Dodgers--with the team, the tradition, the organization, Dodger Stadium--is something that we will see in the weeks and years ahead.
But they are good words. Really good.
Frank McCourt could have said all of these words. But he never did.
Fox/NewsCorp could have said all of these words. But they never did.
Trust, but verify, as President Reagan once said about the then-emerging relations with the Soviet Union. As Dodger fans over the last 15 years, we have been too burned to not keep up our guard, to beware of every promise, and not to believe that every 3-2 pitch will be a backdoor slider. But if Magic, Kasten, and Walter live up to the words that they said yesterday, there will be three words that define this coming new era in Dodger baseball:
Return to Greatness.
And then repeat it.
Verbatim.
* "If we wanted to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and have the privilege of being the custodians of it, we had to do it," Walter said.
* "I'd like the Dodgers to become a multigenerational thing that this partnership owns, that our grandkids own," Walter said. "That we are good community citizens, maybe be a platform for positive change in different areas of philanthropy. As much as you can do philanthropy from any platform, I believe that you can help causes get more positive benefit when you're doing it from a platform like the Dodgers."
* ''Part of the special character of this investment is what Dodger Stadium is, and we hold it in the same esteem as the fans,'' Kasten said.
* Walter said he will remain in the background of the club's daily operations, allowing Kasten to oversee baseball and business matters while Johnson is the caretaker of the image.
"I'm a baseball fan, but I'm not qualified to make baseball decisions, and I don't want to pretend to be,'' said Walter. ''I'm here to support and help my people as much as I can. I'm here to cheer as loud as I can.''
* Walter, CEO of investment manager Guggenheim Partners, which is providing the primary funding for the purchase, was asked if there is any money left to acquire and pay players after the record-breaking purchase price for a North American sports franchise.
"There is," Walter said. "I know Stan is an expert on this topic, as far as what should be done building a roster. My job is to help Stan and Magic accomplish all of our goals, and that's not only on the field, but in the community and philanthropy.
Each of the three stories linked above is worth reading. For a Dodger fan, in the 15 years since the O'Malley family sold the team, there has been tremendous question over what happens to this most storied of franchises. And now there are new owners, lead by three people:
--Magic Johnson. LA loves Magic. And wherever you are, if you do not at least like Magic Johnson, you probably do not have a soul. As the face of the franchise, this is good. But Magic, while planning to be heavily involved, is not putting up the big money or making the baseball decisions.
--Stan Kasten. Kasten led the Braves from 1987 to 2003, as well as some other Turner-owned sports teams in Atlanta. You can look at the Braves during that period. 3 NL West championships, followed by 9 consecutive NL East championships, 5 pennants and one world championship. And several franchise players--Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, David Justice, Chipper Jones, etc. These were not rent a teams, or tear-down and rebuilds, but every year growing the farm teams, and bringing in players through free agency and trade who were there to become part of the team not just for a 2-month pennant run, but for years.
--Mark Walter. The least known, but most important , member of the ownership group. Walter runs a huge financial services firm, and he is putting up the big chunk of this absolutely astounding sale price of $2.15 Billlion. When Magic retires, and Magic retires, Walter's money will still own the Dodgers. Read everything that each of these three men say, but particularly re-read Walter's response to the question of whether the $2.15 Billion paid for the Dodgers (which shatters the record of sale price for a sports franchise set by the $1.1 Billion sale of the Dolphins, and is nearly 2.5 times the recent sale price of the Cubs) was a gross overpayment.
"If we wanted to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and have the privilege of being the custodians of it, we had to do it [pay the $2.15 Billion."
The "privilege" (a right granted as a peculiar benefit or favor) not to be the owners, but to be the "custodians" (one that guards and protects or maintains).
Right now, these are just words. What the new owners do with the Dodgers--with the team, the tradition, the organization, Dodger Stadium--is something that we will see in the weeks and years ahead.
But they are good words. Really good.
Frank McCourt could have said all of these words. But he never did.
Fox/NewsCorp could have said all of these words. But they never did.
Trust, but verify, as President Reagan once said about the then-emerging relations with the Soviet Union. As Dodger fans over the last 15 years, we have been too burned to not keep up our guard, to beware of every promise, and not to believe that every 3-2 pitch will be a backdoor slider. But if Magic, Kasten, and Walter live up to the words that they said yesterday, there will be three words that define this coming new era in Dodger baseball:
Return to Greatness.
Monday, March 26, 2012
ObamaCare Before the Supreme Court Day One: It Only Takes One
It might take just one Supreme Court Justice to adopt today's argument that the Court does not have jurisdiction on the issue to uphold ObamaCare--at least for now.
For this week, the US Supreme Court will be hearing argument on the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—better known as “ObamaCare.” The individual mandate is a small but significant part of the act, and requires each individual to purchase a health insurance plan (unless they have a qualifying employer-or-government-provided insurance plan).
Before we start, it is worth laying out some markers. First, Republicans have taken to referring to the law as “ObamaCare” as if this were some sort of derisive title. As an SNL sketch last year put it, why not call it “Guy-who-killed-bin-Laden-care”? Republicans today may think this is a clever insult, but if LBJ had the foresight to refer to Medicare as “JohnsonCare” he might today be forgiven his legacy of drawing the US into Vietnam. In thirty years, when neo tea baggers are protesting with signs that say “keep your hands off my ObamaCare,” I will be very proud to have been part of the Obama campaign and administration. So as far as I am concerned, we can go ahead and refer to this as ObamaCare.
Second, the arguments this week are only the slightest insight into the Supreme Court’s thinking. Ideally, appellate judges will grill the lawyers on both sides equally. Indeed, a really good judge might take the chance during the argument to really pounce on the side they agree with, in order to tease out the best possible opposing arguments. But we try to read the tea leaves of these arguments, and until the decision comes down in June, there is not much more analysis to be had. So, we will go ahead and completely over-analyze the oral arguments.
Each of the three days of arguments will focus on a different part of the case. Tomorrow will address the main event—whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Wednesday will address the hypothetical question of if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, would all of ObamaCare have to be overturned?
Today’s argument was on a somewhat more obscure question—can the Court even consider this challenge now? The basic issue here is that the individual mandate is enforced through a penalty of $750 per year (in 2016, after being phased in). That penalty is written into the federal tax code, and enforced through the tax collection process. Conceivably, then, it could be argued that the individual mandate is not so much a requirement, but simply a tax for those who do not have health insurance. Under federal law (and Anti-Injunction Act), however, a taxpayer cannot challenge a tax until s/he has first paid that tax. (This rule is in place for obvious reasons—if a taxpayer, particularly a wealthy one, did not like paying taxes, they would not pay, but instead lock the federal government up in litigation for years before it gets its money.) The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014, no person will have to pay the tax until April 15, 2015. If the mandate is a tax, it cannot even be challenged for another three years.
Interestingly, neither the Obama Administration nor the Republican state attorneys general challenging the law have made this argument—in fact they all argue that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prevent these cases from going forward. Because neither side wanted to make the argument, the Court appointed a lawyer, Robert Long, a former Assistant Solicitor General and partner at the law firm of Covington and Burling, to make the argument. While it is normal practice for the Court to ask a lawyer to make a specific argument that no party would make, it does not happen very often. Which at least suggests that this might be interesting.
Most legal commentators believe that this argument will not carry the day. But here is the thing to remember—it only takes one justice to come to this conclusion for this to be the key argument (that is, if it is the right—more specifically a Right—justice).
If we assume that Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg are all going to conclude that the mandate is Constitutional (a good but not sure bet), then ObamaCare supporters need only to convince one of the remaining five conservatives that the mandate is a tax and subject to the anti-injunction act. The Court needs a majority to rule on the case, whether to affirm or reverse, but does not need a consensus on the underlying reasoning (see, e.g. Planned Parenthood v. Casey). If Roberts or Kennedy buy the tax argument, then there is 5-4 majority to dismiss the challenges (reversing the 11th Circuit’s decision), and ObamaCare would stay in place until at least 2015. Many consider this “punting” on the ObamaCare issue, since it would likely mean another challenge in the Supreme Court in 2016 or 2017.
