Musings from Dallas Seminary

Why Not Dale Murphy?

2009-01-12T11:54:00.001-08:00

Less than an hour ago I received the news I've sort of been hoping for now for 15 years. Jim Rice, who spent his entire career with the Boston Red Sox, was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Congratulations, Mr. Rice. Now let's address a travesty, namely, how in the world is Jim Rice a Hall of Famer but Dale Murphy isn't?

Rice made it in his fifteenth and final year of eligibility. He has not appeared in a big league game since August 3, 1989. In that game, Rice played where he spent more than 1/3 of his career as a DESIGNATED HITTER, so washed up by then that a forgettable journeyman named Scott Kutcher - who played in all of 244 games in a forgettable five-year career - pinch-hit for him. Kutcher himself was out of baseball 13 months later. (If you want a calendar reference, Rice appeared in his last game THREE WEEKS before Pete Rose was banned for life from baseball for gambling). In the intervening period of 19 years, Rice has not had a single at bat, homered once, or stole a base. Yet he somehow managed to go from about half of the vote to just enough votes to get him into the prestigious shrine.

Again - not to knock Jim Rice, who will not be anywhere close to the worst player in Cooperstown (that title is held eternally by Joe Tinker), but how in the world does Rice get elected when Dale Murphy only gets 62 votes?

You had to see Dale Murphy to believe it. Brought up in the Braves organization as a catcher, Murphy was THE premiere outfielder in baseball for an eight-year stretch from 1980 to 1987. His sudden mental block at throwing runners out at second led Braves manager Bobby Cox to put him in center field because, he said later, "It was the farthest place from home plate on the diamond." It is that wisdom that has Cox ready for a plaque in Cooperstown after he leaves Atlanta.

How does Murphy compare to Rice? Let's take a look.

Rice's career numbers show he had 382 home runs, 1,451 RBIs, and a .298 batting average. He attained those Hall of Fame numbers by playing an unusually high number of games as a DH, playing his entire career in a field where a 300-foot fly ball to left was a home run (and Rice was a right-handed hitter), and his first six years had not one but TWO Hall of Famers hitting right behind him, Carl Yastrzemski and Carlton Fisk.

Murph, as he was known, hit 398 home runs, had 1,266 RBIs, and a .265 career average. So Rice hit about 30 points higher and had a little less than 200 more RBIs in nine more career games. But the argument isn't that simple.

For starters, let's compare how many Gold Gloves they won. Murphy - who never had a single at bat in his career as a DH - won FIVE of them. Rice, who as noted earlier spent more than 1/3 of his career as a DH, never even came close to winning one. What about Silver Slugger awards? Murphy won four while Rice won two. What about Most Valuable Player Awards? Murphy won two and Rice one. Rice got votes for MVP in eight different years while Murphy got votes in seven. And while we tend to think of Murphy as a tall, loping antelope towards fly balls, check this one out: Murphy stole 161 bases in his career while Rice stole only 58. That's nearly THREE TIMES as many steals by a guy who played every day. Murphy literally played every day, accumulating a streak of 740 consecutive games before he was benched by injury in 1986. (That's right - Murphy at that time had a longer streak than the guy who eventually broke the record, Cal Ripken).

And then let's consider how good the teams were that each man played for. Rice's Red Sox made the post-season four times during his career, including two unforgettable World Series (although Rice did not play in 1975 due to a broken wrist). Murphy's team made one three-game post-season appearance in 1982, and they got swept by the Cardinals. In Rice's first six seasons, the Red Sox finished first twice, second twice, and third once. By contrast, the Braves in Murphy's first six seasons finished last or next-to-last five out of six times (and finished fourth the other year, 1980). For a brief span (1982-1984), Murphy's teams outdid Rice's (the 1982 Braves finished first with the exact same record as the third-place Red Sox in a different division; the Braves finished 2nd in both 1983 and 1984). Then, from 1985-1989, Murphy's teams finished last every year but one (and that year they were next-to-last) while Rice was playing for two pennant winners.

Or why not look at the supporting cast around them. Rice had at least three Hall of Famers as teammates during his career (assuming Roger Clemens is admitted) while Murphy was often the only reason to go watch the Braves play. Not only did Rice get to hit in front of Yaz and Fisk, but he also hit in front of Fred Lynn, who won the 1979 batting title and led the AL in homers that same year. Most folks who are not Atlanta fans cannot even name the one slugger who hit behind Murphy, and who missed the equivalent of two full seasons across four because he kept getting injured. (For those who don't know, I'm referring to Bob Horner). The rest of Murphy's career was spent surrounded by such legends-in-waiting as Claudell Washington, Biff Pocoroba, and Paul Runge.

Let's put it another way: put Murphy as a DH on the Boston teams that Rice played for and put Rice on the Braves of the 1980s. Murphy, who was as good a clutch hitter as there was, would have about 450 career homers, and Rice wouldn't even be in the discussion. In fact, given his sulky reputation, Rice would probably have quit.

Back in the 1980s in the National League there were two guys you did not want to see coming up in a must-win situation. The first one was Mike Schmidt, who is in the Hall. The second was Dale Murphy.

Again - I wish no ill will towards Jim Rice. But there's something wrong when a guy who has many more Gold Gloves, twice as many MVPs, and no Hall of Fame teammates doesn't even get consideration.

Why did Rice get in? Simple. Rice played for the Boston Red Sox, one of the two 'must see' teams in modern media (the Yankees being the other one). This is the same bias that got the 1991 World Series that everyone generally agrees is the best of all-time a FIFTH place finish in 'Who's #1.' Who beat out that classic where five games were won in the home team's last at-bat? Notice the trend:

#4 NY Yankees vs. Arizona
#3 Cincinnati vs. Boston
#2 NY Yankees vs. Pittsburgh (1960)
#1 NY Mets vs. Boston

Note that all four games that beat out the Atlanta-Minnesota classic were played by teams in either New York, Boston, or both. And then you know why Rice is getting a plaque while Murphy is still smiling like he enjoys it.

ADDENDUM (January 15, 2009)

While doing further research on the stats, I need to correct a comment. Rice did NOT play with three Hall of Famers if Clemens gets in but with four. I forgot that Wade Boggs hit in front of Rice in the late 1980s.

Recent Bowl Games

2008-11-26T08:50:00.000-08:00

1984 Orange Bowl (Miami vs. Nebraska) – ESPN Classic
1983 Orange Bowl (LSU-Nebraska) – ESPN Classic
1989 Gator Bowl (Georgia-Michigan State) – ESPN Classic

2001 Independence Bowl (Alabama-Iowa State)
2001 Gallery Furniture.com Bowl (TCU-A/M)
2001 Insight.com Bowl (Syracuse-K-State)
2002 Fiesta Bowl (Oregon-Colorado)
2001 Holiday Bowl (Washington-Texas)
2001 Seattle Bowl (Ga Tech-Stanford)
2001 Peach Bowl (Auburn-North Carolina)
2001 Music City Bowl (BC-Georgia)
2001 Sylvania Alamo Bowl (Iowa-Texas Tech)
2002 Rose Bowl (Miami-Nebraska)

2002 New Orleans Bowl (Cincinnati-N. Texas)
2002 Alamo Bowl (Colorado-Wisconsin)
2002 Holiday Bowl (KState-Arizona State)
2002 Houston Bowl (USM-Oklahoma State)
2002 Independence Bowl (Nebraska-Ole Miss – missing 4th quarter)
2003 Outback Bowl (Florida-Michigan)
2003 Rose Bowl (Oklahoma-Washington State)
2003 Sugar Bowl (Georgia-FSU)
2003 Fiesta Bowl (Miami-Ohio State)

2003 New Orleans Bowl (North Texas-Memphis)
2003 Alamo Bowl (Michigan State-Nebraska)
2003 Music City Bowl (Auburn-Wisconsin)
2003 Independence Bowl (Arkansas-Missouri)
2003 Houston Bowl (Texas Tech-Navy)
2003 Holiday Bowl (Washington State-Texas)
2004 Peach Bowl (Tennessee-Clemson)
2004 Capitol One Bowl (Georgia-Purdue)
2004 Outback Bowl (Iowa-Florida)
2004 Rose Bowl (USC-Michigan)
2004 Cotton Bowl (OSU-Ole Miss)
2004 Orange Bowl (Miami-FSU)
2004 Sugar Bowl (OU-LSU)

2004 Holiday Bowl
2004 Independence Bowl (Miami of Ohio-Iowa State)
2004 Houston Bowl (UTEP-Colorado)
2004 Music City Bowl (Alabama-Minnesota)
2005 Outback Bowl (Georgia-Wisconsin)
2004 Peach Bowl (Florida-Miami)
2005 Cotton Bowl (Tennessee-A/M)
2005 Sugar Bowl (Auburn-Va Tech)
2005 Capitol One Bowl (LSU-Iowa)
2005 Rose Bowl (Texas-Michigan)
2005 Fiesta Bowl (Utah-Pitt)
2005 Orange Bowl (USC-Oklahoma)
2005 Gator Bowl (FSU-W.Va)
2005 Outback Bowl (Florida-Iowa)

2005 Champs Sports Bowl (Clemson-Colorado)
2005 Houston Bowl (TCU-Iowa State)
2005 Fort Worth Bowl (Kansas-Houston)
2005 Independence Bowl (South Carolina-Missouri classic)
2005 Peach Bowl (LSU-Miami)
2006 Fiesta Bowl (Ohio State-Notre Dame)
2006 Sugar Bowl (Georgia – West Virginia)
2006 Rose Bowl (Texas-USC)
2006 Orange Bowl (Penn State-Florida State)

2006 Independence Bowl (OSU-Alabama)
2006 Peach Bowl (Georgia-Va Tech)
2007 Orange Bowl (Louisville-Wake Forest)
2007 Outback Bowl (Tennessee-Penn State)
2007 Fiesta Bowl (Boise State-OU)
2007 Rose Bowl (USC-Michigan)
2007 BCS Title Game (Florida-Ohio State)
2007 Sugar (LSU-Notre Dame)

2007 Armed Forces Bowl (AFA vs Cal)
2007 Independence Bowl (Alabama-Colorado)

2007 USC vs Stanford (complete game)
2007 West Virginia vs Pitt

Why McCain Lost

2008-11-12T20:11:00.000-08:00

The dust has settled now as the crash of the Presidency of George W. Bush is complete. Barack Obama now stands on the precipice of fulfilling Martin Luther King's dream for African-Americans on January 20, 2009 - the day he and Bush will shake hands as Obama ascends to the podium and takes the oath of office as America's first black President. But before moving onto the future we must look at the recent past and answer the question: "Why did John McCain lose the 2008 election?" For most of the analyses of this question will likely miss the point.

It is an assumption in the political community that if a candidate loses a race - esp. a race for the Presidency - that the loser could have done something different to have changed the outcome in his favor. Richard Nixon (1960) and Al Gore, in particular, have received endless abuse for what they failed to do despite running campaigns spectacular enough to just fall short. In coming years the question will probably not be why McCain lost but why he didn't lose much worse - and how much better he performed than recent Republican losers Bush 41 and Dole.

The reasons why McCain lost are many. Some are his own doing and some were outside events that he could not control. But all of them added up to his ultimate defeat.

1) The hunger of the Democrats for a victory.

2000 and 2004 had been the cruelest of fates for the Democrats. In both cases they narrowly lost elections that might well have beeen won with just one different decision made by the party standard bearer. A shift of only 60,000 votes in Ohio and about 300 in Florida in 2000 and the Democrats would be celebrating their fifth straight Presidential victory. They have instead lost twice and to an opponent they have long regarded as little more than a son of privilege, an upstart. Being out of power serves as a strong impetus to paper over differences and seek common ground within the party. The Republicans accomplished this well in 2000, and the Democrats emulated them this year. Nothing could have changed the simple fact that the Democrats were hungrier for victory than the Republicans, who were more hoping for a win to prevent an all-Left government.

2) The abysmal record of George W. Bush.

It is too soon to tell how history will view George W. Bush. Harry Truman was considered as big a disaster as Bush when he left office in 1953. But time and new perspectives have turned Truman from one of the worst Presidents to one of the most forward looking Presidents in American history.

What is undeniable, however, is that Bush managed to alienate nearly every constituency including the rock solid right that elected him twice by decisions that were alarming and potentially disastrous. His fool's venture into Iraq may well be the biggest foreign plicy debacle in American history, salvaged only by the fact that the deaths in Iraq are nowhere near the number of fatalities in Vietnam. Throw in a terrible economic record and a stubbornness befitting a mule, and you have potential brushfire.

3) America desires to start over every decade or so

Barack Obama did not get elected President because he was the smartest man on the planet or because he had an exhaustive resume of accomplishment; in fact, he had no resume at all. But he benefited from an electorate that likes to shuffle the deck and deal the cards once again. This is not unusual. Bill Clinton had one of the BEST economic legacies upon which to run and the result for Al Gore was essentially a tie. Jimmy Carter had a terrible one, and the result was a right-winger nobody dared think could have triumphed only four years earlier.

Go check out American political history, particularly since the beginning of the twentieth century. Eight to twelve-year increments are the rule except for something unusual like the twin cluster of crises that got FDR elected four times. Following FDR's death, Truman ruled for eight years followed by eight years of Republican Eisenhower. Eight Democrat years (JFK and LBJ) followed by eight more Republican years (Nixon and Ford). Carter's interlude was brief and countered by Reagan's eight and Bush's four. Clinton followed with eight for the Democrats while Bush gave the Republicans eight. The only two exceptions during that time frame were Carter, who actually led Reagan by 25 points in July 1980, and Bush - whose Presidency brought down the curtain on the Reagan era as he moved into a more activist role for government. So McCain faced yet another historical obstacle.

4) Media bias

Now let me qualify what I'm saying here: I am NOT saying that the mainstream media (MSM) conspired to ensure that Obama won. There was, however, more of a systematic bias against the Republican candidate than I've ever seen. How bad was it? It was so bad that Dan Rather, one of the right-wing's pet hates for four decades, acknowledged it. Sarah Palin was challenged on virtually every tiny little thing she stated while Obama was given a free pass. I'm not decrying the inquisition of Palin - an agressive press is one of the necessary foundations of a free society - but the FACT is that virtually every commentator on the networks may as well have been wearing an 'Obama/Biden 08' button. It was so bad that 'Saturday Night Live' had a skit featuring the infamous 'get him a pillow' line that Hillary later used to club Obama with in a debate.

That said, Republicans need not blame media bias for their larger problem: a sick economy and a war with no end in sight. Had voters been prospering as at the end of the Reagan or Clinton years, all of the bias in the world would not have been able to deliver Obama the White House.

5) Luck

No political consultant will ever go on a TV show and admit that sometimes his (or her) candidate was lucky. However, without some luck all of the skill, master gamesmanship, and political savvy in the world is meaningless. Barack Obama enjoyed the bright light of good luck in almost every instance from the primaries through the general election.

The examples of how luck plays a role could, of course, be multiplied, but consider just a few of the better known ones. What if the 1992 Presidential election had been held in 1991, when George H.W. Bush still had a 70% approval rating? Bill Clinton would not have been elected. Or what if Reagan had sought re-election in 1983 rather than 1984? Odds are that he would have lost badly. And what if Bush 41 had faced Gary Hart rather than Michael Dukakis in the 1988 general election? Finally, would Reagan have won such an initial huge landslide had it not been to Jimmy Carter's misfortune to have the election on the first anniversary of the capture of the American hostages in Iran?

The candidate that wins usually benefits from some outside luck - not as the prime reason he won but as a supplementary one. Time is too brief to recount every instance, but consider just a few. First, he got lucky that Hillary Clinton opted to contest the Iowa caucuses - an exercise in futility that immediately labeled Obama a 'giant killer' when he beat her. Secondly, the one major negative story about Obama in the entire campaign - the anti-American ramblings of his spiritual advisor - were not revealed until March. Had they surfaced last November there is no doubt that Obama would have lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton. In fact, it is doubtful he would have even finished second. Finally, he got lucky when the Wall Street crisis broke the wave of popularity surrounding Sarah Palin.

But luck is not enough to win the Presidency. It is what you do with the lucky break(s) you're given that makes the difference. So while the preceding five external factors doomed McCain, he was also undone by internal factors.

1) Republican moderates lose

Despite all the carping of liberal media about how the Republican Party should offer more 'inclusion' (something they never say about Democrats despite the fact they cannot name a single conservative Democrat from outside the South), here is a simple truth: Republican conservatives WIN and Republican moderates LOSE. That has been the rule since 1968, and there is no reason to think it has changed. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 43 were all elected while running explicitly as conservative candidates. Ford, Dole, and McCain bought into the notion that center was better - and all three lost. Bush 41 managed to win the election where he made his opponent's liberalism the issue (and implied he was Reagan's third term) but lost once he raised taxes and alienated his conservative base.

The results of the election bear this out. Obama got 1/5 of the conservative vote. Furthermore, exit polls show that 34% of the respondents were conservatives compared to only 22% liberals - indicating that while the conservatives would not have won it for McCain by himself, that base of support would have enabled him to fish for moderates in the center without appearing to be an 'apostate' from conservative ideology.

Chris Mathews is therefore, wrong, when he interprets the election as proof we are 'no longer a center right nation.' There is a simple way to know whether or not we are a center left nation: it will be the day liberals actually start calling themselves liberals and stop calling themselves 'progressives' (a term they, in fact, lifted from earlier conservatives who were called progressives).

2) McCain tied himself to Bush with his 'fundamentals of the economy' remark.

The single most detrimental act McCain committed - and the one that sealed his doom most assuredly - was his declaration after the stock market crash that 'the fundamentals of the economy are sound.' While it was probably his intent to not stir up alarm, here is what most of the undecided and 'independent' voters heard:

"I'm just like George W. Bush. We'll just 'stay the course' and I won't give you any answers, and we'll just hope it turns out all right. I realize that the facts are bad, but I just can't admit that because then I might lose. No, the fundamentals are strong, especially if you have seven houses like me. Even if they aren't strong, I've just gotta say it - and stay the course."

Barack Obama decided early on that his best strategy was to run against George W. Bush. The voters were not buying it at first because McCain had, in fact, been one of Bush's harshest critics in some areas. The voters were making an independent assessment, and while the deck was stacked against McCain in the beginning, his image enabled him to actually take the lead coming out of the Convention. Voters weren't buying Obama's blueprint. But McCain made it impossible for any voter to ignore when he simply denied the reality of what was occurring on Wall Street. This no doubt reminded a number of voters of Bush's responses to Iraq and - probably more importantly - Hurricane Katrina.

In yet another unreported irony, this phrase appears eerily similar to one uttered by President George H.W. Bush during the 1991 recession at a town hall in Exeter, New Hampshire on January 15, 1992. Bush said, "There are some fundamentals that are pretty darn good."

3) McCain's judgment was severely called into question - a polite way of suggesting he was too old for the job.

Although the most prominent example cited is Sarah Palin (more on that in a moment), McCain made at least two other monumental blunders that severely called into question his ability to make rational decisions. The first - and much less important - of those decisions were his efforts at seeking the endorsement of Reverend John Hagee as a bridge to his party's Religious Right. It is simply bad form to take the endorsement of a guy who bashes the Roman Catholic Church in light of how important the blue-collar Catholic swing vote is in places like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. The fact McCain sought the endorsement made it appear he simply didn't pay attention to what Hagee said.

The second blunder was much more consequential with much more devastating impact: the 'suspension' of the campaign and 'threat' of cancelling the first debate. McCain's decision to act 'Presidential' backfired and cost him far more than he ever would have gained. Since the Democrats control the Senate, what exactly did McCain think he would get other than attacked by the party in power? It isn't as though McCain chaired the Banking or Finance Committee. But this act also invited Obama to make McCain's age - and more importantly his honesty - an issue by noting that 'Presidents must be able to manage more than one thing at a time.' Obama played this perfectly - raising the age issue without really raising it and from the spectre of judgment. Whatever tiny chance McCain had at winning went out the window with this foolish decision.

4) McCain failed to use his extra time to present a believable economic plan.

McCain was handed a gift from the heavens (about his only brush with good luck) when The Woman Who Would Be Dictator - Hillary Clinton - stayed in the nomination fight long after it was obvious that she had lost and had no prayer of winning. McCain had his nomination in hand on March 4th - a full two months prior to Obama - enabling him to assemble some economic advisors and present the skeleton of a plan he intended to pursue if elected.

I rarely agree with Roland Martin of CNN, but I watched one night when Martin pointed out that McCain did not need to score any points to be seen as the better candidate on Iraq. Martin advised McCain to get brushed up on the economy and come forth with a proposal. But McCain was seemingly incapable of even this one obvious fact. This failure enabled Obama to play his reliable card: McCain is a third Bush term. Had McCain presented something minimally competent then the claim would have lost its sting.

5) The simple fact that Barack Obama ran a spectacular campaign.

Barack Obama did - and there's no real way of escaping it - the impossible. For starters, nobody in his right mind gave Obama a chance to knock off The Woman Who Would Be Dictator. Hillary Clinton was on a boat ride to the White House - or so said every poll in the world. Obama began the race as a little-known orator with no major accomplishments whatsoever and a resume that would have had trouble serving as a maple leaf. Hillary was better known, better financed (at the outset), and ambitious enough to have promised to take action 'when I'm President again.' Hillary's simple plan was to argue 'back to the future' and imply she had already been President.

I will confess that I thought he was running to warm up the engine for a later run in either 2012 or 2016. What exactly was going on in his mind when he opted to run is something only Barack Obama knows. But he stayed on message and never gave in to the distractions. (It is also not mentioned very much by a media programmed to the status quo that Obama actually ran more negative ads against his Republican opponent than McCain ran against Obama - chalk another one up to media bias). He also did something that Michael Dukakis and John Kerry would have killed themselves to have known: he found a way to handle the 'liberal' label that had never been invoked. Rather than dodge the term or try to relabel himself, Obama used 'liberal' as a springboard to say, "That's just in comparison to you and George Bush," effectively tying together McCain and Bush and - though unchallenged - never actually answer the question. (Obama may be the best non-answering a question politician since the king of such tactics, Ronald Reagan).

6. Obama is the better-looking guy

I have long had a theory that was again proven up to a point in this election: the better looking guy wins because TV dominates the culture. This was not always true in radio days, but the simple truth is that Obama was going to win because he is the more telegenic. This has been known to varying degrees since JFK and really became the standard with Reagan. Just go back and look at the winners and tell me when the uglier candidate won:

1960 - Kennedy over Nixon
1964 - ugly LBJ over horn-rimmed glasses wearing Barry Goldwater
1968- Nixon over Humphrey
1972 - Nixon over McGovern
1976 - Carter over Ford (Note: neither guy was overly handsome but Ford looked like a tired balding man and Carter as a blue-eyed fresh face - which is why it was so close).
1980 - handsome Reagan over tired-looking Carter
1984 - handsome Reagan over racoon-faced Mondale
1988 - handsome (and more important taller) Bush over shorter, bushy-eyed Dukakis
1992 - handsome Clinton over weary-looking Bush
1996 - handsome Clinton over Viagara-using Dole
2000 - a tie between two telegenic candidates
2004 - another near tie between Bush and Botox
2008 - Obama over McCain

We have moved from regional politics so much into whether or not a guy is good-looking. It will be interesting to see what the Republicans throw up in 2012 against a tired Obama, which brings us to the most likely telegenic candidate, Sarah Palin.

THE SARAH PALIN FACTOR

What role did Sarah Palin play in McCain's demise and what are her chances for the future? Her role was minimal although it was unquestionably there. The problem was not her inexperience but the PERCEPTION of her inexperience. Politically, she and Obama are about equals as she wields executive authority in a small state. Was she qualified for the Presidency? No, but then again neither was Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards. All of them had resumes that paled in comparison to McCain, Biden, Richardson, Huckabee, and Dodd. But because of the importance of television, she became a major player. Let's face it: imagine Barack Obama with a Mike Tyson face. Do you honestly think for even a moment that he would have won a primary? Now imagine Sarah Palin 100 lbs. heavier and less attractive (insert Janet Naplitano reference here) but with a stout resume - she would never have been considered for the second slot.

Her contribution to McCain's demise is difficult to gauge because McCain's poll numbers dropped after HIS gaffe about the economy, not hers. The perception of media bias in Charlie Gibson's deceptive question about 'the Bush doctrine' (which has meant three different things through the years as Charles Krauthammer pointed out) probably actually helped her.

While I would agree with the assessment that she is a political naif (or - more importantly - SEEMS to be one), it is hard to say that she 'cost McCain the election.' In reality, she didn't, and if he had not chosen her, it would not have been as close as it was. But the Palin choice did bring to bear one problematic area for McCain: the public perception. It struck a fearful public that here was a guy who didn't think things through before he acted. In short, Palin's contribution to McCain's loss is limited to the fact that it simply reminded folks who didn't want a third Bush term that McCain could not be counted upon to divert from Bush in any direction including stubborness.

What Exactly Is "A Willie Horton?"

2008-09-08T20:19:00.000-07:00

One of the amusing things about watching American politics is noting the difference in how the two parties act when they get beat. The Republicans usually console themselves, regroup, and pick up the fight. The best example of this was when Bill Clinton rocked their world in 1992 and took office with a Democratic majority in both houses. They proceeded to rock his world by adminstering a mid-term pasting for the record books that ended a 40-year Democratic stranglehold on Congress.

Democrats, on the other hand, spend their time complaining about how 'unfair' the other side played in the election. There is a monumental arrogance that seems to assume that there is simply NO WAY a rational, intelligent person could possibly reject their good intentions. And one of the most famous cases involves a rather benign name mentioned every four years, Willie Horton. Democrats have cited this particular case as proof that Republicans play 'dirty' and rely upon 'unfair attacks' to win Presidential elections. Oftentimes this is given as an example of Republicans 'playing the race card' in order to frighten voters. But does such a claim withstand even basic scrutiny?

THE FACTS ABOUT WILLIE HORTON (pre-1988)

Willie Horton was born in South Carolina on August 12, 1951. At the age of 23, he and two accomplices robbed a Mobil gas station in Lawrence, Massachusetts. The gas station attendant was a 17-year old boy named Joey Fournier. Fournier handed over all the cash in the register totaling $276.37. Horton then stabbed Fournier 19 times and stuffed his body in a trash can. Found the next morning barely clinging to life, Fournier's last mumbled words were, "Don't hurt me." Horton was sentenced to life without parole (during the early 1970s there was a moratorium on executions that was not lifted until 1976).

That would have been the end of the story but for a liberal governor named Michael Dukakis. Dukakis was a strong supporter of the theory that the reason for prisons was not punishment but rehabilitation. Dukakis also seemmingly thought that one way to rehabilitate a first-degree murderer like Horton was to let him go out on unsupervised furloughs. Horton went out ten times without any reported incident. But his eleventh furlough was different. On June 6, 1986, Horton left for an unsupervised furlough and didn't return.

Until the night of April 3, 1987 when Horton assaulted a man named Clifford Barnes in his house. For seven hours Horton beat, pistol-whipped, and kicked Barnes - and cut him 22 separate times across his mid-section. Barnes' fiancee, Angela, arrived and Horton gagged her and raped her twice. He stole Clifford Barnes's car and was chased by police before being apprehended. Adding to the life imprisonment he already had, a Maryland court sentenced him to two more life times plus 85 years. The sentencing judge refused to send Horton back to Massachusetts for fear the governor (Michael Dukakis) would set him free yet again.

The judge had a very good reason for that fear. Even after Horton's second crime, Dukakis continued to support the idea of furloughs for first degree killers like Horton. The Lawrence-Eagle Tribune newspaper ran over 175 articles and editorials calling for the furlough policy to end, eventually winning a Pulitzer Prize. Dukakis refused to even meet with the Barneses to hear their ordeal at the hands of Willie Horton. Dukakis, in fact, only changed his position on furloughs after the state legislature made clear that they were going to change the policy. The basic facts of the Willie Horton case were first mentioned in the political arena by Al Gore in a debate preceding the 1988 New York primary.

Such are the facts in the Willie Horton case.

ENTER MICHAEL DUKAKIS

Michael Dukakis was elected governor of Massachusetts on November 5, 1974, only ten days after Horton's slaying of Joey Fournier. He served one term before losing to Ed King in the 1978 Democratic primary despite polling an approval rating over 50%. He defeated King in the primary in 1982 and re-entered the governor's office, winning another election in 1986. He entered the 1988 Presidential race as one of the possible contenders along with front-runner Gary Hart, House Majority Whip Dick Gephardt, and Senator Joe Biden. Circumstances eliminated both Hart and Biden while the rest of the contenders fell by the wayside. Dukakis won the nomination in June when he beat Jesse Jackson in the California primary by a 2-1 margin.

Dukakis won the nomination as a garden variety liberal. He was in favor of higher taxes, having pushed them through repeatedly to balance the state budget eleven times, favored the pro-choice position on abortion, and favored a national health care system. He also opposed the death penalty in all cases and opposed the rights of homeowners to possess a firearm. In 1986, Dukakis told Roy Innis (of CORE): "I do not believe in people owning guns, only police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." (No word on whether Rosie O'Donnell was his campaign manager).

Dukakis' history with Willie Horton was discovered by Republican Jim Pinkerton while watching a replay of the NY primary debate. Pinkerton consulted with Andrew Card (later President George W. Bush's chief of staff), who was from Massachusetts, regarding the incident. This discovery led to Bush mentioning Willie Horton in the first debate, but it did not lead to the infamous Willie Horton ad.

THE WILLIE HORTON AD

The claim by Democrats is pretty basic. They claim that George Bush made a 'racist' commercial that exploited the Willie Horton case unfairly. By running a commmercial showing a black man with a rather menacing face, they claim that Bush poisoned the well against Dukakis by appealing to race. In fact, they trace the Republican capture of the Solid South from its old Democratic roots to the race wars of the 1960s. But this is wrong on so many counts that it isn't even funny.

First of all, it should be noted that the Bush campaign NEVER RAN a commercial with Willie Horton's picture. You read that correctly. The ad that is supposed to be so controversial was never run by Bush's campaign; it was run by an Independent group chaired by a conservative activist named Floyd Brown. Interested persons might wish to note that this same gentleman was sued by President Bush in 1991 for running an ad attacking prominent Democrats in the Senate that were to consider the future of Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas. This is the actual Willie Horton ad that is allegedly racist.

Secondly, at no time did Vice-President Bush ever mention Horton's race. And finally, it was not Vice-President Bush who bungled a question about what he would do if his wife were raped and murdered; it was Michael Dukakis.

That is not to say that Bush was completely innocent of distortion. This commercial was called 'Revolving Door' and is woefully short of the truth. To the best of my knowledge, Horton was the only one to escape and actually commit another capital crime. It is inconceivable that another inmate went out and murdered someone else or raped someone else and Bush never mentioned him. So while it is indeed a negative ad and a misleading one, it is still not 'the Willie Horton ad.'

AFTER THE FACT JUSTIFICATION

It has become common over the last twenty years for Democrats and defenders of Dukakis to make three rather extraordinary claims that are transparent fictions.

1) The furlough program was started by a Republican governor.
2) Dukakis ended the furlough program.
3) Other states had furlough programs including Ronald Reagan's California when he was governor and the federal government.

All of these claims are true, but they are just as misleading as Bush's 'Revolving Door' commercial. It is true that furlough program was begun by Massachusetts Republican Governor Francis Sargent. But Sargent's furlough program explicitly REJECTED furloughs for first-degree murderers like Horton. Dukakis did, in fact, end the program but only because it was going to be ended by the state legislature, as I noted earlier. And the programs in other states as well as the federal program would also not have allowed someone with Horton's past a furlough. So while the apologists are stating 'facts,' they are not whole truth in any of the three situations mentioned.

WHAT ABOUT DUKAKIS' FURLOUGH AD?

Never mentioned - never by the media, never by the Democrats, and, unfortunately, not even by the Republicans - was a rather dirty commercial run by Dukakis himself that exemplifies the very thing these folks profess to abhor.

Trailing in the polls and needing to change the subject from his handling of Horton, Dukakis ran a commercial designed to cast Bush as a hypocrite. It concerned the murder of Patsy Pedrin by a convicted Hispanic drug dealer named Angel Medrano. Dukakis ran a commercial funded by his own campaign and insinuated Bush was to blame for it because as the nation's drug czar Bush had not reduced the crime rate and had allowed Medrano to commit his crime. What is quite incredible is that Dukakis ran the commercial with the dark-skinned Hispanic's picture; isn't that racist? Dukakis also talked about the drug dealers furloughed by 'the Bush administration,' a fact that right-thinking Americans would have rejected out of hand since Ronald Reagan was President at the time.

