Why Is PA’s GOP So Obstructionist On Educational Reform?

 Sen. Piccola Can’t Pass His School Choice Bill, So He’s Killing Other Reforms

Spring is here, and that means water ice.

As the man at the counter placed his order, the total came to $4.30.  The clerk --- a suburban high school-aged girl --- mistakenly rang it up as forty three cents.  No problem. Mistakes happen.

All she had to do was subtract 43 cents from $4.30 and ring up the difference, and we’d be that much closer to our Italian ice.  Life would be good.

Except that the line stood still.  Turns out the girl was having a major problem --- not with the cash register, but the math.  After conferring with her colleagues (and presumably a manager), it was determined that such a complex mathematical equation was just too difficult to mentally solve, so she just rang it up as a flat $2.00 and called it a final sale.

Hey, no one’s saying it’s easy to do calculations in your head with a long line of impatient gelati-crazed kids (and adults), but we’re also not talking about the complex mathematical equations Will solved in Good Will Hunting.

This situation is normally is blown off by a public that buries its head in the sand simply as an aberration, not reflective of America’s educational achievement. Wrong.  Our water ice clerk’s performance is not the exception, but the norm.

The United States ranks near the bottom of all educational categories against its industrialized competitors, and Pennsylvania is even worse: almost half of ALL eleventh graders cannot pass the state’s proficiency tests in reading and math.  That’s not just an inner city problem, but a statewide one.

So with education reform being such an integral part of last year’s GOP campaigns, and the Republicans sweeping to power by winning control of the Governor’s office and both state legislative chambers, it was a foregone conclusion that such reforms would be passed, with school choice leading the way.

But that didn’t happen, as that effort has been derailed --- deliberately.  Not by the teachers’ unions mind you, but by the biggest political whiner of them all, Mr. School Choice himself --- Republican Senator Jeff Piccola.

*****

Pop quiz: name the politicians who said the following diametrically-opposed statements about the EITC (Educational Improvement Tax Credit), a successful decade-old program that gives tax credits to businesses that contribute to school choice scholarships.

A)    "I have always been a stalwart supporter of the EITC program and that’s why I recently introduced a measure to (upwardly) adjust the allowable household income for eligible families.”

B)    "I can only speak for the Education Committee and it's not coming out of there…it’s dead on arrival,” (referring to Montgomery County State Rep. Tom Quigley’s EITC expansion bill that just passed the House by a 190 to 7 vote).

Answers: Jeff Piccola and…Jeff Piccola.

You see, Piccola, Chairman of the Education Committee, has been leading the charge on Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), which is weak school choice legislation written last year while Rendell and the Democrats were in control and not reworked to reflect a school choice governor (Tom Corbett) and the new GOP-controlled House.

Despite untold millions spent by deep-pocketed SB 1 supporters --- many of whom demonized the majority of conservatives (their allies, no less) who simply wanted a better, more inclusive bill rather than settling for one that only affected very low-income students --- SB 1 died this spring.

And the reasons for its death could fill a book on what NOT to do in politics.

It never dawned on these Harrisburg know-it-alls to actually count votes before they shot off their mouths about SB 1’s virtually guaranteed passage.  So when a number of GOP senators announced they were not on board with the bill as it was written, jeopardizing its chances of success, it would have made good political sense to ask them what their concerns were, in a genuine attempt to understand their issues, and if possible, win their support.

But that didn’t happen. 

Instead, the SB 1 forces, now desperate to keep the issue alive since their wealthy friends might soon be turning off the money spigot, launched a series of brazenly stupid PR campaigns ostensibly designed to win over the wayward Republican senators.  Their strategy?  Produce misleading (and anonymous) phone calls, newspaper ads, radio commercials and deceitful direct mail pieces plastered with messages like “Shame on You, Senator.”

Not exactly the way to endear the targeted pol to your side.  The result? Scratch even more Republicans.

So with the prospects of SB 1 going the way of the dodo, it was left to the House to do the heavy education reform lifting, which it did with its near-unanimous vote to expand the EITC.

Given that the EITC was clearly the only bill with life, why would Piccola kill a concept he supports (EITC expansion is also in his SB 1) by declaring the House bill “DOA?” Especially when it would be absolutely guaranteed to pass the full senate and be signed into law by the Governor?

Selfishness.  If Piccola can’t have it his way, with his name on the bill he wants, he’ll settle for nothing. Curiously, that is exactly the charge leveled by SB 1 zealots against those trying to craft a more inclusive bill.

So much for education reform being all about “the kids.”

Piccola’s ineptitude has directly led to three things:

1)      The Republican Party is now viewed --- correctly --- as obstructionist.  Abandoning its campaign promise of reforming education, and turning its back on parents and their children who would benefit from the House bill does not benefit the GOP heading into an election year where Democrats will be much more competitive.

2)      The children ---our future --- are the biggest victims, pawns in the chess game Piccola is playing to garner headlines and accolades.  Piccola, who as committee chairman has the sole power to release the EITC bill from his committee for a full senate vote, may have won this political round --- if you can call that a “win” --- but in doing so, he’s turned his back on Pennsylvania’s students. When nearly half our high school juniors cannot read and add, and a solution is carelessly disregarded, we are all losers.

3)      The perception that all politicians are greedy, self-interested hacks has been further reinforced in the minds of Pennsylvanians.  That’s a shame, because there really are many elected officials who put in an honest day’s work, fighting for the right reasons, not to satisfy their personal agendas --- like Rep. Quigley and Chester County Rep. Curt Schroder, another educational reform leader fighting for ALL Pennsylvania students.

What happens now?  Maybe SB 1, if amended to truly include the middle class, has a shot in the fall.  Or possibly, if enough pressure can be brought upon Piccola and the hypocrites who staunchly support the EITC but are noticeably silent on Piccola’s DOA strategy, the EITC will be voted upon by the senate this spring.  But that window is closing fast.

Neither may occur, in which case meaningful education reform will not take place for a minimum of two years, as nothing controversial will be initiated during the 2012 election cycle.

Above all, one thing is certain. If education reform --- be it school choice, EITC, teacher strikes or a host of other issues --- hinges on Jeff Piccola’s political prowess, the prospects for success are about as great as the water ice clerk winning a Fields Medal in Math.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Damn Yankees! Corbett Spends $20 Million On Yanks’ AAA Stadium

There’s good news and bad news for the New York Yankees.

The bad news is that their payroll --- always the biggest in baseball --- hasn’t produced.  Hey, they haven’t won a World Series in over a year.  Remember, these are the Yankees --- the most well-known, most loved (by some), most hated (by many), and wealthiest sports franchise in America. They are the only team on the planet whose season is a complete failure if they don’t win a world championship.

Maybe the recession is finally taking such a toll that even the Yanks are too cash-strapped to bring in new talent. But that’s where the good news comes in.  Turns out they will have extra money to spend after all, now that they won’t be shelling out big bucks to renovate the stadium of their AAA minor league team in Scranton/Wilkes Barre. 

It is not without irony, though, that the Bronx Bombers’ financial home run comes at the expense of Phillies fans.

Literally.

You see, the Yanks’ windfall is courtesy of Pennsylvania taxpayers, who are on the hook for $20 million to upgrade the stadium. And who authorized such an expenditure at a time when the state is facing a $4.2 billion deficit?

Republican Governor Tom Corbett.

The same person who, during his campaign last year. championed fiscal restraint and the need for government to return to its core functions.

And the same person, who, a day after announcing the deal, talked about why the state is in such a fiscal mess:

"(Ed Rendell) said yes, yes, yes," Corbett said of his predecessor, "and that's why we are where we are…. in the times we are in we have to be able to say no."

Come again?

He just spent money on something taxpayers shouldn’t be funding in good times, let alone in a recession when the state’s finances are in really bad shape.

So Corbett’s curveball will keep his approval rating at 30 percent --- a great percentage for a hitter but not so good for a politician --- and a far cry from the 55 percent he received just six months ago.

Here’s a look at why the stadium giveaway is such bad policy --- and bad politics:

1)      People are “stadium fatigued,” having put up money to construct arenas across the state, including facilities for the Eagles, Phillies, Steelers, Pirates and soccer franchise Philadelphia Union.  All told, $1 billion in taxpayer money was used to finance stadium construction since 1999.  And here’s the kicker: the real amount will be almost three times that, because the money usually comes from bonds, which, like mortgages, are paid back over time (20 or 30 years) with interest. Millionaire owners increasing their fortunes on the backs of taxpayers just isn’t right.

Corbett gets the worst of both worlds.  Not only is he viewed as hypocritical for spending money on a stadium, but he loses the game by doing it for the benefit of the richest of the rich, and the victor over the Phillies in the 2009 World Series (not to mention 1950). Don’t underestimate that sentiment come election time.

2)      Blaming Rendell for the state’s fiscal mess is certainly on target, as spending under his eight year watch skyrocketed.  But Corbett’s message increasingly rings hollow since his rhetoric doesn’t meet his actions.

Rendell attempted to bail out the Philadelphia Shipyard (a private entity) so that it could build ships with no buyers, but left office before completing the deal.  Corbett bailed it out anyway. So much for fiscal restraint and getting government out of the private sector.

And it was Rendell who initially wanted to fund the Yankees’ stadium, but again, it was Corbett who came in from the bullpen to get the taxpayer-funded “win.”

Corbett continues to pursue a policy perceived as “spending cuts for you, but not me.” He raised the salaries of his executive staff (who now average $13,000 per year more than their counterparts under Rendell), and increased the budget of the Lt. Governor’s office by 46 percent.

Cuts are inherently unpopular, but people will support a leader who leads by example and mandates that “everybody feels the pain --- no exceptions.” That hasn’t happened in Pennsylvania.  Hence the basement-dwelling approval rating.

3)      The stadium funds, which local officials say could actually end up being $25 million, come from a bond used to fund building projects.  In a state as large as Pennsylvania, there are an infinite number of possibilities that would provide a better return to the state and its taxpayers.

Pre-eminent among them would be building natural gas fueling stations for the state fleet of vehicles that will --- hopefully --- soon be powered by that fuel. (The management of these stations could then be leased to private companies to maximize private-sector efficiencies). Additionally, state buildings should be converted to run on natural gas (with gas being mandated in all new construction), since Pennsylvania is sitting atop the Marcellus Shale --- second-largest gas field in the world.  It is clean (virtually no emissions); extremely cost effective (currently one-seventh the cost of gasoline); limitless; creates jobs; and sets the national model for how to achieve energy independence (bolstering national security).

And here’s an added bonus: it can solve a looming problem no one wants to discuss: keeping the gas industry in Pennsylvania.  Despite all the advantages of natural gas, demand is so low that gas companies are finding it extremely difficult to be profitable.  It’s to the point that companies may start capping their wells and rolling out of state to pursue other interests (as it is a very mobile industry).  Such a situation would be catastrophic to all Pennsylvanians.

Bottom line: Tom Corbett is giving Democrats all the ammunition they need to wage effective campaigns against Republican legislators next year. The Governor’s increasing lack of credibility could potentially endanger the GOP majorities in both chambers, particularly in a presidential election year which always generates a significant Democratic turnout.

Core, common sense and consistency are the hallmarks of effective leadership, and all have been in short supply from the Governor’s office.

Just this week, the Governor underwent successful back surgery. We wish him well in that regard, but now it’s time to get his head in the game.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Philly GOP And The Democrats: A One-Party Arrangement

Philadelphia has the highest rates of murder, violence and poverty in the nation.  Its school district, which spends over $17,000 per student annually, is a dismal failure, with a massive dropout rate and a $600 million deficit.  Corruption is rampant. And, cumulatively, it is the most taxed city in the country.

Why? Because it is a one-party town.  It’s that simple.

Democrats have been in control for sixty years.  And before that, Republicans dominated the city for six decades.

When there is no competition --- and in Philly’s case, there is no political counter-balance whatsoever --- the tools necessary for an open and efficient government go out the window.

Accountability, transparency, reform?  Foreign concepts, for there is absolutely no impetus for the Democrats to change.  When your Party is guaranteed the Mayor’s office and City Council, why rock the boat?  It’s nice to be King.

The resulting corruption --- both criminal and institutional --- eventually becomes so unbearable that the other Party finally topples the Old Guard with reformist leaders --- exactly what happened to the GOP when Joe Clark and Richard Dilworth were swept in to cleanse the filth in the 1950’s.

So Philadelphia’s current malaise would undoubtedly indicate that it’s due for such a change, right? 

Wrong.

To make Philadelphia a two-party town, you would actually need…a second Party. But there isn’t one.

The GOP Boss in the city is Michael Meehan, who, as a third-generation leader, has decided that holding onto the crumbs of political patronage is all the power he needs.  Heading a political party is simply a means to keeping the status quo intact. 

