Greg Sargent on When We Might Have an Intelligent Debate About Obamacare

      I like Greg Sargent but sometimes he just seems too optimistic about things. He's always ready for an intelligent debate about this or that issue. For instance, he even thinks there is something redeeming in having Ted Cruz run for President in terms of fostering an intelligent debate(!)

     "It’s good that Cruz is running. We’ll hopefully find out soon enough how much of a conservative outlier Cruz really is in today’s Republican Party."

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/23/morning-plum-is-ted-cruz-really-an-outlier-in-todays-gop/

      http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/much-ado-about-ted-cruz-running-for.html

     I think his running will foster some comic relief that's all. Ok, in a way, Sargent is right in that Cruz will make it uncomfortable for the other GOPers, but that's only because they basically agree with him on everything substantively, but just wish he'd stop being so proudly blatant about everything. They understand the need to prettify things up in the general election. Cruz doesn't, and the base likes that, but at the end of the day, the GOP Establishment won't let that happen. 

     I mean do you believe that most Republicans disagree in substance with Todd Akin on abortion? I don't, they just know that he went about talking about it in an 'inartful way.' I mean if you disagree, check out how many abortion clinics are open in deep Red states. 

    My theory is that to have an intelligent debate about anything, make sure that there aren't any Republicans in it. Now Sargent speculates on an intelligent debate on Obamacare:

    "The Affordable Care Act was signed five years ago today, and Jonathan Cohn has a terrific look at the law’s successes and failures, the undying Republican crusade to repeal it, and the need for a real debate about the continuing problems in our health care system. Conclusion:

An intelligent debate over these issues and how to address them would be constructive, interesting and even unpredictable. It’s one that most of the law’s advocates would love to have. But it can’t take place when one of the two major political parties is waging an all-out, all-or-nothing fight to wipe the law off the books. Maybe five years from now, at the law’s 10th anniversary, that campaign will finally be over.

    "Maybe!"

     Let me ask you this: when did the GOP crusade against Social Security and Medicare stop? I know trick question: it actually didn't. I mean, they stopped saying they want to abolish SS and Medicare; now they say they want to fix it or save it but really they want to abolish the programs as much as ever. 

    The right question then is when will Republicans stop saying they want to destroy Obamacare? I think we'll know exactly when: it'll be the moment they stop calling it Obamacare. At that point they may even start calling it Romneycare again and remember it basically was based on GOP libertarian theory in the first place. 

    I mean Obamacare is basically the GOP plan for Medicare. But  they'll stop wanting to kill the ACA when it-if it-becomes more popular. Then they'll want to save it-and stop calling it Obamacare. But they'll still want to kill it. They don't give up many fights. They are still fighting the Voting Rights Act 50 years later-and gaining some considerable victories in John Roberts' Supreme Court. 

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/06/scotus-rolls-back-voting-rights.html

     The GOP-at least going back to Goldwater-don't have intellectual debates about ideas-about tactics, about process, yes-but never about ideas. So I'm sorry but even raising the question just seems too Quixotic for me. No one has ever been disappointed underestimating the modern Republican party. 

    UPDATE: E.J. Dionne now sees that he wrongly fell for GOP rhetoric about inequality.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-no-way-to-ease-inequality/2015/03/22/5ef552d6-cf5e-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html?hpid=z3

     There is no chance at a serious discussion on that-with GOPers-either. Largely because as Dionne admits they mostly don't think inequality matters. Just optimize growth and they'll be enough for everyone is what the GOP really believes. 

      

Much Ado About Ted Cruz Running for President

     I don't know if it's deserved. Lots of pundits seem to think it is. Greg Sargent-who sounds too optimistic to me here-thinks this might give us that thing he's always looking for: a 'real debate.' Art least at the end of a primary with Ted Cruz involved we'll know whether or not Cruz is an outlier:

    "Ted Cruz will announce in a speech at Liberty University today that he is running for president. All signs are that he will position himself as the candidate who is willing to fight hardest in defense of conservative values. Some analysts have posited that if Cruz were to somehow win the nomination, he’d be the most conservative GOP standard-bearer since Barry Goldwater.

But how different is Cruz from other Republicans on the issues themselves? How much of an outlier is Cruz in today’s GOP? Those are not rhetorical questions. A Cruz run will be a good thing, because it will bring clarity to  them."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/23/morning-plum-is-ted-cruz-really-an-outlier-in-todays-gop/

    If watching the GOP over the years tells you anything, it's that it's beliefs are more at least immutable since Goldwater. The debate about issues is always really about process and tactics. The other GOPers in the race will dismiss Cruz as unelectable and the GOP primary voters will ultimately agree. No way Cruz is allowed to win the nomination. 

   And no, I don't think there is such a difference in principle at stake just that the GOP establishment knows that Cruz doesn't work in front of a general electorate. 

    The GOP usually debates process: if the question of gay marriage comes up they try to avoid saying they oppose it, just that they think it ought to be a state issue; this is how they debate abortion at least nationally, and is even how they argued against the Voting Rights Act. 

   To the extent that the GOP tells you what they really think it's at the state level provided it's a red state. Nationally, they're careful enough. Cruz isn't so prudent-he's the opposite of prudent and so he can't ever sniff the nomination. 

  Sargent himself considers Cruz's stand on a host of issues compared with other GOPers-Obamacare, immigration, etc. and by his own admission there isn't much difference on principle. 

  You want to see someone who appears to be different on principle: Rand Paul on military matters. Nevertheless, alleged libertarians like Paul never do any damage to basic conservative dogma on issues like abortion, the military, drugs, etc. Voting for a 'libertarian' gets you little practical difference at least at the federal level from voting for a conservative. 

   Sargent suggests there might be a difference between Cruz and the rest on gay marriage:

    "On gay marriage, there is the potential for real differentiation. Cruz has signaled that he will demand that Republicans keep up the fight for traditional marriage until the end of time. Jeb Bush, by contrast, hassuggested that we must “respect” court decisions legalizing marriage equality. If the Supreme Court finds a Constitutional right to gay marriage later this spring, Cruz may keep up the crusade in the form of supporting a Constitutional marriage amendment, effectively challenging Bush to oppose it. More broadly, as Ed Kilgore notes, Cruz’s choice of Liberty University for his announcement speech shows he is positioning himself as the candidate of the Christian right."

   Even here I think it's more about tactics than substance. It seems to me that Sargent is really struggling to note an important difference. Even if Jeb Bush were forced to oppose such an amendment, so what? He likely wouldn't outright say that anyway-he'd find a way to be vague enough that both sides could feel like he was on their side. 

   The GOP strategy on such social issues is to leave it to the states. Now on gay marriage so many states are going the other way, that for once the federal argument doesn't seem to be helping. But like I said, I doubt Jeb will let himself say outright that he opposes the amendment but if he did-so what?

   Sargent seems almost desperate to see if the GOP establishment can be faced with a position held by the Far Right that is so wildeyed they'll have to repudiate it on the level of substance not just tactically. Such a position hasn't materialized yet, but even if it did-so what? Maybe tomorrow Cruz will say it's ok for parents to eat their young if that's the teaching of their personal religion and Jeb may come out against that. If so, how has this benefited any kind of public debate? Does this make Jeb Bush a Renaissance Man?

   Sorry, I don't think it's a big deal, The nominee will likely be Jeb and I agree the debates will be interesting-as they always are-but not because will finally get a debate on policy. 

   The closest to that might be immigration as Sargent has suggested before but even so, I doubt it. If pushed on this, Jeb will just engage in Orwell's DoubleThink like Romney did in 2012 where he both credited himself for passing Romneycare and criticized Obama for passing Romneycare.

   Jeb's position on immigrating reform is needed but not like that bad Ole Obama did it. So he's going to run on both deporting those protected under the President's executive action and then bringing them back under his own presumably legal method of amnesty. 

   Meanwhile. if Jeb were to win, it's quite likely that we would still have the GOP House and maybe even the Senate and therefore the GOP Congress would be just as hostile to immigration reform as it is now. So even Jeb, to pass reform would only be able to do it via executive action which as we know he's already ruled out the use of in apocalyptic terms. 

   My main point is keep your expectations down regarding the GOP and you won't be disappointed. Ted Cruz might be entertaining in the race but it won't magically make Jeb a better choice as President. Cruz's terrible position on the issues won't make Jeb's better than they are now despite the comparison with Cruz. If anything, Cruz might even have the counterproductive effect of making Jeb seem more 'reasonable' or 'moderate' than he really is. 

