Senator Craig, Democrats, and Charlie Weis

Senator Craig: Ok, ok, because he is an outspoken conservative Republican, I am rather enjoying his misery. Yes, his claim of innocence is absurd, no matter what Liberalsmustdie says.

Shhhh….here is how I really see it: who friggin cares! Bottom line: this guy had some lewd conduct. Yeah, that makes him a hypocrite. Yes, that was a poor personal example.

But, if I were his constituent, I’d say “look, you idiot. You got yourself into this mess. Repent, say you are sorry, and get back to the business of representing me in the Senate, dammit!”

Sure, had be been caught accepting money for votes (like some other Republicans in congress…ok, and if he were caught with 90,000 dollars in the freezer….oh, I can’t remember the party affiliation of that congressman ..that is a different matter entirely. That is abusing one’s position for greed.

Still, I am having some fun with this.

Democrats in 2008. Richard Reeves absolutely nails how I feel about this. We have a good chance, but just watch us blow it. In fact, we ARE blowing it.

The party on the outs for most of the last seven years seems to have better candidates for the 2008 presidential election, and certainly those candidates could not ask for better issues, beginning with the old American favorite: “It’s time for a change!” The ins, the Republicans, have taken the country into a deadly quagmire in an unwinnable war in Iraq, have been incompetent from Baghdad to New Orleans, are watching ordinary and decent people lose their homes in homage to unregulated markets, and still have time to wallow in cheesy and sleazy personal scandals large and small.

So how can the Democrats lose? In a word or three: “Bush-Cheney Light.”

There is handwriting on the wall, or at least in The New York Times. Last Thursday the local paper here ran two relatively short stories inside, on Pages 7 and 9, that contradict each other and the conventional wisdom that next year will be a Democratic year.

The one on Page 9 is headlined “Congressional Body Finds Iraq Fails to Meet Most Benchmarks.” All you need to know, and already do, is in the lead paragraph:

“WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — Congressional auditors (the Government Accountability Office) have determined that the Iraqi government has failed to meet the vast majority (13 of 18) of political and military goals laid out by lawmakers to assess President Bush’s Iraq war strategy.”

In three words: The surge failed.

On Page 7, though, we find this headline: “White House Is Gaining Confidence It Can Win Fight in Congress Over Iraq Policy.” The first paragraph of this one reads:

“WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — The White House is growing more confident that it can beat back efforts by congressional Democrats to shift course in Iraq, a significant turnabout from two months ago, when a string of Republican defections had administration officials worried that President Bush’s troop buildup was in serious danger on Capitol Hill.”

In nine words: Democrats don’t have the guts to end the war! [...]

The deadly phrase “Bush-Cheney Light” was used a couple of weeks ago by Sen. Barack Obama to attack Sen. Hillary Clinton and other establishment Democrats for essentially endorsing the war more gracefully than “Bring ‘em on!” Republicans such as the president and vice president. Obama may have been less than polite, but he was right. [...]

I’m tempted to say that neither side knows what it is doing, but that is not actually true. The folks in the White House now are too dumb and too stubborn to know, and the Democrats are too chicken to say what they believe.

The two parties, though, do share one dirty little conviction: They both think the American people are uninformed morons. The Republicans think people are stupid enough to think we are winning this war. The Democrats think people are stupid enough to think they are actually against the war. In a just world, both parties would lose in 2008.

I hope that Mr. Reeves is wrong, but I am afraid that he right on point.

Notre Dame Football: Charlie Weis.

Yes, Notre Dame has had a couple of not-so-bad seasons back to back: 9-3 and 10-3, with appearances in consecutive BCS bowls. Yes, ND has lost the toughest games (and most important games) on their schedule, but even last year, ND scored wins over bowl teams Navy, Purdue, Georgia Tech, UCLA and Penn State.

But, in part due to ND getting blown out in the higher profile games, the heat is on Charlie Weis.

Here are my thoughts on the matter: remember Lou Holtz? He was the last coach to lead Notre Dame “all the way back” after some down years. But here are some of the differences between his situation and Weis’s.

First, remember that Holtz took over for Gerry Faust. Faust was not a successful coach, but he sent players to the NFL year after year (examples: Mark Bavaro, Alan Pinckett, Steve Burelien, Kevin Dorsey, among many others).

Holtz didn’t have as good of a record as Weis during his first two years. But, during Holtz’s first year (5-6), Notre Dame lost very close games to Michigan (1 point!), to no. 5 LSU (5 points) and to eventual National Champion Penn State (5 points). N. D. also lost close games to Pitt (missed field goal) and Michigan State. Realistically, without the bad breaks, N. D. could have easily gone 8-3 or even 9-2.

Holtz’s second team indeed closed out with blowout losses (24-0 to Miami, 35-10 to Texas A&M in the Cotton Bowl) which sounds very familiar. But along the way, Notre Dame beat Pac 10 Champion USC, Big Ten Champion Michigan State, Michigan and Alabama by big scores.

Consequently, Holtz started in a better position than Weis, and his teams played harder schedules (hence the improvement didn’t show up as quickly in the won-loss column).

And remember this: at the time Holtz took over, Notre Dame was only 5 years removed from being a serious national championship contender, and former players like Joe Montana were starring in the NFL.

Will Weis make it work?
My guess is “yes.” Here is why:

• Weis knows what kind of players it takes to make it; all of that NFL experience gave him this perspective
• Weis is a realist who won’t stay with what isn’t going to work.
• He has “heavyweight knowledge” of the sport (from his NFL experience)
• He is also realistic as to what the best recruits really want.

The last point is very important. Today’s elite recruit isn’t going to get all teary eyed over going to Notre Dame to “win for Our Lady”, for “the old N. D. tradition” and all of that.

Yeah, there are those who live and die by the old traditions of N. D. football, but those are mostly us fat guys in the bleachers, in front of the television, and perhaps a handful of high school players who run 5.4 40 yard dash and can perhaps bench press 300 pounds if they bust a gusset. Yeah, such players can play….at the division III level (perhaps).

But the elite players that N. D. needs to win at the elite level? As Weis said: “they play on Saturday so that they can eventually play on Sunday”, and Weis knows about playing on Sunday.

So my guess, he will make it work; watch out for them in 2008-2009.

This year will be kind of ugly though.

5 September 2007

Workout notes 8+ miles of walking, 1:50:18 (55:28 out, 54:50 back, house to start of Detwiller Marina) I did some 2-1 2.5 miles into it. I went hard enough to sweat a bit; I ended up dodging the automatic sprinklers.

Ultras: I wasn’t the only one who had a rough time of it last weekend. Dang; this sport will teach you humility!

Football: Terry Bowden has an interesting take on Michigan’s meltdown against Appalachian State: if you are going to schedule a I-AA opponent, schedule a bad one. After all, most fans don’t know the difference anyway, and if you beat a good I-AA team, you aren’t going to get credit for it.

Just a thought: note that Appalachian State did play a BCS team in 2005 and 2006; in 2005 they got beat 38-6 by Kansas and they got beat 23-10 by North Carolina State in 2006, and they won the I-AA title in both of those years.

Religion: nice article on “The New Atheists“.