While Chief Justice Roberts may be the most interested (jurisprudentially, personally, and institutionally) in seeing the Court avoid this confused jurisprudence, he and Justice Kennedy might be the most inclined to “punt.” This case is likely the biggest case to come before the Roberts Court (until it ultimately strikes down all bans on gay marriage), and Roberts may well want to put together a large majority ruling. But he may not be able to get there, and could look for a way out. While punting on the issue may not be “clean,” wading into the political thicket with a 5-4 ruling on such a controversial issue might cause a loss of confidence in the Court (see, e.g., Bush v. Gore). As chief justice, he has a lot riding on preserving the Court’s institutional prerogatives and standing in the public eye.
Kennedy is well known as the “swing” vote on the Court, and his “centrism” could be chalked up to trying to avoid the thorniest of questions, especially if the political process can work them out. He would probably be happy to wait until 2015 (when he might not even be on the Court), to see how the politics work out. If Mitt Romney wins the 2012 election, and the Republicans do not repeal the law (as promised), the pressure to overturn ObamaCare would be vitiated. And of course if they did repeal the law, the issue would be moot (for now).
On the other hand if (when, really) the President is re-elected, Republicans in Congress might find themselves acquiescing in ObamaCare as it becomes more popular as its provisions take effect, and it has a positive effect on the deficit. Plus, over the next 4-5 years, the President might have the chance to appoint replacements for Kennedy, Scalia, and even Thomas (Scalia and Kennedy are both in their late-70’s). If Kennedy or Roberts were inclined to uphold the law, this could turn a 5-4 majority into a 7-2 or even 8-1 majority. (By the same token, if either wants to overturn the law, they could be hoping for a Romney win that allows the Republican to appoint replacements for Breyer (73) and/or Ginsburg (79 with a history of cancer), tilting the balance to as much as a 7-2 majority against ObamaCare.)
Imagine then that there are four “liberal” judges who will uphold the law (likely), four conservative judges dead-set on overturning ObamaCare (possible, though less likely). Roberts might come to the conclusion that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, and the Court does not have jurisdiction. (This is a real possibility, as Roberts questioning in oral argument today suggested he might be open to the possibility). In another, much more fun, scenario, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan could all decide that ObamaCare is constitutional and rule against the challengers on the merits; Scalia, Thomas, and Alito might conclude that ObamaCare is unconstitutional and the entire law has to be undone; while a three judge “middle” of Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer believe that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, and that the courts cannot hear a case like this for at least three years. There would then be a scenario with three different opinions, none of them controlling precedent, but a 6-3 vote reversing the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, leaving the law in place for now.
We like to think that the Court is nine legal scholars devoted to the law and nothing else. But we know that the justices are just people, very political, aware of their place in history, and deeply protective of the Court’s institutional prerogative. However you slice it, there are a number of scenarios in which “punting” on the issue might be seen by one or more justices as advantageous to the Court or their long-term goals.
And it just takes one.
For this week, the US Supreme Court will be hearing argument on the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—better known as “ObamaCare.” The individual mandate is a small but significant part of the act, and requires each individual to purchase a health insurance plan (unless they have a qualifying employer-or-government-provided insurance plan).
Before we start, it is worth laying out some markers. First, Republicans have taken to referring to the law as “ObamaCare” as if this were some sort of derisive title. As an SNL sketch last year put it, why not call it “Guy-who-killed-bin-Laden-care”? Republicans today may think this is a clever insult, but if LBJ had the foresight to refer to Medicare as “JohnsonCare” he might today be forgiven his legacy of drawing the US into Vietnam. In thirty years, when neo tea baggers are protesting with signs that say “keep your hands off my ObamaCare,” I will be very proud to have been part of the Obama campaign and administration. So as far as I am concerned, we can go ahead and refer to this as ObamaCare.
Second, the arguments this week are only the slightest insight into the Supreme Court’s thinking. Ideally, appellate judges will grill the lawyers on both sides equally. Indeed, a really good judge might take the chance during the argument to really pounce on the side they agree with, in order to tease out the best possible opposing arguments. But we try to read the tea leaves of these arguments, and until the decision comes down in June, there is not much more analysis to be had. So, we will go ahead and completely over-analyze the oral arguments.
Each of the three days of arguments will focus on a different part of the case. Tomorrow will address the main event—whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Wednesday will address the hypothetical question of if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, would all of ObamaCare have to be overturned?
Today’s argument was on a somewhat more obscure question—can the Court even consider this challenge now? The basic issue here is that the individual mandate is enforced through a penalty of $750 per year (in 2016, after being phased in). That penalty is written into the federal tax code, and enforced through the tax collection process. Conceivably, then, it could be argued that the individual mandate is not so much a requirement, but simply a tax for those who do not have health insurance. Under federal law (and Anti-Injunction Act), however, a taxpayer cannot challenge a tax until s/he has first paid that tax. (This rule is in place for obvious reasons—if a taxpayer, particularly a wealthy one, did not like paying taxes, they would not pay, but instead lock the federal government up in litigation for years before it gets its money.) The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014, no person will have to pay the tax until April 15, 2015. If the mandate is a tax, it cannot even be challenged for another three years.
Interestingly, neither the Obama Administration nor the Republican state attorneys general challenging the law have made this argument—in fact they all argue that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prevent these cases from going forward. Because neither side wanted to make the argument, the Court appointed a lawyer, Robert Long, a former Assistant Solicitor General and partner at the law firm of Covington and Burling, to make the argument. While it is normal practice for the Court to ask a lawyer to make a specific argument that no party would make, it does not happen very often. Which at least suggests that this might be interesting.
Most legal commentators believe that this argument will not carry the day. But here is the thing to remember—it only takes one justice to come to this conclusion for this to be the key argument (that is, if it is the right—more specifically a Right—justice).
If we assume that Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg are all going to conclude that the mandate is Constitutional (a good but not sure bet), then ObamaCare supporters need only to convince one of the remaining five conservatives that the mandate is a tax and subject to the anti-injunction act. The Court needs a majority to rule on the case, whether to affirm or reverse, but does not need a consensus on the underlying reasoning (see, e.g. Planned Parenthood v. Casey). If Roberts or Kennedy buy the tax argument, then there is 5-4 majority to dismiss the challenges (reversing the 11th Circuit’s decision), and ObamaCare would stay in place until at least 2015. Many consider this “punting” on the ObamaCare issue, since it would likely mean another challenge in the Supreme Court in 2016 or 2017.
While Chief Justice Roberts may be the most interested (jurisprudentially, personally, and institutionally) in seeing the Court avoid this confused jurisprudence, he and Justice Kennedy might be the most inclined to “punt.” This case is likely the biggest case to come before the Roberts Court (until it ultimately strikes down all bans on gay marriage), and Roberts may well want to put together a large majority ruling. But he may not be able to get there, and could look for a way out. While punting on the issue may not be “clean,” wading into the political thicket with a 5-4 ruling on such a controversial issue might cause a loss of confidence in the Court (see, e.g., Bush v. Gore). As chief justice, he has a lot riding on preserving the Court’s institutional prerogatives and standing in the public eye.
Kennedy is well known as the “swing” vote on the Court, and his “centrism” could be chalked up to trying to avoid the thorniest of questions, especially if the political process can work them out. He would probably be happy to wait until 2015 (when he might not even be on the Court), to see how the politics work out. If Mitt Romney wins the 2012 election, and the Republicans do not repeal the law (as promised), the pressure to overturn ObamaCare would be vitiated. And of course if they did repeal the law, the issue would be moot (for now).
On the other hand if (when, really) the President is re-elected, Republicans in Congress might find themselves acquiescing in ObamaCare as it becomes more popular as its provisions take effect, and it has a positive effect on the deficit. Plus, over the next 4-5 years, the President might have the chance to appoint replacements for Kennedy, Scalia, and even Thomas (Scalia and Kennedy are both in their late-70’s). If Kennedy or Roberts were inclined to uphold the law, this could turn a 5-4 majority into a 7-2 or even 8-1 majority. (By the same token, if either wants to overturn the law, they could be hoping for a Romney win that allows the Republican to appoint replacements for Breyer (73) and/or Ginsburg (79 with a history of cancer), tilting the balance to as much as a 7-2 majority against ObamaCare.)
