Never idealize others.
They will never live up to your expectations.
Don't over-analyze your relationships.
Stop playing games.
A growing relationship can only be nurtured by genuineness.
Leo Buscaglia
Petraeus as Romney's VP Speculation? Thumbs DOWN!
Almost any novice player in checkers or chess makes the same type mistakes; they look at the pieces on the board on a very superficial level: they think that the other player has blundered, giving them an easy capture of a piece on the board. The more experienced player suspects that the opponent is setting him up for a trap, willing to sacrifice an insignificant piece to capture multiple pieces or open up an angle for attack and a quick victory.
When I look back at the 2008 campaign, many political strategists thought that Obama, by not nominating the runner-up for the nomination, Sen. Clinton, for his VP choice had made a major blunder. Picking a female VP for McCain seemed to be a no-brainer. (I remember ruling out Palin early because of her Troopergate problems.) Palin, who has considerable charisma and appeal, caught the Dems by surprise and initially seemed to be a political masterstroke. I was impressed by her first two major speeches. But McCain had needlessly dealt away his critical experience argument against Obama by nominating a governor from a sparsely populated, resource-rich state about 18 months into her first term in office.
Because of the success of Petraeus' counter-insurgency policies in Iraq, he has become largely applauded by conservative hawks. Obama initially kept his distance from Petraeus through the 2008 campaign but soon made him a critical member of his Administration by choosing him to oversee the Afghanistan theater and then selecting him to head the CIA; there were political reasons for that, of course (e.g., it provided evidence of his "bipartisan" approach, with many GOP legislators vested in Petraeus' success). Now Obama seems worried that Romney will choose Petraeus as a running mate, even though Petraeus has constantly ruled out running for office.
It's easy to see why Romney might want to choose Petraeus--but it would be a huge political blunder, the 2012 version of a Palin pick. Oh, Petraeus is no Sarah Palin (I believe that he holds a doctorate), but I'm referring to how a VP helps the nominee with voters overall. Sarah Palin did very well with social conservatives, but she needed to draw independents and moderates in the battleground states, not primarily motivate people in states already voting for McCain.
Yes, Romney's military/foreign policy experience is minimal, and Petraeus certainly would nicely complement Romney's domestic strength. But there are at least 3 good reasons why Petraeus should NOT be chosen:
- the selection of Petraeus undermines Romney's core message focusing on the economy
- Romney already has the military hawk vote; Petraeus doesn't really help him with independents and moderates in the battleground states
- Petraeus is too tied to the Bush Administration, and the last thing Romney needs is to do is give Obama yet another reason to start bashing Bush again and repeat the same charges used against the McCain campaign as "Bush's third term"
Thumbs DOWN!
It isn't often that I call out libertarians in this blog, I have certain nuanced differences from big-L libertarians, on abortion, same-sex marriage, and drug liberalization. I think that the later point in particular is where Libertarians lose middle America. (My position is more of decriminalization, particularly with marijuana, something I've never used and discourage against using.) Gillespie wants to go back to a controversial picture months after Phelps' unprecedented 2008 8-gold medal performance; he is still fixated on Phelps' PR response to a marijuana kerfuffle nearly and the "hypocrisy" of the the rest of us paying tribute to Phelps' incredible record-setting Olympic career.
No, we praise what Phelps has done inside the pool DESPITE the mistakes he has made in his personal life, not BECAUSE of them. For example, I am supportive of what Pete Rose did on the baseball diamond; this does not mean I approve of his gambling addiction. Part of the issue here is that Phelps was photographed in a social setting engaging in questionable behavior; among other things, it sets up the point "why can't I do it? Michael Phelps does it...", not to mention raise issues of a double standard, e.g., does Phelps' status as a sports star lets him get away with doing things ordinary citizens might go to jail over?
We can argue whether or not the marijuana ban is enforceable or prudent public policy, but Phelps realizes the the reality of current law plus the fact the sport discourages the use of the drug. To what extent does an athlete has a public responsibility for what he does in his private life and in being a role model? Phelps seems to be a private person: for example, if he's dating a young woman, I haven't read about her. No doubt Phelps yearns to be normal like everyone else, not have people interrupt his dinner for an autograph or picture when he eats; he probably didn't ask to be a celebrity. Probably millions of people could be photographed smoking a bong, and the world would scarcely notice, but arguably the greatest swimmer ever? It may not be fair, but it is what it is. He has built a personal fortune on his celebrity. Companies carefully select celebrity endorsements; they don't want the sales of their products or services affected by adverse publicity about their endorsers.
