By John McMullen
The recent mid-term elections in this country got me thinking about change.
The conventional wisdom in Washington is that President Bush was left weakened and more isolated by Tuesday's thumping at the hands of Democrats. “Dubya” even acquiesced to his critics and handed them a trophy, the scalp of defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
But, why are the country’s liberals happy?
I didn’t see any prominent democrats campaigning with liberal ideology. There was no talk of repealing tax cuts, no talk of cut and run in Iraq and no talk about left wing Supreme Court judges.
Why ? -- Those things aren’t really all that popular amongst centrists, the people you need to woo in order to win any election.
So is anything really going to change?
Which brings me to Andy Reid.
The conventional wisdom regarding Philadelphia’s football coach is that he has lost his team. And, I have helped perpetuate that thesis because, quite frankly, I believe it.
But that doesn’t mean jettisoning Reid for another coach would improve things for the Birds.
Thing about it -- the 2006 Eagles are either a really good team that has woefully underachieved or an average club that got off to rousing start because of the schedule.
The final eight games will be the ballot box that decides that question but it‘s clear -- exit polls are pointing to the latter.
This team just isn’t as talented as you all think it is.
The running game is still nonexistent. The offensive line is pedestrian. The receivers lead the league in drops. The interior of the defensive line is softer than Chris Webber. All the outside linebackers do is give Joe Conklin material, and the strong safety has gone from the Pro Bowl to the outhouse in record time.
None of that speaks well of Reid's performance as dictator of the NovaCare Complex. But, assuming the rotund one is the problem -- Who are you going to bring in to replace him?
Sports, like politics, dictates you go in the opposite direction.
If you dispense of a player’s coach , you need to bring in a disciplinarian or vice versa. And more often than not you end up setting yourself back years.
Because the players don’t change.
One thing we know unequivocally is that Reid has won with good players. We won’t be able to say the same thing if the Birds bring in a new coach.
So, to me, the answer is simple -- Get better players and keep Andy.
Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.
-You can reach John McMullen at jmcmullen1@comcast.net or john@phillysportsline.com
![[Get Copyright Permissions]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sT_q6Z1VRR3-DDI7XI_Z0FeeQoB5f5bTpU-nWSTjdhWaPEXMFFH_-9RYT5cydP9Uob76LYeryWLakmC7gBlh9i0tazITK2gc1v_pKT9MhP90tZ=s0-d){kind=small}
Click here for copyright permissions!
Copyright 2006
The Phanatic
2 comments:
Several points....1)ALL Democrats ran on the premise of repealing Bush's tax cuts, though it wasn't their major sound bite. 2)Why do you connection the phrase "cut and run" in Iraq immediately to the Democrats. We want out, but understand it needs to be done with thought and a PLAN....3) Bush still has the man say on judges -- and the Democrats take over of both Congress chambers doesn't put up the option of left wing judges but does crush the hope Bush could get another conservative judge into the court...Listen, many of the Democrats who were victorious in "red states" did run on a socially conservative platform in some regards (leary or opposed to gay marriage, many anti-abortion) but they are in unison about other social issues (stem cell research, family planning, faith and its place in politics). So they are really termed social moderates -- very Clintonesque. Listen -- you sound like another right-wing hack who is bitter. The country spoke. We want change. And the Democrats now have two years to show us that change is in fact possible. And if your reputable is "Nothing will get done." Then that will rest on the President's desk and a Democrat will find himself in the White House in '08. I for one want my college loans cut in half, want minimum wage raise and want a comprehensive energy policy -- these are common sense ideals that Bush would be politically ignorant to fight against. On Tuesday, the American people voted against George Bush's failed policy in Iraq. It's failed. I even use the term policy loosely. Yet he stood there on Wednesday and offered much of the same in Iraq. Granted I agree that "cut and run" is not in our best interest now, but when? When is deciding to leave termed smart rather than weak. How many more innocent Americans must die before we term the war "unwinnable." Or does staying the course mean another half decade of death and destruction. One has to wonder when leaving is right thing to do even if it sends a bad message? I'm more worried about our soliders than whether something this President got us into "looks good."
wow -- I think this was about football.
Post a Comment