Monday, October 31, 2011

DISCONCERTING — VERY DISCONCERTING!

By Edwin Cooney

As President Ford observed during his first address to Congress back on Monday, August 12th, 1974, “confession is good for the soul!” (Jerry, whose message to Congress was the necessity for budget cutting, publicly confessed to Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma that he — as a member of Congress — had often been willing to spend tax-payer money for worthy projects in Michigan while opposing wasteful spending in Oklahoma.) My confession is that some of my joy last May the 1st — as President Obama announced the capture, execution and burial at sea of Osama bin Laden — was partisan. The Republicans would be “green with envy,” as indeed they were, and still are! However, what it all means is far more important than political point scoring!

Back in 2004 when young Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention, much of the power of his appeal was due to his opposition to the Iraqi war. He’d come out against an invasion of Iraq as early as September 2002 — six months before its March 19th, 2003 “shock and awe” outset. Obama’s meteoric rise was due to his articulate and even dynamic opposition to the Iraqi war, and many progressives easily and conveniently believed he opposed all war. Hence, it appeared we had a potential President with anti-war sentiments equal to George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Jimmy Carter. During the campaign when he insisted that he’d vigorously pursue al-Qaeda, few took him seriously. I certainly didn’t.

There is a parallel in our political history to this shift in likely presidential leadership. Between the end of World War II and 1971 there was little the Republican Party considered a higher priority than the unleashing of Chang Kai-Shek against Red China and the return of democracy to the Chinese mainland. Yet, it was Richard Nixon — one of the GOP’s staunchest anti-Communists of the 1950s — who, as President, gleefully announced his impending 1972 visit to the People’s Republic of China. Even more amazing, Republicans proudly campaigned on RMN’s “historic breakthrough” during the succeeding presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, back to twenty-first century politics! In late 2009 came the news that the President was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Next, came the shocking news of that Sunday night when news blared across the nation that a force of Navy Seals under the direction of President Barack Hussein Obama, had cornered and ruthlessly killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan housing compound. What was most disturbing to many Obama supporters was that the president was almost as gleeful as George Walker Bush and Rush Limbaugh would have been had this deed been carried out before January 20th, 2009 — even more preferably during October of 2004.

Throughout his subsequent Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, not once was the President at all reflective about either the legality or the possible consequences of his actions. Many Democrats, me included, were saddened and even embarrassed that President Obama didn’t do a bit of public reflecting about such concepts as: the sanctity of international borders, the sovereignty of nations, rights of the accused, and above all — the regretability of gun-barrel justice.

Still, if it was necessary that Osama bin Laden be eliminated by order of an American President — and I believe it was — I’m generally glad that it was President Obama who gave the order.

Of course, the vast majority of Americans of all parties are glad that bin Laden is gone. Still, with every action there is not only a reaction, but there is often created precedence for an increasingly deadlier reaction to events than was previously the case.

Might President Obama’s decision to eliminate bin Laden in the way he did set a dangerous precedent? Might a future sitting or former American President be more subject to capture or elimination once our opponents become sufficiently capable of carrying out such ventures? On the other hand, the possibility of world peace might be strengthened if world leaders were a little more vulnerable than they currently are to international “justice.”

Throughout the “watch” of President Barack Hussein Obama — and Presidents ultimately catch both praise and blame for what occurs on their “watches” — we’ve witnessed the elimination of more hostile leaders than any President since FDR, who was largely responsible for the elimination of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.

Not even President Reagan’s record matches Barack Hussein Obama’s record of eliminating terrorist-oriented leaders. Specifically there are Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (the man behind the 2009 Christmas bomber and the quashed New York Times Square bombing.) Then, there’s Muammar Gaddafi — whom President Reagan sought to and barely missed destroying.

The scary part of all this is, what’s next? Just as: President Reagan didn'’t anticipate the future significance of the Taliban when he aided Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviets; just as President Reagan didn’t anticipate trouble with Saddam Hussein when he sold him lethal weapons to use on the outlaw state of Iran; just as Presidents Clinton and G. W. Bush didn’t anticipate the cost of an Iraqi war; what hasn’t President Obama anticipated that could be vital to our future security?

