Why Not Dale Murphy?

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

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

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?"

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

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

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

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.