Nick Gillespie in particular says this:
As the sports world says a fond farewell to Michael Phelps, the most bemedaled Olympian that ever was, it's worth remembering the idiotic moral outrage that exploded when this picture of the eventual 18-gold-medal-winning swimmer surfaced in early 2009. [This picture shows Phelps smoking a bong, typically containing marijuana.]
To me, the most appalling aspect was the public apology that Phelps ended up giving, presumably as a way of salvaging endorsement deals and an up-to-then squeaky-clean image.[Note: others have made essentially the same point.]
The public apology was this:
I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment. I'm 23 years old and despite the successes I've had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again.First, let me point out that I have been very complimentary to Phelps in multiple commentaries in 2008 and 2012. But here are a few inconvenient facts: he currently holds 7 world records but the last was set in 2009; he lost some key races since the 2008 Olympics and some of his winning times had slipped between years. He qualified for the same 8 events in 2012, but dropped out of one (because he wanted to conserve his energy) and didn't medal in another; he lost his signature event (the 200m butterfly) with a rookie mistake, and he himself admitted that he wasn't satisfied with his technical performance. He also didn't pursue a degree while attending Michigan and admitted that he had slacked off training between Olympics. Now winning 4 golds (2 of them relays) out of 7 or 8 events (half of his gold success in 2008) is better than I'll do in my lifetime, but could he have done better?
There was an interesting question by his NBC interviewer (Bob Costas?) noting that Phelps had some goals that he had set for the Olympics (over and beyond setting the all-time medal count); Phelps was asked, point blank, whether he accomplished those unspecified goals. Phelps' body language was telling; I suspect that no athlete enters any event with the expectation of losing it. I would suspect that if Phelps decided to compete in 7 races, he expected to win 7 golds. Two silvers and one event of not reaching the podium fall short of that aspiration. Phelps gave a transparent evasive answer, something to the effect "I can honestly say that I've reached all the goals I set out to accomplish for myself when I started my career." Phelps, he wasn't asking an essay question: a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Bob, I'm sure you realize that the real answer was 'no'. He came up short 3 or 4 golds.
Was his drop-off in performance due to smoking pot? I think that last Olympics he set himself a goal of winning the most Olympic golds in one meet, and I think his primary goal for this Olympics was to set the mark for most Olympic medals. No, I don't know how much pot Phelps smoked (my guess is that it wasn't the first time since he looked like he knew what he was doing smoking the bong, but given all the frequent drug testing athletes go through, my theory is that if he did indulge, he did so during breaks following major meets because he never failed a drug test.)
I think his performance had more to do with burnout (the habitual training for the next meet for 16 years), Maybe he's lost a stroke or two at 27: one source says that the average age of an Olympic swimmer is 22, and before Dana Torres won a relay medal in the 2008 Olympics (her fifth games) at the age of 41, the previous oldest swimming medalist was a century earlier by a breaststroke runner-up at 38.
Second, I don't like the way that Gillespie tries to compare and contrast medal totals. He's utterly dismissive of Carl Lewis' totals. I'm not trying to dismiss Phelps' accomplishments, but I think it's far more difficult to medal in track and field (and relays are much easier in swimming--no baton hand-offs, passing lanes, etc).
Third, even if Phelps was caught once smoking weed, it doesn't prove a pattern of behavior. Trying to attribute his performance to smoking weed is nonsensical; the fact is that he passed testing free of marijuana at the times of his performance. Phelps' success has more to do with his natural gifts and training.
Fourth, Gillespie seems to forget that smoking weed was not Phelps' first youthful indiscretion. There were at least two occasions where Phelps had been involved in DWI.
Finally, although I agree the apology appears to be self-serving and is probably intended to contain damage in terms of endorsements, etc., it may reflect Phelps' true feelings. But as far as apologies go, it's fairly pathetic: he didn't really identify pot smoking, drinking, whatever. It sounds to me he's trying to explain/excuse his behavior. (I wonder how many parents would accept their teenager's apology for disobeying the rules with "Remember, I'm just 16; this was just a youthful indiscretion; I bet you made mistakes when you were 16, too"?) A better apology would have been: "I made a mistake at that party. What I did was wrong and hope that others won't repeat my mistake; I'm sorry and promise not to do again."
This issue has cropped up against with two athletes missing the Olympics, and Ms. Lee, a wrestler whom failed a drug test, is using Phelps as an example. This goes beyond Phelps' marketability: the swimming organization tests for it (even though Phelps never failed a drug test), and Phelps' charities include working with youth groups: is he setting a good example for youth by sending mixed messages about drug use?
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, "Rag Doll"
