What Do Colts Have in Common With a Political Party?

I seldom stray from politics, but today I do so to defend Colts fans who find themselves being trashed as "spoiled whiners" following their near universal disappointment that the Colts management sat their starters against the New York Jets, effectively foregoing pursuit of a perfect, not just a 16-0 season.

I had a friend who said the following about the movie Underworld: "This is so unrealistic. They wouldn't be able to put sunlight into a bullet." And I thought, "That is the unrealistic part?!? It's not the centuries old blood-feud between vampires and werewolves?" But I understood his point. If you're going to offer "fiction," it has to be consistent within its own little universe.

Jim Caldwell and Bill Polian said their goal was to win a Superbowl, not go 16-0. Presumably, they didn't mean they would purposely tank the perfect season, but rather, would sacrifice the latter to preserve the former. Under what circumstances would such a sacrifice be necessary?
Because you need starters to win, but playing starters can get them hurt, costing you a Superbowl. Sound proposition, right?

I'm going to completely put aside: (1) how demoralized the Colts players looked; (2) how the decision will likely mess with them subconsciously; (3) how Manning admitted this was discussed widely among the players; (4) how you don't take your "foot off the gas" when you are trying to get momentum going into the post-season; (5) how having the offense go consistently three-and-out against the Jets increased the risk of injury to an exhausted defense; (6) how Manning looked rusty in the first half against the Jets and some more reps against a real team, not a practice squad, would have helped him; and (7) how, by the time the Colts take the field this week against Baltimore, it will be four weeks from the last game during which they played hard.

I'll just focus exclusively on management's offered rationale that you don't play key guys in meaningless games.

Okay, then explain why, even though we wrapped up the AFC number one seed, we had starters playing the entire game at Jacksonville? And explain why Peyton Manning took a single snap on a snow-covered (and slick) field in Buffalo, along with Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne?

The answer became obvious when Manning threw only to Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark until both of them had 100 receptions for the season, then the troika exited stage left. Those passes were almost all dinkers that even our 3rd-string backup could have completed. So why was Manning in the game? Oh, right. He has a consecutive starts streak going.
Is there anybody else in this city who doesn't see that management risked our Super Bowl victory so that three guys could achieve individual accolades but that same management would not take that risk for a more laudable team achievement of perfection? How can anybody say management used consistent logic, even in their own little universe?

I'll bet anything that Wayne and Clark were in because Manning told Caldwell that get them their pieces of history was the only way to bring peace back to the mind of his two star receivers.

Now, some say the injury to Patriots receiver Wes Welker in a game the Patriots didn't need rebuts Colts detractors, in particular now that the Pats got bounced by Baltimore.

It does no such thing. Welker was untouched on the play that resulted in his injury. It was just one of those freak things. Just like with Marlin Jackson and Chad "Ocho Cinco" Johnson, guys can get hurt in practice. The only guaranteed way to keep players safe is to not let him leave their homes. But as former Pacer Ron Artest showed when he face-planted on his staircase, even that isn't foolproof.

Peyton was more likely to twist a knee on a snowy field than he was from getting hit by a mostly non-existing Jets pass rush.

But, ultimately, none of this matters. We folded up shop, and that's inexcusable. And because of the illogic of when we play/don't play starters, I'm starting to wonder if Teddy Bruschi had it right when he said the Colts wanted an excuse because they were afraid to play for perfection. What if the starters stay in against the Jets and lose? Or what if the Colts win against the Jets, bring the starters and lose against Buffalo? Being afraid is the only thing that makes sense because playing your stars even for a second on a sheet of ice sure as heck doesn't.

Understand I never called for Caldwell or Polian's resignation. Those folks are going overboard. I remember well being 0-13, not 13-0. What Caldwell did as a rookie was outstanding, and Polian's decision does not change my belief that he is the best operations guy in the NFL.

But you know why people follow sports? No, it's not primarily to see beautiful athleticism, though that’s part of it. Just like with political parties, it's about a feeling of belonging to something bigger than you, even though you aren't the star on the field.

Most fans watch sports because their lives will never be as exciting as having millions transfixed, waiting to see in the last instant if he can stretch his arm across the goal line and turn his team into a world champion, or instead come up a yard shy, making the other team the world champion. Every member of that city or state or even national fan base can live vicariously through those players. They can say that MY team has achieved something only a handful of others have had. Every Colts victory is our victory. That perfect season would have been our perfect season. Didn't millions of Democrats feel that same exhilaration when Obama was declared our president?

I don’t mean to overly minimize the Colts' sustained excellence of winning the most games in a decade of any team in the NFL history, but how’s that play in the debate down at Spencer's Stadium Tavern?

Dolphins fan: Yeah, well, my Dolphins had a perfect season!

Me: Oh, yeah, well, the Colts had…the most victories spanning a decade in NFL history.

Pats fan: Yeah, but they had ONE Superbowl during that time! By your own rationale, all those season victories are meaningless because your alleged ultimate goal was to win the Superbowl, a task you failed at nine of those ten years. We played in four Superbowls and WON THREE during YOUR alleged decade of dominance!

When Peyton Manning was pulled from that field, it suggested that neither Polian nor Caldwell cared whether Colts fans would be deprived of the chance of saying that the team for which they root, for which they invested money, sacrificed work, gave sacred leisure time, and used as a means to bond with family and friends, had achieved what nobody else has ever achieved - the perfect season with Superbowl victory in the 16-game NFL era.

And why did we give up the pursuit of perfection? To keep guys safe WHO WE JEOPARDIZED THE WEEK BEFORE AND THE WEEK AFTER!

If the Colts don't win the Superbowl, most people will think it's because we didn't keep them sharp, and we demoralized our players by suppressing their killer instinct. If we win, that will be awesome. But who among us won't wonder, "What if?" It will be the first Superbowl victory with a mental asterisk next to it.

At the end of the day, fans (and political activists) want to see a fighter’s spirt. They aren't bothered by the fights we lose as much as the ones we don't suit up for.

Let’s be honest. Winning a Superbowl requires some luck keeping players healthy, and it requires that destiny to be on your side. How often do you see a quarterback elude an almost certain sack to heave a ball down the field to have the receiver catch it while falling down and holding it against the top of his helmet? But that’s precisely how the New York Giants took it all away from the last alleged team of destiny, the New England Patriots, isn’t it?

We all will be pulling mightily for you, Indianapolis Colts, to win it all. But I will always steadfastly believe this: to BE a team of destiny, you have to play like one. On December 27, 2009, the Indianapolis Colts didn't.

What Do Colts Have in Common With a Political Party?

Great Idea of the Week Award Goes To....

....Indiana State Senator Sue Errington (D-Delaware County), who introduced Senate Bill 192, which states that a hospital cannot deny visitation to a "domestic partner" of someone hospitalized.

This extremely well-craft bill sets forth reasonable visitation restrictions that hospitals may impose unrelated to who the visitor is, and it further takes into account an individual patient's medical needs.

What it doesn't do is make reference to sexual orientation. In other words, unmarried heterosexual couples (of which there are a growing number) need not fear being denied visitation with the person they may love most in the world because vindictive family wants to draw an iron veil over them as they gasp their last breath.

Of course, because gay couples will benefit, too, do not be surprised if anti-gay opponents attack this bill under the guise of needing to keep marriage sacred, a curious notion given that the most virulent anti-gay tacticians fail to keep their own marriages sacred (see Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove).

Respectfully, while I try not to let emotion force me to rhetorical excess, I have to question the humanity of people who oppose this bill, in particular, as it pertains to gays and lesbians. Imagine having parents who repudiated everything about you during your life. When you're on your deathbed, they can ride in and take away possibly the most comforting thing that could happen in your final hours?

My hope is that even Hoosiers who object to gay marriage will recognize the broader scope of this bill to include heterosexuals and the compassion found in letting a person about to take their last breath see a person who, in life, they loved most.

Here's how you can help. Find your state senator and let him or her know you support SB 192. Also, most bills die for want of committee action. The Chair of the Health & Provider Services Committee, where this bill is assigned, is Republican Ryan Mishler. Start by e-mailing him and telling him to set a hearing for SB 192! Then email other committee members who might be sympathetic as well and ask for their support and a hearing: Vaneta Becker (R-Evansville), Ed Charbonneau (R-Valparaiso), Beverly Gard (R-Greenfield), Jean Breaux (D-Indianapolis), Earline Rogers (D-Gary), and Vi Simpson (D-Elletsville).

Finally, e-mail Sue Errington and thank her for introducing this bill. Good job, Senator!

Great Idea of the Week Award Goes To....

Cheney's Unspoken Words

I have a love-hate relationship with politics. I love what it can be. But at times, I hate what it is becoming.

I’m disturbed by our obsession with dissecting our opponents’ every utterance. We don’t stop at what they speak. We fault how they speak, when they speak, and why they speak. We even fault what wasn’t spoken at all.

Why?

Because politicos know the media beast puts conflict on page one, so we have to serve it up or get served in turn. Unfortunately, most political figures in divided government achieve little except managing the status quo, or the things they accomplish are supported by a majority of Americans, otherwise, they wouldn’t pass. That means all that’s left is to point to an opponent’s words (or lack thereof) in an effort to brand them as different from “us.”

Republicans have arguably pioneered “word dissection politics.” But even if you dispute this contention, as with most slash-and-burn tactics, they’re clearly employing it with more rigor than Democrats now, even if they often do so with intellectual dishonesty.

I’m thinking primarily of Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism after the Christmas bomber episode (though for another example, see Republican Congressman Peter King's request that Obama say "terrorism" more, as if repeating the word three times will make national security fairies appear and transport us all back to a pre-2001 Kansas).

Cheney excoriated President Obama for allegedly trying to hide the fact we are “at war.” Here is Cheney’s salvo:

[President Obama] seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war.

We are at war, and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency—social transformation, the restructuring of American society. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war.

What an asinine line of attack for people who have…what’s the word I’m thinking of here? Oh, right. Logic.

Does Cheney fault Obama principally for policy change? Absolutely not. His emphasis is on rhetoric. Cheney thinks Americans are stupid enough to fault our President for being less bellicose than George W. Bush. Whatever happened to the great American axioms “speak softly and carry a big stick,” “you will know a man by his deeds,” “let your game speak for you,” and “all talk and no action?” They’re apparently out the window with the VP, for whom talk even exceeds deeds.

As peeved as I am that the VP goaded the White House into a "war on war words," I respect the White House’s political smarts in responding. The conservatorati and the GOP galvanize their base attacking Democrats’ alleged lack of patriotism and military cocksureness, and the White House’s response demolishes Cheney. Here it is:

For seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq -- a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion -- Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda.

Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the president.

The White House added that the President knows we are at war, but "The difference is this: President Obama doesn't need to beat his chest to prove it, and -- unlike the last Administration -- we are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"), we are at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent, extremist allies.

I don’t know how any objective observer can read the two statements and not think the VP really shot himself in the foot politically on this one. Of course, that’s an improvement over him shooting......over never mind. All I can say is he's the Conservative of the Year? Who else was in the running? Alan Keyes?!?

Cheney's Unspoken Words