Imagine then that there are four “liberal” judges who will uphold the law (likely), four conservative judges dead-set on overturning ObamaCare (possible, though less likely). Roberts might come to the conclusion that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, and the Court does not have jurisdiction. (This is a real possibility, as Roberts questioning in oral argument today suggested he might be open to the possibility). In another, much more fun, scenario, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan could all decide that ObamaCare is constitutional and rule against the challengers on the merits; Scalia, Thomas, and Alito might conclude that ObamaCare is unconstitutional and the entire law has to be undone; while a three judge “middle” of Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer believe that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, and that the courts cannot hear a case like this for at least three years. There would then be a scenario with three different opinions, none of them controlling precedent, but a 6-3 vote reversing the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, leaving the law in place for now.
We like to think that the Court is nine legal scholars devoted to the law and nothing else. But we know that the justices are just people, very political, aware of their place in history, and deeply protective of the Court’s institutional prerogative. However you slice it, there are a number of scenarios in which “punting” on the issue might be seen by one or more justices as advantageous to the Court or their long-term goals.
And it just takes one.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Big Misunderstanding of Republican Delegate Math
Michael Steele was actually the chair of the Republican National Committee until a little more than a year ago. And yet he seems to have very little understanding of how his own party’s primary works. On MSNBC tonight, he said that “even Newt” should not think about getting out right now because “the numbers work in their favor.” According to Steele, other than the 4-6 states that are winner-take-all, “whether he comes in first place or fourth place, he’s going to grab something”—that “something” presumably being delegates. This fits right into the Republican meme of the moment that Newt should stay in the race, because he will help deny Romney the nomination.
What is astounding about this is that the Republicans pushing this theme—including the man that led the party when it had a massive mid-term electoral victory—obviously have close to no understanding of how their party’s nominee for President is selected.We will get to the question of whether the Republican primary race is, as we keep hearing, “all about the delegate math” below (preview: it’s not). But just from a standpoint of racking up delegates (or even preventing Romney from accumulating delegates), Newt is killing Santorum. Killing him. And what’s more, he is doing it in a fashion that could end up earning him no more delegates from here on out.
While in the past, many Republican primaries were “winner-take-all affairs” (where the winner of a state got all that state’s delegates), for the 2012 primary, Republicans eliminated most of those in favor of some “proportional” contests. But not all “proportional” elections are the same. The actual rules for delegate selection vary from state to state, and can be found on-line at the Green Papers . In most places, it is not a matter of getting 35% of the delegates if you get 35% of the vote. Most of the contests award delegates based on votes in the Congressional district. For instance, in California (the largest stash of delegates for both parties), of the 169 pledged delegates, 159 are awarded based on the winner in each of the state’s 53 Congressional districts. In each district, the candidate who wins the plurality of the vote gets all three delegates. The remaining 10 delegates go to the plurality winner of the statewide vote. If there is still a four-way race (with Mitt, Santorum, Newt, and Paul) contesting the nomination by the time of the June 5 California primary, you could imagine statewide vote of 42-33-20-5. In that event, the margin is such that Mitt could conceivably win every Congressional district, gobbling up 3 delegates per district, and take the 10 statewide delegates. So even though the combined conservative pair of Santorum and Newt were to outpoll Mitt by 10 points, Mitt would end up with ALL 169 delegates. Santorum and Newt would get none. (Even if Santorum were able to win in some of the state’s more conservative/inland districts, you would have to figure Mitt would win at least 30 to no more than 23 for Santorum, ending up with a delegate breakdown of 100-69 in favor of Mitt, and none for Newt. And that is generous.)
New York, the third largest state in terms of Republican delegates, is set up similarly to California. Romney could (in theory) end up with all of the delegates from New York, and almost surely with a disproportionate share of delegates, even if the combined conservative vote beat him. Pennsylvania (where Santorum could win) and Illinois are effectively similar. And we see at this hour that they are still figuring out the delegate count in Illinois, where even though Romney carried less than 50% of the vote, he is going to have a big majority in the delegate count. (Both Illinois and Pennsylvania holds a “Loophole” primary. Nate Silver gives a good explanation of what that means at fivethrityeight.com. Essentially, there is a straw poll on the ballot, but the voters actually directly elect delegates who have declared a preference—this creates a somewhat complicated system that could have some funky results, but in the end the candidate who wins the congressional district will probably come away with all the delegates in that district.)
Texas has the closest thing to a real proportional system, but it is still proportional in each Congressional district. Moreover, it is subject to a 20% viability threshold. Suppose, then, that Santorum runs close, but Newt comes in under 20%. The vote could be 40-35-19-6. Mitt “wins” the state, but the conservative bloc of Newt/Santorum kill him 54-40. That’s a landslide. But since Newt and Paul both finish under 20%, they would get zero delegates. Which means that Mitt walks away with a majority of delegates (more than 54%), even while getting creamed. (This assumes that the vote is consistent state-wide—that is unlikely, but the basic principle will hold). In short, the system favors a winner, disproportionately. And it is rather shocking that pundits, candidates, and party chairman seem to have absolutely no idea about this. It is the most atrocious case of vote counting by Republicans since Willie Brown managed to keep the Speaker’s Chair in the California State Assembly after Democrats lost the 1994 elections.
It should be noted that this case is not yet even about the delegate math. Like the guns of August, it is all too easy to compare this race to the 2008 Democratic primary, where it was about the delegate count. But the thing to remember is that then-Senator Obama clearly led by every metric--he had raised more money, had a larger and better paid staff, a larger volunteer organization, and had all the intangibles that are preferred in a Democratic Primary, and from the moment voting started, Obama grabbed a lead in delegates and grew it for two months straight (the night of the New Hampshire primary was the only primary day where Clinton did not lose ground—even though Clinton won, both candidates left with 9 delegates; in Nevada, although Cliton “won” the vote, Obama won the delegate count 13-12). But the media still considered Hillary the front-runner (for a host of reasons), until, at the Obama campaign’s urging, the media finally paid attention to the delegate count. By the time Clinton scored her first net gain of delegates in the first week of March, Obama had gained a clear, and what would prove to be, insurmountable lead. That is not the case here. Romney leads in every metric—fundraising, staff, organization—by leaps and bounds. And in the delegate count, he has more than the rest of the field combined. If things keep up at this rate, he may limp to the nomination—but he will win it.Santorum still needs a "game changer." He needs to win the big state, change the dynamic, and perhaps even take the lead in national polls (or make them close) which he cannot really do as long as he and Newt are splitting the vote. Most importantly, he needs that game change to happen soon. He needs money now if he wants to challenge in New York a month from now—and he needs money within a month if he hopes to put up a campaign in the big expensive states of Texas (May 29) and California (June 5), where is where the largest numbers of delegates will come from. Until that happens, it is fun to watch the Republicans circular firing squad, but it does not have much suspense.
There may be reasons this consolidation is not happening: Newt loves being a candidate and his campaign needs very little money for him to continue his tour of zoos and cherry blossoms. Santorum may well be angling for front-runner status in 2016 (after all, Republican nominees tend to be the runner-up in the last nomination contest). And Michael Steele may be repeating the claptrap just to show that the RNC was right to replace him even after a successful mid-term election.But if conservatives really want to stop Romney, it is clear that they need to consolidate behind Santorum.
My fourth-grade niece understands this basic facet of politics. She lost her campaign for student body secretary (a race I lost to Kim Mucha) because there were two girls and one boy, and the boys consolidated while the girls split the vote. As long as conservatives are divided in the same way, Mitt will win.
What is astounding about this is that the Republicans pushing this theme—including the man that led the party when it had a massive mid-term electoral victory—obviously have close to no understanding of how their party’s nominee for President is selected.We will get to the question of whether the Republican primary race is, as we keep hearing, “all about the delegate math” below (preview: it’s not). But just from a standpoint of racking up delegates (or even preventing Romney from accumulating delegates), Newt is killing Santorum. Killing him. And what’s more, he is doing it in a fashion that could end up earning him no more delegates from here on out.