Disconcerting — very disconcerting isn’t it how often we think we’re being intelligent and patriotic when we’re really being partisan!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

Monday, October 24, 2011

IT’S THAT TIME AGAIN!

By Edwin Cooney

As this week’s musing comes tumbling head over heels -- or however it travels -- into your cyberspace mailbox, the 107th “World Series” is underway!

This year’s Fall Classic pits the new against the old, the Texas Rangers vs. the St. Louis Cardinals. The Texas Rangers were in the World Series in 2010 and were defeated by the San Francisco Giants. Thus, this is their second consecutive year playing for professional baseball’s “World” Championship. The franchise has been in existence since 1961 having spent its first eleven seasons in Washington, D.C. as the “new” Washington Senators. Then, in 1971, Senators’ owner Bob Short, a Minnesota Democrat who had managed Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 presidential campaign, moved the team to Arlington, Texas which is between Dallas and Fort Worth. Bob Short sold the Rangers in 1974. Since then, the Rangers have become very, very Republican. From 1989 until 1994, George Walker Bush was a co-owner. His Rangers presidency became almost as baffling as his United States presidency unless one believes that trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox for the aging Harold Baines was a good idea. Sammy would hit 66 home runs in 1998 to mention only one of his feats. (Note: it was the White Sox who moved Sosa on to the Cubs).

The St. Louis Cardinals are after their eleventh world championship which makes them second only to the Yankees in baseball championships: the Yankees have 27. The Cardinals’ first one came in 1926 when they defeated Babe Ruth’s New York Yankees in seven games. The Cardinals have a unique distinction over every national league team. They are the only team to hold a winning World Series record over the Yankees among teams who have played the Yankees in more than one fall classic. (The 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks and the 2003 Florida Marlins haven’t ever been defeated by the Yankees, but they’ve played the Bronx Bombers only once). The Cardinals defeated the Yankees in 1926, 1942 and 1964. The Yankees defeated the Cardinals in 1928 and 1943.

The Cardinals are rich in history. Many fans know about the Cardinal’s 1926 victory over Babe Ruth’s and Lou Gehrig’s mighty Yankee juggernaut, but time is dimming the memory of that mid-America triumph. Then, there’s the legendary Cardinal “Gas House Gang” consisting of such colorful characters as Dizzy and brother Daffy Dean. (Dizzy’s real name was Jay Hanna Dean and Daffy’s first name was Paul). There was also Pepper (Johnny) Martin, the “Wild Horse of the Osage” and Frankie Frisch, a graduate of Fordham University who nevertheless possessed a decidedly blue collar personality. Finally, there was Joe Medwick, who holds the distinction of being the only player in the history of baseball tossed from a World Series or any other game by order of the Commissioner of Baseball. He was ejected for his own personal security. (The occasion was the seventh and deciding game of the 1934 World Series, when Medwick and Tiger third baseman Marv Owen tangled in a collision at third base, the outcome of which favored Medwick and the Cardinals. The game was in Detroit and the fans grew sufficiently restless to—as Commissioner Landis saw it—to threaten Medwick’s safety. Hence, baseball’s dictatorial Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis ordered Medwick ejected from the game.)

The Texas Rangers, awesome in their power and formidable in their pitching prowess, are more than worthy opponents to the scrappy Cardinals. Lynn (Nolan) Ryan -- an enormous pitching legend -- is both team president and an on-the-field advisor to their manager, Louisiana-born Ron Washington. St. Louis manager Tony La Russa, a former journeyman infielder and a licensed attorney, and Ron Washington are an interesting combination of intellect and savvy reigning in opposing dugouts.

Who am I rooting for, you ask! For three good reasons and one personal prejudice, I’m for the Cardinals. First, the Cardinals have always been my favorite National League team -- until I moved to the Bay Area and became rather exposed to the Giants players, the broadcasters and the team’s folklore. Second, part of the Cardinals’ rich history is that they became the haven for my favorite ballplayer of all time after he left the Yankees in late 1966: Roger Maris. Third, another part of the Cardinal’s rich history is that they were the first major league team to have a woman owner. Her name was Helene Hathaway Robison Britton. She inherited the club from her Uncle Stanley Robison when he died in 1911. She owned the team through 1916 and, while the team didn’t go anywhere really, it was during her administration that they began to put together some of the pieces when they signed Rogers Hornsby, their great “second sacker” as Dizzy Deen would say. At the end of 1916, Mrs. Britton had divorced Mr. Schuler Britton (the team president) and had sold the team to Sam Breadon.