Dukakis' thought process was like that of a lot of liberals. "Hey, all I have to do is show that this guy did the same thing and that makes my screw-up OK!" And that would probably have been true if - and here's where the argument falls apart - the entire issue was about whether or not a black man received a furlough. But it wasn't.

And that is why even 20 years later the Democrats don't get it. They didn't get Willie Horton in 1988, and they still don't get him in 2008. Horton was a symbol for all of the 'wrong' positions in the culture war taken by the left. Horton was not about a black man committing a crime or even receiving a furlough; he was about the fact that liberals like Mike Dukakis believe that a homeowner does not have the right to defend himself with a gun while the criminal - whom he refuses to execute to make society safer - has the right to maim, rape, and even murder - and then get another furlough!!

I've often asked what seems to be an obvious question at this point: yes, the Bush ad was misleading. But do you honestly think Dukakis would have won had it merely told the truth?

August 11, 1988: Twenty Years Goes By So Fast

2008-08-09T05:33:00.001-07:00

Twenty years. Two decades. Long enough for someone not even born on that day to be halfway (or more) through a Bachelor's Degree or post-high school military enlistment. Enough time to have five different Presidents of the United States if each is elected only to a single term. A nice round number that doesn't even begin to denote its significance.

Twenty years ago - on August 11, 1988 - my life moved from the past to the future on a day that I will never forget. It was not the significance of a crippling injury, a childbirth, or even a major objective accomplishment, but it no doubt was the date that marked a turning point - one of so many - in my own life. A few days earlier, maybe as much as two weeks earlier, I had met the young lady. I worked at Pizza Hut Delivery just outside the back gate of Columbus Air Force Base for all of a month. It was my first 'regular' job that actually paid me minimum wage, a whopping $3.35 an hour back in those days. Of course, gas was less than $1 a gallon, so it went much further than today's minimum wage. The lady's name was Pamela Sue Warren. Her sister, Terri, was a cook. Terri stood out because she was the only worker at the store at that time who did not deliver pizzas. To the best of my recollection, she couldn't drive. But I first noticed Pam when I walked into the door around 5 p.m. one typically hot Southern afternoon. (As a side note, the record LOW temperature for August 11 was taken the next year, 1989, and still stands). I thought she was beautiful. She didn't look like she belonged working at the slave labor camp with the rest of us. I only saw her one more day, and she quit. I just happened to learn that she was Terri's sister.

I had been going through my own personal crisis for a number of years; it's called adolesence. The previous November I had received Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I was trying to live to please Him. I was also painfully shy when it came to girls, probably dating to the time in the eighth grade when two back-to-back incidents - my girlfriend departing for the USA (from Germany) and another girl laughing in my face when I asked her out - scarred me enough that I didn't date until my high school prom (May 15, 1987). At the time I decided I wanted to date Pam, I had only been out on two dates, my prom and with a Norwegian foreign exchange student who moved back home a week later.

As most college students, I needed money, and I needed it quick. I was offered some extra hours for the company going out and 'door hanging.' For those of you who may not know, door hanging is that irritating little slither of a coupon that you find attached to your door one afternoon when you come from work that does little more than get in the way. Terri needed extra hours, too, so she and I went out into several 'safe' neighborhoods door hanging. This also gave me the time to pose questions to Terri. Did Pam have a boyfriend? No. (I must admit that was probably the most shocking answer to the many questions I posed). What were her plans? She's joining the Navy in January. Do you think she'd go out with me? I don't know, I'll ask her. I must have badgered Terri for the entire time we were out.

After two hours of bothering Terri to no end, I went home and told her I'd call Pam about 3 pm. I did. I asked her out and she accepted. Except she had no idea where she wanted to go or anything. I decided to be decisive even if it meant disaster, so we went to the local Captain D's seafood restaurant. The date had disaster written all over it. I told her to dress casual. So I wore shorts while she wore a yellow summer dress. The time at Captain D's went fast, and then we just drove around a few places in the county in my 1973 Volkswagen that was the first car that was ever actually mine. The date lasted - are you ready for this? - less than two full hours.

I went home happy but a little frustrated. We ended with a handshake because that's the way it was done back in my day. I went home thinking I had committed a complete and total disaster. But I must've done something right because Terri came into work the next day telling me that Pam had a great time and had talked about the date. That was good. Neither one of us was spoken for so we went out again - this time the movie, "Young Guns," where Pam stated I had a vocal resemblance to Emilio Estevez. Pretty good movie I must say. The next week we decided we'd go see 'Bull Durham,' but I wound up having to work past my time and we didn't make it, so I just went over to her parents' place and hung out.

It all sounds good, and it was. My memories of the time are overwhelmingly positive. She helped me learn my lines for the fall play at my junior college, "Death Takes A Holiday." She drove me back to college once, and she wrote every week. She always closed her letters with some witty advice such as 'Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.' And our birthdays were only four days apart although she was three years older than I. Everything seemed to be moving along like a dream.

But the dream soon became a nightmare, and the blame rests entirely on me. Pam never - and I mean never - did anything wrong. And it was not that I had a completely wandering eye although I was looking around. Pam joined the Navy, and the understanding (so far as I understood) was that we were free to date. I did, twice. Neither girl was Pam but there was simply a problem: when I was with Pam, I never felt those overhwelming feelings of desire and love. It wasn't her fault; maybe I was pushing myself in the wrong direction. I felt sort of like as a couple we could be content as friends and that was about it. I was confused and turning in every direction. So I did the only thing I could do: I chased her away from me intentionally.

"It's not you, it's me" has become a cliche' for the break-up. I did not know about such cliches at the time, but it was (and is to this day) true. It was me, and it appears that Pam was able to find someone who could love her better than I was capable and in a way she so richly deserved. I have since apologized for my ineptitude and the issues that overwhelmed at the time of which I was unaware.

Pamela Sue - thank you for helping to put me on the right path, for being a good friend, and for being fun to be around. I'll never forget you, and though I dropped the ball, I thank my God that I was privileged to know you for all-too-brief a period of time.

In my own way, I love you.

Dear Marie: You're Out of Touch

2008-06-06T08:33:00.000-07:00

Today's blog is a response to Marie Wilson's arguments on CNN's webpage that Hillary Clinton's failure marks a turning point that will guarantee other female candidates' future success.

The supporters of Hillary Clinton's attempt at the Presidency, particularly female supporters, are now in full-fledged mourning with the announcement that she is going to concede that she has lost the nomination to Barack Obama by announcing her endorsement of Senator Obama on Saturday. But a simple reading of Wilson's comments show that the feminist left that supported Hillary's candidacy was, to put it mildly, out of touch. No other comment summarizes the self-deception of Wilson (and others) than this particular statement:

Overt or understated, this primary season was undeniably disrespectful to a woman who instead deserved our utmost respect, just like any other candidate for our nation's highest office.

I wonder if Ms. Wilson thought Dan Quayle - who had more service in Washington than Mrs. Clinton ever dreamed - got 'respect' as a candidate or if she thought (or thinks) he deserved it. Part of the 'respect' shown by our media was none of them bothering to point out that Hillary was less experienced than Quayle and for that matter almost all of the other eight Democratic candiates who ran for President.

Ms. Wilson seems not to understand a fundamental truth in this whole thing: Hillary Clinton is living proof that the feminist movement's fastest route to power is, always has been, and always will be by latching onto a successful man. Does anybody really believe that if Hillary Clinton were Hillary Smith with the same undistinguished record as a senator she would be considered a viable candidate for higher office? Let's face it: where would Hillary Clinton be without Bill?

The larger issue, however, is that Wilson didn't see what the non-partisan American people saw: an unqualified candidate for President. Let's face it: Hillary felt ENTITLED to her office and didn't think she was going to have to work for it. She began the race in first place with more money than anybody. And what sunk her was her arrogance. That trait will undo a person every time, be it man or woman. She clearly had no plan B for what to do when she didn't clinch the nomination on February 5. That fact alone disqualifies her from any serious consideration as a President. Presidents must have alternatives when their plans go awry as the country has learned so sadly with George W. Bush's plan of 'stay the course,' whatever that means.

So Ms. Wilson please note: Hillary didn't lose because she was a woman; she lost because she was a lousy candidate who demonstrated her utter incapacity for the job. It is a good thing the country found out now rather than later.

UPDATE: A Response To Dr. Thomas Strouse

2008-03-25T08:00:00.000-07:00

On May 1, 2007, I began a response to Dr. Thomas Strouse, a KJV Only advocate who is also a member of the Dean Burgon Society. I will finish it later, but I wanted to include a response by an Anonymous poster at this blog, who posts some interesting information in regards to the Comma Johanneum.

Jim:

This grammatical argument favoring the inclusion of the Johannine Comma is a hoax. The assertions of its rationale regarding the grammar bear no resemblance whatsoever to what is consistently observed to actually occur in the Greek language throughout the New Testament. Whereas there is such a thing as grammatical gender agreement, there is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns. It never happens. And whereas there is such a thing as gender attraction, there is no such thing as gender attraction either between substantival (functioning as a noun) participles or between nouns. It never happens. Grammatical gender agreement can occur only with a single referent noun, and gender attraction occurs only with a relative pronoun in a specific grammatical construction. Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney simply made up in their imagination their assertions regarding the grammar, and people such as Edward Hills and Thomas Strouse have simply parroted their nonsense.

There are only 8 instances in the New Testament in which the referent (the idea to which a word or phrase refers) of a pronoun or substantival participle is represented in the text by multiple nouns (Matthew 15:19-20 and 23:23, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21 and 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:5-7 and 3:12-14), and grammatical gender agreement does not occur in any of them, even when all of the multiple referent nouns have the same grammatical gender (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:22-23), the reason being that grammatical gender agreement between a pronoun or substantival participle and a noun can occur only when the referent of the pronoun or participle is represented in the text by a single noun. Even then, grammatical gender agreement is not a requirement, but merely a frequently used option. Otherwise, whether the author simply chooses not to use grammatical gender agreement with a single referent noun, or whether the referent of the pronoun or substantival participle is represented in the text either by no noun or by multiple nouns, the gender of the pronoun or substantival participle conforms to the natural gender (the nature) of the referent (the idea to which a word or phrase refers) of the pronoun or substantival participle, either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or person (constructio ad sensum [construction according to sense]). What has just been explained is both dictated by common sense and corroborated by what is consistently observed to actually occur in the Greek language throughout the New Testament.

Therefore, based on what is observed to actually occur in the Greek language, is there any reason to expect grammatical gender agreement between the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” and the multiple nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood” in 1 John 5:8 (Majority Text [MT])? The answer is no. There is nothing wrong with the grammar in this verse. First of all, there is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns. Secondly, the three nouns in this verse are not even referent nouns, because John’s equation of “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” to “the ones bearing witness” in this verse is not direct (this is that), but comparative (this is like that).

In 1 John 5:8-9 (MT), John comparatively (this is like that) equates “the Spirit and the water and the Blood,” which comprise “the witness of the God / the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him,” to “the ones bearing witness,” who comprise “the witness of the men,” hence the masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness.” The gender of “the ones bearing witness” is masculine either (1) because it refers to persons (the “men” in “the witness of the men”), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the single referent noun “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men,” or (3) both.

In Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, Moses prescribes two or three witnesses (men) to establish the truth of a matter. This two-or-three-witness tradition is cited in Matthew 18:16, John 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT).

In 2 Corinthians 13:1, Paul comparatively (this is like that) equates three things (his three visits to Corinth) to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter.

In Hebrews 10:28-29, the author comparatively (this is like that) equates three things ([1] trampling the Son of God and [2] considering His Blood to be ordinary blood and [3] insulting the Spirit) to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter.

In 1 John 5:8-9 (MT), John comparatively (this is like that) equates three things (“[1] the Spirit and [2] the water and [3] the Blood”) to the two or three witness (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter (“the ones bearing witness”).

Moses requires two or three witnesses (men) to establish the truth of a given matter. According to John, in conformity to this two-or-three-witness (men) tradition, God provided two or three witnesses (“the Spirit and the water and the Blood”) to establish the truth that Jesus is His Son. John comparatively (this is like that) equates these two or three witnesses provided by God to the two or thee witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses (“the ones bearing witness / the witness of the men”), hence the masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness.”

There is nothing wrong with the grammar in 1 John 5:6-9 (MT). Everything is written exactly as it should be written.

Further, the correct number of witnesses provided by God (the Spirit and the water and the Blood [two or three witnesses]) in conformity to the two-or-three-witness (men) Mosaic tradition in the absence of the Johannine Comma proves that John did not write the Comma, but that it was added to the text by Trinitarians.

The Hillary Clinton Campaign: Dead On Arrival

2008-02-29T08:09:00.000-08:00

I write this knowing full well I may have egg on my face. But keep in mind that I was one of the few pundits who did NOT predict a Clinton-Giuliani ticket. In fact, I picked John McCain as the GOP winner back on March 23, 2007 on this very blog. (Granted, I picked Edwards for the Democrats - but note two things: a) I was obviously too charitable towards their intelligence for picking the most likely to succeed candidate; and 2) I didn't pick Clinton like everyone else did). Hillary's career is about to be buried by a neophyte who has never won a competitive race for elective office in his life. How did that happen?

You must understand that Hillary Clinton, for all of the attempts to declare her the smartest woman in the world, is utterly lacking any self-respect. Why did she stay with a pathological sex addict even when he betrayed not only her trust but the trust of every voter in America? Because her lust for power exceeded her husband's own lust for women, and that's no small feat. She not only put her self-respect on hold, she aided and abetted Bill's philadnerings with vicious attacks upon an unseen 'vast right wing conspiracy.' And now she has demonstrated that the very arrogance and lust for power that pushed her to lie for her husband is a character trait that would be disastrous were she ever elected President.

I tried to tell people. Nobody would listen. I told friends and foes alike that Hillary would NOT win the nomination. They looked at her astounding poll numbers and figured she'd ride a yacht to the White House. None of them ever listened when I pointed out that Gary Hart had higher numbers in a larger field, that Howard Dean had a bigger lead late, that the Iowa electorate is hostile territory for front-runners, and her poll numbers are based ENTIRELY upon name recongition and nothing else. But you must remember that using the old little girl's mantra of 'life should be fair' and the feminist mantra of 'whatever it takes,' Hillary's split personality led her into an arena of arrogance particular to Democrats: entitlement. You see, because Hillary put up with so much abuse and betrayal, she was ENTITLED to the Presidency. Anyone who thinks she didn't believe that has not watched this campaign, the Clintonian version of the 'Keystone Kops.'

Fooling the idiots who live in New York State is no big deal. Jeez, for all of their dismissal of Southerners such as myself, they still have a large contingent of New Yorkers who think professional wrestling is real and that the disaster of September 11, 2001 ENTITLES (that word again) that state to host a Super Bowl in the near future. So fooling a bunch of New Yorkers who simply punch D on the ticket - particularly when she ran against the quintessential empty suit (Do you even know the name of her opponent in 2000? It was Rick Lazio) - was hardly a big deal. Fooling the nationwide populace, however, is a much bigger task, and clearly one that has not been able to master.

Why? And what went wrong?

I think the quote that says it best came from Tom DeFrank, a respected journalist, who noted that Hillary had told former chum George Stephanopolous, now of ABC News, that she would sew up the nomination on February 5, Super Tuesday. She clearly had no plan for what to do if her best-laid plans went awry. And I would add that THAT FACT ALONE disqualifies Hillary from even serious consideration as a President. If a prospective candidate doesn't have a back-up plan to alter course, why in the world should the voters think she has one when a crisis such as 9/11 happens? Or the Challenger explodes? Or the Oklahoma City bombing occurs?

Reasons Why Hillary Lost

1) Her poll numbers were entirely on name recognition.

2) She had the highest negatives of any candidate in the race. Funny how the media who points this out when it is a Republican never bothered to play this particular angle up for public consumption.

3) She failed to lower expectations in Iowa. Even the great Ronald Reagan lost Iowa, and in 1988, GHW Bush finished THIRD behind Bob Dole and Pat Robertson. This history should have told her that she was walking into a buzzsaw. But either Hillary or Mark Penn should have seen the pending disaster and told the media that they would 'probably lose' Iowa. If this had been done, the assessments made by the press would largely have been irrelevant. She could then have focused on New Hampshire and not had to cry in hopes of winning.

4) The crying episode. It is one thing to push out a tear as Ronald Reagan did while addressing the nation after the Challenger disaster. It is another to wallow in self-pity because you're not riding a boat to the White House but you have a first-class cabin on the Titanic. The Clintons - both of them - have never been able to figure out why Ronald Reagan was so popular and Clinton wasn't. Hey folks - it might be because Reagan said the same things in 1964 as he did in 1984 and didn't take a poll before he said them. Authenticity goes a long way. But the Clintonian arrogance of looking at every voter as stupid made authenticity less appealing for their own use. After all, who really wants to vote for a conniving, manipulative, and vindictive figure like Hillary
Clinton? So authenticity was out.

5) '35 years of experience?' I would say that she has 33 of covering up spousal peccadilloes, but this lie reminded people of what Bill Clinton was all about - lying. I suspect Bill Clinton probably lied when he printed his name on his SAT. He lied about everything even when it served no purpose other than to inflate his ego. Consider the follwing liberal Democratic women who have more political experience than Ms. Clinton:

Barbara Boxer - 16 years in Senate, 10 years in House, and comes from a bigger state, California

Maria Cantwell - elected the same day as Hillary, she not only served 2 years in the House but she also spent 6 years in the state Congress and was a dot.com millionaire.

Dianne Feinstein - 16 years in the Senate, she also served for nearly a decade as the mayor of San Francisco. Translation: She has executive experience that Hillary does not.

Mary Landrieu - 12 years in the Senate. Oh, and if relationships count, her father was the mayor of New Orleans for a long time.

Blanche Lincoln - four years in the House and 8 in the Senate.

Barbara Mikulski - 10 years as a representative and 21 in the Senate.

Patty Murray - Senator for 16 years

Debbie Stabenow - she was elected to the Ingham County Board of Commissioners in 1974 and was the youngest person and first woman to chair the Board (1977-78). She was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives where she served for twelve years (1979-90) and rose in leadership, becoming the first woman to preside over the House. She served in the State Senate for four years (1991-94). Elected to Congress in 1996 representing Michigan’s Eighth Congressional District, she won election to the U.S. Senate four years later. (This adds up - amazing as it seems - to 34 years of experience).

So Hillary should have been in line behind AT LEAST eight other liberal Democratic women. But for some reason she moved to the front of the line. And that reason is another albatross on her noomination.

6) Bill Clinton - good riddance. Hillary seems to never have digested the message of the 2000 Presidential election. That message was, "This man's only true accomplishment is surviving impeachment that he forced on himself. We'll look elsewhere for a leader."

Despite all the glamorous tributes showered upon Bill, many Senators are angry that they had to put their collective necks on the line for him by voting him not guilty when they knew full well that he was. It probably cost Tom Daschle his Senate seat in 2004, and it no doubt cost Liebermann the Vice-Presidency in 2000. These folks gave to Clinton who only had pardons for convicted felons to give in return. Since neither Daschle nor Liebermann was in the slammer, he was of no use to them. No doubt they now realize that if they had removed him and Gore had run for President as the incumbent in 2000, he would have wiped the floor with Bush because he'd have been on the job for over a year showing his 'experience.'

Hillary Clinton is going to lose Texas. She is going to lose Vermont. Since both voters in Rhode Island are related to her, she will win that race. And Ohio? She'll win, but it won't matter. Bill has already declared she had to win both in order to be the nominee. You don't think Bill would lie, now, do you?

Miscellaneous Sports Tapes

2008-02-20T07:09:00.000-08:00

NBA BASKETBALL

1990 NBA Finals Game 1 Detroit vs Portland
1990 NBA Finals Game 2 Detroit vs Portland
1990 NBA Finals Game 5 Detroit vs Portland

1991 NBA Finals Game 1 Chicago vs LA Lakers
1991 NBA Finals Game 3 Chicago vs LA Lakers
1991 NBA Finals Game 5 Chicago vs LA Lakers

NCAA BASKETBALL
1985 Championship Villanova vs Georgetown
1991 Final Four UNLV vs Duke
1991 Championship Duke vs Kansas
1992 Elite Eight Duke vs Kentucky
1996 Final Four Miss. St vs Syracuse

OLYMPIC HOCKEY
1980 Miracle on Ice USA vs USSR

PROFESSIONAL BOXING
Bowe-Holyfield I
Bowe-Holyfield II
Moorer-Foreman
Tyson-Holyfield I
Tyson-Holyfield II
Tyson-Lennox Lewis I
Clay-Liston II (rebroadcast on Classic)

New Hampshire May Doom This Clinton

2008-01-07T05:58:00.000-08:00

February 18, 1992. That was the day one of the most biased reports in the history of American politics sent Bill Clinton on his way to the White House. For reasons that absolutely mystify me, Clinton somehow was called 'the comeback kid' by virtue of turning an 11-point lead in the polls on January 16 to an eight-point loss a month later. That kind of commitment to truth symbolized the Clinton years, culminating in the impeachment for perjury.

Now another Clinton - one lacking her husband's ability to lie as convincingly - stands on the precipice of political oblivion. If Hillary Clinton loses to Barack Obama in tomorrow's New Hampshire primary, her dream (and perhaps the Clinton's marriage?) is over. A loss to Obama in yet a second largely monolithic white vote state will render her path to the nomination highly unlikely.

The blog had a good week last week, correctly predicting both Obama's win and Hillary's third place finish and former Governor Huckabee's victory in Iowa.

The predictions? Obama beats Hillary, but not by as much as the polls suggest. Call it a virtual tie with Obama the winner. McCain will win the New Hampshire primary, but Romney will be the big story as the candidate 'on a roll.'

Iowa Caucus Predictions

2008-01-03T09:11:00.000-08:00

I have to keep it short for time's sake today.

In Iowa, I predict Obama first, Edwards second, and Hillary third for the Democrats. The Republican order will be a slight win for Huckabee, who will share the spotlight with Romney. I think McCain can finish third and Thompson will be, for all intents and purposes, out.

Non-Alabama College Football Games

2007-11-09T15:22:00.000-08:00

1967 Tennessee vs. LSU (highlight reel with commentary)
1969 Sugar Bowl Ole Miss vs Arkansas (This is an original broadcast featuring Archie Manning - who looks a lot like Peyton on this DVD. All four qtrs complete).
1972 Orange Bowl Oklahoma vs Auburn (original)
1979 Rose Bowl USC vs Ohio State
1980 Georgia vs. Florida (Classic)
1981 Sugar Bowl Georgia vs Notre Dame
1982 Orange Bowl Clemson vs Nebraska (rebroadcast from the campus of Clemson University with commemoration).
1982 Sugar Bowl Georgia vs Pitt (Classic)
1983 Sugar Bowl Georgia vs Penn State
1983 Egg Bowl Ole Miss vs. Miss. State (note: This is the greatest ending in college football history, bar none. MSU tries to kick a game-winning FG. The kick is on its way when a suddenly wind blast stops the ball in mid-air and blows it back behind the line of scrimmage. This is a highlight show with commentary, NOT a broadcast).
1984 Georgia vs Clemson (Classic)
1987 Miami vs Florida State (Classic)
1988 Miami vs Notre Dame
1989 Colorado vs Washington (note: This was the Buffs' first game after the death of starting QB Sal Aunese from cancer).
1989 Nebraska vs Colorado (#2 versus #3)
1990 Disneyland Classic Colorado vs Tennessee
1990 Colorado vs Stanford
1990 Colorado vs Missouri (Fifth Down - missing very end)
1990 Colorado vs Oklahoma
1990 Colorado vs Nebraska
1990 Georgia Tech vs Virginia (best game of 1990!)
1990 Notre Dame vs. Tennessee (Classic)
1990 Peach Bowl Auburn vs Indiana
1990 Freedom Bowl Colorado State vs Oregon
1990 Blockbuster Bowl Penn State vs Florida St
1991 Hall of Fame bowl Clemson vs. Illinois
1991 Cotton Bowl #4 Miami vs #3 Texas
1991 Florida Citrus Bowl #2 Ga Tech vs Nebraska
1991 Orange Bowl #5 Notre Dame vs #1 CU
1991 Mississippi State vs. Vols
1991 Auburn vs. Vols
1991 Auburn vs. Ms.State
1991 Colorado vs Nebraska (game time temperature is 8 degrees)
1991 Florida State vs. Miami (Classic)
1992 Rose Bowl Michigan vs Washington
1992 Egg Bowl Miss.State vs. Ole Miss
1994 Colorado vs Michigan
1999 Egg Bowl Ole Miss vs. Miss. State
2003 LSU vs Ole Miss
2005 USC vs. Notre Dame
2006 Rose Bowl: USC vs. Texas
2007 Armed Forces Bowl: Cal vs Air Force

NFL Games List Updated

2007-11-09T15:19:00.000-08:00

All games are original broadcast unless otherwise noted. None of these games are NFL Network rebroadcast.

NFL Regular Season Games
1979 Monday Night Football Seattle vs. Atlanta VG
1990 Monday Night Football SF 49ers vs. NY Giants VG
2002 Monday Night Football SF 49ers vs StL Rams EX

NFC Championship Games
1981 NFC Championshp Dallas vs SF 49ers VG+
1982 NFC Championship Washington vs Dallas GO
1983 NFC Championship Washington vs SF 49ers GO
1984 NFC Championship Chicago vs SF 49ers GO
1987 NFC Championship Washington vs Minnesota VG
1988 NFC Championshp Chicago vs SF 49ers VG
1989 NFC Championshp LA Rams vs SF 49ers VG-
1990 NFC Championshp NY Giants vs SF 49ers EX
1994 NFC Championship Dallas vs SF 49ers VG
1995 NFC Championship Dallas vs Green Bay M
1996 NFC Championship Carolina vs Green Bay M
1997 NFC Championship SF 49ers vs Green Bay M
1998 NFC Championship Atlanta vs Minnesota M
1999 NFC Championship Tampa Bay vs StL Rams M
2000 NFC Championship Minnesota vs NY Giants M
2001 NFC Championship StL Rams vs Eagles M
2002 NFC Championship Tampa Bay vs Philly M
2003 NFC Championship Carolina vs Philadelphia
2004 NFC Championship Philadelphia vs. Atlanta
2005 NFC Championship Carolina vs. Seattle M
2006 NFC Championship Chicago vs. New Orleans M
2007 NFC Championship NY Giants vs. Green Bay M

AFC Championship Games
1962 AFL Title Game Dallas vs Houston Oilers VG
1977 AFC Championship Denver vs Oakland VG
1979 AFC Championship Pittsburgh vs Houston GO
1981 AFC Championship San Diego vs Cincinnati GO
1984 AFC Championship Miami vs. Pittsburgh
1985 AFC Championship New England vs Miami VG
1986 AFC Championship Denver vs Cleveland I GO
1987 AFC Championship Denver vs Cleveland II VG
1988 AFC Championship Buffalo vs Cincinnati VG
1989 AFC Championship Denver vs Cleveland III VG
1990 AFC Championship Buffalo vs LA Raiders VG
1991 AFC Championship Buffalo vs Denver VG
1994 AFC Championship Pittsburgh vs San Diego VX
1995 AFC Championship Pittsburgh vs Indy M
1996 AFC Championship New England vs Jax M
1997 AFC Championship Denver vs Pittsbrgh M
1998 AFC Championship Denver vs NY Jets M
1999 AFC Championship Tennessee vs Jax M
2000 AFC Championship Baltimore vs Oakland M
2001 AFC Championship New England vs Pitt M
2003 AFC Championship New England vs Indy M
2004 AFC Championship New England vs Pitt M
2005 AFC Championship Pittsburgh vs Denver M
2006 NFC Championship Indy vs New England M

SUPER BOWL TAPES
Super Bowl III NY Jets vs Baltimore VG
Super Bowl IV KC Chiefs vs Minnesota GO
Super Bowl VII Miami vs Washington GO
Super Bowl VIII Miami vs Minnesota GO
Super Bowl IX Pittsburgh vs Minnesota VG
Super Bowl X Pittsburgh vs Dallas I GO
Super Bowl XI Oakland vs Minnesota VG-
Super Bowl XII Dallas vs Denver VG
Super Bowl XIII Pittsburgh vs Dallas II EX
Super Bowl XIV Pittsburgh vs LA Rams VG-
Super Bowl XV Oakland vs Philadelphia EX
Super Bowl XVI SF 49ers vs Cincinnati VG
Super Bowl XVII Miami vs Washington VG
Super Bowl XVIII Washington vs LA Raiders VG
Super Bowl XIX Miami vs SF 49ers VG
Super Bowl XX Chicago vs New England VG
Super Bowl XXI NY Giants vs Denver VG
Super Bowl XXII Washington vs Denver VG
Super Bowl XXIII SF 49ers vs Cincinnati EX-
Super Bowl XXIV SF 49ers vs Denver FA
Super Bowl XXV NY Giants vs Buffalo EX
Super Bowl XXVI Washington vs Buffalo VG
Super Bowl XXVII Dallas vs Buffalo I M
Super Bowl XXVIII Dallas vs Buffalo II M
Super Bowl XXIX SF 49ers vs SD Chargers M
Super Bowl XXX Pittsburgh vs Dallas III M
Super Bowl XXXI Green Bay vs N.England M
Super Bowl XXXII Denver vs Green Bay M
Super Bowl XXXIII Denver vs Atlanta M
Super Bowl XXXIV StL Rams vs Tennessee M
Super Bowl XXXV Baltimore vs NY Giants M
Super Bowl XXXVI StL Rams vs N.England M
Super Bowl XXXVII Tampa Bay vs Oakland M
Super Bowl XXXVIII N.England vs Carolina M
Super Bowl XXIX N. England vs Philly
Super Bowl XXL Pittsburgh vs. Seattle
Super Bowl XXLI Indianapolis vs. Chicago
Super Bowl XXLII NY Giants vs. New England

NFL DIVISIONAL/WILDCARD PLAYOFFS
1975 Dallas vs Minnesota EX
1978 Philadelphia vs Atlanta VG
1978 Dallas vs Atlanta VG
1979 Dallas vs LA Rams GO
1979 Houston vs SD Chargers GO
1980 Buffalo vs SD Chargers GO
1981 Philadelphia vs NY Giants GO
1981 Buffalo vs NY Jets
1981 Buffalo vs Cincinnati VG
1981 San Diego vs Miami VG
1983 Denver vs Seattle VG
1983 Seattle vs Miami VG
1986 NY Jets vs Cleveland VG
1987 Denver vs Houston VG
1988 SF 49ers vs Minnesota VG
1989 Pittsburgh vs Houston EX
1989 Cleveland vs Buffalo VG
1989 Pittsburgh at Denver VG
1990 Buffalo vs Miami VG
1990 NY Giants vs Chicago VG
1991 Atlanta vs New Orleans VG
1991 Houston vs Denver VG
1992 Houston vs Buffalo GO
1995 Pittsburgh vs Buffalo VG
1996 New England vs Pittsburgh M
1996 Carolina vs Dallas M
1997 Denver vs Kansas City M
1998 Miami vs Buffalo M
1998 Denver vs Miami M
1998 Arizona vs Dallas M
1998 SF 49ers vs Green Bay M
1998 SF 49ers vs Atlanta M
1999 Miami vs Seattle M
1999 Jacksonville vs Miami M
1999 Tennessee vs Indy M
1999 Washington vs Detroit M
1999 Tampa Bay vs Washington M
1999 St Louis vs Minnesota VG
2000 Rams vs New Orleans VG
2000 Indy vs Miami EX
2000 Oakland vs Miami EX
2000 Baltimore vs Tennessee EX
2001 Baltimore vs Miami EX
2001 Oakland vs New England EX
2001 Pittsburgh vs Baltimiore EX
2001 Rams vs Green Bay EX
2002 Tennessee vs Pittsburgh M
2002 Oakland vs NY Jets M
2002 SF 49ers vs NY Giants M
2002 Philly vs Atlanta M
2003 Carolina vs Rams M
2003 Philly vs Green Bay M
2003 New England vs Tenn M
2003 Indy vs Kansas City
2003 Seattle vs Green Bay

(Note: All playoff games available from 1999 onward)

Alabama Crimson Tide Football Games

2007-11-09T15:07:00.000-08:00

All pre-1969 Alabama football games are either coach's films or highlight reels or 'Bama's Greatest Games' series. See notes at end for special comments on Bama games.

1948

Georgia Tech

1950

Florida

1951

Georgia Tech

1953

Georgia Tech

1954

Georgia Tech

1957

Georgia Tech

1958

Georgia Tech

1960

Georgia Tech

1961
Auburn (Bama’s Greatest Games)

1962
Georgia
Miami
Auburn

1963
Auburn
Ole Miss (Sugar Bowl)

1964
Florida

1968
Miami
Missouri (Gator Bowl)

1969
Ole Miss (spliced together broadcast of the original game plus missing plays taken from the Bama's Greatest Game series. Features a shootout between Archie Manning and Scott Hunter with over 800 yards in passing, a rarity in the 1960s).

1971

Southern California (Bama’s Greatest Games)
Auburn

1972
Tennessee (Bama’s Greatest Games)
Texas (Cotton Bowl – game highlights)

1973
Tennessee (spliced broadcast copy with Bama's Greatest Games)
Auburn
Notre Dame (Sugar Bowl – DVD - quality is VX)

1974
Auburn (DVD with Auburn audio spliced)
Notre Dame (Orange Bowl)

1975
Auburn
Penn State (Sugar Bowl – highlights)

1976
Auburn

1977
Nebraska (GO)
Southern California (FA-GO - #3 Tide beats #1 USC, 21-20)
Auburn
Ohio State (Sugar Bowl) VG

1978
Nebraska (GO)
Missouri (edited) - missing plays but VG-
Southern California (VG - missing USC first TD)
LSU (GO)
Auburn (game film)
Penn State (Sugar Bowl)(GO)

1979
Tennessee (VG)
LSU (GO)
Arkansas (Sugar Bowl) VG

1980
Georgia Tech (coach's film; Bill Curry's first game as Ga Tech head coach)
Ole Miss (DVD of a 59-35 shootout)
Kentucky (Bear Bryant's 300th career win)
Tennessee (poor)
MSU (1-hour rebroadcast features every play with Bulldog commentary)
Auburn (GO-)
Baylor (Cotton Bowl) EX

1981
Ole Miss (VG)
Tennessee (poor)
Rutgers (VG)
Mississippi State (VG)
Penn State (VG-)
Auburn (VG)

1982
Penn State (VG)
Auburn (VG)
Illinois (Liberty Bowl)

1983
Boston College (missing third qtr)
Auburn (VG)

1984
Georgia Tech (GO)
Georgia (GO)
Mississippi State (GO-FA)
LSU (VG)
Auburn (VG)

1985
Georgia (VG)
Texas A/M (VG)
Tennessee (VG)
LSU (VG)
Auburn (VG)
Southern California (Aloha Bowl) (VG)

1986
Florida (GO)
Notre Dame (FA)
Tennessee (VG)
Mississippi State (VG)
Auburn
Washington (Sun Bowl)

1987
Penn State
Tennessee
Mississippi State
LSU
Notre Dame (first half only - missing plays; VG)
Auburn

1988
Kentucky
Tennessee
Penn State
LSU
Auburn
Texas A/M
Army

1989
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Ole Miss (in stadium broadcast with Ole Miss radio spliced; 62-27)
Tennessee
Penn State
Mississippi State
LSU
Auburn
Miami (Sugar Bowl)

1990
Florida
Georgia
ULL (then known as SW Louisiana)
Tennessee
Penn State
Mississippi State
LSU
Auburn
Louisville (Fiesta Bowl)

1991
Temple
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
Mississippi State
LSU
Auburn
Colorado (Blockbuster Bowl)

1992
Vanderbilt
Southern Mississippi
Arkansas
South Carolina
Tulane
Tennessee
Ole Miss
LSU
Mississippi State
Auburn
Florida (SECC)
Miami (Sugar Bowl – NC)

1993
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
Louisiana Tech
Tennessee
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Auburn
Florida (SECC)

1994
UTC
Arkansas
Georgia
Southern Mississippi
Tennessee
Ole Miss
LSU
Mississippi State
Auburn
Florida (SECCG)
Ohio State (Florida Citrus Bowl)

1995
Arkansas
Ole Miss
LSU
Auburn

1996
Arkansas
Tennessee
Auburn
Florida (SECC)

1997
Auburn

1998
BYU (only meeting between Tide and BYU is 38-31 Bama win)
Vanderbilt
LSU
Auburn

1999
Vanderbilt
Houston
Louisiana Tech
Arkansas
Florida
Ole Miss
Tennessee
LSU
Mississippi State
Auburn
Florida (SECC)
Michigan (Orange Bowl - features Tom Brady)

2000
UCLA
Vanderbilt
Southern Mississippi (partial)
Arkansas (partial - missing bulk of 1st qtr)
South Carolina
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Central Florida (shocking upset that cost DuBose his job)
LSU
Auburn

2001
UCLA
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
South Carolina
UTEP
Ole Miss
Tennessee
LSU
Mississippi State
Auburn
Southern Mississippi (note: rescheduled due to 9/11 attacks)
Iowa State (Independence Bowl)

2002
MTSU
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Georgia
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Mississippi State
LSU
Auburn
Hawaii

2003
South Florida
Oklahoma
Northern Illinois
Arkansas
Georgia
Southern Mississippi
Tennessee
Auburn
Hawaii

2004
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi State
Auburn
Minnesota (Music City Bowl)

2005
MTSU
Southern Mississippi
South Carolina
Florida
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Utah State
Mississippi State
LSU
Auburn
Texas Tech (Cotton Bowl)

2006

Oklahoma State (Independence Bowl)

2007

Arkansas (Saban's first SEC win)
Georgia
Florida State
Auburn
Colorado (Independence Bowl)

2008
Clemson
Arkansas
Georgia
Ole Miss
Kentucky
Tennessee
LSU
Mississippi State

Special Comments

A number of the Tide games deserve comment. The 1977 USC game features #1 USC vs. #3 Alabama in the L.A. Coliseum. It is watchable, but that's about all. The 1982 Penn State game is the only loss by the eventual national champions. The final score was 42-21; however, it was 24-21 Alabama with about five minutes left before an unbelievable sequence of events made it appear a blowout. The 1983 Boston College game is missing the third qtr - this is true in all copies. A snowstorm hits during the game and blows out the transformer CBS was using. Thus, CBS did not get to show the third qtr. For those looking for the Tide's last championship season, every single game except the La Tech game is available through this website. The 1998 LSU game features a stunning comeback. Trailing by ten with three minutes left, the Tide scores 16 points to win a game they should have been blown out of. The 1995 LSU game features coverage of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

There are also a couple of monumental upsets including the 1999 La Tech fiasco, featuring Tim Rattay as the La Tech QB, and the 2000 upset by Central Florida that cost Mike DuBose his job. The 99 La Tech game has about 35 minutes of a line across the top of the screen that looks like a tracking line. Most of that 35 minutes is during halftime, but it does interrupt a portion of both the second and third qtr.

Bush Did NOT Steal The 2000 Election

2007-11-09T08:31:00.000-08:00

A recent post by a fellow who goes by the name of 'Reb' on CARM got me to thinking about the necessity of a post that demonstrates quite clearly that whatever you say about him, George W. Bush did NOT steal the 2000 Presidential election.

Some folks will do anything to advance their cause regardless how stupid it makes them appear. So it goes with the latest round of hopes that Al Gore will enter the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. I've been on the record since 2001 stating that Gore would never run again if he did not run in 2004 and so far I'm right. But there is the still constant claim that George W. Bush somehow 'stole' the 2000 Presidential election from Gore and has governed for nearly seven years as a usurping puppet over the national and international affairs of the United States. Before going through my reasons why Bush did NOT steal the election from Gore as is often alleged, I need to enter a caveat.

The 2000 Presidential election was so close that partisans who lost could have made legitimate complaints regarding numerous issues surrounding the vote. If Gore had won, there would no doubt be some Republicans screaming that he had stolen the election from Bush. This is simply what happens in close elections. Therefore, I do not question the patriotism or judgment of a person who honestly believes that a series of factors could, in fact, have landed Gore in the White House. I'm addressing this primarily to the red-eyed partisans who insist that some sort of systematic coup dislodged Gore and placed Bush on the throne. This will be done in the format of ESPNS' "Top Five Reasons You Can't Blame." Thus, it is necessary to begin with the background story and contributing factors that did not make the top five list.

BACKGROUND

The 2000 Presidential election matched the incumbent Vice-President of the United States, Al Gore, against the governor of the nation's third most populous state, George W. Bush, who also happened to be the son of the last Republican President. Gore ran as a Democrat and Bush as a Republican. Early polls indicated that Gore was in serious trouble by virtue of an electorate hungry for change and release of the last scandal-plagued years of Bill Clinton. Coming out of the Republican Convention, Bush had a lead of 16 points. After the Democratic Convention, Gore gained a lead of about three to four points in most polls, and the race was on. On November 7, 2000, Gore won a little over half a million more popular votes than did Bush, but Bush triumphed in the Electoral College. It was the closest election in American history attested by the fact that had Bush lost ANY state he had won, Gore would have been President.

BEST OF THE REST: REASONS WHY GORE LOST

We begin first with reasons that did not make the Top Five listing.

1. Gore's stunning loss of West Virginia.

West Virginia has been one of the most reliably Democratic states ever since the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. In fact, the only Republicans to win the state between 1932 and 2000 - a period of 68 years - were landslide winners nationally: Eisenhower in 1956, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984. Even when Carter was wiped out by Reagan in 1980, he carried West Virginia. Bush pulled something no Republican had done since Herbert Hoover - he won West Virginia without the virtue of a national landslide. Why did Bush win? Primarily because Gore's environmental stance threatened coal miners, and his anti-gun stance (that Gore carefully tried to hide) did not go over well in the Mountaineer State, either. It should be noted that if Gore had held this part of the Democratic base, there would have been no need whatsoever for a Florida recount.

2. Gore's bigger failure to win Tennessee

For all of the ink spilled regarding what did or did not happen in Florida, Gore's primary failure came when he lost his home state of Tennessee. How rare is this? No Presidential candidate had lost his home state since McGovern in 1972. And the last to candidate to win while losing his home state, Richard Nixon, lost his state of residency (New York) but not the state from whence he had migrated east, California.

3. The Ralph Nader Factor

It is, of course, undeniable that Ralph Nader's participation certainly cost Gore the state of Florida and may well have cost him the election. Those advocating this line of reasoning, however, have deficient mathematics; Gore would never have been Vice-President in the first place without the vote siphoning effect of H. Ross Perot in 1992. Thus, while I concede Nader as a factor, it is hard to resist that this is nothing more than a liberal attempt to have it both ways. Gore did indeed lose because of Nader, but he got elected Veep in the first place because of Perot. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

BUT WAS THE ELECTION STOLEN?

It is interesting to note that for all of the papers written and opinions voiced on the subject, there has never been even an iota of proof that Bush stole the election. Those arguing this need to consider how illogical it makes them sound. Here are some rather inconvenient truths that put brighter light on the issue.

1) It was the Democrats - and not the Republicans - who argued they should be able to count only predominantly Democratic counties in an effort to find 537 votes to put Gore over the top. If what Gore truly wanted was a determiner of the winner, he would have immediately asked for - and received - a statewide hand recount of all of the ballots in Florida. The reason he did not ask for this is primarily because it was a fishing expedition as opposed to an attempt to determine the winner.

2) With the exception of Katherine Harris - Bush's campaign chairman in Florida who just happened to be the Secretary of State - every single person prior to the United States Supreme Court that put obstacles in Gore's way was a Democrat. The so-called butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat, Theresa LePore (whom Democrats showed how well they take care of the 'little guy' by throwing her out of office the next election). The judge who refused to grant the recount, N. Sanders Sauls, was also a Democrat. All seven members of the Florida State Supreme Court were appointed by Democrat Lawton Chiles and three of those seven voiced ambivalence regarding a recount when the second appeal made its way back through the court system.

3. Why does nobody ever mention that of the nine justices on the United States Supreme Court, Gore had been involed as a Senator or Vice-President with seven of the nine while Bush had not been involved in the decision regarding any of the nine?

The nine Supreme Court justices were:

1. William Rhenquist (nominated by Nixon to the Court, by Reagan to Chief Justice and OPPOSED by Gore in 1986).
2. John Stevens
3. Sandra Day O'Connor
4. Antonin Scalia (nominated by Reagan and APPROVED by Gore).
5. Anthony Kennedy (nominated by Reagan and AVOIDED by Gore
6. David Souter (nominated by Bush and APPROVED by Gore)
7. Clarence Thomas (nominated by Bush and OPPOSED by Gore)
8. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (nominated by Clinton and SUPPORTED by Gore)
9. Steven Breyer (nominated by Clinton and SUPPORTED by Gore)

So a simple little look shows us that Gore supported or explicitly approved of four of the nine judges on the Supreme Court, avoided an opinion on another one, and opposed two, one of whom was already on the Court anyway.

Bush's involvement? I guess one might wish to argue that his father had nominated Souter and Thomas, which is true. But this goes by the wayside when you consider that Souter voted AGAINST his benefactor's son and in favor of finding a remedy to the recount situation in Florida. Of the four whom Gore supported, three of them sided with him and one with Bush.

4. The throw out every military ballot fiasco.

Gore undid himself further by sending a pack of lawyers to Florida to systematically disqualify as many absentee ballots as possible. This, of course, flew in the face of the mantra 'count every vote,' but at this point Gore and his followers began arguing legalities. They argued for 'fairness' and the 'benefit of the doubt' to the voter regarding hand counts in Democratic counties, but they turned around and wanted military ballots disqualified by virtue of the fact that 'technicalities' should be permitted to disqualify a group of votes that runs 7-3 in favor of the Republican candidate.

5. Finally, it is a simple FACT that Gore lost 32 of the 33 recounts conducted by the Miami Herald.

This is devastating to ANY claim that the election was somehow 'stolen.' To make matters worse for those arguing thusly, the Miami Herald endorsed Gore for President. Thirty-three hand recounts and the only way Gore wins - by a whopping nine votes - is using the most strict ballot standard that Gore vehemently opposed.

There are numerous other arguments. If you comment, I will deal with your statements. Thank you for reading.

Updated Baseball Games List

2007-11-06T18:23:00.000-08:00

All recordings are original broadcast unless otherwise noted.

1965 World Series Game 7 LA Dodgers vs. Twins EX Classic
1968 World Series Game 7 Detroit vs. St. Louis VG
1970 World Series Game 1 Baltimore vs. Cincy VG
1970 World Series Game 2 Baltimore vs. Cincy VG
1970 World Series Game 3 Baltiimore vs. Cincy VG
1970 World Series Game 4 Baltimore vs. Cincy VG
1970 World Series Game 5 Baltimore vs. Cincy VG
1971 World Series Game 7 Pittsburgh vs. Baltimore EX Classic
1974 World Series Game 2 LA Dodgers vs Oakland VG
1975 World Series Game 3 Boston vs. Cincinnati GO
1975 World Series Game 6 Boston vs. Cincinnati VG
1976 ALCS Game 5 NYYanks vs. KC Royals GO
1976 World Series Game 4 Cincinnati vs. NYYanks EX
1977 ALCS Game 5 NYYanks vs.KC Royals GO
1978 World Series Game 4 LA Dodgers vs. NYYanks EX (Classic)
1978 World Series Game 6 LA Dodgers vs. NYYanks EX
1979 All-Star Game AL vs. NL GO
1979 NLCS Game 1 Cincinnati vs Pittsburgh EX (Classic)
1979 NLCS Game 2 Cincinnati vs Pittsburgh GO
1979 NLCS Game 3 Cincinnati vs. Pittsburgh GO
1979 World Series Game 1 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh GO
1979 World Series Game 2 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh GO
1979 World Series Game 3 Pittsburgh vs. Baltimore GO=
1979 World Series Game 4 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh GO
1979 World Series Game 5 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh GO
1979 World Series Game 6 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh GO
1979 World Series Game 7 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh GO
1980 NLCS Game 1 Philly vs. Houston GO
1980 NLCS Game 2 Philly vs. Houston GO
1980 NLCS Game 3 Philly vs. Houston GO
1980 NLCS Game 4 Philly vs. Houston GO
1980 NLCS Game 5 Philly vs. Houston GO
1980 World Series Game 1 KC Royals vs. Philly EX
1980 World Series Game 2 KC Royals vs. Philly EX (missing some significant scoring by both teams; starts in second inning)
1980 World Series Game 3 KC Royals vs. Philly EX
1980 World Series Game 4 KC Royals vs. Philly EX
1980 World Series Game 5 KC Royals vs. Philly EX
1980 World Series Game 6 KC Royals vs. Philly EX
1981 World Series Game 1 LA Dodgers vs. NYYanks GO
1981 World Series Game 2 LA Dodgers vs. NYYanks GO
1981 World Series Game 3 LA Dodgers vs. NYYanks GO
1981 World Series Game 4 LA Dodgers vs. NYYanks GO
1981 World Series Game 5 LA Dodgers vs. NYYanks GO
1981 World Series Game 6 LA Dodgers vs. NYYanks GO-
1982 All-Star Game AL vs. NL in Montreal GO
1982 World Series Game 1 St. Louis vs. Milwaukee EX
1982 World Series Game 2 St. Louis vs. Milwaukee GO
1982 World Series Game 3 St. Louis vs. Milwaukee GO
1982 World Series Game 4 St. Louis vs. Milwaukee EX
1982 World Series Game 5 St. Louis vs. Milwaukee EX
1982 World Series Game 6 St. Louis vs. Milwaukee VG
1982 World Series Game 7 St. Louis vs. Milwaukee FA
1983 World Series Game 1 Baltimore vs. Philly VG
1983 World Series Game 2 Baltimore vs. Philly VG
1983 World Series Game 3 Baltimore vs. Philly VG
1983 World Series Game 3 Baltimore vs. Philly VG
1983 World Series Game 5 Baltimiore vs. Philly VG
1984 NLCS Chicago Cubs vs. Padres VG
1984 World Series Game 1 Detroit vs. SD Padres VG
1984 World Series Game 2 Detroit vs. SD Padres VG
1984 World Series Game 3 Detroit vs. SD Padres VX
1984 World Series Game 4 Detroit vs. SD Padres VG
1984 World Series Game 5 Detroit vs. SD Padres VG
1985 NLCS Game 5 St. Louis vs. LA Dodgers VG
1985 NLCS Game 6 St. Louis vs. LA Dodgers VG
1985 ALCS Game 1 Toronto vs. KC Royals VG
1985 ALCS Game 2 Toronto vs. KC Royals VG
1985 ALCS Game 3 Toronto vs. KC Royals GO-
1985 ALCS Game 4 Toronto vs. KC Royals VG (DVD)
1985 ALCS Game 5 Toronto vs. KC Royals VG (DVD)
1985 ALCS Game 6 Toronto vs. KC Royals VG
1985 ALCS Game 7 Toronto vs. KC Royals VG (upgraded)
1985 World Series Game 1 St. Louis vs. KC Royals VG
1985 World Series Game 2 St. Louis vs. KC Royals VG
1985 World Series Game 3 St. Louis vs. KC Royals VG
1985 World Series Game 4 St. Louis vs. KC Royals VG
1985 World Series Game 5 St. Louis vs. KC Royals GO
1985 World Series Game 6 St. Louis vs. KC Royals VG
1985 World Series Game 7 St. Louis vs. KC Royals VG
1986 ALCS Game 4 California vs. Boston EX (Classic)
1986 ALCS Game 5 California vs. Boston VG
1986 World Series Game 1 Boston vs. NY Mets EX
1986 World Series Game 2 Boston vs. NY Mets EX
1986 World Series Game 3 Boston vs. NY Mets EX
1986 World Series Game 4 Boston vs. NY Mets VG
1986 World Series Game 5 Boston vs. NY Mets GO
1986 World Series Game 6 Boston vs. NY Mets VG-
1986 World Series Game 7 Boston vs. NY Mets VG
4 October 1987 Detroit vs. Toronto EX (Classic)
1987 ALCS Game 1 Minnesota vs. Detroit VG
1987 ALCS Game 2 Minnesota vs. Detroit VG
1987 ALCS Game 3 Minnesota vs. Detroit
1987 ALCS Game 4 Minnesota vs. Detroit VG
1987 ALCS Game 5 Minnesota vs. Detroit VG
1987 World Series Game 1 Minnesota vs. St. Louis VG
1987 World Series Game 2 Minnesota vs. St. Louis VG
1987 World Series Game 3 Minnesota vs. St. Louis VG
1987 World Series Game 4 Minnesota vs. St. Louis VG
1987 World Series Game 5 Minnesota vs. St. Louis VG
1987 World Series Game 6 Minnesota vs. St. Louis VG
1987 World Series Game 7 Minnesota vs. St. Louis VG
1988 ALCS Game 1 Boston vs. Oakland VG
1988 ALCS Game 2 Boston vs. Oakland VG
1988 ALCS Game 3 Boston vs. Oakland GO
1988 ALCS Game 4 Boston vs. Oakland VG
1988 NLCS Game 1 LA Dodgers vs. NY Mets VG
1988 NLCS Game 2 LA Dodgers vs. NY Mets VG
1988 NLCS Game 3 LA Dodgers vs. NY Mets GO
1988 NLCS Game 4 LA Dodgers vs. NY Mets VG
1988 NLCS Game 5 LA Dodgers vs. NY Mets VG
1988 NCLS Game 6 LA Dodgers vs. NY Mets VG
1988 NLCS Game 7 LA Dodgers vs. NY Mets VG-
1988 World Series Game 1 LA Dodgers vs. Athletics GO
1988 World Series Game 2 LA Dodgers vs. Athletics VG
1988 World Series Game 3 LA Dodgers vs. Athletics GO
1988 World Series Game 4 LA Dodgers vs. Athletics VG
1988 World Series Game 5 LA Dodgers vs. Athletics GO
1989 ALCS Game 1 Oakland vs. Toronto EX-
1989 ALCS Game 2 Oakland vs. Toronto GO
1989 ALCS Game 3 Oakland vs. Toronto EX
1989 ALCS Game 4 Oakland vs. Toronto EX
1989 ALCS Game 5 Oakland vs. Toronto VG
1989 NLCS Game 1 Chicago vs. SF Giants VG
1989 NLCS Game 2 Chicago vs. SF Giants VG
1989 NLCS Game 3 Chicago vs. SF Giants VG
1989 NLCS Game 4 Chicago vs. SF Giants VG
1989 NLCS Game 5 Chicago vs. SF Giants GO
1989 World Series Game 1 Oakland vs. SF Giants VG
1989 World Series Game 2 Oakland vs. SF Giants VG
1989 World Series Game 3 Oakland vs. SF Giants VG
1989 World Series Game 4 Oakland vs. SF Giants VG
1990 All-Star Game AL vs. NL All-Stars VG
1990 NLCS Game 1 Cincinnati vs. Pittsburgh GO
1990 NLCS Game 2 Cincinnati vs. Pittsburgh GO
1990 NLCS Game 3 Cincinnati vs. Pittsburgh GO
1990 NLCS Game 4 Cincinnati vs. Pittsburgh GO
1990 NLCS Game 5 Cincnnati vs. Pittsburgh GO
1990 NLCS Game 6 Cincnnati vs. Pittsburgh GO
1990 ALCS Game 1 Oakland vs. Boston VG
1990 ALCS Game 2 Oakland vs. Boston VG
1990 ALCS Game 4 Oakland vs. Boston EX (Classic)
1990 World Series Game 1 Oakland vs. Cincinnati VG
1990 World Series Game 2 Oakland vs. Cincinnati VG
1990 World Series Game 3 Oakland vs. Cincnnati VG
1990 World Series Game 4 Oakland vs. Cincinnati VG
4 June 1991 Philadelphia vs. Atlanta EX (Murphy night)
1991 All-Star Game AL vs. NL All-Stars VG
1991 NLCS Game 1 Pirates vs. Braves GO
1991 NLCS Game 2 Pirates vs. Braves EX
1991 NLCS Game 3 Pirates vs. Braves VG-
1991 NLCS Game 4 Pirates vs. Braves GO
1991 NLCS Game 5 Pirates vs. Braves VG
1991 NLCS Game 6 Pirates vs. Braves VG
1991 NLCS Game 7 Pirates vs. Braves VG
1991 ALCS Game 1 Toronto vs. Minnesota VG
1991 ALCS Game 2 Toronto vs. Minnesota VG
1991 ALCS Game 3 Toronto vs. Minnesota VX
1991 ALCS Game 4 Toronto vs. Minnesota VX
1991 ALCS Game 5 Toronto vs. Minnesota VX
1991 World Series Game 1 Atlanta vs. Minnesota VG
1991 World Series Game 2 Atlanta vs. Minnesota GO
1991 World Series Game 3 Atlanta vs. Minnesota EX
1991 World Series Game 4 Atlanta vs. Minnesota EX-
1991 World Series Game 5 Atlanta vs. Minnesota VG
1991 World Series Game 6 Atlanta vs. Minnesota VG
1991 World Series Game 7 Atlanta vs. Minnesota VG
1992 NLCS Game 2 Atlanta vs. Pittsburgh EX
1992 NLCS Game 7 Atlanta vs. Pittsburgh EX
1992 World Series Game 1 Atlanta vs. Toronto VG
1992 World Series Game 2 Atlanta vs. Toronto VG
1992 World Series Game 3 Atlanta vs. Toronto VG
1992 World Series Game 4 Atlanta vs. Toronto VG
1992 World Series Game 5 Atlanta vs. Toronto VG (missing plays)
1992 World Series Game 6 Atlanta vs. Toronto VG
13 June 1993 Cincinnati vs. Atlanta VG
1993 World Series Game 1 Philadelphia vs. Toronto VG
1993 World Series Game 2 Philadelphia vs. Toronto VG
1993 World Series Game 3 Philadelphia vs. Toronto VG
1993 World Series Game 4 Philadelphia vs. Toronto VG
1993 World Series Game 5 Philadelphia vs. Toronto VG
1993 World Series Game 6 Philadelphia vs. Toronto VG
1995 NLCS Game 4 Atlanta vs. Cincinnati VG
1995 World Series Game 1 Cleveland vs. Atlanta VG
1995 World Series Game 2 Cleveland vs. Atlanta VG
1995 World Series Game 3 Cleveland vs. Atlanta VG
1995 World Series Game 4 Cleveland vs. Atlanta VG
1995 World Series Game 5 Cleveland vs. Atlanta VG
1995 World Series Game 6 Cleveland vs. Atlanta VG
1 April 1996 San Francisco vs. Atlanta VG
23 September 1996 Montreal vs. Atlanta VG (last game at Fulton County Stadium, includes post-game tribute)
1996 NLDS Game 1 LA Dodgers vs. Atlanta VG
1996 NLDS Game 2 LA Dodgers vs. Atlanta VG
1996 NLDS Game 3 LA Dodgers vs. Atlanta VG
1996 NLCS Game 1 St.Louis vs. Atlanta VG
1996 NLCS Game 3 St. Louis vs. Atlanta VG
1996 NLCS Game 7 St. Louis vs. Atlanta VG
1996 World Series Game 1 NY Yankees vs. Atlanta EX
1996 World Series Game 2 NY Yankees vs. Atlanta EX
1996 World Series Game 3 NY Yankees vs. Atlanta EX
1996 World Series Game 4 NY Yankees vs. Atlanta EX
1996 World Series Game 5 NY Yankees vs. Atlanta EX
1996 World Series Game 6 NY Yankees vs. Atlanta EX
1997 World Series Game 1 Cleveland vs. Florida VG
1997 World Series Game 2 Cleveland vs. Florida VG
1997 World Series Game 3 Cleveland vs. Florida VG
1997 World Series Game 4 Cleveland vs. Florida VG
1997 World Series Game 5 Cleveland vs. Florida VG
1997 World Series Game 6 Cleveland vs. Florida VG
1997 World Series Game 7 Cleveland vs. Florida EX
1998 World Series Game 1 NY Yankees vs. Padres VG
1998 World Series Game 2 NY Yankees vs. Padres VG
1998 World Series Game 3 NY Yankees vs. Padres VG
1998 World Series Game 4 NY Yankees vs. Padres VG
17 September 1999 Atlanta vs Montreal VX
1999 NLCS Game 1 Atlanta vs. NY Mets VX
1999 NLCS Game 2 Atlanta vs. NY Mets VX
1999 NLCS Game 3 Atlanta vs. NY Mets VX
1999 NLCS Game 4 Atlanta vs. NY Mets VX
1999 NLCS Game 5 Atlanta vs. NY Mets VX
1999 NLCS Game 6 Atlanta vs. NY Mets VX
1999 World Series Game 1 Atlanta vs. NY Yankees VX
1999 World Series Game 2 Atlanta vs. NY Yankees VX
1999 World Series Game 3 Atlanta vs. NY Yankees VX
2001 World Series Game 1 Arizona vs. NY Yankees VG
2001 World Series Game 2 Arizona vs. NY Yankees VG
2001 World Series Game 3 Arizona vs. NY Yankees VG
2001 World Series Game 4 Arizona vs. NY Yankees VG
2001 World Series Game 5 Arizona vs. NY Yankees VG
2001 World Series Game 6 Arizona vs. NY Yankees VG
2001 World Series Game 7 Arizona vs. NY Yankees VG
2002 NLCS Game 1 San Fran vs. St. Louis VG
2002 NLCS Game 2 San Fran vs. St. Louis VG
2002 NLCS Game 3 San Fran vs. St. Louis VG
2002 NLCS Game 4 San Fran vs. St. Louis VG
2002 ALCS Game 1 Anaheim vs. Minnesota EX
2002 ALCS Game 3 Anaheim vs. Minnesota EX
2002 ALCS Game 4 Anaheim vs. Minnesota EX
2002 ALCS Game 5 Anaheim vs. Minnesota EX
2002 World Series Game 1 Anaheim vs. SF Giants EX
2002 World Series Game 2 Anaheim vs. SF Giants Ex
2002 World Series Game 3 Anaheim vs. SF Giants EX
2002 World Series Game 4 Anaheim vs. SF Giants EX
2002 World Series Game 5 Anaheim vs. SF Giants EX
2002 World Series Game 6 Anaheim vs. SF Giants EX
2002 World Series Game 7 Anaheim vs. SF Giants EX
2003 NLCS Game 6 Chicago vs. Florida EX (Classic)
2003 NLCS Game 7 Chicago vs. Florida VG
2003 ALCS Game 7 Boston vs. NY Yankees VG
2004 ALCS Game 7 Boston vs. NY Yankees VG
2004 NLCS Games 7 St. Louis vs. Houston VG
2006 World Series Game 1 St. Louis vs. Detroit EX
2006 World Series Game 2 St. Louis vs. Detroit EX
2006 World Series Game 3 St. Louis vs. Detroit EX
2006 World Series Game 4 St. Louis vs. Detroit EX
2006 World Series Game 5 St. Louis vs. Detroit EX

All five games of the 2008 World Series

The Darkest Day: Twenty Years Later

2007-10-23T21:16:00.000-07:00

Twenty years ago - on October 23, 1987 to be precise - the darkest day in America's post-Watergate history occurred and changed forever the course of government in the United States. If you wonder why we have folks calling for the impeachment of the President now, sit back and read how we got here. For it was 20 years ago today that it all began.

On July 1, 1987, President Ronald Reagan got a chance to nominate a third justice to the United States Supreme Court due to the retirement of Justice Lewis Powell. Reagan nominated a man whose name now lives in infamy as a verb describing the tactics used to defeat him: Judge Robert Bork. A stuffy intellectual with a goofy beard, Robert Bork was the most publicly crucified public servant in the post-Watergate era. He was eminently qualified having written new law and having never had a single decision overturned by the Supreme Court. But in the new world of judicial politics, the Democrats were now running the show. In the fall of 1986, they had recaptured the Senate and, consequently, control of judicial nominations. Reagan was also watching his Presidency get dragged through the mud caused by the Iran-Contra scandal. But having campaigned on a promise to remake the federal judiciary in 1980, Reagan acted on his convictions. And incredibly enough, it was a man who escaped conviction for anything more than leaving the scene of an accident (along with a dead body) who destroyed Bork: Senator Edward Moore Kennedy, bona fide member of the Lucky Sperm club.

Moments after Reagan announced Bork's nomination, Kennedy called a press conference and delivered a scathing speech, declaring that Bork would force women to have abortions in back alleys, deny the teaching of evolution in schools, and force blacks and whites to eat at separate lunch counters. It was a five-star performance, coming from a man who used his name to get to the top, his connections to stay out of jail, and his hypocrisy to make the arguments regarding the unfitness of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Bork was painted as a right-wing fanatic who was opposed to birth control and had suggested women get sterilized if they wanted to work at a chemical plant that exposed them to dangers during pregnancy. Kennedy - again of all people - stated that Bork held 'cruel stereotypes' of women in society.

Bork was obviously a bigger man than I would have been. If Kennedy would have said that about me, I would have said, "Let's consider the number of women I've killed: zero. How does your own record compare?"

From October 23, 1987 when the Senate destroyed Bork by a 58-42 vote, politics in America has never been the same. With two brief exceptions - the first Gulf War and 9/11 - the partisan bickering has never subsided as each side attempts to destroy the other. In the process, they may destroy America.

The first retaliatory strike was fired in 1988 by Vice-President George Bush. Bush ran probably the most successful negative campaign in American history, tearing into Michael Dukakis as a sympathizer of murder as well as an unpatriotic governor. Bush used many of the same 'cut and paste' (though that term didn't exist in those pre-Windows days) quote techniques and position twists to demolish Dukakis and win his way into the White House.

The Democrats, of course, got mad. And they decided they were going to make Bush pay for it. They demolished his nomination for Defense Secretary, former Senator John Tower, by accusing him during the nomination hearing of being a drunken lush and womanizer, two characterstics that none of those serving in the Senate would ever embody (insert Teddy Kennedy punchline here). And perhaps they should have stopped there because the Democrats wound up making a fateful decision with enormous ramifications for future generations - all because they had a score to settle with the President.

When Tower went down, Bush named his second choice as Defense Secretary, a then unknown Wyoming congressman named Dick Cheney. Without their engaging in such childish antics, we would never have had Vice-President Cheney, and who knows? We just might never have gone to Iraq the second time.

But the Republicans, now losing 2-1 in the game 'Whose Life Can We Destroy?' got even when an unknown Republican whip from Georgia named Newt Gingrich filed ethics charges against the top two Democratic leaders in the House, Speaker Jim Wright and House Majority Leader Tony Cohelo. Both were exporters of 'sleaze,' and Gingrich managed to destroy both of them in a very short period of time. This made Gingrich feared, but it also made him a target.

In 1991, the war kicked off again when Democrats once again decided to smear the reputation of another Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas. Whatever the truth was about the allegations of sexual harrassment, there is another uncomfortable truth: Thomas was presumed guilty and forced to assert his innocence. What is even more ironic is that the same liberals who went after Bork for his alleged lack of compassion went after Thomas on the basis that he was not 'scholarly.' But, of course, if they wanted scholarly, they could have supported Bork. Thomas emerged from the battle confirmed but scarred. (In yet another irony, Thomas was sworn onto the bench on October 23, 1991, four years to the day after the end of the Bork battle.

As long as the Democrats had the power to appoint indepenent counsels, they could usually win the battles over ethics. They only lost the Wright/Coehelo wars because both had been so adamant in protesting their innocence while firing allegations of sleaze at others such as Reagan's Attorney General, Ed Meese. But on November 8, 1994, the voters revoked the lease the Democrats had on the Legislative branch and sent a new crew to Washington led by the man with two notches on his gun, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. And suddenly the battle got even more bizarre.

Having destroyed two Democrats personally as well as having guided the Republicans to storming the embassy and taking over, Gingrich was an easy target for Democrats to hate. As Speaker for slightly less than four years, they made his life utterly miserable, filing numerous ethics charges and ultimately forcing him to take a loan from Senator Bob Dole to pay his Congressionally imposed fines. Gingrich was destroyed, ironically, not by Democrats but by Republicans angry with his mismanagement of the 1998 mid-term elections. No sooner had Gingrich gone down than his appointed successor, Bob Livingston, resigned when Larry Flynt exposed Livingston as a moral hypocrite who had had extramarital affairs while in office.

The Republicans, now in charge of the independent counsel, spent a decade getting even with Democrats by concentrating their fire on the most prominent target: President William Jefferson Clinton. And to a large degree, they succeeded at thoroughly embarrassing him. It is true, of course, that they did not fully destroy him or drive him from office, but there is no doubt their efforts were rewarded in 2000 when President George W. Bush was elected by the narrow margin of one Supreme Court vote.

And in what is nothing less than a delicious irony, they were forced to swallow Dick Cheney as a Vice-President. And in the summer of 2007, complaints were made were made about the 'five Roman Catholics' who were solidly against abortion. Of course, none of them bothered to mention that if they had allowed Bork to be nominated, it would have replaced one of the Roman Catholics (Kennedy) with an agnostic. Republicans also had to swallow when their efforts made Clinton so prominent that his wife coasted to a United States Senate seat and immediately moved to the front of the line for the Democratic nomination for President.

It all started with the character assassination of Robert Bork. It may well end in the self-inflicted murder of American society due to the political tit for tat. Hopefully, the Hatfields and McCoys will soon stop the war.

GOP A No Show. So What?

2007-09-26T06:36:00.000-07:00

The bulk of Republican candidates have opted to skip the debate hosted by liberal African-American Tavis Smiley on Thursday. Good for them. And it brings us back to an issue that has been distorted and turned into a loaded question by CNN's Roland Martin: "Why is the GOP scared of black voters?" This is going to upset Mr. Martin, but I can answer that one very quickly: they aren't scared of black voters at all. There is a difference between a mission to 'reach out' to black voters (whatever that stupid and overused rhetorical phrase means) and a suicide mission. And the utter waste of time can be better used to reach out to those whose votes they may actually capture: Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and Jews. The amusing thing is that Martin, Smiley, and the other self-appointed spokespersons for African-Americans have never bothered to look at the fact they THEY THEMSELVES are the problem, not the Republican Party.

Let's use some simple logic here. What are the so-called 'special issues' that affect blacks that don't affect anyone else? Can anyone name a specific one other than affirmative action, also known as 'reverse bigotry?' The simple fact of the matter is this: going back to the 1964 Voting Rights Acts, blacks have voted for Democrats to the tune of 83% or greater (usually higher than 90%) in Presidential elections. This has obviously greatly damaged the Republican Party, who since 1968 have a Presidential election record of SEVEN wins and three losses. Quite frankly, the nine-tenths of the black vote ceded to the Democrats has not helped elect Democrats nor has it prevented Republicans from being elected. Al Gore got 93% of the black vote in Florida with a high turnout in 2000 - and still lost the state. Obviously, the GOP has no reason to reach out to folks whose votes are not going to help them win anyway.

But this is where the story takes an insidious twist. Martin and Smiley need to realize that if they know the GOP doesn't solicit black votes, and if the GOP knows it - then obviously the Democrats know it as well. The Democrats KNOW that before the first ballot is cast, 90% of the black vote is already in their column. What impetus is there then to do anything for blacks when you have their loyalty anyway? And in a cruel twist of irony, what will hurt African-Americans in the long run is that very loyalty to a group that will make appearances and make great promises - and then fail to deliver because they know they've got you in their hip pockets. In July 1996, Bill Clinton angered his African-American constituency and their self-appointed spokespersons by signing into law a removal from the welfare rolls within a five-year period of time. But did the angry African-Americans line up in droves to vote Clinton out? Nope. He was honored as our 'first black President' and took more than 9 out of 10 of their votes. Clinton was also spotted incredible forgiveness that seems to elude people like Trent Lott. When Clinton sent a convicted mentally retarded killer named Rickey Ray Rector to his death by lethal injection, African-American leaders like Jesse Jackson protested - and then cranked up the 'get out the vote' trucks. He then played golf at an all-white country club in Little Rock in the midst of the primary season. He then catered to the white 'yellow dog Democrats' by calling out a rapper named Sister Souljah at a meeting of Jackson's 'Rainbow Coalition.' And we all saw how blacks punished Clinton for these repeated misdeeds; he got 9 out of 10 of their votes. Note that the slights towards blacks that I'm pointing out all occurred in a FOUR-MONTH period in the spring of 1992.

Martin is advocating the GOP trying to break this kind of voting lock, and he seems not to care that it is a waste of time. Oh, and if Martin wants to argue that Clinton had a long history of supporting black causes, he should note that it was Clinton who signed 'Confederate Memorial Day' into Arkansas law. But this is how propaganda works.

It isn't just Bill Clinton who got a free ride. Compare the treatment of John Ashcroft with Mel Carnahan in the 2000 Missouri Senate race. That was the one where Carnahan died in a plane crash less than a month before the election. Democrats concocted a scheme to win the seat by getting Missouri's new governor, Roger Wilson, to appoint Carnahan's widow to his seat if he won. The fact that this violated Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution was deemed no big problem. But during both the Senate election and the Ashcroft confirmation hearings for Attorney General, sly murmurings that Ashcroft was a racist were subtly put forth in the news media. What gave the media that idea? Well, Ashcroft had opposed the appointment of a black man, Ronnie White, to be a federal judge from Missouri. Obviously, this proved - in the black and white (if you'll pardon the pun) world of Washington - that Ashcroft was a racist. Never once did Ashcroft say he opposed White because he was black. Ashcroft, in fact, specifically spelled out why he was against White: the previous year, a man named James Johnson had shot a Missouri deputy in the back of the head; went to the deputy's house and shot the deputy's wife, who was leading a Bible study at the time, five times; shot another police officer four times who survived; and shot and killed two more police officers in the parking lot before surrendering.

Despite the fact Johnson had killed four people and wounded another, one judge on the Missouri Supreme Court thought that Johnson's actions did not qualify him for the death penalty. That judge was Ronnie White. Ashcroft decided that if such an action did not warrant the death penalty then White should not receive an appointment as a federal judge. Unmentioned in all of this is the fact that FIFTY-FOUR OTHER U.S. Senators voted AGAINST White's confirmation. Does Martin want us to believe that all 54 were racists?

And in one of the more sordid episodes, Mel Carnahan was later shown in blackface. He apologized only AFTER it was brought out. And what happened? He got 90% of the vote. Why? Because he was a Democrat.

Better yet, if opposing a black man as federal judge automatically makes one a racist, consider the following Democrats who voted against the nomination of Clarence Thomas (who was black the last time I looked) to the federal bench:

Al Gore
John Kerry

Both got over 90% of the African-American vote despite their 'racist' vote against Thomas. But there are more:

Joe Biden (presently running for the Democratic nomination)
Robert Byrd (former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan)

All told, of the 57 Democrats in the 1991 Senate, 47 voted against the nomination of a black man to the federal bench. Why is it when 54 Republicans voted against a black man, it was racism but when 47 Democrats do it, it is 'justice?'

If Martin wants to see why Republicans don't woo blacks (fear is the wrong word), he only needs to look at the asymmetrical forgiveness that is extended depending upon the political party.

THE NATIONAL TRAGEDY

The simple truth is this: the African-American vote is large enough that in a close election, it could be the decisive factor in who wins. If African-Americans would approach the political process less from the aspect of partisanship and more from the aspect of 'what have you done for me lately,' both they and the country as a whole would be much better off. If they would make deals or demands for their votes and their voices to be heard, it would go a long way towards attaining the goals of the civil rights infrastructure.

But as long as the leaders of the movement are more interested in kowtowing to fellow Democrats, looking past their own slights while magnifying those committed by Republicans, they stand to remain out of power for yet another generation. I hope one day that African-Americans as a whole will wake up and realize that the self-appointed leaders like Tavis Smiley and Jesse Jackson are far more interested in wearing $2,000 suits and drinking fruit of the vine on the White House lawn than any true progress. It is the way that I am personally able to 'keep hope alive.'

Estrich A Good Example of What's Wrong

2007-08-04T07:29:00.000-07:00

Susan Estrich is one of the many movers and shakers in the world of politics who rode a losing horse (Michael Dukakis in 1988) and consequently landed a cush job as an opinion writer for a syndicated column. Unfortunately, Ms. Estrich is not much better at forming her views than she was at running Dukakis' campaign into the ground. Her most recent comments are found at the following link: http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich/summer-spats.html .

Although humor was not her intent, I found the column funny. I also found it to be typical of the bubble in which pundits live. Note the following comments by Estrich:

If you read the pundits and pundettes, the consensus seems to be that Hillary has gotten the best of Obama this week, especially on Monday night, when she sounded more experienced and realistic about the world than her younger, more idealistic colleague. On the other hand, if you look at the focus group results, including one I read of Democrats conducted for Fox News, Obama was the winner, with people liking his optimistic idealism, not realizing it was somehow unrealistic or naive.

Of course, Estrich herself is a pundit and later in the same column says this: As a Clinton supporter, I would make the argument that it was George W.
Bush who was wrong, not Hillary Clinton. In other words, at least one pundit is actually honest enough to admit her bias - and then tells us what the other pundits say. She supports Clinton - and therefore, she must do anything she can to ensure Hillary wins including calling Obama 'naive' and 'idealistic.' But the one that truly took the cake was this line:

Does the fact that he lived abroad as a child make him more qualified than someone who lived in the White House for eight years, and who has four more years of Senate experience than he does?

So according to Susan Estrich, the mere fact that Hillary lived in the White House for eight years qualifies her to manage foreign policy? Using that logic, Barbara Bush should be the Commander-In-Chief. She lived in the Vice Presidential residence for eight years, the White House for four, and has been able to visit it any time she wishes for the last eight. Not only that, she gave birth to two sons who grew up to be governors of large economic powers (Jeb in Florida and George in Texas) and one who grew up to be President.

Living in the White House is a prerequisite for being President? And as a military brat who lived abroad for five years during the Cold War, I'll take Obama's day-to-day living experience with those people over Hillary's pie-in-the-sky 'I married a President' experience any day of the week.

I wonder if Susan would apply the same standard to the candidate she managed, Michael Dukakis. It is amusing that 20 years ago when she ran the campaign, long-term government service did not provide meaningful experience while now she is casting her lot with a woman who wouldn't even be in the Senate if her last name was Lazio.

Hillary Clinton played patriotic politics with the war just like everybody else has done and is doing. The last thing she wanted was a successful war that she opposed, so she hedged her bets, knowing full well that if it went wrong she could say she was 'misled.' If the war had gone great, she'd be touting her 'insight' as proof she could run the military.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton, as I've noted before, is not even the most qualified liberal Democratic female. Why does Estrich think Hillary should move to the front of the line ahead of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, or Barbara Mikulski, who spent ten years in the Congress and has been in the Senate for twenty?

Probably because Hillary has already lived in the White House. One must realize when dealing with a liberal Democrat, you throw logic away and start with emotion.

NAACP Hypocrisy Shines Brightly Now

2007-07-31T09:48:00.000-07:00

For those of you living on a desert island (or in Arkansas) the last two months, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has been accused by the feds of running a dogfighting ring on his property that includes the killing of wounded dogs by hanging and drowning. The charges are so serious that the NFL, Vick's employer, has told him not to report to training camp, and it appears he will not play at all in the 2007 NFL season.

But the strange got stranger yesterday when the NAACP threw its hat into the ring and declared that Vick should be able to play because his non-announced 'suspension' is the equivalent of an admission of his guilt before he ever went to trial. The hypocrisy of this civil rights organization shines rather brightly, however, when one considers that it was the NAACP who begged for - and received - a gag order on the three white Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a black woman. The three white Duke players, apparently, failed to meet the MAJOR requirement for NAACP activism: they were simply born the wrong color to receive a fair shake.

The NAACP has walked a line of hypocrisy for years. Despite the fact their name is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the name has long been in need of a change. A more accurate name would be to add the word 'liberal' between the second A and the C. This is the same organization, after all, who rebuffed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991 by a vote of 50-1.

Not only have they demonstrated incredible hypocrisy but they have also come to the party quite late. Vick was a suspect back in April, and he was formally indicted earlier this month. He entered his plea last week. I can't help but wonder if Vick made a donation to their organization in an effort to buy influence. He certainly needs all the help he can get.

America has a tragic history of racism that will take centuries to fully heal. I have long wondered whether or not organizations like the NAACP - at one time needed for those who were accused and had no means of defense - really want racism eradicated. And at times like this I must conclude they do not. After all, if there's no racism then there's no NAACP. And that means their self-appointed crusaders must find a new line of work.

The NAACP should have imposed the same silent treatment on themselves that they placed on the Duke lacrosse players. When this is over we're going to find out two things: 1) Vick's dawg fighting is a defensible act; and 2) So are the false accusations leveled by the stripper against the Duke lacrosse players.

Affirmative action has long been a problem since it engenders racism at the base level. But nobody ever bothered to tell us that affirmative action methdology would be applied to determine the innocence or guilt of a particular party. If this is the future of the justice system, it is simply inverse of Jim Crow. Blacks didn't like it and for good reason. Why then do a select group of blacks who sit behind desks and wear ties who hated it think it should apply in the other direction?

A Tribute To Tove Lovik

2007-07-28T08:36:00.000-07:00

The calendar turned last week, and I suddenly remembered a person I had not thought about but a few times over the course of the last two decades. I did, however, think it important enough to include on the blog, so I'm doing so. The name probably looks like a misspelling, but it isn't. Tove Lovik was a foreign exchange student from Molde, Norway who was a good friend of mine for about a month before she went back home on June 22, 1987. How good of a friend she might have been will always remain a matter of conjecture although I do ascribe to the notion that God has written the days of our lives for us before we were ever born (cf. Psalm 139:15-19). Yet today I will share a few memories of Tove (pronounced Tova) and too few they are indeed.

Our meeting occurred on the day she transferred to Caledonia High School during late September of my senior year. I was in Mrs. Gilmer's fifth period English class when the office worker brought in a new student. Such an introduction must have been difficult for the girl with all of those blank, and in some cases acne infected, faces look back at her. She took the desk two seats behind me. When we got a quick break, I asked her her name and where she was from. Personally, I was enthralled because I had never met anyone from Norway before. I had lived in Europe for nearly five years (all occurring between the ages of 5 and 14) and visited six countries, but I never made it to Norway nor had I ever met a Norwegian. While having an admitted accent, her English was not too shabby. Let's just say her English was a lot better than my Norwegian - still is, in fact.

I never paid any mind to our initial discussion. To the best of my knowledge, I rarely spoke to her the rest of the year. In fact, I don't remember saying anything more than the customary "Hi" except for perhaps a few times like asking what she was getting for Christmas. It was all part of who I was - I talked to folks every day at school and inquired about their lives when I wouldn't have known their names much less their phone numbers. That's simply who I was.

I would later learn that Tove had been a student at another high school, Caldwell, and had had some problems with the family with which she was staying. She wound up moving in with a sophomore at our school, Pam Robinson, and finishing her senior year at illustrious Caledonia High. But I paid very little attention to her as the fall turned to winter and the winter to spring.

The spring of 1987 was my last one in high school, capped by two main events that every high school observes: the prom and graduation. I had jokingly offered $50 for a date to the prom and went through a long and ardurous process of trying to figure out whether or not I would go if I didn't have a date. My reasons were more than pure calculation: I had never been on a single date in my life. That's correct. I was about to be out of high school and had, in fact, never even really been out of the sight of parents with a girl. I had no earthly idea what I was supposed to do, how I was supposed to act or - most importantly - how I could drive to the prom when I didn't have a driver's license. This latter was a major factor in my own apprehension of asking anyone out.

As March tottered into April, I had more positions on attending the prom than John Kerry had on Iraq. One day I was going, the next day I wasn't. I reached the end of April and still didn't have a date. And then came May Day (May 1), a Friday.

I was talking to Pam Robinson, who had become a good friend. We usually had lunch together. (Remember back in your high school days when you always had lunch with the same person? Proof of your enlightenment as a more mature person is stopping to ask, "Why did I do that?"). This particular day I ran into her sitting on one of the benches and the question came up as to whether or not I was going to the prom. At this point, I was pretty well set against it. I didn't have a date, I couldn't drive myself - and I damn sure wasn't having my Mom drop me off and pick me up!!! I told Pam I didn't think I was going because I didn't have a date. That was not the overriding reason, obviously, but I didn't think she needed to know anymore than that.

She then uttered the words that would live in infamy: "My sister would love to go out with you." I'd known Pam for a number of months and didn't even know she had a sister. So I figured this was some sort of joke - yeah, she's five years old and has a crush on a senior. But she then told me that her sister was a senior at the school. At this point I got confused and said, "Who?" "Tove," she replied. To which I responded like a typical know-it-all teenager, "Tove's from Norway, she's not your sister." I was then told that that was what Pam called her. I thought it over - she seemed sweet enough, but we'd probably not said 100 words to one another in six months. What could she possibly see in me? At that point, obssessive-compulsive disorder kicked in. Pam told me that her older brother, Doug, was going to take Tove to the prom. After hashing it over with Mom over the weekend, I decided to ask Tove to the prom. So I approached her on Monday at school and began breaking the ice; unfortunately, she had been offered a different date, a guy who had been a classmate of hers at Caldwell High.

Now that I'm 37, I'd have enough maturity to approach the situation and offer an alternative. But back then dating was basically like being married as far as I was concerned. Ok, she had a date, and I don't need to go barging in late. But I also saw the potential for a 'makeshift' date at the prom, particularly since she and this fella were going solely as 'friends.' So I left it alone.

And in a strange irony, I wound up going to the prom with Pam Robinson as my date.

I finally got my driver's license - are you ready for this? - on May 28, thirteen days after the prom and the day before graduation. Since Tove was still in America for one month, I decided to broach the subject of a date. I asked her out. She was somewhat noncommittal, but she agreed to go. That part was a little tough to swallow since what got the ball rolling in the first place was that she allegedly liked me.

We went out on June 16, six days before she left for the Motherland. We had a good time, but I think what bothered me most was the feelings of regret. What if I'd been more open earlier in the year? What if I'd known earlier what I would eventually know later? We might have dated, maybe even seriously.

I made Tove a music casette that included the song I had sung that won the SGA Talent Show. I also wrote her a letter shortly after she left. I heard back from her on July 22, 1987. I sent another letter back to her and then, in October, I mailed her a necklace I had bought her for her birthday that happened to be only eight days after mine (November 5).

I never heard from her again. My only knowledge was that Pam Robinson's mom told me in 1999 that Tove had married and visited America in 1994. Whether she married the Norwegian boyfriend she left behind in Molde or not, I don't know.

What I do know is that the microcosm I just shared is the perpetual lesson in life. We either seize or make opportunities and we choose to follow them through or perhaps not. But we can only make those based on the limited knowledge we have at the time.

I wondered just a few moments ago whether we might have dated. Maybe we would have married and had children. Or maybe we would have had one date and said, "This isn't what it's all about." I think in the long run, however, I'm glad life turned out the way it did. If we had dated starting in November, I am pained to know how much harder it would have been to say good-bye.

Good-bye, Tove.

This Is What I'm Talking About

2007-07-24T08:57:00.000-07:00

Last night, the dumbing down of society stretched to new limits when the Democrats had a YouTube debate with co-conspirator CNN. Political campaigns often have the intellectual depth of a music video so it was fitting that a website that allows anyone to post regardless of whether or not that person knows what he or she is talking about co-hosted a debate with a network that often doesn't know what it is talking about. Thrown in a bunch of Democrats who all think they are the current incarnation of Santa Claus, and the number of people who don't know what they're talking about rises exponentially. But check out my last post about "Who Will The Media Select," and you will see that I was dead on accurate in my assessment. All one has to do is go to CNN's Election Center at the following link:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/youtube.debate/

The debate is scored by three people: Bill Schneider, CNN's political analyst who often addresses Democratic groups; Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez (whom I've never heard of); and former California Democratic Congressman Bill Press. Apparently, CNN's idea of 'fair and balanced' is two Democrats and a marginal Republican. But let's consider what they said.

All three of them say that Hillary Clinton won the debate. Remember my comment about the media selecting the candidate? Go check out the rest of what they said. Hillary's name is only mentioned ONE TIME in the other 18 responses to six questions. How in the world could she have won if that's the case?

Ok, you have to scratch three of them because if she won she obviously cannot be the answer to who was the most disappointing - another consensus for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. But here's where it gets strange: all three agreed that Delaware Senator Joseph P. Biden KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE ISSUES than the other candidates.

If he does, doesn't that mean he won the debate?

Well, of course it doesn't because debates do not measure knowledge. In the television era, they have been nothing short of personality contests, and the notion that Lady Macbeth has a 'nice personality' is at odds with every appearance I've seen her make over the last 16 years.

So how did Hillary 'win' the debate?

She won simply because the three blind mice know her name better and much like a championship fight, the 'incumbent leader' has to actually get bloodied to lose. Since Hillary is a woman who will not hesitate to play the 'you're abusing me' card, the men on stage with her hold their punches back for fear of losing it altogether. If a man on that platform won't stand up to a nepotistic female candidate, why in the world should I believe he will stand up to Osama bin Laden?

And if Hillary was not big enough to stand up to Bill and leave - as any self-respecting woman would have done after NUMEROUS affairs on his part - why should I believe she's big enough to stand up to a big-spending Congress?

The media is having a lovefest at the thought of 'going back to the 1990s.' They will do anything necessary to help her win. Illusions such as these, however, are not the strong medicine the country needs.

Who Will The Media Select?

2007-06-26T14:19:00.000-07:00

The perpetual campaign, that exercise where both sides run to see who succeeds an ineligible incumbent, is already nauseating but shows no signs of stopping anytime soon. The media infatuation with Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani - the media's appointed 'front runners' - has me wondering just who exactly they plan to crown the new monarch.

The voters do that you say? Oh, I beg to differ.

This is not the old days of the Pony Express. The media can build up or implode a candidacy almost instantly. Let's look at just a few test cases that demonstrate this beyond all reason.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson was the President of the United States and expected to cruise to re-election. One issue bugged the country: the Vietnam War. A Minnesota Senator named Eugene McCarthy ran in the New Hampshire primary against LBJ and lost by six points. This, however, was 'proof' (according to the media) that Johnson was a vulnerable incumbent who needed to be replaced. LBJ agreed and bowed out a few weeks later right before the Wisconsin primary. This despite the fact he had not only won the primary, he won it solely on the basis of write-in votes because he had not even bothered to qualify for the ballot. Amazingly, the media didn't bother to mention that McCarthy got a ton of votes because he was the best-known name actually on the ballot. How many voters know they can write in a candidate?

In 1972, Edmund Muskie was the heir-in-waiting. He beat George McGovern by twelve points in the New Hampshire primary. But the media spun the story as if Muskie - who had beaten five other foes with almost half the vote - was now a cooked goose. Muskie made it worse by ripping into a conservative newspaper editor and appearing to 'cry,' demolishing his candidacy and sentencing the Democrats to a 49-1 defeat at the hands of Richard Nixon.

In 1976, it was the Republicans whom the media crossed. Ronald Reagan actually got more votes in the New Hampshire primary against UNELECTED incumbent President Ford. But the media feared that 'right-wing' Reagan as President and made it sound like Ford had beaten Reagan as badly as Reagan would eventually beat Walter Mondale in 1984. Never mind that in the previous two election cycles, neither of the losers came as close to winning as did Reagan, who only lost in the official count by 1317 votes. A subsequent handcount later showed Reagan likely won narrowly.

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was on his way to an easy win in the New Hampshire primary against four other foes. Then the stories of his philandering and draft dodging came out, and he went from a ten-point lead to a ten-point deficit in four days. He kept plugging along and despite the fact he blew an easy win and actually LOST the primary, the media touted Clinton as 'the comeback kid.' Clinton and the news media both dismissed the victory of Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas as 'a regional candidate.' The following week when Nebraska Senator Bob Kerry won South Dakota, he, too, was dismissed as a 'regional candidate.' But the moment Clinton won the Georgia primary in his own region of the country? This was somehow proof for the pundits that Clinton was a 'national candidate.' On Super Tuesday in 1992, Clinton did not win a single state outside the South - yet he was proclaimed 'electable' by the powers that be.

The Republicans didn't do much better in 1992. TV commentator Pat Buchanan entered the race and lost by 17 points - and to hear the hype from the TV pundits, you would have thought he won by 30,000 votes. Four years later, the same pundits amazingly forgot that Buchanan had actually lost and when Buchanan won BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire in major upsets over Bob Dole, the spin was that Dole had eliminated the other competition and could focus on Buchanan, who had no chance.

Even as recently as 2004, the media made its presence felt. Howard Dean was on his way to an easy victory in New Hampshire. If he had won, he likely would have been the party's dope-crazed nominee. So when he lost to John Kerry in the Iowa caucus, Dean took a page out of Al Gore's book. When Gore was campaigning in black churches in 2000, he began impersonating Uncle Remus Washington with his homiletical screams. Dean did the same thing - and the news media persuaded the entire country Dean was crazy. Evan Thomas of Newsweek magazine even admitted that their slanted coverage of the 2004 election probably netted Kerry fifteen points. Since Kerry lost by about four, we're talking about George W. Bush winning and LBJ-sized landslide - taken from him by the power makers on TV.

Who will they choose this time around? I don't really know, but I do know this: when the politicians start talking about 'the will of the people,' just substitute the 'power of the media,' and you will be far closer to the truth.

June 21, 1987

2007-06-21T07:37:00.001-07:00

Twenty years ago today, I sang my first solo in church. It turned out that it changed my life in more ways than one.

June 21, 1987 was Fathers Day. It dawned a typical Mississippi summer Sunday morning - the first day of summer, in fact. It was one of the days that would earmark my life as different afterward than prior. It was sunny and hot with a chance of a cloud or two as we drove down the lonely road and pulled into the parking lot of Antioch Baptist Church. And unlike any other Sunday, I had a suitcase in the car today.

After church that day we were going to gather on two buses with the youth group from another church - New Salem Baptist - and travel first to Hattiesburg, Mississippi to do a show that evening followed by a Monday evening performance in New Orleans and a return trip home on Tuesday.

I had been on a roll since winning the pageant at high school seven months to the day earlier. Everything was falling into place finally since I had also captured the school talent show, had graduated from high school, been on my first two dates, and gotten my driver's license.

This particular day, however, my father - who had never heard me sing publicly before at all - was going to hear me sing a special music piece. The choir would be providing back-up support. And a good time was had by all. The song was "I Will Feed You," based upon Psalm 81:16 and the sixth song in the youth musical "Forever" by David T. Clydesdale, inventor of the horse.

I sang and, if I may say so, I did extremely well for an individual with no voice training whatsoever. I didn't miss any notes and my smooth vocal was a welcome change to the high pitched 'whine' a lot of guys sing when they are untrained. The response afterward was shocking. I had been plodding along in the youth choir for two years and had never even attempted to sing a solo. But the graduation of our star singer the year before had created an opening that I would fill for just this once.

I'm sure Dad was proud. It was Father's Day, and his son was now the center of attention. I had finally convinced him that I could major in music and do quite well.

And the next change would come when Jesus came into my life on November 30. It hardly seems like its been decades. And oh I wonder where did all that time go?

The Chickens Come Home To Roost

2007-06-18T07:30:00.000-07:00

About two hours ago, a reporter named Thomas Ferraro posted an article on Reuters stating that the approval rating of the Democratic Congress, installed on January 3, 2007, is actually lower than that of President Bush. I somehow suspect that will not be the lead-in for a CNN story, but it is worth contemplating the obvious question, "Why?"

And I have the answer to that question. Grab your socks and hose and tug: it's because the Democrats who took over Congress last year lied, plain and simple. You read that correctly. After three years of a steady drumbeat accusing Bush of lying about WMDs in Iraq (even though some of their more amibitous politicians voted for it before they voted against it, hee hee), it has taken less than six months to expose the entire party as a fraud. Now quite frankly, I'm not surprised about this. It did dawn on me, however, that the die hard support for the Democrats must come from people who have never taken a course in Government or read the United States Constitution.

You see, the Democrats promised last fall that if they were given power, they would end the Iraq War. I was hissing, "Liar, liar pants on fire" for a good reason: the Constitution says that George W. Bush is the commander-in-chief and doesn't need their approval to send troops wherever he wants. So the notion that they could stop the war if they wanted to do so was laughable. But apparently, the same people who don't understand the Electoral College don't seem to understand this inconvenient truth (to use the Al Gore cliche), either. Now it is true that they could cut off funding for the war, but they just declined to do that, and does anyone REALLY think they are going to do so CLOSER to the 2008 election? It would be political suicide.

The simple fact is that the Democrats won 30 seats in Congress because Bush was in his sixth year in the White House. This virtually always happens. It happened to FDR and Ronald Reagan, the two greatest Presidents of the 20th century. It didn't happen to Clinton but only because he lost more in his 1994 mid-term election than Reagan lost in 1982 and 1986 combined. They didn't win because people liked what they said; they won simply because they weren't Republicans and people were mad at the GOP.

I warned the day after the electionn last November that the Democrats were going to find out the hard way that it's a whole lot easier to sit back and blame the party in power for the problems and win than it is to actually be held accountable for your own action or non-action. Blaming Bush is not going to accompolish much in 2008 since he's on the ballot.

The Democrats are in the doldrums. Don't expect it to get better any time soon.