Is anyone arguing against Henderson?

Not that I know of, but Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner were left off 11 ballots, Cal Ripken off 8, Hank Aaron off 9, and Ted Williams off 20. And Mantle was left off 43. Another reason why all voting should be made public and come with a written explanation for each choice.

Another reason why all voting should be made public and come with a written explanation for each choice.

Sample ballot and explanation of an average BBWAA voter:

In:

R. Henderson: Rickey!
Rice: Feared.
Morris: Big game pitcher, see Game 7, 1991 World Series.

Out:

Trammell: No Cal Ripken or A-Rod.
Raines: No Rickey.
Blyleven: Didn't know how to win.

You sure you want to see this?

Sure, if we can endlessly mock the guy or gal who done wrote that.

Well, admittedly Pepe did vote for Blyleven (Pepe to me is a true dinosaur, so perhaps all hope is not lost).

Another reason why all voting should be made public and come with a written explanation for each choice.

Sample ballot and explanation of an average BBWAA voter:

In:

R. Henderson: Rickey!
Rice: Feared.
Morris: Big game pitcher, see Game 7, 1991 World Series.

Out:

Trammell: No Cal Ripken or A-Rod.
Raines: No Rickey.
Blyleven: Didn't know how to win.

You sure you want to see this?

Goddam right, for the same reason I loved those Sarah Palin interviews. After a while people may start to notice how stupid some of these cliches are, and shame them into learning something.

OK, probably not. But it's still better to get them out in the open.

Pepe to me is a true dinosaur

He was a dinosaur when dinosaur wasn't cool.

Another reason why all voting should be made public and come with a written explanation for each choice.

Sample ballot and explanation of an average BBWAA voter:

In:

R. Henderson: Rickey!
Rice: Feared.
Morris: Big game pitcher, see Game 7, 1991 World Series.

Out:

Trammell: No Cal Ripken or A-Rod.
Raines: No Rickey.
Blyleven: Didn't know how to win.

You sure you want to see this?

Goddam right, for the same reason I loved those Sarah Palin interviews. After a while people may start to notice how stupid some of these cliches are, and shame them into learning something.

OK, probably not. But it's still better to get them out in the open.

Andy, I suspect that politically our differences are one of degree, not substance. But could you cool it with the random shots at Palin et al.? It makes me fear that any particular thread they turn up in will become a 1000+ post political thread monstrosity. It's over, we won, let's be gracious in victory.

Andy, I suspect that politically our differences are one of degree, not substance. But could you cool it with the random shots at Palin et al.? It makes me fear that any particular thread they turn up in will become a 1000+ post political thread monstrosity. It's over, we won, let's be gracious in victory.

Sorry, I only used Palin because the analogy was fairly precise, and recent enough that it needed no explanation, whether one agrees with the implicit judgment of Palin or not. (In 1980 a Republican could have used Jimmy Carter's remarks about his daughter's views on nuclear war to make the same point.) I wasn't trying to start another political thread, and I have no idea what caused the wholly unintentional double post.

It's over, we won, let's be gracious in victory.

Dude, he's a Yankee fan. He is being gracious. ;)

Dude, he's a Yankee fan. He is being gracious. ;)

You mock, bunyon, but when I was a kid, right there inside every Yankee scorecard in medium sized type, you'd read "A warm welcome to Yankee Stadium." You never saw that in any other ballpark. So there.

Andy, when you were a kid, there were only about 16 other ballparks.

Does the text now read "A warm welcome to Yankee Stadium for only $199.95"?

HOLY CRAP! THIS TRAIN IS COMING OFF THE TRACKS!

Andy, when you were a kid, there were only about 16 other ballparks.

Don't exaggerate, Lassus. Other than Yankee Stadium, there were only 13 ballparks, not 16. And none of them welcomed you as warmly as Chez George Weiss, for as little as 75 cents.

Now I've heard rumors that all this may have changed a bit since that shipbuilder took over the team, but I'd need confirmation from at least three disinterested sources before I'd believe that.

Sorry, I only used Palin because the analogy was fairly precise, and recent enough that it needed no explanation, whether one agrees with the implicit judgment of Palin or not. (In 1980 a Republican could have used Jimmy Carter's remarks about his daughter's views on nuclear war to make the same point.) I wasn't trying to start another political thread, and I have no idea what caused the wholly unintentional double post.

At the very least, I hope you're willing to concede that the very same thing is going on right now with Caroline Kennedy, whose interview responses have been damnably stupid (and whose qualifications for the job she's seeking are nonexistent, certainly far less than even someone like Palin's). I'm not a Palin apologist, but notice how the media is conspicuously failing to call out Kennedy on all of the same failings? The hiding from the media (up until a few days ago), the riotously inept interviews, the lack of any sort of relevant resume?

I suppose it's just a coincidence. But I find it utterly risible that the one argument that pundits keep making in her favor is her "DNA." (I am not kidding...I've seen this very term used multiple times, by different people in different forums.) Yes, that Kennedy majesty flows through her noble bloodlines! Ye gods.

She isn't running to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

She isn't running to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

Yes. And? As I said before, I'm no Palin apologist: I found her anti-intellectualism revolting. But at least she stood for election! Whereas APPOINTING this woman (to what is essentially a life-tenancy in NY with her party affiliation) merely because of her last name, and absent any other qualifications whatsoever? Look, I know we all like to affect an aristocratic mien of world-weary cynicism around here ("hey, what kind of qualifications DOES someone need to be a Senator, anyway?"), but come now. It's really rather disgusting. And these godawful arguments about her "wonderful genetics" -- christ on a shoestring -- are people serious with that? Did America become a hereditary nobility somewhere during the Bush/Clinton '90s when I wasn't paying attention? The most galling bit of all is her statement that if she is not selected for the seat outright, she refuses to run for it later on. She wants it the easy way, or not at all!

Sample Caroline interview excerpt:

She also was asked to explain why she failed to vote in a number of elections since registering in New York City in 1988, including in 1994 when Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was up for re-election for the seat she hopes to take over.

"I was really surprised and dismayed by my voting record," she said. "I'm glad it's been brought to my attention."

On the plus side, at least a large slice of the Dems' activist base thinks Kennedy would be a terrible choice.

On the plus side, at least a large slice of the Dems' activist base thinks Kennedy would be a terrible choice.

When both the Republican AND Dem activist bases agree on any one thing, keep a lookout for pale horses & pale riders.

Actually, that happens pretty frequently these days:

The bailout.
Most of Obama's cabinet.
Criticism of the neo-liberal media.
Hate the Yankees.

I'm not a Palin apologist, but notice how the media is conspicuously failing to call out Kennedy on all of the same failings?

Can we all be honest here? Experience is a definite factor for me in voting when all things are (relatively) equal (like the primaries), but I'm always going to vote for the person that I agree with on most issues, even if that candidate had been stranded on an island for 30 years. If you're a liberal, you're going to vote, experience be damned, for the liberal candidate. If you're a conservative, you're going to vote for the conservative. That's just the way it is.

Eraser-X:

Most of Obama's cabinet.

Hate to disillusion you here, but most conservatives are surprised and relatively copacetic about Obama's cabinet picks. I think I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but it really tells you something about how far the right has come over the past few years when not only are we not shrieking at the idea of Hillary as SecState, we're actually quietly pleased. ("It could have been way worse!") Maybe Obama is just a master of calibrating public expectation so as to exceed them.

John:

Can we all be honest here? Experience is a definite factor for me in voting when all things are (relatively) equal (like the primaries), but I'm always going to vote for the person that I agree with on most issues, even if that candidate had been stranded on an island for 30 years. If you're a liberal, you're going to vote, experience be damned, for the liberal candidate. If you're a conservative, you're going to vote for the conservative. That's just the way it is.

Sure. I voted for McCain, after all, despite my soured expectations and misgivings about Palin. But all I'm asking for is some intellectual honesty from those skewering Palin on the left (and the right): "Hey, Palin was egregious, but yeah I'll admit it - Kennedy is every bit as egregious in exactly the same substantive way. Maybe even worse, in fact." Having made that concession, you can still feel free to support her if you must, although I have no idea why you would; it's not as if Clinton's seat could possibly go to a Republican, merely a more-qualified Democrat (perhaps another scion of a famous family, Andrew Cuomo).

Furthermore, one of the offensive elements of the Kennedy kerfuffle is that it's NOT being put to a vote. She's being APPOINTED (and, as a Democrat named Kennedy, she's basically being given a tenancy-for-life), without having had to face a primary where she could easily lose.

