text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Chuck Todd, Julia Boorstin, Eleanor Clift, Pat Buchanan, Alan Gottlieb, Ron Reagan, Rep. Anthony Weiner
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Anger management. Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington. Leading off tonight:
The numbers behind the anger. OK, we've got a new NBC News poll. It gives you a good idea of why a lot of people are angry about the health care reform push, and it shows that the reasons for this anger—concern the health care plan will pay for illegal immigrants, that it'll pay for abortion, that it will lead to a government takeover of health care—are all basically unfounded. The bill that passes Congress and gets signed by the president this year is not going to do any of those things.
Meanwhile, while many people are worried that the government will try to do too much with health care, liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives are saying the president may not do enough, that he's not fighting hard enough to get what's called the public option, a government-run insurance plan to complement and compete with the plans sold by insurance companies.
U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner is one of those liberals who wants to see the government-run health care financing, period. In fact, he sees no reason to even have private insurance companies. He's precisely, by the way, what conservatives fear most, the liberal who wants a single-payer system, a liberal who wants government and only government financing health care. We're going to have him on to explain his position. He's coming here to HARDBALL tonight.
And we have to talk gunplay tonight. Protesters are again bringing loaded guns to rallies outside President Obama's town hall meetings. This guy in Phoenix yesterday was carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. No permits required, no arrests made. You can believe these people are merely practicing their constitutional right to bear arms, but why are they doing it at presidential events?
This country has a bad history of guns at presidential events starting in 1865 and running through Garfield, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, who was shot at, FDR, who was shot at, Harry Truman, who was shot at, JFK, Gerald Ford, who was shot at twice, and Ronald Reagan, who was shot. Let's get at it tonight. Why are people bringing guns to presidential events?
And let's have a discussion about Robert Novak, the conservative columnist and provocateur. You could call him a tummler, in fact. He knew how to shake things up. He died today. Let's talk to Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift about him. They were two people who were with him, Bob Novak, when he hit television actually in the first place, back on the old great—well, it's still on the air—"McLaughlin Group."
We begin with that new NBC poll that explains the heat over health care. It really does. NBC News's Chuck Todd is our political director, of course, at NBC News, and also the chief White House correspondent for NBC News. By the way, Twinkle Toes couldn't make it tonight. Tom DeLay is working hard to get ready for "Dancing With the Stars." He took time out today to begin his rehearsal. He'll be on tomorrow night. By the way, Twinkle Toes is his name. It's no longer "the hammer." Sorry. That's your job description.
President Obama's job approval—thank you, Chuck. You got a chuckle out of...
MATTHEWS: ... we have fun here! The health care -- 41 percent, that's the same as it was a month ago, 41 percent for it, 47 percent against it. No change there. Also, look at this. If you think the Republicans are gaining in this mishmash, take a look again -- 62 percent don't like what the Republicans are doing on health care, 21 percent do. So 3 to 1, they don't like what the Republicans are talking about.
This is interesting, Chuck—Chuckaroo!
CHUCK TODD, NBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT/POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes, sir?
MATTHEWS: How can it be that people are so mad—at least, half the country seems to be...
TODD: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... about health care, and yet at the same time, they're not giving the Republicans anything on it?
TODD: Well, this just goes—you know, this is our third straight poll where we have seen erosion in President Obama's numbers in some form or another, whether overall job rating in this, in health care, and the various thing we saw on the economy...
MATTHEWS: Well, who do they trust on health care?
TODD: But that's the thing. We have not ever yet seen a bounce up for the Republicans. It is still—look, we always say that the country has ADD, you know, and doesn't seem to remember what happened just five minutes ago. They still remember that they fired the Republicans for the last two elections, and so...
MATTHEWS: They're invested in that retirement.
TODD: That's right. And they haven't yet—there's nothing to believe there. There is room here. If Obama fails, if Obama and the Democrats fail, I—you know, the big warning to both political parties is if there's a short-term—if it happens soon, there's going—something is going to pop up somewhere else because they're not going to bounce to the Republicans. They'll either not show up to the next election...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
TODD: There'll be—whatever—the angry voter will either not show up, or some other third entity is going to tap into something.
MATTHEWS: Really?
TODD: It's just—that is—that is what you—if there is—if it is seen as gridlock failure here with the Democrats, the Republicans haven't built up that trust. There'll be some...
MATTHEWS: ... gun-toting right-wing movement people out there who are far beyond either political party.
TODD: The Republicans would say this. They would argue, We haven't had to do anything to be for anything yet. We're sitting here only running against something.
TODD: And that's why there's a negative.
MATTHEWS: OK, let's take a look at this number, too, another set of numbers in the new NBC poll. A majority of the country is more concerned that health care reform will go too far instead of not doing enough. So now you see the growing concern, Do no harm—going too far, 54 percent. Only 41 percent say it's not doing enough.
TODD: Two most important groups, I would argue, in this are seniors, who—by the way, the lowest demographic group of approving of President Obama's performance. All the age groups narrowly approve of the president, the president's overall job, but seniors, it's the lowest number. That's not good for any Democratic president. But it's...
MATTHEWS: But they already have health care.
TODD: Well, but...
MATTHEWS: Isn't that why they don't want any change?
TODD: They're fearful of the change. That's one group.
MATTHEWS: But they have it now.
TODD: The second group—correct.
MATTHEWS: They have government-run health care. It's called Medicare.
TODD: That's right. But I'm saying that is—they have lost the message with seniors. The second group that's important in that number that we just showed is people with private insurance. And that's 60 percent of the country has private insurance. And they are—and they are very concerned about seeing change because right now, at the end of the day, they still like what they have.
MATTHEWS: OK, here's—getting to your point here, a majority of the country now opposes the idea of public health care, what's called the "public option." It's very narrow, though. In all fairness, it's within the margin of error. It's 43 percent favor, 47 disfavor it, oppose it.
TODD: By the way, interesting thing here because there are some groups who are trying to criticize us for how we're wording questions. If you add the word "choice," it can buy (ph) us a poll question. So for the last two months, we took out the word the "choice" and said "competitor," that the public—that the public insurance companies would—the public government option would compete against private insurance companies, and that's where you get a more narrow—but the thing...
MATTHEWS: But guess what? The liberals are now mad at us for not putting the word "choice"...
TODD: They want the word "choice."
TODD: Everybody is going to be...
TODD: ... angry about something. The most important number in that demographic—we have a Blue Dog demographic sub-sample here, OK, which are white Democrats who do not identify—call themselves liberal. They call themselves moderate or even conservative. They have—they approve of the public opinion in much lower numbers than Democrats overall. It's no wonder the president wants to—is putting that on the negotiating block.
MATTHEWS: OK, let's take a look at the stories that are making people angry.
TODD: Right.
MATTHEWS: Right now, the country is split on the town hall protests, 43 percent say they do harm, 42 percent say the opposite. Let's leave that. Let's take a look now at what's really driving the country...
TODD: By the way, that's total polarization. Sixty-four percent of Democrats...
MATTHEWS: Sure. If you're on the right, you like it.
MATTHEWS: So let's go to the reasons. This is what I really want to get to. This is the reason why people are carrying guns, why they're getting so heated. These are the reasons, I think. Let's take a look at what the country thinks of the criticisms voiced at town hall meetings about health care reform. Fifty-five percent think it's more likely that the illegal immigrants will get health insurance. Now, I've been checking around the Hill today. People say this bill that comes out of the Congress will not pay for health insurance for illegal immigrants, period.
TODD: Judged by fact-checkers, it's been proven untrue.
TODD: Lookit, 55 percent. This...
TODD: So they're wrong.
MATTHEWS: They're wrong, but this is what they're hearing and this is what...
TODD: OK, it's a scare term and it's not right. Second one—oh, let's—the government takeover. It will lead to a government takeover. Well, now, without even a public option being probable, the odds of this turning into a public—government takeover are almost zero.
MATTHEWS: Look, one could argue that this is a debatable point. This is depending on where you sit ideologically. You—you know, there are conservatives that will argue Medicare has already been the start of the eventual takeover of government. So in fairness, on that point, this is a debatable ideological view.
TODD: But obviously, a majority...
MATTHEWS: And that's just a general trend towards more government involvement in our social issues.
TODD: Correct.
MATTHEWS: Right. Fair enough. Let's look at this one. Pay for abortions -- 50 percent, half the country now say it's likely the taxpayers dollars will have—checking on the Hill, they say the Hyde amendment is still in effect.
TODD: Right.
MATTHEWS: No federal dollars for abortion.
TODD: Now, what some conservative groups argue is that because you will—because the federal government will subsidize lower-income folks to buy private insurance that will cover abortion, that you go from A to B to C to D, and eventually, that's proof that taxpayer money eventually will pay for an abortion. Look, it depends on your point of view on that issue, if you believe (INAUDIBLE) taking that entire A to B to C to D route gets you to government...
MATTHEWS: Well, there's the—that's a fair—that's a fair leap, though. If you subsidize buying insurance...
TODD: To some people, that's a fair leap.
MATTHEWS: ... and that insurance covers abortion—so you're saying these plans would do that.
TODD: Well, no, I'm just saying that is the argument that...
MATTHEWS: Well, will these plans—will these plans cover abortion the government's subsidizing?
TODD: Not a single independent fact checker has been able to prove that...
TODD: ... Hyde amendment is the law of the land.
MATTHEWS: We'll see how the courts rule on that one. How about "death panels"?
TODD: Well, this was...
MATTHEWS: Forty-five percent say there's going to be "death panels."
TODD: Well, no, and we worded it—we did not use the word "death panel" because I think "death panel" is a charged term, at this point. We said that the government—the way we worded it to voters, that the government would make the ultimate decision of when to stop giving medical care to the elderly. So we did not use a charged political term. Forty-five percent believe this. This was among—and for what it's worth, by the way, seniors actually believed it less than the overall public. So this—you know, there has been this idea that somehow this was a scare tactic with seniors...
MATTHEWS: So they believe the government will pull the plug.