As to my prejudice, haven’t I already told you something about that? Didn’t I mention that the Texas Rangers -- and the whole state for that matter -- are very, very Republican these days? Anything that makes too many Republicans smile kind of makes me nervous!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

Monday, October 17, 2011

AMERICA’S NATIONAL AGENDA

By Edwin Cooney

During the 1960 presidential campaign, one of John F. Kennedy’s themes was “the unfinished public responsibility of our country” -- in other words, our National Agenda.

In last week’s commentary, which was largely designed to demonstrate that kept promises can be as dangerous as broken promises, I suggested (tongue in cheek) that political surprises would be preferable to promises. However, what we’re really talking about is America’s National Agenda which is renewable every four years with the election of a president.

Of course, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, and Liberals all have their canned solutions to problems ranging from abortion to terrorism. Some of these solutions are legitimate and deserve bipartisan consideration -- if we can restore bipartisanism ever again to our national political dialog. Meantime, we’re faced today with Corporate Media America’s political agenda.

Through the establishment of the radio and television talk show, both the Right and the Left -- each representing fewer than 50% of the public -- seek to set the political agenda for the whole country. Since these idealists are morally and politically superior to you and me, they naturally have little time or inclination to listen -- let alone value -- what the rest of us have to say.

My biggest criticism of President Obama is that he’s allowed himself to be politically penned in and devalued by both the Left and the Right. Both regard themselves as his moral and political superiors, hence he’s worthy of neither. It’s obvious to any objective observer of his administration that he’s well to the right of the label “left-wing Islamic Socialist” that many on the right seek to stamp on his reputation. Apparently, to the shock of many Liberals and to the chagrin of even more Conservatives, he even shares Rush Limbaugh’s determination to wipe out both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Yet Liberals seem to have barely noticed that he clearly shares the Liberal’s job creation, healthcare, and environmental agendas.

As I’ve written numerous times, I was drawn to the then Senator Obama because of his interest in terminating the “culture war.” His political moderation is comparable to presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Ford in his leadership style. However, instead of setting his “anti-culture war” agenda, he has only let Congress and the people know what he wants to accomplish in piecemeal fashion. Hence, both his political opponents and his political friends (Liberals are every bit as petulantly dogmatic as Conservatives) appear to be out for his political hide.

The problem is that both the Right and the Left, good people who could be very helpful to any American president, have traded patriotism for dogmatism. How they see things is
vastly superior to the way nonpolitical people see them. After all, they are the political experts and the moral consciences of this free people. As such, they see themselves as having a legitimate license to cajole and manipulate voters and candidates expecting them to join them in their prejudices and to reinforce them in their self-interest driven solutions to problems both foreign and domestic.

I’ll ask this question once again as I’ve asked it before: why is it patriotic for a young person to give his or her well-being and perhaps life for his or her country when America is in trouble, but not equally patriotic to pay taxes and keep enterprises here in America for the benefit of those working men and women who face dire financial trouble?

America demands and indeed needs jobs, adequate protection against accidents and diseases, protection from international thuggery, and protection from internal fraud regardless of who’s behind it. America wants and deserves clean energy and educational opportunities for its youth and for those who need retraining in order to meet new job standards. The bottom line is that it is agenda-setting time and it is time for you and me to set America’s agenda. We can only effectively do that if our president takes the lead.

Speaking in Boston on the night of Monday, November 7th, the day before the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy put it this way:

“The great task of the president is to set before the American people the unfinished public responsibility of our country.”

There’ve been many historic and cultural changes in America in the last fifty-one years, but the idea that the president must take the lead in setting the National Agenda hasn’t changed.

I remain strongly and enthusiastically supportive of President Obama. Still I must assert that if President Obama won’t set a National Agenda, there are a mess of Republicans out there who’d be glad to try!

