Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
February 16, 2009
POLITICS: Leave Barack Alone!1!1!1!

Mike Lupica had a column this morning weeping bitter tears over his shock and hurt that people are criticizing Barack Obama. Amazing, when you think about it, that the President of the United States should receive criticism. It's such a novel concept.

This was probably the funniest line in the piece:

Once, 100 days was the mythical grace period for a new President. This one doesn't get five minutes. In the process, he finds out that Washington is even lousier and meaner with partisanship than he knew before he got there.

You would almost think, from reading this, that Obama really did just get there. Not that he'd been a United States Senator the last four years (granted, he's been out of town campaigning for half that), doing things like voting against (and voting to filibuster) highly qualified Supreme Court nominees on the basis of ideology. Not that he'd refused to concede even the possibility of good faith on the part of supporters of the Iraq War, giving a speech blaming the war on a cabal of Jews and on political schemes by Karl Rove. To say nothing of the vats of acid spewed by the Angry Left likes of Lupica in recent years. And yet, somehow, they are surprised that politics, as Mr. Dooley remarked more than a century ago, ain't beanbag. Next, someone may even tell them that the world outside our borders is a dangerous place. But when everything in the world is as new to you every year, it is always a surprise.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:18 PM | Politics 2009 | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

The amazing thing about Mike Lupica is not that he doesn't know what he is talking about regarding politics, after all he is a typical snarky, condescending, brain dead new york city liberal douche bag, no, the amazing thing about Mike Lupica is what a sucky uninformed sports writer he is. I have read his stuff on and off for over 20 years-he is a hack, he brings nothing to the table and he really has no useful insights regarding sports in general or baseball in particular.

Posted by: dch at February 16, 2009 9:56 PM

Crank claims that Obama is antisemetic for calling out two neocon Jews in a speech critiquing the Iraq war. So, does that mean that we can all conclude that Crank is a racist for his threads condemning the entire political culture of black dominated cities like Chicago and Detroit?

Posted by: robert at February 16, 2009 10:09 PM

This coming from liberals who 8 years ago at this same time said "unqualified, undeserving, inarticulate, and a do-nothing" in reference to GWB.

By the way, inflammatory statements such as, "I won, so we're going to do things my way" and not following through on a promise of "I will not allow any pork projects added to legislation under my watch" will bring some scrutiny to any individual.

I guess Lupica will have no problem with the Fairness Doctrine; aka censorship.

Posted by: Captain Kirk at February 17, 2009 12:28 AM

Whoa there Captain Kirk :)

The ironic thing about this is that some of the strongest criticism I've heard and read of President Obama has actually not been partisan criticism. It's come from Democrats and liberals.

Posted by: per14 at February 17, 2009 9:06 AM

Growing up a Mets fan in New York during the 80s, I actually felt privileged to have access to Tim McCarver and Mike Lupica - the best commentator and the best writer in the business, or so I thought. Now I've lived to see both become parodies of themselves. Pretty sad.

Posted by: paul zummo at February 17, 2009 10:05 AM

Lupica's a talented writer, but also a lazy one, who is mostly content to throw together collections of cheap shots and get paid for them. His writing ability is not matched by the value of what he has to say, and that's even more true when he moves out of the toy department and into politics.

Posted by: Jerry at February 17, 2009 10:24 AM

Mc Carver was great at one time and I learned a lot about baseball when he first started broadcasting. Lupica on the other hand always was a self important hack. Back in the 80s his man crush on Darryl Strawberry was bizarre and laughable.

Posted by: dch at February 17, 2009 10:24 AM

McCarver? Are you kidding? He and Joe Morgan together could set a room on fire from the sheer amount of non-sensical babble.

Tim: Joe, I really think that they should be guarding the lines here late in the game. You know you really need to guard the lines late in games because if you don't guard the lines then, well, they're unguarded.

Joe: Tim, I absolutely agree although I could be proven wrong so to say that I agree is to say that maybe I agree or don't depending on the situation which could change at any time. So, in this instance, you might guard the lines and I would agree but not guarding the lines might be the right thing to do and I would agree with that.

Posted by: jim at February 17, 2009 11:49 AM

The Obama-meister is off to a poor start (never saw that coming did ya?). As a rookie, he is not quite ready for the big leagues. McCain is probably saying "How did I lose to this bozo?"

It is typical that the liberals who trashed Bush starting the day after his election will not hold their own guys to similar standards. But then do liberlas have any standards at all?

As for McCarver, he (like most ex-players/managers) are OK when they first start in the booth because what they know is current. After a time, they don't know any more than any other sportswriter. Their value diminshes and then you are stuck with just their annoying personality. Madden is like this now. I liked him before, but now not so much.

Posted by: Lee at February 17, 2009 12:24 PM

I don't know. Look at Cris Collinsworth. That guy hasn't played in about 20 years and he's still a fantastic analyst. Gifford was pretty good until the later stages when I think being married to KLG was driving him insane. Jaworski is very good. Maybe it's a football thing. I'm trying to think of an ex-MLB guy. I like Steve Lyons more as an announcer than as a player. The reverse would be true for Rex Hudler. Remy is terrific but only as a local talent, he'd be terrible as a national type guy. Rick Sutcliffe doesn't make my eyes roll at least. I don't remember McCarver well enough in my youth to think of him as good or bad. I just know what I do remember of him is terrible.

Posted by: jim at February 17, 2009 12:43 PM

Lee, I'm not sure what world you're living in but Obama's approval ratings are solidly in the mid 60's, whereas the approval ratings of Congressional Republicans is hovering in the 20's tops.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at February 17, 2009 12:52 PM

Like I said Mc Carver when he first came up was good, for the last 10-15 years he has become a cariacture. Its sort of like John Madden-the first 10 or so years he was great and then he just became a joke.

Seth-per Rasmussen its down to 60-38 despite 3 plus weeks of around the clock media adulation and pimping for Obama and the democrats. The generic congressional ballot is down to a 1 point Dem lead, which per Michael Barone would probably lead to a Republican take over of the House if the election was held today.

He can't control Pelosi or Reid.
800 billion dollar democratic pork bill.
Annual trillion dollar deficts forecasted.
The word Inflation will once again become known to Americans inthe coming 2-3 years.
Stock market down 9% in the last 2 weeks.
Pakistan entering a truce with the Taliban.
Pakistan letting Khan out of jail.
Obama folding to Putin on misslie defense for eastern europe.
Europe getting Obama to back down on trade issues.
Iran calling Obama's overtures what they are-weakness.
India warning Obama to keep out of the Kashmir.
Krgysistan ( I am spelling it wrong) closing the important US airbase and entering into a defense pact with Russia and other former Soviet republics.

There is a new sheriff in town and everyone is walking all over him like Chief Wiggum because he is a weak, unqualified amateur. See you at the mid term elections.

Posted by: dch at February 17, 2009 2:40 PM

A lot of dch listed isn't exactly Obama's fault. But that's actually the point: we're quickly seeing that Obama is not really the chosen one, and a lot of what Bush was blamed for was not his fault either.

I don't know what the actual approval ratings are, but I live in a red state that voted blue in 2008. I'm hearing an incredible amount of Obama back-lash from people who voted for him and were happy to do so. Generally, the criticism is a) from moderates and conservatives: he's going against his post-partisan pledge; and b) from liberals: he's spineless, clueless, and can't lead.

It's way too early to say his presidency is in trouble, but it's been a very poor first month.

Posted by: per14 at February 17, 2009 2:56 PM

dch, Rasmussen is at the low end of Obama's approval ratings, although I agree its a reputable pollster. Research 2000 and Gallup still have Obama in the mid 60's with disapproval in the mid 20's.

No sense arguing with you about the rest, we won't agree.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at February 17, 2009 2:58 PM

I will just note that Rasmussen absolutely nailed the last 2 presidential elections. And no I do not blame Obama for everything and no I do not think everything that Bush did was great and I was p...d at the republican congress for falling into the big government trap and there were a lot of things that I think Clinton did well.

That said, there are a number of things that liberal philosophy is just plain wrong on and if we go down the road on them they will be a disaster. A significant portion of people that voted for him, I would say 5-10 percent, did not vote for what they are seeing. Example-This spending bill is poised to roll back a large part the welfare reform act of 1996 arguably the most important and successful accomplishment of the Clinton Admin. -why would anyone except an idelogue do that? Do we really need to provide governement funded medical care to children of families that are 300% above the poverty line?

Posted by: dch at February 17, 2009 3:48 PM

I guess approval polls are the exclusive way to determine if a President is doing a good or bad job. I must have missed that memo-my bad!

Using actual events (kind of like facts ya know) to determine how a President is doing must have no relevance. It's a liberal's wolrd now!

Again, I quote that premier American, Joe Biden: Gird your loins!

Posted by: Lee at February 17, 2009 3:48 PM

Unfortunately, vicariously I wasted the same amount of time with Lupica today that you did. He lost all face as having anything pertinent to say years ago.