TODD: No, they don't. A majority of seniors believe...
MATTHEWS: But 45 percent do.
TODD: But 45 percent.
MATTHEWS: That's a lot.
TODD: It is a lot of people.
MATTHEWS: And you figure they're not going to be for it!
TODD: It is a lot of people. And you could argue—and we have one other question in here that tells you—so you make all these points on the myths, right, and you have 50 percent on three of the four, 45 percent, a near majority, on the fourth. When you actually give them the president's plan, a majority approve of it, when you lay it out.
MATTHEWS: Fifty-three, forty-three.
TODD: Right. So what does that tell you? It means he's not getting his message across because...
TODD: ... the opposition is (INAUDIBLE)
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this—let's get off the public opinion to politics. You're very good at it.
TODD: Yes, sir.
MATTHEWS: I'm sort of a political moderate, meaning I'd like to see progress made in this country, but I want to see our society hold together. That's what kind of a person I am. I want this society to stick together. I want America to work, all right? That's my basic notion. If you don't get 60 votes in the Senate and you don't get 218 votes in the House, all this is blather.
TODD: Right.
MATTHEWS: So why do people hold the positions that won't get 60 in the Senate and won't get 218 in the House?
TODD: Well, I'll tell you this...
MATTHEWS: Why would anybody take—and then still say...
TODD: I assume you're talking about the public option.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Still say they're for health care reform.
TODD: This fight over the public option. And I'll tell you where the White House's head is. They're frustrated because they believe, actually, the left—the people that are most up in arms on the public option don't understand what they're even for when it comes to the public—every—when you ask some groups on the left, What's the public option, they each give you a different definition.
So the White House is trying to preach patience here and saying, Hey, hold on a minute. Maybe the co-ops is going to be able to...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
TODD: ... to do what you want it to do on the public option. But you need to be patient here. You need to understand that this stuff isn't politically popular, and in fact, it's not even politically popular with some Democrats. As I pointed out, the Blue Dog Democrats...
TODD: This is a Democratic...
MATTHEWS: We got Anthony Weiner coming here tonight...
TODD: Look, Anthony Weiner's constituents...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
TODD: ... OK, I can tell you, we can look at our—Anthony Weiner's constituents want what Anthony Weiner wants, single-payer health care.
MATTHEWS: I know because he represents a district in Brooklyn, yes.
TODD: Ben Nelson's constituents...
MATTHEWS: ... a liberal district, yes.
TODD: ... don't want this.
MATTHEWS: Right. I know. There's different strokes.
TODD: And you can't—and that's the political fact of life.
MATTHEWS: Yes. I agree. Thank you very much, Chuck Todd. Thank you, sir.
Coming up, backlash from the liberal side of things, indications that the president may be backing away from the public option and liberals don't like it. Let's see what's workable here.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was President Obama on Saturday, just a few days ago, talking about the public option. Well, is it dead? Meaning, will there be a government option, a government alternative to private insurance for some people in this country? Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner is from New York. He's been around for a while, and he's a powerful member of the House powerful Energy and Commerce Committee.
Sir, I watched you on the "TODAY" show—no, I think it was on "MORNING JOE" this morning. You were good.
REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this question. You're for single-payer.
WEINER: I am.
MATTHEWS: You believe the government should run, basically, Medicare for everybody.
WEINER: Not run, but we should be the ones to pay for it. Still doctors should run their own shops. Hospitals should run their own...
MATTHEWS: Right, but the government should run...
WEINER: But we shouldn't give money to insurance companies to pay for it. We should Medicare—a program like Medicare reimburse doctors and hospitals, right.
MATTHEWS: You were pretty tough with my colleague, Joe Scarborough, this morning, saying, OK, what do insurance companies actually do? Was that a rhetorical device, or do you really wonder what they do?
WEINER: I wonder what...
MATTHEWS: To make a living.
WEINER: No, what the value added that they bring, like, what it is that they're adding to the...
MATTHEWS: OK, Lee Iacocca...
WEINER: ... transaction.
MATTHEWS: ... makes cars. Steven Spielberg makes movies. What do insurance companies make? What is their product? Is it just—are they track (ph) counts (ph)?
WEINER: No, insurance companies...
MATTHEWS: Basically, beg (ph) for people not to have broken arms?
WEINER: Basically, in non—in a commodity sense of the word, like automobiles, for example, where you can choose what car you drive, where you drive it...
MATTHEWS: Right.
WEINER: ... they apportion risk. That's not happening in the insurance industry, in the health insurance. You're not shopping around when you need an operation. You don't have the ability to say, I'm going to not get asthma, if you're born with asthma.
MATTHEWS: Right.
WEINER: It's not a commodity. So the insurance model doesn't work in the traditional sense, like a car or house, that it does...
MATTHEWS: OK, why do you think—you know this country, all across the country, even though you're from the East Coast. I'm from the East Coast. Why do you think the people in the heartland are suspicious of a government-run health care financing plan, rather than something that has a brand name on it? They seem more comfortable with a corporate brand name.
WEINER: Because they have been successfully—I mean, people have confused the notion of liking your doctor or hospital and liking your insurance company. I don't think people, despite what the president says, actually like their insurance company. They like their doctor and are concerned that that relationship is going to get broken. If you sit in a town hall meeting, as I have—I did a brunch of them—you have senior citizens sitting, nodding in agreement when they say Medicare works, and you have younger people...
MATTHEWS: Well, of course it works. It's a great deal.
WEINER: You have younger people who are saying they don't get it. But try this test out. Take someone who is 50 years old or 55 years old and say, Hey, you're going to get Medicare next year. They're going to be very happy.
MATTHEWS: Well, I agree with you.
WEINER: So people who understand Medicare are not as suspicious as...
WEINER: ... and that's 40 percent of the American people.
MATTHEWS: You're a politician. You deal with people, constituents, all the time. And I remember working on the Hill, you get a lot of case work you have to deal with, people with particular problems with the government. They don't get a disability claim they want to get. You know. You've been to them all—and Social Security.
WEINER: Right.
MATTHEWS: Why is it that some people in the political middle are less fearful of some corporate person, middle-level person, like in "Sicko," the movie, Michael Moore, saying no to you on a claim, and they're—but they're more worried about a government official saying no to them? They can't get the transplant. They can't get the MRI. Why are they more afraid of the government?
WEINER: It depends entirely what lens of your experience you're looking through. You know, we deal with hundreds and hundreds of cases where we have people who have problems with their health insurance. Very rarely do we have problems people who have problems with Medicare. So you know, people pay into their health insurance and they're concerned they're going to lose their coverage. Well, that's an unfounded fear. People who know someone in their family that has Medicare buy the Weiner argument that we should make this simpler and just extend Medicare to more and more people.
MATTHEWS: If we can afford it.
WEINER: Well, look, health care inflation...
MATTHEWS: But you admitted this morning we have a financing problem with Medicare.
WEINER: A hundred percent. And we have it with health care...
MATTHEWS: How are going to—if we give the whole country Medicare, we'll really be...
WEINER: Hold on a second. The health—financing problem with Medicare is actually there's less growth in Medicare spending than there is in the private insurance side, you know? And fewer people are losing their health insurance on Medicare, meaning nobody.
MATTHEWS: Yes, but the taxpayer is getting hit with it.
WEINER: Yes, but—no, hold on. The taxpayer's getting hit anyway, and this is the thing that I think the president's done a bad job with. The uninsured—I care about them as a academic matter, but I really care about them because my constituents are paying for their health care through hospital emergency rooms. If the president would get up and say, You know what? You don't like paying that bill, either? I don't want to, either. We want to make sure...
MATTHEWS: I like that argument. We're paying for it anyway. A person has a right to go to an ER. A hospital has a requirement to take care of people that come in. But if we're already paying for all this health care for the 40-some million people that are uninsured right now, then why does it cost an extra trillion dollars to do it officially?
WEINER: Because it doesn't cost an extra trillion dollars. We're taking money—I think $3 billion...
MATTHEWS: But that's the issue with the budget!
WEINER: No, no, no. People are looking at it all wrong. I pay $3 billion extra taxes in New York City because now New York City residents are getting stuck with this. Now we're going to say, Let's do this smart and do this with the federal government or do it with a co-op or do it with something else.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
WEINER: We are—the overall cost—if the overcall cost doesn't go down, we fail.
MATTHEWS: So you think you're...
WEINER: That's why...
MATTHEWS: You think you're giving relief to the localities (INAUDIBLE)
WEINER: We are—we are going to...
WEINER: We are going to wind up...
WEINER: We pay $2.5 trillion for health care. If we don't pay $2 trillion in five years from now...
WEINER: ... this whole process is a failure.
MATTHEWS: Congressman, it's a week before Halloween. You got a vote on the floor. You got a vote on a bill. It's coming out of conference. It doesn't have the public option. Will you vote for it?
WEINER: I don't know.
WEINER: Probably not, I mean, because I—if it doesn't...
MATTHEWS: Suppose your vote counts.
WEINER: If it doesn't control...
MATTHEWS: Suppose your vote is decisive.
WEINER: But the math is meaningful to me. If, indeed, it turns out it doesn't save us any money, it keeps this cost going up and up, my citizens are not going to get any relief...
WEINER: ... the answer is a no. And I think, frankly, a co-op plan won't do it.
MATTHEWS: Suppose it's got four elements in it. It's got individual mandates. Everybody's got to join. It's got subsidies for people who are working people. It's got some kind of encouragement to business to insure people. And it's got something to do with reform in terms of pre-existing conditions and portability.
WEINER: And no...
MATTHEWS: Will you vote for a bill like that?
WEINER: And no cost containment so the costs keep going up and it bankrupts our government? I can't vote for that.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you this. Is there any way to get a bill past the Congress except with 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House?
WEINER: Yes, I think we can do it with 51 in the Senate under reconciliation.
MATTHEWS: But you would never be—what—what—you would be willing to blow up the Senate rules and basically push it through that?