"Hey, Palin was egregious, but yeah I'll admit it - Kennedy is every bit as egregious in exactly the same substantive way. Maybe even worse, in fact."

I'm not sure about worse, again because of the "not a heartbeat from the presidency" thing, but I'll agree that position aside, the Kennedy situation is appalling (and yes, I'm a lefty). I thought most lefties who aren't part of the Dem machine were actually kind of in agreement with you about this, though. In fact, the biggest pushes for Kennedy seem to be coming from a) the Kennedy-family camp itself, of course, and b) the Michael Bloomberg camp. Since Bloomberg is no Democrat (he's no anything, really--he's of the Bloomberg party), what you're seeing here is NY machine politics, not liberal hypocrisy.

I grant you that the media is having a lot less fun with Kennedy than it did with Palin, and that some of that is definitely due to the "but she's Caroline Kennedy" factor. (The rest I again attribute to the "not a heartbeat..." factor.)

But even that's more because she's a celebrity of beloved provenance than because she's liberal, IMO.

Rest assured, though, she's not a pick most liberal Dems in NY are going to be terribly happy with if she's picked (which is seeming less and less likely to me as the days go by, by the way).

Hate to disillusion you here, but most conservatives are surprised and relatively copacetic about Obama's cabinet picks.

Stop moving the goal posts. You said the R's activist base, and that's what I was commenting on.

Does anyone think Arne Duncan is a remotely good idea?

Sure. I voted for McCain, after all, despite my soured expectations and misgivings about Palin. But all I'm asking for is some intellectual honesty from those skewering Palin on the left (and the right): "Hey, Palin was egregious, but yeah I'll admit it - Kennedy is every bit as egregious in exactly the same substantive way. Maybe even worse, in fact." Having made that concession, you can still feel free to support her if you must, although I have no idea why you would; it's not as if Clinton's seat could possibly go to a Republican, merely a more-qualified Democrat (perhaps another scion of a famous family, Andrew Cuomo).

I was actually agreeing with you, Esoteric, regarding the double standard on both sides of the aisle. If it's a big deal when it's the party that you despise, then it should also be for the party that you admire...if you're intellectually honest and not a propagandist, of course.

BTW, "Palin doesn't have much experience" (which is fairly true) could also be said about Obama, yet both sides kept overplaying their man's (or woman's) qualifications. Very amusing.

Oh, I know I made a post yesterday critical about political postings in non-political threads, but I couldn't help myself. :-)

BTW, "Palin doesn't have much experience" (which is fairly true) could also be said about Obama, yet both sides kept overplaying their man's (or woman's) qualifications. Very amusing.

My bona fides as a gen-u-wine GOP-votin' conservative having been duly established over these long years on BTF, I will say that the Obama "experience" argument never really had much purchase with me on an cognitive level. Yes, his inexperience was (and is) a problem insofar as it becomes a roadblock in his wheeler-dealing with an entrenched, interest-group-bloated Congress -- esp. a Dem congress -- but it was still immediately apparent to me (and to most observers, I'm guessing) that the man simply has the necessary intellectual firepower and suppleness to handle the job from Day One in a way that Palin clearly did not. (Of course, since Palin was only going to be V-P the force of the argument against her had a significantly weaker valence.) Plus, I had the additional testimony of UChicago Law professors, who worked with the man and knew him pretty well.

I'm not going to lie: I would throw myself in front of a hail of bullets for a conservative version of Obama. His temperament is magnificently balanced, both in its underlying idealism and in its big-picture understanding of the need for "cynical" (note scare quotes) compromises with reality. I just wish his idealism and undeniable charisma were directed towards a more worthy brand of politics.

[N.B. I am leaving a lot of room for BHO to bitterly disappoint me in the coming years. Not just in terms of promulgating liberal policies -- that's expected, sadly -- but in terms of really disillusioning me about his cast of mind. Am I making my private accommodations with the new ruling power? Perhaps so. But just as I have been pleased with him so far, I will round on him viciously the moment he makes me think he's nothing more than just another hack. A little bit of hackishness, well that goes with the territory. But abject, Schiavo-style hackery? That's when I write him off.]

But even that's more because she's a celebrity of beloved provenance than because she's liberal, IMO.

