Sunday, November 07, 2010

Night of numbers for Penn State's Paterno

Sunday, November 07, 2010
By Ron Cook, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/

Penn State head coach Joe Paterno gets carried off the field after getting his 400th career win against Northwestern at Beaver Stadium in University Park, Pa. Saturday. (Lake Fong/Post-Gazette)

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa.

This wonderful, magical night at the State University of Pennsylvania was about an amazing number, but it isn't the one you might think. It wasn't so much about Joe Paterno's 400th career coaching win -- a 35-21 come-from-behind stunner against Northwestern Saturday -- although that's an extraordinary total that you and your kids and their kids never will see matched in your and their lifetimes by one coach at one school at the highest level of college football. It was more about the 104,147 fans who came to Beaver Stadium to see sports history, a much different, more throbbing crowd than the one of 40,911 who turned out at the stadium for Paterno's first victory against Maryland back on Sept. 17, 1966. Really, it's about the total number of fans who have watched Penn State play at Beaver Stadium during the Paterno era, now in its 45th year and showing no signs of stopping.

25,523,603.

Good luck wrapping your arms around that figure.

"It's funny; his whole thing when I played here [in the late-1960s] was about putting Penn State on the map," former All-American and Steelers Hall of Fame linebacker Jack Ham was musing about Paterno before the game Saturday. "People thought we were the University of Pennsylvania. They thought we were in Philadelphia. Now, they know better."

Certainly, the big crowd Saturday night realized what Paterno has meant to Penn State. Just about all of the 104,000-and-change hung around to watch the classy on-field tribute that school officials did for him. Video on the scoreboard took him way back in time, tracing his life at Penn State, beginning in 1950 when he broke his parents' hearts by passing up law school to join coach Rip Engle's staff for the first of 16 seasons as an assistant coach. His wife, Sue, was on his arm. His five children, including son, Jay, his quarterbacks coach, who was in tears, were there on the podium, as were their spouses and the 17 Paterno grandchildren.

You should have heard those fans roar when they finally handed Paterno the microphone. His voice, so weak this summer when he was sick and looking as if he wouldn't make it through the season, sounded mighty fine and powerful. At that incredible moment, he didn't look at all 83, soon to be 84 on Dec. 21.

"People ask me why I've stayed here so long," Paterno said. "You know what, look around ... Look around."

It was an incredible sight.

The energy was staggering.

It's just one piece of the Paterno legacy, a legacy that's unmatched in college football history. There's the Paterno Library on campus. The $4 million he and Sue have donated to Penn State. The countless millions he has raised as the university's best goodwill ambassador.

And, of course, those 400 wins.

"I can't imagine anyone ever getting there again unless they start playing 25 games a year in college football," Ham gushed under his white "JoePa" ballcap,

A man has to have incredible staying power to get to that number. Harry Truman was in the White House when Paterno joined Engle's staff. Ten presidents have come and gone since then with there being no guarantees that the 11th -- Barack Obama -- will outlast Paterno. In typical fashion for a man who's always looking ahead to the next game, the last thing he told the crowd was, "Now that the celebration is over, let's go beat Ohio State [next Saturday]!" He didn't sound at all as if he was close to retiring.

That's just fine with the Penn State students. They like living in "Paternoville" outside Beaver Stadium the night before home games, better to get the good seats when they open the gates. They had chanted "JoePa-Terno" as the clock ticked down on Penn State's comeback from a 21-0 deficit, matching the largest comeback by a Paterno team. Cameras flashed throughout the stadium. People wanted to capture the moment. Kids held up signs, "400 The Paterno Way." The scoreboard rolled off a list of each of his wins. Good thing the Penn State people did it at the same speed they run movie credits or we'd still be waiting for the finish.

"It's not just about the 400 wins," Penn State athletic director Tim Curley told the crowd. "It's about how they were accomplished: Success with honor and integrity."

400 The Paterno Way.

The final words here are reserved for Alabama coach Nick Saban, one of the many coaches who only can dream of having a career like Paterno's. His team put a 24-3 licking on Penn State in Tuscaloosa Sept. 11, giving Paterno one of his 132 defeats.

"In his 45 years at Penn State," Saban said, "there isn't a classier program or classier gentleman, a better teacher or a guy who has affected more lives in a positive way ... "

What a nice way to be remembered.

And 400 wins to boot!

"I've been awfully lucky," Paterno said, quietly.

Pretty good, too.

Ron Cook: rcook@post-gazette.com. Ron Cook can be heard on the "Vinnie and Cook" show weekdays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 93.7 The Fan.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10311/1101459-143.stm#ixzz14cTrTg00

Remembering Sparky Anderson

Sparky Anderson, thanks for the memories

Former Reds manager was gregarious, loving and well-loved.


By Paul Daugherty
Cincinnati Enquirer
http://news.cincinnati.com/
November 4, 2010

Former Reds Manager Sparky Anderson with his bronzed image in 2004. The Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame celebrated its completion with a gala attended by former and present day Reds players. (Enquirer file photo)

If sports provide the carnival music of our lives, Sparky Anderson was the barker.

It was a good time to be alive and in Cincinnati in the 1970s. You could thank Sparky for some of that. Leaning forward from the dugout rail, yapping at his “boys,’’ loving baseball and his role in it. A lucky man who knew it.

Not long ago, he stopped eating. Dementia does that to a person. Swallowing can be impaired; the connection between eating and staying alive is lost. It’s as if the brain tells the body “enough.’’

He died peacefully and without fanfare Thursday. George Lee Anderson was 76. There’s some wonderful and ironic Big Red symmetry there.

Dying peacefully wasn’t especially like Sparky Anderson. He was gregarious, loving and well-loved. The no-fanfare would have been OK with him, though. He’d have appreciated that. Sparky wouldn’t want no fuss made.

“It’s them guys out there that do it,’’ he might say, stretching a finger in the direction of the ballfield. “It wasn’t what I did. It was what they did. I got the easiest job in the world.’’

He managed the Reds to four pennants and two world titles. He arrived in 1970, a 36-year-old career bus rider that Lee May referred to early on as “that minor-league mother.’’ He departed nine years later as the jockey who rode the Secretariat of major league teams.

Anderson was comfortable with fame. It just never changed him, which was remarkable. He was also easy with crediting everyone else, a trait that served the Reds well during their star-filled run. “He had everyone’s respect, but he had to earn it, and he did,’’ Johnny Bench recalled Wednesday.

Reds manager Sparky Anderson in 1977, watching a game versus the Dodgers at Riverfront Stadium. (Enquirer file photo)

A few years ago, I did a book with Bench. We talked at length about Sparky. Bench said the Main Spark’s best attribute was his ability to manage people. From the book, Catch Every Ball:
Sparky took the time to know his players individually, so when he needed to motivate someone, he knew what made him tick.

Anderson would consult The Big Four (Bench, Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Joe Morgan) before recommending a trade to the general manager. If we didn’t like the player or didn’t believe he’d fit our team, we’d veto him. If there was a guy available we wouldn’t like to have dinner with, he wouldn’t be on our club.

Joe, Pete, Tony and I ruled the clubhouse. One spring, Sparky told the team, “I have one set of rules for you guys, and one set for them,” pointing to The Big Four. “Their rules are, they have no rules.”

“He relied on our information, but made the decisions,’’ said Bench. “And 99.9 percent of the time, he was right.’’

The Big Four repaid Anderson’s respect for them with championships, and love of the sort only ballplayers know. Pete Rose visited Anderson recently; Bench and Morgan saw him in August, in Cooperstown at the Hall of Fame induction ceremonies. “It was sad,’’ Bench recalled.

Anderson couldn’t hear. He’d gotten new hearing aids not long before he made the trip to Cooperstown, but had forgotten to remove them when he took a shower. “When you can’t hear, it’s like you’re living in a vacuum. His social life stopped,’’ Bench said. “We were just all holding our breath in Cooperstown, hoping he’d make a comeback.’’

Bench recalled a photo he took of his former manager that day. “He had a faraway look in his eyes,’’ Bench said, “like he was already gone.’’

I asked Bench to look into his mind’s eye and fetch an image of Anderson.

“Smiling, happy and brilliant,’’ Bench said. “That lean he always had. . . The fact he never stepped on a foul line. . . ‘Big John, how ya doin’?’ … we’re in spring training once, in the outfield doing calisthenics. He came up, started feinting, like he was boxing. I clipped him with a left jab on top of his head. He wanted to be one of the guys.

“Sparky gave me stature,’’ Bench continued. He gave the team a level of professionalism and the fans a team that would be respected.’’

