• Presty the DJ for April 8

    April 8, 2019
    Music

    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:

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for April 8
  • Presty the DJ for April 7

    April 7, 2019
    Music

    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.

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for April 7
  • Presty the DJ for April 6

    April 6, 2019
    Music

    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”:

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for April 6
  • The Rodgers/McCarthy/Packers divorce

    April 5, 2019
    Packers

    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.”

    Another longtime teammate agrees: “That was a large cancer in the locker room. It wasn’t a secret.”

    Through all of the winning seasons, it might have been easy for casual observers to overlook this cancer. To mistake success for bliss and harmony and assume life was good between the two.

    But even in the best of times—when confetti should’ve still been stuck to their clothing—one person who was then close to Rodgers remembers he would regularly call to vent that McCarthy didn’t have a clue what he was doing. He’d tell him that McCarthy frequently called the wrong play. That he used the wrong personnel. That they were running plays that worked one out of 50 times in practice. That McCarthy was a buffoon he was constantly bailing out.

    “Mike has a low football IQ, and that used to always bother Aaron,” this source says. “He’d say Mike has one of the lowest IQs, if not the lowest IQ, of any coach he’s ever had.”

    Adds a personnel man who worked for the Packers at the time: “He’s not going to respect you if he thinks he’s smarter than you.”

    And then, as time moved on and the team plateaued, the facade fell away. Cracks in the foundation of this arranged marriage became impossible to ignore.

    “You start arguing. You start losing. When the money’s bad, you argue,” says DuJuan Harris, a Packers running back from 2012 through 2014. “You start hating how somebody breathes. You start hating how somebody chews their food.”

    Then, poof, it’s over.

    Leaving behind what legacy? It’s not like the Packers were epic failures this last decade. McCarthy has a street named after him in the shadow of Lambeau Field. Rodgers is a future first-ballot Hall of Famer. The two made the playoffs together eight years in a row. But this should’ve been a Patriots-like reign. History. One former teammate says he thinks Rodgers should have won a minimum of six Super Bowl rings under McCarthy and that the 2011 team should be remembered like the ’72 Dolphins.

    Instead, a surefire dynasty never was.

    Instead, Rodgers is hoping to rise again at 35 years old, McCarthy is unemployed, and everyone else is left asking one question: What the hell happened?

    Bleacher Report talked to dozens of players, coaches and personnel men who shared time in Green Bay with Rodgers and McCarthy in search of an answer.

    Virtually all of them agree this era of Packers football is missing rings. Many rings. And sure, there’s blame to spread. Some cite former general manager Ted Thompson literally falling asleep in meetings by the end of his tenure. Some cite the defense’s innate ability to self-destruct each January.

    But central to it all are the two Packers who lasted the longest.

    McCarthy and Rodgers.

    Where Jermichael Finley, a Packers tight end from 2008 to 2013, sees a self-entitled quarterback and bad leader, Grant thinks it’s idiotic for anyone to complain about such a transcendent talent. Where Greg Jennings, a Packers receiver from 2006 to 2012, sees Rodgers as an ultrasensitive source of toxicity, others lambast McCarthy for wasting a gift from the football gods.

    One ex-Packers scout puts it on both. He describes Rodgers as an arrogant quarterback quick to blame everyone but himself—one who’s “not as smart as he thinks he is”—yet kindly points out that McCarthy basically quit on his team.

    Nobody’s sure where Rodgers and the Packers will go from here. How long this next marriage with new head coach Matt LaFleur will last.

    But one former teammate, lamenting this colossal what-if, makes one point on the past crystal clear.

    “If you were going to write a headline,” he says, “that would be it right there: How Egos Took Down the Packers.”

    At its peak, the Rodgers-McCarthy Packers offense carried a feeling of absolute certainty.

    Coaches would try to build up opponents, and the players would chuckle inside. “We would literally say, ‘They can’t stop us,’” Grant says.

    There was zero doubt.

    Plays were simple and worked like clockwork. McCarthy identified and game-planned for endless mismatches. Defenses couldn’t double-team Jennings. Linebackers couldn’t guard Finley. Jordy Nelson was in unbreakable mindlock with Rodgers on back-shoulder throws. James Jones bullied corners. Randall Cobb added to the embarrassment of riches. And playing zone against Rodgers was like playing zone against the Golden State Warriors: a death sentence.

    The cherry on top for Rodgers was ever-growing freedom to change plays at the line of scrimmage and an ever-growing propensity mid-play to wait, wait, wait for something grander to develop downfield.

    McCarthy could live with that, of course. The Packers were winning. So much.

    Yet as Green Bay’s talent drained, that freedom became a problem.

    Think of mankind’s never-ending debate over artificial intelligence, Grant says. “When you put a quarterback in a position and you talk about how cerebral he is and you give him flexibility to make some changes, guess what? … You develop A.I., because it has the capacity to run without you. And then when it runs without you, it’s like, ‘Wait a minute!’ But in the same breath, if you’re not actually able to stay ahead of it, it’s going to outthink you and it’s going to say, ‘Me making the decision is the better decision.’”

    And so, Grant adds, “You live and die by his greatness.”

    The problem for McCarthy was that as the talent drained, he failed to innovate. His scheme went stale and he didn’t adapt. As one personnel man puts it, McCarthy “got full off his own juice.” He believed his system—not the Packers’ absurd amount of talent—was the foundation for the offensive success. But raw rookies cannot bust free one-on-one like, say, Jennings or Nelson or Jones.

    Tension with Rodgers over the play-calling became part of the DNA of the offense itself. Rodgers felt the system was bland, so he increasingly played Superman.

    Many believe Rodgers, the QB with the best career passer rating (103.1) in NFL history, was 100 percent justified in overruling his coach’s play calls, and that the Packers would’ve deteriorated more precipitously if he hadn’t put that cape on. The personnel man says the Packers’ passing offense was essentially “Get open” and that they basically ran the same routes for seven years straight, to the point where division rivals “constantly” called out plays pre-snap and jumped routes.

    No wonder the slant route, once so lethal, went extinct.

    Where were the route combinations? The motion? The misdirection? “It’s like, ‘Dude, you have to adjust! The league changes!’” the personnel man says. “You’ve got to be humble enough to follow it. If you can’t adapt, you die. He definitely didn’t adapt. You can’t run 90 back-shoulders into coverage. I don’t care who you are. Things got so stale.”

    Rodgers had no choice but to seize control, and each year, he took more.

    That ridiculous throw to Jared Cook in the playoffs in 2017? Drawn up in the huddle. Rodgers told an uncovered guard to pull out with him, that he’d bait in a defender and dash left. “That’s what you’re dealing with,” one former Packers coach says. “A guy who’ll do that. He might screw up a play Mike called … [but] you have to give him credit for the good, too.”

    That disconnect led to tension. A system that once seemed so unstoppable was rendered bland, archaic. Games devolved into weird contests of who could call the better play, and the grudge-fueled Rodgers felt more and more empowered to excel in spite of McCarthy, the man who dared to think Alex Smith was better than him.

    McCarthy, on the other hand, seemed to be more and more checked out, leading many to sympathize with Rodgers.

    The sight was strange at first.

    About once a week, a meeting would start up and McCarthy was MIA. Players weren’t quite sure where he was while, for example, an assistant coach would run the team’s final prep on the Saturday before a game. Eventually, word leaked that McCarthy, the one calling plays on game day, was up in his office getting a massage during those meetings.

    One player had the same massage therapist, and she let it slip that McCarthy would sneak her up a back stairway to his office while the rest of the team prepared for that week’s opponent.

    “That was when guys were like, ‘What the heck?’” says one longtime Packer. “Everybody was like, ‘Really? Wow.’”

    Rodgers in particular was not thrilled.

    Not that there wasn’t logic to it all. As the years grinded on, McCarthy tried to take on more of a CEO-like approach with the team. He would routinely deny outside interview opportunities for assistants if they were under contract, so this was his way of giving them more responsibility, to prep them for an eventual promotion elsewhere. Back issues are common amongst all football coaches. And while McCarthy likely wasn’t getting a massage every time he let an assistant run a meeting, the optics were bad. In stepping back, he came across as distant and lost respect from players.

    “If you’re not a part of meetings, and then you’re trying to be pissed about execution, nobody’s going to really respect you,” says one former front-office member from the McCarthy-Rodgers era. “They’re going to look at you like, ‘Where have you been all week?’ It sounded like he was really just chilling.”

    Put yourself in Rodgers’ shoes—in the shoes of a player who eats, sleeps, breathes the sport. As some sources put it, “How do you think he felt?” Of course he’d seize control.

    Rodgers may not be a Tom Brady-like locker room presence, but to one former offensive teammate, he’s still “by far the best quarterback, skills-wise, in the history of the NFL.” And it was on McCarthy to manage that, provide leadership and make his quarterback’s life as stress-free as possible. Do everything in his power to let that talent shine.

    “His No. 1 job, and Mike always missed this point, is to manage Aaron,” the former teammate says. “That’s your driver. That’s your engine. Aaron’s your engine for the whole team. Whether you want to or don’t want to, you have to make sure that guy’s happy. At the end of the day—and it doesn’t sound like a fun job—if he’s happy, you’re winning.

    “Your job isn’t to go out there and throw and catch passes. Your job is to manage people.”

    And if Rodgers isn’t Brady as a leader, McCarthy sure as hell never managed like Bill Belichick. Whereas Belichick despises the limelight and “removes himself” every way he can, this player says McCarthy loved anointing himself as a quarterback guru. The coach often bragged to players about his time with Joe Montana…in Kansas City.

    “He tried to bill himself as this quarterback master,” the player says. “It was like, ‘Buddy, I just want to let you know, Joe Montana did a lot more before he was in Kansas City.’”

    McCarthy felt he was the one who created this monster of an offense. A personnel man adds: “That was McCarthy’s big mistake. He wanted to be The Guy. He wanted to be The Reason. And he wasn’t that good.”

    It didn’t help that McCarthy also was rotating his assistants between positions annually. He wanted them to gain more experience, but as Grant points out, this didn’t necessarily help the players. Many times, they felt as though they knew more about their position than their own coach.

    Many agree McCarthy could have saved himself if he had swallowed his pride and hired a bright offensive mind to challenge Rodgers. One beam of hope emerged in Alex Van Pelt, who coached running backs in 2012 and 2013 before moving over to quarterbacks in 2014. However, team sources say McCarthy felt threatened by Van Pelt, who became close to Rodgers. The Packers opted not to retain Van Pelt when his contract expired after the 2017 season, which didn’t sit well with Rodgers.

    Which cut that grudge deeper.

    And the rest of the team? There were mixed opinions on McCarthy.

    Some interpreted his laissez-faire style differently. It was refreshing. From backups like Jayrone Elliott (“I have nothing but respect for him”) to starters like Grant (“Mike’s a great coach. I’m surprised he’s not coaching right now”), again and again they describe him as a player’s coach. But even one defensive starter who begins a conversation by praising McCarthy soon admits the culture he instilled created a soft team.

    When Thompson hired McCarthy, he called him “Pittsburgh macho.” And yet the coach rarely matched his no-bull rhetoric in press conferences with no-bull action. One personnel man calls him “a fake tough guy.” McCarthy rarely fined or benched or sent messages to players and paid the price almost every season—never more so than in the game, the moment, that’ll define him in the eyes of many Packers fans. Multiple sources from the team say McCarthy should have cut inept backup tight end Brandon Bostick months before the NFC title game in 2015. Instead, he was on the field for a late Seahawks onside kick attempt, and instead of blocking his man, he went for the catch. The ball bounced off his helmet, and Green Bay collapsed.

    The Packers also rarely hit in training camp, and it angered defensive players “every day” how little interest McCarthy showed in them. He was never around their drills, the former starter says, and it was always the defense sprinting to the offense’s side of the field for team drills.

    “What guys did on defense did not matter,” he says. “This is an offensive-minded team, and our quarterback is expected to bail us out. As defenders, we used to always talk about it. It’s like, ‘We whupped their ass today in camp. Are they going to finally run to us? Respect us?’”

    The answer was a resounding “No,” and this player says the result was a “soft mindset” that’d constantly rear its ugly head.

    When Rodgers missed seven games in 2013 and nine games in 2017, the player remembers teammates outright quitting.

    “That’s when the real coaching, the real identity, the real character came out of everybody,” he says. “I saw that guys give up when we don’t have a star quarterback. I see guys aren’t going to give it all when their backs are against the wall.”

    Even when they built a 19-7 lead in the NFC title game in 2015, even as they bruised and bloodied the most physical team in the NFL for 56 minutes, it was only a matter of time before their inner softness was exposed. McCarthy caved, the defense caved, and it was not by accident.

    “That Seahawks game defined our team right there,” he says. “We didn’t have any finishers.”

    Moments after that 28-22 loss, Rodgers let his frustrations show. He criticized the team’s lack of aggressiveness. But he didn’t blow up directly at McCarthy, that anyone interviewed saw. Quiet tension defined this relationship. One player who heard about McCarthy’s massages even wonders aloud if Rodgers started that rumor and tried spreading it to anybody that’d listen. Neither Rodgers nor McCarthy could be reached to comment on this story, but nobody B/R spoke to recalled a scornful, over-the-top confrontation between the two when such a reckoning was needed.

    If Rodgers has a problem, he rarely chooses to address it directly.

    One person, who used to be close to the quarterback but has since been cut out of his life, describes Rodgers as forever “conflict-averse.” As passive-aggressive to the extreme. As someone who’d rather stuff problems deep, deep down inside of him and pretend there’s no issue rather than communicate those issues and strengthen relationships like this one with his coach.

    Rodgers usually chose midgame tantrums over constructive conversation.

    “I guarantee you, he never—maybe once or twice—but mostly never, ever addressed any of those things with Mike,” this person says. “Which means all it did was fester and poison it.”

    So fester, it did. And fester. And fester.

    So, no, McCarthy is not the only one to blame.

    It was 2012 and the Packers were hosting the 49ers when, mid-timeout, cornerback Carlos Rogers playfully asked Jennings why he was running so many short routes.

    “You know how it is,” Jennings told him. “Contract year.”

    That’s when Rodgers stepped in to say, per Jennings, “You guys should get him at the end of the year.”

    Come again?

    Jennings walked back to the huddle speechless.

    “I don’t think he realizes what he said and the impact that it had,” Jennings says. “Had the shoe been on the other foot and I said, ‘Hey, man, I should come and play with your quarterback,’ he would’ve been so offended by that. But when it comes out of his mouth—and we all know there’s truth behind jokes—for him to say that and just act as though everything was the same? It just wasn’t.”

    The next day, Jennings told his position coach, Edgar Bennett, he knew this was his last year in Green Bay. “That was my headspace,” he admits.

    He had been Rodgers’ No. 1 receiver for four seasons running, racking up 4,619 receiving yards and 34 touchdowns from 2008-11. He was on the receiving end of Rodgers’ iconic Super Bowl thread of the needle. He had opened his family’s front door to Rodgers for Thanksgiving, for any day he’d ever want, because he knew his quarterback was alone in a new city.

    And now Rodgers didn’t want him around? Jennings felt betrayed.

    That season plodded along. The Packers misdiagnosed Jennings’ sports hernia as a groin injury. When he entered free agency, Rodgers made no effort to convince him to stay. No calls. No texts. Not one conversation. Goodbye.

    Before bombarding his Twitter account with profanities, understand that Jennings is self-aware. He acknowledges there will be steam bursting out of Packers fans’ ears. Any ex-Packer who does anything but praise Rodgers to the fullest extent is swiftly shamed en masse. He gets that. But Jennings insists he’s simply speaking the truth—and in this case, the truth “provokes.”

    He’s not the only one, either.

    Maybe Rodgers’ ability to sling a football on a rope from any angle every Sunday masked McCarthy’s flaws. But a faction of people who have spent time around Rodgers and the Packers believe you must look beyond the statistics and highlights and understand Rodgers is also responsible for the Packers’ plummet to mediocrity.

    Then they list the reasons why.

    He is self-entitled.

    The moment Rodgers inked his new contract, one that could earn him up to $180 million, Finley knew a storm was brewing. Because Finley, Rodgers’ No. 1 tight end for four-and-a-half years, remembers the entitlement his QB had even as a first-year starter “when he was broke as f–k.”

    “You gave a man $200 million,” Finley says. “He’s the GM. He’s the organization. He’s the quarterback. And he’s the head coach. He has a sense of entitlement already, and then you give him $200 million? You make him one of the highest-paid in history. It comes with the territory, man. I think Rodgers, man to man, needs to take a little more blame.”

    He’ll throw you in the doghouse.

    One former Packers scout says Rodgers can be brutally tough on young players. Sometimes, it’s necessary. Other times? Not so much.

    The scout points to Jeff Janis, a 2014 seventh-round flier with rare size (6’3,” 220 pounds) and speed (4.42 in the 40) who quickly became a fan favorite—and Rodgers’ favorite whipping boy. It was enough to alarm the scout, even though he also wasn’t high on Janis as a player.

    “Janis got into the doghouse really quick, and he just never let him out,” he says. “He didn’t even give the kid a chance. And the tough part is Janis is actually a good person. And they used to dog him. Other people did what Aaron did. They used to dog Janis.”

    What does this doghouse look like? Easy. Rodgers can do no wrong. “He doesn’t make a mistake. It’s always the receiver’s fault.”

    He is overly sensitive.

    That word constantly comes up when you ask about Rodgers. Where to begin? “Sensitive is sensitive,” Jennings begins. You hear what you want to hear. Perceive what you want to perceive. Nothing else matters.

    To illustrate, he points to his own broken relationship with the quarterback, because he is confident that he’s done everything in his power to mend it—while Rodgers has not, he punctuates, “by any stretch of the imagination.”

    Covering a Packers game as a member of the media, Jennings tried to get Rodgers’ attention, but the quarterback refused to acknowledge him. Jennings spoke to McCarthy. He spoke to the trainers. He spoke to everyone he could to set up a man-to-man chat, no cameras around, and never heard a peep back. Not that he was surprised.

    This is the same quarterback who scolded him for daring to speak to Brett Favre when Favre was a Viking. Jennings still remembers an incensed Rodgers saying to him after that 2009 game, “Why do you have to do that?” as if he was accusing Jennings of picking sides.

    “I can’t have a relationship with him because you have a problem with him?” Jennings says. “That’s petty! That’s not who I am.”

    So there was Jennings, a Viking himself in 2013. He could tell Packers receivers were scared just to say hello with Rodgers likely hyperanalyzing their every move from afar. To him, that’s sad. It shouldn’t be like this. He sees the relationship Brady has cultivated with Julian Edelman, with all of his receivers, and says, “Everyone wants that.” Those two spend time together off the field, and it carries into what matters on the field. Brady builds bonds for life, and that can be the difference between division titles and Super Bowls.

    Between Brady’s legacy and Rodgers’ legacy.

    Meanwhile, Jennings’ once-strong friendships with Nelson and Randall Cobb, two of Rodgers’ closest allies, have fizzled. There’s no chance in hell that “Perfect Pack” group posing on the cover of Sports Illustrated in 2011 would do so again.

    In Rodgers’ world, as one former friend says, “When you’re out, you’re out.” He eliminates anything he perceives to be negative. Famously, that included suddenly cutting off his family and close friends in 2014. He made a comment in December about celebrating his birthday with his “folks,” but sources close to the family say that’s incorrectly led many to believe they reconciled. They have not, and those who were cut out still can’t understand why.

    “I don’t know how someone changes completely,” one of them says. “That whole flip? For no reason? I can’t even fathom how someone does that.”

    Some around the Packers wonder if this absence of family is affecting Rodgers, if holding grudges has a negative effect on his psyche. One former Packers personnel man describes him as someone who’s “really into his feelings,” who’s “not kind of sensitive—he’s real sensitive.” There are bad dudes in the NFL, he assures, and Rodgers is not one of them. But he’s different, he says. Not in the way Brady is, not ultraconsumed with winning. Just…”different.”

    It’s as if Rodgers cannot hear millions of people calling him a walking Hall of Famer.

    As if Rodgers is still the kid with the spiky hair free-falling on draft day.

    Every scrap of negative press, every perceived slight from a teammate, a coach, whoever, “bothers him to his core,” this source says, “It hurts him. … It’s like, ‘Dude. You’re Aaron Rodgers. Relax. People are trying to crown you as the greatest ever, and you’ve only won one Super Bowl.’ It’s so entrenched in his mind—that everybody’s against me—that he just can’t get over that.”

    The chip on Rodgers’ shoulder was always more of a boulder, from the zero Division I offers to McCarthy’s 49ers choosing Smith over him to his own fans booing him during “Family Night” when Brett Favre tried to return. As he aged, Rodgers needed a new source of fuel, and that fuel became his own coach.

    In a twisted way, that attitude is also Rodgers’ gift. Pissing off teammates. Defying his coach. Burning bridges for life. These may all be inconvenient side effects to the assassin you see on Sundays.

    Grant dismisses anything his former teammates say—”Dude, get out of here”—because to him, the chip isn’t a bad thing.

    Hostility is also a weapon.

    “With Aaron, his chip on his shoulder and his sensitivity is actually what makes him great,” Grant says. “It’s part of what motivates him and who he is. So you can’t knock it. Just because you like it in one direction doesn’t mean you’re going to like it in all directions.”

    Another longtime member of the Packers front office agrees, claiming any frustration Rodgers felt with Janis, with anyone, is likely because that player doesn’t work how Rodgers works. Think of Jordan, Kobe, any legend. They’re all demanding to the point of teammates despising them. Ask Magic Johnson’s teammates what they thought of him, the source says. “They’d say, ‘This dude was a jerk!’”

    With superstardom comes the realization that all eyes are on you to deliver.

    Jordan embraced it. Kobe, too.

    That’s where Jennings and Finley see a stark difference in Rodgers. He is not accountable. “He’s not a natural-born leader,” Finley says.

    Now the pressure on Rodgers is rising like never before, Jennings adds, “whether he likes it or not.”

    “Not so much with his play, because we know his play is second to none,” Jennings says. “But how can he foster relationships and coexist with a head coach, a play-caller, that is going to put more on his plate to deliver for the betterment of the team? Not so much for the betterment of you, statistically, with all your numbers. You’re going to get your accolades. But now, we’re going to ask you to suppress your ego.”

    Adds Finley, “A-Rod wants his. He wants to eat. He cares about his yards, his completions. He’s going to have a hard time. … That’s like an addict. You tell an addict to change his ways when he’s been stuck in his ways so long. I think it’s going to be very tough. I thought he’d be able to grow out of it, but, s–t, you give a guy more money, there’s more attitude, more diva-ness…”

    His voice trails off.

    Nothing’s changed. McCarthy couldn’t do anything about it, and maybe no one can.

    Not that McCarthy didn’t try.

    Sources say McCarthy welcomed Rodgers over to his house and once even recommended he pick up the phone to call his mother. But Rodgers wasn’t a fan of McCarthy’s storytelling—he preferred to stick to the X’s and O’s. And on the family advice, Rodgers told McCarthy in so many words to mind his own business. McCarthy demanded more of Rodgers “as a man,” one ex-friend says, “and Aaron didn’t want to hear it. He doesn’t want to ever be told he’s wrong.”

    Everything continued to fester, problems never went away, and for some reason, nobody ever stepped in.

    The cold front of complacency swept on through northeastern Wisconsin every single time the Packers fell just shy of another Lombardi Trophy.

    After the Giants stunned those 15-1 Packers.

    After Colin Kaepernick zapped their defense (twice).

    After the Seattle meltdown.

    After an NFC title game blowout loss in Atlanta.

    Every time, the general manager who oversaw the team from 2005 to 2017 did…nothing. Or close to nothing. That’s what the ones banging the table for both Rodgers and McCarthy stress. They point to Ted Thompson sticking his head in the sand every offseason. To his ignoring the building tension between the two men he brought together to lead his franchise. And to how his stubborn reluctance to sign veterans, despite the rising salary cap, made life more difficult for both.

    As one player put it, Thompson assumed the Packers system was automatic and he could just plug cheap rookies in.

    In the process, the Packers lost the leaders that Rodgers and McCarthy never were, never would be, and they never found replacements.

    Gone were gnarly, take-no-prisoners guards Josh Sitton (a Packer from 2008 to 2015) and T.J. Lang (2009-2016). Both were never afraid to speak their minds. Gone was fullback John Kuhn (2007-2015), who several players cite as a major vocal leader. Gone were all those receivers. Gone were defensive tackle Ryan Pickett (2006-2013) and defensive back Charles Woodson (2006-2012). Gone was defensive tackle B.J. Raji (2009-2015), who one player claims held everyone accountable on defense. Thompson lowballed Raji, choosing instead to pay big money to fire-breathing defensive tackle Mike Daniels. While Daniels has been hell-bent on trashing Green Bay’s “soft” label, one teammate says guys are turned off by his “hypocritical leadership.”

    Thompson wanted the Packers to stay young. In the process, he gutted the team of its heart and soul.

    It got so bad, one player says, that offensive and defensive players almost never hung out off the field. Camaraderie was shot.

    “Guys really started feeling like, ‘I can’t get paid here,’” one player says. “How are you letting certain guys walk who proved themselves?”

    The leadership exodus pushed Rodgers further and further into an ill-fitting role. He never had to worry about speaking up back in 2010 or 2011. He played football. That’s what he prefers. Multiple sources say Rodgers misses those days, with one adding he’s become worn down and bitter about everyone’s expectations of the type of leader he should be. In other words, as a former Packers scout puts it, Rodgers “is Brett Favre 2.0. He used to say, ‘Oh, I’ll never be like that guy.’ And he literally is.”

    Back in Grant’s day, the Packers were armed with legit leaders at every position.

    Those teams self-policed. McCarthy never had to intervene. Rodgers never had to speak up.

    “The reason we did well was because we weren’t looking for Aaron to be a phenomenal leader,” Grant says. “He needed to be a phenomenal quarterback, because we were leaders. We handled our own position, and we weren’t looking for someone else to be that guy, to be that leader. … It was, ‘We’ve got this s–t.’ When things got out of hand, we were like, ‘What’s wrong with y’all?’ I don’t know what this looks like now.”

    Chances are, Rodgers would be less apt to defy a coach with more vets in the room.

    Players his age, who’ve seen it all, wouldn’t put up with his antics.

    “There’s no one there to hold him accountable,” Jennings says.

    How Thompson failed to grasp this dynamic baffles people in the organization, although they also believe someone above Thompson should’ve stepped in because the GM’s health was deteriorating. One personnel man recalls Thompson moving “really slow,” with slurred speech, falling asleep during film sessions. “I’m like, ‘This is the GM?’” Thompson was dealing with obvious physical issues, and Mark Murphy, the team president since 2007, didn’t step in.

    Thompson kept on serving as the team’s preeminent judge, jury and executioner.

    Until, finally, he didn’t.

    After the 2017 season, Murphy replaced Thompson with Brian Gutekunst as GM.

    In December, Murphy fired McCarthy.

    There’s no official “owner” in Green Bay—no one with a Jerry Jones-like heavy hand—but a decade after standing by Thompson, McCarthy and Rodgers when Favre tried to take his job back, Murphy is now wielding his power as de facto owner.

    Only Rodgers is left now.

    And Murphy made it clear that whatever happened last season cannot fly again.

    At its best, the Lambeau mystique during the Rodgers-McCarthy era looked like this: Rodgers fakes a handoff, Rodgers boots, Rodgers chucks it 60 yards to a wide-open receiver, beers are spilled, “Bang the drum” roars, Rodgers does a little skip with a defiant uppercut of a fist pump.

    When the Lambeau Field mystique evaporates, when the Packers offense inches closer and closer to collapse, it erodes to this: McCarthy sends play in. Rodgers does not approve. Rodgers calls own play in the huddle and/or tells a receiver to change his route. Exasperated sighs and snarls are exchanged all around. Nobody in their right mind is thinking, “They can’t stop us.”

    The Packers finish 6-9-1.

    The Packers suffer back-to-back losing seasons for the first time since 1990 and 1991.

    Whoever’s fault it was, it got ugly in 2018. Real ugly.

    After signing the richest contract in NFL history, Rodgers took more liberties than ever before the snap. A talent drain and McCarthy’s stubbornness were undoubtedly major issues. But Rodgers also showed virtually zero trust in his three rookie receivers, J’Mon Moore, Marquez Valdes-Scantling and Equanimeous St. Brown. No. 1 wideout Davante Adams was targeted 169 times, one shy of Julio Jones‘ NFL high.

    Rodgers had the leverage, and McCarthy knew it.

    Maybe Rodgers had no choice but to railroad a rotting offense. Maybe Rodgers should have respected authority—after all, this offense helped him earn all that money.

    Either way, he freelanced more than ever. One source with close ties to the team estimates Rodgers changed about a third of the plays McCarthy called. “An alarming amount. That is embarrassing. And they don’t work!’” Realizing early on that his days in Green Bay were numbered, McCarthy would not rip Rodgers publicly. Not even as fans lambasted him for failing to feed dangerous running back Aaron Jones—while Rodgers simultaneously audibled out of runs.

    That tendency to audible out of runs is just about the only issue Grant ever had with Rodgers as a teammate. That wasn’t a problem in 2011. It was in 2018.

    Life sure wasn’t fun for those rookie receivers, either. On-the-fly route changes put them in a no-win situation. They didn’t know whether to listen to their coaches or Rodgers.

    A source close to the team says St. Brown became frustrated because as much as he wanted to follow McCarthy’s play design, he also heard rumors of Rodgers freezing out teammates if they didn’t do exactly what he demanded. So he listened to Rodgers. On one play in New England, Rodgers told St. Brown to run a post route when the play called for a flag. St. Brown ran the post, and pressure forced Rodgers to throw the ball away toward the flag—leading his position coach to grill him on what he was thinking.

    St. Brown told him he was “improvising” so he didn’t upset Rodgers.

    Knowing what was up, McCarthy told him to stick with the routes called.

    “That’s when it went off the rails,” the source close to the team says. “This s–t was terrible. He f–ked McCarthy over. Aaron undermined him.”

    The A.I. was operating on its own. Nobody was going to rein this in.

    “Of course, it comes to a head, and what does he want to do?” says a source who was once close to Rodgers. “He wants to cut him out of his life, just like he cut his family out.”

    Rodgers refused to take scheduled throws underneath, instead waiting for a deep shot that rarely materialized. The lack of experience did not help. These rookies simply did not have the thousands of reps Rodgers once had with Nelson and company, so he couldn’t make subtle audibles play after play with them. In one red-zone drill in practice, St. Brown didn’t pick up on a signal, and Rodgers lost it. No, he wasn’t exactly giving these rookies a chance to grow, either. A source close to one of the team’s skill-position starters says Rodgers was the one “sinking the ship” with zero interest in developing Valdes-Scantling, St. Brown or Moore.

    The slightest mistake faded them out of his peripheral vision and sent him back to zeroing in on Adams.

    “If they don’t make plays, you can’t just not go to them again,” this source says. “You have to keep building trust in them.”

    Instead, he chose not to throw the ball to rookies open in one-on-one coverage. It’s likely no coincidence Valdes-Scantling faded out of the offense down the stretch. He ran the routes as they were called from the sideline, and his targets declined. Rodgers would look his way, then pat, pat, pat the ball for something else to develop. Why? A source close to the team says Valdes-Scantling told him Rodgers just didn’t like him. That he wasn’t doing exactly what Rodgers asked him to do, so the quarterback started to freeze him out.

    “Can you imagine Mike McCarthy trying to coach through all this s–t?” that source asks.

    McCarthy had lost all control of the machine, basically conceded defeat and was fired.

    The knee injury Rodgers suffered in Week 1 did not help. Jennings acknowledges that. But even if the expiration date on McCarthy’s offense had passed, he believes this kind of insubordination cannot be ignored. He even hints at a tinge of strategy to Rodgers’ cavalier ways.

    “When something gets stale, you’re not as motivated,” Jennings says. “You’re not as invested. Because even though you want to perform well, you’re still out to prove, ‘I told you so.’ There’s a fine line of saying, ‘Was he purposely doing things?’ or, ‘Was it just McCarthy?’ Because it had been so successful before, it’s hard to just say it was all McCarthy and none of Aaron. …

    “Is it enough for him to say, ‘You know what, I’m going to have a record-breaking year that’s eventually going to keep McCarthy for another year.’ Is he willing to do that? I don’t think so.

    “Just because change happens doesn’t mean the problem still doesn’t exist.”

    Grant blames neither Rodgers or McCarthy but admits so many seasons with the same coach can turn that coach’s voice into “white noise.” Change was needed. The marriage was years beyond repair. From afar, Finley barely recognized the coach he loved Green Bay, the one who’d invite him into his office and snipe, “It’s time to catch the f–king ball!” Finley loved that authenticity. His best games came after talks like that.

    And last season, to him, McCarthy looked “fed up and washed up. Just tired, period.”

    For years, Rodgers built up a justifiable benefit of the doubt. Two MVPs, a Super Bowl title and ridiculous Hail Marys tend to make all of this drama, all of these headaches, worth it.

    Now, it appears that benefit has been squashed. By Murphy.

    Right before the Packers announced LaFleur as their new head coach, the source close to the team says Murphy called Rodgers to tell him who they were going with. He didn’t ask for permission—he told him who the choice was. There was a brief pause on the other end of the phone before Rodgers eventually spoke. Murphy made it clear that Rodgers would need to accept coaching. “Don’t be the problem,” he told him. “Don’t be the problem.”

    Whoever’s to blame, Murphy does not want drama engulfing his team again.

    The source close to the team says the president is “tired of the diva stuff.”

    Over the years, Rodgers has preferred to surround himself with “Yes men,” multiple sources say. That’s why many thought Murphy would hire a “Yes man” to be the next head coach. To keep the peace. One former personnel man in Green Bay insists Murphy should’ve gotten Rodgers’ input and approval because, in his view, Rodgers is the one who makes the Packers relevant. Instead, Murphy made it clear to Rodgers that the organization was behind LaFleur.

    The Packers’ brass did not feel the need to get Rodgers’ approval on whomever it hired. Murphy wanted a young coach who’d challenge the entire team, not just the quarterback.

    Excitement’s in the Lambeau air again. Gutekunst inked a trio of defensive starters in a matter of 24 hours: edge-rusher Za’Darius Smith, safety Adrian Amos and linebacker Preston Smith. He’s the anti-Ted, determined to toughen up this soft defense. LaFleur is bound to be more creative than McCarthy. New offensive coordinator Nathaniel Hackett is a Type A who’ll push Rodgers. Luke Getsy, the new quarterbacks coach, is a straight shooter who’s been in Green Bay before.

    Only one question remains.

    Will Aaron Rodgers be the problem?

    Nobody outside of the state of Wisconsin is shedding a tear for the Packers. This is still a franchise that’s enjoyed nothing but Hall of Fame quarterbacks since 1992. Pull up the highlights of Rodgers and McCarthy celebrating, not the ones of Rodgers and McCarthy fighting, Harris implores.

    The ex-Packers back surely speaks for millions in saying this generation of Packers fans is spoiled.

    Then he offers a warning.

    “The Packers went through their terrible time of losing before,” Harris says. “History can repeat itself.”

    There’s some concern it could, some concern the Packers are becoming too corporate. One former team personnel man describes Ed Policy, the team’s chief operating officer, as a quiet “puppet master” angling for more football power. He adds Policy “has way more clout than people think” and that everyone in power got drunk off the team’s success over the years.

    The business of the franchise has expanded tremendously with the new “Titletown District” across the street from Lambeau booming. Some in-house worry the business side of things could infiltrate actual football decisions. Even Grant heard it’s not as family-friendly as it used to be in Green Bay.

    Right now, Murphy’s in charge, and he cares deeply about the product on the field.

    Rodgers’ game might reach a new stratosphere with LaFleur. The optimists see a coach who’ll insert this combination of gifts—muzzleloader right arm, Houdini-like escapability, a QB Grand Maester intellectually—into an X’s-and-O’s equation that’ll now spit out an endless stream of MVPs and Super Bowls as it should have all along.

    After dismissing anything Jennings and Finley say—”F–k those guys”—one former coach says Rodgers has matured and dismisses the idea that he’d blow off anyone who can’t match his IQ. He says Rodgers simply wants a coach “who isn’t going to bulls–t him” and expects Getsy, who was in Green Bay from 2014 to 2017 and spent last year at Mississippi State, to be precisely that.

    And isn’t last season what McCarthy and the Packers basically signed up for from the jump? To him, you can’t have it both ways.

    “You give a guy a green light to do whatever he wants and then criticize him for it. Which one do you want?” the coach says. “Do you want him to be creative, or do you want him to be exactly what you tell him?”

    This fine line will be central to anything LaFleur implements on offense. That’s why Grant is more interested in what the offense looks like schematically than any wins and losses in 2019. This is a cerebral game now more than ever, and he knows Rodgers is frustrated that time is running out. Grant expects change to rejuvenate the quarterback.

    And yet some do expect the 35-year-old player to railroad the 39-year-old first-time head coach.

    “He already had a sense of entitlement, then you give him $200 million,” Finley repeats. “Then you give him a young head coach. I think in Aaron Rodgers’ heart, that’s what he always wanted. He wanted to take control.”

    The challenge for LaFleur will be to strike a balance between showing confidence in himself and being a Tom Coughlin-like drill sergeant who Rodgers would tune out. Something like a “really, really hard cheerleader,” one ex-personnel man in Green Bay says, chuckling, as though he’s skeptical such a coach exists.

    If LaFleur does strike that tricky balance and revitalizes Rodgers, Jennings thinks his old QB can enter the GOAT/Brady stratosphere. He’s just not sure how willing Rodgers is when the quarterback’s first public commentsabout the hire, at the NFL Honors, started off with the words, “A lot of change, in life in general, it’s tough at first.” That’s all he needed to hear. To Jennings, that quote practically guaranteed how this will go down.

    “I know how Aaron operates,” Jennings says. “For him to make that statement, it already lets me know he’s going to make it hard on a young Matt LaFleur.”

    To him, Rodgers doesn’t need to sacrifice too much. It’s as simple as what Brady did in the AFC title game, handing the ball off to backs 47 times to keep Patrick Mahomes off the field. LaFleur has already hinted at wanting to run the ball more.

    Newfound humility would help the quarterback with five fewer rings.

    Some self-reflection.

    “Now it’s, OK, are you willing to swallow all the sense of entitlement? All your pride?” Jennings says. “You don’t even have to swallow all of it. But are you willing to suppress most of it and say, ‘You know what, whatever it takes, I’m willing to do’?”

    With McCarthy gone, all eyes, all pressure, all scrutiny, will be directed toward Rodgers. It’s on him to make that sacrifice, to work with others. After all, he brought the magic to Lambeau before.

    He can do it again.

    Even Jennings acknowledges that reality.

    “Just as much as he is a part of the problem,” Jennings says, “he’s a big part of the solution.”

    The only person who comes off well in this is Murphy, who, readers will recall, got hammered after McCarthy’s firing and LaFleur’s hiring. A properly cynical person might therefore ask how much role Murphy had in this story.

    Be that as it may, I suspect a story like this could have been written about Rodgers’ predecessor, Brett Favre, with McCarthy, or before him Mike Sherman, or with Mike Holmgren. Perhaps it could have been written about nearly every successful NFL coach with a superstar quarterback. With the exception of today’s New England Patriots (and there have been reports the last couple of years of friction between coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady), the lack of repeat NFL champions since John Elway’s retirement suggests that winning creates egos and the need to get credit for success that might be the biggest impediment to sustained success. (And that may extend to other sports.)

    There’s an old phrase that states that great accomplishments are possible when those involved are willing to not take credit, or to pass credit around. After Super Bowl XXXI the Packers looked like they were in position to win Super Bowls as far as the eye can see. And then Holmgren decided he didn’t want to be just the coach anymore, and the would-be dynasty crumbled.

    Before that was the Cowboys, who won consecutive Super Bowls, and then the egos of owner Jerry Jones and coach Jimmy Johnson couldn’t coexist anymore. The Cowboys haven’t even been to a Super Bowl since then. Then there was Bill Parcells, who won two Super Bowls with the Giants before retiring, got to a Super Bowl with the Patriots, and then got Holmgren Disease. Parcells never went back to the Super Bowl with either the Jets or Dallas. The same thing happened to Mike Ditka after Super Bowl XX with Da Bears. (Almost immediately, in fact, since defensive coordinator Buddy Ryan immediately left.)

    It seems self-evident that championship teams fall apart from inside as much as from outside. As a veteran NFL writer put it in the Packers’ Super Bowl XXXII season, if you win the Super Bowl one season, you play 16 Super Bowls the next season. But consider what typically happens after a team wins a title. Non-star players who think they’re better players than they actually are leave for more money or a bigger role with another team. (Desmond Howard after Super Bowl XXXI.) Players undervalued by management leave, and their replacements don’t measure up to their predecessors. (Every Brewers first baseman between Prince Fielder and Jesus Aguilar.) Assistant coaches, and sometimes head coaches (Holmgren), leave for better or at least better-paying jobs. (Holmgren.) Players sign big contracts and perhaps become complacent. (Rodgers?)

    Packers and Bucks coaches and Brewers managers have been fired generally for bad performance, except for Harvey Kuenn, who reportedly was fired over concerns about his health after a year and a half and 160 wins. As for the Bucks, Don Nelson was one of the best coaches in the NBA in the 1980s, but he left Milwaukee due to his deteriorating relationship with owner Herb Kohl. George Karl coached the Bucks to the conference finals, and then his ego got him fired.

    That makes the accomplishments of such coaches as Belichick, Bill Walsh (four Super Bowls in the 1980s), Joe Gibbs (three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks and three different featured running backs), Pat Riley with the Los Angeles Lakers, Phil Jackson with the Chicago Bulls and the Lakers, Gregg Popovich with the Spurs, Joe Torre with the Yankees and Tony LaRussa with the Athletics and St. Louis Cardinals as noteworthy as they are. Those coaches and managers won multiple world championships while keeping egos at least publicly under control, or got rid of (or convinced the front office to get rid of) problem players while adequately replacing them.

    If you think about it, why should this be surprising? Practically every workplace where people work for a career (as opposed to places that employ mostly part-time employees) have people who work together not by choice. There are people competing for different jobs from the jobs they have, often against their fellow employees. There are people who get promoted when by merit they shouldn’t be. The fact that pro athletes get paid much more than their fans for physical feats doesn’t make them better people than the fans who watch their games.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on The Rodgers/McCarthy/Packers divorce
  • Presty the DJ for April 5

    April 5, 2019
    Music

    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?):

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for April 5
  • The April election hangover blog

    April 4, 2019
    Wisconsin politics

    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.”

    There will be those who decry the nastiness (yet again) and all the money spent on this race. Most of those people will fail to grasp why this is the case. Since the court system has now become the third branch of the Legislature, the rules of partisan politics now apply to the court system. To quote UCLA football coach Red Sanders, winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on The April election hangover blog
  • $2 billion Tony, or D means Deficit

    April 4, 2019
    Wisconsin politics

    Benjamin Yount:

    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.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on $2 billion Tony, or D means Deficit
  • Presty the DJ for April 4

    April 4, 2019
    Music

    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:

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for April 4
  • When the media is its own worst enemy

    April 3, 2019
    media, US politics

    J.D. Tuccille:

    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.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on When the media is its own worst enemy
  • Presty the DJ for April 3

    April 3, 2019
    Music

    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.

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for April 3
Previous Page
1 … 380 381 382 383 384 … 1,035
Next Page

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog

The thoughts of a journalist/libertarian–conservative/Christian husband, father, Eagle Scout and aficionado of obscure rock music. Thoughts herein are only the author’s and not necessarily the opinions of his family, friends, neighbors, church members or past, present or future employers.

  • Steve
    • About, or, Who is this man?
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Adventures in ruralu0026nbsp;inkBack in June 2009, I was driving somewhere through a rural area. And for some reason, I had a flashback to two experiences in my career about that time of year many years ago. In 1988, eight days after graduating from the University of Wisconsin, I started work at the Grant County Herald Independent in Lancaster as a — well, the — reporter. Four years after that, on my 27th birthday, I purchased, with a business partner, the Tri-County Press in Cuba City, my first business venture. Both were experiences about which Wisconsin author Michael Perry might write. I thought about all this after reading a novel, The Deadline, written by a former newspaper editor and publisher. (Now who would write a novel about a weekly newspaper?) As a former newspaper owner, I picked at some of it — why finance a newspaper purchase through the bank if the seller is willing to finance it? Because the mean bank lender is a plot point! — and it is much more interesting than reality, but it is very well written, with a nicely twisting plot, and quite entertaining, again more so than reality. There is something about that first job out of college that makes you remember it perhaps more…
    • Adventures in radioI’ve been in the full-time work world half my life. For that same amount of time I’ve been broadcasting sports as a side interest, something I had wanted to since I started listening to games on radio and watching on TV, and then actually attending games. If you ask someone who’s worked in radio for some time about the late ’70s TV series “WKRP in Cincinnati,” most of them will tell you that, if anything, the series understated how wacky working in radio can be. Perhaps the funniest episode in the history of TV is the “WKRP” episode, based on a true story, about the fictional radio station’s Thanksgiving promotion — throwing live turkeys out of a helicopter under the mistaken belief that, in the words of WKRP owner Arthur Carlson, “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.” [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST01bZJPuE0] I’ve never been involved in anything like that. I have announced games from the roofs of press boxes (once on a nice day, and once in 50-mph winds), from a Mississippi River bluff (more on that later), and from the front row of the second balcony of the University of Wisconsin Fieldhouse (great view, but not a place to go if…
    • “Good morning/afternoon/evening, ________ fans …”
    • My biggest storyEarlier this week, while looking for something else, I came upon some of my own work. (I’m going to write a blog someday called “Things I Found While Looking for Something Else.” This is not that blog.) The Grant County Sheriff’s Department, in the county where I used to live, has a tribute page to the two officers in county history who died in the line of duty. One is William Loud, a deputy marshal in Cassville, shot to death by two bank robbers in 1912. The other is Tom Reuter, a Grant County deputy sheriff who was shot to death at the end of his 4 p.m.-to-midnight shift March 18, 1990. Gregory Coulthard, then a 19-year-old farmhand, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide and is serving a life sentence, with his first eligibility for parole on March 18, 2015, just 3½ years from now. I’ve written a lot over the years. I think this, from my first two years in the full-time journalism world, will go down as the story I remember the most. For journalists, big stories contain a paradox, which was pointed out in CBS-TV’s interview of Andy Rooney on his last “60 Minutes” Sunday. Morley Safer said something along the line…
  • Food and drink
    • The Roesch/Prestegard familyu0026nbsp;cookbookFrom the family cookbook(s) All the families I’m associated with love to eat, so it’s a good thing we enjoy cooking. The first out-of-my-house food memory I have is of my grandmother’s cooking for Christmas or other family occasions. According to my mother, my grandmother had a baked beans recipe that she would make for my mother. Unfortunately, the recipe seems to have  disappeared. Also unfortunately, my early days as a picky, though voluminous, eater meant I missed a lot of those recipes made from such wholesome ingredients as lard and meat fat. I particularly remember a couple of meals that involve my family. The day of Super Bowl XXXI, my parents, my brother, my aunt and uncle and a group of their friends got together to share lots of food and cheer on the Packers to their first NFL title in 29 years. (After which Jannan and I drove to Lambeau Field in the snow,  but that’s another story.) Then, on Dec. 31, 1999, my parents, my brother, my aunt and uncle and Jannan and I (along with Michael in utero) had a one-course-per-hour meal to appropriately end years beginning with the number 1. Unfortunately I can’t remember what we…
    • SkålI was the editor of Marketplace Magazine for 10 years. If I had to point to one thing that demonstrates improved quality of life since I came to Northeast Wisconsin in 1994, it would be … … the growth of breweries and  wineries in Northeast Wisconsin. The former of those two facts makes sense, given our heritage as a brewing state. The latter is less self-evident, since no one thinks of Wisconsin as having a good grape-growing climate. Some snobs claim that apple or cherry wines aren’t really wines at all. But one of the great facets of free enterprise is the opportunity to make your own choice of what food and drink to drink. (At least for now, though some wish to restrict our food and drink choices.) Wisconsin’s historically predominant ethnic group (and our family’s) is German. Our German ancestors did unfortunately bring large government and high taxes with them, but they also brought beer. Europeans brought wine with them, since they came from countries with poor-quality drinking water. Within 50 years of a wave of mid-19th-century German immigration, brewing had become the fifth largest industry in the U.S., according to Maureen Ogle, author of Ambitious Brew: The Story of American Beer. Beer and wine have…
  • Wheels
    • America’s sports carMy birthday in June dawned without a Chevrolet Corvette in front of my house. (The Corvette at the top of the page was featured at the 2007 Greater Milwaukee Auto Show. The copilot is my oldest son, Michael.) Which isn’t surprising. I have three young children, and I have a house with a one-car garage. (Then again, this would be more practical, though a blatant pluck-your-eyes-out violation of the Corvette ethos. Of course, so was this.) The reality is that I’m likely to be able to own a Corvette only if I get a visit from the Corvette Fairy, whose office is next door to the Easter Bunny. (I hope this isn’t foreshadowing: When I interviewed Dave Richter of Valley Corvette for a car enthusiast story in the late great Marketplace Magazine, he said that the most popular Corvette in most fans’ minds was a Corvette built during their days in high school. This would be a problem for me in that I graduated from high school in 1983, when no Corvette was built.) The Corvette is one of those cars whose existence may be difficult to understand within General Motors Corp. The Corvette is what is known as a “halo car,” a car that drives people into showrooms, even if…
    • Barges on fouru0026nbsp;wheelsI originally wrote this in September 2008.  At the Fox Cities Business Expo Tuesday, a Smart car was displayed at the United Way Fox Cities booth. I reported that I once owned a car into which trunk, I believe, the Smart could be placed, with the trunk lid shut. This is said car — a 1975 Chevrolet Caprice coupe (ours was dark red), whose doors are, I believe, longer than the entire Smart. The Caprice, built down Interstate 90 from us Madisonians in Janesville (a neighbor of ours who worked at the plant probably helped put it together) was the flagship of Chevy’s full-size fleet (which included the stripper Bel Air and middle-of-the-road Impala), featuring popular-for-the-time vinyl roofs, better sound insulation, an upgraded cloth interior, rear fender skirts and fancy Caprice badges. The Caprice was 18 feet 1 inch long and weighed 4,300 pounds. For comparison: The midsize Chevrolet of the ear was the Malibu, which was the same approximate size as the Caprice after its 1977 downsizing. The compact Chevrolet of the era was the Nova, which was 200 inches long — four inches longer than a current Cadillac STS. Wikipedia’s entry on the Caprice has this amusing sentence: “As fuel economy became a bigger priority among Americans…
    • Behind the wheel
    • Collecting only dust or rust
    • Coooooooooooupe!
    • Corvettes on the screen
    • The garage of misfit cars
    • 100 years (and one day) of our Chevrolets
    • They built Excitement, sort of, once in a while
    • A wagon by any otheru0026nbsp;nameFirst written in 2008. You will see more don’t-call-them-station-wagons as you drive today. Readers around my age have probably had some experience with a vehicle increasingly rare on the road — the station wagon. If you were a Boy Scout or Girl Scout, or were a member of some kind of youth athletic team, or had a large dog, or had relatives approximately your age, or had friends who needed to be transported somewhere, or had parents who occasionally had to haul (either in the back or in a trailer) more than what could be fit inside a car trunk, you (or, actually, your parents) were the target demographic for the station wagon. “Station wagons came to be like covered wagons — so much family activity happened in those cars,” said Tim Cleary, president of the American Station Wagon Owners Association, in Country Living magazine. Wagons “were used for everything from daily runs to the grocery store to long summer driving trips, and while many men and women might have wanted a fancier or sportier car, a station wagon was something they knew they needed for the family.” The “station wagon” originally was a vehicle with a covered seating area to take people between train stations…
    • Wheels on theu0026nbsp;screenBetween my former and current blogs, I wrote a lot about automobiles and TV and movies. Think of this post as killing two birds (Thunderbirds? Firebirds? Skylarks?) with one stone. Most movies and TV series view cars the same way most people view cars — as A-to-B transportation. (That’s not counting the movies or series where the car is the plot, like the haunted “Christine” or “Knight Rider” or the “Back to the Future” movies.) The philosophy here, of course, is that cars are not merely A-to-B transportation. Which disqualifies most police shows from what you’re about to read, even though I’ve watched more police video than anything else, because police cars are plain Jane vehicles. The highlight in a sense is in the beginning: The car chase in my favorite movie, “Bullitt,” featuring Steve McQueen’s 1968 Ford Mustang against the bad guys’ 1968 Dodge Charger: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc2RdFuOxIu0026amp;fmt=18] One year before that (but I didn’t see this until we got Telemundo on cable a couple of years ago) was a movie called “Operación 67,” featuring (I kid you not) a masked professional wrestler, his unmasked sidekick, and some sort of secret agent plot. (Since I don’t know Spanish and it’s not…
    • While riding in my Cadillac …
  • Entertainments
    • Brass rocksThose who read my former blog last year at this time, or have read this blog over the past months, know that I am a big fan of the rock group Chicago. (Back when they were a rock group and not a singer of sappy ballads, that is.) Since rock music began from elements of country music, jazz and the blues, brass rock would seem a natural subgenre of rock music. A lot of ’50s musical acts had saxophone players, and some played with full orchestras … [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CPS-WuUKUE] … but it wasn’t until the more-or-less simultaneous appearances of Chicago and Blood Sweat u0026amp; Tears on the musical scene (both groups formed in 1967, both had their first charting singles in 1969, and they had the same producer) that the usual guitar/bass/keyboard/drum grouping was augmented by one or more trumpets, a sax player and a trombone player. While Chicago is my favorite group (but you knew that already), the first brass rock song I remember hearing was BSu0026amp;T’s “Spinning Wheel” — not in its original form, but on “Sesame Street,” accompanied by, yes, a giant spinning wheel. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi9sLkyhhlE] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxWSOuNsN20] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9U34uPjz-g] I remember liking Chicago’s “Just You ‘n Me” when it was released as a single, and…
    • Drive and Eat au0026nbsp;RockThe first UW home football game of each season also is the opener for the University of Wisconsin Marching Band, the world’s finest college marching band. (How the UW Band has not gotten the Sudler Trophy, which is to honor the country’s premier college marching bands, is beyond my comprehension.) I know this because I am an alumnus of the UW Band. I played five years (in the last rank of the band, Rank 25, motto: “Where Men Are Tall and Run-On Is Short”), marching in 39 football games at Camp Randall Stadium, the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis, Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor, Memorial Stadium at the University of Illinois (worst artificial turf I had ever seen), the University of Nevada–Las Vegas’ Sam Boyd Silver Bowl, the former Dyche Stadium at Northwestern University, five high school fields and, in my one bowl game, Legion Field in Birmingham, Ala., site of the 1984 Hall of Fame Bowl. The UW Band was, without question, the most memorable experience of my college days, and one of the most meaningful experiences of my lifetime. It was the most physical experience of my lifetime, to be sure. Fifteen minutes into my first Registration…
    • Keep on rockin’ in the freeu0026nbsp;worldOne of my first ambitions in communications was to be a radio disc jockey, and to possibly reach the level of the greats I used to listen to from WLS radio in Chicago, which used to be one of the great 50,000-watt AM rock stations of the country, back when they still existed. (Those who are aficionados of that time in music and radio history enjoyed a trip to that wayback machine when WLS a Memorial Day Big 89 Rewind, excerpts of which can be found on their Web site.) My vision was to be WLS’ afternoon DJ, playing the best in rock music between 2 and 6, which meant I wouldn’t have to get up before the crack of dawn to do the morning show, yet have my nights free to do whatever glamorous things big-city DJs did. Then I learned about the realities of radio — low pay, long hours, zero job security — and though I have dabbled in radio sports, I’ve pretty much cured myself of the idea of working in radio, even if, to quote WAPL’s Len Nelson, “You come to work every day just like everybody else does, but we’re playing rock ’n’ roll songs, we’re cuttin’ up.…
    • Monday on the flight line, not Saturday in the park
    • Music to drive by
    • The rock ofu0026nbsp;WisconsinWikipedia begins its item “Music of Wisconsin” thusly: Wisconsin was settled largely by European immigrants in the late 19th century. This immigration led to the popularization of galops, schottisches, waltzes, and, especially, polkas. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl7wCczgNUc] So when I first sought to write a blog piece about rock musicians from Wisconsin, that seemed like a forlorn venture. Turned out it wasn’t, because when I first wrote about rock musicians from Wisconsin, so many of them that I hadn’t mentioned came up in the first few days that I had to write a second blog entry fixing the omissions of the first. This list is about rock music, so it will not include, for instance, Milwaukee native and Ripon College graduate Al Jarreau, who in addition to having recorded a boatload of music for the jazz and adult contemporary/easy listening fan, also recorded the theme music for the ’80s TV series “Moonlighting.” Nor will it include Milwaukee native Eric Benet, who was for a while known more for his former wife, Halle Berry, than for his music, which includes four number one singles on the Ru0026amp;B charts, “Spend My Life with You” with Tamia, “Hurricane,” “Pretty Baby” and “You’re the Only One.” Nor will it include Wisconsin’s sizable contributions to big…
    • Steve TV: All Steve, All the Time
    • “Super Steve, Man of Action!”
    • Too much TV
    • The worst music of allu0026nbsp;timeThe rock group Jefferson Airplane titled its first greatest-hits compilation “The Worst of Jefferson Airplane.” Rolling Stone magazine was not being ironic when it polled its readers to decide the 10 worst songs of the 1990s. I’m not sure I agree with all of Rolling Stone’s list, but that shouldn’t be surprising; such lists are meant for debate, after all. To determine the “worst,” songs appropriate for the “Vinyl from Hell” segment that used to be on a Madison FM rock station, requires some criteria, which does not include mere overexposure (for instance, “Macarena,” the video of which I find amusing since it looks like two bankers are singing it). Before we go on: Blog posts like this one require multimedia, so if you find a song you hate on this blog, I apologize. These are also songs that I almost never listen to because my sound system has a zero-tolerance policy — if I’m listening to the radio or a CD and I hear a song I don’t like, it’s, to quote Bad Company, gone gone gone. My blonde wife won’t be happy to read that one of her favorite ’90s songs, 4 Non Blondes’ “What’s Up,” starts the list. (However,…
    • “You have the right to remain silent …”
  • Madison
    • Blasts from the Madison media past
    • Blasts from my Madison past
    • Blasts from our Madison past
    • What’s the matter with Madison?
    • Wisconsin – Madison = ?
  • Sports
    • Athletic aesthetics, or “cardinal” vs. “Big Red”
    • Choose your own announcer
    • La Follette state 1982 (u0022It was 30 years ago todayu0022)
    • The North Dakota–Wisconsin Hockey Fight of 1982
    • Packers vs. Brewers
  • Hall of Fame
    • The case(s) against teacher unions
    • The Class of 1983
    • A hairy subject, or face the face
    • It’s worse than you think
    • It’s worse than you think, 2010–11 edition
    • My favorite interview subject of all time
    • Oh look! Rural people!
    • Prestegard for president!
    • Unions vs. the facts, or Hiding in plain sight
    • When rhetoric goes too far
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog
    • Join 198 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d