The State of the GOP Primary So Far

 

January 10, 2024

After four debates between the Grand Old Party (GOP) aspirants for the party's nomination, it is still former President Trump's to lose, and barring any legal problems, or convictions for that matter, none of the candidates have proven their worth to be a better alternative for Republicans.

_____________________________

For those who dislike former President Donald Trump, or had hoped to see a bloodbath in terms of the prospective alternatives to the "Orange One" fighting it out for the nomination, it has not turned out that way.  At various times, a new candidate would become the trendy "it" person.  First, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was favored to be the best person to wrestle the nomination away from Mr. Trump, but his campaign has faltered and has not recovered. Then, political momentum moved to Vivek Ramaswamy, who was intelligent and well-read, but his confident demeanor rubbed some the wrong way. After his stumbles, the media shifted toward former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley.  Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie was a known name, and I agree with some that he may have missed his best chance for the nomination in 2012 (he did not run, and supported Mitt Romney's failed campaign). No one had been good enough to break out and pull away from the candidates who weren't serious contenders.

According to FiveThirtyEight, in January 2024, Donald Trump polls at 61%, while Mr. DeSantis has 12% support, and the surging Nikki Haley is nipping at his heels (pun intended!), while Vivek Ramaswamy has not moved past 5% and Mr. Christie brings up the caboose at 3.8%.

Governor Ron DeSantis was pegged by many political pundits and media publications as the greatest threat to wresting the GOP nomination from Donald Trump and restoring centrism back into the Republican party.  Things have not gone as planned.  His campaign was greeted with optimism, but his rollout on Twitter, now "X," was marred by glitches and technical issues. It was the equivalent of a sprinter tripping and falling after the gun was fired. It was not a good look for his campaign.  During the first four debates, Mr. DeSantis did not distinguish himself and came across as stiff, clumsy, and had facial expressions that were awkward or ill-timed.  To me, he didn't appear at ease, or comfortable with his environment and didn't exude confidence during challenges from the debate moderators. His campaign has been an overwhelming disappointment to party observers, and he probably will end his campaign if he doesn't perform well in the early primary states.  It would be a surprising ending to what his campaign had going for it at the very beginning, inevitability to being the best challenger to Trump's reign, and becoming the new leader of the party once he won the nomination.

Nikki Haley was not someone the country thought would be a contender early on, but she has taken part of the Republican party's base by storm.  As the former governor of South Carolina, she, like Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Christie had successful terms as the chief executive of their respective states.  All have proven track records, but she was also former President Trump's United Nations (U.N.) Ambassador.  During debates, she extolls her experience dealing with enemies and antagonists for America at the Security Council.  What she doesn't want to admit, and no one has asked her, is that she must vote the way the State Department wants her to vote, and works at the pleasure of the President of the United States.  In other words, she doesn't make up her own positions and is unconstrained by the President's directives.  There is no room for independence, and she should be clear about her prior role, and the other primary candidates need to point that out during debates.  Additionally, during a campaign stop, she was asked about the Civil War but neglected to mention slavery as the primary cause of the conflict. It made her look foolish and dampened any momentum after a solid performance during the most recent debate. After leaving her ambassadorship, she sought the greener pastures of private enterprise and was given board seats for several defense contractors and other large corporations.  

I believe that a good number of those defense contractor employees have written maximum contributions for her campaign and several GOP mega-donors have thrown their support too. Ms. Haley is the preferred candidate for the military-industrial complex, and her positions concerning Ukraine, Israel, China, and Russia show who "butters her bread."  Those positions go against what many in the Republican Party want, which is "America First," which is to avoid costly wars or support for countries whose goals and agenda are different from what the United States should be. 

I feel Vivek Ramaswamy is an intelligent and assertive candidate, and is unabashed in providing his opinions and policy positions. He generally doesn't cower from any challenges from other candidates, or political journalists, but I think his momentum has probably peaked.  The mainstream media initially gave him a lot of air-time, which he took advantage of, and went on as many TV interviews as possible, but now have turned on him.  Several women on these networks promote the idea that he has a "women problem," in that he has criticized prominent women in the party (Ms. Haley, and Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel) for example.  I disagree with that assertion. Mr. Ramaswamy has fought onstage with Mr. Christie, Mr. DeSantis, and a few other men running for the nomination. He seems to direct his ire onto anyone he feels deserves it, but that has not allowed him to win over more skeptical voters in the primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. The "Establishment" of Washington, D.C., which is all about the elites (including donors) of both parties who have the same foreign and monetary policy, Wall Street, and political agendas, have not increased their fundraising and public support.  If Vivek cannot win or place second in the first three primary contests, I think his candidacy is effectively done and he should bow out gracefully.

I had always felt that Governor Christie should do himself a favor and drop out of the race. Looks like he took my advice, and has officially dropped out as of today, January 10th.  His campaign didn't seem to gain any traction, nor did he seem to be able to encroach on other candidates' momentum.  It was an afterthought, and voters seemed to agree.

This is for all intents and purposes, former President Donald Trump's race to lose.  It always was. He has such overwhelming support from his party's base and specific members of Congress.  Along with independents, his campaign has seen that support grow after Mr. Trump's legal troubles and indictments.  I think the media wanted a genuine horse race and didn't want the Republican primary to be a pre-ordained coronation, so they played the candidates, and their supporters off each other, in hopes of drawing in viewers and potentially seeing their ratings rise. The shadow of Mr. Trump is so large that the other candidates, over time, would never be able to outrun his popularity.  It is the reason why Donald Trump has avoided the debate stage so far because he knows that shadow will do its job, and not allow any sunlight to improve the chances of the others trying to unseat his rule at the top of the party.

If he does lose his legal challenges or gets convicted, then I think the party's voters will choose someone else without too much controversy.  Governors Christie and DeSantis don't seem to draw in large numbers of support, but they do have leadership experience; however, they lack a lot of donor support, especially from the billionaire class to give them campaign momentum.  

Who does have some momentum? Governor Haley of course.  The backing of megadonors such as LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, JP MorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon, the late Charles Koch's political action committee, Americans for Prosperity Action, Citadel hedge fund founder Ken Griffin, and Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone all have thrown their backing to her candidacy.  Will that push her past the others mentioned in this piece to give her a shot at winning the nomination from Donald Trump?  I am not sure.  While the political establishment supports her, the party's base may not.  For it is they who provide their sons and daughters for endless wars and will see their jobs and wages disappear.  For them, Trump is their champion.

If the media wanted chaos and a real horserace to improve their ratings, wait until Mr. Trump cannot win the nomination because he could be incarcerated appealing any conviction.  Then the GOP primary and general election against President Biden will be off the rails.  Hold on, everybody!

The College Football Playoff Has Messed Up Again.

 

December 11, 2023

The end of this 2023 college football season, where a champion is crowned during the four-game "College Football Playoff (CFP)," was supposed to generate fan interest and drive TV ratings. However, a wrench was thrown into the process after the Florida State Seminoles, who went undefeated (13-0) and won their conference championship for the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), were not one of the four teams that qualified for the playoff: Michigan, Washington, Texas, and Alabama.  It has caused somewhat of an uproar amongst Seminole fans, and a certain segment of overall college football fans, potentially ruining a slew of anticipated matchups among the four chosen teams.

________________________________

College football for many years was a simple process, in that schools played the teams in their conference, along with three out-of-conference games. At the end of the season, sports columnists from around the country would determine which teams were "national champions." This was done primarily through a ranking of teams in the Associated Press (AP) Top 25, along with a United Press International (UPI) Coaches Poll, which was voted by active Division 1 coaches.  These rankings were highly subjective in my opinion. In a few cases, teams that were crowned national champions had in some cases lost to teams ranked lower than them but were judged on the season, instead of head-to-head matchups (USC and Alabama in 1978 shared that title: the AP chose Alabama, and the UPI Coaches Poll selected USC). Additionally, fans of the game were upset that in 1984 Brigham Young University (BYU), which played in the less prestigious Western Athletic Conference (WAC) was crowned national champion that year.  Observers felt their schedule was not competitive and did not have a signature win to justify their title. 

There were other split champions spread out over the years, so the major conferences got together and created the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) which was another progressive attempt by conferences to unify the champion of college football between 1998 and 2013.  Previous endeavors included the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition.  The four major bowls that were, over time, to be the bowls that rotated semifinal games were the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar Bowl, and Orange Bowls. The bowl games that were not selected as semifinal hosts were given teams that were ranked within a certain bracket.

A quirk in the selection of title game participants was the use of a computer algorithm, which was not transparent in its methodology and proprietary to the creators of those models.  Like Florida State this year, in previous years Southern California (USC) in 2003 and Auburn University in 2004 were left out which resulted in anger and consternation amongst fans of the sport and the respective universities.  Tweaks were implemented in the following years to correct an evolving model to select two worthy teams to play for the national title.

The sport, despite all the corrections and tweaks, is still really a subjective beauty pageant.  Rankings for teams are selected based on the aggregate opinions of sports writers, whom I am sure get "suggestions" and are encouraged to rank certain teams higher than their merit.  Some of this is probably done by conference executives to grease the wheels for their teams. I am not a fan of this process.  

You would need to have a simple, easy-to-follow format so that teams and their players know what is needed to make the playoffs more legitimate and free from any manipulation from television partners, conference commissioners, and other interested parties. The system must be immune to pressure from outside forces.

