Dick Blumenthal has lied about his service about Vietnam while also failing to correct newspapers who also incorrectly credited him for fighting in Vietnam.
Yesterday several states held their primaries for the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections. The biggest news, however, came as a result of a New York Post article that will pay off big for the GOP. Attorney General Dick Blumenthal is far and away the leading contender to win the Democratic primary in August. A new story broke out yesterday, however, saying that Blumenthal has been lying about his service in the Vietnam War. The New York Times article pointed out several instances on the campaign trail in which he has referred to his Vietnam service, but also brings to light the contradictions in those comments by proving he has not been to Vietnam. Blumenthal was never in Vietnam and his campaign has not corrected newspapers that have written about his service. He claims that the report is an “outrageous distortion” of his comments and that he misspoke. That’s like saying someone with a GED claiming he has a Harvard law degree misspoke. He didn’t misspeak, he blatantly lied. The fact that Democrats are trying to rationalize this behavior by saying they honor his service no matter what is just plain stupid. Completely irrational behavior cannot be rationalized. That’s an important mantra to live by if you don’t want to be an idiot.
A few weeks ago I basically wrote my endorsement for Linda McMahon to replace the retiring Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT). In that article I stated that I believed the three biggest things McMahon had to do now in order to win Connecticut’s Senatorial seat were getting past the Republican primary without Rob Simmons exposing her too much, touting her business leadership experience while downplaying WWE controversies, and using her vast resources to continue the media blitz. In the Rasmussen poll taken in March, McMahon was down 29 points to Blumenthal and had lots of work ahead of her in order to win the election. The latest Rasmussen poll taken earlier this month shows that McMahon is now only 13 points behind, gaining more than half the ground she needed in just two months. So even before Blumenthal’s lies were exposed, McMahon was already successfully convincing Connecticutians that she would make the best Senator for the state of Connecticut.
The Connecticut Senatorial race is now getting national attention and Linda McMahon has the resources to ensure that this is an issue that will not be dropped. This is not to say that she should stray from her positive advertisements that have touted her own character by call others’ characters into question. However, this is an issue that should not be left alone so finding that middle ground will be crucial for her campaign. Lying about war service is a serious character flaw for someone who will be representing the country on behalf of Connecticut. It is the job of both McMahon and her Republican counterpart, Rob Simmons, to call point out the major character flaws of Dick Blumenthal. They need to ensure this story stays nationally relevant for as long as possible because races that have gotten national attention have tended to favor the conservative Republicans (Paul in Kentucky, Rubio in Florida, etc.).The longer the Republicans can keep this story running on mainstream media, the more likely a current supporter of Blumenthal may switch their allegiance over to Linda McMahon. Instilling the ‘Dick Blumenthal fabricated his own war service’ statement in the minds of every Connecticut resident has just become a top priority in this election. The next few months could prove to be big for the conservative movement, but a big misstep by Blumenthal may cost the Democrats a notoriously liberal seat in the Senate, one that hasn’t elected a Republican Senator since Lowel Weicker, Jr. in 1970.
Filed under: Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin Then: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to our state."
Sarah Palin is planning on releasing her new book, “America by Heart,” this November. In the almost two years in which Sarah Palin has been a national political figure, Palin has been subject to the large crowds that love her, the media questioning her intelligence, and scandal (most notably the wardrobe scandal during the 2008 Presidential Election). Prior to August 29, 2008, Sarah Palin was virtually unknown. In fact, with all the media coverage I watched and all the articles and blogs I read, the only person I know who predicted her to be John McCain’s running mate (let alone know anything about her) was my old housemate Luke Markushewski. During the immediate rise of Palin two extreme points of view about her were created. People either loved her for her social conservatism or they hated her for her perceived stupidity. At the time, I found myself relatively in the middle. I liked her because she helped bring the McCain campaign more much needed enthusiasm and disliked her because the public’s view of her was greatly hurting McCain’s chances. Basically it was a safe way of avoiding to answer the important question about her: Do you believe Sarah Palin is a good politician?
