Today in 1956, Nat King Cole became the first black man to host a TV show, on NBC:
The number one single today in 1966:
Today in 1971, Elvis Presley performed at the Met Center in Bloomington, Minn. To get the fans to leave after repeated encore requests, announcer Al Dvorin announced, “Elvis has left the building.”
Alyssa Rosenberg writes about the hidden stories behind some of my favorite entertainment:
From “Dragnet” to “Dirty Harry” to “Die Hard,” Hollywood’s police stories have reinforced myths about cops and the work of policing — ideas that resonate painfully today as police-involved shootings and questions about race and community relations wrack U.S. cities and play a starring role in the presidential election.
The police story is one of the elemental dramas of American popular culture, the place we face down whatever crimes frighten us most in a given era and grapple with what we want from the cops who are supposed to stop those crimes. “Dragnet’s” Joe Friday bolstered public faith in law and order in the ’50s. “Dirty Harry” Callahan stoked terror and rage about the violent crime wave that began in the ’60s. And John McClane of “Die Hard” awed audiences when he singlehandedly saved a whole office tower from ruthless criminals in the 1980s.
If these were only fantasies, they would still be powerful. But the ideas that popular culture embeds in the public consciousness about policing remain after the story is over. This five-part series examines the evolving relationship between police officers and the communities they are supposed to serve; the way Hollywood shapes our expectations for shootings by police; the entertainment industry’s embrace of a more violent style of policing during the drug war; and the changing composition of police forces in an increasingly diverse society.
Because it is not possible to understand the stories Hollywood tells about the police without looking back at the industry’s own vexed relationship with the law, this series begins by exploring how police pressure, government regulation and censorship helped mold pop culture’s stories about the police.
This is not a straightforward story about how police departments are bad and Hollywood is good, or vice versa. Nor is it a simple morality tale about how creative freedom made it possible for a liberal industry to critique a conservative profession. Artists such as Simon have used their independence to challenge public perceptions about policing. But driven by the need for drama and excitement, Hollywood used genres such as action movies and reality shows to glamorize the very ideas about policing that have generated such division in the United States today.
A century ago, the prospect of city governments and police departments deferring to artists was unimaginable. From Hollywood’s earliest days, these institutions took for granted that regulating movies was an essential crime-fighting function.
In 1908, New York Mayor George McClellan Jr. used police power to close every movie theater in the city. To prove they could manage themselves, theater owners and movie distributors founded what eventually became known as the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, which examined movies for objectionable content and suggested cuts that directors should make before films reached the public.
The board, and the movie business as a whole, had a daunting task convincing the public and police that it was up to the task of self-governance. In 1910, the International Association of Chiefs of Police adopted a resolution condemning the movie business because, as the organization’s president put it, “the police are sometimes made to appear ridiculous.”
Five years later, the Supreme Court ruled in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio that a 1913 state censorship statute did not infringe on either free speech or interstate commerce. Movies weren’t independent arguments worthy of First Amendment protection, Associate Justice Joseph McKenna wrote in the court’s decision, but rather “mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments … vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but . . . capable of evil.” It would take 37 years for the Supreme Court to reverse itself.
Meanwhile, as Hollywood grew larger, cooperation with police and other law enforcement agencies became more important for reasons beyond censorship.
Hollywood needed the cooperation of the Los Angeles Police Department to preserve its stars’ reputations. The rape and manslaughter trials of silent-film star Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle in the early 1920s and federal tax investigations of actors including Tom Mix tarnished the industry. Later, LAPD historian Joe Domanick wrote, cooperation between the movie business and police ensured discretion for “carousing wild men like Errol Flynn and homosexual stars.”
The increasing complexity of Hollywood productions created strong logistical imperatives for the movie business to play nice with police. Like Simon decades later, movie studios needed permits to shoot on city streets, and police officers to enforce those permits, roping off thoroughfares and working off-duty as security.
And in the late 1940s, an actor named Jack Webb would find an even more effective way for the LAPD and the entertainment industry to pursue their mutual self-interest.
Jack Webb got the idea for “Dragnet” when he met Marty Wynn, an LAPD detective who was working as technical adviser for a movie in which Webb played a forensics investigator. In pursuit of the access that would let him market “Dragnet” as an authentic look at police work, Webb forged an extraordinary partnership with LAPD chief William Parker and department publicity wizard Stanley Sheldon — accepting stringent censorship from the police department in exchange for story ideas, logistical help and a patina of truth. That bargain would help create America’s first enduring cop drama and a model for police storytelling for decades to come.
“Dragnet” began as a radio show in 1949. When it moved to TV in 1951, Webb became even more dependent on the LAPD. “On television you could see things, see if the police work, the station house, the squad car, seemed right,” Domanick explained. “Authenticity was a major component of what Webb, as a producer and in his persona as detective Joe Friday, was trying to sell.”
Webb agreed that scripts would be formally approved by the LAPD’s Public Information Division before filming began. The comments weren’t advisory: If the department objected to something, such as the depiction of a woman dying from an illegal abortion, the entire episode might be scrapped.
In exchange, Webb obtained not only story ideas, but also invaluable financial help from the department.
“The LAPD gave him carte blanche,” recalled Joseph Wambaugh, who rose to the rank of detective sergeant in the LAPD before leaving to write police novels full time. “They could shoot wherever they wanted. They could have cops for extras, and police vehicles and equipment,” perks that helped lower the budget for “Dragnet.”
For all its pretensions to accuracy — each episode began with the sonorous promise, “Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to see is true” — the version of the LAPD that Webb presented was the one Parker wanted the world to see.
The show depicted black and Latino police officers, although, as pop culture scholar Roger Sabin noted tartly in his critical survey “Cop Shows,” “the LAPD’s racial segregation policies were not mentioned.” Wambaugh remembered that “any shooting that was done on the shows was squeaky clean,” with the officer in strong control of his emotions, rather than firing out of fear, or worse, revenge.
And Joe Friday, the cop played by Webb, became an icon of law enforcement who respected the Constitution, hated drugs and solved crimes by using modern, scientific investigative techniques and focusing squarely on “just the facts, ma’am.”
The show quickly became a model: “Highway Patrol,” which debuted in 1955, was the response to the California Highway Patrol’s commissioner, Bernard Caldwell, who demanded that his own public relations division “get us a show like ‘Dragnet.’”
Hollywood pursued law enforcement agencies, too. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover turned down several potential TV shows before signing on with ABC to create “The F.B.I.” Hoover maintained full script approval and vetted actors’ politics before they were cast.
As with “Dragnet,” “The F.B.I.” served Hoover’s interests as much for what it didn’t show as what it did. The series ran from 1965 to 1974, a period when Hoover was, among other things, surveilling and harassing the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Agents on “The F.B.I.” never engaged in such skullduggery.
Shows such as “Dragnet” and “The F.B.I.” were, by design, misleading about the harshest realities of the law enforcement agencies they portrayed. Webb’s claims to authenticity also made “Dragnet” itself vulnerable. What would happen when actual police officers started telling their own versions of what it was like to police Los Angeles?
‘Dragnet” had concluded its revival, which ran from 1967 to 1970, and Webb’s next cop show, “Adam-12,” named for an LAPD radio call sign, was in its third season, when then-Detective Sgt. Joseph Wambaugh did just that with the publication of his first novel, The New Centurions.
A former Marine and steel-mill worker, Wambaugh joined the Los Angeles Police Department when he discovered that he could make more money as a cop than as an English teacher. After he made sergeant, he was posted to the Public Information Division. Though Wambaugh found the posting dull and transferred as soon as possible, he began asking his friend Stephen Downing about Downing’s experiences writing for “Dragnet” and “Adam-12” and contemplated trying to sell a script of his own.
Wambaugh’s literary aspirations — he earned a master’s degree in English — drew him toward novels instead. The result was The New Centurions, which followed three LAPD officers from the police academy through the 1965 Watts riots. It’s a raw, intimate look at the psychological costs of policing. Because Wambaugh knew the book could never survive the LAPD’s approval process, he didn’t even bother to submit it.
