SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (543137)2/20/2004 11:47:17 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 769670
 
Yanqui Doodle Dandy
Move the Montreal Expos to Mexico.
Friday, February 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

It's hard to know who is being the bigger baby here: John Henry or George Steinbrenner. In an e-mail sent to reporters about the deal that puts Alex Rodriguez in pinstripes, the Red Sox owner whined that "baseball doesn't have an answer for the Yankees." Mr. Steinbrenner fired back that this was just "sour grapes" because the Sox had failed to broker a deal for A-Rod back in December.

The truth is that they're both right. But the feud is distracting baseball from something far more important than who plays third base for the Yanks: the ultimate destination of the Expos, who will be leaving Montreal but whose new home remains in limbo.

Mr. Henry is right that the lucrative New York market underwrites a Yankee payroll (somewhere in the $190 million ballpark) that helps guarantee its dominance on the diamond. But Mr. Steinbrenner rightly finds complaints about the lack of a salary cap hard to take from a fellow owner whose Sox payroll (somewhere in the $130 million range) is second only to his own. It's a pity that Yankee lovers and Yankee haters alike can't see past A-Rod to one of the looming opportunity costs represented by the fate of the Expos.

Now owned collectively by the owners, the Expos have investors from several cities vying for them, including a group from Monterrey, Mexico. Major League Baseball says that it will make a decision by the All-Star break. Earlier this year, it sent a delegation south of the Rio Grande to see what kind of facilities the Mexican city has to offer.

It's hard not to see the appeal of trading Canada for Latin America. For one thing, like A-Rod himself--born in New York to Dominican immigrants--many of baseball's leading stars have Latino roots. The weather is congenial. And in a September letter to Commissioner Bud Selig, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico noted that the Monterrey market is convenient to a number of Texas cities and is even home to 1,500 Dallas Cowboy season ticket holders.
So what's the downside? For one thing, baseball owners generally want to see a glitzy new stadium--even if that means getting the local taxpayers to cough up the money for it--before they'll agree to a sale. Though Monterrey already has a 27,000-seat stadium for its Mexican League home team, the Sultans, that might not be good enough. Then there are the wage and price differentials. Can a Latin American city whose fans now pay as little as $1.50 for a ticket really compete with the Yanquis, er, Yankees up north?

The answer is maybe, especially if baseball could get its financial house in order. Though a luxury tax has been put in place, the sport still awaits the only real equalizer: the kind of greater revenue sharing--especially of local TV revenues--that now works pretty well for the National Football League.

Manifestly, Latin America has plenty of budding A-Rods and millions more baseball fans. Isn't it time to give them a real chance to root for the home team?



To: calgal who wrote (543137)2/20/2004 11:47:27 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
The Democratic Strategy
Kerry reaps benefit of months of Bush-bashing.
Surely you're not surprised that the Bush White House is beginning to move into high campaign mode. What should surprise you is that it took them so long.

Waiting until now has cost the president some popular support and has led to a spate of polls suggesting that Democratic frontrunner John Kerry would win the White House if the election were held today. That's all insanely speculative, of course. But there is evidence to suggest that Democrats have done some significant damage to the president's position.

In a Gallup poll released this week, which found Bush's job approval rating to be 51 percent, the number of Americans who believe the economy is declining is greater than it was just a few months ago. When asked last December, "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" 32 percent of those polled named economic problems. Of them, ten percent said jobs, and 17 percent said the economy in general. But when asked the same question last week, 46 percent said economic problems. Of them, 20 percent said jobs, and 21 percent said the economy in general.

To take another example: When asked in early January whether economic conditions in the country were getting better or worse, 66 percent said better, and 27 percent said worse. Asked the same question last week, 53 percent said better, and 40 percent said worse.

Now, the economy has not taken a turn for the worse in the last four weeks. It is, in fact, growing at a reasonably healthy rate. On a net basis, jobs are not being lost; they are being created. In other words, the news is simply not bad. So what accounts for the recent changes in the public's perception?

Could it be that some Americans began to view the economy more negatively at about the same time they began to tune in to the Democratic race for president?

Back in September, the candidates — all nine of them — could bash George Bush all they wanted and almost no one outside the political class noticed. But now, more and more voters are watching. The television networks are covering the Democratic race more intensively. And viewers are seeing a continuous loop of attacks on the president.

Just look at the most recent candidates' debate in Wisconsin. Kerry attacked Bush on jobs. John Edwards attacked Bush on jobs. Howard Dean attacked Bush on jobs. Dennis Kucinich attacked Bush on jobs. And Al Sharpton attacked Bush on jobs. (By the way, in case you missed it, the Reverend Al was at his very best on the issue, when he said, "I think we bring the jobs back, one, by canceling NAFTA two, by creating manufacturing jobs, three...by creating jobs." Now that's a jobs program.)

The day after the debate, Kerry even used Bush's visit to the Daytona 500 as an opportunity to attack Bush on jobs. "We don't need a president who just says, 'Gentlemen, start your engines," Kerry said Monday. "We need a president who says, 'America, let's start our economy and put people back to work.'"

Is it any wonder that Americans, listening to it all, think the jobs situation is getting worse?

Most comparisons of George W. Bush to his father, the first President Bush, are off the mark, but this does seem reminiscent of 1992, when Bill Clinton ousted the president's father by citing a health-care "crisis" that was not, in fact, a crisis.

The brilliance of today's Democratic strategy is that they have so far been able to use a single economic factor, employment, to convey the (incorrect) idea that the economy as a whole is in trouble. This week the Washington Post seemed to sense the problem with the Democrats' position when it reported that improvements in the economy as a whole may influence voters' choices more than anxiety about jobs.

"The booming housing market has given even struggling workers the ability to latch onto a tangible talisman of personal progress," reporter Jonathan Weisman wrote. "Wage growth has been nearly stagnant, but thanks to Bush's tax cuts, disposable income has risen. And after nine quarters of slow but steady growth, the economy as a whole is poised to take off, giving some shaky households a sense of optimism about the coming year."

That doesn't even mention that gains in the stock market, with the Dow above 10,500, allow millions of people to feel optimistic about their 401k investments.

Given all that good news, the lesson of the new Gallup poll is: Bush-bashing works. Say something over and over and over again, and get the media to repeat it over and over and over again, and some people will begin to believe it, even if it conflicts with their own experiences. Which suggests that George W. Bush better kick his campaign into high gear — right now.

— Byron York is also a columnist for The Hill, where a version of this first appeared.