fit to print

"I don't read."

For a time, my tone was ironic. And then it became matter of fact. Whatever books may be popular or featured in the stores, I surely haven't read them. I do not feel the loss. The list of titles my daughter wishes I would read grows as I ferry her to library and bookstore. She has the gene which at this point I seem to have solidly passed on for good.

It's true that I consume articles and columns and posts in a nearly continuous loop, but pixelated text doesn't seem the same. I am aware that makes no sense. Except as I get into the habit of reading only on a screen, as I move piles of weeklies from table to basket and recycle the paper unread--I've seen it on the website--it less often occurs to me to sit down with anything that doesn't require a click.

So it struck me this week that the two best things I read came from actual paper pages. (My salons, to sound ridiculous, are as yet wifi-free.) Of course, both are available online, so I'm not sure there's any lesson except that I want to go to Iceland now and that Mexico is a worry.

Former journalists gather here

I suppose it's about time I weighed in. And today is an apt day. In a prior life, I was a newspaper reporter -- a reasonably good one even. I won some awards, at least.

I flamed out about 13 years ago, though I have to do the math each time. The fire still burns, though the pilot light goes out frequently. Every election, every homicide, and every now and then, I miss it. Not today. And not lately.

I left on my own terms, kind of, but I have no regrets. But I still feel for my Gazette colleagues, both those now jobless and those left behind. Even my first newspaper boss isn't popping champagne.

Podolak shuns Hawkeyes, chooses retirement over treatment

Legendary Iowa football radio broadcaster Ed Podolak has resigned after 27 years of Hawkeye coverage. The university apparently demanded he seek treatment after photos of a drunken Eddy in Tampa for the Outback Bowl surfaced on the Internets. The following is an exceptional column by my friend and fantasy football combatant.

Eddie's choice: Iowa football loses something
By Mike Hlas
Gazette sports columnist

The University of Iowa made a hard choice. So did Ed Podolak.

As a result, Hawkeyes football is losing something significant. It didn’t have to come down this way. But Podolak apparently is unwilling to change his ways and is walking away from something he loved with all his being, being part of Iowa football.

That’s a choice to which he’s fully entitled, just as the university was entitled to ask him to change the way he represented himself and the school while out in public.

Presumably under direction in this matter by Athletic Director Gary Barta, Podolak was urged to seek alcohol treatment and then be welcomed back to the Iowa football radio booth this fall for a 28th consecutive year as an analyst.

Podolak took the other option, to retire from broadcasting at age 61. It truly is something he had already been considering, by the way.

While Hawkeye football will always remain a focal point in so many Iowans’ lives, it’s immediately less than what it was two weeks ago.

You’re talking about a broadcaster who not only was able to make a chaotic game more understandable to untrained eyes like mine and probably yours.

More importantly, it was someone who did it with charisma, humor, presence, and above all, passion.

The next person who sits in the Kinnick Stadium press box chair next to Gary Dolphin might become really good. But he won’t be an icon.

All that said, Barta and his school were backed into a corner by Podolak’s behavior. Embarrassing Internet photos of an inebriated Podolak in Tampa pushed this along, but probably weren’t the origin of the ultimatum. There are too many stories out there, with less tolerance for them today in certain circles than there in days gone by.

More than a few Iowa football players have had alcohol-related incidents the last couple of years, and the university is plagued by the drinking culture of students in Iowa City.

So when a primary spokesman for Iowa football is shown to be impaired by drinking by photos on the Internet and the photos spread to Web sites hither and yon, it doesn’t play well in the university.

Nor should it. Even if it again magnifies the hypocrisy of the school and its athletic department.

The Hawkeye Huddle in downtown Tampa that was attended by thousands of Iowa fans on Dec. 30? An eyewitness said there were at least 30 beer-dispensers there. The venue was criticized by those fans three years earlier for not having enough beer. The “mistake” wasn’t made again.

As was critically noted in this section earlier this month, a beer company is a sponsor on Hawkeye radio broadcasts.

And wouldn’t it be interesting to see what effect it would have on attendance at Iowa football games if a total ban on alcohol was strictly enforced in university-owned parking lots on Game Day?

Willingly smack-dab in the middle of it all has been Podolak, a living mascot for Iowa fans.

He is the entirely approachable former Iowa football great and NFL standout. He’s the guy who always perfectly captured Hawkeye followers’ joy or frustration, then would celebrate or commiserate with them afterward at tailgates and taverns.

Frankly, he got rip-roaring drunk in public on several occasions. I’ve seen it a few times over the years. Countless camp-followers of the Hawkeyes have seen it more. It was in the public domain, whether the university wanted to ignore it or not.

Someone else can throw the stones at Podolak and get all holier-than-thou. My media brothers and sisters and I have been in a couple of those hotel bars at the same times he was present.

I’ve never run around with Podolak, but I would have loved to have spent hours listening to his stories, things that stretch beyond his vast football experiences. He’s been a real estate developer in Aspen, Costa Rica, and now northern California. He is friends with the Eagles — the band, not the football team.

Legend has it that Jimmy Buffett’s song “We Are the People Our Parents Warned Us About,” was written for his close friend Podolak.