I stop paying attention to those who have nothing to add to the discussion. Lupica is the reason I no longer watch The Sports Reporters.

Posted by: RDOwens at February 17, 2009 7:00 PM

Lupica is a sportswriter. Who cares what he thinks about politics?

Crank, your continued efforts to paint the President as anti-semitic are depicable and continue to be based on the same sentence from 2002. Give it up already.

Posted by: Magrooder at February 17, 2009 9:34 PM

dch thinks he learned about baseball from Tim McCarver. Why am I not surprised.

Lee, You must be watching only Faux News, listening rapturously to Rush and browsing the Crank, if you think Obama is doing poorly.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, he is reversing harmful Bush environmental policy, got a measure to help ease the eceonomic crisis passed, and showed conclusively that Newt Cantor and his lemmings don't give a damn about the country.

Posted by: Magrooder at February 17, 2009 9:41 PM

robert - Richard Daley and Rod Blagojevich are black? Who knew?

I agree with Jerry about Lupica. I enjoyed reading Lupica 20 years ago, I'm not sure if that changed because he got worse or because I grew up. I also liked McCarver when he was announcing for the Mets. I can't stand him now.

seth - Approval ratings may be a trailing indicator here. The public's inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. That may be bad news for Harry & Nancy, who took control of Congress when the economy was doing fine. Voters will take out their frustrations on someone.

RDOwens - Sadly, I gave up on The Sports Reporters 15-18 years ago because most of them were worse than Lupica. Bill Conlin? The late Ralph Wiley? Albom? Ack.

Magrooder - Lupica's column runs on page 2 or 3 of my daily newspaper, that's why I care. That speech from 2002? It was the whole basis of Obama's appeal to the anti-war crowd.

Posted by: Crank at February 17, 2009 11:05 PM

McCarver really was good earlier in his career, but he doesn't seem to have anything new to say, which is a particular problem when you talk as much as he does. Even Ralph Kiner comes up with new stories more often than McCarver, and he only works about two innings a month.

Posted by: Jerry at February 17, 2009 11:54 PM

Anyone who thinks this porkulus package is anything but the granting of the liberal wish list is not in any "real" world. It will not help the economy but will move us toward the socialism that the liberals want.

For the list of "real" things that the Obama-meister has done (or tried to do), please see the earlier posting by dch.

Only 47 more months of Obama dictatorship to go!

Posted by: Lee at February 18, 2009 7:33 AM

Yes, Crank, that speech was important to his election; it showed he was 100% correct about the war at a time when most Democrats were too afraid to say it. But, to suugest that he "blamed the war on a cabal of Jews" is John Birch Society nuttiness.

Also, if you are so concerned about falsely blaming Jewish people, perhpas you should write about the Vatican embracing Holocaust deniers.

Lee, "Dictatorship"? No, it's called an election and I don't recall your horror when Cheney said he didn't have to care about public opinion because he and Bush had won the election in 2004.

Posted by: Magrooder at February 18, 2009 11:16 AM

Oh, and Crank, if Lupica is on page 2 or 3 of your paper that says more about your paper than anything. It reminds of a long-ago Nightline episose on which Louis Farrakhan was trying to debate some point with Nat Hentoff by saying it had been printed in a newspaper and holding up USA Today. Hentoff replied, "that is not a newspaper." Farrakhan missed the joke.

The NY Post is not a newspaper.

Posted by: Magrooder at February 18, 2009 11:25 AM

Lupica's in the NY Daily News, not the Post.

Posted by: Crank at February 18, 2009 11:28 AM

Are the liberals touchy about how we refer to the Obama-meister? Bush/Cheney can be called any name by the left wing loonies; but don't dare say anything mean about the left's saviour! They are gonna have to develop a tougher skin to get thru the next 47 months!

As the Obama-meister's goofs, mistakes, and general ineptitude gets more visibility; it will keep getting tougher. Gird you Loins!

Posted by: Lee at February 18, 2009 1:08 PM

Crank,

Post. Daily News. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Posted by: Magrooder at February 18, 2009 7:32 PM

NY Times, fish wrapper. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Both stink!

Posted by: Lee at February 19, 2009 12:28 PM

So every moron who backed the clusterfu** is a Jew?
That must be the stupidest religion in the history of mankind.
Even 2-year-olds knew that thing would be a disaster (probably because they were watching Sesame Street, and not the lying cheerleaders in the MSM like Russert, Dobbs, the Faux News crew, et al).

Posted by: Berto at February 19, 2009 11:04 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg