The 2016 Presidential Race as Sudden Death for the Obama Administration

     As Greg Sargent argues this morning so much of 2016 will be about staking out one's position realitve to Obama. The GOP candidates will try to position themselves as the candidate to most effectively oppose Obama while Hillary will be careful to show her agreement with him. 

     "As you may recall, Scott Walker has pledged to undo any Iran deal on Day One of his presidency, even if our European allies want the deal to continue. In a new interview with NPR that aired this morning, President Obama responded, arguing that Walker is being “foolish” and may revise his views “after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy.”

    "Walker’s attack is a reminder that Republicans continue to frame their opposition to any Iran deal in narrow terms — I pledge to stick it to Obama and undo his capitulation to Iran on Day One!!! — when in fact the talks also involve major allies, meaning all sorts of consequences could resultfrom blowing up an international deal to which they are parties. Obama’s response did hint at the general idea that recklessly undermining our agreements with other countries would “embolden our enemies.”

     "It’s in this contrast that the outlines of the 2016 argument can be discerned. In her statement indicating support for the emerging Iran framework, Hillary Clinton did say that the devil will be in the details of a final deal. But she unequivocally endorsed the idea that a negotiated diplomatic settlement between the U.S., Iran, and the “major world powers” is the best way to achieve the goal of blocking Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon and strengthening the national security of both the U.S. and Israel."

    " If Obama gets his way, two of the most important pieces of his legacy — an Iran deal, and a global climate treaty — will involve comprehensive international settlements. Hillary Clinton will all but certainly support an eventual Iran deal, and she’s already pledged to protect all of Obama’s climate actions “at all cost.” Thus, she will be for international engagement as the solution to two of the most pressing problems the country faces: The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and climate change. Meanwhile, on Iran and climate, the eventual 2016 GOP presidential nominee will probably have pledged to undo whatever Obama has achieved — locking him on both fronts into a position of staunch opposition to international engagement."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/07/morning-plum-on-iran-and-climate-change-obama-puts-stamp-on-2016/

     This is going to be the dynamic on most issues. The GOP candidates will obsessively try to run as anti-Obama while Hillary will offer continuity on most issues. As Paul Waldman noted yesterday, Democrats are amazingly united on most important issues-while the only thing the GOP really agrees on is blanket opposition to anything Obama did or supported. 

     Don't get me wrong, I find this GOP position of just blanket opposition pathetic, but what's also pathetic is that such a morally and intellectually bankrupt party continues to win roughly 50 percent of US elections at all levels. It's a joke, all right, but the joke is mostly on us.

    P.S. Elections after a President steps down are often referendums on their legacy with the opposition party running against them-so Bush ran against Clinton's alleged sleaziness and the Dems ran against Bush's wars and the financial crisis. However, this time around it's not just the man but the policies that are on the ballot-everything from ACA, to immigration reform, to the Iran deal, to ending the Cuban embargo. 

     

Another Reason to Like Mike Francesa

     With Mike people tend to love or hate him. I admit he can have a pretty brusque beside manner. He often acts wholly dismissively of opinions he doesn't agree with. Who can forget the time he made Revis mad?

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXDK-PVqzuQ

      Still, a lot of his moments on the radio have been just classic-including the 19 years he and the Mad Dog were on the air together. With the Dog it's different but still great radio. Like when he just rips the Jets to pieces.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-rAu4TtTmM

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfRBg1w-zLU

       Now as far as A-Rod goes, Mike's friendliness with him earns him the ire of many of his sanctimonous colleagues among the baseball writers. Of course, for me, it's exactly the opposite. He's always been very fair with A-Rod-which is rare among the NY pundits.

      "Despite all of the lies, Mike Francesa is still an enohmous fan of Alex Rodriguez.

