Today in 1963, Paul McCartney was fined 17 pounds for speeding. I’d suggest that that may have been the inspiration for his Wings song “Hell on Wheels,” except that the correct title is actually “Helen Wheels,” supposedly a song about his Land Rover:
Imagine having tickets to this concert at the Anaheim Civic Center today in 1967:
Why, you ask, do Republicans want to cut the UW System? Why do most Republican-leaning voters support something like that?
Well, it might have something to do with what happens with those taxpayer-funded salaries at the state’s only world-class university, as reported by The College Fix:
University of Wisconsin sociology Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab claims there are “terrifying” psychological similarities between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Nazi leader and mass murderer Adolf Hitler.
In a July 1 tweet, Goldrick-Rab said: “My grandfather, a psychologist, just walked me through similarities between Walker and Hitler. There are so many-it’s terrifying.”
The extreme comparisons didn’t stop there.
A day later, Professor Goldrick-Rap tweeted: “No doubt about it-Walker and many Wisconsin Legislators are fascists. Period. They proved it today. #SHAME.”
Walker, a Republican, announced on Monday that he is running for president.
The College Fix reached out to Professor Goldrick-Rab on Monday to seek clarification about her strongly worded tweets. Goldrick-Rab released the following statement to The College Fix:
Thank you for your question. Please note that I have taken time out of my unpaid vacation to respond, as a courtesy to the timeliness of your request.
If you reread the tweet, you will see that I stated that an expert in the field – a psychoanalyst with decades of experience – compared the ‘psychological characteristics’ of the two individuals, and that I was struck by his analysis. There do appear to be commonalities.
I’m confident you are capable of seeing the difference between such an assessment and equating the whole of two different people.
I’m also confident you will note that the tweet was not a “reaction” to any particular event, and thus it may not fit with your narrative.
Recently Goldrick-Rab also targeted the Wisconsin budget as an attack on education and tenure, tweeting she “spent more than 20 years working for & honoring the tenure I earned. Walker just robbed me of it. He robbed Wisconsin. It’s unforgivable.”
She went on to suggest Walker would “make an example” out of her and fire her to advance his campaign.
“You should hear my kids, trying to figure out what moving means. Walker is driving them out of their home state. He took mom’s job.” Goldrick-Rab tweeted July 12.
In a statement issued to the Wisconsin State Journal, Goldrick-Rab said that her colleagues around the UW system are talking privately about leaving, and that “(legislators) had literally shattered their employees and students and they stand up and say ‘thank you.’ It’s cowardly. We’re the laughingstock of the nation.”
Professor Goldrick-Rab also joined the chorus of those lamenting the fact that Walker doesn’t have a college degree, tweeting: “My 5 year old just busted out with ‘Scott Walker needs to go to college to get some more knowledge!’ Whoa. She’s way ahead…”
Yes, readers, these are the kind of people who have succeeded in making Walker a national political star. Among other inconvenient facts, Walker is approximately 12 million short of Hitler in deaths caused by evil ideas. This, we are supposed to believe, is what academic freedom and tenure are for.
The Washington Post’s Chris Cilizza wrote this before yesterday’s big news:
Scott Walker’s message in his soon-to-be-announced presidential bid is simple: I’m a conservative who has won and won (and won) in a blue state. I’ve talked the talk and walked the walk.
“We fought and we won,” Walker says in the video his campaign released in advance of Monday night’s formal announcement. “Without sacrificing our principles we won three elections in four years in a blue state.”
That’s a very powerful message for Republicans desperate to win the White House back. And, it’s one that Walker has Democrats to thank for.
Remember that Walker’s initial win in 2010 occasioned no great attention among national politicos. He was a little-known county executive who was known, primarily, for being the “brown bag” guy. No one expected to hear from him again, nationally speaking.
