How wrong was the late Joe Paterno when he said the Sandusky scandal didn't tarnish Penn State?
By CNN's Jack Cafferty:
See what this quote reminds you of:
"This is not a football scandal and should not be treated as one. It is not an academic scandal and does not in any way tarnish the hard-earned and well-deserved academic reputation of Penn State."
Sounds a little like the Catholic Church, right?
But in this case the voice belonged to the late, once-great Joe Paterno, who wrote that in a letter before he died.
Paterno achieved legendary status as the coach of the Penn State football team.
Yet he was busy like other key officials on campus turning a blind eye to a pedophile on his staff - who had been given carte blanche by Mr. Paterno and the administration at the university to prey on young boys.
A newly released, scathing investigation by former FBI director Louis Freeh reveals that those key officials knew about Jerry Sandusky for 14 years and they did nothing.
Kids were raped. Kids' lives were ruined.
And these holier-than-thou football coaches and school administrators turned a blind eye rather than jeopardize one of the most successful college football programs ever.
The money and the prestige of the football program were more important to Joe Paterno and his bosses than the ruined lives of young children who were molested, sodomized, raped and otherwise abused by Jerry Sandusky - a high-ranking member of that football program.
Sandusky is going to rot in prison for the rest of his life, which is exactly where he belongs.
And had Joe Paterno lived, he should have gone to prison with him.
But to the end, Paterno lived in denial.
Here’s my question to you: How wrong was the late Joe Paterno when he said the Sandusky scandal didn't tarnish Penn State?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Do you have a problem with Mitt Romney's money?
By CNN's Jack Cafferty:
One in five voters has a problem with Mitt Romney's money.
According to a new Gallup Poll, 20% of those surveyed say Romney's net worth of over $200 million makes them less likely to vote for him for president.
Most Americans - 75% - say Romney's wealth makes no difference.
While only 4% say his money makes them more likely to vote for him.
Democrats and independents make up most of those who say they're less likely to support romney because of his riches.
Most of these Democrats probably won't be casting a ballot for Romney anyway but when it comes to independents, we all know how important they are - especially in swing states.
Voter income plays a role in all this. Nearly 30% of those making under $24,000 say they're less likely to support Romney because he is rich.
Romney's money has become a campaign strategy for President Obama and the Democrats. Call it class warfare.
They've been highlighting Romney's wealth, how he made many of those millions working for the venture capital firm Bain Capital, and how he's yet to release all of his tax returns for the last decade.
President Obama, who is also a multi-millionaire, wants to convince Americans that Romney can't relate to poor and middle class Americans - and that his policies as president would mostly help the wealthy.
Of course this is America and it's no crime to be rich. There's also an argument to be made that as the economy keeps sputtering along, a businessman in the White House wouldn't be the worst thing for this country.
At this point it's unclear if poverty and high unemployment will prevent Americans from voting for a rich guy. A very rich guy.
Here’s my question to you: Do you have a problem with Mitt Romney's money?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments