Mr. Love’s Next Step:  A Postscript and Preview

In an April post entitled, “The Murphy – Gutekunst – LaFleur Era in Green Bay Truly Begins,” I marked Aaron Rodgers’ departure from Green Bay and ventured that the Packers had “seemed to me to be increasingly floundering during Packer General Manager Brian Gutekunst’s tenure,” and suggested that although I had “no marked criticism of [Packer Head Coach Matt] LaFleur, [given Mr. Rodgers’ presence throughout Mr. LaFleur’s tenure up to that point] I’m not sure he’s any better or perhaps even as good as [former Packer Head Coach Mike] McCarthy was.”  While I didn’t set forth my doubts about Packer Quarterback Jordan Love in that post, I’ve made clear in other notes my deep misgivings about Mr. Love’s ability to take up where his illustrious Packer Quarterback predecessors Brett Favre and Mr. Rodgers had left off, primarily based upon the team’s apparent reluctance to move on earlier from the aging and pricey Mr. Rodgers when it seemingly could have.

Fast forwarding to a little over a week ago, in a preview of the Packers’ then-upcoming game against the Chicago Bears, I noted in “Mr. Love’s Next Step” the Packers’ season second-half rise to the brink of the playoffs, and Mr. Love’s strong performance down the stretch.  At the same time, I observed that it seemed to me that Mr. Love had at times appeared shaky in games with broader implications, and indicated that the then-impending contest against the Bears – who had plenty of motivation to play well despite being out of playoff contention, and would field a fine defense – would be a test of whether the Packers “had something” in Mr. Love; whether, without anointing him as the “Third Coming,” he could indeed be “the Guy.”

Time to face the music.  Although blogging is obviously simply spouting – a fact that should nonetheless be explicitly acknowledged even by one with the word, “Noise,” in the title of his blog 😉 —  the Packers have exceeded my wildest expectations this season.  As all who care are aware, they defeated the Bears 17 – 9 on January 7, and in my view, their mastery over the Bears – who did indeed show up to play — was greater than the score indicated.  Mr. Love completed almost 85% of his passes – a feat that commentators indicated had only been done once by a Packer Quarterback (Mr. Rodgers) in the preceding 40 years – and threw for over 300 yards, with two touchdowns and no interceptions.  It was more than a stellar performance; particularly given the pressure of getting the Packers into the playoffs – which neither of Mr. Love’s predecessors did in their respective first years as starters — it was stunning.  We’ll come back to Mr. Love near the conclusion of this note. 

Given my earlier expressions of doubt about Mr. LaFleur’s capabilities, I’ll also praise his performance:  to get the youngest team in the NFL into the playoffs is a huge coaching achievement.  I’m won’t say he’s a better coach than Mr. McCarthy (I’ve always been a fan of Mr. McCarthy), but will concede that he appears to be as good.

Another necessary acknowledgement:  despite my deep skepticism about Mr. Gutekunst, the team couldn’t have made the playoffs but for the personnel he has selected over the last five years (notwithstanding the notable assistance of a few key players drafted by Mr. Thompson, such as Running Back Aaron Jones and Defensive Lineman Kenny Clark 🙂 ).      

As for this week’s playoff game:

I don’t expect the Packers to stand much of a chance against the Cowboys.  I expect Mr. McCarthy, who now leads Dallas, to make clear to his players that they can lose to a good young team that is playing without expectations, but only if they are both overconfident and fail to take care of the ball.

Although as I type this, I don’t care who wins the Green Bay – Dallas game – this is not the year that the Packers are going to march to the Super Bowl, given the talented and experienced teams in front of them – I expect these feelings of equanimity to dissolve at the game’s opening kickoff, particularly since Green Bay is playing Dallas.  In a word very rarely used in these pages, but appropriate here:  while I retain a residual regard and respect for Mr. McCarthy, I hate the Cowboys 🙂 .  Cowboy Owner Jerry Jones is one of the most repulsive figures in sport.  All the glitz, the ballyhoo, the boasting, the grandstanding, the gloating, the cavorting cheerleaders, and the smug arrogance that are the viscera of the Dallas Cowboys have made me always root against the Cowboys over the last 30 years no matter whom they were playing, including any of the Packers’ NFC North rivals.

Someone whom I suspect most cares that the Packers win:  besieged Packer Defensive Coordinator Joe Barry.  If Mr. Barry’s defense somehow stifles the Cowboys and Green Bay does prevail, it would presumably give Messrs. Gutekunst and LaFleur pause before replacing him.

Two final notes:

First, as to Mr. Love.  After the game, a good friend joshed me in these pages, “It’s time.  This is the Third Coming.”  I am still not willing to go there.  Given my veiled Biblical (and thus, in this context, somewhat blasphemous 😉 ) reference to Mr. Love’s ability to assume the mantle of Messrs. Favre and Rodgers, I believe that Mr. Love needs to win at least one MVP and perhaps a Super Bowl before I would go that far; but for the Packers, he is definitely “the Guy.”  For now, that’s enough.  Although we’ll never meet, as last week’s game wound down I genuinely felt great for the young man to have been able to so effectively shut up his doubters – including me.

Second:  because of my preoccupation with the current state of our civil affairs, even as I watched the game and saw Green Bay doing so well, I envisioned that in homes and taverns across the Wisconsin, family members and friends who bitterly disagree about the best way forward for our nation and will vote in diametrically opposite ways this coming November were high-fiving, hugging, and toasting each other as this Packer team – consisting of young men whom they will never meet – fought their way into the playoffs.  I am no longer certain, as politicians and pundits like to intone, that more unites us than divides us; but at least on this day, at least in this one area, such was indeed the case.  As irrelevant as it was in the scheme of things, it had to be cherished.

My mea culpas are concluded.  My soul, as one would expect for any Irish Catholic, has been refreshed by confessing my mistakes.  Absent an improbable extended Packer playoff run, this is the Noise, signing OUT for the Green and Gold this season. 

On Nikki Haley

[Several preliminary notes: 

A couple of the points made here occurred to me before I saw them offered by media pundits, so I feel free to use them;

From a political handicapping standpoint, I’ve been intrigued by former SC Gov. and U.S. UN Amb. Nikki Haley for some years, and that interest has resulted in this note becoming fairly long; feel free to pass on it; and

Despite my high regard for President Joe Biden’s conduct of the presidency, in the unlikely event that Ms. Haley secures the Republican presidential nomination and runs against him, I am very likely to vote for Ms. Haley – unless she begins to evince undemocratic inclinations, which I have not seen thus far–although I am much closer to the President’s positon on domestic issues.  My rationale is buried below.  😉 ]

Although it currently seems overwhelmingly likely that in November, we will be engaging in another existential battle to preserve American democracy pitting a seemingly increasingly infirm President Joe Biden against the now indisputably fascist former President Donald Trump, I’m posting this because I consider former SC Gov. and U.S. UN Amb. Nikki Haley Haley the only other announced presidential candidate who has a chance to win the White House in 2024.  Indeed, it is a cruel irony – perhaps for the nation and certainly for what respectable vestiges remain of the Republican Party – that if Ms. Haley were to secure the Republican presidential nomination, I think she would defeat Mr. Biden this November pretty easily. 

I speculated in these pages back as 2018 that if then-President Donald Trump chose not to seek reelection (we all saw how that went 😉 ), Ms. Haley would make a formidable 2020 Republican presidential nominee.  I noted then:  “She’s bright, knowledgeable, articulate, and attractive; she projects both toughness and femininity; she’s had executive experience as a Governor; she’s Indian-American, the child of immigrants; she was born and raised in the South, but as Governor removed the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state grounds; she has established foreign policy bona fides by representing us at the U.N.; she has fiscal policy views that appeal to traditional conservatives; her husband serves in the armed forces, and she has what appears to be a beautiful family; she identifies as Christian, but has a Sikh background.”

I well recall after over 60 years that the only Democrat my father, a rock-ribbed Republican, ever voted for was John F. Kennedy – because he was an Irish Catholic.  I submit that in a race against Mr. Biden, the demographics would all be on Ms. Haley’s side.  To begin, it’s hard to see her losing any of the states Mr. Trump won in 2020.  As a South Carolinian, her candidacy would probably both clinch neighboring North Carolina (the only state Mr. Trump won in 2020 by a narrow margin) and win South Carolina’s neighboring Georgia back from Mr. Biden; her immigrant and Indian background will be effective with a significant segment of minorities, which would both enable her to duplicate Mr. Trump’s 2020 victory in Texas and provide her an excellent opportunity to claim Arizona and Nevada from Mr. Biden; I would venture that she has finessed the abortion issue well enough for a significant segment of women voters to rationalize voting for her to finally place a woman in the White House; her charm and vitality would sway a sufficient number of young voters and moderate swing state Democrats and independents who won’t vote for Mr. Trump but are concerned about Mr. Biden’s age and Vice President Kamala Harris’ competence; and although she would lose some diehard MAGAs as a result of the inevitable attacks upon her by a vengeful Mr. Trump, she would retain the vast share of the Republican tribe.  (I vividly recall two Republican gentlemen who told me separately in early 2016 that they could never support Donald Trump.  Now they are both avid Trumpers – because at bottom, their overriding emotion is antipathy for Democrats.  They may be for Mr. Trump today, but will just as enthusiastically vote for Ms. Haley in November if she is the Republican nominee.)  During gatherings with family and friends this past Holiday season, a number of sure Biden voters against Mr. Trump indicated that they would seriously consider Ms. Haley if she was the President’s opponent, and one sure Biden voter against Mr. Trump declared that he would vote for Ms. Haley if she was the President’s opponent.  Mr. Biden’s candidacy can’t withstand that much erosion.  I would submit that Ms. Haley, if she was the Republican nominee, would have the makings of a landslide victory. 

I suspect that Ms. Haley and her team (and perhaps Mr. Trump as well; an aside on that below 😉 ) realize that two major shoes have to drop in order for her to wrest the Republican nomination from the former president.

The first is by far the easier but as things apparently now stand, not easy.  She has to beat FL Gov. Ron DeSantis in Iowa.  The longer he hangs around, the slimmer Ms. Haley’s already extremely slim chances of securing the nomination become.  Mr. DeSantis a hollow, boring candidate whose presidential effort has dead-ended.  He had every early advantage to present himself as the only credible Republican presidential alternative to Mr. Trump, and he fluffed it.  Now, he can’t get it done but he won’t give it up.  If he didn’t have IA Gov. Kim Reynolds’ support in Iowa, I’m pretty confident that Ms. Haley would have already eclipsed him.  I would suggest that the gaffe about the Civil War Ms. Haley recently made in Iowa – we’ll get to that below – arose not because she was trying to overtake Mr. Trump – although she would certainly like to significantly narrow the seeming yawning polling margin between the former President and herself (a feat which is difficult to envision, given Mr. Trump’s steadfast Evangelical support; after all, the former president has, according to a video we recently saw of an Iowa Evangelical, been treated worse than Jesus) — but to carve off enough of Mr. DeSantis’ support to give her second place and effectively end Mr. DeSantis’ campaign.  A second place Iowa finish will arguably make her the only remaining credible opponent to Mr. Trump in New Hampshire and her home state of South Carolina.  If Mr. DeSantis drops out, he will – political pussyfooter that he is – undoubtedly endorse Mr. Trump.  Even so, I would suggest that if a New Hampshire Republican wanted to vote for Mr. Trump, s/he would already be with Mr. Trump.  A recent CNN/University of New Hampshire poll found Ms. Haley, with the support of NH Gov. Chris Sununu (who probably rues his decision not to run himself), to be trailing Mr. Trump by only 7 points among New Hampshire Republicans; if she claimed the majority of the 5% shown in the poll shown to be supporting Mr. DeSantis and a few of the 12% shown in the poll to be supporting former NJ Gov. Chris Christie, there is a credible path for her to beat Mr. Trump in the New Hampshire primary.

(The “birther” controversy that Mr. Trump has just hatched against Ms. Haley is, in my view, some confirmation that the former president agrees with the above analysis.  I would suggest that Mr. Trump is attacking Ms. Haley now, not because he’s worried about losing to her in Iowa, but because he fears that Mr. DeSantis will lose to her in Iowa, and the resulting boost the Haley campaign will receive if Mr. DeSantis withdraws.)  