When author Hunter S. Thompson died, I phoned Podolak for what I hoped would be on interview about his friendship with his Aspen neighbor. To my eternal disappointment, he didn’t want to do it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve had a small role on Hawkeye football broadcasts the last three years at the end of games. I’ve talked about what just unfolded on the field after play-by-play man Gary Dolphin read an intro promoting The Gazette and Gazetteonline.com.

Some of the best validation I’ve ever felt was whenever Podolak nodded in agreement with something I said.

All that said, I’m in no way pooh-poohing Podolak’s alcohol-related actions. He is an adult who has made his own choices and continues to make them. He has also had a lot of people in black-and-gold who have given him this different kind of validation: Drink, Eddie, drink.

When he was arrested for public intoxication and interference with official acts after falling asleep on the lawn of the University of Iowa’s Pentacrest in 1997, there didn’t appear to be a blip in Podolak’s broadcasting duties.

He pleaded guilty to the charges, and was sentenced to 50 hours of community service and a $50 fine. He didn’t look back, and neither did the university.

Who has been the biggest enabler over the years since when Podolak would slur his words at a Hawkeye rally? That very university. But no more.

Not to worry, though. You’ll still be able to tote your 12-packs down Melrose Avenue on the way to your tailgates.

Go Hawks!

San Antonio, revisited

the photographer's flickr

Sea World, perhaps Six Flags, the River Walk, some big swimming pool shaped like Texas: these are the attractions the city of San Antonio keeps trying to sell me during the breaks in the Alamo-not-really-well-technically a Bowl game. They have it all wrong. The cilantro cream enchiladas and the pancakes-- that's what I'm going back for. Maybe the Alamo at 2 a.m., make it a breakfast buffet. Plus a steak and a Shiner in Gruene. Show me where I can actually get a good margarita, and I am so there.

McCain imPalin?

Not after what I just saw.

After all the media vetting this week, I can only conclude John McCain may be on to something with his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. She can certainly deliver a fine speech -- maybe a bit sarcastic, but consider the target audience -- and, as a Repugnant friend said, ain't bad to look at.

I never fell for the theory that she was selected to woo Hillary Clinton supporters. They couldn't be more different. Except in this respect. After all the suppositions and innuendo of the past week, Palin hung tough and delivered a rousing speech. At it's conclusion, she was joined on stage by her typical American family (except none were obese).

Even with a friendly audience, that's tough duty after what they've been through. The same could be said of the Clintons.

So I take back my assertion that McCain doesn't really want to be president. I still think, hope, expect, demand, etc. that Barack Obama wins. But at least now the VP debate will be compelling.

News?

Considering I have checked the story 14 times today--it played out on a former coworker friend's short street, and I was trying to make sure she was okay, or, frankly, that her husband had not lost it--I'm a little fuzzy on the facts. But some typically bizarre suburban tragedy unfolded today that involved a car fire, and a shooting, then a standoff, then the gunman's house burning to the ground and maybe an explosion. I think that covers it. The still unnamed bad and/or crazy guy seems unaccounted for, but two cops are wounded and a 22 year-old firefighter is dead-- killed by a bullet as he got out of the fire truck to do something about the car fire--and in response the local paper has posted a direct link to the kid's Facebook page in a virtual front page headline. His profile was public, not restricted to his "friends", so apparently he didn't mind, you know, yesterday, when he was alive and maybe hoping to meet some girls. Today posting that link--which I didn't click--feels a little sick, or at the very, very best a lot lazy. What do they want people to do, write their own human interest stories?

Postville

Gazette columnist Todd Dorman hit this one out of the park.

The sprawling Agriprocessors packing plant on the outskirts of town is imposing and intimidating even if you don’t know about the jaw-dropping lawlessness our government says went on inside these fences.Knowing sends a chill up your back.

So it’s probably lucky you can’t stay long. Tuesday, a stern, but polite, woman told Gazette video journalist Mike Barnes and myself to leave, pronto.

Fair enough. Nothing to see. No one’s talking. But there was plenty to see elsewhere.

There was St. Bridget’s Catholic parish near downtown, where dozens of plant workers and their families milled around inside the church and outside in the courtyard. Many here have family members among the 390 plant workers detained by federal immigration officials at Monday’s historic raid.

I know workers broke the law in coming here and working here and must deal with the consequences. Fine.

But you’d have to be one hard-bitten, coldhearted Minuteman to look into the anxious, dazed faces of these people, as their children played around their feet, and not feel some sort of sympathy.

“They’re lost,” said Sister Mary McCauley, pastoral administrator at the church.

McCauley wishes Iowa’s congressmen could be here to see this. So do I.

But I’m less forgiving.

This would have been a great spot for a congressional junket. Time for our so-called leaders to see what dereliction of leadership and government malpractice look like, close up.

This is what it looks like when you do next to nothing to rein in a meat packing industry that’s mutated into a monolithic monopoly of misery fattened by illegal immigration. Could it be that the folks who run this industry line political pockets with campaign donations? Campaign finance records show that members of the Rubashkin family, which owns the Postville plant, donated tens of thousands of dollars, mostly to Republicans, over the last decade. Say it ain’t so.

I think we’ll all be watching to see if top Agriprocessors executives take one of those famous federal perp walks. Justice demands it.

Add congressional inaction on big ag’s excesses to its inability to control the nation’s southern border or come up with a realistic plan for dealing with illegal immigrants already here, some for years, and you understand why Congress gets the kind of dismal approval ratings it so richly deserves.

This is a crisis, and all we get from Washington is a deficit of courage and a surplus of rhetoric.

I listened to federal officials describe, with straight faces, the detention center at the Cattle Congress fairgrounds like it was a summer camp, complete with bilingual board games in the rec room. Then they touted portable federal courtrooms on wheels, pulled onto the fairgrounds to dispense American justice by the truckload like kosher hot dogs.

So let me get this straight: After allowing illegal immigration to explode and for plants like Agriprocessors to reap the benefits for years, and now, after federal helicopters and buses roar in to save the day, tear up a town and scores of families, do they want us to stand and cheer? No thanks.

Instead, I’ll pray that the next Congress and president can fix this. And that Postville can heal.

Who killed Nicole Brown Simpson? Maybe Roger did it

Ok, maybe not. And maybe Mindy was 16 before the did the dirty deed. And maybe those injections were just vitamins. No matter what, I have a hard time seeing Roger Clemens as the victim.

Roger Clemens apologized Monday for unspecified mistakes in his personal life but denied having an affair with a 15-year-old.

The Daily News reported last week Clemens had a decade-long relationship with country star Mindy McCready that began when she was 15 and an aspiring singer. The newspaper also linked Clemens to former Manhattan bartender Angela Moyer and Paulette Dean Daly, a former wife of champion golfer John Daly.

"Even though these articles contain many false accusations and mistakes, I need to say that I have made mistakes in my personal life for which I am sorry," Clemens said in a statement issued by spokesman Patrick Dorton. "I have apologized to my family and apologize to my fans. Like everyone, I have flaws. I have sometimes made choices which have not been right."

Brian McNamee, Clemens' former trainer, accused him in December's Mitchell Report of using performance-enhancing drugs in 1998, 2000 and 2001, before players and owners agreed to ban them from baseball.

Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner and 354-game winner, has repeatedly denied using steroids and human growth hormone and filed a defamation suit against Brian McNamee.

"I believe my personal life has nothing to do with the accusations of steroid and HGH use," Clemens said. "I have already made clear that I did not use them. Now, I have been accused of having an improper relationship with a 15-year old girl. Nothing could be further from the truth. This relationship has been twisted and distorted far beyond reality. It is just one of many, many accusations that are utterly false.

"I realize that many people want me to simply confess and apologize for the conduct that I have been accused of, but I cannot confess to, nor apologize for, things I did not do. I have apologized to my family for my mistakes, and having offered this apology to the public, I would ask that you let me and my family deal with these matters in private."

Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, said Friday he will talk with his client about whether to proceed with the defamation suit following a wave of unpleasant publicity.

"He's getting pummeled," attorney Rusty Hardin said then. "I've never seen somebody get beat up like this. In some ways, I think we're on uncharted ground."

The decision on whether to drop the suit rests with Clemens.

"That's always a decision the client has to make," Hardin said. "That's not the lawyer's decision."

Media whores

I've been out of the news business a dozen years now, but I still have friends at the locally owned daily newspaper. I have a great appreciation for their plight, though I'm not often kind about their product.

One of these friends blogged about last night's gotcha debate on ABC. This is admirable when you consider that the newspaper company also owns a television station, in fact they occupy the same downtown block. KCRG is an ABC affiliate.

It does my liberal media bias good to see journalists still willing to fight the good fight.

Coverboy

Does any media on the planet do a better job covering old news than Sports Illustrated? Having just finished reading the cover story on the latest issue, I think not.

Making his third cover since December (!!!), Brett Favre's retirement received the kind of coverage I've come to expect from SI -- emotional, passionate, generous, raw, real. In my lifetime, Favre's retirement press conference only compares with Magic Johnson's, only this time I cried. I'm not ashamed to admit it.

SI: Favre's farewell was the last in a long series of memorable performances. Emotional, passionate, generous, raw, real -- Favre said goodbye the same way he played the game.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Better than anyone, Alan Shipnuck summarized the self-fulfilling prophecy that led to the exit of the longtime face of the Green Bay Packers, if not the NFL.

SI: There is plenty left in Favre's rocket right arm, but the expectations of the sport's most passionate fan base exhausted him, and he was weary of the preparation required to summon his best.

A masseuse table in the basement of the Favre home was evidence of his burden. There, Deanna regularly tried to rub away her husband's stress.

SI: Why not hire a pro? "Brett is a little weird about strangers touching his body," Deanna said with a laugh.

He wouldn't cut it as a politician, not that it would ever be a consideration.

SI: While the Mississippi twang and aw-shucks charm conjured comparisons to Huck Finn, last week Favre felt more like Tom Sawyer attending his own funeral.

And: Favre's detachment from his own celebrity has always been his most winning trait.

Shipnuck's concluding paragraph summed it up perfectly while helping this Packer fan come to grips with it all.

SI: In fact, Favre has always had an unerring sense of timing. So many athletes stick around too long, displaying diminished skills and a depressing mortality, but he is leaving at exactly the right moment. How can we be sure? Because it hurts to say goodbye.