Then Walker made his move on public employee unions. Suddenly, he became enemy number one of the organized labor movement nationally and the Republican every Democrat in Wisconsin loved to hate. That emotion led to the push to recall Walker in a June 2012 election; there was a widespread belief in the anti-Walker crowd that it was a virtual guarantee that voters would get rid of the governor.
Except that didn’t happen. In fact, Walker won by a larger margin over Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett in the 2012 recall than he did in the regularly scheduled 2010 election. In the wake of that loss — and, in truth, in the months leading up to the vote — there was considerable disagreement between labor/Wisconsin Democrats and national party strategists about whether the recall was a smart political move.
Following Walker’s win, I wrote this:
There was considerable internal discussion and disagreement between Washington and Wisconsin Democrats (and organized labor) about whether to push for a recall election this summer or wait until 2014 for a chance to unseat Walker. (Washington Democrats broadly favored the latter option, Wisconsin Democrats and labor the former).
As the recall played out, two things became clear: 1) There were almost no one undecided in the race and 2) those few souls who were undecided tended to resist the recall effort on the grounds that Walker had just been elected in 2010.
The sentiment among those undecided voters, according to several Democrats closely monitoring the data, was that while they didn’t love Walker they thought he deserved a full term before passing final judgment on how he was performing.
That Democrats nominated Barrett — the same man who Walker had defeated in the 2010 general election — added to the sense among independents and undecided voters that this was primarily a partisan push to re-do a race in which they didn’t like the final result.
Looking back, it’s clear that without the recall, there is no Scott Walker presidential announcement today. What the recall did was turn Walker into a conservative hero/martyr — the symbol of everything base GOPers hate about unions and, more broadly, the Democratic party. He went from someone no one knew to someone every conservative talk radio host (and their massive audiences) viewed as the tip of the spear in the fight against the creep of misguided Democratic priorities. He became someone who had the phone numbers of every major conservative donor at his fingertips. He became what he is today: The political David who threw a pebble and slew the mighty liberal Goliath.
It’s hard for me to imagine that if Democrats had never tried to recall Walker that he would be a) running for president in 2016 or b) solidly established as one of the three candidates regarded as most likely to be the nominee. Even if Walker had, as he did, won a second term as governor in Wisconsin in 2014, it’s much more likely he’d be grouped in with fellow governors like John Kasich and Chris Christie rather than, as he is now, with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.
The recall was a major — and long-tailed — strategic mistake by Democrats. It elevated Walker from a low-profile governor into a conservative superstar. If Walker winds up as the Republican nominee in 2016 — and he has a real chance to be just that — Democrats have only themselves to blame for his rise. They made Walker into the kind of politician who could beat Hillary Clinton next November.
Conventional wisdom claimed that Walker won the 2012 recall election …
… because of a significant number of non-fans of Walker who nonetheless voted for him because they believed Walker shouldn’t have been recalled over Act 10. That foreshadowed Walker’s loss in 2014 … until, of course, he won again.
Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) could blame the 2014 loss on the inept campaign of Mary Burke, but Democrats were all atwitter of having a female candidate who ran a successful family business, until it became obvious that Burke didn’t have as large a role as was claimed at said successful family business, and as a candidate she reminded no one of, say, former Texas Gov. Ann Richards. One wonders when Democrats will stop underestimating Walker for having a low intellect (due to his sin of a lack of college degree, the same as with a majority of Wisconsinites), because obviously he’s smarter than the Democrats and their political experts.
So what does the O in AFL-CIO stand for? That’s the number of elections (yes, using an O for a zero — the new version of Hawaii Five-0 does it) Big Labor has won against Scott Walker. That also represents the number of times Big Labor has succeeded in wresting control of either house of the Legislature away from Republicans in the regularly scheduled 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections. When AFL-CIO chief thug Richard Trumka calls Walker a “national disgrace,” Trumka should look in the mirror; that’s called “projection.”
Alternatively, I love this tweet:
This being Bastille Day, I should probably post some French rock acts, even though you probably have never heard of any French rock act.
