J.D. Prose – 1/20/13

This page was last updated on January 23, 2013.

Rothfus’ Sandy relief votes aren’t a good start; J.D. Prose; Beaver County Times; January 20, 2013.

According to his Twitter page, Mr. Prose is a self-described “Surly progressive.” As you read this opinion column and his Twitter “tweets,” keep in mind Mr. Prose wears at least one other hat for the BCT. In addition to being an entertainer/pundit, Mr. Prose is a part-time reporter covering political stories. Ask yourself this. When a pundit gives his political opinions in one part of the paper, can he be trusted to report politics objectively elsewhere in the paper? After all, would a person whose opinion is 1+1 equals 3 report 1+1 really equals 2? Does he have a “Chinese wall” in his head to keep his opinions from bleeding into his reporting? (You may recall NPR claimed it fired Juan Williams for doing exactly what Mr. Prose does.) If it can get worse than that, Mr. Prose has made name-calling and personal attacks a foundation of his columns. If pushed, I’d be willing to bet Mr. Prose would try to excuse his writing by claiming he’s paid to be controversial and stir debate. The problem is, you don’t need to get into name-calling and personal attacks to accomplish those goals.

You can find the archive of my Prose column critiques here.

Below is a detailed critique of portions of this column.

“Well, we’re back. A week later than planned, but, hey, when the wife’s gallbladder unexpectedly screams, ‘Let me out!’ what choice do you have?”

[RWC] An anti-Rothfus column by Mr. Prose less than three weeks after U.S. Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-12) took office? Who saw that coming? <g>

Who are “we?”

“Speaking of choices, freshman GOP U.S. Rep. Keith Rothfus has made a few interesting ones when it comes to Hurricane Sandy relief bills. He’s voted against them.

“So far, the universal reaction we’ve heard goes something like this, ‘What the (bad word) is he thinking?’”

[RWC] The “universal reaction” claim reminds me of the lefty who didn’t understand how Richard Nixon won in 1972 with 49 states and 62% of the popular vote. She said, “Nobody I know voted for Nixon.” If all of the people Mr. Prose knows think alike, perhaps he needs a more diverse group of acquaintances.

“First, Rothfus opposed the $9.7 billion federal flood relief debt expansion and then he voted against the nearly $51 billion emergency relief package, along with 178 other hopelessly misguided Republicans and one loopy Blue Dog Democrat.”

[RWC] For some of what Mr. Prose didn’t tell readers about “the $9.7 billion federal flood relief debt expansion,” please read my critique of “Pennsylvania not proud.” By the way, “federal flood relief debt expansion” should have read “federal flood insurance debt expansion.”

“Rothfus, of course, spent two campaigns promising to cut spending so we’re not surprised. Heck. Nobody who’s talked to Keith for more than five seconds or seen any of his ads should be.

“In some way, it’s almost admirable. Rothfus told everyone what he stood for and isn’t wavering, even in the face of scorn and ridicule. If it didn’t come off as mean-spirited, it’d be refreshing.”

[RWC] Mr. Prose is complaining about someone coming across “as mean-spirited?” Does Mr. Prose read his own work?

“But, if this nation does anything better than anyone else, it’s unite in the face of catastrophe and do what’s necessary to help our fellow Americans.

“Rothfus saw that firsthand when he headed faith-based initiatives for President George W. Bush after Hurricane Katrina destroyed the Gulf Coast. Charity only goes so far, though, which is why the federal government basically rebuilt those states affected. Now, it’s the East Coast.”

[RWC] Folks, the guy who wrote this tried and continues “To try and leverage the misery and tragedy of” massacres of children, movie-goers, and so on perpetrated by the mentally ill. Maybe it’s OK, though, since the massacres were not “natural disasters.” Then again, perhaps it’s an example of do as I say, not as I do.

Given Mr. Prose’s strained relationship with facts, I’d take his claim “the federal government basically rebuilt those states affected” with a big grain of salt. For example, in the case of homes, the money should have come from the premiums paid by homeowners for flood insurance.