While in the past, many Republican primaries were “winner-take-all affairs” (where the winner of a state got all that state’s delegates), for the 2012 primary, Republicans eliminated most of those in favor of some “proportional” contests. But not all “proportional” elections are the same. The actual rules for delegate selection vary from state to state, and can be found on-line at the Green Papers . In most places, it is not a matter of getting 35% of the delegates if you get 35% of the vote. Most of the contests award delegates based on votes in the Congressional district. For instance, in California (the largest stash of delegates for both parties), of the 169 pledged delegates, 159 are awarded based on the winner in each of the state’s 53 Congressional districts. In each district, the candidate who wins the plurality of the vote gets all three delegates. The remaining 10 delegates go to the plurality winner of the statewide vote. If there is still a four-way race (with Mitt, Santorum, Newt, and Paul) contesting the nomination by the time of the June 5 California primary, you could imagine statewide vote of 42-33-20-5. In that event, the margin is such that Mitt could conceivably win every Congressional district, gobbling up 3 delegates per district, and take the 10 statewide delegates. So even though the combined conservative pair of Santorum and Newt were to outpoll Mitt by 10 points, Mitt would end up with ALL 169 delegates. Santorum and Newt would get none. (Even if Santorum were able to win in some of the state’s more conservative/inland districts, you would have to figure Mitt would win at least 30 to no more than 23 for Santorum, ending up with a delegate breakdown of 100-69 in favor of Mitt, and none for Newt. And that is generous.)
New York, the third largest state in terms of Republican delegates, is set up similarly to California. Romney could (in theory) end up with all of the delegates from New York, and almost surely with a disproportionate share of delegates, even if the combined conservative vote beat him. Pennsylvania (where Santorum could win) and Illinois are effectively similar. And we see at this hour that they are still figuring out the delegate count in Illinois, where even though Romney carried less than 50% of the vote, he is going to have a big majority in the delegate count. (Both Illinois and Pennsylvania holds a “Loophole” primary. Nate Silver gives a good explanation of what that means at fivethrityeight.com. Essentially, there is a straw poll on the ballot, but the voters actually directly elect delegates who have declared a preference—this creates a somewhat complicated system that could have some funky results, but in the end the candidate who wins the congressional district will probably come away with all the delegates in that district.)
Texas has the closest thing to a real proportional system, but it is still proportional in each Congressional district. Moreover, it is subject to a 20% viability threshold. Suppose, then, that Santorum runs close, but Newt comes in under 20%. The vote could be 40-35-19-6. Mitt “wins” the state, but the conservative bloc of Newt/Santorum kill him 54-40. That’s a landslide. But since Newt and Paul both finish under 20%, they would get zero delegates. Which means that Mitt walks away with a majority of delegates (more than 54%), even while getting creamed. (This assumes that the vote is consistent state-wide—that is unlikely, but the basic principle will hold). In short, the system favors a winner, disproportionately. And it is rather shocking that pundits, candidates, and party chairman seem to have absolutely no idea about this. It is the most atrocious case of vote counting by Republicans since Willie Brown managed to keep the Speaker’s Chair in the California State Assembly after Democrats lost the 1994 elections.
It should be noted that this case is not yet even about the delegate math. Like the guns of August, it is all too easy to compare this race to the 2008 Democratic primary, where it was about the delegate count. But the thing to remember is that then-Senator Obama clearly led by every metric--he had raised more money, had a larger and better paid staff, a larger volunteer organization, and had all the intangibles that are preferred in a Democratic Primary, and from the moment voting started, Obama grabbed a lead in delegates and grew it for two months straight (the night of the New Hampshire primary was the only primary day where Clinton did not lose ground—even though Clinton won, both candidates left with 9 delegates; in Nevada, although Cliton “won” the vote, Obama won the delegate count 13-12). But the media still considered Hillary the front-runner (for a host of reasons), until, at the Obama campaign’s urging, the media finally paid attention to the delegate count. By the time Clinton scored her first net gain of delegates in the first week of March, Obama had gained a clear, and what would prove to be, insurmountable lead. That is not the case here. Romney leads in every metric—fundraising, staff, organization—by leaps and bounds. And in the delegate count, he has more than the rest of the field combined. If things keep up at this rate, he may limp to the nomination—but he will win it.Santorum still needs a "game changer." He needs to win the big state, change the dynamic, and perhaps even take the lead in national polls (or make them close) which he cannot really do as long as he and Newt are splitting the vote. Most importantly, he needs that game change to happen soon. He needs money now if he wants to challenge in New York a month from now—and he needs money within a month if he hopes to put up a campaign in the big expensive states of Texas (May 29) and California (June 5), where is where the largest numbers of delegates will come from. Until that happens, it is fun to watch the Republicans circular firing squad, but it does not have much suspense.
There may be reasons this consolidation is not happening: Newt loves being a candidate and his campaign needs very little money for him to continue his tour of zoos and cherry blossoms. Santorum may well be angling for front-runner status in 2016 (after all, Republican nominees tend to be the runner-up in the last nomination contest). And Michael Steele may be repeating the claptrap just to show that the RNC was right to replace him even after a successful mid-term election.But if conservatives really want to stop Romney, it is clear that they need to consolidate behind Santorum.
My fourth-grade niece understands this basic facet of politics. She lost her campaign for student body secretary (a race I lost to Kim Mucha) because there were two girls and one boy, and the boys consolidated while the girls split the vote. As long as conservatives are divided in the same way, Mitt will win.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Ownership Changes: Bad to Worse
Pretty much everyone has wanted Frank McCourt to sell the Dodgers, so that the team and the city could finally be done with the psycho-drama of the McCourt divorce, the team’s bankruptcy, and all the other horrible accompanying details. After McCourt, folks figured, it simply had to get better. After all, it couldn’t get any worse.
Or could it.
The news is out today that the pool of bidders for the world’s most storied franchise is down to seven, and the pool has me worried.
Already, Peter O’Malley, whose family owned an interest in the team for more than a half-century (when Walter first became a minority shareholder in 1944 until Peter sold the team to Fox in 1997), opted out of the process after advancing to the second round. O’Malley was apparently concerned that he could not win because he was one of the early McCourt critics. O’Malley was undoubtedly the right owner—the Dodgers won all six world championships during that time, went from nearly bankrupt to the jewel of the baseball, and had organizational stability that would make the Yankees drool.
Next, local developer Rick Caruso, who had smartly enlisted the aid of former manager and MLB executive Joe Torre, dropped his bid for the team because McCourt refused to even negotiate on the parking lots adjoining Dodger Stadium. This is an important note, because it suggests a very scary idea—that McCourt may hope to keep himself somehow involved in Dodger affairs after the team itself is sold. While Torre was more of the front man, and probably not bringing too many dollars to the table, he was a solid get for Caruso, demonstrating a smart business and baseball mind. And Caruso himself is a local guy who at least seemed committed to the team and community. He was probably the second best bidder.
The field is now down to: St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke; Beverly Hills-based real estate developer Alan Casden; New York Observer owner and Donld Trum son-in-law Jared Kushner; Magic Johnson and veteran baseball executive Stan Kasten; a group led by Stanley Gold and the family of the late Roy Disney; New York media executive Leo Hindery in partnership with Tom Barrack, chairman of Santa Monica-based Colony Capital; and Connecticut investor Steven Cohen and longtime Los Angeles agent Arn Tellem.
Let’s take these one at a time to see if there is anything good in the pile.
We start with Stan Kroenke. Kroenke owns the St. Louis Rams. I am not sure I need to go on to demonstrate how bad that is.
Kroenke obtained a minority interest in the Rams when they moved from “Los Angeles” (or “Anaheim of Los Angeles,” in Angels parlance) to Missouri and blackmailed the city there to build it a new stadium. But Kroenke did not control the team during its few winning seasons. Since buying out the heirs of Georgia Frontiere in 2010, he has been blackmailing the city of St. Louis to build him yet another new football stadium, and the consensus view is the Rams are destined to move again. Rich sports owners with billions of dollars should not be living off the public dole and coercing cities to build them newstadiums (Walter O’Malley did not either, thus Dodger Stadium was privately financed), and in Kroenke, we may see him immediately trying to abandon Dodger Stadium for just this purpose. Kroenke used to own sports teams in Denver, where he has been close to Phil Anschutz (they are now held by his son, because NFL rules prohibit owning teams in different markets). Anschutz, of course, has stakes in the Staples Center, and has been a mover in plans to build a new downtown football stadium.
Two strong possibilities exist with a Kroenke move (beyond copying the Rams futility): he could seek to move the Rams to LA with a new football stadium in Chavez Ravine. And while this sounds fine at first, the scenario probably imagines partnering with Frank McCourt to house the stadium on the parking lots surrounding Dodger Stadium. So you get the Rams with Frank McCourt involvement—does anyone think that is a good idea? Or, a potential partnership with Anschutz pushing for a Downtown Los Angeles stadium, giving up the perfection of Chavez Ravine while trying to blackmail the city into helping them finance the deal.
Admittedly, the concerns about Kroenke are just speculation—maybe everything would be OK with him. But if you do not like speculation about a new owner’s plans, here is hard fact about Alan Casdan: when bidding on the Dodgers in 2003, the LA Times reported: “Casdan contends that by razing Dodger Stadium and relocating the team a few miles down the 110 Freeway, he could offer a markedly better experience for fans -- and at the same time provide thousands of new housing units in Chavez Ravine.”
The Times quoted him as saying: “They knock down stadiums all the time. Dodger Stadium is not an antique. It’s not Frank Lloyd Wright. It’s a nice place to play baseball, but there are far better.”
Think about that for just a moment. Better places to play baseball than Dodger Stadium?
If you want to argue Wrigley Field is better, it is an interesting argument (but still wrong). If you want to argue Fenway, at least you can argue history (but you are still wrong—and Fenway is pretty much a pit). While it is fair to say that some investment still needs to be made in Dodger Stadium, the third oldest stadium in baseball still looks new and is remains the best stadium in baseball. A new owner must to be committed to Dodger Stadium—not just because of its inherent greatness, but also because the alternative would be an attempt to blackmail the city into building a new stadium, for which the taxpayers simply should not pay. (Fortunately, Angelenos have consistently refused to pay for such corporate welfare, but an insistent owner would then put the team’s future in jeopardy).
Casdan is actual proof that Frank McCourt was not the worst possible owner when Fox sold the team in 2003—and he may get his chance now.
Jared Kushner is the 31-year old son-in-law of Donald Trump. Should I say more? His father—from whom it seems inevitable that Kushner got his money—was convicted of tax evasion in 2005. Allegedly, he is not involved in the bid. Nor is Trump. With those assurances, Kushner is willing to sell you his holding in an historic piece of construction that spans the East River from Manhattan to Long Island.
Those are just the nightmare scenarios. These are the people who, if they buy the Dodgers, will likely mean that I have to become an Angels fan. But the “good” bidders are not that great. For starters, remember the problem that Caruso and Torre had with the bidding—Frank McCourt would not negotiate with the parking lots. So each of these groups may be leaving the door open to the guy who TJ Simers has presciently called the Parking Lot Attendant.
Magic Johnson, of course, stands out. Magic is rich, but not Dodgers rich—enough to pay $1.5 Billion for the team. He comes with Stan Kasten, who helped pilot the Nationals out of MLB-ownership (and the Nats have put together a decent organization). But the real money in this group comes from Mark Walter and his global financial services firm Guggenheim Partners. I cannot find too much about Walter, and he has happily stayed in the background, which is smart. But I do not see any ties to LA. The rumors are strong that this group might bring Patrick Soon-Shiong into the group, reportedly the richest man in LA and the basketball fan who bought out Magic’s interest in the Lakers. This all sounds good. But Magic is still not a baseball guy, and we have no idea what this group’s commitment is to Dodger Stadium or Dodger tradition. So, it is a leap of faith.
The Gold/Disney group brings the same questions. Magic/Kasten/Guggenheim bring sports ownership knowledge and an LA face, but their commitment to LA is a question. Gold/Disney certainly has the community connection. Gold/Disney were the key movers to fight off a takeover bid of Disney in the early 1980’s and bring in Michael Eisner, which was a big success. Twenty years later, they turned dissident and eventually forced Eisner out—something which most in the industry think of as a success. And while Disney is a global brand, it is firmly a Los Angeles company. But the Dodgers are not Disney, and Roy Disney (the nephew of Walt) has since passed away. But they are a maybe.
Hindery/Barrack is questionable. Hindery is a New Yorker, who has been involved in sports media. He was President of the YES Netwoerk that Steinbrenner and the Yankees built, so he knows something about the business (of course, Steinbrenner was forever complaining about historic Yankee Stadium and the Bronx, although the new Yankee Stadium ended up being right next door, based on history, and mostly privately financed, so maybe Steinbrenner was just working the umpire). Barrack is local, and has invested in small sports teams. So maybe there is hope. But very little is known about these possible owners.
Steve Cohen is known as the Hedge Fund King. He is a New Yorker who is making a purchase of a minority stake in the Mets. This does not sound like a commitment to the Dodgers to me (though he would apparently sell his interest in the Mets). Cohen is apparently making all the right moves, with agent Arn Tellem. He has engaged a sports management firm and has hired Populous (formerly HOK Sports), the firm that has built about half of the new baseball parks, including Camden Yards and AT&T Park (or whatever the Gints are calling their home field this week). Supposedly, Populous is looking only at improvements to Dodger Stadium, and civic leaders like Eli Broad and David Geffen have given their seal of approval to him. But we have been waiting on Broad for a decade to help save the team, and if Cohen uses his Hedge Fund money to flip Chavez Ravine and try to bully the city into a throwback ballpark, we have problems.
These are scary times for a Dodger fan. The players group of Steve Garvey/Orel Hershiser group never made it past the first round. Nor did former GM Fred Claire. And Mark Cuban, who might be outspoken but has proven in basketball that he knows what he is doing, was almost always unlikely at the Dodgers’ inflated price, and also eliminated in the first round. The ideal owner to get back to the Dodgers’ core values took himself out of the running, and the big local financier with the best baseball guy on board pulled out because McCourt was not acting in good faith. That leaves three disasters and four question marks, all of whom appear to be willing to let McCourt have some involvement in the team’s history. This is not good.
The settlement between MLB and McCourt gives Frank way too much ability to make this determination. Meanwhile, the last line of defense is MLB’s ability to approve or reject potential owners, a right which they ceded far too much of, leaving it to Commissioner Bud Selig to play hardball and force McCourt to sell his interest in the parking lots and to one of the ownership groups that might have a chance at succeeding, which means our fate is in the hands of the guy who is responsible for inter-league play, the cancellation of the 1994 World Series, the 2002 All-Star Tie, the Milwaukee Brewers, and for approving McCourt in the first place.
Things have gone from bad to worse.
Or could it.
The news is out today that the pool of bidders for the world’s most storied franchise is down to seven, and the pool has me worried.
Already, Peter O’Malley, whose family owned an interest in the team for more than a half-century (when Walter first became a minority shareholder in 1944 until Peter sold the team to Fox in 1997), opted out of the process after advancing to the second round. O’Malley was apparently concerned that he could not win because he was one of the early McCourt critics. O’Malley was undoubtedly the right owner—the Dodgers won all six world championships during that time, went from nearly bankrupt to the jewel of the baseball, and had organizational stability that would make the Yankees drool.
Next, local developer Rick Caruso, who had smartly enlisted the aid of former manager and MLB executive Joe Torre, dropped his bid for the team because McCourt refused to even negotiate on the parking lots adjoining Dodger Stadium. This is an important note, because it suggests a very scary idea—that McCourt may hope to keep himself somehow involved in Dodger affairs after the team itself is sold. While Torre was more of the front man, and probably not bringing too many dollars to the table, he was a solid get for Caruso, demonstrating a smart business and baseball mind. And Caruso himself is a local guy who at least seemed committed to the team and community. He was probably the second best bidder.
The field is now down to: St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke; Beverly Hills-based real estate developer Alan Casden; New York Observer owner and Donld Trum son-in-law Jared Kushner; Magic Johnson and veteran baseball executive Stan Kasten; a group led by Stanley Gold and the family of the late Roy Disney; New York media executive Leo Hindery in partnership with Tom Barrack, chairman of Santa Monica-based Colony Capital; and Connecticut investor Steven Cohen and longtime Los Angeles agent Arn Tellem.
Let’s take these one at a time to see if there is anything good in the pile.
We start with Stan Kroenke. Kroenke owns the St. Louis Rams. I am not sure I need to go on to demonstrate how bad that is.
Kroenke obtained a minority interest in the Rams when they moved from “Los Angeles” (or “Anaheim of Los Angeles,” in Angels parlance) to Missouri and blackmailed the city there to build it a new stadium. But Kroenke did not control the team during its few winning seasons. Since buying out the heirs of Georgia Frontiere in 2010, he has been blackmailing the city of St. Louis to build him yet another new football stadium, and the consensus view is the Rams are destined to move again. Rich sports owners with billions of dollars should not be living off the public dole and coercing cities to build them newstadiums (Walter O’Malley did not either, thus Dodger Stadium was privately financed), and in Kroenke, we may see him immediately trying to abandon Dodger Stadium for just this purpose. Kroenke used to own sports teams in Denver, where he has been close to Phil Anschutz (they are now held by his son, because NFL rules prohibit owning teams in different markets). Anschutz, of course, has stakes in the Staples Center, and has been a mover in plans to build a new downtown football stadium.
Two strong possibilities exist with a Kroenke move (beyond copying the Rams futility): he could seek to move the Rams to LA with a new football stadium in Chavez Ravine. And while this sounds fine at first, the scenario probably imagines partnering with Frank McCourt to house the stadium on the parking lots surrounding Dodger Stadium. So you get the Rams with Frank McCourt involvement—does anyone think that is a good idea? Or, a potential partnership with Anschutz pushing for a Downtown Los Angeles stadium, giving up the perfection of Chavez Ravine while trying to blackmail the city into helping them finance the deal.
Admittedly, the concerns about Kroenke are just speculation—maybe everything would be OK with him. But if you do not like speculation about a new owner’s plans, here is hard fact about Alan Casdan: when bidding on the Dodgers in 2003, the LA Times reported: “Casdan contends that by razing Dodger Stadium and relocating the team a few miles down the 110 Freeway, he could offer a markedly better experience for fans -- and at the same time provide thousands of new housing units in Chavez Ravine.”
The Times quoted him as saying: “They knock down stadiums all the time. Dodger Stadium is not an antique. It’s not Frank Lloyd Wright. It’s a nice place to play baseball, but there are far better.”
Think about that for just a moment. Better places to play baseball than Dodger Stadium?
If you want to argue Wrigley Field is better, it is an interesting argument (but still wrong). If you want to argue Fenway, at least you can argue history (but you are still wrong—and Fenway is pretty much a pit). While it is fair to say that some investment still needs to be made in Dodger Stadium, the third oldest stadium in baseball still looks new and is remains the best stadium in baseball. A new owner must to be committed to Dodger Stadium—not just because of its inherent greatness, but also because the alternative would be an attempt to blackmail the city into building a new stadium, for which the taxpayers simply should not pay. (Fortunately, Angelenos have consistently refused to pay for such corporate welfare, but an insistent owner would then put the team’s future in jeopardy).
Casdan is actual proof that Frank McCourt was not the worst possible owner when Fox sold the team in 2003—and he may get his chance now.
Jared Kushner is the 31-year old son-in-law of Donald Trump. Should I say more? His father—from whom it seems inevitable that Kushner got his money—was convicted of tax evasion in 2005. Allegedly, he is not involved in the bid. Nor is Trump. With those assurances, Kushner is willing to sell you his holding in an historic piece of construction that spans the East River from Manhattan to Long Island.
Those are just the nightmare scenarios. These are the people who, if they buy the Dodgers, will likely mean that I have to become an Angels fan. But the “good” bidders are not that great. For starters, remember the problem that Caruso and Torre had with the bidding—Frank McCourt would not negotiate with the parking lots. So each of these groups may be leaving the door open to the guy who TJ Simers has presciently called the Parking Lot Attendant.
Magic Johnson, of course, stands out. Magic is rich, but not Dodgers rich—enough to pay $1.5 Billion for the team. He comes with Stan Kasten, who helped pilot the Nationals out of MLB-ownership (and the Nats have put together a decent organization). But the real money in this group comes from Mark Walter and his global financial services firm Guggenheim Partners. I cannot find too much about Walter, and he has happily stayed in the background, which is smart. But I do not see any ties to LA. The rumors are strong that this group might bring Patrick Soon-Shiong into the group, reportedly the richest man in LA and the basketball fan who bought out Magic’s interest in the Lakers. This all sounds good. But Magic is still not a baseball guy, and we have no idea what this group’s commitment is to Dodger Stadium or Dodger tradition. So, it is a leap of faith.
The Gold/Disney group brings the same questions. Magic/Kasten/Guggenheim bring sports ownership knowledge and an LA face, but their commitment to LA is a question. Gold/Disney certainly has the community connection. Gold/Disney were the key movers to fight off a takeover bid of Disney in the early 1980’s and bring in Michael Eisner, which was a big success. Twenty years later, they turned dissident and eventually forced Eisner out—something which most in the industry think of as a success. And while Disney is a global brand, it is firmly a Los Angeles company. But the Dodgers are not Disney, and Roy Disney (the nephew of Walt) has since passed away. But they are a maybe.
Hindery/Barrack is questionable. Hindery is a New Yorker, who has been involved in sports media. He was President of the YES Netwoerk that Steinbrenner and the Yankees built, so he knows something about the business (of course, Steinbrenner was forever complaining about historic Yankee Stadium and the Bronx, although the new Yankee Stadium ended up being right next door, based on history, and mostly privately financed, so maybe Steinbrenner was just working the umpire). Barrack is local, and has invested in small sports teams. So maybe there is hope. But very little is known about these possible owners.
Steve Cohen is known as the Hedge Fund King. He is a New Yorker who is making a purchase of a minority stake in the Mets. This does not sound like a commitment to the Dodgers to me (though he would apparently sell his interest in the Mets). Cohen is apparently making all the right moves, with agent Arn Tellem. He has engaged a sports management firm and has hired Populous (formerly HOK Sports), the firm that has built about half of the new baseball parks, including Camden Yards and AT&T Park (or whatever the Gints are calling their home field this week). Supposedly, Populous is looking only at improvements to Dodger Stadium, and civic leaders like Eli Broad and David Geffen have given their seal of approval to him. But we have been waiting on Broad for a decade to help save the team, and if Cohen uses his Hedge Fund money to flip Chavez Ravine and try to bully the city into a throwback ballpark, we have problems.
These are scary times for a Dodger fan. The players group of Steve Garvey/Orel Hershiser group never made it past the first round. Nor did former GM Fred Claire. And Mark Cuban, who might be outspoken but has proven in basketball that he knows what he is doing, was almost always unlikely at the Dodgers’ inflated price, and also eliminated in the first round. The ideal owner to get back to the Dodgers’ core values took himself out of the running, and the big local financier with the best baseball guy on board pulled out because McCourt was not acting in good faith. That leaves three disasters and four question marks, all of whom appear to be willing to let McCourt have some involvement in the team’s history. This is not good.
The settlement between MLB and McCourt gives Frank way too much ability to make this determination. Meanwhile, the last line of defense is MLB’s ability to approve or reject potential owners, a right which they ceded far too much of, leaving it to Commissioner Bud Selig to play hardball and force McCourt to sell his interest in the parking lots and to one of the ownership groups that might have a chance at succeeding, which means our fate is in the hands of the guy who is responsible for inter-league play, the cancellation of the 1994 World Series, the 2002 All-Star Tie, the Milwaukee Brewers, and for approving McCourt in the first place.
Things have gone from bad to worse.
Monday, February 06, 2012
The Reality of Democratic Primaries
“I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on in here!”
Marta Evry at “Venice for Change” offers a column about the various Democrat-on-Democrat primaries taking place in California, and the spending by the state legislative leaders. She claims that it “raises troubling questions” for Speaker John Perez and other state leaders. But the fact is that this
The fact that state legislative leaders are contributing to campaigns of their allies is not surprising, is not news (certainly not to anyone in the 53rd AD), and represents some of the LEAST egregious exercises of power by Sacramento leadership. Moreover, this post seems to posit this is a failure by the legislative leadership rather than the natural result of the political decision-making process, and suggests that primary challengers like Torie Osborn are good-natured victims of this scenario, rather than part of the reasons (good and bad) which drive these results.
First. Shocking. I was almost as stunned by this as when the Sun rose in the East this morning. I mean seriously, that has happened to me some 5832 times in a row. Who could have guessed that it would happen a 5833rd time! After all, if Tom Brady can’t complete 17 consecutive SuperBowl passes, what is the chance that the Sun would keep up a streak like this, much less politicians would engage in politics.