I never fully believed that Sarah Palin was stupid. When the Alaskan governor was announced as McCain’s running mate in 2008, there were four political issues discussed more than anything else about her. (1) She is a staunch social conservative, especially on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. (2) She is also a staunch fiscal conservative who helped guide Alaska’s economy. (3) She worked towards positive energy solutions in a state where finding clean energy is so important. (4) She is a second amendment activist and a member of the NRA. So before the majority of the public ever heard her speak she had a strikingly positive record, at least as far as Republicans saw her. Sarah Palin was not a stupid person, but she was out of touch on many issues outside of those four, most notably international relations. Not being a politician in one of the 48 states in the continental United States put Palin at an extreme disadvantage which made her sound stupid in interviews. During the famous Katie Couric interview, she seemed baffled by questions that dealt with those international issues and therefore stumbled several times in answering. It was also clear that she had trouble in answering the federal economy issues. Despite what she had done for Alaska’s economy, answering those questions also seemed to be tougher for her. Unfortunately for the GOP, the economy and Iraq/Afghanistan were the two biggest issues of the election. So although the liberal media and Saturday Night Live fueled the public perception that Palin is a stupid person, I think it is more appropriate to say that she was very much out of touch with the American people and failed when being abruptly thrown into the national spotlight.
Sarah Palin Now: "It's time for Americans across this great country to stand up and say 'We're all Arizonans now.' And in clear unison we say, 'Mr. President: Do your job. Secure our border.'"
Sarah Palin has spent her time since the losing bid in the 2008 Election changing the public perception of her. Although not viewed this way by many at the time, the best political move by Palin was resigning as the Governor of Alaska. Whether the intention for her resignation was money-related or politically motivated, the move is paying huge dividends in both categories. This is not the same Sarah Palin from 2008 anymore. The new Sarah Palin is seen as the political leader of the Tea Party movement and is showing more tenacity and more fight than she ever showed during the McCain campaign. While Palin was partially blamed for McCain’s drop in the polls in 2008, McCain saw a boost in the polls for this year’s Arizona Senatorial Elections when Palin joined his campaign. She has not sold out her ideologies in order to make a better name for herself, but rather she is taking advantage of current political sentiments that apply to her beliefs and using those groups as a pedestal to prove to people she has changed. She is playing to her strengths and is finally sounding like a strong politician should sound like. Palin has been the keynote speaker at rallies and conventions for months now and by attacking liberals on immigration, job creations, gun rights, and more.
Whether you like it not, Sarah Palin is now the face of the conservative movement and the comeback of Reaganism. She is making news more often than any other Republican Presidential candidate. Her leaving Alaska was the best career move she could do because being so far away prevented the majority of the country from knowing what she was doing. Staying in Alaska would not give Palin the opportunities for press coverage that she is getting now that she has the podium to stand in front of. I do not support Sarah Palin as the GOP’s candidate for the presidency in 2012, but it is starting to become a real possibility for other conservatives. That by no means implies I do not support Palin as a politician, because I do believe Palin has a strong future if she were to run for Senate in four years (assuming her presidency campaign fails). Mitt Romney still remains my top choice as the presidential candidate (and I would even vote for Mike Huckabee over Palin), but Palin has shifted my personal view of her and continues to change the minds of many other Americans.
Filed under: Congress
D.C. politicians have a lot on their plate right now. The oil spill in the Gulf Coast continues to spread towards the coastline as the blame game continues between Congress and BP. The other blame game in Washington involves the banks as Goldman Sachs and the feds continue to battle it out. The unemployment rate and home foreclosures are still unsolved issues affecting the daily lives of Americans. The Arizona immigration law is sparking protests and riots across the nation. The economic disaster in Greece and the Euro bailout is causing panic in the United States as last week the Dow Jones dropped nearly one thousand points before slightly rebounding. The Times Square bomb scare has opened our eyes to potentially new terror techniques from the Pakistani Taliban. Tensions continue to rise with Middle Eastern countries after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s controversial speech at the non-proliferation conference at the UN last week and the reported tension between President Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. But rest assured America, toilet reform is now in the works.
A few Representatives are looking to waste taxpayer money to decrease the size of lines for women at federal facilities.
The House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee began hearings yesterday on the “Potty Parity Act.” Basically this bill seeks to create gender equality in bathrooms of any federal building. This means the amount of bathrooms in the building must be the same and the amount of urinals/toilets must also be the same. Has gender equality and women’s rights really gotten to the point where the last remaining complaints have to do not with the quality of the bathrooms, but the equality of the federal facilities? I really hoped that this bill was an April Fools prank that came too late, but Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) assures it is no laughing matter. “The fact is, it’s not a joke. Not only is it not a joke to women, it’s not a joke to men who go with the women who have to wait while they’re standing in line.” Let me get this straight. We’re going to spend taxpayers’ money so that whipped boyfriends don’t have to wait for the women to finish up? Although the Congressional Budget Office has not said how much this bill will cost yet, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it will cost millions to renovate the bathroom facilities in every federal building, every federal park, every federal prison, etc. across the nation.