Goodness, that possibility is scarier than Halloween which is just around the corner!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

Monday, October 10, 2011

AH, PROMISES PROMISES -- LET’S SEE NOW!

By Edwin Cooney

Someone asked me a couple of weeks ago: what would I promise the people were I to seek the presidency in 2012?

There are, as I see it, several types of promises in a good politician’s repertoire.

First, there’s the negative promise. Truman and Eisenhower were good at this kind of promise. Truman promised the people that if they’d get rid of that “good for nothin’” Republican 80th Congress, he’d see to it that real progress was made in America. Ike promised that he’d get rid of the “crooks and cronies” hanging around Harry Truman. What he could not promise was the total absence of Republican crooks and cronies.

Then there’s everyone’s favorite: the kept promise. Not all kept promises have been healthy for the country. Andrew Jackson promised in 1832 to veto the bill passed by Congress to re-charter the Bank of the United States. He kept that promise and decentralized the banking system enough to bring about a severe depression the year after he left office. Then, there was the case of James K. Polk. He kept all of his promises and involved us in a war with Mexico which heightened the slavery issue to the point that we fought a civil war about thirteen years after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. President Johnson promised a war on poverty and kept his word, but ever since then Conservatives have delighted in reminding us that it didn’t work.

Next, there’s the promise all good Americans patriotically detest: the broken promise. In 1980, candidate Reagan promised to balance the budget by 1984, but he not only broke that promise, he increased the national debt from one trillion at the close of Jimmy Carter’s administration to three trillion dollars in 1989. Then, there’s the case of FDR who promised during the 1932 campaign to balance the budget. Of course, the truth is that he never intended to keep that promise. However, he didn’t promise to close and reorganize the banks, he didn’t promise to create the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Industrial Recovery Act, or the Agricultural Adjustment act and he also did not commit to Social Security until mid 1935.

Another type of promise is the broad sweeping promise. This can be an effective kind of promise as long as the public’s perception of it is the same as the president who promised it. That’s the promise to bring about “change.” Both candidates Obama and McCain promised change during the 2008 campaign.

However, a careful look at “change” can be a tad disconcerting. When Herbert Hoover took office on March 4th, 1929, America was, or appeared to be, prosperous. By the time President Hoover left office on March 4th, 1933, there had been considerable change -- very much to that good man’s chagrin.

President Reagan brought about “change” during his administration -- much of it good -- especially in foreign affairs. This included nuclear arms reduction and the destruction of “the evil empire.” Nevertheless, President Reagan’s administration didn’t come close to providing America with a problem-free future. After all, two entities that received considerable aid from Mr. Reagan were the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Taliban was the enemy of the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein was the enemy of Iran.

The ultimate question therefore is: are you willing to trust a candidate who makes no promises? Is the need for promises that of the candidate or of the voter? I refuse to insult you by answering that question. Ah! But I do have an antidote for the promise and it comes from the greatest politician of them all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Above, I mentioned one of his major broken promises. I also listed a few of his achievements. There are more, many more that were good for the people: the Home Loan Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission which polices Wall Street, the Works Progress Administration which employed teachers, musicians, librarians and writers, and the Public Works Administration that oversaw huge construction projects such as roads, bridges, schools and hospitals to name a few. These beneficial achievements surely were a surprise to most people. Hence, the Cooney candidacy will substitute the promise with the surprise.

Therefore, should I run for President in 2012, any time a reporter or an interest group asks me my position on any matter I’ll have a ready answer: “Trust me, I’ll surprise you!”

Thus, the issues in 2012 will go from the complex to the simple. Which do you, the voter, prefer -- the promise or the surprise? Choose for yourself!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

Monday, October 3, 2011

WHAT ROGER WROUGHT!

