Looking Back on the Past Year

UNION - 3, D.C. United - 2

Young Roger Torres has proven to be one of the most exciting players on the youngest team in Major League Soccer, and the 19-year old Philadelphia Union forward was a key player in setting up the first goal in franchise history. I was there, but thanks to Vice President Joe Biden, I didn't get to see it live.

My wife and I had purchased a pair of great tickets, just off mid-field on the west side of Lincoln Financial Field, in anticipation of seeing this Inaugural home match, the first for the new expansion Union in front of their home crowd in Philadelphia. Unfortunately for Deb, she got sick in the days leading up to the match, and was still sick on game day.

My eldest daughter, Christine, pinch-hit and accompanied me to the match, and we got to enjoy a nice dad-daughter evening at The Linc. Unfortunately it got off to a slow start. Even though we arrived more than a half hour before the scheduled kickoff and were able to quickly and luckily find a great parking slot despite the crush of fans, our progress into The Linc was halted at the front door, literally.

It turns out that U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden had been solicited by the club to kick-out the ceremonial 'first ball', and thus the security at the front gates was unbelievable. Every fan entering and ever bag they carried was searched and screened, making for a massive holdup at those gates. It took us about 40 minutes to get through the sea of humanity and make our way into The Linc.

As we began to trek around the concourse to our seats, we scanned the food and merchandise concessions, and just then heard the roar of the crowd inside. Torres had been awarded a 'corner kick', blasted the ball inside, and then taken a carom and quickly fed the ball to striker Sebastian LeToux who came streaking towards the goal and headed it home for that first-ever goal in Union history.

The huge crowd of nearly 35,000 fans was whipped into a frenzy while Chrissy and I sighed and headed for the concessions. I picked her up a Union scarf, got myself a Union hooded sweartshirt to replace the Phillies one that I had worn to the field, we got some grub, and then headed for our seats. Turns out the seats were as good as advertised, in the 11th row and just off midfield, so we had a great view of all the action and were right in the middle of the massive, crowd.

To say that the atmosphere was electric would be to downplay things. Philadelphia-area soccer and sports fans did themselves proud at this home opener, particularly the controlled rowdiness in the light-blue shirted 'Sons of Ben' section over at the north end of the field. The 'Sons' stand, dance, chant, sing, and roar throughout the matches, and they were in opening day form throughout this one.

The opponents for this first-ever tilt on the Philly pitch were D.C. United from just down the I-95 road in our nation's capital. Bus loads of Washington United fans had come up to Philly, and were mostly all seated together in the Linc's upper level on the south side, backs to I-95. They roared and chanted and sang for their team for most of the match, particularly in the 2nd half.

It turns out also that Union team manager Peter Nowak was directing his club from the press box in this opening match. The timing of history had interrupted his enjoyment of the festivities. Nowak is from Poland, and just a day earlier a plane crash had killed the Polish president along with a number of other Polish dignitaries, including a couple who were personally close with Nowak. He stayed off the sidelines in mourning, leaving the direct chore to his top assistant, John Hackworth, but still fulfilled his responsibilities to his team by monitoring and coaching from that press box.

The first half proved to be all Union. After LeToux's first goal he had added another on a mad-dash streak down the sideline, which he finished by burying a well-placed shot to the long side of United goalkeeper Troy Perkins. With the score 2-0 Union at the half, the franchise put on a nice display celebrating and honoring Philadelphia's mostly failed pro soccer history, inviting back players from those teams of yester-year including the champion Philadelphia Atoms of the early 1970's.

The 2nd half proved to be an entirely different story. A pair of hiccups by Union goalkeeper Chris Seitz, particularly on the tying goal which he dropped at his own feet directly into those of waiting United star Jaime Moreno, allowed the match to be tied up at 2-2 after 68 minutes. With just 10 minutes remaining, a D.C. foul gave the Union a chance on a free kick. LeToux took the shot and didn't waste his chance, again burying a drive into the back of the net for a hat trick and a 3-2 Union lead.

The hometown Philly crowd remained on their feet for pretty much the rest of the tilt as the home team continually outplayed and outhustled United to most every ball. After 90 minutes and about 4 more in stoppage time had elapsed, the ref signalled the end of the match, and the fans erupted in joy. The Union players mobbed one another, and then in a fun, emotional display the players ran down as a group to the north end and lept up into the stands into the waiting arms of their 'Sons of Ben' fan club members in celebration of the 3-2 win and as a salute to the great support of the fans.