    

    

Mike Lupica: So Self Righteous He Needs Therapy

     Mike just can't let it go. I mean, nobody cares, Mike. You ask how anyone is supposed to ever believe A-Rod again, but what you don't get is this is baseball not a Salem Witch trial; you don't have to believe anything. If your a Yankees fan like me, you have bigger worries than rehashing what happened years ago.

    Lupica lumps Alex Rodriguez in with Lance Armstrong, probably to obscure the racism in the vehemence with which self righteous blowhards like Lupica hate A-Rod. These guys are just  obsessed with him, and you can't tell me his being a Latino doesn't make this vehemence a little more hot. He says the Yankees are 'stuck' with A-Rod, but the truth is the Yanks need power from somewhere and if he can hit 20 hrs this year the Yanks can sure use it and that it would be mud in the eye of the Mike Lupicas and Bill Maddens of the world who set themselves up as baseball's conscience, all the better.

   Mike, you are becoming worse than shrill here. It must be frustrating that most fans don't agree with you and cheer A-Rod when he comes up to bat and root for him to throw mud in your eye.

   "The dream spring for Alex Rodriguez, one that now includes two home runs for the Yankees around signing autographs and shaking hands and kissing babies, continues. Now his former drug mule, “Cousin” Yuri Sucart, pleads guilty of conspiracy to distribute human growth hormone in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida. It means Sucart doesn’t go to trial and Rodriguez doesn’t have to answer questions, under oath and in open court, about Anthony Bosch or Biogenesis or anything. Another home run for A-Rod!"

    "When asked about Sucart and his plea deal the other day, all Rodriguez had to say to reporters in Lakeland, Fla. was, “Guys, there are so many good things to talk about. That isn’t one of them.”

     http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/lupica-a-rod-lance-armstrong-lord-lies-article-1.2158350

     He's right this isn't a good thing to talk about, but Mike Lupica is determined to keep talking about it, even though everyone else is sick of it. 

     "Bosch is doing time. Sucart, just another fall guy in Biogenesis, could do eight months of time. Rodriguez? He can’t run very well on a baseball field any longer and is a shell of the player he once was, with or without baseball drugs. But he continues to get by with smiles and vague apologies and this weird “Pride of the Yankees” narrative that he has somehow been able to construct for himself, though not without help."

     Yeah, Mike, who died and made you God, huh? Why does the world have to comport with your sense of Justice, huh? I don't know how harsh you want A-Rod's penalty to be: maybe you want to bring back Medieval things like the Catholic Church used to have: how many stairs does A-Rod have to walk up on his knees until Father Lupica decides we can let this go and worry about baseball again, not his feverish world of black and white morality?

      "Bosch is doing time. Sucart, just another fall guy in Biogenesis, could do eight months of time. Rodriguez? He can’t run very well on a baseball field any longer and is a shell of the player he once was, with or without baseball drugs. But he continues to get by with smiles and vague apologies and this weird “Pride of the Yankees” narrative that he has somehow been able to construct for himself, though not without help."

      What a shock: Lupica is also obsessed with Hillary Clinton's emails, while saying nothing of Jeb Bush's emails-Jeb did the same thing in using a private email but of course there's some world of difference between the two. 

      I have always liked Lupica. But I don't know, lately, he's been getting on my nerves. First he just defends the police right or wrong in some blanket way where any criticism of them supposedly leads to violence and now this constant posture as a moral scold is just getting old. 

      Mike this is baseball, not the Moral Majority. That's the next door down the hall. 

     I get so tired of his Old Testament morality that I want to reply with a New Testament piece of morality: Hey, Mike Lupica-he who is without sin, cast the first stone.  Lupica goes on:

     "That’s not our problem, by the way. That’s not some failure of ours. The idea that it is just one last lie associated with Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez."

      It isn't, but what he can't face, is that most of us fans don't care about this anymore. I for one, speaking as a fan, am tired of steroids being looked at as the crime of the century. We hear from moral philistines like Mike Lupica and Bill Madden that anyone associated with steroids in any way-like if they ever one time took a single vitamin that can be considered 'steroids' everything they've ever accomplished should be stricken from the record. 