That’s the easy part.  The hard part:  hanging around long enough in the face of what may be a string of primary victories by Mr. Trump for the occurrence of what is known in English literature as Deus ex machina – literally, in Latin, “God from a machine”; defined in my trusty American Heritage Dictionary as an “improbable … event … suddenly introduced to resolve a situation”:  in this case, an event that will disqualify Mr. Trump from the nomination.  Although the Republican National Committee is stuffed with Trump supporters, the Committee’s Rule 9 expressly provides that the RNC is “authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States … or … may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies. [Emphasis Added]”

I would submit that if the RNC is suddenly looking for a reason to move on from Mr. Trump – for example, if Mr. Trump suffers a obvious health reversal, a significant number of states successfully keep Mr. Trump off the ballot under the 14 Amendment, or Mr. Trump is convicted of an insurrection-related offense this spring — the RNC might deem its nomination “vacant.”  Although a very unlikely scenario, it is perhaps less so if it appears to the RNC that some such factor has made it highly unlikely that Mr. Trump can win.  If the RNC took such a step, it’s hard for me to believe a court would intervene to interpret a political party’s rules contrary to the interpretation of the party’s own ruling body.  Ms. Haley would be the obvious winner in such a scenario.

As to Ms. Haley’s failure to initially list slavery as the cause of the Civil War – “I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run; the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do”:  such was obviously disingenuous, a foolish attempt to thread too fine a needle so as to not offend the Trump and DeSantis supporters she is wooing.  That said – in a geeky aside that I at times can’t resist – arguably, she was not necessarily technically incorrect.  While incoming President Abraham Lincoln was viscerally offended by slavery and an implacable adversary of slave states’ attempts to extend slavery into the nation’s territories and newly-formed states, he was foremost a Constitutionalist; he viewed his primary responsibility as president to prevent the slave states from breaking their Constitutional bond by seceding.  In his first inaugural address in March, 1861, Mr. Lincoln declared, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of Slavery in the States where it exists. … One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended.  This is the only substantial dispute. [Emphasis Mr. Lincoln’s].”  (Of course, the slave states sought to secede specifically because they considered the extension of slavery, unalterably opposed by Mr. Lincoln, necessary to prevent its ultimate extinction; if Mr. Lincoln privately agreed with their assessment, he was perhaps being a bit disingenuous himself by so apparently innocently proclaiming his intention to protect slave owners’ rights in the states in which they already existed.)  I think Ms. Haley’s gaffe will ultimately fade away.  I think her pledge to pardon Mr. Trump if he is convicted will, if she becomes president, likewise be easily waved away.

Two final points to this long-winded post:

Ms. Haley’s debate against Mr. DeSantis tonight is existential to her candidacy.  She needs to polish him off – which given their respective on-camera skills, is certainly achievable.  At the same time, if advising her, I’d recommend that she polish him off by mostly ignoring him – that she instead use tonight’s debate as the opportunity to take the gloves off against Mr. Trump.  His attempting to create a “birther” controversy – which she will almost certainly be asked about – will give her an opening to point out that if he is going to make such allegations – which are a slap in the face of all children of lawful immigrants, which includes all Americans except Native Americans – he should be man enough to come on stage and do it to her face; to state that those in the military, like her husband, are not suckers and losers as Mr. Trump has said, but our greatest patriots; to declare that it was time for the country to have new, younger leadership; and conclude by noting Mr. Trump’s continual complaining and declare to the Republican crowd, “Americans have never been complainers.  They’re doers.  Do you want to whine, or do you want to win?”

Finally, why would I vote for Ms. Haley (again, provided that I see no hint that she will undertake undemocratic measures if she is elected) against Mr. Biden when I think Mr. Biden has done an extraordinary job and I am closer to him on domestic issues than I am to Ms. Haley?  Two reasons, the less important first:  I am worried about the President’s age and doubt Ms. Harris’ competence.  The vital reason:  if Mr. Biden wins, the alt-right propaganda machine will immediately begin spewing falsehoods against him, perpetuating the toxic conditions under which Mr. Trump may attempt yet another resurrection.  While I am cognizant that voting for Ms. Haley on such ground is arguably placating the right, I would suggest that Ms. Haley’s presidency would give us as a people a chance to quiet down a bit, to take the breather we thought Mr. Biden’s presidency would give us (which it would have, but for Mr. Trump’s malignance).  If Ms. Haley wins, the alt-right silo – since its overriding emotion is hatred of Democrats — will naturally rally to her support.  Mr. Trump will, finally, be politically laid to rest – which is my overriding concern.  The former president would clearly be out of position to effectively challenge a sitting Republican President Haley for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination; by 2032, he’ll be 86.  He’ll be done – although we will need to watch for the next charismatic fascist coming to take his place.

If I correctly assess Ms. Haley as an American who respects our democratic processes, there will always be another election in 2028, no matter what she does after assuming the presidency.  We can chart a more progressive course as a country with a different president in a future election if we so choose – provided that our way of life has been preserved.

If you got this far, you must be exhausted  😉 .  You can’t say I didn’t warn you 🙂 .

Adolf Hitler and Thomas Paine on Perception of the January 6th Insurrection

As all are aware, today is the third anniversary of the assault on our nation’s Capitol by followers of former President Donald Trump, provoked by former President Donald Trump.

Earlier this week, MSNBC’s Morning Joe cited a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll which indicated that in 2021, 60% of adult Americans thought Mr. Trump bore responsibility for the riot; now, only 53% do.  Of that total, in 2021 27% of Republicans, 57% of Independents, and 92% of Democrats thought Mr. Trump had culpability; now, only 14% of Republicans, 56% of Independents, and – the diminution most surprising to me – only (relatively speaking) 86% of Democrats think he was responsible.

The Morning Joe panel professed to be reassured by the fact that a majority of Americans believe Mr. Trump bears responsibility for the Capitol riot.

I was appalled. We no longer live in an era in which we had to absorb our news through print media, with little if any benefit of pictures, an age in which written accounts would necessarily shift over time and any mental images they evoked in readers, no matter how initially vivid, would necessarily fade over time.  Now, we have the video of Mr. Trump speaking on January 6, 2021 – a record the accuracy of which no one disputes – urging his adherents, “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”  Then, his followers stormed the Capitol.   