If Wambaugh thought The New Centurions would arrive on shelves quietly, he was mistaken. The Book-of-the-Month Club picked The New Centurions as its main selection for January 1971, guaranteeing a wide audience and drawing attention to the novelty of hearing about police work from an actual cop, even through the lens of fiction.
The attention was wonderful for Wambaugh’s sales, but it put him in a precarious position. Police chief Ed Davis, himself a technical adviser for “Dragnet” and “Adam-12,” was displeased.
“He made one statement to the LA Times, ‘Well, I hope Sgt. Wambaugh makes a lot of money with this book, because he’ll need it. He won’t have a job,’ ” Wambaugh recalled. “And that’s when the press just swarmed in on my behalf and waved the First Amendment.”
For a moment, it seemed that Webb himself might come to Wambaugh’s defense. Wambaugh recalled receiving a call from one of Webb’s employees asking for a copy of the manuscript. Wambaugh eagerly dropped off page proofs — and waited. Two weeks later, the same employee called Wambaugh to let him know he could pick the manuscript up. When he did, Wambaugh found that his book had acquired a new and unexpected heft. Webb had stuck a paper clip next to everything he found objectionable.
“I just scraped off all the paper clips, threw them in the trash, and gave up on Mr. Webb,” Wambaugh said. “He knew that what I was presenting to the American public was something that would undermine his sanitized portrayal, and it did.”
‘The New Centurions” didn’t entirely kill heroic portraits of the police. But Wambaugh was one of the most prominent examples of a major shift in Hollywood: Pop culture began taking its inspiration not from the heads of law enforcement agencies, but from individual cops — men who believed policing was important work but also recognized the toll that it took on individual officers.
“The Mod Squad,” Aaron Spelling’s series about a special unit of young officers who try to solve cases that might remain impenetrable to older, squarer, detectives, grew out of a conversation Spelling had with his friend, Buddy Ruskin, a former member of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. When the show premiered in 1968, Spelling positioned “The Mod Squad” as an explicit counter to the revival of the conservative “Dragnet” a year earlier. “They thought everybody under 25 was a creep, we thought everybody under 25 was misunderstood,” Spelling wrote in his memoir.
In the early 1990s, when Steven Bochco and David Milch were creating the show that would become “NYPD Blue,” Milch recruited Bill Clark, a New York Police Department detective, to help with logistical challenges and act as an adviser to the series. The show drew inspiration from Clark’s cases and from the way he described the toughness, even numbness, cops have to acquire to investigate serious violent crimes.
Another cop would go much further in facilitating a wide-ranging critique not merely of his former department but also of the national strategies that guided American policing.
Ed Burns’s relationship with David Simon preceded Simon’s emergence as one of the defining showrunners of his time. They met when Simon was a Baltimore Sun reporter and Burns was a detective with a tendency, annoying to his supervisors, to get himself detailed to complicated investigations involving wiretaps. Burns and Simon collaborated on Simon’s second book, The Corner. Burns’s work on drug cases and his post-police job as a teacher would become inspirations for substantial sections of “The Wire,” which premiered in 2002. If previous cop shows leaned on authenticity to reassure audiences about the strength and integrity of police departments, Burns helped guide “Wire” fans on a tour of crumbling institutions.
From Webb to Wambaugh to “The Wire,” authenticity has been a selling point for generation after generation of police shows. And beyond the promise of getting up close and personal with a profession that’s alternately venerated and denigrated, these efforts at accuracy and authenticity tend to be the tools storytellers use to persuade audiences to take their big ideas about policing more seriously.
Webb used accurate details to convince viewers that his portrait of the LAPD as hyper-professional, emotionally controlled and highly effective was also true. For Wambaugh, his novels were a way to tell the public about what he believed to be the real and largely ignored dangers of policing, including divorce, suicide and substance abuse. Bochco writes of a proud moment on the 1980s-era “Hill Street Blues,” when a woman wrote to tell him that an episode in which two cops were shot helped her police officer husband to open up about his own shooting and join Alcoholics Anonymous.
Simon hoped that if he earned viewers’ trust on “The Wire,” he could argue against a mission police had been given rather than against the police themselves.
Of course, as artists like Simon and Wambaugh were bringing their own brands of verisimilitude to cop fiction, a new genre of television emerged, offering its own spin on the reality of policing.