    Yet, phonies like Mike never wonder if all the records of the old timers they claim are sacrosanct don't also deserve an asterisk as they were done in the Segregation Era-which is morally much  more culpable than the Steroid Era, as much as these phonies would never want to admit that. 

    P.S. I see that Lupica hates A-Rod but is just so impressed by Chris Borland. He walked away from football: what a hero! 

   "Nobody is saying that there is going to be a mass exodus of healthy young football players because Chris Borland walks away from the 49ers at the age of 24."

  "Nobody is saying that Borland has done great and lasting damage to the NFL because he feared great and lasting damage to his own brain if he had continued his career."

   "But you better pay attention to the young man, who did something both brave and eloquent."

   "This isn’t about the “anti-football” crowd, as ESPN’s Danny Kanell suggested the other day.
This isn’t about zealots, or hysterics."

    It's not about hysterics or zealots? Because lately when you talk about A-Rod, that's exactly what Lupica is becoming: a hysterical zealot. 

    And you don't think that the anti-football crowd, which is very much alive and well, is not hoping that this will in fact do lasting harm to football, or at least be the seed of such harm? Courage is now defined as walking away and refusing to play? Everyday, manhood seems more and more to be a thing of the past. Whatever happened to Damn the Torpedoes? Now we're supposed to honor those who aren't willing to risk anything for something greater than their own immediate physical well-being and security? I'm sure soccer mom's across the country are all cooing. 

    Look, it's Borland's choice and he has a right to that, but Lupica can crown him if he wants to, I have no especial admiration for what Borland did. He made the prudent choice, but those who have always done great things were never prudent above and beyond all else. 

   Have no doubt, that the anti-football crowd is very much alive and well. 

   https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B00IW4DOWM

   P.S.S. I guess, I have a perverse sense of ethics compared with the Mike Lupicas and Bill Maddens of the world. To me, I see A-Rod as heroic and Chris Borland as a bore. Boreland's in keeping with an age that places security-especially physical security-above all else. 

   The idea that you could risk your own physical security for an ideal or even a paycheck is becoming unthinkable. This young man-Borland- who is all about safety first will no doubt make some woman a very happy woman. Maybe between the two she'll find that she'll end up being the daredevil of the couple. 

    Let's face it: if you dwell on the risks above all, why would anyone play football at all? Usually people play because they're more afraid of something else than a literal, physical injury. The goal of the anti-football crowd is probably that this feeling die out, that people learn to always value their own security above all else. 

    A-Rod, at least, always believed in something. He wanted to be larger than life. He was often criticized for that. But in a sense, that's a noble desire I think-a desire like this is so strong it out weighs the demand for total security. Even the issue of steroids-at least it's better than recreational drugs. I still wonder if we shouldn't at some point develop a more  rational attitude about steroids. 

    What's wrong with enhancing a great player's performance? Now the question of the risks are real, but even then, that A-Rod or other players were willing to take those risks I see as somehow admirable. They so much want to be great! I don't think the desire to be great needs to be expunged. 

    P.S.S.S, Look, if you've my blog for any length of time-and if you have, let me first of all say thank you very much!-then you know I like to take positions that go against the grain. I don't always know exactly what I'm driving for but I know what I'm driving against. I'm not sure what the real attitude on steroids should be, but this sort of 'Puritanical' position of the last 10 years is off base. I don't think the matter is as black and white as Lupica and friends make it. Say what you will-today's baseball is much less fun to watch than 10 years ago, and the league is suffering. 

    Just look at last year's team run totals. Not a single team had as much as 800 runs. We've entered a second deadball era:

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting

    The pundit moralists like Lupica are just too facile. Here's hoping that they all go to therapy soon. All this foaming at the mouth over A-Rod is quite unbecoming. 

     

     

Ralph Houk: Mark McGwire Belongs in Hall of Fame

     Yesterday I wrote about reading Jay McGwire's account of his brother-home run phenom Mark McGwire and his steroid use. 

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/jose-canseco-vs-jay-mcgwire-someones.html

     As I said, I find his account of McGwire's steroid use considerably more credible than Canseco's. In his second book in 2008, Vindicated, Canseco complains a good deal about being called a liar and makes a big deal about passing 2 lie deterctors on the truth of his 2005 Juiced. 

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/jose-canseco-steroids-and-who-cares.html

    But, polygraphs can be wrong either way and his claim that he personally used to inject McGwire in the butt-with McGwire doing the same thing for him-with steroids in the Oakland A's clubhouse seems pretty theatrical. 