Icons die ingloriously, same as the rest of us. The difference is the memories they bequeath. Once upon a time, there was a team that played baseball as well as any before or since. Sparky Anderson managed it. We all were younger then.

pdaugherty@enquirer.com


An essay on Sparky Anderson

Enquirer writer shares his thoughts on Reds great


By John Erardi
Cincinnati Enquirer
http://news.cincinnati.com/
November 4, 2010

Sombebody once asked Sparky Anderson what was his favorite kind of music.

"The love songs," he answered.

No three words ever described a man better.

In 25 years of covering sports in Cincinnati, I only once got somebody's autograph – Sparky Anderson's.


2008 Goudey

Under the strictures of the Baseball Writers Association of America, I wasn't supposed to get any. I made a one-time exception for my mother, bedridden from multiple sclerosis. Sparky was one of her favorite guys, so I figured what the heck.

Besides, it wasn't a public setting; it was just me and Sparky. I recall it taking place in Louisville in the mid-to-late 1980s when Anderson's Detroit Tigers were in town to play an exhibition game.

I think we talked about Sparky's and my mother's love of country music. I've never been a big fan of the genre, but I understood their point: Country and western songs have the best storylines.

I remember leaving our meeting thinking, "Man, what a nice guy."

I've never had a feeling on the job quite like that since – except when I'd see Sparky again.

I'm writing this today not because Sparky has just died. I've been saying it for years whenever somebody has asked me who is the nicest person I've ever met in sports. My answer's always been the same: "Sparky Anderson - nobody else even close."

Everybody who ever met Sparky has a Sparky story, because he was congenitally kind. Sparky would dispute the congenital part. He says he learned it from his father growing up in Bridgewater, S.D.

It doesn’t cost anything to be nice to people.

My Enquirer colleague Bill Koch recently told me of having driven with another journalist to the Otesaga Hotel in Cooperstown, N.Y., late in the afternoon on the day of their arrival for Induction Weekend at the Baseball Hall of Fame. They were scrambling for a first-day story, as often happens for journalists.

They found a side road onto which to pull their rental car. As they approached the hotel, who should be walking down the driveway and headed back to the hotel?

"Hey, Lonnie, check this out," Koch pointed.

It was none other than George "Sparky" Anderson, media gold, dropped down from heaven.

"He didn't know me," Koch said. "He didn't have to stop and talk. But he stood there and talked to us for 30 minutes like we were his next-door neighbors."

Which was, of course, the charm of the man.

I didn't know Sparky well, but he always gave me a smile and handshake that I took to mean he remembered my face.

How sweet that twinkle of recognition.

I remember once being in the manager's office in Detroit where I had gone to write a feature on the Tigers manager.

I lost track of the time. It was Sparky who woke me from my reverie.

"Excuse me – that's the national anthem," he said. "I'm always out there for the anthem."

It was 10 minutes before game time. I should have been out of his office a half hour earlier. We'd been talking about the Big Red Machine; he could've gone on forever. Not because he needed to, but because I needed him to.

There is only one other person I've ever met who was so totally devoid of any pretense whatsoever about his celebrity: Joe Nuxhall.

Toward the end of Sparky's 17-year run in Detroit, I recall hearing that he had to take a leave of absence; he was exhausted. There was, we were told, a public and a private Anderson. "Sparky" never said no to anybody when he was managing, on the field or off. Back home in Thousand Oaks, "George" Anderson could say no.

But it wasn't a phony "Sparky." It couldn't have been. Nobody can be that nice that long unless it's real. Besides, there are countless stories of him back home in the neighborhood, being everybody's best friend, even when he was just out taking a walk.

Before I got into sports writing, I was driving to work one day in the mid-1970s, and who should cross the street in front of me – between downtown and Riverfront Stadium – but Sparky Anderson. I'd never before seen the man except from the stands or on TV. He was carrying his dry cleaning. It caught me off-guard. It shouldn't have. It was Sparky. He picked up and dropped off his own laundry. I would later learn that Sparky was a "neat freak."

That day, a couple of horns of recognition honked. I remember yelling something at the Reds' skipper – he was God in this town in the mid-1970s – something like, "Hey, Main Spark!" He waved back.

That's the way I'll remember him.

I've never written a story about somebody without saying something more than "What a nice guy." I don't expect I ever will again.

Sparky Anderson was one of a kind.

jerardi@enquirer.com


Losing Sparky like losing family

The Skipper held court, built up his players and lit up a room


BY MITCH ALBOM
DETROIT FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
http://www.freep.com/section/SPORTS
November 5, 2010

I had a dream about Sparky Anderson a few days ago. He looked old and his hair was brown, and I called to him, but he didn't recognize me. Only after I said my name did he smile.

And then it ended.

Detroit Tigers manager Sparky Anderson relaxes with his pipe and a newspaper in the Tigers locker room before a game against Milwaukee in Detroit on Oct. 2, 1981. (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

I'd been wondering about that dream because Sparky doesn't usually show up in my REM cycle. And why was his hair brown? Sparky? The original White Wizard? Then, Thursday afternoon, I heard the jarring news: At age 76, Anderson, one of the most colorful, charming, perfectly suited managers baseball ever produced, had died in California.

I don't know what that means for the dream. I know what it means for baseball. A mold has been forever shattered. Fans of a certain generation need only hear the word "Sparky" and they'll know what just passed. And kids, well, it may be hard to explain. Anderson didn't belong to today's fantasy league/money ball/analytics world of baseball. He was born to manage it. Not study it. Not even play it. (He was a pretty lousy player.) Manage it. He got the game. He felt it. He gripped the clubhouse the way Ruth or DiMaggio gripped a bat. He played hunches, pulled pitchers, tinkered lineups. He lived the game's lore until he became part of it. Baseball wasn't a diamond to Sparky, it was a planet. His home.

Unlike most managers, Sparky Anderson actually looked more natural in a baseball outfit than in regular clothes. If you saw him in a shirt and tie or, heaven forbid, one of those colorful sweatsuits he sometimes wore, you wanted him to yank it off, Superman style, and reveal the leggings, the belt, the cap.

You know. The Sparky look.

He knew the game inside out

George Lee Anderson was baseball. As a kid in Los Angeles, he played the game with Buckwheat from the "Little Rascals." True story. I learned this in one of countless visits to his inner sanctum, the manager's office. Those lucky enough to get inside recall a whirling dervish of a man in his underwear, scarfing spaghetti, his head almost in the sauce, but talking. Or a man hurled back in his chair like a king, hands raking through his white hair, still talking. Or a man stuffing his pipe with tobacco, eyes on the stem, still talking.

I've heard Sparky talk about the Pope ("Oh, that man there, what a face!"), an alternative career ("I woulda been a painter like my daddy"), even a punk rock group, The Dead Milkmen. Ain't? None? Nobody? No? I have heard Sparky use so many negatives in one sentence that it became a positive.

But the players who heard him talk baseball were the luckiest of all. He knew the game's DNA. Don't misunderstand. Sparky was no Kumbaya campfire skipper. He made his players shave. Dress in jackets and ties. To paraphrase Kipling, they all counted with him, but none too much. Kirk Gibson remembers a time Anderson called him into the office, yelling, "Big Boy, come in here! ... You got something to say?" And Gibson did. He ranted and raved for three minutes, uninterrupted, about playing time and usage. Finally, Sparky nodded and said, "Are you done?" Yes, Gibson said. Sparky motioned to the door -- go on now, get out -- and never added a word.

"But I felt better," Gibson recalled.

And that was Sparky's touch.

Hall of Fame inductee Sparky Anderson views a display featuring artifacts from the Detroit Tigers' 1984 World Series win at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, N.Y., on April 18, 2000. (Tim Roske/AP)

'A father figure' to his players

Anderson's accomplishments speak for themselves. (And given how much Sparky spoke, that's saying something.) Sixth on the all-time wins list. World Series titles in both leagues. Hall of Famer.

But in the flood of memories Thursday from former players, few focused on that, and nearly all focused on how cherished they felt by him, how much he molded them. Cecil Fielder referred to him as "a father figure." Jack Morris said the team felt like "his family." Lance Parrish recalled Anderson's endless charity work.

It would be fitting to ask Ernie Harwell -- he and Sparky walked together every morning on road trips -- but we lost Ernie this year, too, and it seems like some heavenly roll call is taking place in our town.

I know this. The Sparky I saw in my dream wasn't the Sparky we loved -- nothing brown about him -- and if that was to be his path with the dementia he suffered, perhaps this is a kinder fate. Better to recall the best manager Detroit ever had as smiling, chatting, lighting up a room with a gravelly "How ya doin'?" Forever young in name and spirit, forever white and bright.


A Manager Who Stuck to His Guns and Fired Away

By DAVE ANDERSON
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
November 6, 2010

Lennox Mclendon/Associated Press

Sparky Anderson, who died Thursday, managed Detroit and Cincinnati to World Series titles.