This is what I propose (which might have saved the Pacific 12 Conference (PAC-12), which recently imploded with the defections of USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon over the past two years):

The PAC-12 was part of a group of conferences known as the "Power 5," which comprised the PAC-12, the Big-10, the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the ACC, and the Big-12. These conferences controlled the dialogue regarding bowl games and national championships, with minimal influence from the National Collegiate Athletic Administration (NCAA), and set the agenda for the sport.  This group also includes the University of Notre Dame because they are a wealthy and influential independent brand name (in 2013 Notre Dame agreed to partially join the ACC, with an agreement to play at least 5 ACC schools every year). 

The playoff format I think would work best is an eight-team format.  Each conference champion gets an automatic berth, along with three at-large teams from any conference or independent Notre Dame. The at-large teams would be based on non-conference victories that must be ranked in the Top 15 with an impressive strength of schedule (to be determined by a CFP committee, and metrics must include road wins against Top 10 teams, along with schedules that include strong non-conference games, which are chosen by the school years in advance).

Once all eight teams have been selected, they are seeded based on the overall strength of the schedule.  This means just because you are a conference champion, you do not get a home game in the first round of the playoffs. An at-large team with a better non-conference and Top 10 road wins should get a home game.  This rewards schools that schedule tougher opponents.  

There would be three rounds to determine a champion.  In round 1, all eight teams play.  In the next round, the remaining four teams would be re-seeded by the committee and the two semifinal games are played between the rotating group of four major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange).  The final round would be played in one of the two remaining "Big Four" bowls.

This format shares some similarities with the format being used now, notably the shared hosting duties for the semifinals of the "Big Four" bowl games.  The main difference is that you are protecting and rewarding winning your conference, but not providing a sense of entitlement that a conference winner will get a home game in the first round of the playoffs.

I think this format would be a better option than the current CFP model the sport is using now.  My proposal protects winning your conference, while not shutting the door on great teams that are not able to play for their respective conferences.  I think my idea has merit, and the powers that be should use it, instead of the 12-team playoff that will come into effect next year (that's too many teams!).

I welcome any feedback and am open to a better proposal for how college football can crown a true national champion in the future.

Renegade Republicans Remove a Sitting Speaker

 

November 10, 2023

On October 3rd of this year, for the first time in its history, the United States Congress removed a sitting Speaker of the House through a special vote.  Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was removed through a simple motion by a member of his own Republican party, led by Matt Gaetz (R-FL).  It was a shock to the current Congress since it has never been done before in the history of the United States House of Representatives. Was this move by a specific group of Republicans a smart move, or has it damaged the GOP agenda in the House?

___________________________________

Before Kevin McCarthy assumed his duties as the newly elected Speaker of the House on November 22, 2023, he had to survive several "No" votes that were humiliating to his candidacy before getting the required number of votes to win the top position in the House.  The negotiations between his party's more aggressive populists included a concession by Mr. McCarthy to allow any member of the GOP Caucus to bring forth a no-confidence snap vote at any time.  

So, on October 3rd, Matt Gaetz brought forth the motion to declare that the Speaker position was "vacant," which required Mr. McCarthy to counter his motion with a vote for his support, and to everyone's shock surprise, Mr. Gaetz was able to remove a Speaker of the House.  Of course, the Democrats played their gleeful part as well, voting with eight Republicans to vote against Mr. McCarthy.  

The rogue Republican members of Congress were upset at the negotiations involved in raising the debt ceiling, amongst other issues at the root of their displeasure with Kevin McCarthy. Mr. Gaetz, Nancy Mace (R-SC), Tim Burchett (R-TN), Eli Craine (R-AZ), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ) were among those members who got their wish and removed a sitting House Speaker. Moderate Democrats and Republicans didn't think the vote was warranted, since working across the aisle to keep the government operating was a common goal, despite serious political and policy differences between the parties.

After the shock vote that passed, several Republicans stepped forward to try and win support from the members of their caucus. First, it was conservative Steve Scalise (R-LA), who was memorably shot during practice for the annual baseball game between Republicans and Democrats. Although he was popular and well-liked, he was not able to draw the required support to win after multiple vote tallies.  Next, it was the former gym teacher and "The Jackletless One," Jim Jordan (R-OH).  He failed several rounds of voting.  Finally, after a week or so, a fellow Louisianan of Mr. Scalise, Mike Johnson (R-LA), won the support of the GOP caucus and was able to secure the votes needed when the full House voted. Democrats immediately attacked his deeply religious views and attempted to paint him as a religious fanatic who does not share congressional Democrats or their voters' priorities in matters such as abortion, immigration, and economic policy.

So what was the endgame here for Matt Gaetz and his faction within the GOP caucus? One of the most important elections in the country's history is a year away, and his actions have brought about instability within their party.  If you are a Republican, control of the lower chamber of Congress is vital to their party's agenda and goals.  Removing a Republican Speaker who appeared to be a moderate, but was the party's best fundraiser does not appear to be a savvy political calculation.  That is generally one of the primary reasons a member is able to become Speaker of the House, due to their ability to raise large amounts of money, which is then distributed to the campaign war chests of those running for re-election.  In the House especially, where members seek re-election every two years, money is extremely important.  Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi was the leader of the Democrats in the House, and her position before as Minority Leader was due to her excellent relationship with wealthy donors and corporate America.  In fact, that is the single most important skill in having a leadership position in either the House or the Senate.

Removing one of your party's prolific fundraisers is a serious tactical error so close to a vital national election across multiple levels of government that I am at a loss for its motivation.  I get that Matt Gaetz and his group of renegade members had intense problems with the lack of fiscal responsibility during the debt ceiling negotiations, not to mention other issues, such as financial support for Israel and Ukraine. Their displeasure will have serious costs politically. Personally, I don't think this was well thought out on their part.  I am aware of the various groups with Congress, dispersed amongst both parties, that do not march in lockstep with party leadership.  However, those on the Democratic side, such as "The Squad," led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have been muted in their ability to cause problems for Nancy Pelosi in the past and the current party leadership.  The Republicans on the other hand, since they are the party out of power in the White House, cannot control or work effectively with their own members that have their own separate agenda.

I think that Mr. Gaetz's political machinations could cost Republicans in the 2024 elections.  With President Biden and Vice President Harris both polling badly, the economy not working for the majority of Americans, especially the lower middle class, along with chaos and conflict in Europe and the Middle East, it was a good opportunity to raise vital fundraising dollars to mount serious challenges to the down-ballot campaigns during their party's presidential nominating process.  Having stability within your party's leadership in the House is a necessary foundation to win back control of the Senate and White House.  This miscalculation by the eight members of the GOP who forced a vote on their own Speaker because of ideological purity will backfire I am afraid. 

The new Republican Speaker has not proven himself to be adept at withstanding political fights launched by the Democrats and shepherding his own party to hold the line for issues important to their donors and voters. If the GOP wants to challenge President Biden's agenda, they must hold onto the lower chamber, at least, while hoping to have party turnout so they can attempt to win back the Senate.  

Matt Gaetz's aggressive political maneuver may have won him the adoration of Republicans who share his political ideology, and his fellow renegades in the House, but in the end, I think this might have been a Pyrrhic Victory.  His aggressive action may have won him short-term success, but will ultimately doom the party when it had a good chance (and was within striking distance), to make gains in the Senate, and possibly the White House, for a banner year for the GOP in 2024. However, actions have consequences, and Mr. Gaetz's actions may have fatal consequences for his party's immediate future.

Will The Fight Between ESPN And Disney Change Cable TV forever?

 

October 6, 2023

Recently, before the start of the college football game between the Utah Utes and the Florida Gators, on August 31st, Spectrum, the giant cable company, cut the feed to ESPN, the channel for the game that was to be televised. Initially, I was under the impression that it was a satellite glitch that would rectify itself over a few minutes.  However, it didn't. Instead, I saw a message on the screen for all of Disney's cable channel properties (ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, F/X, etc.) that explained that Disney was asking for too much money for Spectrum to carry its channels, and was working to resolve it.  Is this the first salvo at the end of the cable TV revenue model?

__________________________________

The current cable model is slowly proving that it is not sustainable over the long term.  The way cable works is that the company will offer you a certain number of channels (like a bundle), whether you watch them or not, for a monthly fee. Certain channels, like ESPN, benefitted from this arrangement and generated massive amounts of revenue, which in turn paid for the media rights for extremely popular sports leagues, like the NBA, the NFL, and Major League Baseball (MLB), to name a few.  ESPN is the flagship of the cable bundle.  This business model benefitted other industries too, like cable news and entertainment channels.  CNN and later Fox News and MSNBC grew their profits from this bundle arrangement.  Revenue grew for HBO, Showtime, and STARZ too. Clay Travis, the founder of the sports site Outkick, wrote a long-form article (Sep 7, 2023) that lays out the problem with this crumbling business model, which hit its peak around 2014, when ESPN had approximately 100 million subscribers.

He believes that peak, especially since ESPN was on top of the world, generating millions of dollars a month in fees, which was used to secure media rights of billions over several years, for many of the most popular sports leagues in America.  In the first year alone of 2023, ESPN and its sister channels generated close to $14 billion in revenue and had $3 billion in profit, according to Fortune's Paige Hagy (August 3, 2023).  There was a 6% drop in revenue from the previous year and profit was down 29%. The article points out that revenue for the network continues to decrease in significant levels and streaming alternatives are the primary cause.

Over the years the company raised its monthly fee on cable platforms and continued to pay even large media rights packages along that timeline.  Those television deals increased the revenue for the owners and players to split, thereby driving up the earning power for players through lucrative contracts, and increasing the valuations of the sports franchises themselves.  It also put ESPN on the hook for televising games, without actually owning any of the content, as Mr. Travis stated.  The network was just leasing or renting the product for those games and made money through advertising. Once the games ended, ESPN had no further use for, or "ownership" of it.  Very few people would go back and watch a game again unless it was memorable, or if it was a championship game, and even then, the viewership numbers for those re-broadcasted games were minuscule.

During those boom years, the network was flying high, with solid viewership, and record-breaking profits during its highpoint of the aughts (2000-2010), but that would not last.  If ESPN was an ocean liner, then no one seemed to notice that an iceberg was in its path, as was aptly described, and one which could lead to its demise.  The 'iceberg" in this case was the process of cord-cutting, where cable subscribers would cancel the cable portion of their bundle because there was no need to pay such large monthly costs for channels they never watch.  I would assume, based on my experience with cable company's customer service, that they would make it hard for people to quit, but they apparently did.  Outkick's Travis writes that, by 2023, cable cord-cutting reduced ESPN subscriber list by 30%, an eye-catching number because it means that the network lost millions of households over a short time frame.

One revenue stream that was holding constant was the need for a modem and internet connection, including but not limited to broadband.  Since most of us spend a lot of time on the internet, for business, keeping up with friends and family, and commerce, it is a must-have necessity. The large cable companies (Comcast, Charter/Spectrum) know this, and I believe in this case Charter/Spectrum had the upper hand in their fight with Disney. Why?  Charter/Spectrum knew that Disney needed them more than they needed Disney's channels.  I believe if you viewed reliable data collected for various reasons why subscribers canceled their cable, it most likely would show that while people don't need cable, they do need an internet connection.  Americans are not going to cancel that.  Charter/Spectrum called Disney's bluff, and they prevailed because the company made a large bet on access to and use of the internet that would be a steady flow of positive revenue.

Charter/Spectrum and other large cable companies are partially putting some of their capital into streaming and programming, but also betting that other streaming giants like Netflix, Disney (Disney+), and Amazon (Amazon Prime Video) will prove fruitful with their content.  However, based on recent reporting, streaming is not proving to be the cash cow many had hoped it would be. Netflix, the "Original" of streaming, generates billions of dollars worldwide per month due to membership fees but continues to lose money in order to generate content.  Recently, Reuters detailed that lackluster revenue in the most recent quarter, and caused share prices to drop (July 2023).  The company has to repeatedly seek large loan amounts so creators can develop content for members to watch.

At some point, revenue must exceed investment costs.  Disney+ and Amazon Prime are not riding high either (especially Disney+ or its Star Wars extended universe content, which doesn't appear to be gaining new fans or generating large enough revenue streams through viewership). ESPN has tried to get into the streaming game (ESPN+), but Travis believes that the majority of casual sports fans are not going to fork over monthly fees to watch games they could have for free.  Additionally, they might end up losing media rights to tech behemoths like Apple (which already has the rights to Major League Soccer through Apple TV+) and Amazon Prime, which already shows the NFL on its Thursday night package.

Which brings us back to the next phase of the cable wars. Where does it lead? Mr. Travis thinks that cable will have to change its bundle model.  If these companies don't adapt, the entire cable bundle business model will collapse, as he pointed out. People are more savvy now and will learn to push for options where they can choose which channels they want, and which they will not pay for.  I don't see too many Americans paying for things they do not need or want but have to pay for regardless. Rosy projections from these cable channels about a desire to pay for quality content are I believe, bordering on delusional.  

Garret Searight, of Barrett Sports Media (May 22, 2023), believes all the doomsday reports of ESPN's demise are overblown. He feels that because the network generates almost $775 million in cable subscriptions before advertising revenue is added, it will be fine. Mr. Searight also thinks that if ESPN moves to a direct-to-consumer model since it has agreements with the major sports networks, and the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the most popular college football conference, it will be protected from the cord-cutting bloodbath that is affecting other media companies. His premise is that most consumers who have cable have it primarily to watch sports, so if the network breaks away from cable, it should continue to be profitable. Additionally, Mr. Searight firmly believes that if ESPN forms its own streaming platform, sports fans will pledge their allegiance to it, and that will be the straw that breaks the cable bundle's proverbial back.

Per the Outkick article, the NFL, the most popular sports league in America, has only 3 million subscribers for its NFL Sunday Ticket package. If the country's most viewed sports league can only get a fraction of fans to pay for its comprehensive Sunday content, what makes these cable channels think that consumers will pay a premium for sports leagues they show only a casual interest in? I think ESPN knows this because one of their overt tells recently was to seek new investors for their channel, and had asked some of the richer American sports leagues (NBA, NFL) along with other entities, to become a shared partner in a new business model.

I do not share Garrett Searight's faith in ESPN's future revenue projections.  While I do think that sports continue to be the most reliable viewing for consumers, I am not sold yet on the idea that a majority of Americans will want to pay to watch sports, especially casual fans. If the NFL cannot get more than 3 million people to pay for its aggregate Sunday viewership platform, what makes him believe that people will do that for the other major sports? ESPN can spend money buying media rights precisely because of its dependable monthly revenue from the cable bundle. If it didn't have that financial support for its business model, I don't see large enough numbers in paying consumers to improve upon what it generates currently. I foresee a decrease in ESPN's revenue regarding a potential move to sole streaming.

If cable companies are smart, they will have a system set up where consumers can pick up channels via a line item system (which will then show up on their monthly bill for them to see) and be able to pay for what they want.  I believe subscribers to these cable companies will more likely keep their subscriptions overall if this comes to pass.  I also agree with Travis in that the business model that has allowed ESPN and other large cable channels to obscenely prosper for many years, is now facing a reckoning which will be the end of the cable bundle.  How these channels adapt, and try to become appealing to sophisticated consumers, will determine if they survive at all.  As a sports fan, I thought I would never see the day when ESPN could become extinct.  That is an extreme outcome, but could potentially come to pass. With the sands of time and new rivals to its business model, anything is possible now.  Let's see if Disney (and ESPN especially) correctly determine which way the wind will blow next.

 

PAC-12 is Dead: College Football Is All About Money Now.

 

September 1,2023

College football over the last 10 years has seen monumental change, with universities abandoning conferences, and severing decades-long rivalries and relationships, in pursuit of massive amounts of television money and a path to a 'national' championship.  For now, its popularity continues to thrive.  However, over the long term, college football is entering unchartered territory, and its future and relevance hang in the balance. One of the casualties of this chaos is the PAC-12 Conference, the "Conference of Champions."  It has produced many individual and team titles but in primarily non-revenue generating sports, such as soccer, track & field, tennis, golf, and swimming. Its undoing was mostly due to a lack of overall success in the multi-billion-dollar world of college football, where television money is king.

_______________________________

The Pac-12 Conference morphed over the years from various incarnations to what it was briefly in the last 8 years, with schools mostly from the West Coast and the 'four corners' states of Colorado, Utah, and Arizona.  It began in 1915 as the Pacific Conference with four founding schools, which at that time included the University of California at Berkeley (Cal), University of Washington, University of Oregon, and Oregon State University. A year later the conference added Washington State University, followed by Stanford at the end of that decade. A few years after that the conference added the University of Southern California (USC), and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). It went through a few other forms before finally becoming the Pac-8, made up of those schools minus Idaho and Montana, who had joined for a few years but left for other conferences (Wikipedia).  In the late 1970s, the conference added the University of Arizona and Arizona State University to become the Pac-10, which did not change for close to 30 years.

During that time, a few schools became name brands, notably USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon. USC especially, became part of the national consciousness, winning several national titles under legendary coach John McKay in the 1960s and 1970s and 4 Heisman Trophies (for best college football player) by their running backs (Mike Garrett, O.J. Simpson, Charles White, and Marcus Allen). Their commissioner at the time was Tom Hansen, a dedicated servant to the athletics departments of its member schools.  He was not a visionary by any means, but he put the conference first and made schools improve their revenue generation to compete nationally.

During a period of 30 years, (1962-1992) USC, and once each by UCLA and Washington, was able to claim an outright or shared national title, which was respectable, but not what other conferences were able to produce (BIG10, Southeastern Conference (SEC), or Big-8/Big-12 and Big East) during that same time span. There were long periods when none of the PAC-12 schools were relevant nationally.  

National championships were at times shared between schools (USC and Alabama in 1978, Washington and Miami in 1991for instance) so the television networks, along with the major conferences, created a format whose goal would pit the top two schools in a title game, which was called the Bowl Championship Series (BCS).  The first game of this new type of format took place in 1998 when the Tennessee Volunteers defeated the Florida State Seminoles.  This format, was itself flawed because it based its rankings that determined the two finalists on subjective opinions of sports journalists.  The PAC-12's only representative in the format was USC, which played in 2 consecutive BCS title games, winning one (in 2004, which was later vacated due to sanctions by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA).