Frank Rich: The Billary Road to Republican Victory

As little sleep as I get through the week, I'm grateful to no longer be prone to nightmares. As a kid I had a couple of recurring bad dreams, images that visited me so often I can still see them today: Walking up the curved gravel of a street in my town, sliding across the puckered black vinyl of the back seat of a Chevy my grandpa once owned, and having that driverless car take off as if that hilly neighborhood were a roller coaster. Out of control, unstoppable. The familiarity made it far more terrifying than any monster my imagination could conjure. Likewise, it's the "could happen" nature of this scenario, despite its assumptions, that spooks me.

The Billary Road to Republican Victory
By FRANK RICH

IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.

Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?

Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race, gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan.

What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one” back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.

For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.

Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”

Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.

Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.

The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.

At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.” Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.

The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.

People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that “whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at “Little Rock’s Fort Knox” than there is at Giuliani Partners.

“The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything,” Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.

Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.

In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being “tested” by her “35 years of experience” won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief “on Day One” when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.

Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green Zone that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well. ” Only in November 2005 did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating “surrender” out of political expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.

Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild) departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.

Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters. Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could still inherit the earth.

That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it. If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.

If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales.

Two dead in Iowa

Well, not in the literal sense, but Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination following tonight’s Iowa Caucuses. Whatever made them think America would vote for someone named Chris or Joe anyway? I wonder how long the lease is on the house Dodd rented in Des Moines?

My guy John Edwards finished second and there’s no shame in that. At least he topped Hillary. And Iowa launched a rock star in Barack Obama. Let’s just hope he doesn’t go screaming into microphones like the last guy.

I’ve mentioned before how out of perspective the Caucuses are, and tonight’s experience didn’t disappoint. Record turnouts for both the Democrats and Republicans were the ultimate test of the quirky caucus process. Somehow it worked, but it wasn’t anything like the folksy neighborhood gatherings the MSM likes to portray.

I walked to the elementary school that serves as the polling place in my precinct, taking a survey of neighbors who don’t clear their sidewalks. Upon arrival promptly at 6:30 we were at the end of the line that stretched out the door. By 7, we were in the gym.

You remember elementary school gyms don’t you? There may or may not be a regulation sized basketball court, but there are walls where bleachers go in high school. I found myself wondering about the capacity rating until it was finally announced, about 7:30, that there were 335 registered voters in the room. Of course, that didn’t count “observers” and children.

I’m all for teachable moments, but all those kids learned tonight was it was too damn hot in that gym with that many people in it.

We clustered for our candidates – although it was difficult to distinguish one group of sardines from another – and everyone was counted. Results were announced and supporters of unviable candidates – those with less than 15 percent -- were initially given 30 minutes to realign. Cooler heads prevailed and the game of musical chairs was reduced to 15 minutes.

It was around 8 when they finished the recounting. The results were fairly predictable for my precinct. Obama had around 200 supporters, Edwards had 71 and Clinton trailed with 60.

I’m not convinced the results would have been any different if, say, the polling place had been open all day and you could walk in at your convenience and cast your ballot in five minutes instead of two hours. But that’s just me.

The Iowa Caucus system pre-dates statehood, so I wouldn’t think to challenge it. But this first-in-the-nation stuff has to go. It’s one thing to have to put up with all of the phone calls and commercials. But when you interrupt the season premier of "The Apprentice" you’ve crossed the line.

Thanks for coming though.

The Garden of Eden in Missouri? Who knew?

Romney & Me
by Lawrence O'Donnell
After the Today Show used video clips of me talking (ranting, to some) about the racist history of the Church of Latter Day Saints as a lead-in to Matt Lauer's interview of Mitt Romney, I feel compelled to clarify the obvious: religious affiliation is not a good reason to vote for or against a candidate for president. I mean any religious affiliation, including Scientology (if that's a religion). I know at least one Scientologist who would be a better president than many of the current candidates. I might know more, but they tend to be a bit secretive about being Scientologists, so ...

I don't hate Mormons. Some of my best friends are Mormons. Well, okay, one of my best friends is Mormon. Or used to be. He's not sure anymore. He's glad he grew up Mormon, likes the values he learned, the respect for family, etc. He's just not sure about some of the crazy beliefs of the religion. He would like to distance himself from some of that stuff and still be a Mormon--the way Rudy Giuliani can be pro-abortion and very fond of divorce and sequential marriage and still be, or at least call himself, a Catholic. But Mormonism isn't as flexible as Catholicism. It's a hook, line and sinker deal. You buy it all--every word of the Book of Mormon and its supplement, the Book of Abraham--or you're not a Mormon. My friend is a surgeon. He says the Mormon doctors he knows are like him. They have doubts about some things in the books and there are some things in the books that they simply can no longer believe. He can't imagine any Mormon who graduates from medical school or Harvard Business School like Mitt Romney thinking any other way. But if Romney were to admit to such doubts and reservations, the Church of Latter Day Saints would be forced to say he is no longer a Mormon. And a candidate for president without a religion ... well, that could only happen on The West Wing.

When I created the West Wing's Republican candidate for president played brilliantly by Alan Alda, I wanted for dramatic purposes to give him the worst problem I could think of. Sex with the interns being a bit dated, I chose to make him a closet atheist. When the press started to close in on him with questions about when he last went to church, he refused to answer. He said he would answer any question about government, "but if you have questions about religion, please, go to church." Mitt Romney has chosen a different course. He said: "Some question whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today." And then he left the podium without taking any questions.