Reality television offered beleaguered police departments a way to reassert their dominance. Instead of telling Jack Webb what the LAPD wanted to see on screen, police departments could simply show camera operators only what they wanted audiences to witness.
The formula for “Cops,” a reality show now in its third decade, is simple: Producers ride along with police officers and film as they respond to complaints and then pursue, arrest and process suspects. The show is often astonishingly boring: Watching officers conduct traffic stops or small-time drug arrests to break the monotony of patrol is a testament to the gap between fictional policing and the mundane truth of the actual work.
The devious genius of “Cops” is that while the show is staged by police departments, the people the police arrest sign off on their own depictions as lying, luckless incompetents who climb drunk out of car windows, try to eat large quantities of marijuana and even get stopped biking under the influence. The police get the opportunity to present themselves as dedicated and sympathetic, conducting patient questioning and offering help with drug treatment. And their targets acquiesce in the show’s depiction of their own worst moments: Creator John Langley has said that once the show took off, as many as 90 percent of those arrested on camera signed releases so that their unblurred faces could appear on screen.
It’s only recently that technology has given ordinary citizens the power to tell stories about themselves and their interactions with cops — perspectives that police departments would prefer stay invisible and that Hollywood has largely ignored.
Earlier this year, Diamond Reynolds used Facebook Live to broadcast her interactions with police officers after her boyfriend, cafeteria supervisor Philando Castile, was shot. The live stream captured Reynolds’s 4-year-old daughter comforting her mother in a heartbreaking moment of childish composure. And in September, after a Charlotte police officer shot and killed Keith Scott, his wife, Rakeyia Scott, released her own video that showed her begging the police not to shoot her husband and insisting that he was unarmed.
These videos aren’t exciting or entertaining in the way Hollywood’s polished police stories so often have been. They are shattering.
The rise of cellphone video throws into sharp relief a question that has always dogged police fiction: Who’s telling the truth about what the police do?Is it a reality show like “Cops,” which for all its manufactured quality, does capture the pathetic nature of certain classes of crime, the relentless dullness of police work and the craving some officers have for action? Is it “Dragnet,” with its mythic, and mythical, version of policing? Is it “The Wire,” informed by Simon’s years of reporting and Burns’s years of policing and teaching? Is it Joseph Wambaugh, who for a brief period in the ‘70s captivated Americans not with police procedurals about how, as he puts it, “the cop acts on the job,” but with searing portraits of how “the job works on the cop”?All these storytellers have contributed their own pieces to our understanding of one of America’s most complex professions. And given the times in which they told their stories, the power of the police in that moment and their levels of personal courage, they told the stories they were capable of telling and that they had the freedom to tell.“Jack Webb wanted to make his shows grittier and more true to life, psychologically, showing all the damage that police work does to cops,” Wambaugh remembered. “The premature cynicism, the constant psychological bombardment from the worst of people and from ordinary people at their worst. All of that, he wanted to do some of that. But he couldn’t if he wanted the cooperation that he always got from the LAPD.”
Webb didn’t have the fortitude, or the personal appetite for risk, to walk away from the LAPD. More than half a century later, Simon’s willingness to leave Baltimore ensured that he would be able to shoot the story that he wanted on the streets where he meant for that story to take place.
When Simon testified before the Baltimore City Council about a resolution intended to counteract the negative image of Baltimore depicted in “The Wire,” he made a larger point that might have seemed laughable or even dangerous, back when Hollywood was young, and mayors and police departments treated pop culture as a potential source of crime.
“My testimony was like …‘I live here. And I pay taxes here, and I’m a storyteller … This is about what I think matters,’” Simon recalled. “‘If you don’t like the show, stand up and say as an individual, you can even stand up as a politician and say I don’t like the show. But … don’t spend civic time and put the civic imprimatur on what is a good or bad story. That’s not your f—— business.’”
But even as Hollywood shook off formal censorship, ties between cops and artists remained. If we can’t understand Hollywood without examining the way the police shaped the entertainment industry, we can’t understand the state of policing in America without exploring Hollywood’s seductive visions of what it means to be a cop.
