April 2015

Hillary’s back for a second run at the presidency. Several Republican presidential wannabes are begging the voters for a second — or, in some cases, third — chance. Barack Obama already asked for his and, unfortunately for the country, was granted a second term as President. History is replete with examples of politicians seeking and being given second chances. Indeed, America is a nation founded on the notion that if you work hard and earn your way back, you deserve a Mulligan.

Except, that is, if your name happens to be Pete Rose.

Rose, one of major league baseball’s all-time leading hitters, made a serious error in judgment a generation ago by betting on outcomes of ball games while he was still actively involved in the League. He was caught; he owned up to it; he was punished severely; he paid and continues to pay the price; he has not repeated the error; and he is seeking redemption from Major League Baseball. What has been the response to Rose’s pleas – in essence, “Pete Rose will never, ever, be forgiven or granted redemption; no matter what he does, and for all of time, he will never be given a second chance.”

If Pete Rose were a candidate for high political office rather than a contender for the Baseball Hall of Fame, the story would be quite different. In politics, second chances are awarded routinely. For MLB, the bar of redemption has been set far higher; for Rose, seemingly impossibly higher.

Characteristically, Rose has continued fighting to get back into the arena. Earlier this month, he asked the new baseball Commissioner to reinstate him to the game; a request denied by every previous commissioner since Rose was banned in 1989. For Rose, this is his bottom-of-the-ninth, full-count moment. It is his last shot at redemption. His odds – not good.

Despite the many, proven examples of professional ball players boosting their performances, their statistics and their pay with illicit drugs in the years since Rose was banished, it is Rose who continues to be hermetically shut out from the sport; not the Alex Rodriguezes.

Why the double standard? Perhaps it has to do with baseball’s deeply imbued sense of history and tradition. The gambling and game-fixing scandal of the 1920s Chicago “Black Sox” is one of the most ignominious black marks in the history of any sport; and Rose’s gambling clearly conjured the ghosts of the past. Rose’s hyper-competitive, defiant nature – not filtered through a phalanx of PR handlers – probably has not made his task any easier.

However, baseball is not just about history and personalities; it is, at its core, a game of redemption and second chances; in a sense, nearly every element of the game is built on this foundation. Batters are given three strikes; not one. Pitchers are granted four balls. Teams are afforded three outs, and nine innings; often in a three-game series. Championship series are decided not in a single game, but by a series of seven games.

The theme of second chances, woven into the fabric of the sport like the red stitching on a baseball, is the genesis of its heroic lore. It is the essence of stories like the injured Kirk Gibson’s walk-off homerun in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series; or the Boston Red Sox’s miracle comeback against the Yankees in the 2004 American League Championship. And, it is the story of Pete Rose; who in the twilight of his storied career, managed to break a seemingly unbreakable, 57-year old record for most career hits held by Ty Cobb.

It is for this reason why reinstating Rose in baseball should not be viewed as a measure of how we feel about Rose the man, but about how we value Rose the player, and even America itself.

Look at politics today, and see how many of those in power were once facing scrutiny for conduct that should have been career-ending. Instead, some, like Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have risen from scandal and defeat to become thought leaders for our country; others, like Hillary Clinton, will face a trial of fire in gaining the public’s trust while trying to make the most of hers. No matter whether such people actually deserve a second chance, the virtue of this being the country that it is, at the very least grants them an opportunity to demonstrate why they have earned one.

It is hard to argue that “Charlie Hustle” has not earned at least the same opportunity. Reinstatement is not about whitewashing the sins of the past; but rather about giving one of the sport’s most legendary icons a shot at the recognition he spent 23 years playing to achieve. “Everyday is a new opportunity. You can build on yesterday’s success or put its failures behind and start over again,” baseball legend Bob Feller once quipped. “That’s the way life is, with a new game every day, and that’s the way baseball is.”

It is time Commissioner Rob Manfred starts a new game with Pete Rose, and allows him the opportunity to finish it in the Hall of Fame.

Originally published here via townhall.com

Rodney King, whose beating at the hands of the LAPD in 1991 sparked several days of bloody rioting, is perhaps best remembered for his oft-quoted plea for everyone to just “get along” with each other. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in all but name only, has taken King’s plea to heart.

During a question and answer session last week in New Hampshire, Bush burnished his credentials as the status quo candidate, when he lamented the fact that his colleagues currently in the Senate were failing to just get along with their Democratic counterparts, by holding up the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General for purely “partisan” reasons. He then joined with President Barack Obama in urging the Senate to quickly confirm Lynch, notwithstanding that she is a clone of Eric Holder in terms of outlook, priorities and policies. Such a move is desirable, Bush lectured, because the President – any president – is entitled to have “his team” in place, no matter how good or bad its members may be.

The world view that Bush exhibited in this exchange reflects the typical, go-along-to-get-along attitude with which many Republican lawmakers and presidents approach tough political issues. It is this perspective –which values the maintenance of the status quo and the avoidance of confrontation above all else — that accounts largely for the decades-long growth of big government regardless of which major party wields the levers of power.

Apparently, the fact that at least some GOP senators might be opposing Lynch for substantive – as opposed to “partisan” – reasons, escaped Bush’s analysis of the situation; that, or he simply chose to overlook the possibility in order to make his political point. Either way, his comments reflect an important but not unanticipated blind spot in the credentials of a candidate who, on paper at least, is well-qualified to be considered a front-runner in the Republican presidential field.