A major reason that has been cited for the need of this bill has been the health problems associated with waiting on line for the bathroom. Now maybe I’m too young to understand bladder control issues, but I also don’t need to understand it for two reasons. (1) I have the common sense to know that when nature calls, you should head to the bathroom to avoid the abdominal pain this bill mentions. I cannot imagine that these lines are so drastically long that by the time you get to the bathroom feeling the normal urge to go, you will be in unbearable pain by the time you relieve yourself. If that is the case, then you are probably a moron for not trying to go sooner. I’ve been to plenty of sporting events in my life where it is an art trying to find the right moment to head to the men’s room without needing to wait on a long line. Sometimes I play that game wrong and end up seemingly on the verge of explosion as I wait for halftime to end. That’s my own fault for not going and dealing with the dreaded line. However, the committee isn’t referring to a sporting event with thousands of people guzzling down drink after drink. We are talking about women in federal buildings. (2) This bill mentions nothing about prior urinary complications or IBS as reasons for attempting to cut these lines shorter for women. The physical health risks it discusses refer to the risks caused when actually waiting on those lines. Now maybe I’m wrong in assuming that these lines are not the size of the lines to ride Kingda Ka at Six Flags Great Adventure. How long can these lines be for the women’s bathroom that they are actively causing health risks? And better yet, how long are women taking in federal bathrooms that the wait becomes so long? If I am wrong to assume these lines are never catastrophically long, then please take a picture of the lines to get into the women’s bathroom at a federal building to prove to me that I am in fact wrong.
You are wrong Mr. Cohen, this bill is a joke. It is a joke to think that this is considered to be a legitimate issue of gender inequality. If we are going to pass “potty parity” legislation, then I would like for there to be a stipulation in the bill that states that men’s bathrooms in these same federal buildings must have couches in them if there are couches in the women’s bathrooms in the same building. Women typically get a couch in their bathrooms, so it’s only fair that men get a couch as well. Not to say I would ever sit on such an unsanitary thing, but doesn’t it only seems fair to waste even more tax dollars to make the facilities truly equal? It is a joke that our lawmakers had to discuss this item today when there are far greater issues that need be dealt with. It is a joke that our tax dollars are now quite literally being flushed away. This is just another example of making laws just because those in power wish to utilize power whenever possible. This isn’t reform, this is wasteful spending. I don’t see the public speaking out against the great crimes of bathroom lines. I don’t hear boyfriends calling for change so they don’t have to awkwardly stand outside the women’s bathroom like a puppy waiting for a treat. Cohen and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the co-sponsor of the bill, need to realize that their number one priority does not literally mean that how one goes number one is a priority.
President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.
President Barack Obama announced that Elena Kagan is his next U.S. Supreme Court nominee. This is really only the beginning for Elena Kagan, who I have referred to as the “fear of the unknown” candidate on Obama’s short list. There were really only two hopes I had while waiting for Obama to name his nomine. The first is that I would prefer ANYONE as the nominee over Diane Wood. Obama could have nominated a homeless guy from D.C. and I think he would have been a better fit than the extreme liberal (/socialist) Wood. My other hope was that Merrick Garland, a judge for the D.C. Court of Appeals, would be nominated because he was considered to be the most moderate possibility and the most likely to get through the confirmation process without major issues. Merrick Garland is still considered a liberal as opposed to a moderate, but a shift towards the middle, similar to what Justice Anthony Kennedy did, was a strong possibility and would have effectively shifted the ideological power more towards conservatism. A minuscule shift is likely considered because hardly anybody expects Kagan to be as liberal as Judge John Paul Stevens, whom Kagan is replacing, was on the Court.
I cannot say that I am terribly disappointed in Obama’s decision to nominate Elena Kagan. There was no way I was ever going to be completely satisfied with an Obama choice, so I rely my feelings of the nomination on the fact that Obama was clearly going to take advantage of the opportunity of naming his second justice in just two years of service and that he was definitely going to put a liberal on the Court. My hope, however, was that he would pick the most moderate liberal from his short list. So with that said, my “approval” for this choice comes with a few major flaws. Other top choices including Wood and Janet Napolitano among others were considered to be more liberal than Kagan and Merrick as proven by their records. Elena Kagan does not have a written record to refer to because she has no judging experience. Leave it to a President with hardly any political experience to name a long term Supreme Court candidate with no judging experience (Not to mention that nominating what will be the youngest Justice to the Supreme Court ensures his decision becomes a part of his legacy only adds to his presidential narcissism). This is not to say, however, that she has no law experience. She was the dean of Harvard School of Law and is currently solicitor general where she argues cases on behalf of the United States. But she has neither issued nor written an opinion. This is going to be the primary concern for both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee as that “fear of the unknown” sets in. I would like to think that the process could be a simple one where both sides come to relative agreement on a candidate, but there is always the possibility that Kagan will answer one of the crucial questions with controversy.