I have a doubleheader of sports to announce today, ending with Lancaster at Clinton in Level 3 football at 6:45 p.m. on WGLR (97.7 FM) in Lancaster, available online at wglr.com.
Before that, I will be announcing state tournament soccer, Rice Lake against Mount Horeb, in Milwaukee for Rice Lake’s WAQE (also 97.7 FM), also available online at waqe.com and msbnsports.net. (Which marks the first time I have ever announced games for two different radio stations on the same frequency in the same day. I hope I keep one separate from the other, lest one get an unscheduled format change, given that the first is a Hot Adult Contemporary station and the other is a country station.)
When I was asked to announce state soccer, it occurred to me that there was someone residing in Presteblog World Headquarters who would know something about Mount Horeb, since the Vikings ended his season last week. And so …
… Platteville/Lancaster goalkeeper Michael Prestegard will join me on the broadcast. He’s certainly seen enough of my on-air work from the booth (including when I accidentally hit him in the face with my clipboard), but today will be his on-air sports broadcasting debut. (To add to various things he and his brother and sister have done for my main employer the newspaper.)
The closest I have come to this before now is when my father accompanied me on two interviews with microbrewery owners for a magazine story. The owners and he kind of monopolized the conversation, but I got enough material for the story just by listening and taking notes. (My father’s career was not in journalism, but if you can talk to people, that’s a start. My kids already know Who, What, Where, When, Why and How and What Does This Story Mean to the Reader.)
Mrs. Presteblog has been with me for many games over the years …
… but sadly not today due to this thing called work.
It’s a much smaller scale than, say, having Chip Caray work with his father Skip and Skip’s father Harry …
… or the numerous other father–son baseball teams (Marty and Thom Brennaman, Harry and Todd Kalas, etc.). But today will be a personal thrill for me.
Today in 1963, John Lennon showed his ability to generate publicity at the Beatles’ performance at the Royal Variety Show at the Prince of Wales Theatre in London. The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret were in attendance, so perhaps they were the target of Lennon’s comment, “In the cheaper seats you clap your hands. The rest of you, just rattle your jewelry.”
The number one single today in 1965:
The number one single today in 1972:
Today in 1990, Melissa Ethridge and her “life partner” Julie Cypher appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine for its cover story on gay parenting.
I bring this up only to point out that Etheridge and Cypher no longer are life partners, Cypher (the ex-wife of actor Lou Diamond Phillips) is now married to another man, and Etheridge became engaged to another woman, but they split before their planned California wedding. And, by the way, Cypher had two children from the “contribution” of David Crosby, and Etheridge’s second woman had children from another man.
Steve Berman asks a question I don’t believe needs answering, but just in case …
I’m a Never Trumper, and I’m writing to other Never Trumpers. We opposed Trump in the primaries. We opposed Trump as the nominee. We opposed Trump as a candidate for president. We’ve called him unfit. We’ve at times predicted his enormous loss. We’ve speculated about him losing every state (at least I have). We’ve flirted with a third party. We’ve supported the independent Evan McMullin as a sane alternative.
What will we do with President Trump?
First, back up a bit. What will we do with a President Hillary Clinton? Why of course, we will oppose her in just about everything. We will fight her agenda; we will hope she fails; we will hope her Supreme Court appointments are permanently shelved. We will criticize her, mock her, and work actively for her impeachment for corruption and gross negligence with classified intelligence.
If that previous paragraph doesn’t describe you, perhaps you should go read Slate. To hear from some of Trump’s supporters, one would think that every Never Trumper is a secret Hillary admirer, but let’s assume you’re like me and oppose Trump for ideological, spiritual, or simply commonsense reasons. If you opposed him simply because you thought he’d lose to Clinton, well, if he wins, you’re just wrong. Live with it.
Most Never Trumpers thought Trump couldn’t beat Hillary. That doesn’t mean we wanted Hillary to win–we just believed she would because Trump is who he is: a vulgar narcissistic cad with a streak of vengeance as wide as the stripe on the skunk’s back.
But now let’s consider him as our president, as a thought experiment, but not too hypothetical, since in 6 days we will know the answer. November 9th, Trump wins. Let’s assume there are no faithless electors (although if Hillary wins, I hope with all my heart there are). Let’s assume the election isn’t thrown into the House of Representatives (we can wish it, but it’s still a long shot).
President Trump is about to take office on January 20th, 2017. Do you support him? Is he your president–as in not the opposition? Do you actively work to see his agenda implemented and to do your best to influence his decisions? Or do you hope he fails and you can ride out the next four years to get to 2020?
This scenario isn’t new. The Democrats had a dark horse in 1976. Jimmy Carter wasn’t a celebrity billionaire who made his fortune in gambling, with a personal life surrounded by super models, beauty pageant queens, and numerous affairs. He was an evangelical in an increasingly secular party, an engineer in a glad-handing political world filled with larger-than-life characters. He was the opposite of Ted Kennedy. And they all hated his grit-eating, Billy Beer slugging, y’all go sit on the porch, slap-yo-momma guts.
Many will hate Trump’s guts. I can’t imagine he’ll get too many smiling meet-and-greets from Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. Ted Cruz, or Sen. Kelly Ayotte. But as political allies (in party at least) they will have to work together. Will we work together with Trump for four years? Cruz’s seat will come up in 2018, will Trump back him or work to primary him?
Everything I know about Donald Trump tells me he’ll support most Republicans who go along with him. That’s how he is. If they work with him, he’ll work with them. But “working with Trump” means that Trump gets the credit for success, and never the blame for failure. It’s how he operates (is Obama any different?). I don’t believe for a second that Trump will do half the crazy things he promised as a candidate, half because he didn’t really mean them, and half because he has no idea how to do it.
So if Trump wins, he might be somewhat “malleable” as many of his early surrogates believed. At least he’ll be open to influence. Without having to win an election, Trump will be more free to operate at a political level versus a populist agenda. But he won’t stray too far from “the people” because he simply enjoys being worshipped too much.
Will we give him space to operate and grace to govern?
I think we should. I think it would be a mistake to oppose Trump as president. I think it would do egregious harm to the Republican Party and by extension to the cause of conservatives to oppose a President Trump on principle. But I don’t think he should get a free pass either.
Erick Erickson is famous for tagging President George W. Bush when he tried to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. This doesn’t mean Erick opposed Bush, but he did hold his president accountable as a conservative and as a Republican. We should treat a President Trump no differently. If Trump decides to use unconstitutional, authoritarian means to achieve his goals, we should call him out. If he nominates a bad choice for the Supreme Court, we should voice our opposition.
If Trump is a thin-skinned jerk in office who takes the slightest criticism as evidence of treason, and uses the levers of government as his personal revenge machine, we should favor the side of justice and righteousness. But he hasn’t done those things yet. Even if we think he will, we must give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
The torch and pitchfork brigades will be extra-vigilant, watching us for any signs of disloyalty. We should let them know that a President Trump is our president too, and that we support him as long as he stands up in the best traditions of Republican presidents. We might expect a Nixon, but we can’t whine and complain if he’s not a Reagan (he’s not, believe me).
If Trump wins, we have a much larger opportunity for healing and unity within our party. It’s better to have Trump in the White House with his wild-eyed, frothing cult members having to observe the decorum of the office than Clinton in the White House and Trump on the outside whipping up discontent in the media. How much better, we don’t know, but it has to be better in some degree, nuclear war being the great equalizer (let’s not go there).
So we’re now Never Trump. Assuming we have cast our vote elsewhere (I’ve heard Peyton Manning, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and Adele–who isn’t even American, in addition to McMullin), and Trump wins on Nov. 8, we have to decide if we are Never President Trump or just Never Vote Trump.
I think it’s clear we have to move past that question and support him in office. If he wins, it was without us, but if he’ll accept us, we should accept him as president.
Well … any politician, including the president, should be supported only to the extent that that politician does what you want him or her to do. We know Hillary will do nothing non-liberals want. I believe Trump, as a man of flexible principles and dubious morals, won’t do very much of what conservatives want to happen. That is the art of the deal from The Donald’s point of view.
Fireworks lit up the sky in both the city and suburbs, while school-aged children gathered on sidewalks long after bedtime to cheer honking cars.
Thousands poured into Wrigleyville, forcing street closures around the ball park and prompting CTA trains to bypass several stops in the area because of crowding.
This is what it looks like when a 108-year-old dream is finally realized.
Chicago erupted late Wednesday night as the Cubs won their first World Series in four generations, ending professional baseball’s longest championship drought and giving its long-suffering fan base cause to celebrate. After a century of heartbreak, humiliation and good humor, the North Side faithful enjoyed a moment unlike anything they had experienced since the Theodore Roosevelt administration.
With raised beers and voices, the fans toasted a young, fearless team that never cowered to history. They applauded themselves for a steadfast loyalty that was finally rewarded. And they celebrated a city, which has found a small cause for happiness amid a soaring murder rate.
“First of all I’m going to cry. I’m going to be a babbling 47-year-old baby,” said Dan Yunker. “My sons, my daughters and my wife are texting me. This is a huge deal. This is history!”
At Simon’s Tavern in Andersonville, a wall-to-wall crowd spent the last innings vacillating between unrestrained joy and dread. Optimists in the crowd, weary from hours of baseball and alcohol, assured the others the Cubs would still win, even as the Cleveland Indiansgave cause tor doubt.
As the Cubs made the last out, the bar exploded into screaming, dancing and hugging.
“I feel so wonderful,” said Joan Kufrin, 79, of Chicago.
Sadly, Harry Caray missed last night’s win, but thanks to YouTube and editing skills …
Today in 1964, a fan at a Rolling Stones concert in Cleveland fell out of the balcony. That prompted Cleveland Mayor Ralph Locker to ban pop music concerts in the city, saying, “Such groups do not add to the community’s culture or entertainment.” Kind of ironic that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ended up in Cleveland.
Russ Feingold got elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992 because he came across far better than his two Democratic competitors, as shown in this clever ad:
In “Houses,” then state Senator Russ Feingold – low on name identification and cash – did a two-minute ad where he portrayed himself as a quirky, folksy, “Man of the People.” In it, he compared his modest home in Middleton to the luxury mansions of his Democratic opponents, former Congressman Jim Moody and Joe Checota. The ad helped turn Feingold from an also-ran with support in the single-digits, into the front-runner.
One of the ad’s highlights was Feingold giving a tour of his own home, in which one of the first things he does is open a nearby broom closet, turn sheepishly to the camera, and say, “Look No Skeletons.”
24 years later, there are a lot of skeletons. So many, they now make for a great ad from Ron Johnson’s campaign.
In “Skeletons,” Johnson’s team repeatedly shows Feingold telling us “Look no skeletons” as it flashes to a number of headlines and stories related to his Progressives United slush fund, questions related to whether or not he made his decision to run for his old seat on government time, his willingness to disregard his famous “Garage Door Pledge,” his percentage of campaign contributions from outside the state of Wisconsin, how he cashed in on speeches with his “Progressive Rock Star” status, and other topics.
It’s all cleverly put together as the theme from the TV show, “The Adams Family” plays in the background.
“After 34 years in politics, the number of skeletons in Senator Feingold’s closet is downright scary,” Ron Johnson campaign spokesman Brian Reisinger said. “His hypocrisy, broken promises, and shamelessness prove he’s everything people hate about politics – a career politician who will say and do anything to get back to Washington and is only in it for himself.”
This is the fifth in a series of ads from the Johnson campaign targeting specific aspects of Senator Feingold’s legalized slush fund, Progressives United, which operated as a shadow campaign, building campaign infrastructure and fundraising lists while Senator Feingold was a State Department employee.
The ad is devastating if you know the career path of Russ Feingold; it masterfully showcases just how far he has fallen, especially with the steps he’s taken since his 2010 loss. It raises the legitimate question, were we given the “real Russ Feingold” in 1992, or are we getting our true close-up in 2016?
Three terms of Feingold listening to only voices he wants to hear during his “listening sessions,” failing to take a single remotely conservative position, and either parroting the Democratic line or going even further left than that is what Feingold wants voters to forget Tuesday. That’s what 18 years of the phony maverick got Wisconsin.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 