Francesa took in the Yankees’ Opening Day loss to the Blue Jays from prime front-row seats — with Rodriguez’s family. Francesa was photographed sitting two seats down from Rodriguez’s half-brother, Joe Dunand, as the pariah slugger went 1-for-2 with a walk in the Yankees’ 6-1 setback.

Francesa and Rodriguez have been allies for a while. In November 2013, an incensed Rodriguez stormed out of the MLB arbitration hearing and into the WFAN studios, where he loudly proclaimed on Francesa’s show he was being railroaded in the Biogenesis case."

http://nypost.com/2015/04/06/mike-francesa-sits-in-a-rods-box-at-yankees-opener/

     Well one thing that Rodriguez didn't lie about is that he was railroaded in MLB arbitration. I notice that the steroid scolds interpret any resistance to the witch hunt over steroids as being just plain evil. Like Bill Madden went as far as saying that Marvin Miller the great baseball union leader-prior to him the players were living in the dark ages under the Reserve Clause-which meant that one team owned their rights forever. Just to give you and idea of how specious the idea of competitive balance really is and how much it has to do with giving the fans a good product on the field, consider that for years the argument baseball was peddling to support the RC was that it guaranteed competitive balance; it seems to me that you can make a strong case for the opposite as that means that the teams with the best players get to keep them forever.

    Yet because he voiced his own views-long after he was out of baseball in any case-about the way MLB has systematically violated players' rights during the witch hunt era Madden claims just having the wrong opinion should keep him out of the Hall of Fame.

   So the Maddens and the Mike Lupicas of the world are just so outraged that A-Rod attacked the MLB arbitration case. The fact that he was right of course is in their mind besides the point. It was a railroading. The arbitrator was no more independent than Bud Selig had been for 22 years. Yet we have the absurd claim of Andrew Zimbalist that Selig belongs in the HOF but not McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, or Roger Clemens. Zimbalist thinks it was a wonderful arrangement in having not just an owner be the baseball commissioner-but the most entitled group in the world, certainly in American business, a 'small market owner' who thinks he should be paid for having no fans and a fielding a mediocre team year after year, He goes as far as claiming that is he and his fellow small market owners don't get their blood money the league won't survive and will fold any day now. Zimbalist goes as far-this was prior to Rob Manfred's succeeding Selig-as declare that the next commissioner should be an insider as that pleases the owner and what pleases them is all that matters.

    http://www.amazon.com/Best-Interests-Baseball-Governing-National-ebook/dp/B00H7O8Y0A/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428416013&sr=1-4&keywords=zimbalist

    Listen you can agree or disagree with the ruling of the MLB arbitrator but what you can't say it was a fair process. It was a kangaroo court. The previous arbitrator had failed to rule as baseball wanted him to in 2010 against another player and they simply replaced the arbitrator.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/sports/baseball/baseball-fires-arbitrator-who-overturned-braun-ban.html?_r=0f

    So the whole fact finding, testifying aspect of A-Rod's arbitration was a charade, a kind of show trial even-as the result was predetermined. Not surprising when you consider that in American business, at least, Bud Selig's legacy is being the king of all socialists.

    Will you look at this? I have the occasion to quote Dan Quayle. As far as the criticism of the NY Post is concerned, Francesa should 'Wear their scorn like a badge of honor.'

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-06-14/news/9202220786_1_indiana-national-guard-pit-puppy-elite

    So say what you want about Francesa, but his relationship with A-Rod shows to me that he's a fairer guy than most baseball pundits.