One question that will undoubtedly create a stir is the miltary’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. As the Harvard Law dean, she tried to keep military recruiters off the campus in opposition to this policy. Her school policy was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court in a friend-of-the-court brief. Many conservative bloggers have also raised the question about her sexuality. I am by no means implying that any of these accusations are true. These individuals have no proof that she will be the first openly gay Supreme Court justice other than the fact that she is a 50 years old and single. I personally think it is an erroneous accusation until she becomes openly gay, but Republican Senators are going to try to push the envelope during the confirmation hearings. It would be political suicide for them to explicitly question her sexuality, but since her “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” view is the only known clear cut controversial topic about her, Republicans would be smart to bombard her with questions about that issue as well as same-sex marriage issues. If Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are able to convince the public that she is a lesbian based solely on her gay rights views, it will give social conservatives in Congress enough reason to vote against her in support of their constituents.
Now it probably seems that it is my top wish that Elena Kagan does not get voted into the Court but that is not 100% true, although it’s not 100% false either. Part of me hopes the process goes swiftly without many problems, but a big part of me also hopes that because the public knows so little about Kagan in regards to her potential as a judge, a failure to get voted in would be seen as a catastrophic failure for Obama and Congressional Democrats with the midterm elections coming up. In other words, I’d like to see a quick process because it’s something the American people probably need in order to see a bipartisan effort for once, but I’d also like to see Republican Revolution Version 2.0 and another Obama failure would help catapult that as Election Day nears. Had Merrick Garland or Diane Wood been nominated, I likely would have done a series of posts similar to what I did for the Arizona immigration bill, but there isn’t enough to discuss about Kagan in terms of her record. The confirmation hearings are going to be very interesting and engaging as Elena Kagan looks to join Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer as the liberals of the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ll learn a great deal about Elena Kagan over the coming weeks and months, but a confirmation vote is not expected until August.
Up to this point in writing the blog I have discussed federal and state issues almost exclusively, but today I am going to briefly touch on a local issue. I live in Ridgefield, CT and tomorrow the town will be voting on the new Board of Finance budget. I urge all Ridgefielders to go and vote NO on all nine questions on the budget referendum. This bill will only cost the town’s taxpayers more money and here’s the kicker: it won’t even do anything to improve the town’s education. The money that is being appropriated is wasteful and anyone who believes this money will go towards good is misled in their assumptions. It is difficult to read through the Ridgefield Press this week and avoid the issue, but here are my quick two cents regarding the budget vote.
Here is the basic fact of the case. The town plans on spending $2 million that will result in an immediate 1.97% for all town residents (at least for now- that number will in all likelihood increase in a matter of months). This comes at a time when many Ridgefielders are still facing the effects of the tough economy. The town has never seen this many foreclosures and almost 70 residents remain unemployed. The town plans to expand the kindergarten program to full-time (as opposed to the current half-time program they have had for years) which will result in a $700,000 increase to the elementary program. The Board of Education claims that this increase is necessary for the early development of young children and prepares them for the rest of their education. This is a blatant waste of money. The kindergarten program in Ridgefield has worked as is since well before I attended kindergarten. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with expanding educational programs that are useful, but is giving a five year old another couple hours to figure out how to count to 10 and build Lego forts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the average middle class worker on a strict budget as I am. Other questions on the addendums include appropriating $44.7 million to give our moronic First Selectman to operate town departments (which is 3% more than last year), and other budget financing issues. The main issue on tomorrow’s ballot, however, remains to be over the kindergarten issue where supporters claims it prepares kids for school, but we should not be paying more for a program that does little for education reform. The Board of Education should be looking to figure out cost-cutting solutions to what they see as “problems,” not punishing the taxpayers when many of us will be paying for programs that will not pay dividends.