To everyone in baseball he was Sparky Anderson; hardly anybody called him George. But as a manager, he was not just a spark. He was a bonfire who sometimes burst into a three-alarm blaze.

He led Cincinnati’s Big Red Machine to World Series championships in 1975 and 1976, but when the Reds finished second the next two seasons, he was abruptly dismissed.

“I burned inside ever since I was fired in Cincinnati,” Anderson, who died of complications of dementia on Thurday at 76, often said. “I hold no grudges — that’s part of the game. But I won’t stop driving until I prove I’m right.”

Hired early in the 1979 season by the Detroit Tigers, he slowly assembled the team with Kirk Gibson and Alan Trammell that soared to a 35-5 start in 1984 and dominated the San Diego Padres in the World Series. He had proved that he was right, that he was much more than a “push-button manager” who in Cincinnati had won those two Series, four National League pennants and five divisional titles.

“We heard that for nine years, my coaches and me,” he said with a serrated edge in his voice when the Tigers won that 1984 Series. “But we only had three people from the team we inherited: Johnny Bench, Pete Rose and Tony Perez. Three men make a dynasty — I didn’t know that.”

His teams in Cincinnati also had second baseman Joe Morgan, an eventual Hall of Famer, as well as shortstop Dave Concepcion; outfielders George Foster, Ken Griffey Sr., and Cesar Geronimo; and pitchers Don Gullett, Jack Billingham, Pat Zachry and Rawly Eastwick. In the classic 1975 Series, the Reds beat the Boston Red Sox in seven games, and then they swept the Yankees in four games in 1976.

During his news conference after the Series finale in 1976, Anderson was asked to compare Yankee catcher Thurman Munson, who was voted the American League’s most valuable player that season, with Bench, the Reds catcher and eventual Hall of Famer who had been the National League’s M.V.P. in 1970 and 1972. The question lighted the bonfire of Anderson’s loyalty to his players.



“Munson is an outstanding ballplayer and he would hit .300 in the National League,” he replied sharply, “but don’t ever compare nobody to Johnny Bench; don’t never embarrass nobody by comparing them to Johnny Bench.”

Standing nearby, Munson heard Anderson’s words, and when he followed Anderson to the microphone, he said he felt “belittled.” Three weeks later, Anderson wrote Munson a letter of apology, released by the Reds, that he had “no intention of trying to belittle you or any other catcher.”

Anderson’s devotion to all major league players was evident when club owners, mired in a labor dispute with the Players Association that eventually canceled the 1994 World Series, were considering using replacement players to start the 1995 season. Anderson took a leave of absence until the regular players returned.

As a 5-foot-9, 170-pound second baseman, he spent only one season in the big leagues, with the Philadelphia Phillies in 1959, hitting .218 with only 34 runs batted in and no home runs before returning to the minors and managing. He was a coach with the Padres before he joined the Reds as their manager in 1970.

“Please let’s don’t think of such a horror story that we’re going to have baseball with replacement players,” he barked, adding that he would decline his $1.2 million salary, then the highest of any manager, and refuse to manage such a group. “I don’t like my intelligence insulted by telling me this is the Detroit Tigers.”

By then, he was speaking with the security of what would be more than a quarter of a century as a major league manager — 9 years with the Reds, 17 with the Tigers. But in the days before the Tigers won that 1984 Series, he knew what a victory in it would mean to his career.

“I told my wife, Carol, that if I’m the first manager ever to win the World Series with a team in both leagues, we can always get a job,” he said.

His syntax was seldom perfect, but his meaning was always clear. “I see now,” he once said with a smile, “they even put ‘ain’t’ in the dictionary, so I’m good. I’m covered.”

When a pitcher joined the Reds or the Tigers, he knew not to argue or show up the manager known as Captain Hook when he came to the mound and called for a relief pitcher.

“Just put the ball in my hand like an egg,” he told them, “and leave quietly.”



When he managed, he decided on the lineup. The day he transferred Pete Rose, who had played second base and the outfield, to third base, he was reminded that Bob Howsam, the Reds’ general manager, was out of town.

“It doesn’t matter where Bob is,” he said.

In one of his last seasons with the Tigers, he was annoyed that George Steinbrenner had seemed to be stalking Manager Buck Showalter before the Yankees ran off six straight victories. “I hope he,” Anderson said, meaning the Yankees’ principal owner, “doesn’t think he won any of those games.”

Yes, his nickname was Sparky, but he really was a bonfire who sometimes burst into a three-alarm blaze.


Sparky Anderson on baseball

Reds manager wrote this foreword on baseball


By John Erardi
Cincinnati Enquirer staff writer
http://news.cincinnati.com/
November 4, 2010

Sparky Anderson provided the foreword, as told to John Erardi, for our 2006 baseball preview section, Baseball by the Book, which talked about his way to play the game:

I’ve heard about “the book.” Baseball by the book. I didn’t have a book, didn’t go by the book, never once in my life copied anybody. My attitude was, "What if they’re wrong?" But some things I believed in.

Left-handed pitcher vs. left-handed hitter. The left-hander’s breaking ball runs away from the left-handed hitter. Makes it harder to hit. Righty-righty, same thing. Well, except for Clay Carroll. Clay was a righty, still is I guess, and he could get anybody out. Didn’t make no difference to Clay, and so it didn’t make no difference to me. I’d say, "Hawk" - that was his nickname - "Hawk, we need some all-star relief tonight." And he’d say, "You got it!" Boy, he was something else.

My eyes, that’s what I believed in. That’s what I went by. Leave your heart at home. Your heart’s for your family. I didn’t need no computer to tell me what my eyes were seein’. The sacrifice bunt? No, I didn’t believe much in that, except for the pitchers, of course.

You know why I wasn’t big on the bunt? I didn’t like giving my team one less out. Outs? I guard outs with my life, especially those last six outs.

But some outs I give you. Like at the beginning of an inning. Joe Morgan walks by and says, “Skip, when I get on” – see, when I get on, not if I get on, and, oh yes, he would get on, walk, hit, whatever – “don’t bunt me over; I got this guy” – the pitcher – “down pat. I’ll get myself over.” And then, when Joe took that lead and shook up the pitcher – who knew there was no way he could keep Joe on first, but he’d try, anyway – well, when Joe got to second, and he always got to second, that’s when I’d bunt him over, and the next guy or the guy after that would hit the sacrifice fly.

Boom! Game over, we go home.

Talent makes the manager. You get all the talent out of your players that you can. That’s all that managing is. Getting every ounce out of them that you can. Tony LaRussa and Bobby Cox, I marvel at them. They’re really good. They get the most out of their talent, year after year after year.

The hit-and-run? Now you’re talkin’. I believed in the hit-and-run. I saw John Bench hit three home runs on hit-and-runs. See, when John was having trouble at the plate it was because he was coming off the ball, you know, pulling off with his left side. Give him the hit-and-run sign and he’d stay on that ball because on the hit-and-run the hitter needs to make contact, otherwise the baserunner, who is running on the pitch, could easily be thrown out by the catcher unless the runner’s fast.

Stealing a base? Yeah, I loved the stolen base. Larry Shepard, our pitching coach, said, "You took a league that wasn’t moving and got it moving." The stolen base gave us another way to beat you. You aren’t always going to hit. But the speed, the speed’s always there. They say I was three years ahead of the rest of the league, having more stolen bases than home runs, but I wasn’t doing it just to be doing it. I was doing it because I knew you couldn’t stop it.

Captain Hook? Yeah, I used what I had. We weren’t blessed with the Dodgers’ starting pitching, but we had a really deep bullpen. People say I was ahead there, too, five years ahead of the league, you know, having more saves than complete games, but I didn’t do it because it was in some book. I did it because we didn’t have but a couple of guys who could go much past six innings.

The other thing is, you got to know what the other guy’s got. You got to know what the opposing team has available to them to try to get themselves back into it. Coach Georgie Scherger called it having the last six outs. Get us to those last six outs and we’re going to beat you, because our last six outs are better than your last six outs, and we know what we want to do.

So, yeah, you manage what you got, and you know what the other guy’s got so you can trap him. That was the way I managed. That was the book I used.

- Sparky Anderson

What Springsteen Kept to Himself

By ANTHONY DeCURTIS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com
November 4, 2010

Colts Neck, N.J.

OVER the course of nearly four decades Bruce Springsteen has become such a reassuring figure that he once wearily noted that people seemed to think of him as Santa Claus, with New Jersey serving as the North Pole. The notion, then, of Mr. Springsteen leaping onto a conference table in a Midtown law office and screaming obscenities at a lawyer who was questioning him during a pretrial deposition hardly corresponds to his inspirational image.

But in the summer of 1976 Mr. Springsteen, who less than a year before had been on the covers of Time and Newsweek to mark the release of his album “Born to Run,” now a classic, had grown desperate that his career was being derailed. He and the man who had been his manager and producer had become embroiled in bitter lawsuits, and Mr. Springsteen’s control of his life and work hung in the balance.

Bruce Springsteen, right, with the E Street band in 1978 on the roof of the building in Manhattan where they recorded "Darkness on the Edge of Town," the album released after his legal battles. (Frank Stefanko)

The raw emotions of that period partly account for the continuing power of “Darkness on the Edge of Town,” the album Mr. Springsteen released in 1978, after the lawsuits had been settled. An elaborate three-CD, three-DVD boxed set, “The Promise: The Darkness on the Edge of Town Story,” scheduled for release on Nov. 16, tells the tale of how that album came to be. The collection includes a documentary on the making of the album, a two-CD set of previously unreleased tracks that will also be available separately, two additional DVDs of live material, and a remastered version of “Darkness on the Edge of Town” itself.

The dread and exultation woven through all that material reflects the contradictions of those times, as well as the twin poles of Mr. Springsteen’s work since then.

“Those are our specialties,” he said with a laugh, as he recalled that period. Wearing black jeans and a light-blue-plaid shirt open to the middle of his chest, with chains and medals hanging around his neck, Mr. Springsteen sat on a high stool in front of a fireplace in a 300-year-old cottage on his property in Colt’s Neck, near Asbury Park. Mr. Springsteen, relishing the heat from the fire, would hunch over and look down when he was thinking and look straight ahead intently when he found his train of thought.

If the highly romantic “Born to Run” had been a final howl of adolescence for Mr. Springsteen, the 10 songs on “Darkness” marked his entry into the troubled, compromised, ambiguous world of adulthood. It was not an easy transition, as the 21 songs on “The Promise,” all of which Mr. Springsteen recorded while working on “Darkness,” make clear.

“I loved all of that music tremendously,” he said about the dozens of songs he recorded while finding his way to the rigorously spare “Darkness.” “It was in me, and I had to get it out. And I’m glad I did.

“It’s filled with melody and the Brill Building and soul music and English pop music.”

At the time, however, Mr. Springsteen was concerned about being labeled a “revivalist” because of his love of those classic genres. “I felt that would have been a diminishment of what my abilities might be,” he said. Critics had viewed him as the savior of rock ’n’ roll, but he was determined to carve out a future, not simply restore what the music had meant in the past.

“The only thing I was always nervous about was not living up to what my potential might be,” he said. “That frightened me the most. I didn’t think I was the most gifted performer or singer. I felt like I was given a heavy dose of journeyman’s talents, and that if I worked those things with everything I had, they could coalesce into something that was specifically mine.”

Mr. Springsteen, who was in his late 20s, had just begun to define his vision with “Born to Run,” and he wanted to make sure his next step extended his creative reach. “I was chasing my own voice, and I was also concerned with adulthood,” he said. “In 1977 the ceiling on the age for rock musicians wasn’t 70 years old, as it is today. It was about 33.

“Plus, I was becoming interested in music that dealt with the pressures of the adult world: work, family entanglements, social forces arrayed for or against you.”

Mr. Springsteen hit that target hard on “Darkness.” Songs like “Factory” and “Racing in the Street” portray the lives of the working-class people he had grown up with in stark, existential terms. The choices available are a grim descent into numbness or exultant, if potentially destructive, sensation seeking:

Some guys they just give up living

And start dying little by little, piece by piece,

Some guys come home from work and wash up,

And go racin’ in the street.


It was a worldview that was coming into focus in the 70s, a time of gas lines, narrowing economic horizons and what President Jimmy Carter characterized as a national “malaise.” The director Martin Scorsese and actors like Robert De Niro and Al Pacino (whom Mr. Springsteen strongly resembles in the cover portrait for “Darkness”) portrayed blue-collar lives with force and dignity in the movies.

Mr. Springsteen created an album very much in tune with those cultural currents, but he paid a price in the many worthwhile songs he set aside in order to do that. “The Promise,” a song that had become a favorite of Mr. Springsteen’s fans in performance, lost its place on the album, Mr. Springsteen said, because he believed it to be too autobiographical, too tied to his legal troubles and therefore too narrow in its focus. “I don’t write songs about lawsuits,” he had snapped at the time, but, at least in part, he had, and that was the song’s demise. It has now been restored to prominence.

“It was a song about defeat, and it was self-referential, which made me uncomfortable,” Mr. Springsteen said about “The Promise.” “I didn’t want it to overtake the album, which, in the end, was not my personal story. I wanted ‘Darkness’ to be completely independent of that. So I left it off. But I remember saying to myself, ‘This is something I can sing later.’ The distance really helps it now.”

Jon Landau, who is Mr. Springsteen’s manager and who co-produced “Darkness on the Edge of Town,” describes another critical decision Mr. Springsteen made in selecting the songs for “Darkness”: “The album had no hits. The songs that were pretty obviously going to be pop hits, ‘Fire,’ ‘Because the Night,’ ” songs that Mr. Springsteen gave to the Pointer Sisters and Patti Smith. “Bruce took them off at a very early stage. He did not want what he was trying to do with the album to be overshadowed.”

Mr. Springsteen’s versions of those songs are now on “The Promise,” which in both Mr. Springsteen’s and Mr. Landau’s view stands as a coherent work, not simply a collection of outtakes. “We organized, sequenced and finished these 21 songs as an album,” Mr. Landau said. “It is the album that might well have come during that three-year time between ‘Born to Run’ and ‘Darkness.’ ”

As difficult as the years leading up to “Darkness on the Edge of Town” were for Mr. Springsteen, the story has a happy ending. He and Mr. Landau solidified their working relationship, and collaborate to this day. With the lawsuit long ago settled, Mr. Springsteen has reconciled with his former manager, Mike Appel, and they are friends once again. Much of the work that Mr. Springsteen cast aside to hone his vision for “Darkness” is seeing the light of day.

And, most important, “Darkness on the Edge of Town” itself is now regarded as a classic, a breakthrough into a world that, as Mr. Springsteen hoped, is specifically his own. “I went back to where I was from, and I looked into that world and those lives, which I understood was only tangentially going to be my life from there on in,” he said, as the fire behind him burned. “But if I was dedicated to it, and if I thought hard enough about it, and if I put in my time, I could tell those stories well. And that’s what I did.”

Friday, November 05, 2010

A return to the norm

By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
Friday, November 5, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com


For all the turmoil, the spectacle, the churning - for all the old bulls slain and fuzzy-cheeked freshmen born - the great Republican wave of 2010 is simply a return to the norm. The tide had gone out; the tide came back. A center-right country restores the normal congressional map: a sea of interior red, bordered by blue coasts and dotted by blue islands of ethnic/urban density.

Or to put it numerically, the Republican wave of 2010 did little more than undo the two-stage Democratic wave of 2006-2008 in which the Democrats gained 54 House seats combined (precisely the size of the anti-Democratic wave of 1994). In 2010 the Democrats gave it all back, plus about an extra 10 seats or so for good - chastening - measure.

The conventional wisdom is that these sweeps represent something novel, exotic and very modern - the new media, faster news cycles, Internet frenzy and a public with a short attention span and even less patience with government. Or alternatively, that these violent swings reflect reduced party loyalty and more independent voters.

Nonsense. In 1946, for example, when party loyalty was much stronger and even television was largely unknown, the Republicans gained 56 seats and then lost 75 in the very next election. Waves come. Waves go. The republic endures.

Our two most recent swing cycles were triggered by unusually jarring historical events. The 2006 Republican "thumpin'" (to quote George W. Bush) was largely a reflection of the disillusionment and near-despair of a wearying war that appeared to be lost. And 2008 occurred just weeks after the worst financial collapse in eight decades.

Similarly, the massive Republican swing of 2010 was a reaction to another rather unprecedented development - a ruling party spectacularly misjudging its mandate and taking an unwilling country through a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism.

A massive government restructuring of the health-care system. An $800 billion-plus stimulus that did not halt the rise in unemployment. And a cap-and-trade regime reviled outside the bicoastal liberal enclaves that luxuriate in environmental righteousness - so reviled that the Democratic senatorial candidate in West Virginia literally put a bullet through the bill in his own TV ad. He won. Handily.

Opposition to the policies was compounded by the breathtaking arrogance with which they were imposed. Ignored was the unmistakable message from the 2009-10 off-year elections culminating in Scott Brown's anti-Obamacare victory in bluer-than-blue Massachusetts. Moreover, Obamacare and the stimulus were passed on near-total party-line votes - legal, of course, but deeply offensive to the people's sense of democratic legitimacy. Never before had anything of this size and scope been passed on a purely partisan basis. (Social Security commanded 81 House Republicans; the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 136; Medicare, 70.)