And that tells you everything you need to know about why Philadelphia isn’t changing for the better.  When the leader of the opposition Party is in bed with the current regime, protecting Business as Usual rather than fighting it, you know you have problems.

From not waging credible campaigns to withdrawing GOP judicial candidates --- who won the Republican primary but were replaced by Party bosses with Democrats in 2009 ---  the Philadelphia Republican Party is in shambles.  It has given residents no reason to support it, since it advocates no ideas and possesses no vision. 

Oh, and it merits noting that Freindly Fire’s column last year led to a criminal investigation into Meehan.  It seems that Meehan was allegedly representing people trying to kick Republicans off the ballot.  Eliminating your own Party members from the ballot is bad enough, but when over thirty of the petitioners claim that they never heard of Michael Meehan, and that the signature on the petition form wasn’t theirs, that’s a problem.  And he is even listed as representing a dead person, which is pretty remarkable, even for Philadelphia.

But taking the cake is whom the GOP endorsed as a mayoral candidate for the May 17 primary election. Despite the early-established candidacy of tried-and-true Republican John Featherman, the Machine decided they would endorse a “better” candidate. 

So they turned to Karen Brown, a former school teacher with a history of personal financial problems who, by the way, was a Democrat just weeks before the deadline to switch Party registration. 

So in other words, the Philadelphia Republican Party, rather than stand behind one of their own who has long believed in GOP principles, instead chooses a recent Democrat to represent them in the primary, with the “hope” that she could topple the beleaguered Mayor Nutter.

One of two things seems painfully obvious.  Either Meehan and Company are completely incompetent, or the “fix” is in, deliberately backing a candidate who won’t make waves and will roll over to Nutter.  Hey, as long as the patronage jobs continue, life is good.

There are powerful upstarts, to be sure, who are trying to reverse decades of decline in their Party so that the city they love can finally get back on the right track.  Featherman and City Commissioner candidate Al Schmidt embody the spirit of that movement, and without a doubt, are making inroads.  And the chairman of the Republican State Committee has called for leadership change in the city GOP, but to no avail.

But meaningful --- and quick --- change to the Philadelphia Republican Party will only come with the aid of the state’s top GOP  leaders. U.S. Senator Pat Toomey is on the right track, having sided with the true Republicans on several occasions, a course of action which will pay dividends for the Party, and by extension himself, in future elections.

Governor Tom Corbett is a different story. As the person who, by far, holds the key to reforming the city GOP, and most important, could stop the half-million vote deficit that Philadelphia produces for every statewide Republican, he has done absolutely nothing.  If fact, he continues to ally himself with the still-under-investigation Meehan, a puzzling move since Corbett describes himself as a law-and-order Governor (and is a former Attorney General).

This was a golden opportunity for the Governor to show leadership.  He could have demanded that a real Republican be endorsed, and could have actively supported that candidate in the primary and general elections. Sure, with a 6-1 voter registration disadvantage, the odds are against a Republican winning in the fall.  But if Corbett had weighed in when it counted, it would have symbolized that things were dramatically changing in Philadelphia --- that the Republicans would not be rolling over anymore.  The GOP would actually be fighting to win.

He could have sided with the state party chairman in calling for change to the city GOP leadership. And he could have laid the groundwork to stop the hemorrhaging of votes out of Philadelphia that the Republican presidential nominee will face in 2012, since the Democrats cannot win the White House without Pennsylvania.

But none of that has happened.

So John Featherman and his well-organized band of loyal opponents to the Meehan Machine are on their own.

But given the expected low-turnout, and a very volatile electorate, Featherman may yet beat the odds and emerge victorious.

And if that happens, expect the fireworks to begin, for not only will Featherman run against Nutter, but against the “other Democratic Party,” led by Michael Meehan.

Just as a parent can’t keep a child in line by threatening to take away toys he doesn’t have,

Featherman isn’t beholden to the city GOP in any way.

And that’s the best thing that could happen --- for ALL Philadelphians.

Don’t forget to vote!

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Trump’s “Trump” Card: Being Donald

He can’t win.  He’s not serious.  He’s only talking about running for President to satisfy his never-satiated ego. And of course, he’s doing it to boost ratings for his reality show, Celebrity Apprentice.

So say the political pundits who, as we all know, are wrong more than the weatherman.

So let’s take a look at a Trump candidacy.

First things first.  The entire endeavor is irrelevant if the last aforementioned point is true.  Obviously, if his TV show returns for another season, it’s an instant show-stopper for Trump’s political quest.

If, however, he shocks the political world by genuinely committing himself to the Republican primary, the GOP field will go on life-support as it collectively suffers a massive heart attack.  More than any other individual, with the exception of New Jersey’s firebrand Governor Chris Christie (who states he is not running), Donald Trump has the ability to instantly alter the dynamics of the race. His candidacy would dominate national headlines to such a degree that his rivals could find the cure for cancer and establish world peace --- and no one would notice.

And anyone who believes that scenario is overstated hype needs only phone Barack Obama, who would begrudgingly concur. After all, it was Trump --- and Trump only --- who forced Obama to address the birth certificate issue.  Irrelevant is whether the “birther” issue has legitimate merit or is a ludicrous political argument.  The fact is that Trump utilized his star power to make the President of the United States respond directly to him, despite not even being a candidate. That display of raw power can only be dreamed of by every other GOP hopeful.

But Obama had his “payback,” making Trump the butt of his jokes at the annual correspondents’ dinner (as did comedian Seth Meyers).  Clearly, that was the biggest compliment the billionaire could receive, since being the focal point of such a prestigious event (where Trump was in attendance) simply would not have happened if Trump wasn’t a real threat.

Not surprisingly, the “joke candidate” --- as Karl Rove labeled Trump --- has also come under withering attacks from Republican rivals.

Translation: to the people who matter, Donald Trump is being taken very seriously.

But questions remain:

Is that momentum sustainable?  Can Trump exercise the necessary discipline to remain viable under the world’s brightest spotlight? Will he adapt to politics, infinitely more brutal than business?  And perhaps most important, will he instinctively know when to take a backseat to the counsel of experienced political consultants --- and when to overrule them when he thinks they are wrong? 

Hard to tell.

But if any political “novice” can overcome those challenges, it is Trump.

He is not only used to the media spotlight, but has actively courted it for decades. As a result, he is at home in front of the cameras, having honed his skills to discuss issues off-the-cuff.  Of course, up until now, the subject matter has always been that with which he is most familiar: business, real estate, casinos and entertainment.

It is a different ballgame entirely for presidential candidates, who are expected to speak intelligently on…everything. How a candidate handles questions on issues with which he is unfamiliar can make or break him in an instant.  And without a doubt, Trump’s rivals would love nothing better than to set him up in this regard, relishing the opportunity to send the flamboyant new kid on the block to the political graveyard for having the audacity to enter “their” world.

That’s a strategy with merit, since Trump’s publicity is a double-edged sword.  Just as his stock soars when making positive headlines, any major misstep will be seized upon, with a cacophony of calls discrediting Trump as nothing more than a publicity hound without the experience necessary to be President.

But the single biggest threat to Trump’s viability is being overly “handled” by advisors. Sarah Palin fell from grace during the 2008 campaign because she wasn’t allowed to be herself, instead being remodeled as someone else.  She was only able to recover that lost image after the election.

Trump’s biggest “trump” card is that he is Donald Trump.  No rival comes close to matching his charisma and his ability to articulate issues.  Whether taking on Congress, the Chinese or the Middle Eastern oil nations --- without the need for a script or teleprompter --- Trump is increasingly perceived as a man who will back up words with action, based on his track record in business and the fact that he isn’t financially beholden to anyone.

That type of bold, take-no-prisoners vision is exactly what Americans are seeking.  While they will not always agree with him, knowing where a leader stands and having confidence that he will keep his word are the hallmark issues that trump all others in a presidential race.

So it’s only fitting that in a decade of unprecedented electoral surprises, Round One in the Republican primary goes to Donald Trump.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and television commentator who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

McCanns and CNN's Piers Morgan: A Nauseating Interview

Is it any wonder why the state of journalism is so dismal?  Why its luster as a noble profession has been lost? And why so many citizens no longer have faith in the media to ask tough questions and seek the truth, wherever it may lead?

Sadly, that brand of hard-nosed, “no sacred cows” reporting is now virtually nonexistent.  Instead, it’s all about making nice with interviewees and bowing at the altar of political correctness, where reporters spend more time trying not to offend than actually doing their job.

Case in point: the nauseating interview by CNN’s Piers Morgan of Gerry and Kate (G and K) McCann, parents of Madeleine, the British toddler who went missing from a Portuguese resort four years ago. Maddy, you may recall, was left alone in a ground floor, unlocked apartment along with her twin two-year old siblings while G and K ate and imbibed at the resort restaurant. 

Rather than probe G and K to shed light on the many questions needing clear and concise answers, Morgan merely placated them (“…you’re certainly good parents… no one is questioning that..”), allowing the McCanns to manipulate the discussion to their liking.

So once again, a chance to help Madeleine via a worldwide audience is wasted by the McCanns’ self-serving spin.  

*****

The McCanns claimed Madeleine was kidnapped, though there is scant evidence to that claim. While those who have followed the drama have various theories as to what really happened to Madeleine, this author has consistently hammered home four core points:

1)      There are numerous inconsistencies in the McCanns’ version of what transpired that fateful night. And the only way to get straight answers would be for an interviewer to do his job and ask the right questions.  But for the world to trust the McCanns, and by extension generate renewed vigor in the search for Madeleine, Gerry and Kate need to come clean and address the many inconsistencies.  Example: why did Kate allegedly yell “they’ve taken her” rather than “Madeleine is missing” after discovering her disappearance. Why was kidnapping her first thought, which is totally inconsistent with Gerry’s interview answer to Morgan (detailed below).

The Court of Public Opinion will judge G and K accordingly, but the longer questions go unanswered, the more doubts arise.  (For the record, “Freindly Fire” has repeatedly requested an interview, but to no avail).

2)      The McCanns, unequivocally, endangered their children through negligence.  No matter what spin is put on the situation, the fact that three children, with a combined age of seven, were left alone for hours is inexcusable.  Sure, no one is perfect, and there are degrees of mistakes, but that takes the cake.  Some critics argue that focusing on Gerry and Kate’s actions do nothing for finding Madeleine and serve no purpose, but in fact, the opposite is true.  First, by genuinely admitting their grave mistake and taking pains to show the world that children should never be left unattended, they set the right example for parents who may still engage in that practice. 

More important, they would build enormous goodwill with those who simply can’t get past the McCanns’ arrogance, and in doing so, generate a level of trust that they can be believed.  Taking blame for their mistake will win people over, and for obvious reasons, the more people tuned into Madeleine’s situation (without so much anger directed at the parents), the better the chances for additional leads.

3)      The British media should do its job by reporting the facts and asking the right questions. Despite Britain’s ridiculously stifling and archaic libel laws, the UK press still has plenty of leeway in which to move this case forward.  They should neither pronounce guilt nor cozy up to the McCanns, but take an objective down-the-middle approach to finding answers to the most pressing questions.

And along those lines, the McCanns would be well served to stop suing or threatening every individual, web group and media entity that states something they don’t like.  By leaving your children alone in a foreign nation --- and not adequately addressing that mistake --- they brought criticism upon themselves.  Deal with it.  Threats to silence critics only make them look guilty.

4)      Why have no negligence charges been brought against Gerry and Kate, thus showing the world that willfully walking away from your children is not only wrong, but criminal?  Remember, for a three-year old in an unfamiliar place, parents who are 100 meters away might as well be in a foreign land.

*****

Unfortunately, the Piers Morgan interview demonstrates that those lessons involving humility and honesty have not been learned by Gerry and Kate.  It’s just more of the same: softball questions, slick answers, and the blame game.  The most telling excerpts:

Piers Morgan (PM): Why didn’t you just pay to have a nanny if you wanted to go out to dinner?

Gerry (GM): We did what we thought was best….If you’re children are asleep upstairs in a bedroom and you’re dining (outside) in the garden, you can’t hear them. And that’s the similar thing to me.

PM: But most people’s homes are secure. (The resort) wasn’t a secure property. People could come in off the street…

GM: It gets back to the safety issue.  We did not perceive an element of threat. Child abduction is so rare.  Why would you have ever thought that someone would have entered the apartment and steal your child? It just didn’t enter our head.

KM: We’ve been through all these questions, day in and day out….we felt really safe….and there’s no way we would have taken a risk.

GM:  (These questions on our behavior) take the focus away from the abductor, and that becomes quite frustrating for us….Those responsible for taking her are still at large.

A question comes to mind for our well-to-do globetrotting celebrities (both physicians who could have easily afforded a nanny or babysitting service):

Is there a change of seasons on your planet?

Give Gerry credit.  He actually said those things with a straight face.  As far as Piers, he dropped the ball and let them off the hook.  Same old story.

Perhaps he could have followed up just a bit more on the “dining-in-the-backyard is the same as being out at a restaurant,” pointing out that Gerry couldn’t see the room (it was blocked by a six-foot wall) and was barely within earshot of the apartment even if an adult had screamed, let alone a child crying in distress.

Piers, it appears, isn’t ready for prime time.

And the “element of threat?”  Why is it only kidnapping, in hindsight, that Gerry sees as the threat?  I’ve been to resorts in that area of Portugal. Guess what?  The floors are hard as rock, because in many instances, they are.  So the possibility never occurred to the McCanns that an unsupervised Madeleine could playfully jump on the bed --- and fall off?  And if she did, how would checking on the children every half-hour help if she broke an arm --- or skull?

What about little children getting into medicine and overdosing?  Or simply walking out the unlocked door and into a dangerous world --- one very close to the ocean?

And if there had been a fire, would Madeleine, with her whopping three years of life on Earth, be expected to save herself and the twins?

Perhaps most interesting, were the McCanns’ valuables locked in the safe, as some state?  If so, why --- if there was no “element of threat?”  Smart doctors surely would not have left their children alone in an unlocked room if there was even a remote threat of burglary.  Would they?

The risks to the McCann children are obvious to all who possess common sense, and, one would presume, to two well-respected doctors.  But Gerry and Kate once again failed to admit what is apparent to most people: negligence has consequences. So when Gerry expresses frustration that focusing on the McCanns’ behavior takes away from the search for the abductor, he still doesn’t get it.

He and Kate need to admit that by looking in a mirror, they will instantly see who is most “responsible” for Madeleine’s disappearance, since, by definition, she wouldn’t have gone missing or been “kidnapped” had an adult been present.

Then, and only then, will Gerry’s and Kate’s long road back to credibility begin.  And that is the best thing possible for little Madeleine McCann.

Chris Friend, an accredited member of the press, is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com His extensive collection of columns questioning the McCanns for their negligence can be found in his website’s archives.

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national/international television.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Madeleine McCann’s Parents: The Real Royal Couple?

Gerry and Kate McCann Relish Limelight But Still Won’t Take Responsibility for Daughter’s Disappearance

April was a busy time for the Royal Couple. 

Preparations had been underway for months to deal with all the publicity that was sure to come. Facebook pages were established, marketing pieces created, a book written and carefully scripted interviews arranged, as publicists and advisors worked round-the-clock for the famous British duo. No detail was too small when planning such a momentous event, as the global media once again turned its focus on two of Great Britain’s most…interesting people.

Most amazing, all of this was accomplished despite the distractions caused by the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

May 3 marked the fourth anniversary of the disappearance of then-three year old Madeleine McCann, who disappeared from a resort in southern Portugal because her parents chose to leave her --- and her two younger twin siblings --- alone in an unlocked room while they ate and drank the night away with friends.

But when you’re Gerry and Kate McCann, you take a backseat to no one, and certainly no wedding is going to upstage your “anniversary.” And so, in typical McCann fashion, they put on another strong display of offense in the ongoing “search” --- not so much for their missing daughter, but for self-promoting headlines.

Who can blame them? Playing defense is no fun, doesn’t raise money nor generate publicity.  And best of all, blaming everyone but themselves for an eminently preventable tragedy allows the McCanns to ignore reality and skirt the truth about a poor little girl’s horrible fate.

*****

For the folks needing a refresher, you read it right.  The McCanns, both physicians from Rothley, Leicestershire, in England, left their three children --- with a COMBINED age of seven --- alone, night after night, in their ground-floor resort apartment.  Despite ample financial resources, they chose not to bring a nanny, and refused to utilize the resort’s babysitting services.

Instead, they deemed it safer for the children to go it on their own, entrusting Madeleine to get her siblings and herself to safety in the event of a fire --- hence the alleged reason for the unlocked door.  Hey, I’m all for self-reliance, but, she was three!

The story perpetuated by the McCanns is that Madeleine was kidnapped, despite virtually no evidence to support that claim.  But the tragic nature of a girl gone missing gained international attention, and the search was on.  Well, at least by the people who were actually out there looking for Madeleine.

Gerry and Kate took a different approach.  Rather than get bogged down in the grunt work of looking for their daughter in places she might actually be --- assuming for a minute that she was kidnapped --- the parents decided that becoming international globetrotting celebrities was a lot more fun. Putting blood, sweat and tears into finding a missing child is tough, but hanging out with celebs and dignitaries is, well, cool!

So they arranged a private audience with the Pope, traveled to the United States to meet with America’s top leaders, kept web diaries about Gerry’s daily jogs, and threw lavish affairs. Of course, if Madeleine really had been kidnapped, she wouldn’t be in America, at black-tie events or in the Vatican.

If only they had thought to turn the “Find Madeleine” campaign into a money-maker!  Oh wait, they did.  To the tune of millions. And the result?  To this day, many more questions than answers.

Despite being named suspects by the Portuguese police based on evidence that raised eyebrows --- inconsistencies in G and K’s stories; elite dogs, trained to identify death, providing positive responses in Madeleine’s room; reports of Madeleine’s blood found in the trunk of a car the McCanns’ rented 25 days AFTER she disappeared; more blood discovered behind a sofa in the apartment, to name just a few --- the case was eventually suspended without any arrest.  And for that, we can thank the British government that exerted enormous pressure on the Portuguese to exonerate their “upstanding” citizens.

With the complicity of the British media, everyone but the parents was blamed for Madeleine’s disappearance.  The Portuguese detectives bumbled the investigation, the resort’s security was too lax, leads weren’t followed up in a timely fashion. And as numerous publications discovered, anyone who dared question the McCanns’ role were slapped with libel lawsuits by England’s most powerful barristers. And don’t forget the lead Portuguese investigator who was legally banned from giving interviews and publishing his book courtesy of Team McCann (those rulings were subsequently overturned) and was sued for millions in “damages.”

Kate’s book on the affair, (in which she was possibly assisted by world-famous Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling) will be released this week.  In it, she blamed the resort restaurant for making a note in their reservation book that the McCanns wanted a table within sight of the room, since the children would be alone.

"(The reservation) book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too…To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence, the receptionist had added that we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."

Nice try, Kate.  But somehow, you forgot to mention the “horror” your daughter must have felt after being abandoned by her parents night after night, left alone in an unfamiliar environment in a foreign nation.  And you also conveniently left out the fact that you couldn’t see the apartment from your table anyway, due to the six foot wall obstructing the view.  Translation: the tapas were more important than your three children, two of whom, interestingly enough, weren’t “kidnapped.”

So we’re supposed to believe that a child kidnapper just happened to be dining at the resort’s restaurant that night, on the off-chance some British couple’s child-care arrangements (or lack thereof) would be recorded in the restaurant’s reservation book.  Which, by the way, is usually kept behind a desk, not in public view. 

Either that, or someone on the kitchen staff, waiting in the wings for one of the McCanns to return from allegedly “checking” on the children. Maybe that’s why the tapas were so late in being served!

Frankly, I’m surprised that Osama bin Laden snatching Madeleine wasn’t in the book as a potential theory.  Or that evil Voldemort from Harry Potter wasn’t somehow responsible.

Which brings us back to Rowling. 

After hundreds of articles stating that Rowling was helping Kate write the book, the family spokesman finally got around to stating that Rowling did not, in fact, have ANY role in the book.

As with most things McCann, the facts here are loose and the truth sketchy.  But as they say, “Any publicity is good publicity!”   And Team McCann rolls on, garnering headlines and raking in the dough.

*****

Perhaps most ironic is Kate’s stated reason for the book:

“My reason…is simple, to give an account of the truth.”

Funny, then, that Kate’s “truth” story would be so closely linked with a writer of fantasy fiction.

Rowling’s help or not, discovering the real story behind the disappearance of little Madeleine McCann will take more than wizards and magic.  Too bad we don’t have one of Harry Potter’s Remembralls, though, which fans will recall is the clear orb containing smoke that turns red when detecting that the user has forgotten something.

In Gerry and Kate McCann’s case, I’m betting the Remembrall would be glowing red-hot, since it seems they have forgotten the only thing that can help Maddie.

The real truth.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com His extensive collection of columns hammering the McCanns for their negligence can be found in his website’s archives.

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national/international television.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com