All in all it was an extremely fun evening down at The Linc with the Philadelphia Union for my daughter and I, further solidifying my new-found enjoyment of what is the most popular sport in the world. My interest began when the Union were awarded their franchise a couple years ago. It continued as I watched last year's MLS Cup Final in which Real Salt Lake upset the LA Galaxy in the championship at Seattle on television. After this experience, I would and will advise anyone who has a chance to get out to a Union match and take up the cause of supporting the newest Philly team in moving forward in this great game.

NOTE: I will be covering each of the Union's match results here at my website www.mattveasey.com

An American Mandate for Change

"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future. - John F. Kennedy"
The American people went to their respective polling places yesterday and voted, and when they were done the election result was not even close. In a truly historic victory, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was elected to the Presidency. He was elected by a 53%-47% margin over his Republican challenger John McCain, a far greater margin than this writer believed was likely or even possible. In doing so he becomes the first African-American ever elected to the highest office in the land. That may not be too significant for the younger generation raised in a largely racially integrated society. But to those of us who were alive in the 1960's and '70's, the election of a black man to the Presidency is truly remarkable. Forty years after Martin Luther King was assasinated in Memphis, Tennessee, his dream has taken its largest step forward into becoming reality. Could even the great Dr. King have had the foresight to see this happening in America this quickly, if ever at all? In electing him, the American people have shown unequivocally that we have fully matured beyond the racial prejudices and barriers that previously separated us. In a time of Islamofascist terrorism, the American people overcame fears and elected to the Presidency a man with a Muslim-sounding name and at least a familial Islamic past. In a time where Americans are believed to be divided racially, the American people overcame those perceptions and elected to the Presidency a man whose mother was white, and whose father was a black man who abandoned them. The key factor in the Obama victory was the simple but effective theme of his campaign: Change. After 6 years of war, no matter how necessary, Americans were tired of it. They have grown tired of talk about terrorists, Osama bin Laden, Islamofascism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran. They have grown weary of a Bush administration that, though keeping America safe since 9/11, has done little to address any substantive issues beyond security here at home. Liberals wanted Bush impeached, but did not have the power to put him through the type of trial to which Bill Clinton subjected himself. In my opinion, last night's vote by the American people was all about Democrats and dissatisfied centrists ceremonially tossing George W. Bush out of the White House. Unfortunately for John McCain, an obviously good and decent man and a true American hero, he was standing in the shoes that Bush was unable by our laws to stand in himself. It likely would not have mattered in the end who was the Republican nominee for President or Vice-President. This race was certainly not decided by a dissatisfaction with a potential President McCain, or even any real problems with a VP Sarah Palin. This race was a referendum on the Bush administration, highlighted by the Obama campaign's primary message in the closing weeks that a McCain victory would signal a '3rd Bush term' and a continuation of its ideals. Hillary Clinton must really be kicking herself this morning. For years she was seen as the next great Democratic hope. She was not only the clear front-runner just a year ago, but she was the only real candidate in the race on the Dem side. Had Barack Obama never emerged, she would be celebrating her own history-making election today as the first female U.S. President. That is how much the people of America wanted a change. In the end, Republicans across the nation were fighting a battle that they had almost no chance of winning. Yesterday, Barack Obama swept to the Presidency thanks to a mandate for the very change that his campaign brilliantly called for, and he brought along a boat load of U.S. Senators and Congresspersons in his considerable wake. America will be a fundamentally different nation over the next few years. Whether that change is for the better or not is yet to be determined. I personally do not hold out the same hope that Obama's followers feel this morning. But one thing is certain, America will change, because it has been mandated by a clear majority of the people. Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama, to Vice-President-elect Joe Biden, their families and campaign staff, and all those who voted for them. When possible and as best we can, we Republicans will support you as our President. We will also oppose you vocally on issues that we feel are key to our nation and our American culture. And as we all move forward from today, may God bless America as He always has in the past.

President Sarah Palin

The one major thing that came from last night's debate between Vice-Presidential nominees Joseph Biden (D) and Sarah Palin (R) was the stark contrast between them. I am not talking about any of the obvious differences: male vs. female, old vs. young, liberal vs. conservative. No, the contrast that I am speaking about is the difference between the career insider Biden, who came across as the stereo-typical establishment politician that he is, and the relative newcomer Palin, who is quite obviously a woman of the people. Sarah Palin is exactly what many Americans have been looking for these days: real change. Not the generic, all gravy and no meat 'Change' as espoused by the Obama campaign, but real, true change back towards positivism and true conservatism. The contrast began right in their opening remarks, when Biden thanked the moderator and welcomed Palin, then went right into his usual political rhetoric: the current economic 'crisis' has no blame to lay at the door of Washington, per se, because that would, of course, lay blame with Biden and his fellow career pols. No, the blame lay with "the last eight years" of economic policies: the Bush years. What more should one expect, right? On his next opportunity, he painted his old friend, John McCain, as someone "out of touch", as someone who flip-flopped on the state of the economy in just a two-hour span in recent weeks. Well, what we should expect, and what we actually want, became quite clear when Governor Palin began her comments. After thanking the moderator and the commission, Sarah Palin spoke to our hearts when she recognized that it was her "privilege" to be able to speak to Americans on the issues. She then directly answered the moderators question on what got us into this predicament, appealing to 'Joe Six Pack' and to 'hockey moms' to band together to ensure that this never happens again. Palin went on throughout her presentation to state that she would fight as Vice-President to "do what is right for the American people, put government back on the side of the American people..." What Sarah Palin did last night was remind us of the dynamic woman that she is, that she first showed the American people just over a month ago at the Republican National Convention. She is one of us. She has the same experiences that we do. She is not a Washington fat-cat insider pol with tangled allegiances and numerous hands in her pockets. She is her own woman: a strong wife and mother, and a true political conservative who not only talks that talk, but has also walked that walk. This morning, in the aftermath of the debate, I was listening to a conversation on a news media outlet that is a strong supporter of Barrack Obama. The talking heads had one prescient point to make that I found very revealing. The woman speaking said that one thing Palin has ensured, no matter who wins this year, is that she will be a major player four years from now, someone who will pose a legitimate threat to the Democratic Party. She will either be an incumbent VP with four years of national governmental experience under her belt, or she will be a major contender for the Republican Presidential nomination. Personally, I fear an Obama presidency for the long-term damage that it would likely cause to our federal and state judiciaries, and for the implications to our longterm economy thanks to his likely tax policies. But the one thing that would come from such a scenario would definitely include a gathering storm of conservatism, and no one would be more poised to lead that comeback than Sarah Palin. She will be VP for four years, or a crusading Governor with a growing resume and following. Either way, she will only be a stronger candidate, this time not for the 2nd slot (barring a McCain win and his health and desire staying solid), but for the top spot. There are three words that conservatives can take heart in, and that liberals need to fear, and those three words only grow closer and closer to becoming reality after performances like the one she put on in last night's debate: President Sarah Palin.

It's the 'Hard' That Makes It Great

This past weekend, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barrack Obama announced that Senator Joe Biden of Delaware would be his running mate. One of the things being touted about Biden is that he is Irish-Catholic. I don't know if this is a harking back to the good ol' JFK days for Dems, or if it is an attempt to paint the Obama-Biden ticket as more mainstream. But in any event, as most real Catholics know, there is a big difference between calling yourself something and actually being that which you label yourself. In recent decades the concept of the 'cafeteria catholic' has emerged. This means that you do some things, like attend Mass, take Communion, send your kids to Catholic schools, and so on, but that you don't follow Church teachings on certain issues. Those certain issues are different for each person, each gets to select whatever part of the faith they want, and discard whatever part of the faith that they do not want. Thus the idea of it being like a cafeteria, you get to pick and choose from available items, ideas, positions, rulings. Problem is, we as the faithful flock do not get to make or interpret Church doctrine or spiritual matters. In most instances, the Church Fathers, especially the Pope, rule on and interpret matters of the faith, and pass along how we should approach these situations. One of the strongest positions that the Church holds is that of being pro-life. For politicians who call themselves Catholic but who want to present themselves as politically liberal, this often means breaking from the Church on this issue, and publicly announcing that they are pro-choice, meaning that they support a woman's decision to pursue an abortion if she so wishes. This is, of course, the wrong position to take. All Catholic politicians should be taking positions such as that taken by Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who is liberal on most all issues, but who is pro-life in that area. Casey recognizes that this is not only a political litmus test, it is a true moral one as well, and one that he will not sacrifice on the political altar. Nor has he needed to, as he defeated a popular and seasoned opponent in Republican Rick Santorum to win election to the U.S. Senate last year despite being one of the few Democrats with the courage to take a pro-life position. Now the leading Dems are coming under fire from Church leaders for their public positions. The Archbishop of Washington D.C. has come out against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who stated that the history of the Church does not show that it is always against abortion. Archbishop Donald Wuerl responds that the Church teaching has not changed in 2,000 years and that Pelosi is simply incorrect. The Dems then named Biden as their Veep nominee, a man who calls himself Catholic but who supports abortion and claims similarly that the Church position has changed over the millenia. Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, in whose city the Dems are hosting their nominating convention this week, in response stated: “I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for communion, if he supports a false ‘right’ to abortion.” The fact is that if you are going to call yourself Catholic, then you should try to follow the teachings of the Church as much as possible. You should certainly never bend your morals for political considerations, in effect selling out your soul for your elected position. If you don't want to obey the rules, then leave the Church. There is always some church out there that has similarly bent their morality to that which you are seeking. Being a Catholic isn't always easy. As Tom Hanks said in the film 'A League of Their Own' regarding baseball: "It's not supposed to be easy. If it was easy, everyone would do it. It's the 'hard' that makes it great."

Veepstakes: Does it Matter?

The Democratic National Convention kicks off next Monday, August 25th, in Denver and the liberal party will select Barrack Obama as their party nominee for the Presidency. The Republican National Convention will then get underway the following week, on September 1st in Minneapolis. There the conservative party will nominate John McCain as their party nominee for the Presidency. There will be much hoopla, a great deal of pomp and circumstance, and a large amount of partisan blathering from any number of talking heads. In the next few days and into next week there will be a great deal of speculation as to whom each party's prospective nominee will be selecting as a running-mate. The selection of a Vice-Presidential candidate to run with the Presidential candidate on their party 'ticket' is seen as a key moment in any campaign. Very often the Presidential candidate and his advisers look to pick an individual who embodies the values of that Presidential nominee, but who also has differences that can be helpful in drawing voters to the ticket. For instance, someone from the Northeast might decide to pick a Southerner, or someone from the West might choose someone from the East Coast. Someone from the heartland in the Mid-West might choose from the East or the South. Someone deemed inexperienced in world affairs might choose a veteran politico with such experience. Someone with a military background might opt for a partner with a stronger record handling domestic issues, and so on. In the entire history of major party politics in the United States there have been two major things that nearly all candidates have had in common, whether for the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency: they have been white, and they have been male. There was only one major party female candidate in history, that being 1984 Veep candidate Geraldine Ferraro (pictured), who ran alongside former Vice-President Walter Mondale. The Mondale-Ferraro ticket was squashed by the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, and there has been no straying from the 'white males only' club until now. When the Dems put Obama's name into nomination, and select him as their candidate, he will become the first black male, the first non-white at all, to ever be nominated for the highest office in the land. Of course, he will pick a white male as his running mate. There are many people who don't feel that the U.S. is ready to elect a black man as it's President, especially one with as liberal a record as Obama's. However, even those who believe that time is now understand that TWO candidates, both the Prez and the Veep, cannot break the 'white male club' barrier in the same year on the same ticket. So the leading contenders most often mentioned are Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Viriginia Governor Tim Kaine, and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. The Dems have even revived the ghost of , gasp, John Kerry as a possibility. The call here is that Biden will get the nod. He is extremely strong on international policy and national security issues, two areas which the public perceives as weaknesses for Obama, and he has already been 'vetted'. The vetting process is where the prospective candidate is investigated and interviewed to determine their suitability to be on the team and not bring embarrassment to the campaign in the form of any unwanted 'skeletons in the closet'. On the Republican side the names most frequently mentioned lately seem to be former Prez candidate and Massachusetts Guv Mitt Romney, Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security head Tom Ridge, and youthful Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Any of these three would be great candidates, but Pawlenty may just be too 'unknown' yet nationally. There have even been some who have dug up the old idea of Dem turncoat Joe Lieberman. Romney would be an incredible choice, but he seems like a pipe dream. Ridge is the call here. He was a strong Governor and has perhaps the best resume of any candidate on either side of the aisle. If they were selected, both Biden and Ridge would be outstanding candidates, as would many others selected in their stead. But what difference will they make in the end? Does McCain need a young guy to make folks forget his age? Does Obama need a white guy to make folks forget that he is black? Does McCain need a northeast guy to offset his western ruggedness? Does Obama need an experienced tough-guy to overcome his ultra-liberalism and inexperience dealing with foreign heads of state? No matter, will whomever each selects make a difference to voters? The odds are that both will go with relatively 'safe' choices that will not alienate their base, and that will seemingly be attractive to undecided voters. But I believe that it really doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter who they might pick. The odds are that you are about to get 8 years of either Obama or McCain, and that the Veep won't matter one bit. It is the policies and personalities of Obama and McCain that not only matter the most, but that frankly matter at all. If you are going to vote for your Presidential candidate because of whom he selects as his Veep running mate, then maybe you need to be rethinking your decision to vote for them entirely. The Veep nominees will be selected in the coming days, and there will be a great deal of publicity about the selections. But in the end, it is the Presidential candidates who really count.