Merry Christmas to All!

End of quarter demands at work and the festivities and activities of the Christmas season have kept me away from the blog, but as we enter the final countdown for Santa 2007 I want to wish a Merry Christmas to the Virginia Blogosphere!…and a Happy Hannukah, a Happy Kwaanza, and just generally a wonderful holiday season!

Bwana be back in the blog after Christmas…not only because it is fun, but because from what I have read elsewhere my voice of reason is sorely missed!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!

Kaine and McDonnell show True Colors

Getting a dollar back doesn’t seem like much, does it?  They don’t think so over at RK-the comments are chortling over what folks might buy with that dollar.  Because of the way it is raised, some might say the dollar in question might not apply to you.

They would be wrong. The dollar in question does apply to you, and the issue reflects the wrong headed thinking being used by too many of our elected officials, including Governor Tim “The Gov” Kaine (D), state Senator Tommy Norment (R) and Fairfax Supervisor Gerry Connolly (D).

The circumstances surrounding this dollar also shows very clear thinking by Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell (R).

In 2003 the General Assembly approved a $1 increase in the vehicle registration fee to provide funding for the 2007 Jamestown Exposition, and brought in about $4,ooo,ooo.oo. The fee is set to expire on June 30, 2008. 

Except maybe it won’t…

Governor Kaine wants to keep the fee in place for use in encouraging tourism and with the state DMV. Nothing specific, you understand, just to be spent in those two areas.

State legislators like state Senator Tommy Norment want to keep the buck in place to use for other government expenses.  Nothing specific, you understand, just for expenses.

McDonnell says the specific purpose for the increase is met, and the increase should be eliminated as per the original legislation.

I agree with Bob.

The whole episode reeks of a state government that is unable or unwilling to police itself, and is indicative of a mindset that must be eliminated from the financial management and the politics of the state.

It is an attitude of entitlement, a belief that once a tax is created, that money now belongs to the state and not to the taxpayer.

I am reminded of a Gerry Connolly comment from two years ago. After having some serious property tax increases in Fairfax County, the county BOS voted to reduced property tax payments by $230 million. According to the WaPo, the following exchange occurred:

But at the work session yesterday, the real meaning of tax relief and the political pressure many local officials are facing from angry taxpayers set off a rapid-fire exchange between the board’s top Democrat and its most vocal Republican. “Have we ever returned $230 million to the taxpayers before?” board Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D) asked budget chief Susan Datta, calculating the value of the 13-cent reduction.

“No,” Datta replied.

Supervisor Michael R. Frey (R-Sully) shot back: “Have we ever had a 23 percent increase for residential properties in a single year? This is not a tax cut. People are paying more in actual real money.”

Two things.  First, such a question… “Have we ever returned $230 million to the tax payers before?”  No, and Fairfax County still hasn’t done it.  “Returning” money would be sending me money the county had already gotten from me.  This vote simply said the county wouldn’t take as much next year.

Next is Connolly’s attitude.  He and too many other elected officials think that taxes are a permanent thing, and that once enacted are a property of the state or local government and in the natural course of things should not and will not go away. 

This attitude is shared by Norment, by Kaine, and by more members of the General Assembly than I like to think about.

I do not consider myself an anti-tax fanatic.  Like everyone else, I don’t want to pay any more in taxes than I have to.  However, I recognize that government has certain functions entrusted to it by the citizens of the republic; we pay taxes to fund those responsibilities.  Taxation should be adequate to meet those needs plus a reasonable amount in reserve for unforeseen complications.  Money beyond that should go back to the taxpayer, and the taxes that produce that revenue adjusted.  No tax should be considered permanent, especially those that are passed with a sunset provision as part of the legislation.  Conservatives and Liberals may disagree about what services government should perform, but I think both sides of the ideological divide want the money brought in to pay for those services to be spent responsibly.

Perhaps this concern of of no importance or grounded belief in men like The Gov or Senator Norment.  I don’t hear them telling us “Why is the funding needed?”, or “Where will it be spent?” or even “If the need is so great, why wasn’t it addressed previously?”

