Manning should have hung it and the Broncos shouldn’t have pursued him

The Denver Broncos choice to pursue Peyton Manning always struck me as strange. Sure John Elway never trusted Tim Tebow, and it’s true that Jon Fox isn’t the type of coach who seems to have the stomach for the unconventional, but it really seemed like the Broncos had something good going with the lefty from Florida.

            Many teams wander in the wilderness for years searching for a player with the ability to add the spark that Tebow provided the Broncos with. In the second round of the playoffs the Patriots mutilated them, but beating the Steelers in Pittsburgh like they did isn’t the kind of thing that happens every year.  In fact it very rarely happens in football, and the pass that won that football game was thrown by none other than Tim Tebow. 

            The league appears to moving toward acceptance of a non-traditional quarterback—just look at the king’s ransom the Redskins gave up in order to move up to pick Robert Griffin III—but John Elway and company couldn’t just accept and enjoy what they had in Tebow. They decided they just had to get Peyton Manning.

            I was of the opinion that with his three neck surgeries, and one Super Bowl ring, Manning would call it a career. He has nothing left to prove, and with a fragile neck, he’s certainly messing with his later quality of life. I know that his doctors have cleared him, and that the Broncos wouldn’t have signed him to a $96 million (albeit unguaranteed) contract without feeling sure about his medical condition, but I find it hard to believe that Manning’s neck surgeries haven’t left him irrevocably damaged as an athlete.

            This whole Manning to the Broncos thing has the stink of a similar move 19 years ago, when Joe Montana was traded to the Kansas City Chiefs to make way for Steve Young. Montana had some success in Kansas City, but he wasn’t Joe Montana, the greatest clutch quarterback ever to play the game, anymore.

            Athletes aren’t particularly good at knowing when to exit the stage and give way to the next generation. They don’t tend to know when the league has passed them by. I’m not saying that the league has passed Manning by, but I am saying it may have.

Wouldn’t it be better to go out like Barry Sanders? Leaving the fans wanting more, but knowing that your quality of life after football is also quite important, and understanding that you aren’t at the top of your game anymore. Instead Manning could be messing with his legacy. He’s a surefire Hall of Famer, but who wants to remember Joe Montana wearing a Chief’s uniform (except for Chiefs fans since they haven’t won a playoff game since 1993)?

And back to the Broncos, was it really worth giving up the man who sparked Tebow Time to get a potentially washed up quarterback who is unlikely to win a Super Bowl?  I say no, but only time will tell.

The Off Message GOP

There was a telling moment the Sunday before the Michigan primary on ABC’s This Week. Host George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney surrogate and Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to weigh in on President Obama’s energy policy. Snyder did what all on message politicians do best; he answered the question how he wanted to answer it by pivoting directly to the unemployment rate, the deficit, and the President’s handling of the economy.

Their insistence on not answering any journalist’s question is one of the things that makes people hate politicians, but the ability to effectively pivot and drive your message is one of the most important skills a candidate can possess.

Rick Santorum does not have this skill. When he’s asked about contraception, gay marriage, and other social issues that Republicans don’t exactly have the popular opinion higher ground on, he can’t help but drone on for five minutes about them.

As Republican strategist Alex Castellanos told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in an obvious reference to Santorum, “Republicans being against sex is not good. Sex is popular, as a party it’s a bad thing to be firmly against sex.”

99% of all women and 98% of Catholic women report to have used contraception. The GOP already has a woman problem, and candidates like Santorum simply make it worse. President Obama is weak with the American public on the economy, not social issues. Last month, Gallup reported that the only 38% of Americans approve of the President’s handling of the economy, while 59% don’t; 32% approve of his handling of the federal budget deficit, while 63% disapprove. These are the issues the GOP should hammer the President on. The word theology should never come out of any candidate’s mouth.

When it comes down to it, electoral politics is all about finding the issues where your opponent is weak, and drawing a clear contrast with them on these issues. There are some slight exceptions, most notably President Obama’s “the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice” storybook campaign four years ago, but even then he hammered Republicans on their policies. Campaigns are all about contrast; they are ultimately a choice between two visions, not a referendum. Because of this they too are often inherently ugly; it’s nearly impossible to create an effective contrast between you and your opponent without being negative. As the polling above indicates, the contrast Republicans must create in their quest to take back the White House and Senate in 2012 must drawn on economic terms.

Mitt Romney seems to understand this, his campaign is all about, in his own words, what Americans want: “Americans are crying out for more jobs, less debt, and smaller government—and I will deliver.” This is the final applause line in his stump speech; he probably says it at least five times a day.

This isn’t because all Mitt Romney wants to talk about is the economy; he just knows it presents the best opportunity for a contrast that’s advantageous to him given relevant polling. Romney’s ability to talk about what matters to a majority of Americans is a big reason why he’ll be the nominee.  Although, any similarly on message conservative could easily unseat him from his perch, since he’s blown in the wind on so many major issues through the years. Unfortunately, everyone else in the race lacks any semblance of message discipline. During their respective moments in the sun, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich both have talked about pressing American concerns like the horrors of negative campaigning, contraception, and in Gingrich’s case, an American colony on the moon, all in the face of a 15 trillion dollar deficit and 8.3 percent unemployment.

Some Republicans may argue that social issues are important, I happen to agree, I also happen to know that, according to Gallup, 40% of Americans identify themselves as Independent, 31% as Democrats, and 27% as Republicans. So the GOP can either continue their death march into the oblivion by talking about issues Americans disagree with them on, or they can do what conservatives do best, talk about building a dynamic economy largely unencumbered by a paternalistic government.

Americans clearly want a leader willing to tackle our big economic issues, not one who lectures from the bully pulpit like it’s Sunday morning, or who self describes themselves as “grandiose”. Despite the Looney Tunes quality that this primary has taken on, President Obama is still vulnerable, but not for long if the party doesn’t get on message, and fast.