I encourage all Ridgefielders to cast a NO on each of the questions on the addendum ballot. Any Ridgefield taxpayer may vote tomorrow (including non-resident taxpayers) at Yanity Gym between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. You can find the most up-to-the minute news on the issue here, and I will post the results of the vote once they become available. Make sure your tax money goes to necessary programs, not increased for unnecessary ones.
Update (5/11/10)- All items on the addendum were approved by the voters. The school budget that expanded the kindergarten program passed by a vote of 2,578 Yes to 2,366 No.
Filed under: Offshore Drilling
The oil containment vessel was dropped dropped into the Gulf Coast yesterday as BP begins efforts to fix the oil spill.
BP is finally trying to clean up the disastrous mess left by their exploding oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico by dropping a 100-ton concrete oil containment vessel that is meant to capture a huge quantity of the oil that will ship back to the shore. A reader recently commented to me that based on my post from a few weeks ago, I probably should view this as a reason for why I was right in not wanting Obama to expand offshore drilling programs. This is not true. The two main points I wanted to get across in that post were (1) that offshore drilling is a great thing, but Obama’s plan in particular would do little to lower gas prices in the short term compared to expanding on the existing offshore drilling along the west coast and Alaska and (2) that Obama’s plan was just another example of a broken promise he gave to get elected. I firmly believe that offshore drilling is beneficial and is necessary if we ever want to become less dependent on foreign oils, but I just did not necessarily agree with the means in which Obama was doing it. The oil spill has been devastating for the affected coastlines and for the wildlife in the area. I feel great sympathy for those who were killed in the explosion and those in Louisiana whose jobs and food supplies are now also affected. This incident does not, however, change my stance on the need for more offshore drilling.
Recently taken Rasmussen Poll Reports have shown that 58% of Americans still support offshore drilling after this accident, which is 14 points down from the 72% that supported it after President Obama made the announcement to lift the ban on the east coast and Gulf of Mexico. The answer to a problem should never be to eliminate the idea that caused the problem. For example, imagine that you decided to attend medical school. You get past your first semester with all A’s and B’s. Things are going great, but then you fail Anatomy in the second semester. Do you decide that this is too much of a catastrophe in your life and therefore drop out of medical school or do you re-group next semester with better grades and work at getting a passing grade in Anatomy? Even if your impulse is telling you that you will decide to drop out, what are you planning on doing instead? Do you have any sort of plan or was being a doctor your primary life plan? You were doing fine in all your other classes, but Anatomy was the big bump in the road. Throwing your entire future away for an unknown future sounds ridiculous when all we are talking about is one bad grade. As I just said earlier, your answer to that failing grade should not be to drop out of medical school, but rather that grade should be motivation to do better in future classes and to make you work harder towards achieving the goal of getting your medical license.
The same can be said of offshore drilling. The oil rig explosion, the ensuing sludge of oil killing wildlife and spreading towards the coastline, and the hesitation by both BP and the government to act on the issue is undoubtedly a failure as far as offshore drilling goes. This represents the worst case scenario, just as you can’t get worse than an ‘F’ in Anatomy. Obama and Congress would be wrong to do a major overhaul on energy solutions that would result in less offshore drilling. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they should just sit back and do nothing either though. Just like in the medical student’s scenario, Washington should be working towards safer offshore drilling so that we can prevent another mess like this. These disasters are few and far between with the last major oil spill like this was the Exxon Valdese along the Alaskan coastline in 1989. We should be striving towards getting as close as possible to the idealistic goal of eliminating these spills as well as hold companies liable for damages and repairs so that we don’t have to wait for someone to step in and do something. If we were to take into consideration the other unlikely extreme, which would be to eliminate offshore drilling altogether, then we would be left relying completely on foreign oils and already high gas prices will continue to rise. As Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently put it, “every barrel we can find in the United States is one less we import from OPEC. And today, some of the dollars we spend on imported oil find their way into the hands of terrorists who wish to harm our nation.” Ultimately we must not overlook the great harm this oil spill has caused, but we also must remain calm and not overreact to the situation. It is always better to amend a plan than to scratch it when one thing goes wrong. Successful offshore drilling is to be considered a great accomplishment for this country, just as graduating medical school would be a great individual accomplishment for that student who couldn’t pass Anatomy in his first try. This oil spill should be a motivator to make the system of offshore drilling better.
Protesters gathered outisde Wrigley Field before the Diamondbacks-Cubs game last weekend.