Bush’s unquestioning support of the President’s “right” to select his own team was his most recent endorsement of Establishment Rule in the campaign thus far, but hardly the only such signal. For example, Bush glibly dismisses the concerns of conservatives about the overreach of federal bureaucrats through Common Core, as “conspiracy theories.” Bush criticizes opponents of Common Core even as he heaps praise on the Obama Administration for “providing carrots and sticks” to pressure states to adopt the standards; a tactic he finds “appropriate.” Even on the issue of climate change, where every day more data suggests it is little more than a left-wing fraud, Bush echoed Obama when, also last week in the Granite State, he suggested, “we need to work with the rest of the world to negotiate a way to reduce carbon emissions.”

While these moderate-to-left policy positions of Bush are concerning, even more so is the mounting evidence of why and how Jeb would simply continue the status quo in Washington. The ideas espoused by this third Bush appear less like sincerely-held beliefs than a general “deference,” as he calls it, to the Establishment in Washington. It is a constant refrain to trust in the solutions provided via the “system,” in which we, as mere citizens, only need to be along for the ride regardless of individual concerns. Fundamentally, it is an attitude indicative of a politician driven more by the prevailing “wisdom” of the elitist collective, than a sincere dedication to the Constitution and individual liberty.

If we are to break the stagnation of new ideas in Washington, and finally realize the true potential for economic and personal freedom in this country (as envisioned centuries ago by our Founding Fathers), we must seize 2016 as an opportunity to find and elevate the same disruptors in politics, as those who have transformed today’s consumer and technology marketplaces. In other words, seek out and support politicians unafraid to rock the boat, cast aside the broken system of partisan “deference,” and for once, listen to political consumers — that is, the voters — who have legitimate concerns about the direction America has taken in recent decades, especially during these past, sorry six years.

Jeb Bush is no Tesla, Uber, or Netflix. He is the bailed-out auto manufacturer; the taxi cartel; the cable company. He is the champion of the status quo – a symbol not of what can be, but of what has been. Republican voters and contributors in particular ought to remind Bush that opposing Barack Obama is something we do not because of partisanship, but because of principle. The 2016 GOP nominee must be wrought of that mettle.

Initially published here on Townhall.com

During his Oscar-nominated cameo in “A History of Violence,” William Hurt declares ominously to the brother he is about to have murdered, “You cost me … you cost me a helluva lot!” In a much broader sense, and in the real world, the rise of the Regulatory State has cost us a lot; a helluva lot, if you will — in excess of $2 trillion annually, as estimated by Forbes.

What is not reflected in this eye-popping figure is the cottage industry that has developed among a small, but well-financed group of investors to make money by manipulating the regulatory mechanisms of government, and those who enforce them.

The costs to the businesses that are the targets of these manipulators can be steep. The tactic of choice is the “short sale.” In a nutshell, an investor who engages in a short sale is betting that stock in a certain company he has bought or against which he has borrowed will drop in value before the time comes for him to repay the loan with which he purchased the shares. He makes money by having to pay back less than he borrowed.

Short selling is, in fact, a legitimate technique often used by hedge-fund managers, many of whom have developed complex algorithms with which to identify companies or business sectors likely to drop in value, and which therefore are purchases worthy of taking a risk with their or their clients’ funds.

Unfortunately, certain investors employ tactics other than careful market forecasting and analysis on which to base investment risks; relying instead on public relations ploys and regulatory pressure to deliberately cause the value of stock which they have “shorted” to drop.

Just a few years ago, for example, Steve Eisman bet millions that he would reap huge profits from his short sale of shares in for-profit schools. To improve the chances his massive bet would pay off, he pressed aggressively for the Department of Education to mandate restrictive “gainful employment” rules for proprietary schools. Former Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee at the time, became an apparently unwitting ally in Eisman’s scheme.

Bill Ackman, another well-known and successful investor, has taken up where Eisman left off. Ackman is going after Herbalife, a 35-year-old company that sells health and wellness products through independent contractors across the U.S. and globally. Ackman has been aggressively pushing state and federal regulators to investigate Herbalife and declare it an unlawful “pyramid scheme;” hoping to score a major reward based on his investments in “shorting” Herbalife stock.

Ackman, of course, does not publicly admit the reason behind his anti-Herbalife crusade is to profit from shorting the company’s stock; but he has not hidden his desire to ruin the company.

A Reuters account of a recent Ackman speech, quoted him proudly declaring that destroying Herbalife was “most important” to him, because of what he claimed is “harm” the company’s products have caused “vulnerable population[s].”

The specious nature of Ackman’s claims aside (according to Reuters, his remarks elicited “some laughter” from the audience) — and notwithstanding the fact the company has never, in its more than three-decades long existence, been found to be operating illegally — Ackman’s campaign is no laughing matter. The company is having to spend millions defending against lawsuits filed by investors who buy into Ackman’s claims, even as it fights a lengthy investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.

The good news is Ackman’s antics may be starting to backfire on him. According to some media reports, the FBI is investigating whether he and those associated with him made false statements to regulators. And at least one well-known watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is calling on Congress to investigate short-sale manipulators such as Ackman.

This appears to be one of those rare instances in which calls for congressional oversight should be supported by Republicans and Democrats.

For the GOP, the purpose would be to rein in short-sale manipulators and overzealous regulators who are skewing the marketplace and unfairly harming particular companies or industries. At the same time, Democrats on the Hill should welcome the call for oversight as a way to burnish their anti-Wall Street credentials; or, as CREW’s interim executive director, Anne Weismann, noted in a recent letter to Congress, to fight the “rigged [Wall Street] game.”

The bottom line? A series of hearings on short-sale market and regulatory manipulation would tee-up rather nicely what likely will be one of the key political battles in the coming 2016 presidential campaign — Wall Street vs. Main Street.
Bob Barr is a former Republican congressman from Georgia.

Originally published here