“To try and leverage the misery and tragedy of Sandy, or other natural disaster, for any reason is unfathomable. Coldly talking national debt while people are suffering is not good government. It’s not being fiscally responsible. It’s not admirable. It’s un-American and we’re better than that.”

[RWC] Folks, Mr. Prose himself tried and continues “To try and leverage the misery and tragedy of” mass killings of children, movie-goers, and so on perpetrated by the mentally ill (here, here, and in “About time” below). Maybe it’s OK, though, since mass killings are not “natural disasters.” Then again, perhaps it’s an example of do as I say, not as I do.

Mr. Prose didn’t mention those trying to “leverage the misery and tragedy” by loading “must-pass” relief bills with completely unrelated pork they couldn’t get otherwise.

Back in February 2010, Mr. Prose apparently saw no problem with “coldly talking national debt while people [were] suffering …” For the previous four months, the unemployment rate was 10%, 9.9%, 9.9%, and 9.8%. Further, unemployment benefits were extended so the unemployed could receive benefits for up to 99 weeks. Despite this “misery and tragedy,” Democrats (with no Republican votes) passed a law (“Pay-Go”) that February requiring any new spending to be offset with other spending cuts or tax increases. In fairness, however, Democrats enacted the law purely for show to make us think they really cared about debt and deficits. The proof? Since its passage, Democrats consistently violated their own law. Further, whenever a Republican invokes the law, he’s ridiculed as “mean-spirited,” “a petty dictator,” “the crazy uncle in the Senate attic,” et cetera. Based on a search of his columns, Mr. Prose never mentioned Pay-Go.

“GOV. 38%

“As Gov. Tom Corbett continues his march toward privatizing the entire state (Welcome to Walmartsylvania!), his poll numbers continue to swirl around the drain.

“Earlier this month, Public Policy Polling surveyed Pennsylvanians after Corbett did his blatant pandering-to-the-Cult-of-JoePa move by suing the NCAA over the sanctions against Penn State following the Jerry Sandusky child-rape scandal.”

[RWC] According to Wikipedia, PPP “is labeled as a Democratic firm because in its private client work, it conducts polls only for Democratic campaigns and progressive [leftist] organizations.” I’m sure Mr. Prose meant to clue his readers in about PPP but ran out of space. <g> That PPP is a Democrat firm doesn’t make its results wrong, but its political leaning should be noted when citing its results.

“Hmmm. After all this time and after Penn State SIGNED OFF ON THE SANCTIONS, why would the Guv’nah decide to … What’s that? He’s got a dismal 38 percent approval rating among voters surveyed by PPP? Ding! And, 52 percent of voters (and 63 percent of PSU fans) are happy with his lawsuit against the NCAA? Ding again!”

[RWC] Here are a few things Mr. Prose failed to mention when he wrote, “Penn State SIGNED OFF ON THE SANCTIONS.” First, the Freeh Report was made available to the public at the same time the PSU Board of Trustees (BoT) saw it for the first time. This meant no one at PSU could answer questions about the 267-page (single-spaced, 8½” by 11”) report.

Second, though a BoT member claims the BoT never voted to accept/reject it, PSU tacitly accepted the Freeh Report without review and still plans no detailed review. According to The Daily Collegian, “Chairman of the Board of Trustees Karen Peetz announced at the Sept. 14 [2012] meeting that the board would not officially review the $6.5 million report.” I don’t know about anyone else, but if I paid for a “$6.5 million report” you can bet I’d review it, and a lot more than once. Otherwise, how do you know the report’s findings and conclusions are valid?

Third, even though the unreviewed report didn’t address NCAA rules and was not intended to, the report served as the primary basis for the NCAA and Big 10+ punishment.

Fourth, what the NCAA did appears to be an example of “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Claiming special circumstances, the NCAA junked its investigation protocol from the beginning and made NCAA President Mark Emmert judge, jury, and executioner. According to Pat Forde of Yahoo! Sports, “To the best of my knowledge, the normal NCAA enforcement process has not taken place with Penn State. No investigation by enforcement representatives, no notice of allegations, no formal charges against the school. Nor has there been a Committee on Infractions hearing, wherein the school is afforded the opportunity to rebut any violations it is accused of, or a meeting of the committee to assess penalties. The most by-the-book institution this side of the IRS appears to have thrown the book out the window. Instead, we have fast-forwarded through every customary phase of NCAA justice, alighting on something that seems to more closely approximate the NFL’s current credo: In Commissioner We Trust.”

In the NCAA’s FAQ on the sanctions is the question, “What bylaws did Penn State violate?” The answer: “In determining the penalties for Penn State, the Executive Committee, Board and NCAA leadership considered numerous bylaws and portions of the constitution.” You’ll notice the “answer” didn’t answer the question. Why? Even if you accept everything in the Freeh Report as fact, PSU didn’t violate any NCAA rules. According to ESPN, “The NCAA had never punished a school for criminal behavior,” leaving that to our criminal justice system.

Fifth, the PSU administration accepted the NCAA and Big 10+ punishment immediately without even consulting its BoT. PSU President Rodney Erickson justified that action by claiming “he was told that an overwhelming majority of NCAA officials ‘wanted blood’ and the consent decree was ‘a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.’” Translation: The NCAA held a gun (the spoken or unspoken threat of the “death penalty”) to PSU’s head to force PSU to accept the NCAA’s punishment without question.

My question for Gov. Corbett would be, “what took you so long?”

Don’t get me wrong; I want to know what actually took place regardless of where the chips may fall.

As for Joe Paterno’s alleged role, how could a person with Joe’s well-deserved reputation allegedly have such incomprehensibly poor judgment in this case? What makes me think we don’t have the whole story yet is what we think we know is inconsistent with Joe Paterno’s history, and a lot of folks want us to ignore that history. In today’s environment when it’s easy for players and coaches to run afoul of NCAA rules and NCAA investigations are commonplace among programs large and small, a football program with PSU’s prominence and size didn’t have a squeaky-clean reputation for 46+ years by accident. It takes a lot of work by a lot of people and it starts at the top. I’m not nominating Joe for sainthood or claiming someone didn’t stub his toe somewhere along the line. All I’m saying is PSU’s well-deserved reputation wasn’t smoke and mirrors. According to ESPN, “Jerry Crawford, an Iowa-based attorney who defends collegiate programs” said, “What I believe I know is Joe Paterno ran an NCAA sanction[ed] football program that didn’t just play within the rules, but played well within the rules. Recruited good people. Got them educations. I thought it was a program the country needed to emulate, not ostracize.” If Joe didn’t play by the rules and do so for a very long time, accusers would have been coming out of the woodwork by now.

This is a bit off-topic, but here goes anyway. Joe’s successor, Bill O’Brien, did a great job in his first season and he deserved the 2012 Paul “Bear” Bryant College Coach of the Year Award he won. Of the team’s four losses, one was directly attributable to the NCAA sanctions (kicker Anthony Fera’s transfer to Texas) and another was helped greatly by what appeared to be a bad call by officials late in the game. Despite all this, PSU still came in 2nd (behind only undefeated Ohio State) in the Big 10+ Leaders Division. Throughout the season, TV game announcers constantly and correctly mentioned how well Mr. O’Brien and the players handled the situation and how surprised they were at the team’s performance. At the same time, though, these “reporters” routinely made snarky comments about Joe and his program without the courage to mention him by name. What these people chose not to acknowledge was all those players with character and talent who surprised everyone were recruited by Joe and his staff and, except for first-year players, were coached by Joe and his staff.

“But, PPP said Corbett didn’t break 42 percent in hypothetical match-ups with several Democrats. He was tied at 42 percent with new Democratic Attorney General Kathleen Kane and actually trailed … no joke … former Gov. Ed Rendell 46-40 percent in a race straight out of a political reporter’s dreams.”

[RWC] I believe Mr. Prose thought he was writing about himself in his “political reporter’s dreams” comment. If Mr. Prose ever was a reporter, he ceased to be one when he became an official pundit. As I wrote above, “When a pundit gives his political opinions in one part of the paper, can he be trusted to report politics objectively elsewhere in the paper?”

“‘He continues to be one of the most vulnerable governors in the country headed into 2014,’ PPP president Dean Debnam said of Corbett. Well, that’s comforting at least.”

[RWC] Gee, who would guess a left-leaning polling business would declare a Republican “to be one of the most vulnerable governors in the country headed into 2014?”

“BEST OF …

“PoliticsPa.com named Rothfus’ ‘Alice & Alice’ campaign ad, featuring his mother and daughter, as the best TV ad overall in the general election; his infamous ‘Regular Guy’ ad as the best positive TV ad; and the National Republican Congressional Committee’s anti-Mark Critz ‘Which Critz’ ad as the best third-party TV ad.”

[RWC] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “infamous” as “having a reputation of the worst kind,” like Prose columns. <g> Here’s what Politics PA wrote about “Regular Guy”: “This was Rothfus’s opening salvo of the fall campaign, and it succeeded in boosting his name ID to credible levels early (a key in attracting outside national money to the race). It also pre-empted the inevitable ‘out of touch’ attacks that millionaire Rothfus was certain to face. It’s a good mix of clever and effective.” Even if you hadn’t seen the video (here), does the Politics PA comment describe an ad “having a reputation of the worst kind?” I’m surprised a professional writer would get his words mixed up like this. It also doesn’t say much about the editor who proofread the column. Then again, perhaps deception was the intent.

Infamous, however, would accurately describe Democrat claims Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years, was a potential felon, and was responsible for a Democrat’s wife dying of cancer. It would also cover President Obama’s repeated claim his mother’s medical insurance provider wouldn’t pay for her cancer treatment.

“Just in case anyone was still wondering if campaign TV ads were effective.”

[RWC] I’m not sure the Politics PA ratings mean the “campaign TV ads were effective.” According to Politics PA, the ratings were “based on our observations, your submissions, and conversations with Pa.’s top politicos. … The criteria are somewhat subjective. In some cases, a piece stood out because it was inherently well done, aesthetic, or clever. In other categories, a piece won simply by being effective – making the difference for its campaign.” The piece doesn’t describe how an ad was determined to be “effective – making the difference for its campaign” and there’s no indication anyone surveyed the judges who really counted, the voters.

“ABOUT TIME

“We were happy to see President Barack Obama finally stand up and take action on gun control last week. There were some executive orders, but the bulk of changes will go before Congress. Note to those frothing at the mouth and screaming about ‘freedom,’ that’s not tyranny, it’s democracy.”

[RWC] Mr. Prose needs to catch up with his lefty lingo. While Mr. Prose was on vacation, “gun control” morphed into “gun violence,” apparently because too many Americans are leery of government attempts to control further our right to bear arms. The change in language is similar to “global warming” morphing into “climate change” when too many Americans didn’t buy into the religion of manmade global warming.

Before Mr. Prose apparently wrote “executive orders … [are] not tyranny, it’s democracy,” did he check the constitutionality of those executive orders?

“Anyway, the lines have been drawn. We’ll soon find out who owns this country, the people who want reasonable (if not strict enough) laws or the insane National Rifle Association, it’s [sic] screeching sycophants and the blood-on-its-hands gun lobby. We wish we were optimistic.”

[RWC] As I noted in my critique of “A shaky ladder” written by Mr. Prose’s fellow BCT pundit Patrick O’Shea, “Watch out when people use terms like [‘reasonable’ and ‘reasoned’]. For example, during the ‘fiscal cliff’ debates we heard President Obama and his followers talk about a ‘balanced’ solution. In that case, ‘balanced’ meant tax-rate hikes and no spending cuts. My guess is ‘commonsense’ and other similar terms will join ‘reasonable’ and ‘reasoned.’”

Mr. Prose wrote of “the-Cult-of-JoePa,” “frothing at the mouth,” “the insane National Rifle Association,” “screeching sycophants,” and “the blood-on-its-hands gun lobby” after he called Mr. Rothfus “un-American.” And Mr. Prose (a member of the-Cult-of-Obama <g>) thinks Mr. Rothfus “come[s] off as mean-spirited?”