These guys want to hold office, but they don’t want to be on the dime for raising taxes.  They jealously fight to hold on to tax revenues because they have forgotten that the money is not theirs…it is ours.  They aren’t willing to say “here is what the state needs to be able to do, here is why, and here is how much it costs”.  Instead, they act as if no explanation or detail is needed about how current revenues are spent, and that doing anything new naturally requires more money.

The question about this small tax reflects the manner in which our state government will function.  Too many in state and federal government consider our income theirs to play with and not money with which they have been entrusted to meet specific needs. 

That is why this entire discussion is about more than what RK gives credit for.  It is not even a conservative/liberal issue.  It is a fundamental issue about how we want state government to function, and how we want our representatives to conduct the public business.

I’m Feeling Sorry for Al “Windex” Pollard

I find I normally do not feel real sorrow for democratic candidates, but I am starting to feel the hurt for Albert Pollard.

Pollard gave up a delegate seat in 2005 due to some personal circumstance, then came back into politics this year as the Great Democratic Hope to grab the seat of retiring John Chichester…and almost did it.

In the meantime, the man who succeeded him in the House of Delegates, Rob Wittman, just got elected to the US House of Representatives.  Wittman will have to give up his General Assembly seat.

Now, knowing there would be a special election, had Rob Wittman resigned his seat during the campaign, then he would have been replaced on the ballot by the delegate district committee, said nominee would run unopposed, and the seat would stay in GOP hands without having to win a special election.  But that is another discussion…

Pollard’s name is already being dropped for the seat.  However, the GOP is not rolling over.  Word is out that “Austin Roberts, President and CEO of the Bank of Lancaster will be throwing his hat into the ring. Roberts brings plenty of cash with him into the race.”

This will not be a walkover for Pollard, and it is because of what will follow if he doesn’t win that makes me wince.

In the marvelous movie “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, the bride’s father believes that anything short of surgery can be cured by spraying on Windex. Democrats in Va-1 seem to think the same about Mr. Pollard…if there is an open seat they can run him for they can and will do so.

So it will be interesting to see what happens in the wake of the special election, because I have a hunch that win or lose his name will surface to run against Wittman in November 2008 for the full term to Congress.

Why? Because when you believe that you have a Windex that can cure any political ill, you roll it out whenever you can…and that is apparently how the Va-1 Dems look at Albert “Windex” Pollard.

First Salvo for Manasass senate seat in 2011

The WaPo today wrote that Manassas Mayor Doug Waldron announced on Tuesday night that he will not be a candidate for re-election next spring.

The article notes that Vice-Mayor Harry “Hal” Parrish, Jr., is considering a run. Hal is the son of the late Harry Parrish, former Mayor of Manassas and member of the Virginia House of Delegates.

Given that Chuck Colgan will likely not run again in 2011, and that Manassas City will surely be completely rest within a single State senate and/or delegate district, I have a hunch that Hal’s comments signal the initial maneuvering for the 2011 elections.

Hal won’t run against Jackson Miller in 2009 for the GOP nod, but come 2011 he could run for Colgan’s seat or for the HOD if Miller decides to run for Colgan’s seat.

You read it here first…the pot is already being stirred for 2011!

NLS Outrage Shows Sam Nixon a Good Choice…

Sir Isaac Newton wrote “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”…and the partisan vitriol being spewn at NLS today must be the result of the Democratic reverses in Va-1 and Ohio 5. It falls into the “methinks thou doth protest too much” category.

To bad Sam Nixon gets to bear the brunt. Of course, if the NLS prediction is accurate, he better get used to it.