    UPDATE: And yes, A-Rod was the sole bright spot for my Yankees yesterday. Even as this Yahoo Sports article recognizes that it has to add a dig. Typical of why I hate baseball pundits.

    https://sports.yahoo.com/news/how-bad-were-the-yankees-on-opening-day--well--a-rod-was-the-bright-spot-230203379.html

    UPDATE 2.0: For the record Mike says while he did happen to sit next to some friends and family of A-Rod this was just dumb luck-he didn't go with A-Rod and company to the game.

      http://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/2015/04/mike_francesa_denies_sitting_in_alex_rodriguezs_ya.html

 

   

   
 

 

 

      

On the Genius of John Oliver's Interview of Snowden

     I'm convinced that Oliver may well be a genius after seeing his interview of Edward Snowden.

     http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-oliver-edward-snowden-nsa-leaks


     I agree with Talking Points commentator Rheinhard

     "I am rapidly becoming convinced that John Oliver is going to be a bigger force for positive social change and public engagement on the issues than Jon Stewart ever was. This bit was pure unadulterated genius, and along with his Net Neutrality piece, may get more folks talking about this issue than ever."

    I disagree with commentator SonofAres:

    I cannot stand John Oliver, but I am resigned to having to suffer through seeing prominent recaps of his stupid show on TPM for the time being. But to answer his charge: I'm still waiting to hear how the constant flow of stolen information is pertinent to my Fourth Amendment rights. Because I don't care about spying on other countries at all. But none of Snowden's disciples can ever tell me how that affects my Constitutional rights, much less offering other countries help to avoid U.S. spying directly helps American citizens.

    "It's at this point, Snowden's disciples' palm fronds turn into swords, as they pillory and vilify anyone who dares to question their messiah and lecture the rest of us about "the bigger picture" or "you're a sheep! Wake up!" I'd like our stolen information back, because I didn't appoint this guy my spokesman for anything. Then we can talk outrage."

     See I don't see Oliver as a disciple of Snowden. Oliver's piece was actually really cleverly done which is why I agree that he may do more than Stewart for positive social change. Oliver certainly admitted that there are some diffiuclt questions about what Snowden did and acknolwedged that while some may see him as a hero some see him as a traitor-and not only for bad reasons. 

    Oliver seems to me to have real potential to push a liberal agenda because he gets something that usually only the Right understands: that the form ideas take is often just as important as the ideas themselves. You can't simply ignore form for content. Being right or having the facts on your side isn't enough. If it was the GOP would be routed. Yet if you look at the position of the Dems vs. the GOP today, you have to admit that it's basically a wash at this point-it's a 50-50 country and has been so since 1968 with the end of the FDR New Deal coalition. 

   I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh or Fox News of course, but they understand form better than liberals do usually which explains why the Right has totally dominated talk radio. Oliver understands not just the need for his viewers to process the information he wants to give them but how they process information. 

    Again, I disagree with Ares because Oliver in this piece is not a scold like, for example, Glenn Greenwald is on the issue of Snowden, Brady Manning, Wikileaks, etc. Oliver's delivery was so good that he cleared up a misunderstanding that I had: Snowden has nothing to do with Wikileaks-that's Julian Assange. I realize now that on some level the two names had kind of started to morph into one composite in my own mind-as Oliver showed has clearly been the case for many Americans. 

   I may be a liberal but I don't like preachiness or moral scolds any more than the next guy. There is nothing preachy about Oliver's segment-as opposed to how Jon Stewart himself often was in later years. That's why the segment works and I think it may well give many folks a pause-even those like myself who has been put off by the Greenwalds of the world into tuning the whole issue out. 

   Here was a comment by NCSteve:

   "I found myself reflexively rushing in to make a comment before the thread devolved into a shitstorm, then I remembered that's why TPM now has its own commenting system. And at this moment, I'm willing to acknowledge, as I am on any thread where the story invites us to make fun of Rand Paul, that maybe it was worth the additional risk of epistemic closure, after all."

    "But, yeah, I don't merely not give a shit about foreign intelligence gathering, I applaud it and support it. What I don't give a shit about is whether foreigners are invading my privacy by spying on us, because it's in their interest to keep what they know about me secret. And, no, he didn't read all the documents, he clearly didn't understand many of the ones he read and none of his or Glennzilla's supporters have any conception of the extent to which a simple reading of the fractions of the documents cited in Greenwald's reports revealed that they were being mercilessly spun."

    "I especially liked the way Greenwald phrases things in a way that invited the reader to draw inferences he didn't actually make himself because they are not actually inferences that can be drawn from the source document cited, which is a fucking Powerpoint presentation more often than not."

    I do agree about intelligence gathering. In the clip, Snowden seems to think that it's very grave to realize that the NSA spied on Unicef. It should be pointed out that it's very unlikely that we're the only country that spies on Unicef and that we even spy on our allies-and our allies spy on us. This is the world of spying. No doubt we spy on Netanyahu and he spies on us and we even spy on Britain while they spy on us. 

     Anyway, overall, it's good food for thought. I think that Oliver really might have a new formula to have important debates and discussions. Again, I don't see him as self-righteous in the way of Greenwald, etc. The main point of the bit was that yes it's a complex issue but that we should at least be thinking about it. It didn't really push you in any ham handed way to agree with Snowden on everything or even to agree with him on most things just to consider the point. 

    For more John Oliver see here:

    http://www.hbo.com/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver#/  

   

Republicans More and More are the Party of Process not Ideas

      Paul Waldman points out that the GOP primary becomes more of a minefield every four years as underscored by Indiana's recent pro discrimination against gays law.

      "When the “religious freedom” law in Indiana first started getting national attention last week, the Republicans running for president probably thought it was an easy call. Their party has firmly backed the movement to expand religious prerogatives into the realm of commerce, and gets some of its strongest support from religious Christians. Furthermore, laws like this have been relatively uncontroversial in the past. None of them seemed prepared for the intensity of the criticism the Indiana law got, and like Governor Mike Pence, found themselves pushed to backtrack on their initial full-throated support."

      "They were also probably surprised by just how many directions that criticism came from, with everyone from business leaders to religious groups making their opposition clear."

      "This issue illustrates just how complicated a task it will be for Republican candidates to navigate their party primaries without harming themselves for the general election. It isn’t just that pleasing the GOP’s base could displease the broader electorate, though that will often be true. The challenge is made even tougher by differences of opinion within the Republican party.:

      "What we have now is one party, the Democrats, that is demographically diverse but ideologically unified, while the other party, the Republicans, is demographically homogeneous but ideologically divided.

       "We shouldn't exaggerate this; there are plenty of issues on which almost all Republicans agree. But look at what Hillary Clinton won’t have to worry about between now and next summer. There aren’t major issues where factions of Democrats square off against each other. Liberals may think some in their party are too close to Wall Street, for instance, but on most major economic issues, even people like Chuck Schumer will say most of the same things the most liberal House member would. And can you think of an issue on which Clinton could alienate the general electorate by pandering to her base? It isn’t as though she’s going to find herself in trouble next October because she advocated an increase in the minimum wage or action to address climate change."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/03/indiana-controversy-shows-what-a-minefield-2016-gop-primary-has-become/

     The GOP base is unified on one thing only: opposition to whatever Obama has done. The GOP figured it could get away with Mike Pence's anti gay law last week. After all, the GOP playbook in recent years has been to only get into divisive social issues at the state or county level as Pence did. Nationally, the playbook is that you pick your battles. You try not to get into Todd Akin like issues like whether you believe even rape victims should be denied the use of abortion services. Instead-nationally- you talk about something called partial birth abortion. Talk like what Akin got into is supposed to be reserved for the state level. However, what Pence's problems have shown is that now even at the state level there be a price-at least on some issues. 

     As I've suggested previously, Madonna isn't as absurd as some act in saying that gay rights are more advanced than women's rights at the present. At the state level you do see the GOP win victory after victory against a woman's right to choose. You can argue over the issue of abortion-but when the GOP shuts down 15 of 17 Planned Parenthood in the state like they have done in places like Kansas and Texas, it hurts women much more broadly than solely by taking away their right to choose on abortion. 

    The way GOP politics is supposed to work is that certain things can only be done at the state level and somethings are for the consumption of the general election. Immigration for instance isn't supposed to be discussed in the general election-you pass harsh anti immigration laws at the Red state level but nationally at most you offer homilies about being for 'sensible immigration reform' but first we 'must secure the border.'

    What seems to be happening now is that even this seems to becoming less tenable. They still have a lot of the process on their side. They have gerrymandered districts and states with voter id laws meant to reduce voting. They still have the Supreme Court. However, ideologically on most issues they don't win. 

    That the country disagrees with them on most issues-from taxes, to the minimum wage, to immigration to gay rights and yet they still keep winning roughly 50% of all elections in the country shows that process is nothing to sneeze at. To run on nothing but process and avoid any honest intellectual discussion may be cynical. But it's not like it's cost them anything yet. Whether it will in the future remains to be seen. What Indiana maybe suggests is that the ground to even argue process may be decreasing for the GOP. But only time will show if that's really the case. 

    P.S. Of course Waldman's point is important: the Dems are the unified party now which is the total opposite of what it was in the past. The GOP is unified only in opposition. 

      

Among NY Baseball Writers Mets Beat Yankees in Subway Series

      Most of the pundits seem to think the Mets are going to be good and the Yanks aren't going to be so good. What else is new? The Yanks have always been the boys of October, the Atlanta Braves were for many years the boys of the regular season-as they'd always have dominant regular seasons followed by postseason flops-and the Mets, well there the boys of March.

     They often win the March subway series as the pundits are always saying this is going to be the year they become 'Amazin' again and this is the year the Yanks are going to fall back to earth. It never happens but the next year the pundits tell us the same thing. I was watching some great moments from Mike Francesa's archives where he ripped apart the Jets and the Mets at various times. but something he always criticized the Jets before they got rid of Idzik was that the Jets are pleased to easily-they have one win and they high five or even one good play in a loss and they celebrate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-rAu4TtTmM

    I think that pretty well sums up Mets Nation as well. They are pleased with so little. Everybody acts like the Yanks have fallen off the face of the earth because they had 2 straight years out of the playoffs even though they at least had winning records both years-85-77 in 2013 and 84-78 last year. True this is a major comedown from where they were for years going right through 2012. The last 2 years they've been outscored even with winning records while scoring under 700 runs both times. These are the bombers and they're called that for a reason-they're supposed to hit lots of homers and score lots of runs.

     Still it's fascinating to me that while everyone talks about a team that won 85 and 84 games the last 2 years as if they're losers, they make the Mets sound like the sky's the limit-and yet they have not had as many as 84 wins since 2008 when they blew their second big lead late in the season to miss the playoffs.

     Now we hear that you shouldn't bet on the Yanks but with the Mets 'You gotta believe'
 
     http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/harper-tanaka-arm-issues-yankees-hard-article-1.2174613

     http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/harper-david-cone-pitch-amazin-year-mets-article-1.2173305

     This is why you don't gotta believe the Mets-it takes too little for them to be impressed. I know this year the knock is the Yanks are going to have a hard time being healthy and I agree that's a concern. However, looking at this in the long view-as a Yankee fan who's watched NY sports for 28 years I feel like I've seen this movie before. It's the same as the Jets in football-people like to believe in the lovable losers and take potshots at the great team that really wins. This is not the first year the Mets have won the subway series in March for the soul of baseball writers. It never ends with them winning the subway series in October.

    And, baseball writers are the lowest form of life anyway.

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/bill-madden-shows-everything-thats.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

   

    

Marvin Miller and Capitalists vs. Socialists in Baseball

     There is some irony there. After all, he was the great union leader for baseball players that ended the Reserve Clause and got them free agency and a slew of other rights and benefits. Yet he didn't believe he was a socialist-and I can see he's right. Asked if he would call himself a socialist he said:

    "I would not. Industry does many things the government won’t and shouldn't."

    http://fortune.com/2012/11/27/lion-of-american-labor-a-final-conversation-with-marvin-miller/

    Many great union leaders historically considered themselves socialists-though I don't think there is any inherent reason why you would have to be a socialist to be a union leader. In truth a union only exists in a capitalist setting-history shows that socialists governments don't tolerate the existence of an independent union.

    When reading Miller it's clear that he really was always much more consistently pro-capitalist than the owners he fought against-and achieved those victories over. We can argue about Marxism and the idea of 'surplus value' but what I find interesting as a sports fan is that it's in pro sports that we see the clearest evocation of labor strife-of a battle between capital and labor; ie, the owners and the players.

   Yet, the consistently capitalist position is clearly for the unionists like Miller. In sport after sport, the owners consistently prefer a quasi socialist system. The biggest socialist around was always Bud Selig. He wanted the 'big market teams' to finance the 'small market teans'-and it's just a big unimportant coincidink that he was also the owner of an alleged small market team-the Milwaukee Brewers-as he was demanding revenue sharing and a luxury tax. Meanwhile after the deal for more revenue sharing in 2002 the Brewers halved their payroll in the next 3 years while averaging 64 wins and 98 losses per year.

   The model for MLB no doubt is the salary cap NFL which has lots of 'competitive balance' though you can argue that MLB is more 'competitvely balanced' than football.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/jayson-stark/post/_/id/1075/think-nfl-has-greater-parity-than-mlb-well-think-again

    In any case, I think the whole idea of competitive balance is problematic. No one who talks about it ever makes any effort to define it in any way approaching rigorously. Selig had said that the goal was a league where every team's fans can believe they have a shot at winning it all every year. Such a vision is just absurd. How can it ever really be the case that all 32 teams could have a realistic chance of winning the WS every year? I argue that it's impossible but that if it were possible it would be totally unpleasant for fans. Who would want a situation where their team would win roughly once every 32 years? Even as a vision this is flawed.

   What Selig seems not to understand is the word 'competitive'-he's just focused on the 'balance.' Competition is the drive to be the best, to dominate the competition not achieve parity with it. Everyone hates my Yankees because they wish their team was the Yankees. That should be the goal of a sports team-sustained dominance. I guess Selig would prefer what the Florida Marlins did in 1998 after winning the World Series: they dismantled the entire team and went 54-108 in their defense of the title. I guess that's what any team should do as the goal is not victory but parity and everyone getting their turn to win one.

    I mean in the 1990s it was supposedly a travesty that the Yankees won 3 straight World Series and 4 of 5 but it was also an era of record attendance. Yet we here that if we don't have a situation where each team wins once every 32 years, the fans will stay at home. Meanwhile. the Yankees have always dominated baseball. They did in the Ruth era, the DiMaggio era, in the late 70s, again in the late 90s-and basically were a very dominant team for 20 years running starting in the early 90s-and yet attendance does nothing but rise.

   http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-yankee-dynasty-and-george.html

   When is a sportswriter going to have the guts to tell the truth: it''s all a ruse? The whole thing is nothing to do with competitive balance-which, again, doesn't matter to the fans anyway-but keeping down players' salaries. Full stop.

    I guess I can understand the reluctance-not to say cowardice-on the part of the sports media. After all, if we're to believe Bill Madden, the great baseball union leader Marvin Miller has been held back from being voted into the Hall of Fame because he criticized the witch hunt against steroids. He has been held back for Orwell's ThoughtCrime. To simply disagree with Bud Selig and his small market buddies is enough to get you blacklisted. So while cowardice is cowardice, it is a prudent cowardice.

   http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/bill-madden-shows-everything-thats.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

   The more I read and learn about Marvin Miller the more impressed I am. I admire the way he always stuck to his guns and took unpopular stands if that's where the facts took him. On the other hand the more I learn about Bud Selig the less I like him.

   Anyway, that's the funny thing about baseball: as baseball's greatest union leader, Miller was also the most consistent capitalist. It's for this reason that he actually has nicer things to say about George Steinbrenner than most of the other owners-as George was actually much less anti union than most other owners-as he was always willing to open his checkbook.

   Here is an interview with Steinbrenner's son, Hank Steinbrenner on Mike Francesa.

   http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/03/26/hal-steinbrenner-on-wfan-im-a-very-different-man-than-my-father-was/

 
 

   

Bill Madden Shows Everything That's Wrong With Baseball Hall of Fame Voting

     Namely, that sanctimonious phonies like him get to be the only votes-it's Judge, Jury, and Executioner by a bunch of phony, puritanical twits. I've discussed this a number of times lately, and perhaps my language might seem a bit strong, but not if you see how phony this whole process is. Normally, what I object to is how dogmatic he is on the question of steroids. He claims that he would never vote anyone who ever took a single HGH pill-for some reason trying to heal from an injury quickly to help your team is 'cheating' that he thinks is on Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson's level if not worse. He claims he would never vote for anyone who did steroids-as if he would know.

     The 'proof' of who has done steroids is really quite spotty.I mean Madden, Mike Lupica, and the other steroids scolds knows that Alex Rodriguez did steroids because he failed a test right? Well, actually, of course, he never failed a test. All that we know is that based on a very sleazy investigation by Bud Selig-I'm sure he belongs in the HOF in Madden's skewed moral universe, although he was the baseball commissioner and the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers for 14 years; no doubt, such a quibble doesn't bother a Bill Madden one bit-according to the notes of Anthony Bosch he apparently used them. Talk about no due process. 

      Similarly, Madden knows that Mark McGwire did steroids because that's what Jose Canseco said in his book and in Congressional hearings McGwire took the 5th and looked like he wanted to cry. Ok, well that's proof enough for Madden. We also know some things based on a list of names from a 2003 steroid test that legally we shouldn't know as those were supposed to be anonymous. Both MLB and the player's union dropped the ball here. 

      Madden, however, is certain that no way has he ever voted for anyone that did steroids because-well, I guess he tell by looking at them who did steroids. Or the only thing in Canseco's book he chooses not to believe is that 85% of players at least then did steroids. Madden holds on to the fiction that only a small number of players did it and we know exactly who they were: the only players that did steroids did them either through BALCO, Bosch's Biogenesis company, or was on the list of wrongfully released names from the 20003 tests. Like, Madden just knows that Mike Piazza didn't do steroids and that Pudge Rodriguez didn't do them-even though Canseco claimed PR did. Basically the steroids scolds believe what they want to believe.  And the jokes on us as they're who decides who's in Cooperstown. 

      This post by Madden here shows the key elements of false sanctimony I'm talking about. In it he argues that 2 men: George Steinbrenner and Marvin Miller don't belong in the Hall. Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion and there will always be differences. What gets me going are the reasons he decides they don't belong in the Hall. 

     He thinks the great union leader for baseball players, Marvin Miller doesn't belong there because he criticized the players for accepting steroid testing. So Miller who accomplished so much and who would have made sure the names on the 2003 tests didn't get out-assuming he allowed it at all-doesn't belong there because of a difference of opinion. He doesn't get into the Hall because you disagree with the opinion. I mean McCarthyism was all about guilt of association but this is just absurd. It's guilt by association with the wrong opinion. 

     If I criticize drug testing in the workplace does this mean I'm a heroin addict? Yet this is more or less Madden's reasoning here-he believes this is the reasoning of the other voters as well. 

     "So decreed the 16-member Expansion Era Veterans Committee, who in voting Joe Torre, Tony LaRussa and Bobby Cox into the game’s pantheon, failed to give Miller, the first executive director of the Players’ Association who transformed the game by winning free agency and salary arbitration rights for the players through hard-nosed collective bargaining, more than half the number of votes he would’ve needed to achieve election."

    "The same went for Steinbrenner, who restored the Yankee brand in the 1970s and later showed his fellow owners the way to increase the value of their franchises ten-fold and more through his record local television deals."

    "You want to know why Miller, who missed by only one vote in the last Expansion Era election three years ago, didn't come close this time? You probably need to look no further than his repeated statements prior to his death in November 2012, decrying the players union’s agreeing to drug testing."

    "Almost to a man, the Hall of Fame players have condemned the alleged steroids cheats — Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens et al, who have obliterated their records or passed many of them on the all-time lists — and Miller’s adamant stance against taking measures to clean up the game has diminished him despite all his accomplishments on their behalf."

    "And lest anyone believes this is still an owners’ conspiracy to keep Miller out of the Hall of Fame, again, there were only four owner/executives on the 16-man committee. The rest were either senior baseball writers, historians or former managers. It was not much different from the first Veterans Committee ballot Miller appeared on in 2001, which then was comprised of all the living Hall of Famers, most of them former players who were Miller’s constituents, and he fell short by more than 10% of the necessary 75%."

      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/madden-steroids-stance-miller-hall-article-1.1542660

      Here Madden goes again making false inferences. Just because there were 'only four' executives on the 16 man committee-actually that's still 25 percent which seems pretty significant to me-does that proves there is no anti-labor bias? Please, beyond the significant 25 percent that were actually owners, most writers like Madden are absolutely clueless about respect for labor rights. I mean, how much could a Bill Madden actually care if he assumes that Miller has a flawed character just for questioning steroid testing without any ground rules or due process? Madden and Lupica can throw as many spitballs at A-Rod as they like, the reality is that that arbitration panel he faced was a joke-the arbitrator had to find him guilty-or he'd be forced to step down as had happened to the previous arbitrator back in 2010 after that one had failed to find a player guilty of what Bud Selig said they were guilty of. 

    As for Steinbrenner, I find his inclusion here with Miller as another that doesn't belong in the Hall-Madden thinks he may not because he was suspended twice from the game-ironic. I've written in the past that as a Yankee fan, our Yankees may well have been helped by both Steinbrenner's suspensions

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-yankee-dynasty-and-george.html

    but what's interesting, is that Miller actually had some rather nice things to say about George in his major book on his own life and times leading the MLB union. He preferred working with The Boss to most other owners. 

   http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Different-Ball-Game-Revolution/dp/1566635993/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428263211&sr=1-2-spell&keywords=marvin+milller

    See pgs 379-385. 

     He suggests that George was railroaded in 1990 not because Fay Vincent or the other owners cared that he had gone on a campaign to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield but because George was the one owner his other owners feared more than most as he was the one who really got the ball rolling with spending money freely on free agency back in the 70s. Miller, suggests that George was actually too trusting of his other owners and never suspected that-despite unfortunately going along with his fellow owners on collusion in the late 80s not seeing that this was actually aimed at the Yankees first and foremost-they feared him as the owner that could destroy their Socialist Paradise a salary cap, revenue sharing, and luxury taxes. 

   There is no bigger joke than the idea that revenue sharing is for competitive balance by the way. If you look at what allegedly small market teams like Selig's Brewers did after receiving more revenue sharing is that they actually contracted payroll spending markedly. 

   While Selig and his fellow owners finally accepted after 1995 that they'd never get their precious salary cap-as Miller's successor, Donald Fehr, was not as toothless as the NFL player's union-luxury taxes and revenue sharing are basically the same thing going through the back door. 

    That the teams receiving these goodies from the wealthier teams don't spend this on payroll shows that this is not about 'competitive balance' and never was. It's about capping out players' salaries. How does that help fans of small market teams for their teams to get this windfall if it isn't used to improve the team?

    UPDATE: Now this is more like it

    http://nypost.com/2013/12/09/steinbrenner-along-with-miller-belongs-in-hall/