I think one of the reasons for the lack of relevancy between PAC-12 member schools was that although they generally cared about being competitive in football, they did not care as much as presidents, athletic directors, and boosters (supporters) of schools in other conferences. Those conferences just cared more, which resulted in more money being spent on facilities, coaching staff, and stadium improvements which in turn attracted recruits and ambitious coaches.  Additionally, fans and boosters spent more money on their fandom, and the aggregate passion amongst those groups showed in the university's product on the field and producing players that were ready for the NFL. Over time, that passion led to better television deals with the networks, such as ESPN, NBC Sports (for Notre Dame football only), and Fox Sports.  ESPN and Fox Sports have massive deals with the SEC and BIG10 that separate them from the others. The SEC Network and The BIG10 Network, which is popular amongst fans of those conferences, drive high viewerships for its member schools and generate revenue that other conferences can only dream about.

This revenue gap is the primary reason that other conferences lose members and will most likely fade away, the PAC-12 being the main one so far. The dominoes began to fall at the beginning of this century when the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) was able to poach schools from The Big East (Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, and Miami), which effectively ended that conference overnight. In 2011, Missouri and Texas A&M left the Big 12 and moved to the SEC.  Around the same time, Colorado left the Big 12, and along with Utah, moved to the PAC-12.  This game of musical chairs intensified when Texas and Oklahoma, two titans and power centers in the Big 12 announced recently to join the SEC in 2025.  That effectively crippled the Big 12, but the conference didn't fold. It was able to rebound and bring in new schools Brigham Young University (BYU), University of Central Florida (UCF) University of Cincinnati (UC), and the University of Houston (UH). These invites helped stabilize the Big 12 and it was able to secure a viable television deal that saved the conference.  Time will tell if it will be a player in the new era of college football.

This leaves us with the conference that now requires hospice care. The PAC-12 traded unassuming Tom Hansen in for a "new age" commissioner, Larry Scott in 2009, who prioritized image over substance (moved the conference headquarters to expensive San Francisco, and assumed a PAC-12 Network, similar to the SEC and Big10, would become highly lucrative and turned down expansion at a time when they should have done so). He, along with university presidents and athletic directors, had a chance to incorporate Oklahoma and Texas into their conference in 2011 but decided against it when the deal included bringing in their in-state siblings Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. In hindsight, it should have been a brilliant move, one that would have made the PAC-12 the nation's premier conference with its various athletic sports (football, basketball, soccer, baseball, etc.). Instead, those schools left for the SEC, the Big 12 is on stronger footing, and the PAC-12 is now on life support. 

Once USC and UCLA saw the writing on the wall, in that their payouts per year from a new television deal with their current partners would pale in comparison to the BIG10 and the SEC, the schools formally notified their conference that they had accepted bids from the BIG10 to join in 2024.  The financial gap between the PAC-12 the BIG10 and the SEC would be too great to match, and they would fall behind, especially in football, and realize they had to break relationships and rivalries in order to remain competitive with their national aspirations to become relevant again. With the addition of USC and UCLA, the BIG10 now becomes a coast-to-coast conference, one that boasts name brands such as Penn State, Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, Wisconsin, and now USC and UCLA.  It is the reason their new television deal is lucrative ($7 billion over 7 years with NBC, Fox Sports, and CBS), with yearly payouts per school to be between $80-$100 million, something the PAC-12 could not offer both Los Angeles schools.

Once USC and UCLA left, the remaining schools had to adapt and make choices quickly.  Colorado returned to the BIG12 and brought Utah along with it.  Later, the University of Arizona and Arizona State left a sinking boat and were accepted by the BIG12 as well. That left four remaining schools, Washington State, Oregon State, Stanford, and Cal. While the two academic powers in the Bay Area have attractive appeal nationally, there is no final decision on their end yet. For Washington State and Oregon State, the best option would be to join the Mountain West Conference.  They may not make as much money, but they would get more stability in return. As of now, no new movement has been verified, but effectively, the PAC-12 needs to be given its last rites soon. George Klaviakoff, the current conference commissioner, is the captain of the Titanic now. He needs to jump into a lifeboat. The ship is going down.

Television money is what college football has more of, and that made the universities lots of money, which they spend lavishly for their alumni, hiring the best coaches at market value, and seeing their endowments rise with football success.  The sport has moved away from "mythical" national titles, into formats that let play on the field determine who is best. However, there is a cost for this largesse.  Long-standing rivalries, academic relationships, and the ability to travel to your favorite away game in a college town will be lost.  It has shown that colleges and universities care a lot about money, rather than academics, especially when it fuels success in athletics, notably football and basketball. Tradition, history, and symbolism will be traded in for excess in facilities and spending. That is what motivated USC and UCLA to leave a conference they have been a part of for decades.  

It goes to show that leadership and foresight do play a large role in financial success in college athletics.  The SEC and the BIG10 have or have had, conference commissioners that saw the value in being aggressive and confident with their product (football), and the value of that product has generated large sums of money for their schools.  It helped that their fans were some of the most passionate around the country. The PAC-12 had a commissioner who did not understand what he had and assumed what he did not (rabid fan base), and convinced conference presidents and athletic directors to put all their chips in a television network that would not bear fruit. Instead, it would become an albatross around the neck of potential revenue streams that would have allowed the conference to be competitive nationally.  They focused more on what schools would be a better fit academically during a potential expansion (Texas) rather than what schools would help generate viewership for their product (Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State) and bring in revenue to make them serious players on the national scene.  As a result, the PAC-12 was undone by obtuse presidents and athletic directors trusting a commissioner who could not deliver on what was required in this new era, money and viewership of their product. This made the conference less competitive and ultimately ruined their future as a group and splinter into schools looking out for themselves.

RIP PAC-12

1915-2024

"Oppenheimer" Film: A Compelling Story of A Reluctant American Prometheus

August 16, 2023

I recently watched the Christopher Nolan biopic "Oppenheimer," which was based on the book "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer," by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. It was visually stunning and artistically compelling despite its 3-hour duration. The film centered on how Robert Oppenheimer's new weapon, which split the atom into a frightening, powerful bomb, changed the arc of world history.  It was a sobering movie about how scientists working in secret for the Manhattan Project ushered the human race into the nuclear age at the end of World War II, with devastating consequences that would cause humanity to ponder its future.

____________________________________

The Christopher Nolan-directed biopic was expertly cast, with Irish actor Cillian Murphy in the lead role, and solid supporting roles provided by Emily Blunt as his wife, Kitty, Robert Downey, Jr. as his friend and rival Lewis Straus, Matt Damon as Manhattan Project leader Lt. General Leslie Groves and Florence Pugh as his former flame, mistress and avowed communist Jean Tatlock.  There were eye-catching minor roles with notable actors such as Kenneth Branaugh as Niels Bohr, Josh Hartnett as Ernest Lawrence (of Lawrence-Livermore Labs fame), Matthew Modine as Vannevar Bush (first presidential science advisor), Oscar Winner Rami Malek as fellow scientist David Hill, and with Gary Oldman as President Truman.  

The film has two parallel tangents going at the same time.  One, titled, "Fission" chronicled Oppenheimer's coming into his own in the 1920s, where he built a stellar scientific research reputation, forged in Europe initially, then teaching at Berkeley, where he met Ernest Lawrence, a well-respected professor and scientist who invented the particle accelerator, a groundbreaking device at the time. They bonded through their love of new theories in physics and his expanding circle of scientific friends. The film touched on his affair with Jean Tatlock, a sympathizer of communist ideals, and finally marrying his future wife, Kitty Harrison. The movie detailed his insistence on building the guarded, temporary city where the world's brightest minds would create the bomb in the isolated hills of New Mexico at Los Alamos.  He chose this location because it was in close proximity to the region where his love of the outdoors and riding horses grew as a young man. Lieutenant General Groves was a little skeptical of Oppenheimer because of his sympathies with the communists during the Spanish Civil War and his personal associations.  I did not personally believe he was a communist.  Like any good scientist, he was simply inquisitive of the egalitarian theories of Karl Marx that were later disproven. 

"Fusion" is shown in black and white (contrasting with "Fission"), and focuses on the Senate confirmation of his rival and former friend, Lewis Straus.  The intense and compelling hearings, which were meant to confirm Mr. Straus to the position of Secretary of Commerce in the Truman Administration, were a lifetime goal for an ambitious man. After his life-altering work, public sentiment began to turn against Mr. Oppenheimer. It was encouraged and leaked strategically by Mr. Strauss, as a result of being embarrassed by Robert Oppenheimer publicly many years ago, and which appeared to be the primary motivation to destroy the character and reputation of the "Father of the Atomic Bomb." The public was swayed mostly due to his opposition to the newer and more powerful hydrogen bomb, which Straus allegedly conveyed that Robert did not want to pursue so the Soviets could equal the United States with nuclear weapons capability to bring about restraint on all sides. This was later countered by his colleagues (specifically David Hill) in the scientific community who defended his good name and life's work as a good way to close out the film. 

To me, one of the film's most important messages was that while the U.S. government and society at large may celebrate anyone for personal or professional achievements, they can also tar and feather them if and when they feel like it when people are no longer of use to those in power.  Robert Oppenheimer was excited to put theories of physics to actual, empirical tests, but once those ideas had shown their great power, he was reticent to participate in moving the world closer to its own destruction. As an avid reader, he was familiar with the famous text of the Bhagavad Gita, and the famous sentence, " Now I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds."  He realized his creation gave credence to this in real life, and it caused him pain throughout the remainder of his life. Because of this, he was shamed by a select few, and his ruined professional credentials were eventually restored due to a vigorous campaign with the respect and support of those who knew him best. His revoked security clearance was given back to him posthumously, a little too late to restore his integrity for history.  Most Americans, and for that matter in the world, unless they saw the movie,  probably were not unaware of this, and that is indeed a shame.

