Two men, two concepts of honor

This week we got the not-too-surprising news that Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania was switching parties, leaving the Republicans and becoming a Democrat.

Specter, frankly, has always been a pain in the butt. He got his start in politics by switching parties - from Democrat to Republican - back in the 1960s when he wanted to run for office in Philadelphia. Once he made it to the Senate he became the ultimate RINO. (That's "Republican-In-Name-Only," much like one of my former bosses, Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson, who, like Specter, was a self-serving pain in the butt. But that's a post for another day.)

Specter's primary concern was always "What's best for Arlen Specter?", with actual policy concerns further down the list. The low point was 1987, when - as the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee - he teamed up with Ted Kennedy in the character assassination of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

The scuttling of the Bork nomination was one of the real low points in Senate history. Bork was perhaps the most brilliant constitutional mind in America, was extraordinarily qualified for the court and would have been an outstanding justice. But the Kennedy-led campaign of lies and distortion - aided and abetted by Specter - killed the nomination, and ushered in a new era of extreme politicization of judicial nominees that continues to this day.

Of course Specter got kudos for being "thoughtful" and "moderate" from liberals, and for him, that was the point. If what was good for Arlen Specter conflicted with what was good for the country, he would always take the path of self-preservation.

Which is what his latest move is. Six years ago, a Pennsylvania congressman named Pat Toomey - fed up with Specter's liberal voting record - challenged Specter in the Republican primary, and came surprisingly close, losing by just 1.7%.

This year, Toomey announced another primary challenge, and the latest polls showed Toomey leading Specter among Republican primary voters by as much as 21%. In other words, Specter's not leaving the party because he suddenly realized most Republicans were conservative, he's leaving because he was just a few months away from being voted out.

All of this made me think of another party-switching politician, a fellow from Texas named Phil Gramm.

Gramm was a Democrat congressman in the 1980s, but like many Texas Democrats, he was fairly conservative. A college professor with a doctorate in economics, Gramm was a strong advocate of tax cuts and free trade, and in 1983 his support for much of the Reagan economic plan found him at odds with his fellow Democrats, especially House Speaker Tip O'Neill. So Gramm decided to switch parties, and become a Republican.

But Gramm had a tremendous sense of honor. He reasoned that his switching of parties was unfair to the voters who had recently elected him as a Democrat. So in addition to switching parties, he resigned his seat and went home to Texas to run in a special election. Running as a Republican, he was sent back to Washington by the voters, who later elected him to the Senate, where he was a strong, effective voice from 1984-2002.

(In that special election race, Gramm made a famous TV ad that became one of my favorites. He was shown talking to Texas voters and said "I had to choose between Tip O'Neill and y'all, and I chose to represent y'all." I can't find it on YouTube, but if I do, I'll post a link. He was one of my favorite senators to listen to during floor debates...always funny and insightful, with that great Texas twang.)

If Specter had even a fraction of Gramm's sense of decency, he would resign his seat, let the Governor of Pennsylvania appoint a replacement, and then run in the next election. He'll never do it, of course, because it might not be in the best interests of Arlen Specter, and in his world, that's all that matters.

Swine flu: Been there, done that.

It's hard for my children to believe, but there are a few advantages to being a little older. One of those is the perspective you have of various hysterias that come up from time to time.

The crisis du jour, of course, is swine flu, set to wipe out millions, just as bird flu was going to do last year, and SARS a couple years ealier.

Well kids, old dad is a veteran of the swine flu wars. Back in the 1970s, when I was a teenager and dinosaurs roamed the earth, swine flu was on the march. It was going to be worse than the black plague and disco put together, and kill more people a day than Ted Kennedy's driving.

Except, of course, it didn't. And maybe that was because of these super-cool, highly informative Public Service Announcements. Enjoy them here.

Are we special? Should we be special?

At some point in college a professor introduced me to the concept of "American Exceptionalism," which he described as the idea that there is something special and unique about America and its place in the world.

This professor wasn't advocating for the notion that America has a special place in the heirarchy of nations; In fact, he went to great lengths to try to convince us otherwise. In his view, the United States was nothing more than another name in the roll call of countries, somewhere between Uganda and Uruguay.

But the idea of American Exceptionalism stuck with me, and even seemed to reinforce some of the things I had felt, but had never really been able to express. American Exceptionalism, in my mind, came to mean the idea that America had a role to play as leader of the world, to be the defender of concepts like individual liberty, free speech and free enterprise.

I was never able to articulate that idea very well, and then along came Ronald Reagan, who pretty much nailed what I had been trying to say when he said:

"I've always believed that this blessed land was set apart in a special way, that some divine plan placed this great continent here between the oceans to be found by people from every corner of the Earth who had a special love for freedom and the courage to uproot themselves, leave homeland and friends, to come to a strange land. And coming here they created something new in all the history of mankind -- a land where man is not beholden to government, government is beholden to man."

It was exactly what I had been trying to articulate. Of course, to believe that America is part of a divine plan, you have to believe in a divinity. You have to feel as though God has a plan, and is at work in our world, and I recognize that many of my friends on the left will reject that idea. But that's a discussion for another day.

But that concept became the cornerstone of what I believed about America and its place in the world. It was American's unique place that helped hold the world together. When Nazis and Communists threatened, we were the "Arsenal of Democracy" that helped put them down. Whenever there was trouble around the world, it was America that was asked to help - and that always answered the call. Whatever the country's faults - and there are many - I found it easy to overlook them since our motives were pure.

And I realize that this sounds a bit naive, but I was always taken aback when someone else even questioned the concept. In debates with my lefty friends, I often posed the question this way: Would the world be better off if more countries were like America - with a democratically-elected government, a free enterprise economy and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, or would the world be better of if fewer countries were like America?

After Reagan was diagnosed with the disease that would end his life, he wrote his good-bye letter and concluded it by saying "For America, there will always be a bright dawn ahead." And I agreed, and always believed it. The idea that American democracy and liberty would continue to be the dominant force in the world was something I never doubted.

Until recently.

While in Europe, President Obama was asked if he believed in "American Exceptionalism," and he was dismissive of the idea, saying, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

It was all part of the same message he's been sending around the world, apologizing for America, schmoozing up America-hating dictators and bowing down to an Arab king. (See April 2 blog post.)

Which has led me to think: How long can the idea of American Exceptionalism flourish when the leader of the country doesn't even believe in it?

During the Carter years - mercifully brief as they were - and during the Clinton years, I disagreed with various policies and positions, but I never doubted the future of America. I never worried that this nation of freedom and liberty and opportunity might not be there for my children and grandchildren. And perhaps I'm being an alarmist now - or just becoming a cranky old man - but for the first time in my life, I wonder: Can this "shining city on a hill" (more Reagan, of course, quoting John Winthrop) stand against Islamic nuclear weapons, North Korean missiles and the rotting-from-the-inside that happens when the people of a country no longer believe that country holds a special place in the world?

Silver lining in a tragic story

I had a very hectic day Saturday, but all in working for a good cause: Getting a client some positive publicity.

One of my clients is a hockey league known as the Upper Midwest High School Elite League. It's a fall league for high school players, designed to give elite-level players an opportunity to play against other high-level players while staying in high school (as opposed to leaving school to go play junior hockey somewhere else.)

Among the many volunteers that help the league are a wonderful couple named Ken and Paula Gamer. Last Thursday the Gamer's home in Medina burned to the ground, taking almost all of their possessions in the process, including the hockey gear of their 11-year-old son, Charlie.

Charlie is playing in a spring hockey league, and was supposed to play in a tournament this past weekend in Bloomington. One of the fellows who helps run the Elite League, Bob Fallen, knew about the Gamer's fire and the fact that Charlie now had no hockey equipment. He also knew that Charlie's parents had other things on their mind than pee-wee hockey.

So Bob called the folks at Bauer Hockey - one of the league's sponsors - and said the Elite League would like to purchase new equipment for Charlie, and asked which retailer Bauer would recommend. Then the story got even better.

The folks at Bauer said they would be happy to take care of replacing all of Charlie's equipment, at no cost to the family or the league. Instead, they had the Gamers take Charlie over to Letterman's Sports in Blaine, and on Friday Charlie got new skates, gloves, helmet, shoulder pads, breezers, elbow pads...everything he needed to get back on the ice. On Saturday he was able to be back with his team, playing in the tournament.

It was a great story, and a great example of how the Minnesota hockey community takes care of its own, and when I learned about all of this on Friday night, I knew it was a story that needed to get out.

So I spent a good chunk of time Saturday writing a pitch and a press release, and working the phones, trying to line up some media coverage of the story. Several media outlets responded, and the story of the Gamers, the Elite League and the generosity of Bauer was told on local TV stations.

If you click here you can see WCCO-TV's story, which was the best of the bunch. Ken Gamer was very gracious about taking time to talk to the reporters, and we even got Charlie a little face time to make his TV debut.

Obviously it's a huge tragedy for the Gamers to lose their home, and replacing some hockey gear is miniscule compared to what they will be going through in the weeks and months ahead, but it was really nice to be able to work on a "warm, fuzzy" story and see it make it on air.

How much is $100 Million?

Let me open by saying there is absolutely nothing partisan about this post. I think the government has grown too large and too intrusive under administrations of every party. This is just math, not political science.

Yesterday the President held his first Cabinet meeting, and his PR folks announced that he had directed the various Cabinet secretaries to find, over the next 90 days, $100 million in budget savings.


Sounds impressive, right? After all, $100 million is a lot of money to most of us. Just mention the figure, and folks will start daydreaming about what they would do if they had a $100 million. (Personally, my first thought is that I'd like to buy an NHL franchise. Turns out I couldn't get one for $100 million...Not even the Phoenix Coyotes.)

With $100 million you could:

-- Feed 120,000 children for a year;

-- Buy yourself a new Rolls-Royce every day for six weeks

-- Provide health insurance for a year to 140,000 Americans

-- Buy your own fleet of 8 LearJet 45s

So it seems like we're talking about a lot of money.

But when you're talking about the federal government, it's important to understand that $100 million is NOTHING. And I do mean NOTHING.

$100 million is the amount of money the federal government spends EVERY 13 MINUTES!

$100 million is 1/260th of the budget of Massachusetts;

$100 million is ONE DAY of interest on the money borrowed for the "stimulus bill" that passed earlier this year;

$100 million is less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane;

Let's boil it down to personal terms. Let's say you make $80,000 a year. How much money would you have to cut out of your budget to equal the federal government cutting $100 million out of its budget?

Two bucks.

Yes, that's right. $2 is to $80,000 as $100 million is to the federal budget.

The day after the White House announced its $100 million cut, the President signed a new funding bill for AmeriCorps, the ridiculous program under which we pay young people to do volunteer work. (How is it "volunteer" work if the government is paying you for it? Different question, different blog post.) The cost of the bill? $5.7 billion, or 57 times the amount of budget cuts ordered by the President on Monday.

It's all just something to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician call for a tax increase, or insist that the budget has been "cut to the bone."

A lesson in left-wing hypocrisy, or, The President is so stupid he thinks Austrian is a language.

When I was working in the U.S. Senate back in the 1980s, the junior senator from Indiana was a fellow named Dan Quayle. He had a reputation as a bright, serious, earnest young up-and-comer, and then an unfortunate thing happened: He was elected Vice-President of the United States. I say "unfortunate" because few people come out of the office looking better than when they went in. (Although it's hard to see how we could think any less of Joe Biden in four years than we do now.)

The media and the left-wingers (forgive the redundancy) didn't like the thought of a bright, articulate, rising young conservative star, and they spent the next four years attacking him at every turn.

At one point, VP Quayle was visiting an elementary school. He was brought into a class that was conducting a spelling bee that day, and the teacher asked the Vice President if he would like to read a few of the flash cards he had selected and give the kids a chance to spell the word. The VP agreed.

One of the cards the teacher had selected had the word "P-O-T-A-T-O-E." That's "potato" with an "E," an older, less-common spelling. Up stepped a young man, and VP Quayle asked the young man to spell the word "potatoe." Which the young man did, writing it out on the board, except he didn't add the "E" on the end. Not wanting to undermine the teacher in whose classroom he was a guest, the VP had to tell the young man that the spelling "P-O-T-A-T-O" was incorrect and that it should have an "E" on the end of it.

The geniuses in the Washington press corps jumped on the story: "Look at this" they said. "The Vice-President can't even spell potato." Then Leno told a joke, and Letterman told a joke and before you knew it, it had become a "fact:" Dan Quayle couldn't spell potato. I have a friend - a committed Commie, but that's another story - who still loves to say "Dan Quayle was so stupid he couldn't even spell potato."

But of course, the whole story was a lie, an urban myth. Quayle was simply following the spelling on the flash card the teacher provided.

So, why bring this story up, almost 20 years later? Well, here's why:

Because the other day, while speaking in Austria, the President of the United States said this:

"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing..."

(The video clip is here.)

That's right, folks, the President - the guy with the big Harvard education plus all those alleged "street smarts" - thinks Austrian is a LANGUAGE. Any dummy who ever sat through 'The Sound of Music" knows that Austrians speak German - and have been doing so for several centuries - and that there has never been an "Austrian" language.

And yet, I'm willing to bet that most of you never saw this clip or heard the story before today. Why is that? Gee, it couldn't be because the media buried the story, is it? It couldn't be because "Saint Obama" could never make a mistake in the media's eyes, is it? Why isn't Keith "Bonehead" Olberman cackling about this? Hmm, I wonder....

Go to the New York Times web site and search for the terms "Obama" and "Austrian" and you won't find a story about the incident. Then imagine for a moment the media frenzy that would have ensued if Sarah Palin or George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan had said "I don't know what the term is in Austrian."

So, now I have a line to use for the next 44 months whenever someone mentions Obama. I'm simply going to say "You mean the guy who is so stupid he thinks Austrian is a language?"

Perhaps on future trips he'll try to say something in "Australian" or "Canadian." Or maybe this week he'll try to speak "Mexican" while he's down there. Then later, in Latin America, he can try some of the Latin he learned at Harvard Law School.

Consider it Dan Quayle's revenge.

Oooh, baby, baby it's a Wild world....

Havoc in St. Paul: Today we get word that the Wild have fired General Manager Doug Reisbrough, the GM who has been here since the team's inception. So in addition to missing the playoffs, we are now dealing with:

1) Replacing the only coach we've ever had
2) Replacing the only GM we've ever had
3) The upcoming draft, in which we have the #12 pick
4) The free agency period, which begins July 1, in which our biggest star - Marian Gaborik, see April 9 blog entry - is the biggest name on the market.

I've not yet met Craig Leipold, the man who has owned the Wild for about a year, but he's got a lot of big decisions on his plate right now, and if he's doesn't make the right choices he can set this franchise back a lot of years. Good luck, CL, we need to get these right.

And a special shout-out to Star-Tribune writer Mike Russo, who had the news about Reisbrough up on his blog almost half an hour before any other media outlet. He's one of the finest, and hardest-working, writers in the business, and a real bright light on what is otherwise an almost-useless fishwrap of a newspaper.