Tuesday was the electorate's first opportunity to render a national verdict on this manner of governance. The rejection was stunning. As a result, President Obama's agenda is dead. And not just now. No future Democratic president will try to revive it - and if he does, no Congress will follow him, in view of the carnage visited upon Democrats on Tuesday.

This is not, however, a rejection of Democrats as a party. The center-left party as represented by Bill Clinton remains competitive in every cycle. (Which is why he was the most popular, sought-after Democrat in the current cycle.) The lesson of Tuesday is that the American game is played between the 40-yard lines. So long as Democrats don't repeat Obama's drive for the red zone, Democrats will cyclically prevail, just as Republicans do.

Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none. They were merely rewarded for acting as the people's proxy in saying no to Obama's overreaching liberalism. As one wag put it, this wasn't an election so much as a restraining order.

The Republicans won by default. And their prize is nothing more than a two-year lease on the House. The building was available because the previous occupant had been evicted for arrogant misbehavior and, by rule, alas, the House cannot be left vacant.

The president, however, remains clueless. In his next-day news conference, he had the right demeanor - subdued, his closest approximation of humility - but was uncomprehending about what just happened. The "folks" are apparently just "frustrated" that "progress" is just too slow. Asked three times whether popular rejection of his policy agenda might have had something to do with the shellacking he took, he looked as if he'd been asked whether the sun had risen in the West. Why, no, he said.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Defeat, then Denial

Obama’s self-exonerating narrative about the midterm elections is simply wrong.

By Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com
November 5, 2010 12:00 A.M.

In 2007, when police busted Rep. Barney Frank’s partner for illegally growing pot, Frank waved away the controversy by saying he hadn’t noticed since he’s “not a great outdoorsman” and has trouble recognizing any plants.

Twenty years earlier, Frank endured another controversy when his one-time partner, personal aide, and roommate was revealed to be running a prostitution service out of Frank’s home. The Massachusetts congressman insisted he hadn’t noticed anything amiss until informed by his landlord.

And when Frank helped fuel a housing bubble that nearly crippled the economy for a generation, he again failed to notice anything was awry until it was obvious for all to see.

While lesser men, perhaps those not dubbed the “brainiest” man on Capitol Hill by congressional staffers, might worry about accountability, Frank considers it an affront, given his personal and professional record. In short, Frank has a very solid record of obliviousness, denial, and entitlement.

Watch his remarks from Election Night on YouTube, if you missed the spittle-flecked invective live. It’s a rare specimen: an angry victory speech. He seems simply aggrieved that he was forced to take a race seriously. Indeed, he was aggrieved that Republicans refused to get off the mat. “The collective campaigns that were run by most Republicans were beneath the dignity of a democracy,” he huffed, as if he’s a particularly respected arbiter of democratic dignity.

Frank was hardly alone in the sore-winner caucus. Democratic Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia refused to accept a congratulatory concession call from his opponent.

Why? One reason might be that Moran, like Frank, believed it was beneath him to have to compete for his seat in the people’s House. Or perhaps it was simply that his opponent, Patrick Murray, wasn’t worthy in Moran’s eyes. After all, Moran had complained that Murray was a “stealth candidate” who hadn’t “served or performed in any kind of public service.” Apparently rising to the rank of colonel in the U.S. Army and serving in Iraq didn’t count as public service.

To his credit, President Obama eschewed the nasty arrogance of Frank and Moran. But his denial runs just as deep.

In a press conference that was humble in tone but myopic in substance, Obama reiterated again and again that he got all of the policies right and the American people who disagreed hadn’t studied the issues closely enough. It only “felt” like the government was getting too “intrusive,” Obama explained. Voters had misunderstood the nature of his purely “emergency” measures.

For all of the talk about how Obama has learned from the election, it’s worth remembering this was exactly the same position he held before the election, just in nicer form.

And as it was before the election, Obama’s self-exonerating narrative is simply wrong. His agenda was never back-burnered for emergency measures. If anything, emergency measures were back-burnered for his agenda. In the summer of 2009, he pushed health-care reform while his aides swore he’d eventually get around to “pivoting” to jobs. Government spending seemed to go up and get more intrusive because it did go up and did get more intrusive. Government spending went up 23 percent in two years.

And how was intrusive health-care reform an “emergency measure” to grapple with the financial crisis? It’s not slated to go fully into effect until 2014. It hasn’t had — and was never intended to have — anything like an immediate positive effect on the economy. Indeed, the chief argument for it — which Obama started making years before the financial crisis — was that it was a moral imperative pushed by progressives for generations. Did Harry Truman seek universal health care to fix the financial crisis of 2009?

Republicans — virtually all of them, not just the 60-plus winners who helped wrest control of the House — won by running against Obamacare. But Obama says: “We’d be misreading the election if we thought the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate arguments we had over the last two years.”

Now, I will admit that anticipating voters’ desires these days can be tricky. But given the last two years, I would sooner trust Barney Frank to spot a pot bush in his backyard, or Jim Moran to identify legitimate public service, than trust Barack Obama to spot the will of the voters.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Today's Tune: Joe Grushecky & Bruce Springsteen - Never Be Enough Time (Live)



(Click on title to play video)

Concert Review: The Boss and Joe raise the roof at Soldiers & Sailors

Friday, November 05, 2010
By Scott Mervis, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/

Joe Grushecky and Bruce Springsteen perform "Atlantic City" at Soldiers & Sailors Hall in Oakland Thursday night. (John Heller/Post-Gazette)


With the tour itinerary for Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band a blank page in 2010, The Boss has come out to play only about a dozen times this year.

He did the Hope for Haiti telethon and a handful of benefits in the Jersey area. He also made surprise appearances with Rosanne Cash and Alejandro Escovedo, and, at that Sting Rainforest Foundation gig, he actually got up with Lady Gaga.

Thursday night at the sold-out Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hall, he was on more familiar turf with his old pals Joe Grushecky and the Houserockers, tearing through one of his longest and surely most rousing sets of the year.

The occasion was the 15th anniversary of their collaborative effort "American Babylon," but even more than that, it was that itch to get out and have some fun.

That they did.

It was another roof-raising slugfest from Joe and the Boss, who hit the stage first with his acoustic guitar, saying, "I'm opening for Joe tonight." He launched into a rare reading of "Pittsburgh" from the "Tracks" album, followed by a clenched teeth version of "For You" and a heartfelt "This Hard Land."

The Houserockers, still one of the best bar bands in the land, came out blazing with "American Babylon" and welcomed him back to jam together on "Another Thin Line," a "Gloria"-like stomp topped with a blistering solo from Bruce, who was clearly thrilled all night to get out front and play guitar hero.

The explosive buildup on "Atlantic City" took on a religious fervor, while "Never Be Enough Time" was another ferocious guitar summit. A tentative "Homestead" was sandwiched between the walloping "Adam Raised a Cain" and "Darkness on the Edge," both worth the price of admission.

A late set surprise was "Save My Love," a more lighthearted pop song from the forthcoming "The Promise," a collection of buried treasures from the "Darkness" era.

Grushecky's roots-rocker "Talking to the King" brought a round of smiles, as did a rumbling version of "Fire," with playful input from the loud crowd. The Grammy-winning "Code of Silence" came with guitar sparks from Rick Witkowski and a shout-out to former Penguin Bill Guerin on his 40th birthday.

The climax was pure bar-rock ecstasy with the likes of "Down the Road a Piece," "Wipeout," "Pumping Iron," "The Promised Land," "La Bamba/Twist and Shout" and a lovely conclusion of "Thunder Road," with just Bruce and the crowd.

If it had been the ol' Decade, you can bet there would have been broken bottles everywhere.


Scott Mervis: smervis@post-gazette.com; 412-263-2576.

Read more:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10309/1100918-501.stm#ixzz14PE80L2M


Set list

For You
This Hard Land
American Babylon
East Carson Street
Another Thin Line
Atlantic City
Never Be Enough Time
What Did You Do In the War, Daddy?
Adam Raised a Cain
Homestead
Darkness on the Edge of Town
I'm Not Sleeping
Save My Love
Talking to the King
Murder Incorporated
Fire
Code of Silence
Down the Road a Piece/Wipeout

Encore:

Pumping Iron
The Promised Land
La Bamba/Twist and Shout
Thunder Road

Springsteen, Grushecky have rock 'n' roll bond

By Rege Behe, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/
Wednesday, November 3, 2010


Give Steve Van Zandt credit.

A little more than 30 years ago, the guitarist for the E Street Band was producing the Iron City Houserockers "Have a Good Time, But Get Out Alive" in New York City. He thought his bandleader, Bruce Springsteen, might find common ground with the scruffy group of musicians from Pittsburgh whose primal rock 'n' roll was comparable to that of the New Jersey-based band.

That first meeting, Joe Grushecky recalls, however brief, was a portent of things to come.

"I can't speak for (Springsteen), but there was a bond that was easy and pretty instant as far as the writing and music went," Grushecky says.


Joe Grushecky and Bruce Springsteen perform Thursday and Friday at Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hall & Museum, Oakland. (John Cavanaugh)

Grushecky and Springsteen, appearing Thursday and Friday at Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hall & Museum in Oakland, are commemorating the 15th anniversary of "American Babylon," an album that Springsteen produced and performed on with Grushecky's band. But they also are celebrating something more basic: two friends who not only enjoy performing together, but each other's company.

"Joe and Bruce seem to be kindred spirits," says Chris Phillips, the editor of Backstreets, a magazine and website (www.backstreets.com) devoted to all things Springsteen.

Noting that Grushecky's lack of success in comparison to Springsteen is not due to the quality of his work, but more of a "random fluke," Phillips says "seeing these two guys coming from a similar place, really enjoying each other's work and each other's company, has been inspiring to me in a lot of ways."

Phillips notes that Springsteen has long been generous with praise for fellow artists, including Marah, Jesse Malin, Gaslight Anthem and Grushecky. But while that draws attention to music that might not get heard in some quarters, some fans are inherently suspicious of anyone who is linked to Springsteen.

"These artists want to stand on their own," Phillips says. "With Springsteen's rabid following, a thumbs up or a pat on the back can be seen by some fans as riding on his coattails. They want to be seen as great songwriters, great performers in their own right."

Grushecky certainly has made his own mark, although on a much smaller scale than Springsteen. He's garnered critical acclaim for his recordings, and is popular in Europe, particularly in Spain, Italy and Germany.

Still, Grushecky's music occasionally is considered an offshoot, a mere tributary of Springsteen's music. While there are similarities -- both men's music is hewn from the basic, primal stuff of rock 'n' roll that can be traced back to Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis, and then was refined by The Who and The Rolling Stones in the 1960s -- Grushecky's music stands alone by virtue of its simplicity. While Springsteen's sound broadened and took on aspects of a grand, quasi-religious experience, Grushecky has remained true to his roots.

"We're a bunch of bar-band guys from Pittsburgh," Grushecky says of the Houserockers. "Early on in our career, Art (Nardini, Grushecky's long-time bassist) and I decided we wanted to play. We didn't want to go weeks or months or years between gigs so we could draw a bigger crowd in Pittsburgh. In retrospect, I don't know if that was a good thing or not."

By 1995, Grushecky admits his career had reached a nadir. While his creative juices still flowed and he still loved to perform -- "I'm a lifer," he says -- there seemed to be less interest in his work. Then came Springsteen's offer to work on what would become "American Babylon," the album that features some of Grushecky's best songs, including "Dark and Bloody Ground" and "Homestead."

After the album was released, Springsteen agreed to go on tour with the band.

"For us to have an international superstar like Bruce, who is as big as big can be, come out and play in the bars with us was almost unheard of," Grushecky says. "The shows were intense and brought a lot of attention back on us. We had a pretty good run with that record, got to go to Europe and do a lot of things we weren't able to do in awhile because we were just sort of treading water with record companies.

"It gave us a different perspective on how to do business. We grew up a bit. We got a little bit smarter. We were able to take 'American Babylon' and craft the career we do have out of that record."

While Springsteen's presence undoubtedly assisted Grushecky and the Houserockers, Phillips thinks there were mutual benefits. He remembers the excitement that tour generated, how being able to see Springsteen in a club setting was a rare gift for fans.

"I think a lot of people have great memories of 15 years ago and 'American Babylon' when Bruce hit the road as an honorary Houserocker," Phillips says. "Clearly, Bruce was enjoying what he was doing, not being the frontman, not being the bandleader. It was an unusual position for him, for sure."

Far-flung fans

The announcement that Bruce Springsteen was coming to Pittsburgh to perform with Joe Grushecky was news not only in Western Pennsylvania. The concerts have excited Springsteen fans around the country and the world, especially since he's not touring this year with the E Street Band.

If Springsteen fans want to see him perform this year, the shows tonight and Friday at Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hall & Museum in Oakland are their only chance.

"I personally know people who are coming from Europe to these shows," says Chris Phillips, the editor of Backstreets, a magazine and website (www.backstreets.com) devoted to Springsteen's music. "Anytime Springsteen plays, it's big news for us. ... These one-off shows are clearly getting a lot of attention during a year when he's not doing any shows.

Grushecky has heard from friends in Spain and Switzerland who are coming to Pittsburgh for the concerts. But this is nothing new. After "American Babylon" was released in 1995, it was not unusual for European fans to come to Pittsburgh to take in a Houserockers' show.

"One night, a guy from Norway came to see us play at a bar in Uniontown," Grushecky says. "There were people coming from Spain, coming from France and Switzerland. This isn't the first time this has happened."


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ae/music/s_707487.html

Thursday, November 04, 2010

The Winner: Rush Limbaugh

By Jeffrey Lord on 11.3.10 @ 6:10AM
The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/


"I hope he fails."

With those famous four words, uttered January 16, 2009 -- only days before Barack Obama was to be inaugurated -- Rush Limbaugh drew a line in the sand.

And as a result, this morning it is Rush Limbaugh who is the undisputed winner of the 2010 election. The White House is repudiated. The Pelosi-run House of Representatives, supported by the Democrats' Congressional Campaign Committee, also deliberately targeted Limbaugh. Speaker Pelosi is, abruptly, now history. The Senate is richer by a still-undetermined number of conservatives as this goes to Internet press.

You might even call last night's landslide results a "Rushslide."

Unlike a number of conservatives and Republican leaders, Limbaugh understood from the moment of Obama's election what the new president and his allies represented: a radical, far-left agenda designed to, in the president-elect's own words, "transform America." Obama and his administration -- with the Pelosi-run House assisting -- were about nothing less than an attempt to re-make America as a collectivist, socialist state.

Characteristically, Limbaugh was fearless in saying so -- plainly. Asked to submit a 400-word essay for the Wall Street Journal on his hopes for the new administration, he responded on the air:

Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things… See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?

So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.


The outrage was instantaneous.

Five days later, a bare 24 hours after Obama had been sworn-in, Fox News host and fellow talk radio star Sean Hannity sat down with Limbaugh in Florida. As the Fox cameras rolled, Rush elaborated in answering Hannity's questions, making himself crystal clear: in spite of the uproar created by his "I hope he fails" remark, Rush Limbaugh would not be backing down. The Obama agenda, he was certain, was doomed to inevitable failure, and if others were afraid to say so, Rush Limbaugh was not.[1]

LIMBAUGH:…When I see the media and the entire establishment on the left lay down and become cult-like and not examine who he is, what he's done, and not really examine what he says, but just praise him because of how he says it, my antenna go up.

Now I look at the things that he has said, and I'm very much concerned that our greatness is going to be redefined in such a way that it won't be great, that we're just going to become average. You cannot have this large of government role in the private sector with so many people thinking that just because they're Americans they're entitled to things, that this guy is going to pass them out and keep this country great and innovative, full of entrepreneurs, and -- these things concern me.

Now my critics, and yours, when they hear me say things like this, they -- have knee-jerk reactions. They're not listening or parsing my words, either. They're just, Limbaugh is not with the program.

…. So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far-left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?… I don't know where what he wants to try has worked…. It hasn't worked…. It doesn't work… it never has, and I don't think this is going to be the record breaker."

Hearing this, watching this, the Obama White House made a fateful decision.

As Obama and his aides began relentlessly pushing exactly the far-left agenda that Limbaugh so publicly predicted would fail, they decided to bring the hardball of Chicago politics into play: they would intimidate their opponents by making an example of America's number one conservative talk radio star. .

Which is exactly the point where the path to the conservative victory of 2010 began.

A MERE THREE DAYS after Obama took office, Republican congressional leaders were ushered into the White House for their first formal meeting with the new president. Wary of Obama proposals for a massive stimulus bill, with a huge health care bill looming beyond that, they sat quietly as Obama's Limbaugh strategy began to unfold. Borrowing a tactic from Rules for Radicals, the handbook written by Obama's hero the late Chicago radical community activist Saul Alinsky, Obama the one-time community activist become president lectured the astonished GOP leadership, saying pointedly "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." The Republicans were barely out the door before the story leaked, causing a media feeding frenzy as the White House knew it would.

With that, the stage for the entire next two-years was set. The looming battle over the direction of America would be deliberately, willfully cast -- by the White House itself -- as a battle royal between the President of the United States and Rush Limbaugh. The specific tactic to be employed was Rule Number 12 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Which reads this way:

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

The Rule 12 signal was flashed by the White House to every Democrat on Capitol Hill along with every Obama ally in the media: the President personally is going to lead the charge against Rush Limbaugh and he was inviting them to join the fray.

Whatever issue was being debated -- the stimulus, health care, immigration, the topic didn't matter -- Rush Limbaugh was to be the highly personalized target of the Obama White House and all of the American Left. They would freeze his image in the public mind in as unfavorable and polarizing a fashion as they could manage. Then Limbaugh would be assaulted repeatedly in the style of Rule 12 as the next two years unfolded.

An attempt was made to intimidate Rush by going after what Alinskyites called a target's "support network" -- which is to say the Rush Limbaugh radio show was targeted when several liberal activist groups filed a "Petition for Inquiry into Hate Speech in the Media and Request to update report on The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes" with the Federal Communications Commission -- the Obama-run government agency that regulates radio airwaves. Limbaugh was specifically cited by name. The unsubtle message: we are coming after your radio show.

To "isolate the target from sympathy" in Alinsky style, Rush was portrayed in as unflattering personal terms as the Obama allies could conjure up. The attacks were designed to be, as Alinsky stipulated, "cruel… direct… personalized" because "ridicule works."

And so the anti-Rush deluge began.

Having earlier said that it "is my job" to make Obama's presidency work, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who famously said of an Obama speech that "I felt this thrill going up my leg," went to work. He memorably described Rush as "Mr. Big," the villain played by actor Yaphet Kotto in the James Bond movie Live and Let Die, taunting: "In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?"

"What about this bonehead Rush Limbaugh?" sneered David Letterman on his Late Night show. Newsweek, in the middle of a death spiral that eventually had it being sold by the Washington Post for one dollar plus millions in debt, produced Jonathan Alter sniggering that Rush was a "black-shirted joke" while his colleague Richard Wolffe sagely assured that Rush was an "extreme voice." On and on and on this Alinsky tactic played, with Rush depicted as everything from a "howler" to a man "transformed into [a] car-wrecking quality spectacle" -- both of these from the New York Times. Nor was the Limbaugh audience to escape this treatment, with Jack Cafferty of CNN dismissing some 20 million Americans as "right-wing nuts."

The Obama White House was eating this stuff up, convinced they had a winning strategy.

Politico reported it this way:

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.[2]

The story went on to say that liberals were lining up to bash Limbaugh as the leader of the conservative opposition.

MOST SPECTACULARLY in terms of last night's results, Pelosi loyalist Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the head of the Democrat's Congressional Campaign Committee, boasted that House Democrats were key players in the anti-Rush strategy. "We helped get the ball rolling on this," bragged Van Hollen. As of last night, Van Hollen had succeeded in losing about 60 House seats to the GOP, a historic loss making Pelosi an ex-Speaker if not an ex-House member period if she decides to resign her San Francisco seat.

All of which is to say, Pelosi and Van Hollen, along with the Obama White House, bet the ranch on a strategy that featured as its centerpiece an attack on Rush Limbaugh. They didn't just lose, they were humiliated.

Also involved in setting this course for Democrats was the George Soros-funded left-wing Center for American Progress, led by ex-Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta. The group jumped aboard, launching an attack against "hate radio host Rush Limbaugh." The liberal group Americans United for Change quickly put up an ad and calling the GOP "The Rush Limbaugh Party." It accused GOP Senators and House members of repeatedly saying "no" to the Obama agenda -- because they were listening to Rush Limbaugh.[3]

Politico also named the names behind this brainchild. Specifically, in addition to the President himself, those who thought this a fabulous strategy were then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod and ex-Clinton aides James Carville and Paul Begala.

It was Begala who would provide some of the high-level reasoning behind the selection of Rush as Obama's Number One opponent.:

But here's the secret: I don't like Rush Limbaugh. Here's the other secret: He is the most powerful person in the Republican Party today, bar none.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, meticulously crafted an op-ed for the Washington Post that was titled "Minority Leader Limbaugh." [4] Plouffe threw down the gauntlet, portraying the battle over Obama's agenda as a one-on-one, mano-a-mano fight to the political death with Rush Limbaugh. The GOP leadership on Capitol Hill was taunted because "Rush Limbaugh has become their leader." Displaying a cocky security that can only come from drinking one's own Kool-Aid, Plouffe depicted Obama as triumphant in the polls of the moment, specifically boasting that "voters trust President Obama on the economy." Listening to Rush Limbaugh, the Obama campaign manager warned Republicans, "hardly seems like the best way out of the political wilderness."

In words that this morning look stunningly stupid, Plouffe said if the GOP kept listening to Limbaugh, the GOP was in danger of permanently losing "independent voters, who give the president high marks on his handling of the economy and his job overall." Said Plouffe of Limbaugh's challenge: "For many Americans, hungry for leadership and cooperation, this sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard…." Seemingly oblivious to the fact that leadership was exactly what Limbaugh was providing to "many Americans hungry for leadership," Plouffe vowed Republican House and Senate members would rue the day they listened to Limbaugh, all voting unanimously -- with the exception of three liberal GOP Senators -- to oppose the Obama stimulus. A stimulus which, insisted Plouffe as he dug himself even deeper, would "create or save at least 3 million jobs." Concluded Obama's campaign manager: if the GOP kept listening to Rush Limbaugh it would force the GOP to "find out what it means for a political party to hit rock bottom."

The gain, said former Speaker Newt Gingrich, would be "the largest one-party gain since 1932." The GOP needed 39-seats to win control. They were headed for at least 60 as this is written.

No word this morning whether Plouffe will be writing a piece entitled "Speaker Limbaugh."

UNDAUNTED EVEN AS THINGS looked bleak, Rush picked up the challenge. He had spent over twenty years discussing conservative principles on his show. A book just released by New York Times Book Editor Sam Tanenhaus was getting liberal media attention. The title: The Death of Conservatism. The author told NPR: "When Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Barack Obama to fail, he was not just spitting out a provocative line, he was actually handing out a kind of marching orders to the right, which they now seem to be following." And listening to what Rush Limbaugh had to say was the death knell for conservatism because Limbaugh, Tanenhaus insisted, was far out in a "fringe orbit".

Limbaugh knew in his bones not only that conservatism was not dead, but that it was neither in need of some sort of political cosmetic surgery as some sunshine conservatives were insisting. And the real people out on a fringe orbit were liberals like Tanenhaus -- not to mention Obama, Pelosi and their media allies. In a January, 2008 monologue about Ronald Reagan and Reagan conservatism, a subject that had arisen in the presidential primaries, Rush had already touched on the subject before Obama was even nominated:

Well, conservatism isn't dead because it cannot be dead. Conservatism is not manmade. Conservatism is a philosophy. It's not a scheme. It's not a plan to figure out what the American people need and want, and then give it to them. That's populism! Conservatism is a philosophy based on God-given natural rights. The Declaration of Independence, is that dead? Of course not! What's dead is leadership on the Republican side, and because there is a lack of leadership of someone who [has] the substantive understanding of liberty and the political skills to advance it, we get all this cockamamie nonsense about the death of our principles. Our principles are not dead! Our principles cannot die.[5]

Now, under direct attack by the President and his House allies, previously scheduled to address the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) Limbaugh showed up to be greeted as the hero of the Obama Resistance. And promptly lit into the Obama agenda. By turns serious, funny, and self-mocking -- he made the case for conservatism with his typical optimistic gusto.[6] "If we're going to convince the American people what's about to happen to them is as disastrous as anything in their lives in peacetime, we're going to have to discuss philosophy with them. We are going to have to talk about principles…" The crowd roared its approval, cheering wildly as he demanded of sunshine conservatives who insisted that conservatism needed to be somehow redefined from Ronald Reagan's principles: "How do you get rid of Reagan from conservatism?"

The very next day White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel appeared on CBS's Face the Nation to proclaim Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." It was not meant as a compliment. Once in gear, Obama's notoriously blunt top aide couldn't stop himself, going on to say:

He has laid out his vision, in my view. And he said it clearly. I compliment him for that. He's been very up front and I compliment him for that. He's not hiding. He's asked for President Obama and called for President Obama to fail. That's his view. And that's what he has enunciated. And whenever a Republican criticizes him, they have to run back and apologize to him and say they were misunderstood. He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. He has been up front about what he views and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it and I compliment him for his honesty. But that's their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh and I think that's the wrong philosophy for America.

More tellingly -- particularly in light of the battles to come -- there was a shuffling of some conservative feet. When it came to defending Limbaugh and the timeless conservative principles he (and Reagan before him) had not only championed in both good times and bad for over twenty years, some flinched. To update the famous Thomas Paine reference ("These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.") there were sunshine conservatives who took one look at the rise of Obama and headed for the philosophical hills.

Even as Rush Limbaugh, the leading conservative in the country, was under attack by every conceivable gun in the arsenal of the American Left from the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House on down, there were those who wimped, whistled, or ran.

GOP consultant Mike Murphy went on NBC's Meet the Press the very same day Emanuel was attacking Limbaugh over on CBS to insist:

The country is changing…. And if we don't modernize conservatism, we are going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, joining every applause line, ripping the furniture up, we're going to be in permanent minority status.

None of this was new, of course. Days before Obama's 2008 election, sunshine conservative Ross Douthat, a member in good standing of a species American Spectator founder R. Emmett Tyrrell calls in his book After the Hangover "Reformed Conservatives" (or, more pithily, "the Benedict Arnolds, Backstabbers, Bruti, and Bums" of the conservative movement), took to the liberal pages of the Atlantic to mock Rush's insistence on adhering to principle.[7]

Over at the New York Times, David Brooks stated flatly a few days after Obama's election that it was not a good idea to be listening to conservative "traditionalists" like "Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity" but lamented that's what would happen. And in doing this, said Brooks, "….the Republican Party will probably veer right in the years ahead, and suffer more defeats."[8]

BUT MURPHY, DOUTHAT, AND BROOKS were pikers when it came to former Bush speechwriter David Frum. Handed the cover of Newsweek for a lengthy article titled "Why Rush is Wrong," in a remarkable piece of writing Frum seemed to be an eager participant in a trash-for-cash article that is standard-operating-procedure for sunshine conservatives seeking approval from the liberal media.[9] Frum chose for his venue a failing national news magazine that had traded its own reputation to the far-left in return for a soon-to-be sale by the Washington Post for -- literally - one dollar and millions in debt. The story was not only a Frum version of the personal insult-laden Alinsky strategy, also scolding Reaganites, it repeatedly insisted Rush was a distinct liability to any conservative or Republican victory -- in 2010 or any other election year.

According to Frum, who larded his three-alarm Rush-warnings throughout a piece filled with personal insults that appeared designed to appease the Washington social crowd, Rush Limbaugh was "kryptonite, weakening the GOP nationally." If the GOP listened to Limbaugh it would never win women voters who "trust and admire" Obama. Rush's CPAC speech was a terrible liability that was certain to lose votes: "Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word --we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time." It was idiocy to be listening to Limbaugh, as so many conservatives seemed to be doing: "But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership?" And finally, the GOP could not possibly win in 2010 because "Rush Limbaugh is a seriously unpopular figure among the voters that conservatives and Republicans need to reach."

This morning, Rush Limbaugh stands vindicated.

His critics -- whether on the far-left or of the sunshine conservative variety -- have been not simply defeated but routed, humiliated. Independents fled Obama, women fled Obama, the people of Illinois fled Obama. And so on. And so on.

Yesterday wasn't just an ordinary election.

It was a "Rushslide." The latest chapter in the story not just of a conservative ascendancy, but the story of the ongoing conservative majority.

But there is one very important point here.

What Rush Limbaugh's critics have miscalculated is this. As his friend Sean Hannity says, Rush is the Babe Ruth of talk radio. It should never be forgotten that when Babe Ruth stepped onto a baseball diamond -- he was never alone. He had teammates. And the stands at Yankee Stadium and every place else he played were filled with cheering fans.

In the drive to target Rush Limbaugh, millions of Americans -- from fellow talk radio stars to Fox News to the vast audience of average Americans -- listened and watched these White House-directed anti-Limbaugh screeds first with amazement, then a growing incredulity which finally gave way to outrage.

Why?

Because all knew at the end of the day that as sure as God made little green apples what began with Rush would end with everyday Americans. You. Your friends. Your neighbors. The barber, the housewife, the independent, the Catholic, Protestant, or Jew and, yes, the law-abiding everyday Muslim. The college student, the entrepreneur, the doctor, the plumber. Americans all -- every one dreaming dreams that somebody in Washington from the President on down was scheming to control, to limit, to regulate, to tax -- and ultimately control to the point of ruin. And sure enough, like clockwork, as the Tea Party burst into existence these average Americans were targeted just as was Rush. Now it wasn't just Rush who was being smeared, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid/liberal media attack machine had turned against these everyday Americans, savaging them as nothing more than a collection of racists, Nazis, and "teabaggers," for resisting their obsession with controlling Americans' every last movement in life while spending the country into trillions of debt as far as the next several generations could see. Americans who had heard Rush predict that the Obama-era would bring an all-out assault on American values realized just short of the nick-of-time not only that he was right, but that it was up to them to stop this assault in its tracks.

And so they did.

Obama, as Rush Limbaugh predicted, has in fact now failed. Nancy Pelosi is out of a job. And thanks to Rush Limbaugh, a new generation of Americans is learning that conservatism is not simply cool -- more importantly they are learning collectivism isn't smart.

But lest there be any doubt, this fight will continue. Not all races were won last night -- not all races will ever be won. Harry Reid is still there. No one in all of American history has won a unanimous election -- with the solitary exception of George Washington. 2012 lies ahead. Fortunately for conservatives, for the Republican Party -- and America -- there is one certainty as this battle continues:

Rush Limbaugh will be on the air.


Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Links:

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481484,00.html

[2] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html

[3] http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/page/share/no

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303210.html?sid=ST2009030501540

[5] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011408/content/01125111.guest.html

[6] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html

[7] http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/rush_limbaugh_explains_it_all.php

[8] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[9] http://www.newsweek.com/2009/03/06/why-rush-is-wrong.html

A recoil against liberalism

By George F. Will
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Thursday, November 4, 2010;

Unwilling to delay until tomorrow mistakes that could be made immediately, Democrats used 2010 to begin losing 2012. Trying to preemptively drain the election of its dangerous (to Democrats) meaning, all autumn Democrats described the electorate as suffering a brain cramp, an apoplexy of fear, rage, paranoia, cupidity - something. Any explanation would suffice as long as it cast what voters were about to say as perhaps contemptible and certainly too trivial to be taken seriously by the serious.

It is amazing the ingenuity Democrats invest in concocting explanations of voter behavior that erase what voters always care about, and this year more than ever - ideas. This election was a nationwide recoil against Barack Obama's idea of unlimited government.

The more he denounced Republicans as the party of "no," the better Republicans did. His denunciations enabled people to support Republicans without embracing them as anything other than impediments to him.

He had defined himself as a world-class whiner even before Rahm Emanuel, a world-class flatterer, declared that Obama had dealt masterfully with "the toughest times any president has ever faced" - quite a claim, considering that before the first president from Illinois was even inaugurated, seven of the then-34 states had seceded. Today's president from Illinois, a chronic campaigner and incontinent complainer who is uninhibited by considerations of presidential dignity, has blamed his difficulties on:

George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Supreme Court, a Cincinnati congressman (John Boehner), Karl Rove, Americans for Prosperity and other "groups with harmless-sounding names" (Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" redux), "shadowy third-party groups" (they are as shadowy as steam calliopes), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, finally, the American people. They have deeply disappointed him by being impervious to "facts and science and argument."

Actually, as the distilled essence of progressivism, he should feel ratified by Tuesday's repudiation. The point of progressivism is that the people must progress up from their backwardness. They cannot do so unless they are pulled toward the light by a government composed of the enlightened - experts coolly devoted to facts and science.

The progressive agenda is actually legitimated by the incomprehension and anger it elicits: If the people do not resent and resist what is being done on their behalf, what is being done is not properly ambitious. If it is comprehensible to its intended beneficiaries, it is the work of insufficiently advanced thinkers.

Of course the masses do not understand that the only flaw of the stimulus was its frugality, and that Obamacare's myriad coercions are akin to benevolent parental discipline. If the masses understood what progressives understand, would progressives represent a real vanguard of progress?

Of course the progressive agenda must make infinitely elastic the restraints imposed by the Founders' Constitution and its principles of limited government. Moving up from them - from the Founders and their anachronistic principles - is the definition of progress.

Recently, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter decided, as the president has decided, that what liberals need is not better ideas but better marketing of the ones they have: "It's a sign of how poorly liberals market themselves and their ideas that the word 'liberal' is still in disrepute despite the election of the most genuinely liberal president that the political culture of this country will probably allow."

"Despite"? In 2008, Democrats ran as Not George Bush. In 2010, they ran as Democrats. Hence, inescapably, as liberals, or at least as obedient to liberal leaders. Hence Democrats' difficulties.

Responding to Alter, George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux agreed that interest-group liberalism has indeed been leavened by idea-driven liberalism. Which is the problem.

"These ideas," Boudreaux says, "are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives. These are ideas about how one group of people (the politically successful) should engineer everyone else's contracts, social relations, diets, habits, and even moral sentiments." Liberalism's ideas are "about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas . . . with a relatively paltry set of 'Big Ideas' that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people."

This was the serious concern that percolated beneath the normal froth and nonsense of the elections: Is political power - are government commands and controls - superseding and suffocating the creativity of a market society's spontaneous order? On Tuesday, a rational and alarmed American majority said "yes."

georgewill@washpost.com