The media thought this was a perfectly sensible approach. TV pundits of all stripes fell all over themselves to praise the speech. They gushed at how admirable it was for Romney to stand up for what he called "the faith of my fathers." The cable news networks seemed ready to cut straight to Romney inauguration coverage. No one thought to ask what is or was the faith of his fathers?

Romney felt politically forced to give the speech specifically because evangelical Christians seem to know a little too much about the faith of his fathers. Many evangelicals believe and have said publicly that Mormonism--contrary to Romney's assertions--is not a Christian religion but an abomination of Christianity. Here's a sampling of why: Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri; that Jews were the first people in America; that Indians descended from Jews and are a lost tribe of Israel; that Jesus came to America; that after the next coming of Christ (which will be the second or third, depending on how you count his trip to America), the world will be ruled for a thousand years from Jerusalem and Missouri; and to answer Mike Huckabee's now famous question, yes, they believe "Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father."

When Matt Lauer asked Romney the Huckabee question about Jesus and the devil being brothers, Romney refused to answer and handed the question off to the Church of Latter Day Saints. The Church issued a deceptively worded statement that most reporters incorrectly read as a denial of the brotherhood of Jesus and Satan. In fact, the Church could not and did not deny it. The Church did correctly point out that attackers (meaning critics) of Mormonism often use the brother bit. Critics also use the Church's 70 year delight in polygamy and sex with very young girls, which also happens to be true. Critics of Mormonism have plenty to work with without inventing anything.

The pundits had no idea how deliberately misleading Romney's speech was. They loved the bit about Romney's father marching with Martin Luther King. None of them knew that if at the end of the march with George Romney, Martin Luther King was so taken with Mormonism that he wanted to convert and become a Mormon priest, George Romney would have had to tell him that they don't allow black priests. George Romney might also have had to explain to the Reverend King that Mormons believe black people have black skin because they turned away from God.

I give you the words of the holy Book of Mormon:

"And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."

Brigham Young, the most revered president of the Mormon Church, who marched his people all the way to the Utah territory because he so vehemently hated the laws of the United States, taught that sex with black people would kill white people. Instantly.

Brigham Young:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

It took the Mormons ten years after Martin Luther King was killed--ten years--to decide to allow black men to be priests. They did so only after the president of the Mormon Church said he had a conversation with God in 1978 in which God finally decided it was time to allow black priests. Mitt Romney was 31 years old when he heard that lie. At 31, was Mitt Romney smart enough to know the Mormon president was lying about having been told by God that it was time to remove one racist tenet of the faith of his fathers? In 1977, at age 30, was Mitt Romney still accepting the racist position of his church? Does Romney really believe that God had to wait until 1978 to change his mind about this? Did Romney know that the Church had to change its racist policy in order to preserve its tax exempt status? We'll never know. No reporter will ever ask those questions because questions about the faith of his fathers are off limits even though, in an attempt to win evangelical Christian votes in Iowa, Romney dragged that faith into the campaign and asked to be admired for strictly adhering to it.

If the Washington Post finds that Romney ever, however briefly belonged to a country club that did not admit blacks or Jews or Muslims, it'll be dogging him with questions about that, but there will never be questions about his faith because as Newsweek's Eleanor Clift said, "Every religion is full of crazy beliefs."

Eleanor said that in response to my comments about Mormonism on last week's McLaughlin Group. Eleanor has gotten no heat for that comment, but I have been attacked widely--beginning right here on HuffPost--for getting into the specifics of what Romney, in effect, said he believes when he said, "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it."

On McLaughlin, I was asked to review a political speech. My approach to reviewing political speeches is to examine what deceptions are employed. Romney's speech, like every speech by every candidate for president, had its deceptions. No one else was willing to talk about those deceptions because that would involve talking about a candidate's religion, which we must never do, even if the candidate has just done it.

This week, I went on Hugh Hewitt's radio show so Hugh could attack me for attacking his favorite candidate. It was a good conversation. Hugh began by asking if I am Catholic. I gave what sounded like a very Clintonian answer that depends on what you mean by the word Catholic. I explained that there are Catholics--very few--who, Romney style, adhere to everything their church says. Then there are American Catholics, most of whom believe the church is wrong about abortion and wrong about the death penalty and used to think the Pope was wrong about the war in Iraq being a mistake but have now switched back to the Pope's side on that one. I don't feel empowered to say Catholics like that are not Catholics. Once we got past that, Hugh asked if the Catholic Church is wrong to not allow women priests. I said, yes, the faith of my fathers is wrong about that. I then happily admitted to many failings and evils in the Catholic Church and in past Popes. This frustrated Hugh's strategy to hang all the problems of Catholicism on me the way I seemed to be hanging all of Mormons' problems on Romney. But I have never given a speech defending Catholicism and saying I believe every bit of it. No Catholic politician has ever given that speech. All the Catholics running for president now--Democrat and Republican--as usual, are very open about disagreeing with their church on abortion and other things.

The more you know about Romney's religion, the more you want to ask him questions about it. Your religion was founded by an alcoholic criminal named Joseph Smith who committed bank fraud and claimed God told him polygamy was cool after his first wife caught him having an affair with the maid and who then went on to have 33 wives, and you really believe every word that he said and wrote? Do you really believe that the American Indian is genetically descended from Israelites? Would it shake your belief if DNA testing showed no such relationship between Indian tribes and Jews? Do you really believe that Jesus Christ came to America? Do you really believe that your possible general election opponent, Barack Obama, is black because his people turned away from God? Are you in favor of big increases in federal funding for Missouri or turning the site of the Garden of Eden into a national park?

I wouldn't ask Romney any of these questions if he hadn't decided to make a political speech in which he pretended to tell me about his religious beliefs.

I could vote for a devout Mormon for president or anyone with any religious affiliation if I agree with the candidate's policy positions. I used to agree with a lot of Romney's policies before he flip-flopped on all the ones I agreed with. Flip flopping for political convenience is a Mormon tradition. In 1890, the Mormon president claimed he had a chat with God that finally convinced him polygamy was no longer cool, thereby allowing Utah to become a state. That was quite a flip from Brigham Young's anti-American position. When Brigham Young--a deadly serious racist and a hero of Romney's who actually got a mention in the speech, unlike the unmentionable Joseph Smith--was told Utah could not be admitted to the United States as long as it allowed polygamy, he said, "Then we shall never be admitted."

In his "faith of my fathers" speech, Romney had the audacity to say "Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world." Weren't any of the Romney speechwriters worried that someone was going to point out that Romney's religion jettisoned its beliefs to gain statehood? Of course not. That would mean talking about a candidate's religion, which, by current press convention, only the candidate is allowed to do.

The unprecedented relentlessness of Romney's flip-flopping is his campaign's biggest problem. The Mormon thing has done a fine job of diverting attention from the flip-flopping. Romney knows he can use the Mormon thing whenever he wants without fear of getting trapped in an uncomfortable question. On the campaign trail, he has actually said, "I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy." And no reporter has thought to ask the obvious follow-up about how conflicted he must feel about his great grandfather having had five wives.

In the Jack Kennedy speech that Romney's speech is being compared to, Kennedy said that the truth of how he would govern was not to be found in his religion but in his record in government. Romney could not say anything like that since his record in politics is littered with liberal positions, including Clinton/Giuliani-like support for abortion, that he is now running away from.

I, for one, am a libertarian on marriage. I don't think the state should tell any of us who we can marry or in what order. I'm cool with gay marriage, Giuliani's serial polygamy, and Mormon style polygamy as long as it does not involve the rape of children under the age of consent and as long as women can marry as many men as they want. I know you think those are crazy beliefs. All I have to do to prevent you from attacking me for those beliefs is to create a religion like Joseph Smith did. Then you wouldn't dare question my faith. Well, okay, you would at first. But a few generations from now, when one of my many descendants proudly proclaimed it "the faith of my fathers," no one would dare question that faith.

Fight or Flight?

It’s a character flaw, I suppose, that my instinctual reaction to danger is to get the heck out of Dodge. You’ll never catch me standing ground against Mother Nature. When disaster strikes, I’m outta here.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for Hurricane Katrina survivors – and all those poor victims – who, by choice or circumstance, chose to ride the storm out. But those mislabeled folks who fled for higher ground are my soul mates. I guess that’s what Tom Petty meant by, “you don’t have to live like a refugee.”

Anyway, this “fight or flight” conundrum took hold of me around noon, when I learned the college – administrative offices at least; final exams would go on as scheduled at the predominately residential institution of uncommon sense – was shutting down in the midst of an ice storm. The dean of the faculty, bless her heart, vowed to man her post in her office in a locked administrative building until the threat had passed – or four o’clock, whichever came first.

After a quick lunch at the cafeteria – you never know where your next meal is going to come from, right? – I polled the local hotel market for available rooms and alternative energy sources, just as I had when a similar storm hit last February. I should have taken notes.

With all of the other schools in town shut down for the day, my kids were at home and/or a neighbor’s house, neither of which had power. The steady morning rain had the potential to cause widespread damage, which I witnessed first-hand while driving from work to the movie rental store. Sewers overflowing, tree limbs scattered about or leaning menacingly over the road, ice-covered power lines hanging dangerously low… and here I am driving past the grocery store to rent movies I could only hope to watch if power was restored. Fittingly, “Superbad” was out.

Our power was restored shortly after I got home, sparing me the dilemma of opening the garage door manually. Though I typically opt to wait until it’s over before clearing the walks, early removal was the key to success this day. Then, after a previously scheduled telephone interview didn’t pan out and the predicted confounding snowfall didn’t materialize, we ventured out to get the family Christmas tree.

Schedules and circumstance had prevented us from completing this important tradition yet and our windows of opportunity were few. So, as neighbors and fellow residents were chopping ice and sawing trees, we went from store to store seeking out our holiday bush. Isn’t it ironic?

I’d be a poor prospect for a bomb shelter salesman. It’s not that I throw caution to the wind so much as I find the whole idea of emergency preparedness to be as overblown as the local news. Knock on wood, rub a rabbit’s foot and wish upon a star, I’ve never had to endure a prolonged power outage like my blog partner did just about a year ago. And I never would.

I’d be out of town before finishing the first of that three-day supply of water and non-perishable food the emergency management folks recommend you keep on hand. Theoretically, of course, since I maintain no such emergency supply kit. The only three-day supply I know of is a trip to the grocery store. And the only response I know to danger is flight… and, it occurs to me after rereading this post, denial.

Boss, are you happy with your work?

By LEONARD PITTS
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com

Maybe if I had been drinking heavily. Maybe if I were suffering amnesia. Maybe if I'd had a lobotomy.

Maybe, in other words, if my memory were impaired, I could accept the apologies for last week's FEMA-brand bovine excreta at face value. Problem is, my memory is more or less intact, the routine ravages of age notwithstanding. So you'll forgive me if my response to FEMA's latest oops for its latest blunder is less than charitable.

For those who missed it: Last week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency called a press conference on 15 minutes' notice to discuss its response to the wildfires in California. The short notice guaranteed that no reporters could get there in time, though they were given a phone number that allowed them to listen -- not pose questions, mind you, but listen -- to a briefing from Vice Adm. Harvey Johnson, FEMA's deputy chief, after which, he took questions.

But wait a minute, you say: If no reporters were there, who asked the questions? It turns out that FEMA staffers, posing as reporters, did the honors. That's right, FEMA questioned FEMA. Or, to put it another way, a group of worker bees interviewed their boss.

It will not surprise you to hear that this format failed to produce tough questions. Instead, Johnson fielded slow rollers like, ''Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?'' Thankfully, the session ended before anyone could ask him what sort of tree he would like to be in the next life.

When news broke of what FEMA had done, confessions and condemnations fell like rain. The agency apologized. A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security called the episode ''offensive.'' DHS chief Michael Chertoff called it one of the ''dumbest'' stunts he has seen in government. The White House called it an ``error in judgment.''

I'd be happy to take the apologies and the you-a culpas at face value and move on. Maybe I could do that if I were suffering some mental lapse that erased the accumulated experience of the last six years. Maybe I could do it if this were just an isolated instance of bad judgment. Maybe I could do it if this were not but the latest of many examples of the Bush administration manipulating news and information.

• Maybe if a GOP shill and sometime porn entrepreneur had never been allowed to play reporter in the White House press room.

• Maybe if the administration had never paid public funds to a supposed journalist for him to say good things about its No Child Left Behind law.

• Maybe if the government had never put out promotional videos disguised as news, complete with Bush underlings pretending to be reporters.

• Maybe if they were not in the habit of censoring science.

• Maybe if Donald Rumsfeld had never proposed an office of disinformation.

• Maybe if all 300 million of us were drinking heavily.

But there is not enough alcohol in existence, and the administration's aversion to the whole truth and nothing but is all too well documented.

There is more at stake here than the credibility of a president or a presidency. What is at stake is the ability of people to trust that those in positions of trust are worthy of trust. To play fast and loose with facts, as the Bush administration has habitually done, is to put truth itself into play and risk rendering government's word worthless. Not this government, but government, period.

And for what? For short-term political gain? The prize seems hardly worth the price. Yet they keep on doing it just the same. They refuse to learn from from their mistakes.

Which only makes this show of contrition feel all the more cynical and disingenuous. They should save the apologies for people with short memories. Maybe some of us don't see the pattern here.

But rest assured, some of us do.

No!

That was my reaction when I found out that Rick Reilly is forsaking Sports Illustrated for ESPN. He's a writer. I want to read his words, not listen to him talk. Plus, I'm a bit concerned. Besides the fact that a non-compete means six months of nothing, he's also a man who's allowed an animated version of himself reading a monologue to be distributed through cell phones (I've seen it myself). I think it's safe to say, that, talent or not, there's no accounting for his taste.

She's only 25

Top five headlines on Huffingtonpost at this writing:

Blackwater Out of Control and Indifferent To Civilian Toll: Report

Majority Opposes Bush's $190 Billion War Fund Request

Thompson: Iraq had WMD Before US Invaded

Bad for Business: GOP Hemorrhaging Core Business Base

Britney Spears Loses Custody of Her Kids

Whaddaya suppose got the most hits?

R.I.P., TimesSelect

Now that the New York Times has thrown in the towel on its subscription-only access to online columns, I (and you, dear reader(s)) no longer have to rely on the selectivity of others for your Dowd, Krugman or Rich fix. We celebrate the occasion with my favorite source for cut-and-paste blogging: Maureen Dowd.

Alan (Not Atlas) Shrugged
By MAUREEN DOWD
It’s a lost art, slinking away.

Now the fashion is slinking back.

Nobody wants to simply admit they made a mistake and disappear for awhile. Nobody even wants to use the weasel words: “Mistakes were made.” No, far better to pop right back up and get in the face of those who were savoring your absence.

We should think of a name for this appalling modern phenomenon. Kissingering, perhaps.

In Las Vegas, there’s the loathsome O.J., a proper candidate for shunning and stun-gunning, barging back into the picture.

And on Capitol Hill, Larry Craig shocked mortified Republicans by bounding into their weekly lunch. You’d think the conservative 62-year-old Idaho senator would have some shame, going from fervently opposing gay rights to provocatively tapping his toe in a Minneapolis airport toilet. (The toilet stall, now known as the Larry Craig bathroom, has become a hot local tourist attraction.)