Several opponents of stricter immigration enforcement have been appearing outside stadiums during the recent Arizona Diamondbacks road trip in Denver, Chicago, and Houston to protest Arizona’s new law. The protests are not necessarily aimed at the Diamondbacks just because they play in the state that passed the controversial bill, but also because Ken Kendrick, the Managing General Partner of the organization, has given considerable donations to the Republican Party. Kendrick has not explicitly stated his support of this immigration bill, as he should in order to look out for the organization’s interest of not alienating its fan base, but he did release a statement last week in which he said this law came as a result of “federal inaction on illegal immigration” and that the federal government needs to address the issue once and for all. The MLB Players Union also released a statement in which they expressed disapproval of the bill due to the effects the bill will have for players who travel to play Arizona. Others, most notably the classless Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, have voiced the possibility that they would boycott the 2011 All-Star Game in Arizona. Whether there is any motion to that or not is way too early to even consider seriously. Yet again, I have never taken something Guillen has said seriously.
That whole explanation of the immediate effect the immigration bill has had on baseball in Arizona does raise a debate surrounded by one question. Is the mix of politics and sports beneficial or is it a lethal combination that only hurts the game? When I give the question only a little bit of thought, I come to the conclusion that the combination of politics and sports tends to hurt the game because it distracts from the sport itself. But once I started thinking of a few exceptions to the rule, I came to a more appropriate hypothesis that accounts for those exceptions.
I saw a commercial on ESPN the other day that was promoting the upcoming the World Cup, which you can see below. It carried the striking message that for a few weeks all the competing nations will put aside their differences and soccer will become the major focus. This is not to mention the fact that this year’s World Cup is being played in South Africa, a country that had apartheid until 1994 when Nelson Mandela became president. History has shown, however, that putting these major political differences aside for international events is not always in the best interest for games. The 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Berlin were almost boycotted by the United States because of the civil rights issues the country faced under Adolf Hitler. Some Jewish Americans boycotted despite the USA’s involvement. There were the Olympic boycotts, most of which were just threats, between the United States and USSR during the Cold War. One could argue in these Olympic cases that the United States had strong political interest to send a message to the world by not participating, but we would be asking athletes that put every drop of sweat and blood into being a world class Olympian to wait another four years so that the nation could make a political stance in order to exert global power. That is not fair to dwindle the athlete’s hard-earned hopes and dreams.
The "Miracle on Ice" is not only one of the greatest sports moments of all-time, but is considered an intrical part of American history.
Then there was February 22, 1980. This was the day where for one game hockey became a political tool that has become a staple in any discussion of the Cold War. I still remember the “Miracle on Ice” being taught in school textbooks once the Cold War material came up. We never read about the Yankees or Celtics dominance. Instead we read about a group of amateur hockey players beating the biggest and fastest team hockey has ever seen. It had global significance because it showed a great weakness in an area that the Soviets were supposed to annihilate us in. If on the same day Jimmy Carter had eliminated all federal taxes, the USA men’s hockey victory would still be the top headline in the newspapers. So here we have the protypical example of how sports and politics were one in the same, but ended up being a very positive thing. And to think a USSR boycott could have made it all a moot point.
The examples I have used thus far are mostly international issues, but there have been positive and negative examples domestically as well. Jackie Robinson is seen as a political figure (although he was never outspoken about race during his professional career) for breaking the color barrier in baseball. Muhammad Ali, however, was criticized during his boxing career for his view towards the “white man” and his dodging the draft during the Vietnam War.
This brings us back to the outrageous boycott chatter of the 2011 All-Star Game in Arizona. Sports and politics only mix well together when the result can promote politics. The “Miracle on Ice” was a positive mix of sports and politics because it brought a nation together against its bitter enemy. It promoted nationalism and gave the country hope that defeating the Soviets in any situation was possible. Jackie Robinson opened the door for other African Americans in sports during a time of racial segregation. Even the location of the World Cup this summer in South Africa will promote how far the nation has come since apartheid. Boycotts, on the other hand, don’t do anything but spark controversy that the media would love to cover. America loves its sports heroes as much as we love the downfall of those heroes- just ask Tiger Woods. The USA men’s hockey team and Jackie Robinson set out to do something positive for their people while boycotts only shine a negative light on issue. Leave the immigration issue to the state and federal legislators and don’t try to make a positive difference by shining that negative light on the sport you call your career. As a Diamondbacks fan myself I have a better chance of boycotting them for their bad bullpen rather than the views of the Managing General Partner.
Just as a final sidenote, the first post of each month will be related to the mix of sports and politics. This is obviously just general commentary on spoprts and politics so future posts will tackle more specific contemporary issues.
Elephant in the Room 