This column even explains why this type of thing happens. The “labor-intensive fundraising isn't practical for sitting lawmakers trying to legislate during a 2-year election cycle[, s]o the caucus pools resources through their individual campaign committees.” The caucus is something of a mutual beneficial society. So when an incumbent, like Betsy Butler or Mike Allen is challenged, the first goal is to make sure that those who are busy legislating and do not have the time to put into a continuous fund-raising cycle, have the financial resources to get re-elected. It is naturally the first goal to provide for the legislators who contribute to the effort. Complaining about this is like asking for an insurance company to pay the uninsured before paying off claims to people who have paid their policy premiums.
Today’s scenario is not that bad. Those of us in the 53rd AD remember when the Sacramento leadership came into the 53rd AD during the 2005 Special Election for the open seat left when Mike Gordon passed away. Even though two good Democratic candidates were seeking the relatively safe seat, legislative leadership came in with big money (and political threats) to force out one of the candidates, and then dumped a bunch of money to win without a run-off, even though our new Assemblyman took office after all the votes for the session had concluded. And 2005 does not compare to the story that a friend and mentor told me about his first run for the state assembly in 1974, against an incumbent Republican. Willie Brown and Leo McCarthy were both competing for the Speakership as Bob Moretti was leaving to run (unsuccessfully) for Governor, and this then-young man dutifully visited both of them, seeking their blessing. Brown chose another Democrat to support, in the hopes of getting his vote when the legislature convened after the election. McCarthy also did not back him, as he had good relations with the Republican who held the seat, and preferred him to any Democrat (or, at least to spending the resources that it would take to get a Democrat elected to the seat). Today’s Sacramento leadership getting involved on behalf of Democratic incumbents—even in safe Democratic seats—is nowhere near as bad as times like these, and surely many more, where legislative leaders have gotten involved in open seat races or even tacitly supported Republicans.
Second, the idea that Sacramento leaders are pushing money towards incumbents like Butler and Allen now, rather than challengers like Murastuchi and Galigani, is a normal part of the political process. If the goal is to get to a two-thirds majority, than the road to getting to 54 seats starts with locking down the 52 we already hold. The election is 9 months from now, and the strategy for picking up those two extra seats will be determined as we get closer to the election. Over the next few months, challengers may prove to be very successful—they may raise a lot of money, earn broad-ranging endorsements, and build strong political organizations. If the President’s coattails are strong, we will be able to expand the field and contest a lot of extra seats as we try to get to 54 seats. On the other hand, political head-winds might be strongly against us; although the Republicans lining up in the 66th AD now appear to be a couple of Tea Bag Partiers, it could still draw a challenger like moderate Republican Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin; or these new challengers, yet untested in politics, might prove over time that they are painfully poor candidates (imagine pouring a bunch of money into a candidate that proves to be as effective as Martha Coakley) or beset by scandal (like Herman Cain). The reality is as the issue landscape, the economic realities, and the polls take shape, decisions will be made as to whether we can expand our majority, and hopefully candidates like Murastuchi and Galigani will be targeted for support by leaders in Sacramento. But those decisions are premature now.
Finally, this post says that this process raises “troubling questions for Speaker John Perez and Sacramento Democrats.” But the questions are no more troublesome for Democratic challengers like Torie Osborn. If the goal is to achieve a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly, then why is Osborn mounting a primary (and, with the new Cajun Primary rules, likely a November) challenge? Osborn has already raised more than half a million dollars, forcing Butler to raise similar amounts to defend her seat. Both women will probably triple that figure (or more) if they both go to November, meaning there will be more than $3 Million spent on a campaign to hold a safe Democratic seat. That money could fund campaigns in two different swing Assembly Districts like the new 66th AD, and since money and organization is not an infinite supply, Democratic chances of gaining a two-thirds majority in 2012 are hurt by these intra-party challenges. Certainly, there is no question about Butler’s support for the issues that form the core of Osborn’s campaign—environmental protection, LGBT issues, women’s rights. And in the era of term limits, Osborn could have waited a mere four years, when Butler was termed out, and sought the seat then. If Osborn is committed to Democratic principles, then doesn’t she have an obligation to put those goals above her personal ambition? And if she is unwilling to do this, it would seem to raise questions about her that are just as troubling as the ones allegedly raised for Speaker Perez.
There are real problems in California politics—lots of them—and money and its sources are amongst several of those problems. There is no doubt that that it is critical for local Democrats to build up grass-roots organizations so that candidates are responsible to local voters, not Sacramento leaders and special interest PACs. But this column by Marta (a big Osborn supporter) is meant to portray her as a victim of politics. But there is nothing particularly angelic about Osborn’s campaign—which has used hard edged tactics to wrest endorsements of local Democratic clubs, paying in bulk for new Members, who are imported from hours away to show up to vote at one meeting, never to be heard from again. The reality is that all of these factors—Betsy Butler’s decision on where to run, Speaker Perez’s efforts to support Butler and other incumbents, and challenges by candidates like Torie Osborn are pretty standard fare in politics. The messy truth is that that result of the combination of decisions ends up being sub-optimal (at best) for Democrats in November, but none of these actions are shocking nor particularly troubling. And while it would be nice for someone to put the greater good first, no one here is doing that, and expecting someone to blink first is optimistic, but not very realistic.
Marta Evry at “Venice for Change” offers a column about the various Democrat-on-Democrat primaries taking place in California, and the spending by the state legislative leaders. She claims that it “raises troubling questions” for Speaker John Perez and other state leaders. But the fact is that this
The fact that state legislative leaders are contributing to campaigns of their allies is not surprising, is not news (certainly not to anyone in the 53rd AD), and represents some of the LEAST egregious exercises of power by Sacramento leadership. Moreover, this post seems to posit this is a failure by the legislative leadership rather than the natural result of the political decision-making process, and suggests that primary challengers like Torie Osborn are good-natured victims of this scenario, rather than part of the reasons (good and bad) which drive these results.
First. Shocking. I was almost as stunned by this as when the Sun rose in the East this morning. I mean seriously, that has happened to me some 5832 times in a row. Who could have guessed that it would happen a 5833rd time! After all, if Tom Brady can’t complete 17 consecutive SuperBowl passes, what is the chance that the Sun would keep up a streak like this, much less politicians would engage in politics.
This column even explains why this type of thing happens. The “labor-intensive fundraising isn't practical for sitting lawmakers trying to legislate during a 2-year election cycle[, s]o the caucus pools resources through their individual campaign committees.” The caucus is something of a mutual beneficial society. So when an incumbent, like Betsy Butler or Mike Allen is challenged, the first goal is to make sure that those who are busy legislating and do not have the time to put into a continuous fund-raising cycle, have the financial resources to get re-elected. It is naturally the first goal to provide for the legislators who contribute to the effort. Complaining about this is like asking for an insurance company to pay the uninsured before paying off claims to people who have paid their policy premiums.
Today’s scenario is not that bad. Those of us in the 53rd AD remember when the Sacramento leadership came into the 53rd AD during the 2005 Special Election for the open seat left when Mike Gordon passed away. Even though two good Democratic candidates were seeking the relatively safe seat, legislative leadership came in with big money (and political threats) to force out one of the candidates, and then dumped a bunch of money to win without a run-off, even though our new Assemblyman took office after all the votes for the session had concluded. And 2005 does not compare to the story that a friend and mentor told me about his first run for the state assembly in 1974, against an incumbent Republican. Willie Brown and Leo McCarthy were both competing for the Speakership as Bob Moretti was leaving to run (unsuccessfully) for Governor, and this then-young man dutifully visited both of them, seeking their blessing. Brown chose another Democrat to support, in the hopes of getting his vote when the legislature convened after the election. McCarthy also did not back him, as he had good relations with the Republican who held the seat, and preferred him to any Democrat (or, at least to spending the resources that it would take to get a Democrat elected to the seat). Today’s Sacramento leadership getting involved on behalf of Democratic incumbents—even in safe Democratic seats—is nowhere near as bad as times like these, and surely many more, where legislative leaders have gotten involved in open seat races or even tacitly supported Republicans.
Second, the idea that Sacramento leaders are pushing money towards incumbents like Butler and Allen now, rather than challengers like Murastuchi and Galigani, is a normal part of the political process. If the goal is to get to a two-thirds majority, than the road to getting to 54 seats starts with locking down the 52 we already hold. The election is 9 months from now, and the strategy for picking up those two extra seats will be determined as we get closer to the election. Over the next few months, challengers may prove to be very successful—they may raise a lot of money, earn broad-ranging endorsements, and build strong political organizations. If the President’s coattails are strong, we will be able to expand the field and contest a lot of extra seats as we try to get to 54 seats. On the other hand, political head-winds might be strongly against us; although the Republicans lining up in the 66th AD now appear to be a couple of Tea Bag Partiers, it could still draw a challenger like moderate Republican Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin; or these new challengers, yet untested in politics, might prove over time that they are painfully poor candidates (imagine pouring a bunch of money into a candidate that proves to be as effective as Martha Coakley) or beset by scandal (like Herman Cain). The reality is as the issue landscape, the economic realities, and the polls take shape, decisions will be made as to whether we can expand our majority, and hopefully candidates like Murastuchi and Galigani will be targeted for support by leaders in Sacramento. But those decisions are premature now.
Finally, this post says that this process raises “troubling questions for Speaker John Perez and Sacramento Democrats.” But the questions are no more troublesome for Democratic challengers like Torie Osborn. If the goal is to achieve a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly, then why is Osborn mounting a primary (and, with the new Cajun Primary rules, likely a November) challenge? Osborn has already raised more than half a million dollars, forcing Butler to raise similar amounts to defend her seat. Both women will probably triple that figure (or more) if they both go to November, meaning there will be more than $3 Million spent on a campaign to hold a safe Democratic seat. That money could fund campaigns in two different swing Assembly Districts like the new 66th AD, and since money and organization is not an infinite supply, Democratic chances of gaining a two-thirds majority in 2012 are hurt by these intra-party challenges. Certainly, there is no question about Butler’s support for the issues that form the core of Osborn’s campaign—environmental protection, LGBT issues, women’s rights. And in the era of term limits, Osborn could have waited a mere four years, when Butler was termed out, and sought the seat then. If Osborn is committed to Democratic principles, then doesn’t she have an obligation to put those goals above her personal ambition? And if she is unwilling to do this, it would seem to raise questions about her that are just as troubling as the ones allegedly raised for Speaker Perez.
There are real problems in California politics—lots of them—and money and its sources are amongst several of those problems. There is no doubt that that it is critical for local Democrats to build up grass-roots organizations so that candidates are responsible to local voters, not Sacramento leaders and special interest PACs. But this column by Marta (a big Osborn supporter) is meant to portray her as a victim of politics. But there is nothing particularly angelic about Osborn’s campaign—which has used hard edged tactics to wrest endorsements of local Democratic clubs, paying in bulk for new Members, who are imported from hours away to show up to vote at one meeting, never to be heard from again. The reality is that all of these factors—Betsy Butler’s decision on where to run, Speaker Perez’s efforts to support Butler and other incumbents, and challenges by candidates like Torie Osborn are pretty standard fare in politics. The messy truth is that that result of the combination of decisions ends up being sub-optimal (at best) for Democrats in November, but none of these actions are shocking nor particularly troubling. And while it would be nice for someone to put the greater good first, no one here is doing that, and expecting someone to blink first is optimistic, but not very realistic.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Rick Santorum’s Eloquent Defense of the Dream Act and a Constitutional Right to Privacy
Rick Santorum had the best debate tonight. He was sharp where needed, smart throughout, and on a number of occasions gave very eloquent statements on his positions. My favorites were his defense of the DREAM Act and a Constitutional Right to Privacy.
Yes, that is right. Santorum’s statements could not be seen as anything but unambiguous arguments in favor of those positions.
On immigration, Santorum said that:
This of course begs the question of what a child is supposed to do who was brought to this country without their knowledge or choice, who has followed the law, gone to school, and seeks nothing more than to go to college, raise a family, contribute to society, and have a piece of the American Dream? What would Santorum do with these children who have no ties to any other country, no familiarity with any other culture, and who have not done anything wrong. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to stay?
Given this, why do Rick Santorum and the Republican Party oppose the American DREAM Act?
Yes, that is right. Santorum’s statements could not be seen as anything but unambiguous arguments in favor of those positions.
On immigration, Santorum said that:
What I’ve said is, from the very beginning, that we have to have a country
that not only do you respect the law when you come here, but respect the law
when you stay here. And people who have come to this country illegally
have broken the law repeatedly. If you are here, unless you are here on a
trust fund, you’ve been working, illegally. You have probably stolen
someone’s social security number, illegally. And so it’s not just one
thing that you’ve done wrong, you’ve done a lot of things wrong. And as a
result of that, I believe that people should not be able to stay here.
This of course begs the question of what a child is supposed to do who was brought to this country without their knowledge or choice, who has followed the law, gone to school, and seeks nothing more than to go to college, raise a family, contribute to society, and have a piece of the American Dream? What would Santorum do with these children who have no ties to any other country, no familiarity with any other culture, and who have not done anything wrong. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to stay?
Given this, why do Rick Santorum and the Republican Party oppose the American DREAM Act?
* * *
Santorum was even better in responding to a question about how faith would affect his decisions if he were President, he gave one of the most eloquent explanations of our republic.. Santorum pointed out that the “foundational documents” of our country are not just the Constitution, but also the Declaration of Independence, which he explained is the “Why” of America, “who we are as a people.”
He then quoted that great declaration:
He then quoted that great declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights.
As Santorum explained: “The Constitution is there to do one thing: protect god given rights. That’s what makes America different than every other country in the world. . . . If . . . rights come to us from the state, everything government gives you, it can take away. The role of the government is to protect rights that cannot be taken away. . . . But understand where those rights come from, who we are as Americans, and the foundational principles by which we have changed the world.”
In all honesty, anybody seeking to understand the American experiment would do well to listen to his answer on this subject. I obviously do not agree with Rick Santorum often—but I fully agree with him on this. The problem is that it begs the question—does Rick Santorum and the Republican Party believe in this?
Just this month, Santorum reiterated the basic concept that has been at the heart of the Republican Party platform for 40 years—that there is no right to privacy. In asking whether a state could ban a person from using birth control, Santorum said: “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the supreme court, they are creating right, and they should be left up to the people to decide.”
This does not make much sense. If rights are a gift of god, then how can they be “left up to the people to decide”? Santorum, and the Republican Party in general, has held fast to the concept that, if a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it does not exist. That has led Republicans to oppose the right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), and the rights that naturally flow from that—the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion (Roe v. Wade); the rights of gay and lesbian men and women to have sex (Lawrence v. Texas).
Santorum did not finish his reading of the Declaration of Independence tonight. He forgot the next clause, where the Declaration said that “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Declaration of Independence does not end its list of rights—rather it begins the list with some basic ones, and indicates that there are (potentially many) more. Indeed, as Sam Seaborn once pointed out, a founder from Mitt Gingrich's home state of Georgia was opposed to the Bill of Rights because “If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer.”
The framers agreed with Rick Santorum’s defense of human rights. They wrote in the Declaration of Independence “[t]hat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is therefore confounding that a man who can so eloquently explain that the Constitution exists to protect rights—including privacy and choice—can spend his political career opposing these rights.
In all honesty, anybody seeking to understand the American experiment would do well to listen to his answer on this subject. I obviously do not agree with Rick Santorum often—but I fully agree with him on this. The problem is that it begs the question—does Rick Santorum and the Republican Party believe in this?
Just this month, Santorum reiterated the basic concept that has been at the heart of the Republican Party platform for 40 years—that there is no right to privacy. In asking whether a state could ban a person from using birth control, Santorum said: “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the supreme court, they are creating right, and they should be left up to the people to decide.”
This does not make much sense. If rights are a gift of god, then how can they be “left up to the people to decide”? Santorum, and the Republican Party in general, has held fast to the concept that, if a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it does not exist. That has led Republicans to oppose the right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), and the rights that naturally flow from that—the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion (Roe v. Wade); the rights of gay and lesbian men and women to have sex (Lawrence v. Texas).
Santorum did not finish his reading of the Declaration of Independence tonight. He forgot the next clause, where the Declaration said that “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Declaration of Independence does not end its list of rights—rather it begins the list with some basic ones, and indicates that there are (potentially many) more. Indeed, as Sam Seaborn once pointed out, a founder from Mitt Gingrich's home state of Georgia was opposed to the Bill of Rights because “If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer.”
The framers agreed with Rick Santorum’s defense of human rights. They wrote in the Declaration of Independence “[t]hat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is therefore confounding that a man who can so eloquently explain that the Constitution exists to protect rights—including privacy and choice—can spend his political career opposing these rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)