The other main lesson to take from the movie is that the world's population has become numb to the dangerous levels of nuclear proliferation.  At the time of the first test of the bomb in 1945 (codename Trinity), many more nations now possess nuclear weapons: Soviet Union/Russia, China, India, Pakistan, England, France, Israel, and North Korea. Thousands of nuclear bombs, primarily with the American and Russian arsenals, sit idly by. While Robert Oppenheimer realized the path he created for the world, which gave the human race the ability to destroy itself, as mentioned by Neils Bohr in the film, the Department of Defense and successive presidential administrations did not share their fears.  The fact that the United States was the first and only nation to use the bomb against another says more about the morals of those in power in the past, who knew what fighting a nuclear war entails, as opposed to those around the world now, who would threaten the use of nuclear weapons in a flippant, less cogent manner.

The film showed the wonder of bringing theoretical ideas to life, but at the same time, implied that humans must think twice about what our creations can bring forth, which can include our destruction.  Robert Oppenheimer was a tortured genius and found out too little, too late that before creation, we must first determine if we should.  

Oceangate Submarine Disaster: Should Luxury Tourism Be Regulated or Ended?

July 21, 2023

Deep-sea research company OceanGate Expeditions, recently made the news when their self-designed submersible, "Titan," took five souls in June this year to visit the RMS Titanic wreckage but was lost when it imploded just above the iconic ocean line on the sea floor.  It was a solemn moment to reflect on the depths (pun intended) wealthy individuals use their money for extreme and high-risk tourism adventures. This includes climbing mountains with inclement weather (like ascending Mount Everest and Mount Kilimanjaro), kayaking in crocodile-infested rivers (in the Congo for example), or seeing great white sharks up close in a diver's cage.  While it can provide life-changing thrills, sometimes these environments push back and can kill the tourists themselves.  Is it time to end this industry? Or should we have better regulation and safety standards?

___________________________________

The world was taken in by the drama unfolding 2.5 miles beneath the surface this past June when the OceanGate Expeditions DSV (deep sea vehicle) "Titan" suddenly and without warning stopped communicating with this mother ship on its descent to the legendary wreck at the ocean floor.  Simultaneously, the DSV ended its ability to "ping" its position on its way down to RMS Titanic.   One train of thought discussed by national media is that the submersible lost power and nose-dived toward the ocean floor and that those inside were aware of their impending deaths.  Media around the world immediately picked up the story and kept it in the headlines, breathlessly detailing the amount of oxygen the 5 men inside (billionaire Hamish Harding, French ocean explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, Pakistani businessmen Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman and OceanGate Expeditions CEO Stockton Rush) had left for rescue before they would perish.

Sadly, the United States Navy heard what sounded like an underwater explosion near the location of the shipwreck, through a very secret but sophisticated underwater listening system around the time the Titan lost contact.  The Navy gave that information to the United States Coast Guard, which withheld this information for four days.  National media reported that rumors of "banging sounds" emanating from underwater gave some people hope that Titan's occupants were still alive.  Director James Cameron, who helmed the mega-successful film adaptation of the Titanic's maiden voyage, which captured the hearts of old and new followers, was upset that the Navy and the Coast Guard did not make public the explosion heard underwater earlier than they did.  I am under the impression that it was kept from the public because the Coast Guard wanted to ensure everything was done to search and determine if anyone survived. Once debris from the submersible was found on the ocean floor, families of those aboard were notified of their deaths.

The submersible from OceanGate Expeditions was made with different materials, such as carbon fiber unlike what was generally used before after extensive research, such as aluminum, steel, and titanium.  The window from which to view outside was also more prominent than on most submersibles.  Previous guests commented on their experiences, including details of parts falling off on dives, and hearing troubling noises during their descent.  A New York Post article (Sedacca) this month commented on the need for following industry-accepted protocols for this type of submersible operation within the company.  It was stated in various media publications that the most likely issue that caused the submersible to implode was its carbon fiber shell, which was the central location of the submersible where its occupants sat.  Over repeated dives to depths with extreme pounds per square inch (PSI), it eventually forced the material to crack and cause immense pressure to kill everyone inside in a millisecond.

Another July 2023 article (Bekiempis) in the same month in The Guardian, gave credence to those prior travelers through an interview with Rob McCallum, a veteran submersible expert.  He had taken a few dives with OceanGate Expeditions vessels and felt Mr. Rush had a 'cavalier' attitude regarding his company's mission and its previous trips to the wreck.  The Guardian also mentioned in a separate New Yorker article this year that Mr. McCallum, along with prominent members of the deep sea exploration community, tried to give their thoughts on the company's underwater vessels and stated that the government and OceanGate Expeditions did not heed or listen to their opinions and concerns.  The general theme of their complaints was that the company was attempting to be innovative by using cheaper materials and "crude designs" that had not been tested for depth pressure resistance and licensed and approved by their peers.  The article stated that Rob McCallum was asked to be part of the designing and testing of the company's new submersibles, but he opted out because of the flaws in their designs, materials, and lack of redundancy for its safety features.  The company's CEO felt their design tech and sourcing of materials was innovation in progress.

Stockton Rush did not want to have his vessel reviewed and inspected by respected industry groups and individuals who could rate and license his craft.  He seemed to dislike their input and even fired a former employee who exposed design flaws in the submersible. Mr. Rush felt his haphazard levels of "innovation" which he believed were required to buck the system, saw their feedback as a threat to his "breaking the rules to change the game" mantra in my opinion.

Of those on the submersible that perished, many focused on the deaths of Shazada Dawood and Hamish Harding, primarily due to the wealth of the two men and also the young age of Mr. Dawood's 19-year-old son, Suleman. I think wealthy individuals who want to experience things that can be thrilling, along with the rush of danger are a strong allure.  If their wealth allows them to do that with no harm or risk outside of themselves, so be it.  However, outside of Mr. Rush and explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, the others did not fully grasp what they were getting into.  To see the final resting place of a legendary ocean liner, with a story and tragedy that has gripped the imaginations of millions around the world for more than a century was too good to pass up.  What a real shame that Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Dawood did not have an understanding of the type of vessel they were going to be in, and probably did not have access to warnings and complaints from Stockton Rush's peers.

The occupants in the vessel would not have entered the sub (where they were sealed in with screws) if they had been aware of the submersible's design and issues.  Or, perhaps they did know the risks but decided to go down to the Titanic anyway because the chance to see the shipwreck up close was greater than any fear of the DSV operating at a frightening depth beneath the surface.  I had read that  Suleman Dawood was allegedly petrified to enter the Titan but went ahead with his participation anyway, to make his father happy. That is truly tragic if that were the case.

The main issue at hand is that wealth does not protect us from the elements or outer limits.  The manta of "Life is Short," combined with the thrills and indelible memories is a tempting mix for the elite, especially in the social media age.  Ego and narcissism are a deadly combination of this type of extreme tourism.  The late Stockton Rush was not the first (or the last) wealthy explorer who engaged in extreme tourism.  Wealthy businessmen such as Richard Branson (Virgin Galactic) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon's Blue Origin) are currently using their money to focus on space tourism, while Elon Musk's SpaceX focuses on private funding for space exploration, satellite delivery, and transporting astronauts to the international space station.  Perhaps down the road, he will charge wealthy tourists as well.  Eventually, potential tragedies could affect the tourism companies that these men created.  Careful planning and putting safety first rather than profits should lower the threshold for failure and loss of human life.

OceanGate Expeditions learned tragically that while innovation can include cost-effectiveness, with less expensive but potentially stronger materials, it requires countless years of testing, including failure, and as mentioned earlier, peer approval and licensing.  This is especially true for fields such as aviation, aeronautical engineering, and deep-sea oil exploration, which require rigorous regulation and stringent guidelines.  Going the rugged, do-it-yourself route can have some romantic and underdog appeal, but it should never supersede safety. Survival is paramount.  The deaths of the five aboard, along with the hubris of the late Stockton Rush and OceanGate Expeditions, found out the hard way. Exploration through the sea, hypersonic flight, space exploration, etc., when you test the limits, while it can be exhilarating if you are not careful, sometimes those limits push back with deadly consequences.

Does America's Foreign Policy Need a Course Correction in the 21st Century?

June 7, 2023

As of this blog entry, the war between Russia and Ukraine has slowed, but Russia seems to be in control.  China has become more territorial and aggressive in the South China Sea, while Taiwan has been given more American weapons.  Iran is getting closer to having materials capable of building a nuclear bomb, forcing Israel to plan for any measure available to stop that from happening. These are some of the current scenarios that the Biden Administration has to deal with, and invite the question: Should U.S. foreign policy adapt and change to a new world?

____________________________

Two years into the Biden Administration, we may need to re-evaluate our foreign policy, one in which the world is much different from the one we inherited from the ashes of World War II.  At that time (April 1945), America emerged as the primary hegemon, with Britain ceding that title to us after the costs of maintaining the British Empire were too much to maintain while fighting a global war.  The war also started a proliferation of the arms manufacturing industry in the United States, which to this day, plays a large part in influencing how the country conducts foreign policy, with an emphasis on military operations.  