Over the last three years, given the information now in the public domain that wasn’t available in 2021 — the facts uncovered by the U.S. House of Representatives’ “January 6th Committee,” the number of convicted January 6th rioters who have said their actions were incited by Mr. Trump’s rhetoric, the guilty pleas by Trump lawyers to election interference-related charges, the almost-billion dollar defamation settlement paid by Fox News to Dominion Systems, the $148 million defamation award against Trump co-conspirator Rudy Giuliani to two Georgia election workers, the wide number of statements made by Trump White House staffers implicating Mr. Trump in various ways, to name just a few — the number of Americans believing that Mr. Trump bears responsibility for the Capitol riot should logically be significantly higher than it was in 2021, not lower.  Yet today apparently only a bare majority of our people believe Mr. Trump bears responsibility.

I suppose I should be heartened that we have the video of Mr. Trump’s speech and the ensuing actions of the rioters; it is alarming to contemplate how low a percentage of Americans would still consider Mr. Trump culpable for inciting the assault if the visual evidence didn’t exist.

When confronted with the effect that Mr. Trump’s repeated lies have had upon our people, I often consult his de facto handbook [which, even if (as he claims) he hasn’t read, he has absorbed]:  Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  What follows are Hitler’s own words about propaganda, published almost exactly a century ago; I leave it to you to decide how relevant they are to what we confront today: 

“… [P]ropaganda is no more than a weapon, though a frightful one in the hands of an expert.

… It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses.

… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts … whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.

The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real … its function … consists in attracting the attention of the crowd … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to.  Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. … [W]e must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction.

The more modest [propaganda’s] intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses.

… The receptivity of the great masses is limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.  In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan [Emphasis added].

… [Those who believe everything they read are] the great mass of the people and … the simplest-minded part of the nation. … To it belong all those who have neither been born or trained to think independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and white. … [T]he influence of the press will be enormous.  [The great mass of people] are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them, and as a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of others.  This can be advantageous when their enlightenment is provided by a serious and truth-loving party, but it is catastrophic when scoundrels and liars provide it.  [Emphasis Added; included here for the irony.]

… The nationalization of the broad masses can … be … achieved only by a ruthless and fanatically one-sided orientation toward the goal to be achieved.

… The broad masses of a people consist neither of professors nor of diplomats.  The scantiness of the abstract knowledge they possess directs their sentiments more to the world of feeling.  That is where their positive or negative attitude lies.  It is receptive only to an expression of force in one of these two directions and never to a half-measure hovering between the two.  Their emotional attitude at the same time conditions their extraordinary stability.  Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in the fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward [Emphasis Added]. 

Anyone who wants to win the broad masses must know the key that opens the door to their heart.  Its name is not objectivity (read weakness) but will and power.

… The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment does not understand the mutual handshake of people who claim that they want opposite things.  What they desire is victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his unconditional subjection.  [Emphasis Added]”

This is what we are up against.  Propaganda is, as Hitler observed, a frightful weapon in the hands of an expert.  Mr. Trump’s support is, as Hitler would have predicted, extraordinarily stable.  Thomas Paine once declared, “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”  That said, in addition to concentrating on turning out the currently uncertain, disappointed, and disaffected who will, if in the ballot box, vote for Mr. Biden, the President’s team also needs to message effectively to reclaim as many as possible of the distracted 7% of Americans who in 2021 recognized that Mr. Trump was accountable for arguably the darkest day in our nation’s history, but reportedly do no longer. 

Since January 6th cannot be undone, let its reminder be a tool to help us save our democracy.

Mr. Love’s Next Step

In early December, in the flush of the Packers’ victory over the World Champion Kansas City Chiefs, I conceded that despite my years-long skepticism about Green Bay Quarterback Jordan Love’s potential to be a worthy successor to Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers, “maybe – just maybe” — the Green and Gold had something in Mr. Love.

We are a long way from hailing Mr. Love as the Third Coming.  At the same time, he has unquestionably performed beyond at least my most optimistic expectations.  Operating an offense with accomplished but gimpy running backs and a receiver corps that has literally watched less NFL action than you have, he has Green Bay within one game of the NFL playoffs, he’s 10th in NFL Total Quarterback Rating, and is one of only three QBs with 30 touchdown passes.  It could be argued that if the Packers’ defense had consistently played this season up to the standard one would expect from a unit brimming with high draft picks, Green Bay would already have clinched a playoff spot.  The season started with the Packer Faithful wondering whether the team would be in the market for a starting quarterback this offseason; it’s ending with the impression that Mr. Love has earned a hefty contract extension.

And yet.  Although Green Bay and the Minnesota Vikings entered last Sunday’s game with identical records, I would suggest that the Pack’s dominant effort against the Vikings needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  Mr. Love’s bravura performance was against a Viking secondary whose members didn’t look like they’d ever been introduced to one another.  Green Bay’s defense held down a Minnesota offense playing backup quarterbacks and without one of its two best receivers.

I would submit that this weekend will be the season’s ultimate test for this year’s Packers.  If the Packers win, they make the playoffs.  If they don’t, they probably don’t.  Although besieged Packer Defensive Coordinator Joe Barry is probably going to lose his job in any event, any shred of a chance he has to retain it will in all likelihood depend upon how the defense performs.  The Packers get home field advantage against a Chicago Bear team out of playoff contention. 

That said, while the Bears have performed below pre-season expectations overall, they, like Green Bay, have played very well in the team’s last few games under Quarterback Justin Fields.  Chicago seems to me to have a subplot every bit as intriguing as the Packers’ playoff quest.  The Bears have the No. 1 pick in the upcoming NFL draft.  The team’s front office is reportedly (and if so, understandably) weighing whether Mr. Fields – himself their first round pick in 2021, who has been sometimes injured and mixed brilliance with inconsistency – is their long-term quarterback, or if they should draft the best quarterback prospect available next spring.  This weekend, Mr. Fields may well be playing for his job, at least in Chicago.  In his college career at Georgia and Ohio State, he played in a lot of high-pressure games.  His teammates are apparently behind him, and if they are, they will play hard for him.  They undoubtedly also remain stung by their unexpected opening week loss to Green Bay, which began the team’s disappointing 2023 downward spiral.

[I have no idea what Mr. Barry will do to defend against Mr. Fields; I’d be tempted to have Packer Inside Linebacker Quay Walker “shadow” Mr. Fields (who is as explosive a runner as he is a passer), and make it explicitly clear to Cornerback Jaire Alexander that Mr. Alexander’s performance this season hasn’t always measured up to his reputation or salary.]

Last year, in Mr. Rodgers’ last game at the helm, to make the playoffs the Packers only needed to win a game at home against another NFC North rival, a Detroit Lions team that was hungry but already out of playoff contention.  Detroit won.  The Packers were eliminated.  Mr. Rodgers departed.

Here we are again.

I expect Sunday’s game to have playoff intensity.  Not only is it the Packers and the Bears; it will be one of the few between Green Bay and Chicago since Mr. Favre took the field in 1992 that has clear major ramifications for both teams.  This season, Mr. Love has indisputably successfully shouldered the pressure of the comparison to his storied predecessors – neither of whom made the playoffs in their respective first years as starters — but has seemed at least to me to be a little shaky in games carrying obvious ramifications.  It doesn’t matter what happens after Sunday; if Green Bay does make the playoffs, it will in all probability be easily dispatched by whatever higher playoff seed it draws.  Given Green Bay’s uncertain defense, for me the key factor this week will be how Mr. Love plays – i.e., no matter the outcome, did Mr. Love play well enough to win? 

Some memories get rosier over time.  Mr. Favre was not BRETT FAVRE in his first year; despite his legendary arm strength, Mr. Favre occasionally underthrew open receivers.  Mr. Rodgers was not AARON RODGERS in his first year; despite his renowned accuracy, he occasionally missed open receivers.  I would nonetheless submit that Sunday evening, Packer fans will have a clearer idea whether Mr. Love has the makings of a worthy successor to Messrs. Favre and Rodgers. 

In other words, in a nutshell:  Can he be … the Guy?

To the Decisive Year Ahead

“You must not weaken in any way in your alert and vigilant frame of mind.  Though holiday rejoicing is necessary to the human spirit, yet it must add to the strength and resilience with which every man and woman turns again to the work they have to do, and also to the outlook and watch they have to keep on public affairs. …

[W]e have yet to make sure … that the words, ‘freedom,’ [and] ‘democracy’ … are not distorted from their true meaning as we have understood them.  There would be little use in punishing the Hitlerites for their crimes if law and justice did not rule, and if totalitarian or police governments were to take [their] place ….”

  • British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, May 13, 1945

Before our last 4th of July holiday, I quoted these remarks by Mr. Churchill in these pages – which he delivered to the British people on a date after the fall of Nazi Germany but before the defeat of Imperial Japan, and as the indications of Soviet Russia’s designs for eastward European territorial domination were first appearing – and there’s at least an even chance I’ll cite them at least once more before another of our 2024 national holidays.  There has not been a time in over 75 years in which they have been as relevant as they are today, as former President Donald Trump, unabashedly using rhetoric that is often a direct lift from Adolf Hitler, seems poised to win the presidential nomination of a major American political party whose adherents now consist of the fascist, the poisonously tribal, the cowardly, or the blind.

For most of my lifetime, presidential elections have been won by the candidate that was most effective at obtaining the votes of those in the political middle of our electorate.  More recently, given a closely-divided, hyper-polarized polity in which virtually all of our citizens have hardened leanings either right or left, winning has involved turnout – i.e., which side is better able to squeeze more votes out of its supporters.

This year, if democracy is to be preserved – assuming that Mr. Trump does win the Republican nomination – the supporters of the Democrat opposing him – overwhelmingly likely to be President Joe Biden – will need to be good at both.  Democrats will need to persuade enough of the disaffected and disappointed – particularly among minorities and the young – that it does matter for their futures to go to the polls to vote against Mr. Trump.  At the same time, Democrats will need to convince enough older voters who would in normal times lean toward a traditional Republican candidate that what matters in 2024 is preserving democracy — that there will always be another election in 2028 if Mr. Biden is reelected, no matter what he does.

It must be faced:  Mr. Trump’s cultish supporters will not leave him, and will show up on Election Day.  Mr. Biden’s seemingly increasing physical infirmity and what certainly appears to be a mishandled situation at our southern border clearly hurt his prospects.  The animating issue of abortion, together with what increasingly appears will be a soft economic landing and Mr. Trump’s chilling fascist rhetoric, are obviously powerful political assets to help Democrats persuade the open-minded.  Foreign policy (our apparently waning willingness to continue to support Ukraine, and our clearly dwindling patience with Israel’s manifestly indiscriminate destruction of Gaza) and the outcomes of Mr. Trump’s criminal and civil court proceedings are political wildcards.

It’s going to be that close.       

So as we celebrate the dawn of another year that has been given us, and amid whatever other New Year’s resolutions you may be contemplating, let me offer this:  consider how you might, as Mr. Churchill suggested over 75 years ago, apply your strength and resilience in the coming year to the work we have to do to preserve our democratic way of life. Don’t let exhaustion win.

Thank you for the honor of allowing me to share these posts with you again in 2023.

May you, your family and friends have a Happy and Healthy New Year.

A Letter to the Editor

[Today, I emailed the following letter to the Wall Street Journal.  I have no expectation it will be published; my letters to the Journal never are.  😉 ]

In your editorial, “The Supreme Court Spurns Jack Smith,” and Peggy Noonan’s column, “National Unity and the Colorado Supreme Court,” both published shortly before Christmas, the Editorial Board and Ms. Noonan set forth an approving perspective of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices which I do not share. 

In your editorial, you applaud the Court’s recent refusal to provide an expedited ruling sought by Special Counsel Jack Smith on Mr. Trump’s claimed immunity defense, declaring, “[Mr. Smith’s] plea was purely political so he could meet his opening trial date … and get a conviction of Mr. Trump before Election Day in 2024.”  To the contrary, I find the Court’s declination to be a despicable dereliction of its duty.  The charges against Mr. Trump are credible and of the utmost import.  (In her piece, Ms. Noonan observed, “I believe that in the court cases [Mr. Trump] faces he will be found guilty of many charges.”  One can infer from the Editorial Board’s criticism of Mr. Smith that it expects that if Mr. Smith does get Mr. Trump to trial, Mr. Trump will be found guilty.  It is seemingly fair to assume that if Mr. Trump was himself confident that he would be found innocent, he would be seeking the earliest possible trial date.)  It is not “political,” in the partisan sense, for the Special Counsel to seek the earliest possible trial date to enable our citizenry to learn whether a leading candidate for the presidency is guilty of crimes against the country he wishes to lead and the Constitution he had sworn to uphold.  Does anyone doubt that the Supreme Court won’t ultimately have to rule on Mr. Trump’s immunity claim – while its unwillingness to proceed at this juncture might well delay the trial to the point that Mr. Trump’s Republican presidential nomination is a fait accompli notwithstanding any guilty verdict?

The Editorial Board’s editorial’s sub-head declared that the Supreme Court Justices “wisely” refused to grant Mr. Smith’s motion for an expedited hearing.  In her column, Mr. Noonan stated, “… I respect [the Supreme Court Justices], not only as an institution but individually, as serious human beings.”  I would submit that by denying Mr. Smith’s motion, at least six Justices have shown themselves to be neither wise nor serious, but merely political partisans, hiding behind their robes.

[Final note:  despite my disdain for the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant Mr. Smith’s motion of an expedited hearing on the presidential immunity issue, I actually agree with the main point Ms. Noonan was making in her column:  that the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent holding, barring former President Donald Trump from being on the Colorado presidential ballot under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, should not stand.  No matter how strong the legal reasoning might be, the former president hasn’t yet been convicted of anything; removing him from the ballot by judicial fiat smacks of political persecution and invites civil unrest.]

What Makes … a Christian?

[A preliminary note:  my comments below will undoubtedly reflect my Roman Catholic training, and may not relate exactly to all Christian faiths.]

As Christmas is upon us, I’ve reflected upon what I think makes … a Christian.  Traditional Christian theology holds that Jesus of Nazareth was God made man, conceived in the womb of a virgin without sin, who came into the world to teach us an affirmative life of love (as a complement rather than as a contradiction to Judaic law, which I understand tends to focus on prohibitions), and willingly died as a sacrifice to God the Father as expiation for the sins of humankind.  His themes as recorded in the Gospels – what Christians call, “the Good News” — are compelling but relatively few.  What theologians have erected upon them over the last two millennia can be likened to an exponentially mushrooming coral reef. 

I’m pretty confident that the hierarchy of my Roman Catholic Church would take significant issue with some of what follows; they might well consider me a fallen-away Catholic, perhaps even a fallen-away Christian.  That’s as may be.  One tenet that I am confident that religious scholars of most if not all faiths agree upon:  each of us is responsible for his/her own soul.  I personally would add another tenet, with which many of these worthies might not agree:  That those of us who claim to believe in Him can, at best, only do what we have faith He wants.  During the last 60 years – let alone the last 2000 years — there have been Popes who have had such different theological emphases that such differences have seemed to come precariously close to differences in kind.  I don’t see how those of us with no claim to infallibility can expect to have any greater degree of enlightenment or unanimity.

The strictest view of Christianity is that followed by those who rigidly adhere to all of the dictates of the hierarchy of their given Christian Church.  (Some – including Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson – maintain that they are following the Bible’s precepts.  I respectfully disagree.  The Bible can be cited for just about anything anybody wants.  It’s a Church’s elders who decide which of the Bible’s passages will be emphasized, which ignored.)  From the Roman Catholic perspective, strict Catholics would be those whose beliefs include, as the Church hierarchy declares:  that the physical expression of homosexual love is a sin (Pope Francis’ authorization this week for priests to bless same-sex couples is certainly a softening but seemingly not a reversal of the Church’s traditional position); that Mary, the Mother of Jesus – for whom I have the deepest reverence — was not only a virgin when the Lord was conceived in her womb, but was ever-virgin (i.e., never engaged in sexual relations despite the fact that she was a married woman); that women are inherently unqualified to be priests; and that it is a sin to fail to attend Mass on the Church’s designated Holy Days of Obligation (unless the Holy Day falls on a Monday; apparently, Mondays are less Holy than other days). 

Abiding by a set of such rules is the correct approach for some.  Everyone finds spiritual solace in his or her own way.  Not all can be as unquestioning of church elders’ pronouncements.

A second, less formalistic view holds that Jesus is the Son of God, but that the Lord’s fundamental message focused little on legalisms and mostly on love.  Jesus did seemingly pay lesser heed to ritualistic observance of religious rules:  “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings.”  (Matthews 23: 13); “Who among you, if your son or ox falls into a cistern, would not [despite Judaic law] immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?”  (Luke 14: 5).  This at first does appear to provide a theological safety net for those reluctant to abide by rigid dictates; that said, the core of the Lord’s teaching, while simple, is in fact exceedingly challenging in our competitive, materialistic (capitalistic? 😉 ) culture:  “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the greatest and the first commandment.  The second is like it:  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  (Matthew 22: 37 – 39); “[L]ove your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.  Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.  Do to others as you would have them do to you.”  (Luke 6: 27-31); “[I]t is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19: 24).  Finally, when one analyzes it perhaps the most perilous line in all of Scripture, recited by rote by millions of Christians every day:  “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us [Emphasis added].”

If you’re shifting a bit in your chair as you’re reminded of these, you’re not alone.  These teachings are something to strive for – while setting an unnerving standard.

Finally:  Does one have to believe that Jesus was God in order to be considered a Christian?  I suspect that the hierarchy of every Christian denomination would answer resoundingly in the affirmative, many presumably quoting John 14: 6:  “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.’ [Emphasis Added].”  Put aside the fact that biblical scholars agree that John was the last Gospel written, and that John reports Jesus as affirmatively declaring his divinity in a manner that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, written closer in time to Jesus’ life, fail to record.  (I think biblical scholars also agree that none of the Gospels were written by the men to whom they are respectively attributed.)  Even so:  Is the way to salvation only through Him, or can it be through living His message (whether or not one is even aware that it was His message)?  Have the deceased human beings who have lived existences of caring and giving  — among them, Jews, Muslims, those subscribing to Eastern faiths, indigenous peoples around the world, and those who follow no specific faith – been condemned because they have/had either never heard of Jesus or do/did not accept his divinity?

I reject the notion that a loving God could be so harsh to so many of the creatures He has brought forth. 

At the same time, we are all in need forgiveness.  Our faith lies in the confidence that the Almighty will look past our transgressions if we try hard enough.

“But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’  … [T]hey went away one by one, beginning with the elders.  So he was left alone with the woman before him.  Then Jesus … said to her, ‘Woman, where are they?  Has no one condemned you?’  She replied, “No one, sir.’  Then Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you.  Go, and from now on sin no more.’”  (John 8: 7 – 11).

Not sinning in the future is probably not a realistic expectation for most of us; trying to live a more giving life perhaps is.  So to all Christians – which I would submit includes all of those of any or no faith who are trying to live in accordance with the principles the Lord set forth:

Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year.

Ukraine at the Precipice

As all who care are aware, a package to respectively provide billions in aid to Ukraine in its struggle against Russia, to Israel in its struggle against Hamas, and to Taiwan to help shore up its defenses against China is being tied up in a U.S. Senate squabble in which Republicans are insisting upon changes to American border security policy that are apparently an anathema to Democrats.  Last week, several outlets reported that a number of Senate Republicans “stormed out” of a meeting with Senate Democrats because they did not consider Democrats to be taking their border security demands seriously.

Although some – including me — might initially dismiss the Republicans’ opposition as pandering to their base, I took particular note that U.S. UT Sen. Mitt Romney – who is not running for re-election, has unassailable credentials as an opponent of Russian aggression, and is almost certainly not beloved by his caucus colleagues after his votes to convict former President Trump in both his impeachment trials and given the revelations in Mr. Romney’s book, Romney:  A Reckoning – was among the most incensed by what he viewed as Democrats’ intransigence on border issues.  On December 5, he tweeted:  “Dems want $106B—GOP wants a closed border. That’s the trade. But clueless Dems want to negotiate the border bill. Not going to happen. Is an open border more important to Dems than Ukraine and Israel?”.

I didn’t see it, but The Hill reported Sunday that on NBC News’ Meet the Press, Mr. Romney stated in part:

“It’s not just Republicans that are holding a hard line. It’s Democrats who are holding a hard line. Either side can move and can get this done. …  We have gone from one to 2000 [illegal] encounters at the border a day under … Bush, Obama and Trump [to] … 10 to 12,000 a day.  As Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman said, we’re basically seeing Pittsburgh show up [at] the border every month.”

Mr. Romney is an estimable man.  Given his views, I’m willing to assume that Senate Democrats are being too rigid.

Let’s put Taiwan and Israel aside for purposes of this note; at this moment, it appears unlikely that China’s President Xi Jinping is going to risk further hardening American attitude against China by ordering a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and, as I have previously observed here, it’s pretty clear that Israel has shown little need for our military aid to either defeat Hamas or to lay complete waste to the Gaza Strip. 

On the other hand, there appears to be consensus that Ukraine is about out of money, and without our military and economic aid, Ukraine will fall under Russian domination within the foreseeable future.  I have found the way that at least the electronic news outlets we follow have focused so heavily on the Israel-Hamas conflict since the Hamas attack of October 7, with scant attendant coverage of Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion, to be extremely distressing; such emphasis endangers western democracy by causing us to take our eye off the ball — Ukraine.  Business Insider has reported that Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Russia hoped lawmakers would continue to delay the Ukraine aid; The New Republic has reported that a Russian state television commentator has declared, “Well done, Republicans! They’re standing firm! That’s good for us.”

After all their sacrifices, all of the innocent deaths, all of the displacement, and all of the destruction of their homes and their institutions, and the attempted eradication of their nation and their culture by Vladimir Putin, and notwithstanding their Herculean defense of their homeland, without our continued assistance Ukrainians will lose.  Ukraine will disappear – perhaps even in name.  And we diddle and bicker.

I don’t know what the Republicans are demanding in the way of different or enhanced border security measures.  Even so, I will submit that if President Biden and Congressional Democrats can get Republicans’ agreement to authorize what the Administration deems to be sufficient aid to get Ukraine through to March, 2025, they should agree to all Republican border demands that don’t include shooting illegal immigrants or separating immigrant children from parents (there may be some other similarly egregious exception I’m overlooking, but you get the idea).  If advising Mr. Biden, I would recommend that he call his old Senate colleague, Senate Minority Leader U.S. KY Sen. Mitch McConnell – who is currently among those holding up Ukraine aid to obtain additional border security, but does support aid for Ukraine — find out from Mr. McConnell exactly what border measures Senate Republicans are demanding in return for supporting Ukraine aid, and then – assuming that there are no Republican conditions as malign as those I listed above — call Senate Majority Leader U.S. NY Sen. Chuck Schumer and strongly advise Mr. Schumer to … Do. The. Deal.

My rationale is pretty basic:  what happens now on the border doesn’t, from a practical standpoint, matter that much.  If Mr. Biden wins in November, 2024, Democrats are likely to control both chambers of Congress; they can then attempt to undo whatever measures are enacted now that they consider too onerous.  If Donald Trump wins the presidency next November, whatever strictures are put into effect now will be but a prelude to what Mr. Trump (with, if he is elected, will likely be a Republican-controlled Congress) will do anyway in 2025.

Although this is of wildly lesser import, I would agree with those who have opined that signing a law with stringent border measures may actually help Mr. Biden politically.  By all accounts, those living near our southern border have reasonable concerns about what appears to be our mishandling of border security (no matter whose fault it actually is, the political reality is that the buck stops at the White House), and even many living in the snowy Midwest find the border an emotive issue.  [I was surprised to find how border security resonated with central Wisconsinites at a Republican Town Hall Meeting we attended a couple of years ago.  Although one could argue that the mid-state Wisconsin resident is only marginally more likely to be harmed by an illegal immigrant than s/he is to be strangled by a Burmese python (which are now reported to be migrating north in Florida, having wiped out the available prey in the Everglades), it doesn’t matter.  Citizens vote on their perceptions.]  If Mr. Biden supports stiffer border controls, he will — unlike the many Republicans who are now hypocritically touting the benefits of the Biden Administration’s Infrastructure Law for their districts, despite that fact that they voted against it – be able to correctly declare that he took serious steps to secure our border.  The Wall Street Journal noted recently that if he does make major immigration concessions to Republicans, the President risks losing support amongst some segments of Democratic voters; I would counter that if/when these disgruntled Democrats recognize that the alternative to a Biden vote is a Trump Restoration, they’ll come around.

I am sickened by the fact that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has to come to Washington this week to plead – to beg – for assistance that we have the wherewithal to provide which will continue to defend his nation while at the same time safeguarding ours.  The Ukrainians can’t afford to wait 13 months until (under the happiest scenario) Mr. Biden has won reelection and Democrats have regained control of Congress.  By then, Russia will have conquered Ukraine and the NATO alliance will, for all intents and purposes, be in shreds.  Mr. Biden’s party controls the Senate, albeit narrowly.  He needs to do virtually anything within his power to secure aid for the Ukrainians now. 

I recognize that this post approaches rant (or perhaps merely exhibits desperation).  Is the Congressional compromise I urge here ugly?  Without doubt.  Essentially acquiescing to blackmail?  Unquestionably.  Domestic Realpolitik?  Certainly.  Necessary to help sustain global democracy?  Seemingly, Yes.

The Ironies of Kevin McCarthy

As all who care are aware, the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican U.S. CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy, announced Wednesday that he is leaving his seat in the House as of the end of 2023.  Although he never seemed to me to present, through his own affirmative behavior, as much danger to democracy as former President Donald Trump and other MAGAS, his acquiescence to their actions unquestionably facilitated their cause.  I would submit that his legacy can most fairly be characterized as that of an unprincipled, gutless lickspittle.

It is Mr. McCarthy’s personal irony – not dissimilar to the irony that U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is likely to never again be Senate Majority Leader because he succeeded so well in orchestrating the elevation of U.S. Supreme Court Justices willing to strike down Roe v. Wade – that in his maneuvering and concessions to gain the necessary votes to become House Speaker at the beginning of this year, he laid the groundwork for his own truly ignominious ouster.  If I could ask Mr. McCarthy one question today, it would be this:  Given the bootlicking gyrations you had to go through to get the Speakership, and the humiliation you suffered at the hands of MAGA nihilists in being ejected from it – was it worth it?

Unfortunately, a corresponding irony has rebounded upon House Democrats and their leader, U.S. NY Rep. Hakeem Jeffries.  They so detested Mr. McCarthy for his duplicity that when he faced the challenge to his Speakership from a pivotal – yet actually quite small – faction within his caucus, they refused to prop him up, although it seemed very possible that if they did so, they could thereafter exploit his ambition and weakness to further some of their agenda.  They chose to gamble that they’d get a new Republican Speaker who, from their perspective, would either be better or no worse.

As flawed as Mr. McCarthy is, that has so far looked like a bad bet, for the country and for the world.

On we march.

On Jordan Love

On Sunday afternoon, on a string maintained by avid family Packer backers, I indicated, “Don’t expect them [the Packers] to win tonight but if the kid [Packer Quarterback Jordan Love] plays well against the World Champions [the Kansas City Chiefs], maybe – just maybe – we’ve got something.”

Mr. Love completed 25-of-36 passes for 267 yards with three touchdowns and no interceptions.  As all who care are aware, the Packers (arguably aided by two late-game pass interference infractions that weren’t called  😉 ) defeated the Chiefs 27 – 19 on Sunday night.  If the season ended now, Green Bay would qualify for the NFC playoffs under the NFL’s process for determining playoff priority.

As anybody reading any of the Packer-related notes which I have posted in recent years is well aware, I have had deep doubts about Mr. Love’s ability to worthily succeed his storied Packer Quarterback predecessors, Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers.  My concerns were based less upon his uncertain play in his infrequent appearances during Mr. Rodgers’ last Green Bay seasons than upon the team’s marked reluctance to move on from Mr. Rodgers – an approach in stark contrast to the haste with which the team dispensed with Mr. Favre in favor of Mr. Rodgers a football generation ago – despite Mr. Rodgers’ $50 million 2022 salary and his tendency to be what my mother would have called, “obstreperous.”  Green Bay’s apparent hesitation to transition to Mr. Love appeared to me to be a clear indication that the team — despite Packer General Manager Brian Gutekunst’s decision to move up in the first round of the 2020 NFL draft to select him – didn’t consider him, after years of review, to be able to perform at anywhere near the level of excellence maintained by Messrs. Favre and Rodgers dating back to 1992.

After a promising start that included leading an 18-point fourth quarter comeback to beat the New Orleans Saints 18 – 17 in Week 3, Mr. Love experienced mid-season doldrums – the team lost four in row to fall to 2 – 5 — that reinforced the doubts of his skeptics – including me 😉 .  Since that time, Mr. Love has – to use another phrase of my mother’s – “come on like gangbusters”; in his last three games, Mr. Love has thrown eight touchdown passes with no interceptions (although a couple of his biggest throws against Kansas City were more reminiscent of Mr. Favre than Mr. Rodgers – which is to say that although they were successful, they were a bit dicey).  He has led the Green and Gold to impressive victories over a hungry Detroit Lions team on the road on Thanksgiving and now over the World Champion Chiefs (who seemed at least to me to believe, coming into Sunday night’s game, that they were going to win pretty easily).  I understand that before the Kansas City game, Mr. Love’s quarterbacking statistics were largely indistinguishable from those posted by Mr. Rodgers at the same point in his first season as the Green Bay starter.

Based upon what we’ve seen thus far, am I hailing Mr. Love as The Third Coming?  Certainly not.  We’ll see how he performs for the rest of the year.  Nobody was really expecting much after the Packers’ mid-season nosedive; now, although none of Green Bay’s last four opponents has a better record than the Packers, the expectations and the pressure – the hope to make the playoffs – will be there.  Young quarterbacks frequently regress in their early years of development (although I don’t recall either Mr. Favre or Mr. Rodgers doing so to any notable degree).  Even if Green Bay does somehow make the playoffs, I would expect that it will be easily dispatched by any of the NFC teams likely to be its first round opponent.  That said, it’s fun to have a young team that shows promise to root for, to provide a distraction from the issues and cares generally addressed in these pages.

This note is primarily for the benefit of those of our younger Packer fan family members, who all along have been much more bullish about Mr. Love’s prospects than I, and have joshed me about my misgivings.  To them, I acknowledge that maybe – just maybe – we’ve got something 🙂 .