WEINER: What do you mean blow up the Senate rules?
Look, there's a reason that there's a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and Democratic presidency. That middle block of Americans want us to get this done.
WEINER: I don't think we're blowing up anything.
MATTHEWS: What do you think the Republican reaction would be if you ignored the rules and pushed through a bill...
WEINER: You know, honestly, waiting for Republican senators to be pleased with this process...
MATTHEWS: No, what will—what will they do? What will they do?
WEINER: ... is something I'm not prepared to wait for. I mean...
MATTHEWS: When the war begins...
MATTHEWS: Look—look, we have been through goddamn wars in this country. They're easy to start. It's easy—it's tough to end them. How do you stop a war that starts in the United States Senate right now because you jammed through a bill with less than 60 votes?
WEINER: What do you mean jam, started a war? What are you talking—we're trying to build...
MATTHEWS: What are the—what are the 40 Republicans going to do?
What are they going to do?
WEINER: Look, outside of this town, the American people really don't care about whether Chuck Grassley...
WEINER: ... for it or not.
MATTHEWS: I care about—no, will the government—will the government still function if you try to jam this through with 51 votes?
WEINER: I think it will.
MATTHEWS: You think the Republicans will put up with it?
WEINER: Look, I think that people are going to—are going to be upset. If it works, then everybody is going to be embracing it.
MATTHEWS: I know that people...
MATTHEWS: ... until the government shuts down.
WEINER: No, no. I'm saying—I'm saying structurally...
MATTHEWS: OK. So you basically believe the Republicans will take it on the chin?
WEINER: You know what? You know what? There was a lot of very hot language around the Medicare reform bill.
Look, whether or not—you know, I understand the idea the Senate has got to be the cooling sauce of our democracy. And I'm the House. I get it. I get it.
MATTHEWS: You're fighting a straw man.
WEINER: I do not buy...
WEINER: No, no, but I don't buy the idea that we have to build this reform on the foundation of Enzi and Grassley. That's not...
MATTHEWS: And Snowe.
WEINER: And Snowe. That is not getting us anywhere.
You know, I—the problem with what is going on at the White House right now is they're negotiating against themselves. You're not going to the votes of these guys.
MATTHEWS: So you basically disagree with the president. His strategy seems to be try to get some Republican support. Ted Kennedy probably can't make the vote. You are going to need 60. That's their strategy. You don't like that?
WEINER: I don't believe it's going to be successful. I just don't believe...
MATTHEWS: They won't get to 60...
WEINER: I believe they are not going to get to 60 at anything really worth all that much. And it's certainly not going to be what he's been going out and articulating we have all been fighting for, which is control costs...
MATTHEWS: I know.
WEINER: ... get support...
MATTHEWS: Have you talked to Rahm Emanuel about this?
WEINER: I don't think he's taking my calls right now.
MATTHEWS: I think he disagrees with you.
WEINER: I suspect he does.
MATTHEWS: I think he believes something is better than nothing. And you disagree with that.
WEINER: No, no, I—first of all, in the abstract, something better than nothing. I generally would go for the something. But, remember, cost containment is such an important part of this. We're bankrupting ourselves, bankrupting our economy.
MATTHEWS: And you believe the public option is the key to cost containment?
WEINER: I believe that, frankly, single-payer is the real you do it.
MATTHEWS: But...
WEINER: I don't even think public option gets you all the way there, but it at least gets you started.
MATTHEWS: But it is essential?
WEINER: And I don't believe that co-ops do it.
MATTHEWS: You believe it's essential to cost containment?
WEINER: I believe that there's nothing else in the bill that would do cost containment.
MATTHEWS: So, you see an Armageddon struggle over this in the fall, I mean a real struggle?
WEINER: ... Armageddon struggle.
MATTHEWS: Meaning, like, the liberals are going to say no way.
WEINER: Here's what I think happens. I think that the president realizes—at some point here, a switch goes off. And they say, you know what? Why don't we push for what we actually think is going to be the best possible policy, and try to sell it to that middle that elected us?
MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you two liberal questions, all right?
WEINER: Sure.
MATTHEWS: Should health care reform, the new bill that comes through, should it cover abortion?
WEINER: I believe...
MATTHEWS: Should it cover abortion as part of this plan?
WEINER: I am—I am uncomfortable with the idea that someone who is less well-to-do should have less options on any health care option.
MATTHEWS: No. But this covers—this covers like four times the poverty level.
WEINER: This is a weird one. What goes on in the bill right now—and I heard your discussion with Chuck—what goes on is, it kind of preserves the status quo, which is weird...
MATTHEWS: Right.
WEINER: ... which is a health plan can offer it if they want, so long as they figure out a way not to have federal dollars come in.
WEINER: My fundamental view is, we should not treat health care that someone who is well-to-do has more options than someone who is less...
MATTHEWS: So, you don't like the Hyde amendment?
WEINER: I don't.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you, well, should it cover illegal immigrants?
WEINER: No, the—the—the law...
MATTHEWS: Should it? I mean, under your goals, would it?
WEINER: You know, the problem, under my goals—they're getting paid for now.
MATTHEWS: So, you would support covering them?
WEINER: No, I—I think that the whole paradigm has to be we should cover people that are getting hospital care in emergency rooms in a more efficient way. I want to fix the immigration laws.
But none of the laws, you know, are—none of the bills that are being contemplated are going to allow anyone to sign up.
But I ask you this question. Someone who is undocumented walks into the Kings Highway—a hospital on Kings Highway, they're going to get care.
MATTHEWS: Right.
WEINER: We're going to wind up paying for it. So, we might think we are doing something by saying don't cover them under the bill, but we're really not. We're going to wind up paying for them anyway.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you. And you're an honest man. And it's good to hear you.
You're scaring the hell out of people on the right, but that's what you do. You don't have to represent them.
But we have to talk to everybody on this show. Thank you, sir.
WEINER: Thanks for having me.
MATTHEWS: And thank you so much for coming in during the recess.
WEINER: My pleasure.
MATTHEWS: This is a working congressman, and it's August.
Anthony Weiner, thank you.
Up next—you were great on "JOE" this morning.
Up next: tickling your funny bone. Health care is getting beat up on the late-night comedy. Wait until you see Jon Stewart. The power of satire, wait until you hear it. Stewart—well, he is something. Wait until you see him.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: There's something very Alfred Hitchcock about that opening.
Anyway, back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow."
First up, here is a good look at where the president now stands on health care. And I mean it. It's done in satire, but it has got the whole story. The president said we need to have a government-run health care plan to compete with the private insurance companies. That's what he said. Now he says we don't.
Here is Jon Stewart last night sending up this disconnect and how it's hurting the president.
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": Wait a second.
What did you just say?
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it.
STEWART: No public option? We still get to kill old people, though, right?
STEWART: Mr. President, I can't tell if you're a Jedi 10 steps ahead of everything...
STEWART: ... or if this whole health care thing is kicking your ass just a little bit.
STEWART: Why is this so hard? Why can't you guys just stay on message? Remember the Bush team, a little bit of discipline, a little of repetition? They sold us a war nobody wanted and nobody needed.
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The one choice we don't have is to do nothing.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The one option that we do not have is to do nothing.
COLIN POWELL, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Doing nothing is no longer an option.
STEWART: Must invade Iraq.
STEWART: Must invade Iraq.
STEWART: Salesmanship.
STEWART: Those guys could sell ice cubes to Eskimos. The Democrats, I don't even think could sells Eskimos (EXPLETIVE DELETED) they need. Insulation.
MATTHEWS: Well, my only problem with that comparison by Jon Stewart is, is, I don't want to be governed by people who are willing to say anything to get their way.
Next up: face time different times. Bill and Hillary Clinton both met with President Obama this afternoon, but not at the same hour. She, the secretary of state, had her meeting with the president at 1:30. He, the former president and hero of Pyongyang, had his meeting with the president at 4:00 this afternoon. Don't you wish you could listen in, A, when the two boys got together, and, B, when Hill and Bill compared notes over the phone afterwards?
How was it for you, dear?
MATTHEWS: And time for tonight's "Big Number."
The AARP has gone out on a bit of a limb by backing efforts for health care reform. So, here is proof that no good deed goes unpunished. How many seniors have canceled their membership in AARP this summer, specifically citing AARP's push for some sort of health care overhaul?
Sixty thousand. Sixty thousand seniors have walked out on AARP this summer over reform—tonight's "Big Number."
MATTHEWS: Up next: Why are protesters bringing loaded guns to rallies outside presidential events? They're bringing them to town meetings. There they are in the holster. What's going to keep those guns holstered? That's my question.
And this is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
JULIA BOORSTIN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Julia Boorstin with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stocks rebounded today on some better-than-expected retail earnings and an analyst upgrade for American Express. The Dow Jones industrials gained 82 points. The S&P 500 is up almost 10 points. And the Nasdaq added 25 points.
Target shares finished more than 7 percent higher. The discount retailer reported lower profits in the second quarter, but still managed to beat expectations. Home Depot shares gained more than 3 percent. Here again, profits were lower, but still not as low as predicted.
Hewlett-Packard finished about 2 percent higher on the day. The hardware-maker reported better-than-expected quarterly earnings and revenue just after the bell.
And American Express saw its shares gain more than 4 percent after two investment firms raised its rating, expecting it to outperform the market.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
When Obama, President Obama, gave his speech Monday at a Phoenix arena, about a dozen people carrying guns, including one man with a military-style semiautomatic rifle, were among the protesters outside.
Just last week, when the president spoke in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a man outside the event had a gun strapped to his leg. And, in a separate incident in Portsmouth, a man was arrested for having a loaded unlicensed gun in his car near the school where Obama, the president, held the health care forum.
Ronald Reagan is host of "The Ron Reagan Show" on Air America radio, and Alan Gottlieb founded the Second Amendment Foundation.
Mr. Gottlieb, why would a person bring a gun to a presidential event?
ALAN GOTTLIEB, FOUNDER, THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION: Well, I think the only legitimate reason to bring a gun would be for self-defense, and in which case it would be a lot better to carry it concealed with a license to do so, than open carry, the way they were doing it.
I think, quite honestly, politically, it's not a very astute decision to make. While it's maybe legal, I think it doesn't help the pro-gun-rights cause when you see people do that.
MATTHEWS: What do you think is their motivation?
GOTTLIEB: I really think, Chris, that their motivation was that they know that President Obama is very anti-gun rights, and they're raising the in-your-face kind of thing, saying, it's my right, and I can do it.
But I don't think it really sells well. And I don't think it get much converts to our cause.
MATTHEWS: You really believe that?
GOTTLIEB: Yes. I...
MATTHEWS: You're not just B.S.ing me here right now? You really believe this is about gun rights and his position on gun rights, even though we have had Democratic presidents for years who take basically the same position he's taken on gun rights, and nobody has shown up at events carrying guns, ever?
GOTTLIEB: Well, I don't think they have been quite as—there's no doubt that Obama's the most anti-gun-rights president we have had in the history of the United States, based on his past performance, his actions, his voting record, and statements that he's made.
MATTHEWS: And you—OK, I'm going to go—I don't agree with you, that your right to—I think there's a more deep-seated reason here. I think it has to do with people's sort of real ideologies involved here.
Let me go to Ron Reagan.
Ron, it seems to me the problem we have had with presidents is that people who have come to events with guns have used them. I'm just going through a history here. Your dad, of course, suffered from that -- 1860 --
1865 rather, Lincoln -- 1880, we elected Garfield. He was killed -- 1900, McKinley. Teddy Roosevelt was shot at. I think the speech in his pocket saved his life.
FDR was shot at. The mayor of Chicago was killed by that assassin attempt. Harry Truman was attacked by Puerto Rican nationalists. A Secret Service agent was killed defending him at the Blair House. Gerald Ford was shot at twice. Jack Kennedy was killed when he was shot. And your dad was almost killed.
Your thoughts on this subject. Why do people bring guns to presidential events?
RON REAGAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I think it's a much bigger thing than Alan a suggesting. I don't think it's about Second Amendment rights. I don't think it's about health care or any of the specific issues here.
The future is coming, Chris, and many people are scared of the future. This is one of those pivotal moments in our history, when you can sense that something is happening, something is going to change. And many people get very frightened by that.
Some people can hire lobbyists to push back against that change.
Other people who don't have that capacity do things like carry guns around. Alan is quite right. The only—the only real reason to carry a loaded handgun or assault-style rifle anywhere, hunting, target practice, or you intend to kill someone in self-defense.
Now, they're not going hunting. They're not going for target practice. So, who is it they that think they might have to kill? Well, they're holding up signs that say—talking about the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Maybe that gives us a little hint there.
MATTHEWS: What are the rules of engagement, Mr. Gottlieb, for the people who bring guns. In other words, under what circumstances would they use them in one of these crowded events?
GOTTLIEB: Well, first of all, I would say you have to take a look, Chris, at what's legal and not. And it changes all across the country.
MATTHEWS: No. What—under what circumstances would they use the guns?
GOTTLIEB: Oh, well, it could...
MATTHEWS: In a public event like this, with people crowding around a president at a school somewhere, under what circumstances at such an event, which is where they're bringing the gun, would they use it?
GOTTLIEB: Well, this is an outside rally area with people protesting on all sides of an issue. And, sometimes, they get violent. And, for self-protection, you may want to protect yourself against somebody that wants to do some violence to you.
MATTHEWS: You really—are you talking—I wish I had you under sodium pentathol, sir. Do you honestly believe that somebody brings these guns because they think somebody else in the crowd is going to kill them?
GOTTLIEB: But, Chris, Chris, I'm saying that's the legitimate reason to do so.
I'm not saying...
MATTHEWS: No, but is that the motive here?
GOTTLIEB: Wait. Wait. Chris, wait.
No, I don't think that was the motive here. And I said that up front. I think the people were making a political statement. I don't think it was the right place or time to do so.
REAGAN: If they're making a political statement, the guns don't have to be loaded, Alan. They could simply be empty strung on their back.
But these are loaded handguns and assault rifles—assault-style rifles.
GOTTLIEB: Well, you...
REAGAN: There's no reason for that unless you're intending to use them.
GOTTLIEB: Well, I can't say that I disagree with you. I don't think it was an appropriate place to have those particular firearms.
But let's be honest about it. All these people were there legally, lawfully. They didn't threaten anybody. They were exercising a right that's legal in the state of Arizona.
REAGAN: You can have a legal right. That doesn't make it right. A legal right doesn't necessarily make it right.
GOTTLIEB: It may not make it smart, but it was definitely right. It was legal. And that's why the police officers didn't arrest anybody. They were all legal, and everybody was very well-behaved, as a matter of fact.
But, you might want to argue an armed society could be a polite society.
REAGAN: Until the shooting starts, yes.
GOTTLIEB: But there was no shooting, was there, at any of these events?
REAGAN: Well, there could be.
And—and think about the wisdom of strapping an assault rifle, a loaded assault rifle, to your back in the midst of a crowd you can't control.
GOTTLIEB: Well, I...
REAGAN: It's a little silly, isn't it? Somebody could grab that gun and do—do God knows what with it. It's really foolishness.
GOTTLIEB: I think so. I think—I agree with you. I think it's foolishness.
REAGAN: Well, good.
GOTTLIEB: I wouldn't do that. At a rally like that, I might want to have my handgun that I'm licensed to carry concealed on my person. And no one would even know it's there. It would be for my self-protection. But I wouldn't be flaunting it. It would, quite frankly, be safer for me because the element of surprise would now be on my side.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, sir, if you were at the book depository in Dallas in 1963, and you happened to walk through one of the book depository rooms upstairs, and you saw a man with a rifle, what would you do?
GOTTLIEB: Well, in that particular case, I would have had my handgun with me and I don't think we'd have a dead president.
MATTHEWS: How would you have known that that person intended to use that rifle against the president?
GOTTLIEB: I think it—
MATTHEWS: You say you have a right to carry these guns around—
GOTTLIEB: Chris, come on, if you see a guy pointing a rifle out—
MATTHEWS: Pointing is—no, I'm saying five seconds before the pointing. I'm saying just having the gun in proximity to a presidential event. You have no problem with that?
GOTTLIEB: There was no reason for that person to have a gun in the book depository, sitting by a window. It's pretty obvious he was there for no good. That's why people with firearms can help protect people and protect presidents—
MATTHEWS: Now you're really getting loony. Let me ask you this, if you're a Secret Service agent, and you're watching a crowd, and you're watching the people with guns, that are loaded, as Ron points out—do you have to have a special agent in each case watching each guy with a gun? Because it seems like that person would require special attention. What do you think?
GOTTLIEB: Well, Chris, this person—
GOTTLIEB: He wasn't near where the president was. My guess is there were no Secret Service people there. It was only local police doing crowd control, because it was nowhere near where the president was. Let's be honest about it.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this. If you were a Secret Service agent and you saw someone on the perimeter of one of the presidential events, would you keep your eye on the guy with the gun?
GOTTLIEB: Of course I would. I mean, I'd be stupid not to.
MATTHEWS: How many agents are we going to have to then? For every guy carrying a gun, we need an agent.
GOTTLIEB: No, you don't. Quite frankly, when you have it out in public like that, and everybody can see it, the odds are you aren't going to do anything. It's when you can't see that you maybe have to worry, right?
REAGAN: Alan is speaking as somebody who has a little more experience than you do with the Secret Service. If you've got somebody with a loaded weapon at an event that the president is at, or any other politician, you're going to have security personnel watching them. They're going to be watching them, when they should be watching something else.
GOTTLIEB: Wait, again you're right, but this wasn't an event where the president was at. He was not out on the street where the people were.
MATTHEWS: Let me tell you, last week we have an event where now about a dozen people carrying guns showed up in Phoenix with the president, a dozen people. That's a lot of people for Secret Service agents to keep an eye on.
Let's kill it right now. You say they brought the guns for symbol reasons, for display purposes only, right? They didn't really bring them for self-protection. They brought them for display.
GOTTLIEB: That's what it looked like.
MATTHEWS: OK. Number two, but you see no reason otherwise for bringing them. You don't really believe they brought them for self-protection then?
GOTTLIEB: No, I think they were making a political statement. I don't think it was the right venue to do it.
MATTHEWS: OK, Thank you.
REAGAN: Political statement, they don't have to be loaded. That's the bottom line there. This is about anger. This is about anger.
REAGAN: They were loaded. This is about anger. And anger and guns do not mix. And that's what we're seeing at these rallies.
MATTHEWS: The fellow I had last week said you're stupid. He had a gun. He said it was loaded. He challenged me, said you'd be stupid—never carry a gun unless it is loaded. He made fun of me for asking the question because he's a Second Amendment guy and he knows he has to carry a loaded gun, he told me.
GOTTLIEB: You're making an assumption they were all loaded for these people. We don't know that. We know for a fact one man's gun was loaded. But we don't know they all were. You're making a statement we don't really have any facts to back up.
REAGAN: Well, if they weren't loaded, Chris is right, there's no point in carrying it. Then it's just a piece of metal that's worthless.
GOTTLIEB: Then it's a political statement, isn't it?
REAGAN: Is it? Is it a political statement or is it something else, Alan?
GOTTLIEB: Ron, you just said—
MATTHEWS: You know what—
REAGAN: That's true but they did have it loaded, didn't they? At least one did have it loaded.
MATTHEWS: The Second Amendment is clear, gentlemen. The Second Amendment, as interpreted by this Supreme Court, is you have an individual right to bear arms. My question is this; you have a right to jump around on a pogo stick. You don't go to church on a pogo stick. There's a right place and a right time. We agree on that, all three of us.
Thank you, Ron Reagan. Thank you, Alan Gottlieb.
Up next, remembering columnist, journalist and TV host Robert Novak, who died today at the age of 78. We'll have some people—there's on old picture of "The Mclaughlin Group," and an early picture of Bob Novak. We will have a couple people on like Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift, who knew this guy when he got started. HARDBALL on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Journalist and conservative columnist Robert Novak died earlier today after a one-year fight with cancer. Rob Novak was a must-read columnist. That's the best you could say about anyone in in business. You want to read what they have to say and got to report. The "Washington Post" ran Novak's column every day, even though he didn't exactly fit with that paper's high-toned sensibility.
Novak was a tumbler. He knew how to make trouble. He new the best fights were intermural, usually somebody min the Republican mad at somebody else in the Republican, somebody who wanted to give in and raise taxes usually. That was his special target, tax raisers. Novak knew the gut element in journalism, the resentment people feel toward what he called the beautiful people, who Nixon called those liberal pinup boys.
Bob Novak knew that gut of resentment, because, let's be honest, he shared it. Bob Novak didn't follow fashion. He hated on his own terms and he defended people with the same bite. I think he defended some people like Dan Quayle simple because the liberal elite were attacking Dan Quayle. All that made him, as a journalist and as a commentator, irresistible.
MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan and "Newsweek's" Eleanor Clift joins us. They both knew him well. I think I got a bit of him there. Eleanor, you first, the Novak you introduced to television on the old days of the "Mclaughlin Group." Apparently you had a hand in bringing us Bob.
ELEANOR CLIFT, "NEWSWEEK": Well, we shared offices on the same floor at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, a block from the White House. Novak was instrumental in getting me on "The Mclaughlin Group." We'd drive out there on Friday afternoons in his Lebaron convertible. He'd have his Chicago Cubs cap on. I thought he was my buddy.
Then you'd arrive at the studio; the red light would go on; and he'd be lunging at me, wagging his finger in my face, and saying Eleanor Clift and people of her ilk. I don't think I even knew what ilk meant the first time of times.
He loved the battle. But he was a reporter. And as somebody who was a reporter, I really admired. He had sources everywhere, buried in every bureaucracy. And he married one of Lyndon Johnson's secretaries, for goodness sakes. So he had sources on the Democratic side as well as the Republican side.
MATTHEWS: Pat, I don't think I missed a single episode of "The Mclaughlin Group." You and those guys were in your prime. You're all about 30 years younger. You and Bob and Jermando (ph) and Mort Kondrake, and Eleanor, whatever the latest nickname was.
CLIFT: Well-A-Nor.
MATTHEWS: Eleanor, Swellanor (ph). There's the young, tough, Irish -
well, Scotts-Irish-Mick. There he is. You guys were quite a crowd.
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: It was a phenomenal thing. It was balanced more to the right, the first one of those shows that ever was. Novak was, frankly, the lead pony, if you will. We took a measure one time. Everybody's yelling how many words you got. They did a word count. Kondrake and Jermando and I got 400 or 500 words. Novak had 1,100.
Mclaughlin had 2,200 words.
MATTHEWS: Mclaughlin was still mad at Novak for being close enough.
BUCHANAN: That's right. But, you know, your point is about—if you wanted to settle a score with someone, Chris, drop the good stuff on Novak.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about that. Eleanor, it seems like his columns were brilliant at getting to the heart of politics, which is usually intermurals. The most visceral, the gut hatreds, in my experience with politics, is people within the same party not liking each other. He always seemed to know how to get to that fight in the Republican party.
CLIFT: Right. What he was good at was getting at the scuffling in the wheelhouse, and the State Department versus national security, the intermural battles within the White House. It was dinner table gossip. I don't know how well it related around the country, frankly. But I think Washington dined out on his column.
And liberals as well as conservatives would drop something into his column then. It was a great place to get an airing. But Novak himself was so pleased that he was kept on at the "Washington Post" because he recognized that his era was passing. And he thought they could have let the old guy go. But it was Fred Hyatt, the editorial page editor, who said, you always learn something from the Novak column. As you said in your setup, that's a very high standard in a very noisy journalistic area.
MATTHEWS: He was a reporter to then end.
BUCHANAN: He was a reporter columnist. There was always news in the column. There was always the meeting that you didn't—people didn't want you to know about. He had the information in the column as well as the opinion.
MATTHEWS: Let's get back to our regular fighting here, with Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift. We carry on the fight. I want to have a little left/right fight about this health care thing, because I think you're against it and Eleanor's for it. Just guessing. We'll be right back with more of MSNBC's HARDBALL.
MATTHEWS: We're back with Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift. I think I'm somewhere on the center-left on the issue of health care. I want a system that makes health care accessible and reasonably affordable for people that don't have it now, and really starts a government commitment, which we can fill out over time, to get everybody insured, especially young, healthy people, get them all aboard.
What do you think's going to happen between now and the end of the year? Are we going to get a bill or not?
CLIFT: I think we're going to get a bill. If the Democrats don't produce, I think the anger against them in the midterm elections next year will be quite strong. And they would condemn Obama's presidency to failure, if he doesn't get this after all he's invested.
Now, what he gets is up for grabs at this point. I'm waiting for the Barack Obama who the country voted for to show up in this battle. And they view everything through the last campaign. And they're saying, oh, he's a great closer. There's still lots of fight left on this public option. And if you use the analogy, I think we're in the Reverend Wright stage of the campaign right now with health care.
But I think he can come back. And I think the public option is not dead, yet.
BUCHANAN: I think the public option's dead but I do agree with Eleanor. Look, Barack Obama's got to step in there himself and tell them, I can't get that through, you guys. And we can't get that. We can get this and this and this and this, some of the things you mentioned. Now, put this together, and I want it on my desk by October 15th.
This is what we've got to go with. We've all tried the big thing.
We're sorry we didn't get single payer and all that, but we didn't get it.
This is what we got to get.
MATTHEWS: OK, I think we're together. He needs a core bill. Let me ask you this, Eleanor. Can he get the 60 votes in the Senate? Or are you with Anthony Wiener, who was just on, who said, you don't need 60, just jam it through with 51 or 50?
CLIFT: I think there's—the danger there is it gets so pock marked and they can take out things that don't directly relate to budget. But, you know, I think he'll have—if he can't get the 60, he'll go with the 51. They'll getting some and they'll call it a victory. And Republicans will say it's a failure and then they'll go home and sulk.
CLIFT: Even insurance reform is significant.
BUCHANAN: If they ram it through with 51 votes and try to do that, he'll split his party in half, tear the party apart, sink the Blue dogs and he may not even get it.
MATTHEWS: I agree. I think he needs 60 and 218. Thank you, Pat Buchanan. Thank you, Eleanor Clift on this sad night for friends of Bob Novak.
Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.> transcript
Watch Hardball each weeknight
at 5 & 7 p.m. ET
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research.
User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's
personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed,
nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion
that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or
other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal
transcript for purposes of litigation.>
Watch Hardball each weeknight at 5 & 7 p.m. ET


text:
1. The fundamental principle in the termination of parental rights, whether through child in need of care or adoption proceedings, is the natural parent's right to be a parent.
2. The right to be the legal parent of a child is a right that cannot be abrogated except under compelling circumstances.
3. The protections incorporated into K.S.A. 59-2136 protect a parent's constitutional rights, preempting the parental preference doctrine. Consequently, adoption statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of maintaining the rights of the natural parent.
4. When reviewing a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights under K.S.A. 59-2136(h), an appellate court must determine whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. The appellate court cannot reweigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of the witnesses, but must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below.
5. The probate code does not include a definition of unfit. However, Kansas case law provides some guidance regarding the definition of unfit by incorporating the factors set forth in the Kansas Code for the Care of Children into the application of the probate code.
6. Under the facts of this case, the trial court erred in determining that J.A. was an unfit parent and that J.A. had abandoned C.L.A. Because the trial court's findings are not supported by substantial competent evidence, the termination of J.A.'s parental rights are reversed.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; MICHAEL CORRIGAN, judge. Opinion filed January 17, 2003. Reversed.
T. Lynn Ward and Robert W. Coykendall, of Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chartered, of Wichita, for appellant.
Richard A. Macias, of Law Office of Richard A. Macias, of Wichita, for appellee.
Before GERNON, P.J., GREEN and JOHNSON, JJ.
GERNON, J.: J.A. appeals the termination of his parental rights in an agency adoption proceeding pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2136.
J.A. and M.J. are the natural parents of C.L.A. J.A. and M.J. met in 1997 in Yelm, Washington, when M.J. was homeless and 6 or 7 months pregnant with someone else's child. M.J. put that baby up for adoption.
Over the course of their relationship from 1997 until October 2000, J.A. and M.J. lived together in a car, a 16-foot travel trailer, a mobile home, miscellaneous apartments, and a house. They also lived with friends for several months. C.L.A. was born in July 1998, while they lived in an apartment in Tumwater, Washington. Throughout the relationship, J.A. worked to support the family and M.J. stayed home.
In the spring of 2000, J.A. and M.J. decided to move the family to Kansas with a friend, Debbie Cox. After moving to Kansas, J.A., M.J., and C.L.A. lived with Debbie Cox and her mother, Barbara Cox, for several months before renting a house of their own. During that time, J.A. worked to support M.J. and C.L.A., while M.J. stayed home with C.L.A. In addition to supporting the family, J.A. cared for C.L.A. in the evenings.
M.J. claims that J.A. was abusive and possessive during their relationship. She moved out of their house in October 2000, taking C.L.A. with her. M.J. moved in with Mark, a man she had recently met at a bar. She did not tell J.A. that she was leaving and did not tell him where she and C.L.A. were staying for over a week.
In November 2000, after M.J. and C.L.A. had moved out, J.A. decided to go to Alaska to earn money working on fishing boats. J.A. told M.J. that he could earn a lot of money quickly and that he would return. J.A. headed to Alaska on December 2, 2000, leaving all of the household belongings and the truck with M.J. At that time, M.J. was still living with Mark. She had gotten a job with health benefits and had enrolled C.L.A. in daycare.
In the middle of December 2000, Mark kicked M.J. and C.L.A. out of his home. M.J. moved into a motel with C.L.A. and her sister, Tammy, until the end of December 2000. M.J., C.L.A., and Tammy then moved in with Brian. Brian kicked M.J. out of his home on January 21, 2001. M.J. quit her job 2 days before Brian kicked her out.
Upon being kicked out of Brian's home, M.J. placed C.L.A. for adoption and began living in her truck. M.J. parked the truck outside her favorite bar, slept all day, and stayed up all night in the bar. After a couple weeks of living in her truck, M.J. moved in with Jeremy in early February 2001. She stayed with Jeremy until February 14, 2001, and then rode along with Mike, a truck driver, to California for 3 weeks.
J.A. was unable to find employment in Alaska and returned to Kansas on December 26 or 27, 2000. He attempted to contact M.J. at Mark's house the day he returned. After another unsuccessful attempt to contact M.J., J.A. went to Kansas City, seeking employment as a truck driver with Swift Transportation (Swift).
On January 8, 2001, J.A. began a 3-week truck driving school in Fort Scott, Kansas. On January 31, 2001, J.A. began full-time employment with Swift and enrolled C.L.A. in the company health benefit plan.
On February 21, 2001, J.A.'s father contacted J.A. while he was on the road for Swift and told J.A. that M.J. had placed C.L.A. for adoption. On February 22, 2001, J.A.'s father contacted the adoption agency and told them that he had contacted J.A. On that same day, the adoption agency filed a petition under K.S.A. 59-2136(e) to terminate J.A.'s parental rights.
M.J. testified during the first 2 days of hearings. However, on the third hearing date, M.J. was unable to attend court due to illness, so the court continued the matter. M.J. also failed to attend the next two scheduled hearings, which were also continued. Because J.A. had not finished his cross-examination of M.J. and she had not appeared at three hearings, J.A. moved to exclude M.J.'s testimony and dismiss the termination petition. The court initially granted J.A.'s motion but reinstated the petition after the adoption agency filed a motion to reinstate and secured M.J.'s appearance to testify.
After 11 days of evidentiary hearings, spread out over 4 months, the trial court terminated J.A.'s parental rights, finding that J.A. was unfit and had abandoned C.L.A. J.A. appeals, arguing that the trial court erroneously terminated his parental rights.
The fundamental principle in the termination of parental rights, whether through child in need of care or adoption proceedings, is the natural parent's right to be a parent. In re Application to Adopt H.B.S.C., 28 Kan. App. 2d 191, 195, 12 P.3d 916 (2000). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Kansas Supreme Court have recognized the relationship between parent and child to be constitutionally protected. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549, reh. denied 435 U.S. 918 (1978); In re Guardianship of Williams, 254 Kan. 814, 819, 869 P.2d 661 (1994).
The right to be the legal parent of a child is a right that cannot be abrogated except under compelling circumstances. In re Adoption of K.J.B., 265 Kan. 90, 101, 959 P.2d 853 (1998). "Indeed, other than the right to personal freedom, there may be no private right valued more highly or protected more zealously by the courts than the right of a parent to the custody and control of his or her children." In re J.L., 20 Kan. App. 2d 665, 671, 891 P.2d 1125, rev. denied 257 Kan. 1092 (1995).
The protections incorporated into K.S.A. 59-2136 protect a parent's constitutional rights, preempting the parental preference doctrine. In re Baby Boy N., 19 Kan. App. 2d 574, 585-86, 874 P.2d 680, rev. denied 255 Kan. 1001, cert. denied 513 U.S. 1018 (1994). Consequently, adoption statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of maintaining the rights of the natural parent. In re Adoption of K.J.B., 265 Kan. at 95.
When reviewing a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights under K.S.A. 59-2136(h), an appellate court must determine whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. The appellate court cannot reweigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of the witnesses, but must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. Substantial evidence possesses both relevance and substance and furnishes a substantial basis of fact from which issues can reasonably be resolved. In re Adoption of Baby Girl S., 29 Kan. App. 2d 664, 666-67, 29 P.3d 466 (2001), aff'd 273 Kan. ____, 41 P.3d 287 (2002).
K.S.A. 59-2136(h) provides:
"When a father or alleged father appears and asserts parental rights, the court shall determine parentage, if necessary, pursuant to the Kansas parentage act. If a father desires but is financially unable to employ an attorney, the court shall appoint an attorney for the father. Thereafter, the court may order that parental rights be terminated, upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence, of any of the following:
(1) The father abandoned or neglected the child after having knowledge of the child's birth;
(2) the father is unfit as a parent or incapable of giving consent;
(3) the father has made no reasonable efforts to support or communicate with the child after having knowledge of the child's birth;
(4) the father, after having knowledge of the pregnancy, failed without reasonable cause to provide support for the mother during the six months prior to the child's birth;
(5) the father abandoned the mother after having knowledge of the pregnancy;
(6) the birth of the child was the result of rape of the mother; or
(7) the father has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent for two consecutive years next preceding the filing of the petition."
The trial court terminated J.A.'s parental rights to C.L.A. pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(2), by finding J.A. to be unfit, and K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(1), by finding that J.A. abandoned C.L.A.
The analysis of this case begins with the trial court's determination that J.A. is unfit. The probate code does not include a definition of unfit. However, Kansas case law provides some guidance regarding the definition of unfit by incorporating the factors set forth in the Kansas Code for the Care of Children into the application of the probate code. In re Adoption of A.P., 26 Kan. App. 2d 210, 215, 982 P.2d 985, rev. denied 268 Kan. 886 (1999).
K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 38-1583(a) provides that parental rights may be terminated when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit because of conduct or a condition that renders the parent unable to properly care for the child and the conduct or condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 38-1583(b) and (c) establish a nonexhaustive list of factors for the court to consider in determining if a parent's conduct or condition warrants termination. Those include:
"(b)(1) Emotional illness, mental illness, mental deficiency or physical disability of the parent, of such duration or nature as to render the parent unlikely to care for the ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs of the child;
(2) conduct toward a child of a physically, emotionally or sexually cruel or abusive nature;
(3) excessive use of intoxicating liquors or narcotic or dangerous drugs;
(4) physical, mental or emotional neglect of the child;
(5) conviction of a felony and imprisonment;
(6) unexplained injury or death of another child or stepchild of the parent;
(7) reasonable efforts by appropriate public or private child caring agencies have been unable to rehabilitate the family; and
(8) lack of effort on the part of the parent to adjust the parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to meet the needs of the child.
. . . .
"(c)(1) Failure to assure care of the child in the parental home when able to do so;
(2) failure to maintain regular visitation, contact or communication with the child or with the custodian of the child;
(3) failure to carry out a reasonable plan approved by the court directed toward the integration of the child into the parental home; and
(4) failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of substitute physical care and maintenance based on ability to pay."
In this case, the trial court determined that J.A. had been emotionally abusive to C.L.A. because he physically abused M.J. and that J.A. had failed to adjust his circumstances or his conduct to meet C.L.A.'s needs. See K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 38-1583(b)(2) and (4). The trial court's finding that J.A. is unfit because he emotionally abused C.L.A. is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
The representative of the private adoption agency testified that the agency requested a medical examination of C.L.A., and he was in good physical health when he was relinquished by his mother. Tammy, C.L.A.'s maternal aunt, testified that C.L.A. was a healthy, well-cared-for, happy child.
Other witnesses who lived with C.L.A. testified that C.L.A. had no emotional problems. Debbie Cox lived with C.L.A. and his parents from approximately March or April 2000 until August 2000. She testified on cross-examination that C.L.A. did not express any unusual emotional behavior and was not afraid of J.A. Barbara Cox also lived with C.L.A. and his parents from May 2000 until August 2000. She testified under cross-examination that she had never seen C.L.A. have an abnormal emotional response.
Even M.J., C.L.A.'s mother, did not indicate that C.L.A. was affected by the alleged abuse. J.A.'s attorney asked M.J. if C.L.A. was "exhibiting any signs of any problems of any kind." M.J. responded that "[C.L.A.] just had a temper, but what two-year-old doesn't." M.J. then testified that C.L.A. went through a lot when she left J.A. M.J. also testified that it would be bad for C.L.A. to be taken from J.A. because it was important for C.L.A. to have a relationship with J.A. She further testified that C.L.A. suffered during the period after she moved out when J.A. was not involved in C.L.A.'s life.
It is also important to note that K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 38-1583(b)(2), which was relied upon by the trial judge in determining J.A. to be unfit, is limited to situations in which the conduct or condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 38-1583(a). In this case, there is no substantial competent evidence to support a finding that J.A. would continue to abuse M.J. J.A.'s relationship with M.J. is over. J.A. and M.J. did not see each other from the end of November 2000 until the first court hearing in May 2001. In the meantime, J.A. has married another woman. J.A.'s new wife testified that J.A. has not been abusive to her or her children in any manner.
The trial court cited In re Adoption of A.P., 26 Kan. App. 2d 210, in support of its conclusion that J.A. was unfit due to the abuse of C.L.A.'s mother. In re Adoption of A.P. can be distinguished on its facts. The trial court in In re Adoption of A.P. based its decision that the father was unfit on the following 5 factors:
"First, T.P. engaged in conduct toward A.P. that was of an emotionally abusive nature, including shouting, outrage, intimidating outbursts, and outbursts of temper. Second, T.P. was convicted of first-degree murder and would be incarcerated for a minimum of 25 years. Third, the murder was of A.P.'s natural mother. Fourth, T.P. had a propensity toward, and had engaged in, numerous incidents and outbursts of violence and displays of outrage and aggression against the natural mother. Last, T.P. failed to adjust his circumstance or conduct to meet the needs of his child." In re Adoption of A.P., 26 Kan. App. 2d at 216.
Here, there is no substantial competent evidence that J.A. engaged in conduct toward C.L.A. that was of an emotionally abusive nature, including shouting, outrage, intimidating outbursts, and outbursts of temper toward C.L.A. J.A. has not been convicted of any crimes or sentenced to prison for the period of C.L.A.'s minority as the father was in In re J.A. Likewise, J.A. has not failed to adjust his circumstances to meet C.L.A.'s needs.
Next, we must analyze the trial court's finding that J.A. abandoned C.L.A. pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(1).
Black's Law Dictionary defines abandonment to mean "[t]he act of leaving a spouse or child willfully and without an intent to return." Black's Law Dictionary 2 (7th ed. 1999). There is no substantial competent evidence that J.A. left without an intent to return. Although the time frame that J.A. planned to be gone was disputed, there is no evidence that he never intended to return. M.J. testified that J.A. told her that he would return and that he would contact her when he did. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it determined that J.A. had abandoned C.L.A.
Because the trial court's findings are not supported by substantial competent evidence, the termination of J.A.'s parental rights is reversed. C.L.A. shall be returned to J.A.'s legal custody.
1REPORTER'S NOTE: Previously filed as an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court granted a motion to publish by an order dated January 17, 2003, pursuant to Rule 7.04 (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 46).

subset: commoncrawl


text:
British pop star Jessie J briefly halted her concert in Malta on Wednesday night to break up a fight in the crowd.
The singer was performing her song "Rainbow" during the Isle of MTV event when she called on her band to stop the music so she could put an end to the trouble brewing at the front of the audience.
Addressing the brawling fans from the stage, she said, "So you guys at the front. I don't perform when people are fighting. OK, so here's the deal, right – music is about bringing people together. You don't need that angriness in your lives, OK? So kiss and make up and let's party."
Jessie J isn't the first star to pause a gig to bring peace to the crowds – pop punk Pink halted her show during a hometown gig in Philadelphia, Penn., in March to chastise two fighting women who had made a young fan cry.


text:
What does a real estate lawyer do?
A real estate lawyer represents their client's best interest in all matters related to the sale, purchase and ownership of real estate. They are experts in real estate law. In states that require a real estate lawyer to close home sales, the lawyer must review and finalize all documents before the deal can be legally completed. Real estate lawyers also help clients legally protect their rights when entering, exiting or renegotiating a real estate deal. You can hire a real estate lawyer as an individual or as a business. A real estate lawyer can help with negotiation, addressing mortgage fraud, managing foreclosures and bankruptcy, transfers of titles and deeds, property ownership disputes, zoning issues, creating a co-ownership contract for joint purchase of a property, and much more. Real estate lawyers can also protect you from issues that result when a known problem was not properly disclosed by the previous owner. Overall, real estate lawyers are an added cost when it comes to buying and selling property, but they also ensure your best interests are met, and that you and the people you are doing business with comply with the law.
What does an immigration attorney do?
Immigration lawyers help their clients through all phases of the immigration process. Experts on immigration law, they are legally qualified to represent U.S. citizens, permanent residents or undocumented immigrants. Immigration lawyers also provide assistance to visitors here on student, work or travel visas, and can represent clients who may have an expired visa or who have overstayed their visa.
You can hire an immigration lawyer to assist you with petitioning for renewing a permanent resident or green card, navigating the naturalization process, submitting an employee-based petition for a work visa, filing a petition for a family member, or representing you or a loved one who is facing detention or deportation, as well as replacing, extending or changing a current visa, green card or work permit. The immigration process is highly complex, with multiple hearings, paperwork and requirements. Hiring a legal expert to represent you can help you make your best effort in the process. When researching immigration lawyers, it is very important to verify their qualifications and find a reputable attorney. Read reviews and verify that the immigration lawyer is licensed by your state before paying any fees.
How do you find a good real estate lawyer?
If buying or selling property feels overwhelming and the thought of finding a good real estate lawyer seems daunting, you're in luck. There are some simple steps to follow for finding a trustworthy, affordable real estate lawyer to help with your property and legal needs.
- Determine what kind of real estate lawyer you need. Many states require a real estate attorney to handle sale closing documents. For more complex matters such as a real estate deal gone awry or foreclosure, you'll want to find an attorney who has successfully handled cases like yours.
- Look for online reviews of real estate lawyers in your area. Verify that they have proven experience closing or winning cases like yours and that they are in good standing with the state bar association.
- Choose two or three lawyers to interview. Many offer a free consultation to learn about your case and provide information about rates. For standard real estate closing services, in-depth interviewing might not be necessary.
- Ask about their rates and whether they charge by the hour or provide services for a flat fee. Ask whether a retainer is required, and what the total bill should be for a case like yours.
- Ask for a write-up of the services that will be covered by the projected costs.
- Make sure you like the real estate agent and they treat you with respect. Confirm whether they or another person will be working on your case and make sure you're comfortable with all members of their team.
- Pay the retainer and hire your lawyer.
What should you look for in a personal injury lawyer?
A personal injury lawyer will advocate for your legal rights if you've been hurt in an accident at work or in daily life, have suffered from medical malpractice, or are struggling to have your insurance carrier cover your needs. It may be helpful to talk with two or three lawyers before selecting one. When looking for a personal injury lawyer, research their reviews and make sure former clients have had good experiences with them. Next, make sure the personal injury lawyer has experience and proven success winning cases similar to yours. Confirm that the lawyer is licensed to provide services in your state. When you find a qualified personal injury lawyer with whom you want to work, freely discuss payment and fees before any work begins. Most lawyers offer a free consultation to learn what your case is about and explain their rates. Personal injury attorneys typically receive a percentage of your settlement (called a contingency fee), so they are paid after the trial or case is complete. Keep in mind that some attorneys have fees that you must pay even if you don't win your trial. It's important to understand these details before work begins so you don't have any unhappy surprises later. Lastly, it's wise to choose a personal injury lawyer that you have confidence in and with whom you can communicate openly and honestly.
What kind of lawyer does wills?
No one likes talking about death, but it's better than leaving your children or siblings to sort out your estate. A clearly planned will can make the time of mourning easier for everyone. An estate attorney will develop a legal will, create trusts on your behalf, and ensure the proper execution of your estate after you pass away.
Family attorneys and estate attorneys, also called probate and wills attorneys, can each prepare wills. The type of lawyer best suited to prepare your will depends on your situation. Most family attorneys provide services to prepare basic wills, including bequeathing property and personal items to family or naming a guardian for minor children. However, estate attorneys specialize in preparing wills in more complex situations. Consider hiring an estate attorney if you:
- Have a large number of assets, especially those subject to estate taxes
- Want to create a trust, such as allowing a spouse to live in your home until he or she dies and then leaving it to your children, or set up long-term care for a beneficiary
- Expect someone to contest your will
- Want to disinherit your spouse


text:
Looking for design inspiration? Browse our curated collections!
by Joana Kruse
Castle Reflection by Joana Kruse - 6.625" x 10.000"
Acrylic Print
Hanging Wire
Assembly Charge
Acrylic Print
Castle Reflection acrylic print by Joana Kruse. Bring your artwork to life with the stylish lines and added depth of an acrylic print. Your image gets printed directly onto the back of a 1/4" thick sheet of clear acrylic. The high gloss of the acrylic sheet complements the rich colors of any image to produce stunning results. Two different mounting options are available, see below.
Ships Within
2 - 3 business days
There are no comments for Castle Reflection. Click here to post the first comment.
Mounting Option #1
Mounting Option #2
Bring your artwork to life with the stylish lines and added depth of an acrylic print. Your image gets printed directly onto the back of a 1/4" thick sheet of clear acrylic.
The image is the art - it doesn't get any cleaner than that!
All acrylic prints ship within 3 - 4 business days and arrive "ready to hang" with four aluminum mounting posts (Option #1) or hanging wire (Option #2).
The high gloss of the acrylic sheet complements the rich colors of any image to produce stunning results.
There are two different ways to mount your acrylic print.
Option #1 (Mounting Posts) - Attach your print to your wall with four aluminum mounting posts. The cylindrical cap of each mounting post can be removed, allowing you to thread a small screw along the center axis of the of post and into the wall. When you're finished, simply reattached each cap, and you're done. The mounting posts act as stand-offs and keep your print separated from the wall by 1". All of the required mounting hardware (i.e. posts, screws, and wall anchors) is included with your print. Click here for mounting details.
Option #2 (Hanging Wire) - With this option, your acrylic print is attached to a 1/4" thick black board which has a wooden frame and hanging wire attached to the back. There are no metal mounting posts at the corners. Simply put a nail in your wall, hang your print from the hanging wire, and you're done. Due to the thickness of the black board and mounting frame, your print is separated from the wall by 1.50" Click here for mounting details.
Average Rating (4.94 Stars):
Patrick De Ruyck
July 15th, 2019
Thomas Geimer
July 3rd, 2019
a castle with palm trees, reflected in water
Joana is a full time photographer and travels around the world for photos. For her creativity she is shooting also book covers. With her company phototourgroup.com she is offering guided photo tours, both private and group tours. Photogenic locations like Italy, Switzerland, England, Malta and Iceland are in her portfolio, but also India and other countries are available on www.phototourgroup.com You also might want to visit her website www.joanaimages.com - many of her photos can be purchased as a digital download. Her book cover work you may find on www.arcangel-images.com
Our return policy is very simple:
If you're not happy with a purchase that you made on FineArtAmerica.com, for any reason, you can return it to us within 30 days of the order date. As soon as it arrives, we'll issue a full refund for the entire purchase price. Please note - Fine Art America does not reimburse the outgoing or return shipping charges unless the return is due to a defect in quality.
Fine Art America sells thousands of pieces of artwork each month - all with a 100% money-back guarantee. We take great pride in the fact that hundreds of thousands of artists have chosen Fine Art America to fulfill their orders, and we look forward to helping you select your next piece!
All acrylic prints ship from our production facility within 2 - 3 business days of your order.


text:
When all the rubbing, brushing and detergents don't work, don't lose hope! There's still one thing you can do to ensure the cleanliness of your driveway and those stubborn oil stains will be gone forever. This last plan will surely take all these oil stains without leaving any marks. This oil stain clean up method is a scientific way of cleaning and it is to use the driveway cleaner also known as the Terminator-HSD. It was seen with effective results, safety methods of using it, easy-to-follow usage protocol and an innovative and unique way of cleaning your mess at home.
This is just a simple reminder for everyone to always look for something that can do the work for you but never sacrifice your precious time and effort.


text:
There are only two days left in the rest of 2012, the year the Mayans predicted would be the Earth�s last. I�m pretty happy they were wrong.
There are only two days left in the rest of 2012, the year the Mayans predicted would be the Earth�s last. I�m pretty happy they were wrong.
As you can see throughout today�s edition of Ye Olde Kinston Daily Free Press, we�re taking the time to recap the top stories of the year in news and sports (on Tuesday).
The employees of TFP voted for their top stories � here�s how I voted in the news and sports categories, followed by a brief explanation of why I did so.
My top 5 news stories of 2012:
1. State Rep. Stephen LaRoque is indicted on federal charges of theft and misuse of funds from his small business lending agencies: Rep. LaRoque is � according to whom you speak � the perfect public servant or the devil. I�ll say this much about him: he has a certain cult of personality that attracts some people and revolts others at the same time. His legal woes are far from over and he�s set to go to trial in 2013. Stay tuned � the conclusion of LaRoque�s time in court are sure to be one of the top stories of the New Year.
2. Former Kinston City Council member Will Barker charged with third-degree sexual exploitation of a child: Was there a more shocking story in 2012 than the arrest of Barker, one of the bright young minds in Kinston? Like LaRoque, he�ll have his day in court in the New Year, and we�ll see if there is any truth to the allegations.
3. U.S. Department of Justice reverses itself and OK�s nonpartisan elections in Kinston: Finally, common sense prevailed and the DOJ allowed the citizens of Kinston to think for themselves. Finally. And props to Rep. LaRoque, John Nix and the others who stood up for voters� rights in Kinston.
4. CSS Neuse is moved from his outdoor location to a new indoor home downtown: It was a beautiful day to move 110 tons of the future of Kinston�s downtown tourism. The sight of the remains of the Neuse on Vernon Avenue and Queen Street is one I�ll never forget.
5. Kinston�s Woodmen Community Center opens to the public: For years, this town has not had a YMCA-type facility that would help attract new businesses and residents. Now, we have a state-of-the-art gym, swimming pools and water park that are going to bring in exponentially more dollars than the ones invested in it.
My top 5 sports stories of 2012:
1. Kinston�s boys basketball defeats Waxhaw Cuthbertson 58-55 to win state 2A title for third time in last five seasons: Three titles in five seasons � all coached by Wells Gulledge, who would later resign � has helped reestablish Kinston as the center of the prep basketball universe in North Carolina.
2. New York Jets take Kinston native Quinton Coples with the 16th overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft: While Kinston has produced other NFL players, never had a player been drafted in the first round � until Coples, a hard-hitting defensive lineman who leads the Jets in sacks as a rookie.
3. NCHSAA approves 2013-17 realignment, which groups Ayden-Grifton, Goldsboro, Greene Central, Kinston, North Lenoir and South Lenoir into the same conference for the first time: It�s a dream conference for prep sports fans in Lenoir and Greene counties and should help strengthen the rivalries at all six schools. I�m particularly excited to see Kinston and Goldsboro in the same league again for the first time in more than a decade.
4. Carter Capps gets called up to big leagues, makes Seattle Mariners debut in Yankee Stadium: And what did the former North Lenoir High School and Mount Olive College star do with his first pitch? He hit 100 mph on the radar gun. With Capps in Seattle and Chris Hatcher in Miami, Lenoir County has two MLB players who are going to make significant contributions in 2013.
5. Parrott Academy wins back-to-back state softball titles: The Patriots softball team continued its proud tradition with yet another title.
Bryan C. Hanksis the managing editor of The Free Press and his column appears in this space every week. You can reach him at 252-559-1074 or at email@example.com. Follow him on Twitter at BCHanks and check out his blog at bhanks.encblogs.com.


text:
In this week's round in the nation's presidential contest, education got tossed into the ring and slapped around by the opposing candidates and their spokespeople. Who won the round is anyone's guess, but poor education got mauled in the process and tossed into the spit bucket.
The bout started with presumed challenger Mitt Romney unveiling his education agenda at the Latino Coalition's Annual Economic Summit in Washington. In his presentation, Romney declared American public schools to be in "crisis," and he criticized President Obama for being "unwilling to stand up for kids" and unable to "be the voice of disadvantaged public school kids."
The jabs continued later the same day with Romney, speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, declaring that the Obama administration's policies had resulted in "millions of kids…getting a third world education" and accusing the president of not being "a champion of real education reform in America" like he, Romney, would be. He cast his proposals for education as a commitment to "the civil rights issue of our time."
The Obama campaign countered these criticisms with their own about Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts where he cut literacy programs, caused teacher layoffs, and "vetoed a bill that would have limited class size in early-grades and one that would have created universal prekindergarten."
But don't be mistaken that the sparring campaigns were intent only on laying a glove on each other, because caught between the opposing campaigns, taking the brunt of the beating, were educators themselves and the reputation of America's public schools.
At the outset of their arguments, both campaigns begin with a narrative that public education in America is in "crisis," our schools are "failing," and radical "reform" is the imperative of the day. And as for that full-throated devotion to the "civil rights issue of our time," well, we've certainly heard that before.
Where the campaigns tried to score on each other was in the sacred realm of DC policy, where terms like "choice, accountability, and reform" are inflated with mythic technocratic significance by the Very Serious People. And left totally out of the melee was whether either candidate can come close to telling the truth.
Take that "education crisis" for instance . . .
A week before the political fisticuffs broke out, Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, engaged in some truth-telling about education in a commencement speech at the Loyola University Chicago School of Education. A transcript of the speech, appearing at Valerie Strauss' blog at The Washington Post, lays out some of the "real facts" that are rarely spoken by candidates for political office or the courtiers and stenographers who follow them.
According to Rothstein, the case that "politicians of both parties, leading educators, and philanthropists like Bill Gates" make about America's "failing" schools is based on "imaginary facts."
"You may be surprised to learn," he explains, "that African-American elementary school student achievement… has been improving so spectacularly that in math, the average black student now performs better than about 90% of all black students performed less than a generation ago. What's more, black elementary school math performance is now better than white performance was in the previous generation."
What? America's public school are succeeding? How can that be?
Wait, it gets worse: "The gains have been almost as great for middle-schoolers in math, and for elementary school students in reading," Rothstein continues. "Policymakers, pundits, and politicians ignore these gains; they conclude that you, educators, have been incompetent because the test score gap hasn't much narrowed. But the reason it hasn't narrowed is that your profession has done too good a job — you've improved white children's performance as well, so the score gap persists, but at a higher level for all."
And lest you think these gains can be credited to the all-powerful "reform" movement, here's the real kicker: "Most gains were posted in the 1990s, before the test-obsessed accountability system called No Child Left Behind."
Oh, and those international rankings that continue to chart "America's decline" compared to other countries? The truth is, once the scores are disaggregated according to poverty levels, US children score near the top. Problem is, of industrialized countries, America has the highest child poverty rate, save for Mexico.
The other commitment both camps make, to treat education like a civil rights issue, is also in many ways disingenuous. As David L. Kirp recently pointed out in his op-ed piece in The New York Times, politicians of all stripes continue "ceaseless and cacophonous debates about how to close the achievement gap," as they continue to ignore the "one tool that has been shown to work: school desegregation."
The research evidence is quite clear:
The experience of an integrated education made all the difference in the lives of black children — and in the lives of their children as well. These economists' studies consistently conclude that African-American students who attended integrated schools fared better academically than those left behind in segregated schools. They were more likely to graduate from high school and attend and graduate from college; and, the longer they spent attending integrated schools, the better they did. What's more, the fear that white children would suffer, voiced by opponents of integration, proved groundless. Between 1970 and 1990, the black-white gap in educational attainment shrank — not because white youngsters did worse but because black youngsters did better.
Not only were they more successful in school, they were more successful in life as well. A 2011 study by the Berkeley public policy professor Rucker C. Johnson concludes that black youths who spent five years in desegregated schools have earned 25 percent more than those who never had that opportunity. Now in their 30s and 40s, they're also healthier — the equivalent of being seven years younger.
Yet, instead of our presidential candidates decrying the increasing segregation of America's schools and pressing for more equality among the races, they continue to place the burden of minority education attainment on public schools alone. Kirp concludes:
The failure of the No Child Left Behind regimen to narrow the achievement gap offers the sobering lesson that closing underperforming public schools, setting high expectations for students, getting tough with teachers and opening a raft of charter schools isn't the answer. If we're serious about improving educational opportunities, we need to revisit the abandoned policy of school integration.
Unfortunately, joining in the presidential campaigns' abuse of public schools is, too often, the mainstream media covering the contest. Although instead of contributing blows themselves, they tend to act as enablers.
As Wonkette's Kris Benson observed above the fray, the role of most news organizations covering the back-and-forth between the parties is to "just type" what one side says, "type out something the other guy says, and then put maybe like an 'and then' or a 'but' to connect them. Or maybe just cut and paste from press releases so it looks like you did some actual reporting."
For all intents and purposes, if you're in the general media and you get assigned to cover how political candidates treat education and public schools, Benson explains, "You don't need to interview any teachers or anything, and see what they think about school choice, and you definitely don't need to talk to students or parents or follow up with any hard questions or give any context, or talk about how school choice has worked out in communities across the country." Just type.
It's quite likely that in the upcoming election, the candidates' stances on education will not be strong determiners of the outcome. With the economy, the Bush tax cuts, and Wall Street sucking up most of the oxygen, public school children and their families, who are now, in fact, a minority of households, may not garner the attention they deserve. And that may not necessarily be all that bad.
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/jeffbcdm