But no.

As though Republicans don’t have enough problems, Mr. Craig said he is ready to go back to work while the legal hotshots he hired appeal his case. He even cast a couple votes, one against D.C. voting rights. (This creep gets to decide about my representation?)

Even if President Bush is “the cockiest guy” around, as the former Mexican President Vicente Fox writes in a new memoir critical of W.’s “grade-school-level” Spanish and his grade-school-level Iraq policy, he can’t be feeling good about the barbs being hurled his way by former supporters and enablers.

Rummy’s back in the news, giving interviews about a planned memoir and foundation designed to encourage “reasoned and civil debate” about global challenges and to spur more young people to go into government.

It’s rich. Maybe more young people would go into government if they didn’t have to work for devious bullies like Rummy who make huge life-and-death mistakes and then don’t apologize.

In The Washington Post, he blamed the press and Congress for creating an inhospitable atmosphere that drives good people away from public service. Maybe that’s why he and his evil twin, Dick Cheney, did their best to undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances so they could get more fine young people to serve.

Does the man blamed for creating civil disorder in Iraq even know what the word “civil” means? Wasn’t he the prickly Pentagon chief who got furious with anyone who didn’t agree with him on “global challenges”?

He shoved Gen. Eric Shinseki into retirement — and failed to show up at his retirement party — after the good general correctly told Congress that it would take several hundred thousand troops to invade and control Iraq. And he snubbed the German defense minister when Germany joined the Coalition of the Unwilling.

Interviewed by GQ’s Lisa DePaulo on his ranch in Taos, N.M., with another mule named Gus nearby, the “75-year-old package of waning testosterone,” as the writer called him, was asked if he misses W. Offering a wry smile, he replied, “Um, no.”

He now treats the son with the same contempt he treated the father with, which is why it’s so odd that the son hired his dad’s nemesis in the first place.

He actually had the gall to imply to Ms. DePaulo that he was out of the loop on Iraq and dragged out a copy of a memo he had written outlining all the things that could go wrong.

In fact, he was the one, right after 9/11, who began pushing to go after Saddam. He and Cheney were orchestrating the invasion from the start, guiding the dauphin with warnings about how weak he would seem if he let Saddam mock him.

The ultimate bureaucratic infighter wrote the memo as part of his Socratic strategy, asking a lot of questions when he was already pushing to go into Iraq. He never did any contingency planning in case those things went wrong; the memo was there simply so that someday he could pull it out for a reporter.

In the same issue of GQ, Colin Powell tried to build up the objections he made to the president, too, in an interview with Walter Isaacson. But nobody’s buying.

Even though he rubber-stamped W.’s tax cuts, Alan Greenspan is now upbraiding the president and vice president for profligate spending and putting politics ahead of sound economics.

He also says in his new memoir that “the Iraq war is largely about oil,” telling Bob Woodward that he had privately told W. and Cheney that ousting Saddam was “essential” to keeping world oil supplies safe.

Irrational exuberance, indeed.

Free at last

Times Select, that hateful NYTimes pay-per-read firewall, is dead! As of midnight tonight, anyway, and along with it, I expect, is the Dowd Effect: the increase past a handful of hits a day whenever Lonnie posts a column here procured from his subscribing friend. OH WELL. Not a popularity contest we're running here, but if you do read, you should probably prepare for all Krugman all the time.

Real life lessons

Some of my students, unexposed to the wider world or that social studies teacher's e-mail account, are under the impression that I know everything. I don't disabuse them of their mistaken notion: "That's right," I say, "I do."

I hope, of course, that their illusions will be shattered. That, soon enough, they'll be literate enough to figure out for themselves that all I really know is how to read. And that because I've spent so many years reading one article and another by that one guy about that one thing, I know a little bit about a lot, and far more than enough to finesse my way through almost anything that may come up in these not-so-hallowed halls. It is, after all, only high school.

Sometimes, though, I'd really rather not know, would really rather not understand the latest article or story. This is one of these times. Only the details, however, are new to me. The themes, as the English teachers down the hall would say, are tragic and eternal.

After neglecting the Utah miners story for several news cycles, I finally started to read. I don't do cable news if I can help it, but, it should come as no surprise, I'll catch up on the web. If you've followed the story, you know the phrase that keeps repeating is "retreat mining." In retreat mining, pillars of coal hold up the mine's roof until they're intentionally pulled or cut away; then the last bit of profit is extracted as that section of the mine caves in. It's as dangerous as it sounds, and at first I was flummoxed: why ever operate that way? I forget that life is cheap.

Sections of the Crandall Canyon mine were also longwalled, which I now know means that long sections, or rooms, were left with no roof support; the new owners wanted to take out as much coal as possible, even though the old owners had decided the risks couldn't be justified. Despite prior concerns, Bush's Mine Safety and Health Administration took a whole week to approve the new money-grubbing plan, which likely lead to a "bump" in March, and now nine men are dead after another man-made collapse. Meanwhile, the collusion and corruption are exposed to be deeper than even that mine shaft, and yet the mountain--the mountain--is what is called evil in public and nobody blinks.

So, this time, my vocabulary has expanded, but, in the end, I have no words, and I've learned nothing that I didn't know before. Goddamn it all to hell.