The Senate Armed Services Committee states that America will spend $857 billion on national defense this year.  The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act of 2023 shows that a little over $816 billion will be spent on spending for the Department of Defense, with an additional $30 billion for the Department of Energy for its custody of the nation's nuclear weapons, nuclear power, research, and disposal of nuclear waste. Combined, that is far more than the world powers spend on their defense.  A Peter G. Peterson Foundation study shows that the United States allocates roughly 40% of the world's defense spending on itself, based on a review of the FY22 defense budget (April 2023). The largest percentage of this allocation is directed toward operations and maintenance, which involves keeping ships, tanks, and aircraft functioning in preparation for deployment and a large number of military bases around the world.  The Department of Defense allocated only 14% of its 2022 budget appropriations to development and innovation. The foundation estimates that the proportion of defense spending vis-a-vis national GDP will drop below 3% within the next decade, however.

What is troubling is that despite spending so much money, the nation's return on foreign wars lately has not been very productive.  The outcomes of those wars were ambiguous at best, a colossal failure at worst. Needless to say, the results of our policies could come back to haunt the United States, which spent a little over $2.2 trillion on the combined Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The embarrassing visuals of the American-led NATO coalition fleeing Kabul were disorganized and calamitous and will shamelessly live in infamy for decades.  Iraq has a government that is sympathetic to and aligned with Shia Iran due to its own Shia majority, which complicates the American agenda there. Those upfront costs don't include interest on the borrowed funds, which could add an additional cost of $2.5 trillion by 2030. The aggregate cost could top $6.5 trillion for future generations of Americans (CBS News-August 2021).  In Afghanistan's case, U.S. policy is right back where it was before the American-led NATO invasion.

This brings us to the current state of affairs in the world in 2023 and the various hot spots around the world: (1) Russia/Ukraine, (2) China/Taiwan, (3) the greater Middle East, and (4) the Korean peninsula and Japan. 

(1) Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not going as well as President Putin had hoped.  While the Russian military has taken over certain cities, including protecting its influence in the eastern Donbas region, Putin's forces had tremendous losses in personnel, and many of its tanks were destroyed.  NATO provided weapons and training, helping the tough Ukrainians re-take control of some territory. From what I have read and viewed through media, it seems the Russians are still "in the driver's seat," and dictate their battle plans accordingly.  I sincerely hope that Russia will seek peace and leave parts of that country that they control. However, NATO should not go from covert assistance to actively fighting a "hot" war in Ukraine that may eventually lead to an exchange of nuclear weapons. That absolutely cannot happen. Peace must be the primary solution. Ukraine may have to give up some territory in the process, though.

The Ukraine war has depleted America's weapons inventory, which means the defense contractors will obviously see an increase in revenues.  Was this part of the reasoning to provide Ukraine with economic and military support? America's largest defense contractors will see their share prices increase with new defense spending, but will it be fruitful in the long run?  Unless NATO forces join the fight with the Ukrainians, the United States should work with its partners to end the destruction of that country and prevent more deaths.

(2) Another hot zone in the world is the South China Sea, where the United States and China are potential belligerents over shipping lanes, and territorial islands fought over between other nations allied with the Americans, with the most important being Taiwan.  China sees that independent nation as a wayward part of its unified destiny and will do whatever it takes to bring it back into the Chinese Communist Party's authority.  An amphibious military operation is part of that strategy, and the United States is obligated through its agreements with the government of Taiwan to render aid and support, including weapons and intelligence. It may have to provide its own military resources to defend that island nation. A war with China will have lasting damage for a generation for both nations, and the United States should aggressively seek a diplomatic solution with the Chinese to avert any loss of life and economic catastrophe.

(3) The United States under the Trump Administration removed itself from the deal that was ratified by both the United States and Iranian governments regarding Iran's nuclear program. It is standard political posturing for both Republican and Democratic administrations to extricate themselves from any policy or program the previous opposing government entered into.  The Israelis are rightfully worried that Iran's nuclear program is very close to having the capacity to enrich Uranium for multiple weapons.  Previous governments of the Jewish state had made it known publicly that if Iran does produce nuclear weapons, it will act alone if needed to ensure that possibility never comes to fruition.  Because of the nature of the close relationship between the United States and Israel, it is not beyond reason to expect America's military to join in any operation to incapacitate Iran's nuclear program unequivocally.  As always, what is the price that America and its citizens will have to pay for this conflict?  

During the Trump administration, Israel made many peace deals with countries in the region that for most of its history involved military wars and diplomatic isolation.  While this deal was welcomed after generations of conflict, it was also quite surprising.  Was President Trump really held in such high esteem that former enemies of the state of Israel would welcome diplomatic relations based on his agenda?  I think it runs deeper than that.  Iran is one of the countries with an Islamic Shia majority. Those countries that signed peace deals through the White House joined a coalition against Shia Iran and were most likely influenced by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Israel and the United States sought out this coalition to provide financial assistance through loans for joint military campaigns. While it made headlines and was a boon for the Trump agenda, I don't think this plan in the long term will play out well for those involved. This is especially since China is trying to broker peace deals of its own between those countries as well.

The Middle East has seen a period of relative peace, and it will be ruined if this secret plan comes to pass.  A war led by Israel and the United States, funded by Saudi Arabia, will create a conflagration that will draw other powers (Russia and possibly China) into this conflict. As it is, U.S. military involvement in the region (especially Syria) needs to be carefully adjudicated. Syria is backed by Russian economic and military support.  American ally Turkey sees rebels opposed to President Assad as aligned with the Kurdish Workers Party, considered a "terrorist organization" by the State Department, Turkish, and European Union (Al Jazeera-Aug 2022). This country must avoid being led down this path by those within the U.S. and Israel, who see war as a necessary step to ensure dominance in the region.

(4) In addition, North Korea continues to be a problem for the United States and its allies in that region (South Korea and Japan). Any spark on the Korean peninsula that leads to war will be catastrophic for all Koreans and many Japanese, and it would behoove our leaders to keep the gunpowder dry in that region.  Kim Jong Un should be treated as a wary pest but should not feel he will be removed by force or that this grip on power is challenged or threatened in any way. This would lead to war as a destructive and reactionary measure to protect that entrenched power that will lead to the deaths of thousands or more.

Adding to the current state of world affairs are examples of nations trying to move away from the dollar as a reserve currency.  Saudi Arabia, Russia, and recently, Brazil are trading using other currencies instead of the American dollar for business.   The dollar has substantial value as a reserve currency and is due to a robust U.S. economy, a valued and safe investment.  The American government sanctions countries (most notably Russia recently, and Iran in the past) flexing muscle if non-compliant with U.S. policy and a strategy not viewed favorably by many countries. While it may play well domestically, future American Presidents will lose this negotiating ability in international relations.

These are signs that the 21st Century is going to be drastically different from the last century. The world is gearing up for a multi-polar world, one in which there are two dominant countries (the United States and China) and balanced by several economic and minor military powers (Germany, France, England, Japan, South Korea, and Russia). Additionally, other countries will align with the two major powers as their governments see fit.  Canada and Mexico share a border with the United States and are its two largest trading partners, so they will work together in the short term, for better or worse.

American foreign policy needs a re-set.  The old method of quickly discarded soft diplomacy with an immediate, aggressive military response will not work for the foreseeable future.  The two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq showed that the use of military power has a shelf life and can only do so much.  Most Americans who can evaluate the government and its policies will list defense contractors, banks, and other conglomerates as shaping our foreign policy agenda.  Many of these corporations and their executives made (and will continue to make) enormous amounts of money financing the Department of Defense procurement of weapons and investing in the companies that have direct revenue streams tied to endless wars (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.) while their families are never affected by the true cost in lives.

Our current foreign policy is not sustainable for the long term. As a country we need to reduce the number of military bases across the world, leaving only those that create a "tripwire," such as South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Diplomacy and collaboration with common goals, while also leaving people alone work much better than a permanent garrison of soldiers, Marines, and airmen on foreign soil.

I sincerely hope our government will spend effectively on behalf of its citizens instead. Improving roads and highways, repairing crumbling infrastructure, strengthening our borders with a fair and equitable immigration policy and modernizing certain industries (advancements in air and rail travel especially), and providing funding for a better healthcare system would be a good priority.  Our foreign policy is rooted in protecting American hegemony in the world (and the elites of our society will benefit from this).  The fulfillment of the U.S. agenda is much more difficult to achieve in this day and age, and may even be outdated. Our primary rivals on the world stage, Russia and China, have the financial and military strength to push back against American power, albeit with less force projection.  We as citizens must push our elected officials to change our policy away from imperialism and focus more on diplomacy over conflict and the reduction of military operations around the world.  Perhaps the new dawn that is upon us will give those who run our government an opportunity to course correct and move the country in a better direction, rather than chase an old, ineffective foreign policy that doesn't yield the results it seeks.

The Indictment of the 45th President, Donald Trump. Have we finally crossed the Rubicon?

 

April 18, 2023

Based on a campaign promise, New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed documents to indict Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States.  This was a historic decision, in that it became the first time a former president was charged with an alleged crime after leaving office.  Until this decision, former presidents were allowed to do their jobs, regardless of what people felt about them, and then move on from their tenure.  However, the vitriol from Democrats and those in the GOP that opposed President Trump during his time as President gives D.A. Alvin Bragg wind for his sails of prosecutorial zest.  Has a divided America finally crossed the proverbial Rubicon?

__________________________________

No matter how you felt about President Trump, his four years in office resulted in accusations, impeachments, intense drama, and constant bickering with national media, Democrats, some Republicans, and influential donors around the country.  There was never a lull during President Trump's years in the White House.  It went from one issue to the next.  I can understand why most Americans, especially independents, wanted calm, and a return to "normalcy," and voted Mr. Trump out of office.  Despite this, the anger and hatred for Mr. Trump never subsided, and elected law enforcement officials (D.A. Alvin Bragg, NY State Attorney General Leticia James) ran on promises to go after the Trump Empire by any means necessary.

This current indictment of President Trump is part of that effort.  Mr. Bragg has charged the former president with 34 counts relating to payments relating to his extra-marital affair with adult video performer Stephanie Clifford (aka "Stormy Daniels"), under the guise of falsifying business transactions to protect Mr. Trump's alleged guilt in betraying his marriage.  

What is the end game here? Among the many issues that the former President is dealing with, these charges and accusations are not the most egregious.  He is indirectly related to the litigation between Dominion Voting Systems (the company that creates electronic voting hardware and software) and Fox News and may have been called to testify, had the trial actually gone forward. Instead, both parties settled today (April 18th) for much lower than Dominion had asked for ($787 million, as opposed to their initial damages of $1.6 billion, respectively).  Additionally, a former acquaintance, E. Jeane Carrol has accused President Trump of sexual assault, and the status of that serious charge is currently being deliberated by a federal appeals court.  The most damaging political issue Mr. Trump has to deal with relates to voting rights in the state of Georgia, especially the counting of votes during the 2020 election.  The former chief executive did himself no favors when a recording of a phone call with the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, asking him to "find" little over 11,000 votes to swing the election outcome in his favor. Regardless of how Mr. Trump intended the conversation to go, the outward appearance (with audio proof) of a sitting President asking his own party's election official to "discover" votes to help him win the state is pretty damning.

If the Democrats are laser-focused on seeking any sort of justice against President Trump, there are far more serious problems he faces than dubious claims (with no prior precedent of conviction in New York to my knowledge) of trying to hide payments to a mistress using alleged campaign funds.  Why not let those issues play out first?  I feel that their spite and intense hatred of the former president clouds their thinking, and 'by any means necessary' is the mood with Donald Trump's detractors. 

I suspect though that there are other ideas at play here, some of which are discussed by the media including online publications.  One person, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Andrew McCarthy, theorizes in National Review that political calculations play into this legal matter.  He asserts that the Democrats believe President Joe Biden is unpopular, and a vote for him in 2020 was really an anti-Trump vote, rather than an affirmation of him or his campaign promises.  Additionally, the senior leaders of the party know that Vice President Kamala Harris, though historic on many levels, does not endear party loyalists to her and that many independent voters and Republicans do not view her favorably.  

Mr. McCarthy believes that Mr. Bragg's legal charges against Mr. Trump will elevate Donald Trump in the eyes of the party's vocal and energetic base, thereby helping him win the GOP nomination in 2024, and allowing Mr. Biden an easy re-election.  His premise includes Democrats winning with many down-ballot races that will give them control of the House again and a bigger majority in the Senate. Additionally, Mr. McCarthy believes the Democrats want multiple legal battles to enter the courtroom around the time the GOP begins primaries to nominate their representative against President Biden, which is hoped will damage Donald Trump even more in the eyes of American voters.

Mr. McCarthy could be right.  After charges were filed following grand jury deliberations, President Trump's fundraising drastically increased, and polling showed that he has increased the gap between him and his most serious challenger, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.  If Andrew McCarthy is prescient about the Democrats' plan, it just might be very effective.  Having President Biden run against a polarizing former president, one who is dealing with multiple lawsuits, and investigations by politically calculating elected law enforcement officials, his bombastic and counter-punching philosophy, will surely turn away many voters who are not Biden fans.  As the last two elections have shown, Donald Trump's coattails are not that beneficial.  Many far-right Republicans who courted the MAGA ("Make America Great Again") base of GOP support went down to defeat in 2020, special elections in 2021, and may as well in the next general election cycle.  If the Republicans hope to win back the White House in 2024, the party must move forward with ABT ("Anybody But Trump").

The lasting effect of "Crossing the Rubicon" is that former Presidents are no longer untouchable, regardless of public opinion about them. Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were polarizing to some extent, but they were never sued, or prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys or attorneys general once they left the Oval Office. Politically calculating law enforcement officials, who stand to win support from within their party to match their larger political ambitions, will forever erode trust in our political system, cause more fighting, and will lead to more "peaceful" protests and storming the U.S. Capitol by supporters of both parties.  That is why this move by Alvin Bragg is so dangerous to the country.

When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River separating modern-day southern France (Roman province of Gaul) from the Italian Peninsula, it changed Rome's politics drastically. This move was deemed illegal by Roman law (governors of their provinces could not lead its military forces into Rome itself) against Caesar's actions and led to a civil war within the Roman Republic and ended with him becoming "dictator for life" as Emperor (Wikipedia).

These lawsuits against Donald Trump may in fact prove his guilt, but the process has not won popular support or affirmed respect based on accusations from the broader general public, or some Republicans. As former Congressman Charlie Wilson (R-Texas) once said tongue-in-cheek, members of Congress are elected by donors, not voters.  I believe these legal investigations into President Trump were encouraged by influential donors from both political parties who have an aversion to him personally.  While that may be true, the lasting damage these investigations, charges, and court proceedings will do will push many Americans into believing our run as a country might end soon.  If both political parties and their donors and supporters do not acknowledge political defeat and victory by their opponents, and leave former presidents alone, then this endless cycle will lead to more former presidents being investigated and charged.  I predict it will lead to civil unrest and violence and serious damage to our country.  We as a nation have crossed the Rubicon.  Can we prove history wrong, and cross back?

2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar: A Sweet and Sour Fan Experience

 

February 3, 2023

Last November and December, the world sat transfixed as one of soccer's greatest stars, Lionel Messi, led his native Argentina to their elusive third world title in the tiny country of Qatar.  It was a controversial moment in December of 2010 when FIFA awarded a country with no soccer history or culture, the pinnacle of the sport's international tournaments.  It turned out to be a World Cup with many underlying negative storylines (its stance on LGBTQ issues, international workers, and women's rights). Those issues still did not overshadow the incredible games that progressed over the monthlong tournament.   

______________________________

The 2022 FIFA World Cup was one of the most memorable football tournaments in recent memory, possibly ever.  The important issues being discussed before the quadrennial event were the dubious process and methods that awarded the spectacle to a tiny country with no real soccer culture or commercial appeal.  What did entice voting members of FIFA's Executive Committee was the rumored, large sums of money that were given to those who voted favorably for the gulf state. I remember reading countless online publications and watching ESPN once Qatar was announced as the winner over the heavy favorite, the United States.  There was palpable shock and surprise, and shortly after, many media pundits and sports anchors believed there was some unfortunate, backroom horse-trading that transferred votes to the gulf state.  Additionally, the specter of imported workers from poor regions of Asia, Africa, and India building these gigantic stadiums, which resulted in an unconfirmed (official) number of deaths, received a small amount of negative publicity. It was talked about relatively little in Western media (including during the World Cup by the late soccer writer, Grant Wahl), but nothing was really proposed to protect workers from these practices leading up to the World Cup.

The games themselves were full of drama, with doses of "shock and awe", and had many surprising teams pull off victories for their passionate supporters, some of whom traveled in large numbers with them.  In the group stage, viewers saw the eventual winner Argentina lose to Saudi Arabia, generally a minnow in international soccer. Japan surprisingly defeated the 4-time winner, and global powerhouse Germany along with European power Spain, which allowed them to win the tough Group E and eliminate Germany from the knock-out rounds.  Germany has not made it out of a World Cup group since 2014,  the year in which they last won it all.  That is a mind-blowing statistic for a country that produces stellar players and has a reputation for being tough opponents to beat consistently.

Another country that captured the world's attention and support was Morocco.  The north African country has never made any waves in tournaments they have played, but in Qatar, they beat Belgium (2-0), Canada (2-1), and tied 2018 Runner-Up Croatia (0-0).  They beat Group E runner-up Spain in the Round of 16 (3-0) and defeated Cristiano Ronaldo in the Quarterfinals to make a historic statement by making the Semifinals, the first time an African team has made it.  They won the hearts of many soccer fans, but their journey to mythical status was cut short by the defending World Champions, France.  They would eventually lose the 3rd place game for an impressive fourth-place finish.  They are the new bar for African teams when they participate in this tournament now.

After the failure of not qualifying for the 2018 tournament, the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) made it to Qatar with a young, talented squad that was a little "wet behind the ears." Most soccer analysts believed the U.S. team would stand a good chance of getting out of the group, but advance no farther than the Round of 16, which is what happened when the United States ran into a solid Netherlands team.  I for one had hoped the men would put up a good fight, and they did in spurts throughout the game, but three fatal failures during the run of play and on defensive lapses sealed their defeat.  Most USMNT fans feel the results were acceptable of the tournament but now hope that with the experience on the world stage behind them, the team can do great things in front of their home fans when this great tournament comes to Canada, Mexico, and the United States.  I would love for them to make a final (and even win!) on home soil, but I am just hoping for a good show and a respectable run.

The 2022 FIFA World Cup champion, Argentina, even though it was one of the favorites, did not start the tournament well.  After their defeat to Saudi Arabia, their next game against Mexico would be pivotal; this would tell soccer fans whether they had the horses to get back on track.  While Mexico provided a good test, Argentina passed with flying colors and would win their group. In the Round of 16, they held on against a tough Australia squad (who nearly equalized in injury time), 2-1.  Next up was the Netherlands in the Quarterfinals, which was a dark horse team to go far in the tournament. It was one of the best games to date.  The Dutch went down 1-0, then 2-1 until Wout Weghorst tied the game in injury time.  It was one of the most surreal endings to a soccer game I have seen in many years (outside of LAFC tying the Philadephia Union in the Major League Soccer [MLS] Final the other time). Neither team scored in Extra Time, and the game was decided in penalties, which the Argentinians won in dramatic fashion. Leo Messi and his fellow Abliceleste (White and Sky Blue) easily handled Croatia in the Semi-finals.  

The final, Argentina vs. France, matched countries that have previously won the World Cup twice, and the winner would win their coveted third star above their crest.  In the first half, Argentina set the pace, controlling possession, and keeping French striker Kylian Mbappe at bay, for a comfortable 2-0 lead at halftime.  The second half saw France exert itself, using two penalties and a beautiful third strike by Mbappe to send the game into Extra Time and giving him a hat trick in a final, something that has not been done in 60 years. This classic would go to penalties, which can go either way, but this time, whether it be destiny or luck, Argentina won. It gave Argentinians something to celebrate, lifted a huge burden off of Leonel Messi, and put him in rarified air with another Argentine legend, Diego Maradona.  It was a fitting end to this great tournament.

Now that the tournament is over, there are things that FIFA can do to ensure that future World Cups do not have any negative stigmas surrounding the build-up before the first game is kicked off. The Executive Committee should enshrine in their rules that any host country, or countries, must pass certain criteria and benchmarks that promote equal rights for all: LGBTQ and especially women. Those who build the infrastructure (stadiums, roadways, FanFest locations, etc.) must have protections so that their welfare is paramount and will not be abused during the lead-up to the tournament.  No country bidding to host the FIFA World Cup that excludes ethnic or religious minorities, people who have been historically abused or mistreated, or do not have equal rights, should be allowed to win hosting rights at all. This must be strictly enforced, no matter how much money a bid amount is thrown at FIFA's Executive Committee (I am looking at you Qatar).  This is known as "sport washing," where a country with a dubious track record of protecting human rights and authoritarianism is allowed to host global events (World Cup, Olympics, F1 racing) and launders their sins through these sporting spectacles, and buys or bullies for positive press during a monthlong tournament, like the World Cup.  Qatar and China are two countries that exhibit this idea. FIFA should be stringent in the guidelines that Executive Committee voting members must adhere to in order to vote for a country's winning bid.

The United States, which is co-hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup with Canada and Mexico, has some of the best stadiums in the world, and along with a strong currency and economy, it should break all kinds of attendance, viewership and attendance records (that it held since the 1994 World Cup in the United States).  The U.S. Men's National Team and the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) need to get their house in order before that event arrives in America, however. Recently, it was discovered that there was tension between two families within the U.S. soccer community, those of current coach Greg Berhalter and Claudio Reyna, both of whom played soccer together for years: club, college, MLS, and the USMNT. Since Mr. Berhalter did not play Gio Reyno (son of Claudio) regularly during the recent World Cup, Mr. Reyna's wife told senior officials at the USSF that he had assaulted his wife nearly two decades ago.  This purported blackmail, so that Greg Berhalter is punished for not playing their son and not allowed to return to coaching the national team, has been a serious black eye for the men's program.  

The federation needs to remove all parties who are involved and associated with any previous misdeeds and not allow them to feature prominently for either MLS or the USSF.  The USSF needs to find a coach with a solid track record of taking a group of players and having them play above their weight, to coach the latest generation which has proved it has more talent than the teams of the past.  Hope springs eternal, and for once in 2026, it may meet expectations for U.S. men's national team fans.

What happened to the "Red Tsunami?" The Democrats bucked past precedent for parties in power.

 

December 24, 2022

The recent runoff decision for the United States Senate seat in Georgia, between incumbent Rafael Warnock and former NFL player Herschel Walker, completed the last of the elections for the 2022 Midterms.  Senator Warnock was re-elected by a razor-thin margin. It put a definitive exclamation point on results that upended conventional wisdom. Usually, the incumbent President's party loses seats during their first election cycle. This has been the norm for decades.  How did Democrats prevail despite the political winds heavily favoring the Republican party?

________________________________

The 2022 Midterm elections were shaping up to be a celebratory year for the GOP in Congress, with an uninspiring Democratic President, inflation, fluctuating oil prices on the open market, an embarrassing withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, and Americans unhappy with the direction of the country overall. Things were looking up for the Republicans.  How did the Democrats lose only the House (barely) and hold onto their Senate majority with an equally slight advantage despite most people believing it was going to be a good night for their opposition?

I think the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade played a very large part in public sentiment, despite conservatives believing that a large percentage of Americans agreed with that ruling. I am of the belief that while some women would never terminate their own pregnancy under any circumstances, a good number of others would prefer it was an option available to them if the need arose.  A large reason for success during non-presidential year elections is voter turnout, and voters turn out if they are motivated to do so.  While overturning abortion may have been on the wish list for Republican voters for decades, it possibly proved pivotal in turning out Democratic voters.

Another factor in the Democrats' favor was poor candidate selection by the Republican National Committee (RNC) in the Georgia senate race between Herschel Walker and incumbent Rafael Warnock.  Mr. Walker had a myriad of personal issues (abortions for his past girlfriends, his openness about his multiple personalities, not believing in evolution, and poor debate performance) and it did not instill confidence in Republicans in that state that he could win.  Doctor Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania was another problem candidate.  Despite his high-profile name recognition, his personal wealth, his relationship with Oprah (who endorsed his opponent), and fundraising prowess, he failed to beat his Democratic opponent, John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke before the election and embarrassed himself during their one and only debate.  The Fetterman campaign was smart in scheduling the debate a month after early voting began, thereby reducing the chances for Dr. Oz to change the minds of undecided voters.

The Republicans did see the presumptive frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President in 2024, Ron DeSantis get re-elected easily in Florida.  Additionally, the Democrats saw some of their candidates win high-profile statewide executive positions (Gavin Newsom in California, Gretchen Witmer in Michigan, Katie Hobbs in Arizona), and the party was able to prevent Republicans win a large number of governorships.  In some of those races (Witmer and Hobbs), the Republican candidates were closing the polling and enthusiasm gaps, and it appeared that the GOP would gain those seats, but in the end, the Democrats eked out those wins on election night.  

While the 2022 Midterms were not a total disaster for the Republicans, the party's leadership was clearly not happy with the final results.   The Democrats, however, didn't exhibit any tactical mastery in strategy nor did the outcome reinforce President Biden's popularity.  A lot of it came down to Republican mistakes and poor candidate choices as previously stated.  Additionally, the public embrace of former President Donald Trump (Kari Lake in Arizona), and other candidates did not have the draw or appeal that many Trump supporters thought it would.  I think the American people are tired of constant claims of "election fraud," or "re-instating" candidates who lost.  I believe that Trump's time as the power broker in the Republican party is coming to an end, and the sooner the GOP realizes this, the party can move on and find new candidates to carry the torch for their political platform.   

The 2022 Midterms were really a message to the Republican party, in that voters were tired of the antics of Donald Trump, and the drama he brings with the national media, including those who wish to monetize their animosity towards him.  The American people want their government to be competent and improve and protect the quality of life for their families.  

Conservative candidates and incumbents didn't provide any solutions for current issues either, such as illegal border crossings, and how to stem that flow of illegal migrants crossing into the United States in large numbers.  Nor was any serious thought given, with policy initiatives, to improving the economy or giving Americans hope for the future.  It's no wonder the party was not able to make any inroads with disaffected voters or gain new voters for the party.  In order to win, you have to give people something to vote for, rather than vote against a President that half the country doesn't dislike (even though his policies do not seem to win over too many people).  Candidate selection is part of it, and the other key element is proving solutions that Americans can get behind.  I believe the GOP "phoned in" their strategy for victory, which simply means they thought supportive polling and a political environment for the taking would take care of itself.  Hollow slogans do not push political parties over the finish line. Rather, it is fulfilling promises with hard choices that warrant victory.

Will the Republican party learn from the lessons of the 2022 Midterms? Will they move on from the Donald Trump era and coalesce behind a new face of the party?  Will they be better at choosing good candidates and providing them with the tools to be successful?  Time will tell what the party does to prepare for the pivotal races in two years.  The 2024 election will be a monumental election, and one whose results with have consequences for many, many years.  If the GOP is smart they will take stock of where they went wrong, admit their costly errors and come back a better party.  For if they do not, the shock of losing winnable races will culminate in losing the party's most coveted race in 2024, the White House.