Kevin Binversie looks at the 11 Assembly Republicans who voted against the 2015-17 state budget:
While it’s easy to group all 11 as some of the most potentially-vulnerable members of the Republican caucus, the reality is there are three groups here.
The Truly Vulnerable
- Ed Brooks, R-Reedsburg, 50th Assembly District
- Todd Novak, R-Dodgeville, 51st Assembly District
- Kathy Bernier, R-Chippewa Falls, 68th Assembly District
- Nancy VanderMeer, R-Tomah, 70th Assembly District
- Dave Heaton, R-Wausau, 85th Assembly District
- Warren Petryk, R-Eleva, 93rd Assembly District
With an eye on 2016, and the likelihood of higher Democratic turnout, there’s little doubt the majority of these representatives voted against the budget with concerns over their re-election at the top of their minds. Given recent teeter-tottering between the parties in these swing districts, even a “No” vote might not be enough to ensure a return to the Madison in 2017.
Of the six seats listed above, since redistricting, results have ranged from 48 percent to 52 percent for the Republican candidate in either 2012 or 2014. Three of these six seats (Novak, VanderMeer, and Heaton) had margins of victory (or defeat in the case of VanderMeer in 2012) which triggered a recount.
The others, while sitting on respectable margins of victory in 2014, had squeakers in 2012.
The Prevailing Wage Trio
- Keith Ripp, R-Lodi, 42nd Assembly District
- Scott Krug, R-Nekoosa, 72nd Assembly District
- James “Jimmy Boy” Edming, R-Glen Flora, 87th Assembly District
This set of state representatives each issueda press releaseagainst the state budget saying essentially the same thing, “I’m disappointed that prevailing wage language was included in the final budget.”
On an electoral level, nearly all three inhabit relatively safe seats. With each winning re-election (or initial election) to the assembly in 2014 with margins between 56 percent to 66 percent. Only Scott Krug, who won a squeaker in 2012, can claim true political worry.
Of course, how the Stevens Point-area Republican can claim he’s looking out for taxpayers by opposing prevailing wage reform while leaning towards support for a Bucks arena from his out-state district will be something to watch next year on the campaign trail.
The Big-Government, College Town Republicans
- Travis Tranel, R-Cuba City, 49th Assembly District
- Lee Nerison, R-Westby, 96th Assembly District
Both opposed Act 10 in 2011, both opposed prevailing wage perform now, both are from western Wisconsin and concerned about the vote from their college-aged voters. (Tranel from UW-Platteville, Nerison from UW-La Crosse)
Sense the pattern.
Electorally, both Tranel and Nerison are fairly safe. In 2014, Tranel won re-election with 61 percent, and won in 2012 with 54 percent. Nerison carried his district in both 2012 and 2014 with 59 percent of the vote.
Both essentially are longshots to be beaten in 2016, but they’ll be on the radar anyway. Tranel, elected in 2010 and one time was seen as a rising conservative star, has quickly developed a reputation as “the next Dale Schultz” in the sense he talks a solid conservative game in district, but is rarely there when the votes are counted.
Well, until Tranel casts a vote that actually kills a GOP wish-list item (for instance, mining reform, in which Schultz’s vote and all the Democratic votes killed northwest Wisconsin mining), Tranel is not a shorter, thinner Dale Schultz. Nerison may represent a district near La Crosse, but he does not represent La Crosse.
I assume the list of the Vulnerables is more or less accurate, though Brooks’ district hasn’t gone Democratic in my memory. Novak is a first-termer, but has qualities that will be hard for Democrats to oppose. I disagree with the stance those opposed to prevailing-wage reform took, but notice that it passed.
In fact, notice that the state budget passed even without these 11 votes, or the vote of Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay). That seems like good political maneuvering to me. The 11 can say that they opposed whatever about the budget they opposed, and yet, like Act 10, it passed anyway.
This is something Gov. Scott Walker can spin to his advantage in this politically divided state within this politically divided nation. If I were Walker I would say that the 11 No votes demonstrate that the Republican Party does differ on some subjects, that the GOP has actual political diversity, unlike the other side. Know any anti-abortion Democrats? How about any Democrats who favor the Second Amendment? (My definition does not include gun control that only affects the ability of law-abiding Americans to purchase guns.) How about any Democrats who favor general tax cuts, instead of cutting taxes for a few by raising taxes on everyone else?
With all due to respect to Charlie Sykes and the Right Wisconsin people, whose work I enjoy reading and who have worked hard to influence the Wisconsin political debate: I’m not sure labeling and appearing to shun Republicans who don’t vote your way is helpful to the conservative cause. (For that matter, the state GOP could be labeled into suburban-Milwaukee, Fox River Valley and outstate elements, with most of the aforementioned 11 in the latter group, and Walker, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald in the former group.)
The GOP has a 13-seat majority in the Assembly and a two-seat majority in the Senate. Obviously conservative legislation still is getting passed without every single GOP vote. In fact, the larger a majority is, the more likely there is to be wavering from the supposedly true line. That’s not much of an issue until your one-vote majority includes Dale Schultz, which is no longer the case.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel claimed that Walker wanted a big budget victory heading into his presidential campaign. Well, state government should not be negatively affected by presidential politics. The Republican Party needs to be bigger than Scott Walker, who may or may not become president and will not be governor forever, or, for that matter, any single Republican.
Back in 1980, U.S. Rep. John Anderson (R–Illinois) decided to run for president as an independent. The motto of his campaign was “The Anderson Difference.”
One night that year, NBC-TV ran a story on its Nightly News, “The Anderson Differences,” comparing his positions as a congressman — for instance, favoring a measure to make the U.S. officially a Christian nation — with his positions as a presidential candidate. The comparison was not favorable, not because NBC agreed or disagreed with his past or present positions, but because the difference between past and present was essentially 180 degrees.
That came to mind reading Jim Geraghty:
You may have gathered that I remain a skeptic about Donald Trump. Trump fans look at us skeptics with incredulity that we could possibly object to their man, and his ability to “change the debate” and force the media to discuss topics like sanctuary cities. Those of us not so enamored with Trump pause at how that quality suddenly outranks all other qualities in a potential Republican presidential candidate — including consistent conservatism.
Permit me to remind you about Donald Trump’s assessment of President Bush back in 2008:
Bush has been so bad, maybe the worst president in the history of this country. He has been so incompetent, so bad, so evil, that I don’t think any Republican could have won.
Evil? Evil? Of course, in the same interview, Trump endorsed … diplomatic outreach with Iran.
You know, you can be enemies with people, whether it’s Iran, Iraq, anyplace else and you can still have dialogue. These people won’t even talk to him. It’s terrible.
Wait, there’s more! Check out his assessment of Obama!
VAN SUSTEREN: The new president-elect, what are your thoughts? Pretty exciting, it’s always exciting when we have a change of power, a transition, but what are your thoughts.
TRUMP: It’s very exciting we have a new president. It would have been nice if he ended with a 500 point up instead of down. It’s certainly very exciting.
His speech was great last night. I thought it was inspiring in every way. And, hopefully he’s going to do a great job. But the way I look at it, he cannot do worse than Bush. [Emphasis added.]
VAN SUSTEREN: We know how you feel about this.
TRUMP: It’s not me, it’s everybody. It’s been a total catastrophe. That’s what happened to Republicans. They got run are [sic] out of office because we have a president that’s been so bad.
And he’s been a catastrophe, there’s no question about it. He got us into a war we didn’t need. You look at the money, we’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, and then people wonder why the economy isn’t doing well.
OPEC is ripping us off left and right, the oil countries are just ripping us off left and right.
So you have wars, you have OPEC, all of this stuff. He didn’t do anything about it. He sends Condoleezza Rice. She gets off a plane and waves to everybody and then leaves. It’s ridiculous. …
And then here’s his thoughts on health care back in 1999 …
TRUMP: I think you have to have it, and, again, I said I’m conservative, generally speaking, I’m conservative, and even very conservative. But I’m quite liberal and getting much more liberal on health care and other things. I really say: What’s the purpose of a country if you’re not going to have defensive [sic] and health care?
If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over. I mean, it’s no good. So I’m very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better.
KING: So you believe, then, it’s an entitlement of birth?
TRUMP: I think it is. It’s an entitlement to this country, and too bad the world can’t be, you know, in this country. But the fact is, it’s an entitlement to this country if we’re going to have a great country.
And then, as you probably saw, Trump’s post-2012 comments on illegal immigration:
“Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the billionaire developer says.
“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.
“He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”
The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.
Yet I see people comparing Trump to Reagan. Donald Trump has been a conservative for about ten minutes.
You have read (because I’m sure I quoted it previously) Ralph Waldo Emerson’s observation that “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” (The rest of which is: “… adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”) California Gov. Ronald Reagan raised taxes and signed the nation’s most liberal, for the day, abortion rights legislation, both of which President Ronald Reagan opposed.
But calling a previous president of your own party “evil” seems unlikely to generate much support among your own party, even among those who didn’t like said president. Favoring universal health care, whether ObamaCare or single-payer, is not a position the Republican Party is likely to adopt at any point. At some point he’s going to have to explain the gulf between his previous positions and his current positions.
Trump blamed his first bankruptcy on Reagan’s 1987 tax reform, because it eliminated some obscure real estate tax break. Reagan’s 1987 tax cut helped propel the longest peacetime economic expansion in this nation’s history, which not even Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase could stall for long.
Trump cannot credibly repeat Reagan’s line that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left him, because all of the aforementioned positions remain Democratic positions today as they were in 2008. Either Trump changed all of those positions, which means he needs to explain what changed his mind, or he doesn’t actually have any long-standing firm tenets of what’s right and wrong in politics, other than his own fortunes.
Of course, there’s an easy way to do that if you have enough money, as Trump certainly does. Like Ross Perot in 1992, Trump certainly has enough money to run for president without the support of the GOP, or his apparent former party, the Democratic Party. Run for president as an independent, and you can skip the silliness of the primary parade and go right to the general campaign. You can take whichever positions you want on whichever issues you like, and you can ignore issues you don’t care about or don’t want to touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole. (For instance: Abortion rights.)
To quote 1992 “Reform” Party candidate H. Ross Perot, see? It’s that simple.
We start with the first recorded instance of Buddy Holly in Wisconsin: Today in 1958, Holly nearly drowned while swimming across a lake near Rhinelander while on tour.
Holly’s swimming problems may have occurred because he didn’t realize how cold Wisconsin (specifically our bodies of water) can get. He got another lesson in that seven months later.
Today in 1960, Elvis Presley released a song based on the Italian “O Sole Mio”:
Today in 1970, Anne Murray released her first song during an inappropriate time of year:
The number one single today in 1974:
Today in 1999, the New Radicals (which were really just one, uh, Radical) split up after one album, from which came one single:
Today is the anniversary of the Rolling Stones’ first public performance, at the Marquee Club in London in 1962. They were known then as the “Rollin’ Stones,” and they had not recorded a song yet.
If you’re going to record just one song that gets on the charts, ending at number one would be preferable, whether in 1969, or in the year 2525:
Today in 1979 was one of the most bizarre moments in baseball history and/or radio station history:
The number one single today in 1960 was the first, but not only, example of the caveman music genre:
Today in 1962, Joe Meek wrote “Telstar,” the first song about a satellite:
Today in 1964, the Beatles appeared live on (British) ABC-TV’s “Thank Your Lucky Stars.” The appearance was supposed to be taped, but a strike by studio technicians made that impossible. The band had just appeared at the northern England premiere of their movie “A Hard Day’s Night,” requiring them to get to London via plane and boat.
It may be impossible for current Packer fans to believe this, but there was a day when the Packers were among the dregs of the National Football League.
What has been called the Gory Years stem basically my entire conscious life before marriage. (So thanks for the great wedding present, Ron, Mike and Brett.) Between 1968, the season after Super Bowl II, and 1991, the Packers had exactly two playoff seasons, 1972 (10-4, NFC Central champion) and 1982 (5-3-1, third place in the NFC according to the strike-season format), and three more winning seasons, 1969 (8-6), 1978 (8-7-1) and 1989 (10-6). That’s it.
As a result, most kids in my world developed alternative NFL allegiances, or at least teams they’d root for in addition to the Packers — the Miami Dolphins (right, Rick?), the Pittsburgh Steelers (right, Tim?), the Dallas Cowboys, the Los Angeles Rams, or even the rival Minnesota Vikings, all teams that won more than they lost, in contrast to the Packers, whose season ended before the playoffs started every year. (I remember no one from the neighborhood or my schools rooting for the Chicago Bears, because the Bears were as bad as the Packers were in that era.)
Yes, we were all a bunch of little frontrunners while our fathers watched, and sore at, the ineptitude of the Packers. I remember in third grade getting a greatest-sports-legends book from the school library. (The book, strangely enough, had neither Muhammad Ali or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, but there was a boxer named Cassius Clay who looked just like Ali, and there was a basketball player named Lew Alcindor who looked just like Abdul-Jabbar and played for the Bucks. Weird.) The book included former Packer quarterback Bart Starr, and added the unbelievable fact that the Packers won five NFL titles and Super Bowls I and II. That seemed impossible given that even an eight-year-old could figure out that that team wearing green and gold on fall Sundays was bad.
My alternative team was the Oakland Raiders. Part of the reason was the fact that the Raiders often were the second game of the Sunday doubleheader, usually on NBC. Many Raiders games were announced by my favorite announcer, Dick Enberg. The Raiders played in California, whose weather was always better than Wisconsin’s by the end of the season. Their uniforms — black jerseys and silver helmets and pants — looked cool.
In those days, most NFL teams had a few renegade players. The entire Raiders team consisted of renegades, beginning with their owner, Al Davis. (Legend has it a visiting coach believed his team’s locker room had been bugged. After the visitor lost, the coach yelled at a light fixture in the locker room, “Damn you, Al Davis! Damn you!” A Raider official’s response was that it wasn’t in the light fixture.) Their coach, John Madden, was like watching a human thunderstorm. Their announcer, Bill King, also announced the San Francisco (later Golden State) Warriors in a radio/TV simulcast, but was never shown on TV because he wore a beard, in the early 1960s.
The non-home-grown players were often high draft picks from other teams who were cut (by their first and later teams) for behavior issues. That included Oak Creek’s John Matuszak, a number one draft pick cut by four previous teams. That also included Ted Hendricks, a tall and skinny linebacker who was with the Packers for one season but moved on because the Packers couldn’t figure out where to play him; the Raiders said play wherever you want, Ted, and he became known as the Mad Stork. (That did not include George Blanda, who nonetheless was a backup quarterback at 40 and kicked until he was 48.)
The homegrown players were hardly shrinking violets either. Defensive tackle Otis Sistrunk was photographed one night with steam coming off his bald head, and ABC-TV’s Alex Karras announced he was from the University of Mars. One cornerback was known as “Dr. Death,” another was called “Lester the Molester,” a safety was called “the Assassin,” and another defensive back was called, by Steelers coach Chuck Noll, an example of the “criminal element” in the NFL. One of the apparently more mild-mannered players was Chilton native Dave Casper, who became a Hall of Fame tight end despite playing offensive tackle at Notre Dame.
Their quarterback was Ken Stabler, who had been called The Snake since his University of Alabama days …
… for something he wasn’t often known for in his NFL days, his running ability. The nickname stuck for his inability to make improbable plays to improbably win games despite his perceived immobility (he would stand in the pocket and look for an open receiver) and unimpressive-looking arm, which gave him the appearance of a left-handed relief pitcher who faces one batter per appearance.
Fans forget that the famed Immaculate Reception …
… would never have happened except for Stabler’s coming into the game and leading the Raiders to the go-ahead score, his own 30-yard run.
Stabler came from the days when the quarterback called the team’s own plays. (Stabler described his play-calling philosophy as: “Run for show, throw for dough,” which probably kept his excellent offensive lines happy.) Legend had it Stabler read the Raiders playbook by the light from a jukebox. Such implied hard living, plus his long hair and beard (both of which grew gray as he headed into his 30s, gave him style appropriate for a team with a pirate motif. (The Raiders’ logo apparently used actor Randolph Scott for a model, complete with eyepatch.)
Stabler’s autobiography and another autobio by the aforementioned Assassin told tales of a team that seemed to be the real-life example of the fictional North Dallas 40. (The novel was a thinly veiled tale of the 1960s Dallas Cowboys, but unlike the Cowboys, the Raiders never denied their wild life.) One of the more tame stories was of the annual team air hockey tournament, which had only one rule: Cheating was mandatory. Players would wear fur coats in 100-degree training camp heat to play games that would go scoreless for hours. Stabler’s book makes one wonder how he lived as long as he did.
Of course, style is nothing without performance. The first Raiders game I remember well was the 1974 AFC divisional playoff game against Miami. The Dolphins were trying for their fourth consecutive Super Bowl, having won the previous two.
The game started with a bang, with Dolphins wide receiver Nat Moore returning the opening kickoff for a touchdown.
And yet no one ever trailed by more than a touchdown. The Raiders took the lead on a tightrope touchdown catch by wide receiver Fred Biletnikoff, who couldn’t outrun anyone, but always caught the ball whenever it was in his area code.
And then came the fourth quarter, when the Raiders got the lead back on a bomb pass to wide receiver Cliff Branch, who caught the ball, fell down, got up because no Dolphin touched him, and ran it in the rest of the way.
That would have been the highlight were it not for the touchdown the Dolphins scored right after that. When Stabler got the ball back, just 2:08 remained. That turned out to be plenty of time.
Stabler spent much of his career winning other improbable games …
… the most crazy of which remains the Holy Roller …
… a play so bizarre that the NFL banned it.
The Raiders were among the NFL’s best teams throughout the ’70s, but only got to one Super Bowl with Stabler, beating Minnesota in Super Bowl XI. The highest praise, besides his two player-of-the-year awards, probably came from offensive guard Gene Upshaw, who said, “When we were behind in the fourth quarter, with our backs to the end zone, no matter how he had played up to that point, we could look in his eyes and you knew, you knew, he was going to win it for us. That was an amazing feeling.”
After two winning but non-playoff seasons, the Raiders traded Stabler to the Houston Oilers for their quarterback, Dan Pastorini, previously known as the guy who handed off to running back Earl Campbell. (Pastorini didn’t win a Super Bowl with the Raiderrs, because he broke his leg. In yet another case of something happening only to the Raiders, backup quarterback Jim Plunkett led the Raiders to two Super Bowl wins, one in Oakland, one in Los Angeles.) Stabler then went to New Orleans to end his career.
Stabler should be in the NFL Hall of Fame. He is the only member of the NFL Team of the ’70s not in the Hall of Fame. He doesn’t have as many Super Bowl rings as Steelers quarterback Terry Bradshaw (four), Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach or Dolphins quarterback Bob Griese (two each), but he has more than Hall of Fame quarterback Fran Tarkenton (none). His statistics compare favorably with other Hall of Fame quarterbacks who played in his era, which featured much less passing than today. He had 96 regular-season wins as a starter, which is one more than all the other quarterbcks drafted with Stabler combined.
If Stabler ever gets in the NFL Hall of Fame, it will be posthumously. He died last night of colon cancer at 69.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 