SEN. RICK SANTORUM V. SEN. BOB CASEY JR. – NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE ON WOMEN’S ISSUES AT ALL

Rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks on Sen. Santorum’s religion or on the Catholic Church, it behooves all of us to instead analyze the politics and electorate of Pennsylvania.  Ad hominem attacks are an abusive form of argument; proper arguments should address the merits of an opponent’s position, and refute the merits thereof, rather than attacking either the person, or a straw man, e.g. a caricature of the person.  Abusive argumentation has long been recognized, since the time of Aristotle, as a form of FALLACY, not entitled to serious logical consideration by rational minds.  Consequently, let us engage in some rational discourse on the merits of the question at hand and cease from ABUSIVE and FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTATION techniques such as ad hominem attacks and attacking a straw man.

Sen. Arlen Specter of PA

Let us turn, then, to the Politics of Pennsylvania (“PA”), and why it produces such conservative politics and politicians, especially conservative male politicians, and particularly conservative male catholic politicians recently.  It was for many years a bastion of moderate Republicanism, and indeed, until the 1930s, Philadelphia and the Union League were synonymous with the post-Civil War consensus that the Republican Party was the proper party for all educated persons to vote for in the Northeast.  Indeed, the city was so identified with core national Republican values that the Athletics even adopted an elephant as their team logo in the early 1900s, a symbol retained to this day by the Oakland Athletics, though it is dubious they know what Connie Mack was thinking when he adopted the symbol 111 years ago.

This consensus began to break down after the Great Depression and FDR, though it lingered on for many years as the so-called “Rockefeller-Eisenhower-Nixon” wing of the party, which was Northeast and moderate, and bipartisan with the Democrats on foreign policy, social security, fiscal & monetary policy and many other fundamental issues.  This consensus of course began to break down with the emergence of the Goldwater faction in 1964, which was opposed by the Scranton faction in 1964 (again led from PA), leading to Nixon re-assuming the reigns in 1968 and 1972.  With Nixon’s resignation in 1974, Ford took over and Rockefeller became VP, leading to a bitter fight between the Reagan and Ford wings of the party in 1976, and another bitter fight between the Bush and Reagan wings in 1980, finally emerging in victory both in nomination and election for the conservative wing of the Republican Party in 1980 for Reagan and the conservatives.  A new day had dawned in America.  But to some degree, the bipartisan consensus which had existed since FDR between the Democrats and the moderate Republicans was now endangered.

Nowhere was this tension more dramatically played out the past forty years than in PA.  PA was represented until 1991 by two stalwart moderate Republicans–Sen. Arlen Specter, a bipartisan member of the Warren Commission, and Sen. John Heinz, a moderate Republican loyal to the elderly and to Social Security.  These two Senators were cornerstones of what was, up to that point, a still very strong Northeastern moderate wing of the Republican party.  Both were solidly dedicated to bipartisanship, courtesy, gentlemanly behavior and getting things done on the Senate floor notwithstanding partisan differences.

This began to unravel slowly with the sudden airplane death in 1991 of Sen. John Heinz.

The Late Sen. John Heinz of PA

A sudden election was called in 1991 and an unknown political consultant was brought in from the South named James Carville to manage the campaign of an enormous

PA Sen. Harris Wofford with President John F. Kennedy in early 1960s

underdog, former University President and JFK kitchen cabinet member Harris Wofford, who was to stand election against former Governor Richard “Dick” Thornburgh.  At

Gov. Dick Thornburgh visits Centralia PA to inspect its ongoing Mine Fires in the 1980s

the time, Thornburgh had something like a fifty point lead in the polls, and tons of money.

James Carville - Wofford's 1991 PA Political Consultant

Sen. Heinz’ widow Teresa Heinz, now heiress in part to the Heinz catsup fortune, would then go on to marry Mass. Sen. John Kerry, in effect making him an instant near-billionaire and projecting him to the front rank of presidential contenders for 2004.  This nearly changed U.S. history, but Kerry’s bid failed.  Looking back, it is all too likely that a John Heinz bid for President would ultimately have succeeded in the long run just where Kerry failed–he had the looks, the charm and the moderate views to win.

Sen & Mrs. John & Teresa Heinz prior to his untimely death in 1991

This might have changed the entire course of the Republican Party and US History.

Sen & Mrs. John Kerry & Teresa Heinz Kerry; Her Money Inherited from John Heinz's Death in 1991 Nearly Made Kerry President in 2004

Returning to the 1991 election, Carville made universal health care an issue, and Wofford shocked the nation by defeating Thornburgh, becoming the first Democratic Senator from PA in decades.  At the same time, Carville’s work came to the attention of a bright young Governor from Arkansas with Presidential aspirations–one William Jefferson Clinton.  Carville’s conjunction with Clinton, and with George Stephanopoulos, on the 1992 campaign, documented in THE WAR ROOM documentary film, is now legendary, but all of this began in PA with Carville and Wofford.

It was during the Wofford campaign in 1991 that Carville legendarily quipped that “between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was Alabama in between,” referring to the fact that Pennsylvanians in all portions of the state except for Philadelphia & Allegheny county regions were pro-gun, pro-life, pro-death penalty, exceptionally elderly (the oldest voting population in the USA outside of Florida) and very church-going, as well as being one of the most demographically Catholic and ethnic voting populations.  In addition, PA has the lowest % of college educated persons of any state in the Northeast corridor–it is the prototypical location of high school educated union card carrying labor, and many of those voters were either Nixon Republicans or Reagan Democrats, but definitely not liberal Democrats.  Except of course for the two large cities, and even there, most of the male voters care more about football than about politics.

In 2008 Hilary Clinton carried nearly every county of PA v. Obama and won the PA Primary by running to the right of Obama

Fast forward to 1994.  The Clinton Administration has badly failed on its health care initiative, and Sen. Wofford has to stand re-election in his own right.  This time, he is the heavy favorite to win, but Carville is not working on the campaign.  Wofford is facing an unknown challenger–Congressman Rick Santorum.  No one, absolutely no one, is giving Santorum a chance of winning.  In fact, Santorum is given less chance of winning than Wofford was given in 1991.

What happens next shocks not only the nation, but PA as a whole.  Not only does the Republican Party and the Contract with America sweep the midterm elections in 1994, but Santorum runs unexpectedly strongly and defeats Wofford narrowly to win election to the United States Senate.

Part of the problem with Sen. Wofford is that he is intellectual, aloof and takes re-election for granted, whereas Santorum is hard-working, engaged, personable and likeable.  The rest of the problem is that Santorum is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and a church-going fellow, whereas Sen. Wofford is a Northeast liberal who is none of these things–consequently it is Santorum who fits the mold of what PA voters want in their candidate (except for Pittsburgh and Philadelphia).  However, since Santorum is FROM PITTSBURGH, the Western Part of the State votes for Santorum, especially as Wofford is from the Eastern Part of the State, thus negating any liberal sentiment emanating from Allegheny County.

Sen. Santorum wins re-election in 2000, and actually runs better in PA than does Pres. Bush, who loses the national popular vote as well as the popular vote and electoral vote in PA, while Santorum wins his election in PA, in effect demonstrating that Santorum as of 2000 is more popular than President Bush.

Now we fast forward to 2006, and to the election Santorum lost for Senate by a considerable margin, to Sen. Bob Casey, Jr.

Let’s examine why he lost this election.

First, Bob Casey, Jr. was and is the son of a popular, two term Governor of PA who was known throughout the state.  Second, Bob Casey, Jr. was from a prominent Irish-Catholic political family as well-known in PA as the Kennedys’ are known in Massachusetts and nationally.  According to wikipedia:

“Casey was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, one of eight children of Ellen (née Harding) and Bob Casey, the 42nd governor of Pennsylvania. He is of Irish descent on both his mother’s^{[citation needed]}and father’s side.  Casey played basketball and graduated from Scranton Preparatory School in 1978. Following in his father’s footsteps, he graduated from the College of the Holy Cross in 1982, and received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America in 1988. Between both college and law school, Casey served as a member of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, and spent a year teaching 5th grade and coaching basketball at the Gesu School in inner city Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Casey practiced law in Scranton from 1991 until 1996.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Casey,_Jr.

This is the most perfect Jesuit, Irish-Catholic resume you could possibly have for running for office in PA–Scranton Prep, Holy Cross, Catholic University, the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, and a year teaching at an inner city catholic mission school in Philadelphia.  Sen. Casey is just the most perfect catholic prepster ever.

Next, Casey is pro-gun, pro-life, pro-death penalty, and as we see above, a church-going catholic just like Santorum–in fact, he’s Irish-Catholic, as opposed to Italian-Catholic, which in PA, is a real advantage politically, just as it is in Massachusetts and nationally.

Consequently, the same wedge issues that HELPED Santorum win in 1994 and 2000–the issues that appealed to the “Alabama” parts of PA that are pro-gun, pro-life, pro-death penalty, and church-going and conservative on social issues–were of no use running against Bob Casey, Jr. because Casey, if anything, ran to the right of Santorum on all those issues.  As noted by Casey’s wiki bio:

“In the Democratic primary, Casey faced two Democrats with more liberal viewpoints: college professor Chuck Pennacchio and pension lawyer Alan Sandals. Both argued that Casey’s views on abortion and other social issues were too conservative for most Pennsylvania Democrats. However, Casey easily defeated both challengers in the May 16 primary, receiving 85% of the vote….Abortion….Casey, like his father did, identifies as pro-life. He has publicly stated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade.^[29] From Casey’s election until Specter’s party switch in April 2009, Pennsylvania had the distinction of being represented in the Senate by a self-identified pro-life Democrat and a pro-choice Republican (Arlen Specter).  He supports the Pregnant Women Support Act,^[30] legislation that grew out of Democrats for Life of America‘s 95-10 Initiative. The Initiative and the Pregnant Women Support Act seek to reduce the abortion rate by providing support to women in unplanned pregnancies. He expressed support for the confirmation of both John Roberts^[31] and Samuel Alito^[32] for seats on the Supreme Court of the United States; these judges are believed to be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. Casey also opposes the funding of embryonic stem-cell research.^[33]   However, Casey voted against barring HHS grants to organizations that provide abortion services, though such services may often not be central to the organization’s chief purpose.^[34] Casey also supports over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception,^[35] and has voted to overturn the Mexico City policy, which bars the issuance of federal funds to overseas organizations that perform or refer for abortions.^[36] The authenticity of Casey’s pro-life commitment has been questioned by some prolife sources.^[36][37]  In January 2010, a writer for CBN wrote, “I wouldn’t want to be Senator Bob Casey right about now. He is coming under enormous pressure from pro-life groups because they say the ‘Pro-life’ Democratic Senator has not stood strong on the abortion issue during the current healthcare debate.” Casey, according to the CBN writer, had recently gotten “an earful and then some from pro-lifers during a press conference held at the Pennsylvania Capitol.”^{[38]  ….”}  

Id.  Clearly, Casey ran to the RIGHT of both of his Democratic primary opponents, and then ran to the RIGHT of Santorum in the general election on the social issues, not to the LEFT as his past opponents had done.  Casey was like the Democratic Santorum–only smarter, more conservative, more polished, and a better version, and even more socially conservative and catholic than Santorum was.  Casey ran to the RIGHT of Santorum on the social issues, but to the LEFT of Santorum on the bread and butter, economic and labor issues.

This makes Casey’s election to the US Senate in 2006 very unique among all of the elections in 2006, even though it is clear that 2006 generally trended Democratic and it is pretty likely that Santorum faced an uphill battle in any event even if Casey had run as a traditional liberal.  But Casey was no traditional liberal.  No one on the editorial staff of the Huffington Post or the New York Times would endorse him for national office if they truly understood either his positions, or the positions of the PA electorate.  In truth, the PA electorate holds positions at variance with the Northeast liberal elite and the West Coast elite, excepting Philadelphia, State College and Pittsburgh.

The results of Casey’s strategies were very clear; he ran well to the right of Santorum on social issues, but ran as a Democrat on union and bread and butter economic issues, while still remaining pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-life, pro-church, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and pro-adoption.

In short, there isn’t a bucket’s worth of warm spit’s difference between these two candidates on women’s issues at all.  In fact, PA has NEVER elected a women to the United States Senate.  Ever.  Not even close to ever.

Only two women have even been nominated to run for US Senate in PA History and both have lost, one back in 1964, and more recently Lynn Yeakel, who lost a relatively close race to incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter following the Anita Hill hearings in the 1990s, but still she lost and then rapidly faded from sight and power.

PA is clearly not a state conducive either to women’s issues or to women running for office.  PA has never had a female governor, a female senator and only rarely has it had female congresspersons.   According to the Huffington Post, as of 2009, there were only two women in its entire Congressional Delegation.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/senate-guru/pa-sen-the-potential-demo_b_187357.html.   It is astonishing how limited women are in political power in PA.

PA is well to the right of NJ, NY, DE and all the other northeastern states with regards to women’s issues and specifically women’s reproductive health issues.  The state legislature is overwhelmingly dominated by men, especially religious and catholic men, and the men who serve there are openly sexist and demeaning towards women who serve in the legislature and create what is in effect a hostile work environment for women who are elected and choose to serve their constituents there.  Recently, one of the houses of the PA Legislature voted 2012 “The Year of the Bible” by nearly unanimous resolution, while also simultaneously voting to cut student financial aid and aid to all state universities by more than one-third in the very same session that they also authorized tens of millions of dollars to hire replacement football coaches to take over for Joe Paterno at Penn State.  Apparently male legislators have their priorities in PA.  And first rate Division I football in Happy Valley is really far higher of a priority than education for the poor or the middle class, apparently.

Sad to say, often the same holds true in many of the rural county courtrooms as well as many of the appellate courts, although there at least in the past few years, some progress has been made.  However, in the major law firms of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, men hold by far the reins of power and women simply do not have any share of either the partner proceeds or the political shares of power that lead to business and partner revenues.

In short, it is a boy’s club, and often, a man’s only club in PA, notwithstanding the lip service paid to equality and opportunity.  Things in PA are NOTHING like NYC or Boston or DC.  They are backwards by at least twenty to forty years.  Many of the female partners who do make it in Philly prefer working over in New Jersey or up in NYC whenever possible–they find PA courts and clients to be very stifling and sexist in the extreme, and in any case most of the business is elsewhere.

Perhaps the reader imagines this is exaggeration, or opinion?  Let us introduce some evidence!

This is an actual example of tactices used against a female candidate for office in Allentown PA reported in the Huffington Post which occurred in 2006 and again in 2008:

“When she ran for mayor of Allentown, PA in 2001, Siobhan “Sam” Bennett was already well-known in her hometown. A former PTA president, she was a pillar of the community, having founded, led, or served on the boards of various civic organizations. So she was completely taken aback by what happened during her first stump speech as a mayoral candidate. Standing before a room full of men, she began to deliver her remarks when the chair of the meeting interrupted her with a totally bizarre and inappropriate request: “Sam, I want to ask a question all the men in this room have been dying to ask you: Just what are your measurements?”

As Bennett wrote in the Huffington Post:

I was in disbelief. And if this wasn’t bad enough, a reporter who witnessed this unabashed display of sexism wrote an article about that stump speech–and didn’t even mention the incident.Unfortunately, that experience was only a hint of what would come my way….

The Opposition’s Vehemence

What came her way when she ran for Congress in 2008 was far worse. Bennett was facing a possible challenger in Pennsylvania State Senator Lisa Boscola, and Boscola’s chief of staff, Bernie Kieklak, was well known in political circles for posting no-holds-barred commentary in local blogs. The remarks he let fly about Bennett at one online site are indicative of the level of sexism and misogyny many women candidates face.

To convey the intensity of Kieklak’s over-the-top sexism regarding Bennett and his extreme vulgarity, his comments are reproduced in their entirety below with minimal censorship: Sammy Bennett is a phony political w_____e who gives good h_____d and makes cheap, blatant political opportunists look like Mother F***ing Teresa. Even her p___y is made of plastic.” [sic] [offensive language edited].”

http://womensissues.about.com/od/thepoliticalarena/a/Women-In-Politics-Sexist-Media-Sexist-Attacks-Hurt-Women-In-Politics.htm

Truly shocking, abusive behavior towards a female politician.  But run of the mill for PA, sad to say.  Welcome to the training grounds of Sens. Santorum, Casey et al.

In short, to be successful in politics as a female in PA, you have to be not twice as good, not three times as good, but about ten times as good as a man, and have a hide made of armor plated kevlar.   Morever, many notable male politicians (including a prominent past governor) are well-known for their womanizing and aggrandizing tactics towards females, which can most generously be characterized as “Clintonesque”.  Even though these matters have been reported, still they go on.

This is the environment from which both Sens. Santorum and Casey have emerged and from which they ran for office.

Here was the result of Sen. Casey’s running to the right of Sen. Santorum on Social Issues according to Sen. Casey’s wiki bio:

“On election night, Casey won the race with 59% of the vote, compared to 41% for incumbent Senator Rick Santorum. Casey’s margin of victory was the highest ever for a Democrat running for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania.^[11]Casey’s 17.4-point victory margin was the largest victory margin for a challenger to an incumbent Senator since James Abdnor unseated George McGovern by 18.8 points in 1980.”

Id.  However, the bio goes on to note that as Casey’s re-election approaches this year, he is beginning to distance himself openly from President Obama again in order to appeal to the conservative PA electorate, particularly with his blue-collar base in Wilkes-Barre and Scranton (Luzerne & Lackawanna Counties) who are very upset with the President’s performance on economic issues:

“Casey is up for re-election in 2012, and has stated that he intends to seek a second term in the Senate.^[12][13] His re-election prospects are uncertain. Observers have noted that as the election approaches, Casey, an early supporter of Obama, has “started to oppose the president outright or developed more nuanced responses to events that differentiate him from Mr. Obama. Analysts say Mr. Casey wants to put some distance between himself and a president whose job approval ratings in Pennsylvania are poor.”^[14] In October 2011, the National Journal noted that “the Scranton area is hugely important for 2012” for both Obama and Casey, but “the city has among the worst unemployment in the state, and it’s filled with the blue-collar Dems who weren’t very enthusiastic about Obama when he first ran for president. How Casey navigates his relationship with the president will speak volumes about his re-election prospects.”^[15]“

One cannot get away from one’s positions–a candidate is what a candidate espouses.  Sen. Santorum, like Sen. Casey, is a warm, charming and personable fellow.  Both are married with a number of kids–Casey has four kids, and Santorum has even more, and both their wives are full time stay at home moms.  Because that’s what they believe in, for the most part.  That moms and wives should stay at home and take care of the kids, that is.  And both of them are pro-gun, pro-second amendment, pro-death penalty, pro-life, pro-catholic, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, pro-adoption, and so on.  Indeed, it is very difficult to measure their differences on women’s issues or women’s health issues at all.

This addresses the issues, as opposed to attacking ad hominem or creating a straw man.  These candidates have espoused their positions and come to be what they are in large part, it is theorized and shown here, because of the electorate they spent a good deal of time cultivating–the uniquely conservative PA electorate.  Whether appealing to that electorate will work nationally in either Republican primaries or a National Presidential Election remains to be seen.  There has not been a President elected from PA since James Buchanan in 1856 (though Eisenhower famously took up residence near Gettysburg after he retired, and was considered an honorary PA resident, and his family still live in PA).  Perhaps with good reason.

how to increase google page rank, increase google page rank, how to increase page rank, increase page rank, increase google ranking, how to improve page rank, increase pagerank, increasing page rank, increase google pagerank, how to increase pagerank

Reflections on President Obama, Ernie Davis and Donovan McNabb January 20, 2009

Like many others, I am excited about the prospects of a new administration, and the special significance of the United States having its first African-American President. To paraphrase President Obama, we are not the red states of America, we are not the blue states of America, we are not the white states of America, we are not the black states of America, we are the United States of America. President Obama is a trailblazer and you have to like that about him.

It’s a bit of a breath of fresh air after sixteen years of what appeared to me to be four consecutive terms of arrogant, self-centered, mildly brain-damaged, somewhat lazy and self-indulgent baby boomers Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who each, both in their own awful ways, demonstrated all of the very worst traits of the baby boom generation—Clinton in his philandering and uncontrollable appetites for food, sex and manic tirades which left his security details emotionally exhausted and upset about guarding him—and Bush in his stubborn intransigent refusal to change policies, his disappearances from public view for months on end, the rumors about his drinking which would resurface from time to time, his incredible oedipal complexes regarding his father and mother, his religious conversions from Episcopalian to born again to long rumored conversion to crypto-catholicism after long meetings with the two Popes.

I say, a pox on both their houses. The last good to excellent Presidents we have had, clearly, were Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr., whose three terms ended in 1993, and culminated in the downfall of the iron curtain, and the downfall of the Russian bear, the Russian communist government which had been in place since 1917, and the liberation of hundreds of millions of people from communism, including all of the enslaved millions of Eastern Europe. to my mind, this was the greatest accomplishment of the twentieth century, on a part with the defeat of Imperial Germany in WWI and the defeat of Hitler in WWII. Bush I and Reagan deserve our admiration and our respect for this great achievement. One might also throw in there the liberation of Kuwait and the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan as well as the defeat of the communists and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua on their watch as well.

In my view, while both the Clinton and Bush II adminisrations had mixed successes, neither President could directly claim them as Presidential successes. Clinton could not claim credit for either the legislation he passed or the great economy he engendered—those were the work of the Republican Senate and House, and of his excellent Treasury Secretaries Rubin and Summers. Bush could not claim credit for the victories in the war on terror or in Afghanistan or Iraq—those were the result of VP Cheyney and the neo-con think tank, and General Petraeus. While Bush greenlighted those projects, he wasn’t the leader on them. And the economy tanked badly under Bush, as did many other domestic programs, such as EPA and FEMA. Clinton’s entire second term was marred by the Lewinsky scandal and his own impeachment, while the first two years of his first term were marred by endless scandals and the downfall of his own party in the mid-term elections of 1994, along with the destruction of his mandate for health care reform and the defeat of his reform agenda during 1993-1994. Likewise, Bush II got little or nothing done in his second term, and his approval ratings were poor, suffering as they did from the attrition of a long ground war in Asia (very LBJ like) and meandering domestic policies which culminated in economic disaster.

In short, both Presidents suffered from attention deficit disorder, self-centered personality issues, arrogance, unwillingness to listen to criticism and poor comprehension of the big picture. In short, they both betrayed the worst aspects of the baby boom generational personality. Frankly, their personalities were quite similar, in many respect, even though their policies and politics may have been different.

I leave this to the scholars and authors, but eventually, some briliant psycho historian will put this all together in a compelling thesis or book or article, comparting Bush II to Clinton, and resolving the many strands of the Baby Boom Complex. Whatever the issues, I’m glad that we can finally sweep these guys past us and under the rug.

I preferred older leaders, guys like Reagan, who organized the Screen Actors Guild in the 1930s and 1940s, or Bush I, who flew fifty or more combat missions in World War II. Those guys were real leaders who stood up for real principles and worked hard all their lives. They didn’t have time to worry about themselves because they were always worried about others.

This brings us to President Obama, a fellow that seems to fit the mold of our older civil servants, a fellow that is more interested in others than he is in himself. And you have to like that. Like Reagan, he was a sports buff when younger, and like Bush I, he gave a great deal of time when younger to public service and civil service projects at cost and expense to himself. I cannot recall too many former editors of the Harvard Law Review who spent ten years or more pacing the streets of the South Chitown ghettoes getting to know the old ladies and young men and getting them organized and out to vote. Most of those Harvard Law Review editor types go straight to NYC or DC and pick up the big bucks, especially back in the go-go 90s.

There’s something nice in the way those old grandmothers from Chicago talk about the President that you have to like. A fella that’s willing to eat a meal at someone’s modest home in the south side of Chicago is a regular guy.

Also, and this one goes out to my good friend Scott Pritikin of Chicago, you have to love the fact that President Obama is a Chicago White Sox fan, and doesn’t care for the Cubs or the Red Sox. He’s not one of those yuppies or baby boomers who instantly root for the Cubs or Red Sox because they think they’re supposed to, or because it’s the elitist thing to do.

Rooting for the White Sox is a sign of being a down to earth, South Side Chicago, Blues Guy. A guy who likes reality, not cash, who likes to play hoops, not tennis or polo. The man is real. Really real. Everything peripheral about him seems just right. He’s no baby boomer–he’s a solid citizen. He’d rather spend the day eating pie with your grandmother than fooling around with some intern. That’s way righteous. And we all know he’s a religious fellow, and a righteous fellow, and a fine speaker.

But what I’m saying is, it all seems to come from some wellspring of personal integrity and decency.

In President Obama, we finally have someone who appears, on the surface at least, to be a serious, detail-oriented, intelligent man who will devote himself 24/7 to the job of being CEO and CFO of the United States of America, the most difficult and demanding job in the world. His cabinet picks and transition team work to date has been outstanding, and he has picked excellent people. Speaking in a nonpartisan fashion, I have been impressed with his willingness to appoint people from all points of view and from all sides of the aisle to his administration, including notably Defense Secretary Gates from Bush’s administration. There does not appear to be a pronounced liberal policy bias—instead, there is a bias towards getting the jobs done right in each and every sector of government. This is a blissfully good sign of proper management skills.

Plus, the new President shoots a mean left hook and he was a great athlete in high school. Hey, he even works out with the leading scorers of college basketball. To be nearly fifty and be able to work out with college kids, that’s saying something.

His hobbies are not self-indulgent, weird or twisted. He likes to shoot hoop in his spare time at the gym. This is the kind of guy I can actually relate too. He’s not some weird, self-centered, twisted baby-boomer in search of the meaning of life either by having an affair with a white house intern or by sitting down and chatting endlessly with the Pope. This President knows himself, is comfortable with his values and sense of self, and is just about business and getting the work done. He’s a down to earth regular guy, from what I can see.

You have no idea how refreshing that is to see in a President. I wish him well, and I hope they build a basketball gym at the White House, and invite kids from the neighborhood to come and have shootarounds Mondays and Thursdays with the Prez.

Part II – Donovan McNabb and Ernie Davis

Now, onto discussing Ernie Davis and Donovan McNabb.

Last night, I finally had the chance to watch a movie that explores in detail the racial problems of the old America in detail, while also telling the story of a sports legend. I refer here to “The Express—The Ernie Davis Story” which tells the story of “The Elmira Express,” Ernie Davis, the first African-American football player ever to win the Heisman Trophy. Davis followed Jim Brown to Syracuse University and wore Jim Brown’s #44 from 1959-62, and led Syracuse to an undefeated untied season, a #1 ranking, a national championship and a Cotton Bowl victory over #2 Texas in the 1959-60 football season. His accomplishments were unbelievable.

One of President Obama’s great heroes, the late President Kennedy, admired Ernie Davis greatly. President Kennedy was also a former athlete, and played football at Harvard. He truly admired Ernie Davis for his accomplishments on the football field, and he went out of his way to praise Davis for his Heisman Award, and in the film is shown to have met Davis in person to congratulate him.

And yet Ernie Davis, who was drafted by the Cleveland Browns and would have played in the same backfield as Jim Brown (what a backfield that would have been) never played a down in the NFL. He was stuck down in the prime of life by leukemia, and died in 1963 at age 23. President Kennedy himself sent a memorial message.

This film is a great deal about the bravery and pioneering efforts not only of Davis against discrimination and bigotry, but also of Syracuse University, and their trailblazing efforts to recruit and develop African-American talent at the highest levels of national championship football. We seen in this film an unbroken chain from Jim Brown to Ernie Davis to Floyd Little, and we all know what kind of running backs Jim Brown and Floyd Little were in the NFL for the Cleveland Browns and the Denver Broncos—great ones.

This got me to thinking a great deal about the traditions of football at Syracuse, and about another great football player who is having an incredible NFL career, who also is African-American and went to Syracuse, and here I am speaking of Donovan McNabb.

Does anyone seriously doubt that Donovan McNabb went to Syracuse because he was chasing the ghosts of Jim Brown, Ernie Davis and Floyd Little? Donovan McNabb, even though he jokes and smiles, is I believe, serious about advancing the cause of greatness on the football field for African-American players. Don’t let the Chunky Soup ads fool you. Terrell Owens may be a clown, but Donovan McNabb is a thinking man’s football player, and serious about the advancement of African-Americans.

At this point, we must start asking ourselves, is Donovan McNabb the greatest African-American quarterback of all time ever to play in the NFL to date? The unequivocal answer is yes, absolutely and positively, yes. No other African-American quarterback has been to five conference championship games within an eight year span as has Donovan McNabb, including the Super Bowl. Other African-American quarterbacks have put up gaudier numbers—and here I think of Warren Moon principally—and Steve McNair was great for a long time with Houston/Tennessee and also reached the Super Bowl—but McNabb has been greater for longer and been a consistent winner for a longer period of time than any of them.

In point of fact, McNabb’s accomplishments in the NFL are very similar to those of Obama in politics. At this point in his career, anything that McNabb accomplishes, from here on out, is pioneering unchartered ground for an African-American quarterback in the NFL. McNabb of Syracuse has redefined the level of quarterback play for African-Americans in the NFL, like Jim Brown of Syracuse before him redefined the level of running back play for African-Americans in the NFL. McNabb would certainly belong in the Hall of Fame for this accomplishment alone, but beyond that, he has matched the record of Steve Young in the 1990s for appearing in five conference championship games in one decade. And no one doubts that Steve Young, Jerry Rice and George Seifert all belong in the Hall of Fame.

And I remind you all, that in none of those seasons (except perhaps the one with Terrell Owens) did McNabb ever have a receiver as gifted as Jerry Rice. Imagine if McNabb had Jerry Rice and Steve Young had to throw to Todd Pinkston or Greg Lewis for eight years. Does anyone doubt that McNabb and Rice would have gone to five super bowls while Young would have been lucky to get to one NFC conference final had those two guys had each others’ receiving corps?

This past season has defined the greatness of McNabb in so many ways. A lost season was redeemed. Impossible playoff games were won. Even in the final NFC championship game, when all seemed lost, McNabb gave a heroic, Olympian effort to win the game during the second half, and played the most beautiful, perfect quarter of football that anyone has ever seen from a quarterback in an NFC title game in decades.

That McNabb and the Eagles lost the game is irrelevant. For most of the second half, McNabb was the greatest, most dominant player I have ever witnessed on a football field. He took over the game the way only great players do, players like Jim Brown, like Joe Namath, like Roger Staubach, like Troy Aikman, like Terry Bradshaw, like Franco Harris.

And, like Ernie Davis. McNabb’s greatness was there for all to see.

I doubt seriously that we shall see his kind again.

To those who say McNabb is a good and not a great QB, you are wrong. McNabb is a great QB. It is Kurt Warner who is a good and not a great QB. Two or three great seasons, interrupted by sitting on the bench for years in NYC or playing in the arena league in other years, does not a HOF career make.

This is super bowl year 43. Next year will be Super Bowl #44. That’s Jim Brown’s Number and Ernie Davis’ Number. For some reason, I think Donovan McNabb might have extra special incentive to want to win Super Bowl #44. It would be very special indeed if he could win Super Bowl #44 in 2010. It would be homage to Jim Brown, to Ernie Davis, to Floyd Little, to Syracuse, to a whole of players who have gone before…

and it would certainly stick it to Rush Limbaugh and TO for making those horrible racists comments about McNabb a few years back…

I think the Eagles have a fine chance of coming back to the playoffs next year, and perhaps going all the way. And even if it’s 80-1, as I’ve argued elsewhere, there are worse bets in the marketplace than putting a dollar on andy reid.

–Art Kyriazis Philly/South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Phillies
Happy New Year 2009

The Horrible BCS

Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14 in the BCS National Championship Game last week to win the BCS National Championship for this past 2008-2009 season. The game was pretty even for three quarters, but in the fourth quarter, Tim Tebow and the Gators pretty much took control of the game as did the Gators’ defense. I’m certainly happy for Florida and for the good people of Gator Country.

Which reminds me of a funny story. I was interviewing for some positions early in my career in the Jacksonville, Florida region. This was a while back. I was I had flown in from the North that very morning. I was pretty young and naïve. Everywhere I went, I noticed that everyone had a certain lapel pin on. Finally, my third or fourth interview through, I asked, pretty stupidly, what is that pin y’all have on?

“Why son, THIS HEAH IS A GATAH PIN. WE HEAH ARE ALL GATAHS!!!”
In other words, they all were wearing Florida Gator pins. I knew right then and there, I was toast. There was no way they were hiring a Northerner in that or any other related office. Just to complete the story, I ran into some friends of friends some years later in LA who were Gator alums, and they assured me that U Florida was one of the best universities ever, both in terms of courses and in terms of social fun, ever. Apparently a lot of celebrities and actors send their kids there. But they, too, were Gators.

I’m actually happy for Florida and the Gators. Maybe it took Steve Spurrier leaving for them to get a national championship, or maybe just a Tim Tebow to put them over the top. Whatever, they’ve now won two BCS national championships in three years, which is a signal accomplishment.

But this is about the horrible BCS, which this year served up a couple of one loss teams in Florida and Oklahoma in the BCS Bowl. This year, other schools which have a reasonable claim to the national championship include Utah, which finished undefeated, won a BCS Bowl and destroyed their BCS opponent in that Bowl. Why wasn’t Utah in the BCS Final? Frankly, they looked pretty compelling in destroying Alabama.

Then you have the USC Trojans—who did a pretty good job of destroying the Penn State Nittany Lions, and a very good Nittany Lion team at that, one which was a one point loss from being undefeated. It’s hard to believe that USC lost a game to anyone this season. Even so, watching them in the Rose Bowl, USC certainly looked like a national champion. Why wasn’t USC playing Florida in the BCS final bowl?

Then you have Texas, which defeated Ohio State in another BCS Bowl, though it was a close game and not a decisive win. Texas didn’t really make out the case for a national championship, but certainly they belong in the mix of elite teams. Why wasn’t Texas playing Florida in the BCS final bowl?

So what this controversy builds up to is the compelling need for a national playoff system in BCS/NCAA football. Why this is so difficult escapes me. The top eight ranked teams in the BCS should be eligible for the playoffs, and should be seeded in the BCS bowls; in fact, to be REALLY fair, the BCS/NCAA should put in the top sixteen teams and seed them accordingly. They certainly have enough teams. After all, if you’re ranked first, you should have a creampuff first round opponent, eh? Meanwhile, you can get some interesting 8-9 matchups, etc.

Sixteen playoff teams will result in eight bowls in the first round, four bowls in the second round, two bowls in the third round and a final championship bowl in the penultimate round. That makes fifteen bowl games over four weeks to decide a national champion. There would be plenty of advertising money and plenty of TV rights all around. As for the remainder of the bowl games, obviously there should be a pool to allow all of the bowls to be playoff/BCS bowls from year to year—but due to regional and conference matchups other bowls will still have appeal, e.g. Penn State, Notre Dame, the service academies, even if they’re not for the playoffs or national championship.

Many, many persons have spoken out for a national playoff system in NCAA/BCS football, including our President-Elect, who is in favor. The team that has been most hurt by the lack of a national playoff system in NCAA football, without any doubt, has been Penn State. Four times in NCAA history, Penn State has had an undefeated system without being ranked #1 or having an opportunity to play for the #1 ranking in a bowl game at the end of the season. By my reckoning, Joe Paterno and Penn State should have six, not two national championships. Paterno and Penn State have been shamelessly deprived of numerous national championships by both the polling systems and by the lack of a national championship playoff system, starting in 1969 and most recently in 1993.

The other team that has been systematically discriminated against even with the BCS system is Utah, which the BCS/NCAA feels for some reason can’t play football, even though Utah churns out pro quarterbacks and pro coaches with astounding regularity. I don’t even know who the Utah quarterback is, but I bet even now he’s more likely to end up on an NFL roster than Bradford the so-called cant miss prospect from Oklahoma (who looked hopelessly confused during the fourth quarter of the BCS bowl).

Meanwhile, Tebow, who the NFL scouts say won’t make it in the NFL, there’s a guy I’d certainly draft if I was GM for an NFL team. Tebow is a born leader. I’ve only ever seen one guy do that jump pass thing—the star quarterback of our prep school football team—and all he did was play for BC four years and play for the Giants until he messed up his ankle. He’s a professional sports announcer now. I say Tebow can play pro—he’s got the desire.

But the horrible BCS has to be overhauled. We need a playoff system. I’m pretty sure Tebow and Florida would still win such a system, and the final game would probably be Florida and USC. But what a game that would be.

–Art Kyriazis Philly/South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies
Happy New Year 2009

JOE PATERNO

Joe Paterno was coaching before I was around and he may be coaching after I’m gone. He’s been coaching so long that no one remembers a time when he was not the coach of Penn State, although I had an uncle, who’s now passed away a few years now, who was recruited to play football at Penn State back in the 1950s for Rip Engle, who once was the coach before Joe Paterno, but Joe Pa was Rip’s assistant coach even then.

Joe Paterno and the Nittany Lions may have lost the Rose Bowl, but so what? Penn State Football is one of the greatest institutions known to mankind. You see ex-Penn State ballplayers everywhere, from every generation, the 50s, the 60s, the 70s and onwards to the present day—and the names are incredible—Lennie Moore, John Cappelletti, Franco Harris, Matt Millen, Dan Connor, Kerry Collins and so forth. There was a time when Penn State used to provide about 10-20 per cent of all of the NFL’s linebackers and kickers. There were Matt and Chris Bahr of Penn State. There were Lydell Mitchell and Franco Harris, who must have gained 20,000 yards between them for the Colts and Steelers. Rosie Grier, who was by Bobby Kennedy’s side when he was shot, and who was an incredible person as well as an amazing football player.

Penn State football players graduate. They all leave with degrees, with intelligence and with personality. Happy Valley is a wonderful place, and Penn State is one of the finest universities in the world. Joe Paterno is the uncrowned Emperor of Happy Valley, and in another era, he would have been an Emperor—perhaps of the Romans, or the Austro-Hungarians, or the Holy Roman Empire. His is a loving and kind autocracy, a gentle and good autarky. Emperor Paterno is beloved by his subjects, adored by his colleagues, and will rule for life.

It’s true that once upon a time he was just a scrappy Italian-American kid from Brooklyn, who got a chance to play quarterback at Brown in the 40s, and made good, but that was a long time ago. He’s passed from kid to man, from man to legend, from legend to hero, and from hero to myth. And we worship him because we should. He is a role model befitting us all.

So here’s to Coach Paterno, one of the greatest of the great. The pride of Pennsylvania and of Penn State, and the reason why wherever you go in this good Commonwealth at holiday time, people put out their American Flag, their crèches and/or Hanukkah Lights or whatever, and their statues of the Nittany Lion and Penn State Flags. Because we love him and revere him. Because he’s good old Joe. Penn State Nation and Pennsylvania would not be what they are without him.

Art Kyriazis – Philly/South Jersey
Home of the World Champion Phillies
Happy New Year 2009