Tuesday, May 24, 2005

The Compromise

The group of 14

Robert Byrd (West Virginia)Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut) Ben Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Pryor (Arkansas)Ken Salazar (Colorado)RepublicansLincoln Chafee (Rhode Island)Susan Collins (Maine)Mike DeWine (Ohio)Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)John McCain (Arizona)John Warner (Virginia)Olympia Snowe (Maine)

I look at the compromise from a different perspective. Does this compromise free Democrats in red states to vote to end a filibuster? I believe that at least five of the seven Democrats would be willing to have a floor vote for most all of the judges nominated by George Bush. Also, Kent Conrad is a Democrat from North Dakota who is not on the list, but is from a red state as well as being a class I Senator (he is up for re-election in 2006).

The anger is the Republican base right now. But the difficulty ahead is with the Democratic leadership. Ben Nelson’s quote:

"Only those [nominees] that are subject to extraordinary circumstances are unlikely to get a vote,"

It will still take 41 Senators to maintain a filibuster. Frist will likely have no problem keeping his 55 together when moving to end a future filibuster. But how will Reid do the same on his side? Vulnerable Democratic Senators will have to answer for each future nominee individually. Till now, they were able to reject all the judges as a group.

The big problem for the Democrats is that any judge the approve of now will be difficult to block when Supreme Court openings occur. Everyone knows this is the real ballgame anyhow.

The Republicans can continue to be consistent in their belief that all the judges can get an up or down vote. But the Democrats cannot agree to let at least three judges be approved and remain consistent with their statement that this group of judges were too extreme. Yes, the Republicans as a party caved, but the Democrats as a party are caught in a case of double speak. I believe it is the Democrats who are feeding the crocodile.

posted by DRL @ 7:57 AM 0 comments

Monday, May 23, 2005

More complete games good for Baseball

During last year, there were a total of 150 complete games... less than one per day.

This year after about a quarter of the season, there already 60.
Yesterday (May 22nd), there were five!

Last year, my team the Twins had four complete games. They already have five this year. Yesterday broke a string of four Twins games where a pitcher went the distance.

I've seen three reasons thrown about
1. Steroids
2. The low strike being called (reducing pitch counts)
3. Managers finally realizing the unpredictability of the bullpen. (However, for the Twins, the bullpen's era is 2.58 while the starters is 3.94.)

The complete game total is still low by historical numbers. But I see two big reasons why getting 18-20 complete games in a season is a big deal.

1. That's an extra days rest every two weeks for your bullpen.
2. It can allow for one less pitcher and one more position player on a teams roster.

The Twins have 11 pitchers and 14 position players.
I've seen the Twins and other teams have 12 pitchers and 13 position players.

I remember 15 years ago, it used to be 10 pitchers and 15 position players.

I think it's great for the game the least of which not being the shortened length of games. Also, watching to see if a pitcher goes the distance keeps one's interest in 7 - 1 ballgames.

posted by DRL @ 12:06 PM 0 comments