Driving to work today I had the thought that the RPV would do well to find a place in the leadership for Samuel A. Nixon, GOP delegate from Chesterfield and old pal of your humble blogger…and voila! NLS claims sources claim that Terry Kilgore will take a new committee chairmanship and that Sam will become Chairman of the House Republican Caucus. Ben then goes on to attack Sam for not raising tons of money the last few cycles, and for being inexperienced:

“This is why the Republicans keep losing seats in the General Assembly. Sam knows nothing about running a modern campaign, about raising the kind of money needed or about what issues are really hot in all the swing legislative districts”

Oh, there is more…

“Based on what was left after this election, I was going to say Republicans had about a 95% chance of holding their majority in 2009 in the House of Delegates. If the GOP is dumb enough to have someone this over their head as Caucus Chairman, the 2009 election is going to be a lot more competitive than I thought”

I can only assume Ben wrote this in a fury fueled by sugar from his birthday cake and disappointment in either democratic losses yesterday or democratic reactions to the losses yesterday.

Truth is that Sam Nixon may be exactly what the GOP needs. He is a principled conservative who can work with other people. He is very much one of those guys who sets goals and achieves them, and pays little mind to the naysayers.

I am not sure how being unopposed means he is incapable of exceling in the position he apparently will fill. Ben makes a lot of suppositions, but offers no facts to back them up. Of course, the posters who chimed in offer also no real evidence to back up their attacks.

So let me offer a few reasons why Sam Nixon is the right guy at the right time.

1. Safe seat, and has been unopposed. Anyone who has run unopposed for the last several elections despite representing a district that went for Kaine in 2005 and that Webb almost took in 2006 must be a pretty effective politician.

2. Sam is conservative, but not doctrinaire. He can work with and reason with people. I bet you he saves the GOP at least three seats in 2009 by doing what is necessary to avoid costly primaries that yield ideologue candidates.

3. Sam knows what he knows and what he doesn’t. He doesn’t have to be on the cutting edge of campaign technology to do his job. That is what you have pollsters, consultants, and technicians on staff. What he does have is the common sense to know what tactics make sense and what tactics are just stupid. Given that recent GOP campaigns have strayed sorely toward the stupid end of the tactical scale in the last few years, ahving someone guiding them away from that seems like a big plus. Besides, if knowing campaign techniques was the only thing that made a successful candidate, then Mudcat Sanders would be the junior senator from Virginia, and not Jim Webb.

4. Born in Martinsville, educated at JMU, longtime resident of Richmond, longtime career in the IT industry. While he is not from Northern Virginia or Tidewater, Sam is the kind of guy who will be equally comfortable raising money and recruiting candidates in all parts of the Commonwealth…as opposed to the purely regional focus the party too frequently displays. Some at NLS deride the Sam Nixon idea because he is not from Northern Virginia, and too far from Washington. Gosh, did the Chompawamsic bridge wipe out? Are the phone lines down? Sam Nixon will leading the caucus in delegate elections in a year when the only other election is in New Jersey. There will be plenty of money to be found, and plenty to be spent in Virginia.

I do admit to a personal bias. I have known Sam Nixon for over 25 years, and I know hard he works. I find the cries of democratics deriding his potential selection as amusing.

The NLS folks call him an uninspired choice…actually, they call him worse than that, some it bordering on the disgusting.

I think he is going to be the Dems worst nightmare, and if Sam gets the position the catcalls of today will be the democratic boo-hoos on election night 2009.

Live Blogs-Democrats answer questions posed, Gilmore…not so much

Blogs can serve as a method for candidates to speak directly to the public, and leave those answers on the record as long as the blog stays in action.  Virginia blogs have been quite adept at the “live blog” format, where questions are posted prior to and during a blog session, and the candidate answers the questions.  RK pioneered the form, and a search of their site shows at least 30 live blogs over the past two years. NLS had on Judy Feder, Phil Forgit, and on the GOP side Too Conservative live blogged with Jim Gilmore last week.

Having read through the transcripts of each event, I noticed distinct differences in the way the candidates handled the questions.

Feder and Forgit handled the questions as coming from voters, and answered questions as posed with a minimum of evasion although answers did have their unique campaign spin. Gilmore answered questions as if they were coming from media reps, and too often danced and evaded.

Example:

Question: When Mark Warner took office he never spent a dime on transportation. As Governor, how much did you spend on transportation?
Gilmore: We increased transportation expenditures without raising taxes. I supported public-private partnerships to get work done on roads. I went to work to reform VDOT, placing an Inspector General in that office. I reformed environmental procedures for road projects. When I became Governor there was no money, any where, to build the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. I went to Senator Warner and the Democratic Governor of Maryland. We obtained the money to build the bridge. We also placed the Mixing Bowl on a priority basis and did extensive road projects across the state. Former Governor Warner raised taxes, after promising not to do so, but none of that money went to transportation despite the Democratic Party’s complaints.

Note the question…and note the dearth of even an approximation of how much money was spent on transportation during his term.

Governor Gilmore had several questions on the Car Tax, which he decided to answer with one general answer.  I will note that I posted the following for him:

 Governor Gilmore-

Two questions, please:

Question 1:
Your original car tax reduction focus was based on car value. The final format was based on the amount of car tax the owner paid.

I have heard over the years that the Western part of the state considers the ultimate form of the reduction a giveaway to NoVA, where presumably there is wider ownership of more expensive cars. This charge was recently revoiced by Brandon Bell on his blog.

Do you think this a fair criticism? Why did you change your focus?

Question 2:
You ran for governor touting elimination of the car tax. Ultimately there was a sizeable, but not complete, car tax rollback.

As a practical matter, how do you plan to deal with the very simple campaign attack that you promised to get rid of the car tax, but didn’t?

No response.  Now remember, you have a former G.O.P. member of the state senate blogging that western Virginia feels that Gilmore campaigned on one car tax idea, installed another, and in doing so boondoggled Northern Virginia.  Gilmore responded generally by saying no region was shortchanged…but this is not the the question asked.  The question was “how do you fight a perception?”, and this was ignored.  The second question was not even approached

I do not live in Va 1 or Va 10, and if I did I would not be voting for either of the F’s…but I found their live blog answers to be much more informative and responsive than did Mr. Gilmore’s…and therein is the conundrum I see coming my way in 2008.

I don’t like the likely choices for Senator from Virginia in 2008.  Mr. Gilmore’s analysis of his term in office suggest he has his own reality, and the prevarications of Mark Warner both on budgetary matters and in dealing with Democratic candidates mark him as someone who has little regard for the truth.  Hopefully both will change their way and measure up to what we need from our representatives.

How will we know?  Keep an eye on they answer on live blogs…that may be the best place to start!

How Chuck Robb Won Me $200.00

Sometimes things happen in the body politic that are fun, satisfying, and even profitable.  So here, while we sit in the between campaign doldrums, I will brighten your day and share how a watchful eye and Chuck Robb’s tells won me a  $200.00 bet in the Fall of 1994.

You will recall that in 1994 then Senator Robb was running for reelection against Ollie North (R) and former Virginia AG Marshall Coleman (I).  The campaign was a rough and tumble affair.  North had been convicted of felonious activities due to his Iran-Contra operation, followed by reversals on appeal.  Robb had a lackluster first term in the Senate, and was bedeviled by bad relations with Doug Wilder, stories about wild parties in Virginia Beach and “nude massages” with beauty queen Tai Collins.  It was the year of the Contract with America, and the GOP was on the road to some big wins in November-and the Robb senate seat was expected to be part of the take.

Depending on whom you talked to, Coleman’s late candidacy was a quixotic attempt for the perennial candidate to stay in the limelight, a sincere effort thinking he could win in a split field, or a deliberate attempt to keep North out of the Senate by giving moderate GOP voters a place to park their vote.  Personally, I pick door #3.  I guess a bunch of folks agreed, as many of the same conservatives who backed North against Reagan OMB Director Jim Miller in the 1994 Virginia primary then backed the same Jim Miller against John Warner in 1996 in retaliation for Warner getting Coleman into the 1994 race.

North led in the polls throughout the fall, even with Coleman’s entry into the race…and still led in the polls about two weeks out.  Ten days out from election day I had a chance to be a judge at the Vienna Halloween Parade.  There on the reviewing stand we got to see civic groups, kids clubs, marching bands, and -finally-candidates come down the main drag.

First came North in his de rigeur khaki pants, flannel shirt, and bomber jacket.  He was surrounded by an adoring mob, and got lots of cheers.  But what I noticed was how dazed he looked, like he was not in the moment…distracted even.

Next came Robb in his de rigeur grey flannel suit, white shirt, maroon rep tie.  Robb walked in front of his adoring mob,  darting back to both sides of the street, kissing hands and shaking babies, seemingly having a great time of it…not at all the face of someone who was running behind.

The next day at lunch I recounted these events to a couple of friends who were also political junkies.  I thought the behavior meant something, but they just thought it was a false dawn.

“No”, I said, “You had to see them.  Robb was ecstatic, and North was just dazed.  I bet something is going on.”

“Inconceivable…North has this thing sewed up,” they replied.

I parried, “”I disagree”

They thrust, “Wanna put a little wager on the election?”

So, in a moment of wild spontaneity and considerable stubbornness I put up $50 against each of my four friends.  The bet-they said North wins, I said Robb.  A Coleman win was a push.

Two days later, a new WaPo poll.  Robb had pushed ahead for the first time, while North had lost ground.  One of my friends speculated that the candidates probably got word of the poll on the day of the Vienna parade.

Well, things did not change on election day.  Robb won in a three way race.  I had lunch with my friends the next day at Brady’s in Old Town Manassas.  My pals covered the tab, and each paid up with an air that was somehow both grudging and dumbfounded.  They offered up all sorts of explanations, rationalizations, and excuses.

All I could say in response as I collected my money, using my best Inigo Montoya voice?

“You say a Robb win was inconceivable?  I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

And that is why I have a long time warm place in my heart for Senator Robb…for the tell that won me some money.

You may ask, “But did you bet on Robb in 2000 against Allen?”

Nope-sometimes inconceivable means exactly what the dictionary says it means.

What Composes a Dream Ticket, and Will It Matter?

Elephant Ears recently opinedthat the GOP 2009 Dream Ticket is McDonnell/Bolling/Cooch. It is not an unreasonable combination, but really begs the question-since we are as much as a year away from folks announcing their 2009 intentions-what comprises a dream ticket?

This question comes to mind as one that I have seen both parties in Virginia wrangle with for the last 30+ years. What are the elements of a balanced ticket, much less a dream ticket?

I don’t think I have a final idea, and wonder what factors will impact that composition…

Ears focuses on geopraphy, saying:

A ticket of Bob McDonnell-Bill Bolling-Ken Cuccinelli would be a slam dunk for the regional perspective. We would have all 3 major metro areas of the state, and have candidates from the more conservative parts of those three. This would (if you believe in this theory) drive turnout in the conservative areas that have high population. This coupled with the naturally conservative areas like the Valley and SWVA, would seemingly deliver a big victory to the GOP on election night 2009.

Ears deals with a geographic issue with an assumption. This analysis suggests there are four parts of the state-NoVa, Tidewater/Hampton Roads, Richmond, and Western Virginia…except that frequently the interests of those in the Piedmont and the eastern foothills those in the Valley and the Mountain Empire do not align. This difference in opinion attitude reaches back to the days when Virginia was settled, and has been known to show up at the ballot box.

There is a logic to this, but there is an illogic, also. There is an assumption that the western part of the state will come in for the GOP regardless. While this is likely, I remember the 1981 and 1985 GOP tickets. In 1981, the GOP had Coleman/Miller/Durrette (Staunton/Bridgewater/Fairfax), and got swept when GOP numbers in Richmond and Tidewater were cut. In 1985, the GOP ran Durrette/Chichester/O’Brien (Fairfax & Richmond/Stafford/Va Beach), and the GOP numbers were cut massively in the western part of the state…and the western numbers drop was exacerbated by flood waters in the Valley and the SW was so great that some seats democratic for the only time in the last forty years.

My favorite example was Harrisonburg, where Phoebe Orebaugh, incumbent GOP delegate, lost to Paul Cline…and then took the seat back in 1987. That seat had been in GOP hands since forever, and that was the only year the Dems took that seat (probably) in my lifetime.

Geographic balance leads to the question of residence.  I believe that once a candidate wins statewide office they become a citizen of the state, and are less looked to as representatives of a particular part of the state.  In fact, some might say this is true if you run and lose a statewide contest.  This was the argument put forth by the Miller camp to answer geographic balance questions, and I see some legitimacy to it. 

Whatever they run for in 2009, McDonnell and Bowling will be four years removed from their time in the General Assembly.  They will be running as incumbent statewide elected officials with a record in office. While it is true that some candidates will always be perceived as being from a certain part of the state (Jerry Kilgore leaps to mind, and perhaps even Creigh Deeds), once you have won a statewide contest and have a record in office, I think voters tend to see you as less than a regional candidate, diminishing how deep their impact as geographic balancers go.

So I don’t know.  The ticket suggested potentially ignores or takes for granted Western Virginia.  We did that with Northern Virginia in 2005, and you remember how that turned out.  On the other hand, this ticket may be the best out there…and may have the stuff to bring the West on board.  We are so far out, it is hard to say.

However, ultimately this stuff is eyewash if certain things don’t happen in the next two years.  If the GOP in the General Assembly continue to head down this path of grabbing for power instead of principle, searching for appropriations and not positions, failing to create and articulate a vision for the state…if we stay on that road, then I do not know that any ticket is going to be able to fare well.

So I hope the folks in the General Assembly lay the foundation over the next two years, and show the Commonwealth where the GOP wants to go and how we intend to get there.  Because if they don’t, then the Dream Ticket is going to face a nightmare come November 2009.

Wrong Lesson being Drawn from Cooch-Hoot 2007

The dust has settled from the GOP Advance, Saxman has bailed, Marshall is talking, and Gilmore is still running.  However, at the Advance and at GOP meeting from Hampton Roads to the Shenandoah Valley a singular thought is being repeated…

“Ken Cuccinelli’s victory proves that a conservative can win in Northern Virginia”

This observation is not the primary lesson to be learned from the Cooch-Hoot throwdown.  I think there is a lesson, but it is much closer to the ground.  The real lesson-and, I suggest, concern-is that conservatives have to run nearly perfect campaigns to win in Northern Virginia.

I first addressed this a few weeks ago, and mentioned the signifiance of the effort:

Why should Cooch be hailed for running the ideal campaign? Because it is something that GOP candidates seem increasingly unable to do. GOP candidates in tough races almost always give in to the urge to do something cute that they are sure will just devestate the opposition-but more typically puts a final nail in their own coffin. Instead, Cooch stuck to the basics and did not allow blood lust to overcome his judgement. He did not succumb to over-eagerness or being over-cutesy. He went back to the basics to win the campaign, and now he is going back to the Senate.

The bad news in all this is that Cuccinelli did win, but he only won narrowly. In fact, at the time of this post he is preparing for a recount-that is how close his win was. 37,100 votes cast, and he won by 92 votes. That is a pretty thin reed to hang your hat on.

I think it was even closer that that. I have gotten the word through the grapevine that only Hoot’s gaffe’s kept Cooch going. I have been told that Cooch polling showed that he was dead in the water in finding an issue to bring against Hoot-every issue they polled on brought more support to her than to him. Then she started the “hypothetical question”, “waffle”, “no set position” stuff…and then Cooch could question the Hoot on competence and not ideology.

I bring this up less to replay the campaign than to show how doggone close run the thing was…and to suggest this is the real lesson.  Cooch ran a campaign that mobilized his supporters.  He neither unecessarily antagonized those unfavorable to him nor did he do something that made him look stupid (”Hitler” ad) or hurtful (JMDD/opponents address) or racist ( “macaca”) or limpid (Earley 2001) or anything else that might push undecided voters to his opponent.  This path has, unfortunately, been the path followed by too many GOP candidates in recent years.

While a clear set of principles, positions, and issues are needed, the GOP does not have a hope of winning upcoming elections without running capable, competent campaigns…and that is the lesson that should be drawn from the Cooch’s likely win in the 2007 elections.

WaPo Ombudsman blows It; Awaiting Multiple Taylor Retractions

Today the WaPo Ombudsman Deborah Howell addresses the paper’s coverage of the Sean Taylor murder, and blows it.  It is not surprising, given that her role as ombudsman has too frequently been that of apologist and not one of making the paper walk the straight and narrow.

What is ironic that the facts that undermine her are on the front page of the paper.

Wilbon and others have attacked Taylor for being unwilling to break away from the Thug Life. In reality, it seems that the assault on Taylor’s house was the result of being unwilling to break away from his family. What is Wilbon’s position on that?

Taylor’s half-sister, with whom he was very close, had a scummy boyfriend. Said scum had been in Taylor’s home.  Said scum bragged to his fellow scum about the great house Taylor had and all the loot therein. Fellow scum broke into the house thinking Taylor was gone, were seemingly surprised by him, opened fire…and the rest we know.

Amazingly, with this story on the front page of the paper Ms. Howell chooses to ignore it and the implications it has for the conduct of Mr. Shapiro and Wilbon. Shapiro’s poison pen letter is excused for his otherwise recognized compassion, and Wilbon’s unapologetc reaction is that fans want to “deify athletes, but that’s not what I do.”

Mr. Wilbon is wrong-what we expect is a little common sense and decency from sports writers-just as we expect it from people in general.

Should we now expect columns from sports writers across the country talking about how this death was not related to the Thug Life? Will they recognize this was a tragic coincidence that could have happened to anyone of them if someone they loved consorted with a less than reputable person? Will they concede they rushed to judgement, and that is almost impossible to cut ties to family? Will they finally admit that Sean Taylor’s murder was not somehow his own fault?

Yes, we should…but I doubt it will happen.  In fact, I expect to see columns saying Taylor had to be tough and excise all questionable elements from his life-even his family. Of course, had he done that these same writers then would have taken a whack at him for being cold and callous for having so little to do with his family.

Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians.

To date the only column I have seen that places the media conduct in the correct perspective came from Daniel Le Batard in the Miami Herald, in a column titled “Media has failed with Taylor coverage”:

But there are times when being a journalist in today’s climate embarrasses me. Makes me feel dirty and ashamed. I’ve always wondered why the reporters in the movies are so often portrayed as greasy, sneaky profiteers chasing the hero…And then Sean Taylor dies in a terrible way, and it reminds me.

That’s just the start…

I can’t imagine how terrible it must be for Taylor’s broken family to watch the television and see their late son/brother/boyfriend turned into a talk topic and one-dimensional stick figure because we, the media, didn’t and couldn’t have a complete picture of their beloved and didn’t have the time to wait for one to develop. We didn’t have very much information immediately after Taylor’s death, but we had too much time to fill without new information, so too much of Taylor’s televised eulogy became noise and speculation and gossip-cloaked-in-journalism about his troubled past.

…and perhaps most damning…

God bless him, Taylor’s brave and tranquil father, suffering the worst pain a human can, has been as strong as anyone I’ve ever seen in front of TV cameras.There would be plenty of people applauding, and no one blaming him, if he lashed out angrily at all the people trying to do their job on his lawn.I just wish sometimes that my profession had more of his grace.Amen. But let me add this…

I have an eclectic set of beliefs, and while I believe in a heaven I also think there is something to the idea of Karma. Thus, I suggest what will be completely appropriate when Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wilbon, and all those who have slammed Sean Taylor before all the facts came reach the end of their days.

When Shapiro and Wilbon and the others have their obituaries and stories written, that the lead in each of these pieces should be an expose and criticism of the foibles, faults, and less than ideal conduct each of them offered up in their lives.

After all, Shapiro, Wilbon, and others set the example with Sean Taylor of how tragedy and death should be covered…and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.