Kennedy and Palin are both ignorant, but at least Kennedy is apparently able to speak in complete sentences.

I will say that the Obama "experience" argument never really had much purchase with me on an cognitive level.

I wasn't going beyond that, Esoteric, because then you start to move into subjectivity and the political filter that we all have. My point was only that both Obama and Palin have little political experience, so you can't beat one up over it without doing the same for the other. Of course, that didn't stop the extreme partisans from both sides to do so this year anyway. :-)

####### it. I should have just left well enough alone.

####### it. I should have just left well enough alone.

Heh. :-)

m not a Palin apologist, but notice how the media is conspicuously failing to call out Kennedy on all of the same failings?

No, I haven't noticed that. Maybe because it's not remotely true.

Caroline Kennedy's DNA has some weird stuff in it

guanine, adenine, cytosine, and thymine.

Geez, I thought my apology ended this discussion. Guess not.

Sorry, I only used Palin because the analogy was fairly precise, and recent enough that it needed no explanation, whether one agrees with the implicit judgment of Palin or not. (In 1980 a Republican could have used Jimmy Carter's remarks about his daughter's views on nuclear war to make the same point.) I wasn't trying to start another political thread, and I have no idea what caused the wholly unintentional double post.

At the very least, I hope you're willing to concede that the very same thing is going on right now with Caroline Kennedy, whose interview responses have been damnably stupid (and whose qualifications for the job she's seeking are nonexistent, certainly far less than even someone like Palin's). I'm not a Palin apologist, but notice how the media is conspicuously failing to call out Kennedy on all of the same failings? The hiding from the media (up until a few days ago), the riotously inept interviews, the lack of any sort of relevant resume?

I agree that Kennedy's "candidacy" is a joke, though there are infinitely more precedents for her particular situation than there were for Palin's. But OTOH you make the valid point about Palin's at least running for the office in question, as opposed to seeking an appointment. That is a major point in Palin's favor.

Beyond that, it comes down to whether the idea of a spectacularly unqualified right wing ideologue holding the vice presidency is (or I should say was) inherently fraught with more peril than the thought of a generic "socialist Democrat" occupying 1 of 100 Senate seats on an interim basis.

And this is determined by your political view more than anything else. My personal preference would be for Gov. Patterson to convene some sort of caucus of Democratic elected officials to advise him on the Senate appointment. And while I don't have anything in particular against Caroline Kennedy, whom I suspect might be a pretty good Senator (Ted Kennedy was even less qualified in 1962 than she is today, if that's possible), I wouldn't dream of appointing her to the vacancy. But the thought of Caroline Kennedy (or Sarah Palin) in the Senate is still a hell of a lot less scary than the thought of Sarah Palin (or Caroline Kennedy) one heartbeat away from the presidency.

notice how the media is conspicuously failing to call out Kennedy on all of the same failings?

There's a huge difference between serving as a senator and being vice president under whom would have been the oldest man to ever be sworn in. As probably the lowest ranking senator, Kennedy would have extremely limited influence on committees, etc. Heck, most first-term senators just learn the ropes during their first few years, even experienced legislators. For someone/anyone serving out a two-year appointment, over half her time would be spent on soliciting support for re-election. It's completely different to be the one in the Oval Office, where the country cannot afford an inexperienced idiot running things (just look at how miserable the past eight years have been).

And I disagree with the premise of your question. There's plenty of media (and liberals) talking about Kennedy's limited resume. Heck, a lot of the Clintonites are openly lobbying against her for her (and her family's) endorsement of Obama during the primaries.

I write one of those lefty blogs. I posted a lot about Sarah Palin being terrifying. I've similarly posted multiple times about how much I hate the idea of appointing Caroline Kennedy. Her unimpressive efforts to "run" for the appointment have only solidified my belief.

Of course there has been less blowback on this one than there was for Palin, for all the reasons cited above. Difference between VP and Senator being the main one of course. And, to be honest there's a degree of magnitude. Palin's stuff was 15 out of 10 on the scale of "I can't believe she said that" while Kennedy is having a more run-of-the-mill "gee, you haven't really thought this one through completely have you?" experience.

But yeah, if she gets the appointment, I'll be mad for sure. She wants to use her name to get a Senate seat, run for office like everyone else.