By Edwin Cooney

The date was Sunday, October 1st, 1961. The clock at Yankees Stadium read 2:43 p.m. A crowd of only 23,154 watched the Red Sox big right-handed Virginian Tracy Stallard take his windup. Their focus, however, was the husky hitter standing in the left-handed batter’s box, his 35 oz Louisville Slugger cocked about the height of his left ear. Evan (Tracy) Stallard (he was always known by his middle name) drove his body and the five oz baseball toward home plate. Before the nine-and-a-half-inch leather-covered spheroid could reach catcher Russ Nixon’s glove there was a loud crack of bat on ball. The ball shot toward the Yankee bullpen in deep right field. It landed in the seats to the right of the bullpen some 365 feet from home plate. It was Roger Maris’ 61st home run of the 1961 American League season.

Nobody, not even Roger Maris’ bitterest detractor, doubted what he had just done, but what did it all mean? What had Roger Eugene Maris, a native of Hibbing, Minnesota who had spent his youth in both Grand Forks and Fargo, North Dakota, just wrought? Did he really understand its magnitude? Did his fans or his detractors?

Above everything else, Roger Maris cared most about his family, his faith, and his friends. Babe Ruth’s home run record, except as a mark to be matched or bettered, was of little interest to him. His status as a New York Yankee was important as a part of his professional obligation but it went no deeper than that. A small town man, he’d definitely have preferred to bring a championship to the Kansas City Athletics for whom he’d played from mid 1958 until he was traded to the Yankees in December of 1959.

The year 1961 found Roger Maris competing with teammate Mickey Mantle for the Babe’s almost sacred achievement.

In mid July, Baseball Commissioner Ford Frick, who had once been a friend and a ghostwriter for Babe Ruth, the “Sultan of Swat,” announced that if either Maris or Mantle were to be regarded as a single season home run champion, he’d have to hit 61 home runs in 154 games. Otherwise, an asterisk or some other mark would be put in the official record book to indicate a definite distinction between the old and new records. After all, the commissioner observed, the Babe had set his record of 60 home runs in the 154 game schedule of 1927. With the addition of two new franchises, the 1961 schedule consisted of eight more games -- a total of 162.

Still, as Roger Maris told reporters, he’d do his best. “I don’t make the rules,” he said.

Aside from the Babe’s ghostly presence, Maris’ teammate and friend Mickey Mantle was another factor. Although the press and media continuously sought to uncover jealousy between them, they were friendly enough to rent an apartment in Queens, along with teammate Bob Cerv, far from the prying gaze of the public eye!

Even Yankee fans who were perfectly willing to see Ruth’s record broken were split between the M&M boys. Most favored Mickey since the year 1961 marked the beginning of his eleventh season as a Yankee. It was only Maris’ second season in Yankee pin stripes.

Due to a late season injury and illness to Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris ultimately prevailed. His 61 home runs achieved a very practical goal: greater earning capacity for the security of his wife Pat and six children, Susan, Roger Jr., Kevin, Randy, Richard and Sandra.

However, young Maris was almost totally tone deaf to stardom. He bristled at questions he regarded as an invasion of his privacy. “I’m a married man,” is all he’d say in response to a question as to whether or not he “played on the road.” Often moody and “surly,” he wasn’t a storyteller. Unlike Mickey Mantle, Maris had no stories to relate about exploits with the adventurous, the famous, and the beautiful. Thus, long before he left the Yankees after the 1966 season, he was regarded by many as being unworthy of his own achievement.

As time moved on, people began to take a second look at Commissioner Frick’s asterisk. First, they discovered that it didn’t really exist. Second, they came to realize that other records achieved in a season or lifetime were accepted as such without comparing the number of games or chances held by previous record holders. Finally, time -- the great healer -- knit Roger Maris, the Yankees and the fans back together in a bond made up of sentiment and appreciation.

Fifty years is more than half a lifetime for most of us. Its glory is that it blends memory and outlook in such a way as to cause the past and the present to merge into the mellowest of experiences. By the time of his December 14th, 1985 death from lymphoma cancer, Roger Maris doubtless realized his own contributions to the turmoil of his unhappiest New York Yankee years. Still he could honestly retain his pride in his principles of hard work, loyalty and dignity.

What Roger Maris wrought occurred exactly 50 years and two days ago. He once observed that if he had it to do again, he wouldn’t change a thing. If I, as a mere observer, could relive it, I’d be delighted to do so. It would be even more thrilling if you could share its fullness with me!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY