Today in 1967, John Lennon took his Rolls–Royce to J.P. Fallon Ltd. in Surrey, England, to see if it could paint the car in psychedelic colors. The result three months later:
The number one single today in 1973:
Today in 1967, John Lennon took his Rolls–Royce to J.P. Fallon Ltd. in Surrey, England, to see if it could paint the car in psychedelic colors. The result three months later:
The number one single today in 1973:
Today in 1956, the CBS Radio Network premiered Alan Freed’s “Rock and Roll Dance Party.”
The number one single today in 1958:
Today in 1962, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met someone who called himself Elmo Lewis. His real name was Brian Jones.
Today in 1956, Elvis Presley signed a seven-year contract with Paramount Studios.
The movies won no Academy Awards, but sold a lot of tickets and a lot of records.
The number one album today in 1968 was the soundtrack to “The Graduate”:
Tyler Dunne will open your eyes:
There had to be a breaking point. An incident, an argument, a loss, a moment that doomed the football marriage of Aaron Rodgers and Mike McCarthy.
Anyone could see the Packers quarterback and head coach were headed for divorce well before that inconceivable 20-17 loss to the lowly Cardinals in December, the one that finally got McCarthy fired. Death stares and defiance from Rodgers had been constant for years by then.
But how far back do you have to go to find the beginning of the end?
Was it Week 3 of the 2017 season, when cameras caught Rodgers barking“Stupid f–king call!” at his coach?
Or back further, to the NFC Championship Game on Jan. 18, 2015, when McCarthy coached with the ferocity of a sloth, calling for field goals from the 1-yard line twice in the first half and then running three straight times with five minutes left to infuriate his QB and effectively euthanize a Super Bowl season?
Or even earlier, to 2013, when Rodgers and McCarthy appeared close to throwing haymakers midway through a loss in Cincinnati?
Those who observed this relationship from the beginning say you have to keep going.
Back to the honeymoon period. Even as the Packers went 15-1 in 2011, with Rodgers as league MVP. Even as they won their last Super Bowl title, in the 2010 season, with Rodgers as Super Bowl MVP. Even then, Rodgers was already seething at his coach.
So keep going. All the way to when these two were first brought together. In early 2006.
The worst-kept secret at 1265 Lombardi Avenue was that Rodgers seemed to loathe his coach from the moment McCarthy was hired.
Nobody holds a grudge in any sport like Rodgers. When it comes to Rodgers, grudges do not merrily float away. They stick. They grow. They refuel.
No, Rodgers would not forget that McCarthy had helped perpetuate his four-and-a-half-hour wait in the NFL draft green room the year prior. His nationally televised embarrassment. McCarthy, then the 49ers offensive coordinator, chose Alex Smith No. 1 overall. Not Rodgers.
No, Rodgers would not take it as a funny accident.
“Aaron’s always had a chip on his shoulder with Mike,” says Ryan Grant, the Packers’ starting running back from 2007 to 2012. “The guy who ended up becoming your coach passed on you when he had a chance. Aaron was upset that Mike passed on him—that Mike actually verbally said that Alex Smith was a better quarterback.”
The number one album today in 1980 was Genesis’ “Duke”:
Today in 1985, more than 5,000 radio stations played this at 3:50 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, which is 9:50 a.m. Central time (but Standard or Daylight?):
Today’s blog continues a tradition that began decades ago with a Wisconsin Public Television “WeekEnd” show the Friday after an election.
Dan O’Donnell analyzes the Supreme Court election (assuming the recount doesn’t change the result, about which more later):
Brian Hagedorn was a dead man walking. Michael Screnock’s 12-point drubbing a year ago seemed like a best-case scenario. His liberal opponent had an overwhelming fundraising advantage, hundreds of thousands of dollars more in support from Eric Holder’s PAC and Planned Parenthood, and the residual wave of Governor Evers’ stunning upset just five months earlier.
Hagedorn couldn’t possibly win, not with the endless news reports about his old blog posts, Christian school policies, and Alliance Defending Freedom speeches.His campaign was less a victory march than it was a march to the electoral gallows.
Just as importantly, the institutional conservative movement behind him was in shambles.
Finger-pointing over Governor Walker’s loss led to an overhaul of the Wisconsin Republican Party in the middle of Hagedorn’s campaign, and the Wisconsin Realtors Association’s very public rebuke of him left him politically toxic.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce refused to spend on his behalf, thinking that his was a lost cause. One could hardly blame them, either. Nobody, it seemed, gave Hagedorn even a puncher’s chance.
Yet Hagedorn punched anyway, and punched back so hard that it got Wisconsin’s vaunted conservative grassroots off the mat and in his corner. His campaign, to borrow Rocky’s tagline, was a million-to-one shot, but the grassroots were willing to take it with him even if no one else was.
New Republican Party leader Mark Jefferson returned power and autonomy to local party branches to coordinate get-out-the-vote efforts, Americans for Prosperity led the way in voter contacts, and even the voters themselves made phone calls, sent texts, and posted Facebook messages stressing to everyone they knew the importance of this race.
It is, of course, still too close to call and as of this writing well within the margin for a recount, but Hagedorn has also built enough of a lead that it will almost certainly hold. In the 27 statewide recounts over the past 20 years, the average swing was just 282 votes. The largest swing ever was 1,247 votes in the infamous Florida recount of 2000.
Once Hagedorn is sworn in, conservatives will take a 5-2 majority on the Supreme Court and, more importantly, indemnify themselves against the possibility of losing control next year. Had Hagedorn lost, the resulting 4-3 conservative majority would have likely been turned into a 4-3 liberal majority in the Spring of 2020 when incumbent conservative justice Dan Kelly has to run on the same ballot as the Democratic presidential primary.
The inherent liberal advantage there would have meant a near-insurmountable hill to climb, but if Hagedorn’s win should remind Wisconsin of anything, it’s that grassroots conservative activism is capable of pulling off major upsets.
A significant reason is acute awareness of the significance of the stakes. Once it was understood that this year’s race was essentially for control of the Court, conservatives steeled their resolve. Once they recognized that Hagedorn was essentially being attacked for his Christian beliefs, their resolve turned titanium.
Repeated attacks on mainstream Christian beliefs as being disqualifying for public office backfired spectacularly, as untold thousands of Christian conservatives (and, anecdotally, even a handful of Christian liberals) viewed them as a personal affront.
That was the ultimate motivator, as it provided a flashpoint for the pervading sense that liberalism was encroaching on Wisconsin’s values. First it was Holder’s hundreds of thousands trying to buy the Court, and then it was his allied groups intimating that a hateful Christian like Hagedorn, like you, wasn’t morally fit to sit on it.
This led voters to personally identify with Hagedorn in a way that they never did with Screnock or even winning candidates like Rebecca Bradley, David Prosser, Michael Gableman, and Annette Ziegler. All of them won hard-fought races and were predictably demonized on their way to the Court, but none experienced the intensely personal persecution that Hagedorn did.
That bonded conservatives to him and turned casual participants in this race into active supporters willing to go the extra mile for him. It wasn’t just that liberals were going to take over the Court, they were going to make sure someone like Hagedorn, like you, could never possibly hope to sit on it ever again.
This, apparently, was all it took to re-engage conservatives and re-awaken Wisconsin’s sleeping giant. Looming large now is the recount, but what lingers from this race is the sense that conservatism in this state can never be counted out.
J.R. Ross Tweeted the following, which is why it reads as it does:
Some notes on things I picked up last week and wrote about at
@wispolitics:Conservatives sensed an uptick in enthusiasm among their base, whether it was due to
@GovEvers budget, Dane County rulings against lame-duck session laws, the Mueller report, etc. …? was if there was $ and ground game to capture it.
@RSLC came in late with $; latest report shows more than $1.2 million in spending over final week. Groups such as AFP, WFA, Susan B. Anthony, WRTL, AMA, FreedomWorks reported IE work on behalf of@judgehagedorn
Another question was whether
@JudgeNeubauer had done enough to excite the liberal base or if the knocks on@judgehagedorn over his views, blog posts, being@ScottWalker legal counsel were enough.
@JudgeNeubauer ran a very traditional SCt race, insiders said. Focused on experience, endorsements and often avoided specifying positions.@judgehagedorn was more explicit in his views, more like ’18 race.
@JudgeNeubauer also had superior air cover.#s I saw today had her and Greater Wisconsin outspending@judgehagedorn and RSLC by more than $2M on broadcast, cable, radio.
If
@judgehagedorn holds lead, changes dynamic of ’20 race, which looks to be uphill fight for conservative Justice Kelly. Would put conservative majority back to 5-2, meaning they’d hold court even if liberals win next year. Dem prez primary expected 2 be big influence on turnout
Oh, and for those looking to make a definitive statement on ’20 prez race off tonight, remember:
@justicedallet won by 11.5 points April ’18@GovEvers won by 1.1 points Nov. ’18
In ’08, conservative SCt candidate Gableman knocked off liberal incumbent Justice Butler with 51.2 % that April. That November,
@BarackObama won Wisconsin with 56.2 %. But you do you, social media. Hyperventilate away.
Charlie Sykes Tweeted that, as well as …
GOP pol texts me: “The base is awake”…. reacting to what they see as Dem overreach in WI…
How is Neubauer taking this? This reportedly is a new fundraising email from Neubauer’s campaign:
“Judge Lisa Neubauer is a fair, independent, and impartial, and she was running against an avowed homophobe, who founded a private school that embedded discrimination into their mission and who gave multiple paid speeches to a hate group.
We’re disappointed that this race is too close to call, but we’re not defeated. This campaign isn’t over, and we need your support to ensure that every vote gets counted — please chip in $20.19 today.
Dark-money right-wing forces want to win this race so they can keep rigging legislative district maps in Wisconsin.
So they can continue to strip powers from the Democratic Governor and give them to Republican leaders in the Legislature.
Brian Schimming explains what may happen next:
Having co-directed Justice David Prosser’s recount effort with Judge Jim Troupis in 2011, I’ve been getting a ton of messages and inquiries. Let me offer a few top-of-the-mind thoughts …
– Judge Hagedorn’s lead is approximately 5,800 out of 1.2 million cast statewide. Prosser’s was 7,316 out of almost 1.5 million
– The counties will very likely conduct their official “county canvas” next week, send results to state Elections Commission who will then, presumably, certify it. Judge Neubauer will then have a prescribed number of days to request a recount.
– Judge Hagedorn’s current unofficial margin is less than one per cent so Judge Neubauer would be, by statute, eligible to ask for a recount. But since the margin is more than .25 per cent, she would be required to “pay” a determined fee for the costs. She also could only partially recount as well.
– Post-county canvas, the likelihood of the result being changed or dramatically altered is infinitesimally low. After the 2011 recount Justice Prosser’s margin only dropped a little over 300 votes statewide.
Having said all this – we may need to get to the barricades, people. Not speaking for the campaign here, but it is completely plausible, if Judge Neubauer”s campaign even appears to be moving into a recount posture, hundreds of volunteers will be needed on short notice statewide to monitor the county canvas and/or a full or partial recount. Many of you stepped up for us in a big way in the 2011 effort and I know I speak for Justice Prosser when I say he is eternally and most sincerely grateful.Could be “Deja by all over again.” Stand by, we’ll see.
As I’m given to declare at moments like this: “This is The Truth until Further Notice.”
Republican lawmakers in Madison knew Gov. Tony Evers would want to spend more and raise taxes. He campaigned on it.
But Republicans at the statehouse now say they’re shocked at just how much Evers’ proposed budget would spend.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau this week said Evers’ two-year state budget would spend $2 billion more than Wisconsin has to spend.
“The LFB numbers are worse than the initial analysis when the budget was first introduced a few weeks back,” state Rep. Jeremy Thiesfeldt said. “The fact is that the longer the voters of Wisconsin examine Tony Evers’ budget, the more it seems to spend and the higher their taxes go.”
The LFB report shows Evers wanting to spend $19.7 billion next year. The state will only bring in $18.8 billion. The spending gap is even larger in the second year. LFB shows Ever’s plan would spend $19.9 billion, while Wisconsin would bring in the same $18.8 billion.
“He plans to burn through $1.8 billion in projected new revenue, raise taxes over $1 billion, allow property taxes to increase, and then still have a nearly $2 billion deficit,” Thiesfeldt added.
State Rep. Ron Tusler said he sees the governor’s budget not as a specific, detailed plan for managing state government, but more of a policy statement coming off an election.
“This is the exact opposite of budgeting,” Tusler said Tuesday. “This is asking for everything you can think of, and throwing the whole kitchen sink and seeing what sticks.”
Tusler and most other Republicans in Madison say Evers’ budget ends in one place: With higher taxes.
“Our state right now is in a good fiscal place. We’ve been really responsible in the past,” Tusler said. “And to increase the size of our government by 10 percent, to increase the amount of spending so that at some point we’ll have to tax people at more than a thousand dollars more per person. That would be irresponsible.”
Evers proposed spending more on road construction when he introduced his budget. He also said he wants to spend more on schools.
But Evers is also looking to expand Medicaid by enrolling at least 80,000 people in the state. And he is proposing to hire hundreds of more state employees.
“Most of the money is not for better facilities. It’s for more administrators, more government employees,” Tusler said of the extra spending in Evers’ budget. “It’s really a focus on increasing the size of government.”
The two Republicans who will lead the budget-making process in Madison, state Sen Alberta Darling and state Rep. John Nygren, called the Evers’ budget all but dead on arrival.
“Luckily for taxpayers,” the two wrote in a joint statement, “Republicans are willing to do the hard work and deliver a budget that doesn’t raise taxes, invests in priorities like education, and doesn’t max out the credit cards.”
Ignoring the Captain Renault-like cynicism …
… Republicans would be insane to accept any part of a budget that increases taxes by $1.3 billion (which is not almost zero) and still has a $2 billion gap between revenues and expenses.
Today in 1960, RCA Victor Records announced it would release all singles in both mono and stereo.
Today in 1964, the Beatles had 14 of the Billboard Top 100 singles, including the top five:
Looking for evidence that ink- and pixel-stained wretches are their own worst enemies when it comes to destroying public trust in the media? Consider the continuing turmoil of a week which closed with an MSNBC news editor pressuring a freelance writer on behalf of the Democratic Party just days after media types donned collective frowny faces because an investigation apparently did not find evidence that the president conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
That MSNBC editor, Dafna Linzer, called journalist Yashar Ali to try and convince him to delay or kill a small story that would slightly inconvenience the Democratic Party over its presidential primary debate plans. According to Ali, “the head of all political coverage for NBC News and MSNBC” had not been “calling to advocate for her network, she was calling to advocate the DNC’s position.”
“She wanted me to wait so they could call state party leaders,” wrote Ali. It was, he noted, “unethical”—and way off base, since he wasn’t writing for any outfit that she represented.
“What he ran up against here was just a tendril of the media-PR-political complex,” commented Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple on the to-do. That is, it was a brief glimpse into some unpleasant behind-the-scenes workings.
Relative to events of the previous weekend, Yashar Ali’s tale of being pressured by Linzer was a minor kerfuffle. But it came in the same week in which Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his high-media-profile investigation into charges that Donald Trump and company conspired with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The full report has yet to be released, but a summary by Attorney General William Barr quotes Mueller to the effect that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
“Barr’s announcement was a thunderclap to mainstream news outlets and the cadre of mostly liberal-leaning commentators who have spent months emphasizing the possible-collusion narrative in opinion columns and cable TV panel discussions,” wrote Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi.
Thunderclap is right. Way too many reporters bet heavily on what they assumed would be the administration-ending outcome of the report. It turned out to be a bad gamble.
“If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically, a fact that made a number of reporters queasy about coming forward” with doubts about the collusion story, wrote Matt Taibbi, a rare insider critic of the media’s herd mentality, after Barr released his summary. “#Russiagate became synonymous with #Resistance, which made public skepticism a complicated proposition.”
But unless there’s something earth-shattering in the report that Barr is very unwisely eliding, it’s just not going to have the impact that so many Trump critics—and too many media types—had hoped and anticipated. “The release of the findings was a significant political victory for Mr. Trump and lifted a cloud that has hung over his presidency since before he took the oath of office,” Mark Mazzetti and Katie Benner of The New York Times concluded.
That doesn’t help journalists with the public, half of whom already thought the investigation was a witch hunt, according to a March 2019 Suffolk University/USA Today poll, and a majority of whom “have lost trust in the news media in recent years,” according to the Knight Foundation.
Despite the screams of (mostly conservative) critics, the partisan affiliations of so many journalists are unlikely to be the big problem by itself. Boomer mythologizing about Walter Cronkite and a supposed golden age of journalism aside, the era of “objective” news coverage was something between a historical aberration and complete nonsense. Most news organs of the past, as of the present, had partisan preferences. But they were expected to be open about their affiliations, and to at least try to get the story right. And they were supposed to have some basic understanding of and connection to the people they were covering—at least within the United States.
By contrast, most Americans now think that reporters are sloppy about writing stories before learning all the facts, and that they even get paid by sources, according to Columbia Journalism Review.
Just as bad, 58 percent of the U.S. adults surveyed “feel the news media do not understand people like them,” Pew Research finds—a number that rises to 73 percent among Republicans. Even worse, “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” 29 percent of Americans say, echoing the president who so many people think was the victorious subject of a recently concluded and unsuccessful witch hunt.
A big part of the problem is that “the national media really does work in a bubble,” insisted Politico’s Jack Shafer after the 2016 election. “And the bubble is growing more extreme. Concentrated heavily along the coasts, the bubble is both geographic and political.” The result, he said, is an industry-wide groupthink that represents the views and priorities of the few cities where national journalistic jobs are located. It’s a groupthink that almost certainly means that many Americans are alien and “misunderstood” by bubble-dwelling journalists who take each other’s sloppy thinking for granted.
So when journalists start favoring outcomes–like salvation in a special counsel’s report or special consideration for political apparatchiks—over just covering stories, they tend to overwhelmingly favor the same faction. And that comes off as especially obvious to the large segment of the population that lives at a distance from them geographically, culturally, and ideologically.
Benefiting from these missteps are the politicians who journalists are supposed to be scrutinizing and holding to account. Democrats either get a pass or else are understandably believed to get such a pass by a public that sees them as part of the same team. Republicans get to cast shade on what is easily portrayed as an excitable pack of opposition campaign workers.
In the eyes of Trump’s inner circle, “the report is a gift that vindicates Trump, undercuts Democratic investigations, and repudiates critical news coverage,” reports The Atlantic. Going forward, any reporter who gives the president a hard time “will be hit with 30-second spots of all their ridiculous claims about collusion,” a Republican source told the magazine.
It may work.
“Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population,” worries Taibbi.
Which is too bad, because there’s plenty to report about Trump on matters of policy and personal conduct. Some of what he does is good, and much of what he does is bad—which can be said of many politicians, to be honest. There’s plenty of hard work for the news media to do in gathering, analyzing, and presenting information instead of hoping that an investigation will magically annul an election, or that every scribbler will be on-side in favoring the “right” political faction.
“Journalists respond to their failings best when their vanity is punctured with proof that they blew a story that was right in front of them,” Shafer concluded in his 2017 piece.
We’ll see. Because in favoring political games over covering the news, too many journalists have badly blown their reputations along with a lot of stories.
If journalists abandoning real work in favor of political shenanigans only cost some their professional reputations, you could just break out the popcorn and watch the show. But journalists, when we do our jobs right, serve an important role by keeping people informed and scrutinizing the powerful. When we drag our own credibility into public view and shoot it in the head, that deprives the public of an important service while also empowering bottom-dwellers who should be subject to constant observation.
Today in 1956, Elvis Presley appeared on ABC-TV’s “Milton Berle Show” live from the flight deck of the U.S.S. Hancock, moored off San Diego.
An estimated one of every four Americans watched, probably making it ABC’s most watched show in its history to then, and probably for several years after that.