    Canseco recently attempted to apologize to McGwire and he rebuffed him. 

    "And though Canseco has apologized to McGwire on numerous occasions, McGwire told ESPN Los Angeles that he has no plans to make amends:"

     “It’s too late. I don’t care to ever speak to him again…. What he did was wrong.”

     "Canseco’s dedication to apologizing to McGwire seems to be matched only by his desire to call attention to himself, and he managed to combine his interests with a T-shirt he wore to a Cardinals-Dodgers game in 2012:

     http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/mark-mcgwire-jose-canseco-apology-oakland-athletics-mlb

     However, maybe Canseco won't feel so bad in being rebuffed when he realizes that McGwire hasn't spoken to brother Jay since 2002 and says he never wants to speak to him either. 

    "Mark McGwire said he's saddened his estranged brother wrote a book that chronicles their use of performance-enhancing drugs and reiterated his claim that he only took them to heal from injuries.

McGwire said Thursday he's so upset with his brother, Jay McGwire, that he doesn't believe reconciliation is possible."

     "I don't plan on ever seeing him again," said McGwire, the new hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals."

     http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4946726

    
    "I can't really blame him for not wanting to talk to Canseco, but even so, this is clearly not a guy big on forgiveness."

     
     "Regarding the Hall of Fame you have the Bill Maddens of the world who take a hard-and hypocritical-line."

   
     "Indians Hall of Famer pitcher Bob Feller, 91, doesn't believe McGwire's admission will help him much with voters."

  
    "It'll help him some, but not very much," Feller told Willie Weinbaum of the ESPN Enterprise Unit. "I wouldn't vote for him and I don't think he'll get into the Hall of Fame in my lifetime."

    
     http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607

     'Of course, Feller's lifetime isn't necessarily going to be too long!"

    "I don't think any of the steroid boys will be in the Hall of Fame for 25, 30 years," Feller said. "I think Clemens has been lying through his teeth. In my opinion, Bonds did take steroids."

     
    "I disagree. Some probably are already in. The shaming is very selective. The one illusion that sanctimonious baseball writers hold onto is that steroid use was pretty rare-they claim that everyone wasn't doing it because they need to hold onto the idea that it was deviant to maintain the moral outrage."

     "Feller isn't buying that McGwire's performance wasn't helped by steroids."

   "I think that's a lot of horse muffins," he said. "If it didn't help him any, what the hell was he taking them for? Of course it helped him."

     Does Feller not realize that helping the body recover quicker from injury is also, well, help? I mean if steroids offered the chance to recover quickly from an injury but didn't enhance one's performance, he imagines no one would use them?

       I will finish off with Ralph Houk-who was Roger Maris' manager on the NY Yankees when he hit 61 hrs. 

      "Ralph Houk, Maris' manager with the Yankees in 1961, told ESPN that he does not think the legitimacy of McGwire's home run totals is changed by his admission of using performance-enhancing drugs and that the effects of such drugs -- whether pills (amphetamines) taken in the 1960s or steroids in later years -- are questionable."

   "I think [McGwire] broke [Maris'] record fairly," Houk told ESPN.

    "I wouldn't be concerned about it. [McGwire] was a good hitter that deserves everything he's got," Houk said.

     Amen. Meanwhile, there are all those old greats who played in the Segregation Era but no one says they deserve an asterisk. 

     The irony, is that while McGwire repudiates his brother's book, according to his account, the main reason he took the roids in 1994 was precisely the same reason Mark has given throughout-to recover from a series of injuries-he had missed almost the entire year both in 1993 and 1994. 

     According to his account-again, I find much more credible than Canseco's-McGwire didn't take that much steroids and the main reason was to repair injuries. 

       

     

A-Rod Hits His Second Home Run of Spring Training

     As I said previously, this isn't like me. I don't normally root that much for players-I'm all about the uniform. Sure. I love great players that help the team. Ok, the one player I have always loved is Eli Manning-I just love his attitude. With all the knocks he's taken over the years-the most silly was when Tiki Barber slammed him in that book after he retired just before Eli took his team to their first Super Bowl win in 2007-

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-tiki-barber-went-from-hero-to-zero-with-giants-fans

    it's always particularly sweet when Eli does well--the good news is that both he and Tim Mara want him to retire to a Giant. 

    UPDATE: If I love Eli, Tiki is one former Giant that I've had mixed feelings about. Still, he gives a pretty good intreview here and endears himself to me a little by saying he'd take Eli over Peyton. 

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/27/russell-wilson_n_6056136.html

     Certainly I hope as I always do that the New York Yankees will be good this year-they haven't had a losing season since 1991, though they haven't won a world series since 2009, which for them is a long time, and have been kind of a middling team the last few years-but I really hope that A-Rod can be a part of it-to shut up all the A-Rod haters out there that keep wanting to rehash the steroids thing and whether or not he lied. 

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-mike-lupica-sports-media-made-me-a.html

     It seems that everyone has had enough R-Rod bashing now.  

     "The initial hoopla surrounding Alex Rodriguez's return to the Yankees has mercifully passed, and now the embattled slugger is just going through the motions in spring training. In fact, he came into Friday's spring training game in a 1-for-12 slump and there was hardly any mention of it by the media."

     "The slump extended to 1-for-14 on Friday afternoon before A-Rod took Tigers righty Bruce Rondon deep for his second home run of the spring. This was an opposite field job off a 98 mph fastball, according to George King of the New York Post."

     "Rodriguez is hitting .269/.367/.538 with one double, two homers, three runs driven in, four walks and five strikeouts so far this spring. He's played a handful of games at third base -- his range has been limited but his hands and arm are fine -- but has mostly served as the DH."

     "Having watched most of A-Rod's at-bats this spring, it's clear he hasn't forgotten the strike zone. He swings at strikes and lays off pitches out of the zone, and doesn't appear to be guessing. He's had some fastballs blown by him like everyone else, but overall he hasn't looked overmatched. At least not yet."

     "The Yankees are planning on A-Rod being their regular DH and part-time third baseman this season. Regardless of what he does in spring training, there's really no way to know how Rodriguez will fare in the regular season once he starts playing every day and sees higher quality pitching."

    http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25116281/watch-alex-rodriguez-hit-another-home-run-on-friday

    At least it's about baseball now and not dredging up the past. The Yanks scored a very un Yankee like 634 runs last year so they can use any power they can get. If he can hit 20 home runs it'd help the team and be mud in the A-Rod haters eyes. 

   At least he's looked decent in spring training though as he and everyone else admits, spring training doesn't tell you much. Hopefully he stays he healthy and hits the 20 homers and helps the team and shuts up the phony moralists. Its strange, rooting for one guy when he comes up at bat but I really hope he does well. 

   P.S.    I can't help notice the writer wrote 'not yet'-as if he's hoping that he eventually will look overmatched. I can't stand that attitude. Again, it's what made me an A-Rod fan in the first place. 

    

Jose Canseco vs. Jay McGwire: Someone's Lying

     Apparently, the media wasn't too interested in the brother of Mark McGwire's book 2009 about the great slugger's steroid use-I consider him to be a great slugger, yes.

      Everyone loved Canseco's Juiced and takes everything in it as Bible but by 2009, the word was that there was fatigue on the whole topic. However, I read Jay McGwire's his Mark and Me with a good deal of interest. With all the wild demonetization of anyone who ever used-or is widely thought to have used- steroids, I think it's at least fair that you have your facts straight. Most people don't, but don't let them stop them from piously dismissing the body's of work of some great players.

      http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070103

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/bill-madden-sanctimonious-phony.html

     They worry that the records of payers who used steroids somehow desecrates the Holy records of Ruth, Mantle, and Maris. Never do they consider that if asterisks belong next to the record of a Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds, surely it belongs past these players who played in a worse era than the Steroid Era-the Segregation Era.

    I for one, would just like to get at the truth of what happened-for how else can we have an intelligent discussion about it? Most of the pious folks protecting the sanctity of the game don/t think the facts matter too much; no, for them what counts is a show of righteous anger.

   Regarding Canseco and his whistle blowing, I've done everything I can to get to the truth of what he did. I read Juiced, followed by his Vindication that came out in 2008 but was much less widely read, and, yes, even his ex-wife, Jessica Canseco's book, Juicy; no, her book is hardly flattering. Most stories told by ex-wives probably aren't, but certainly it's not an attractive picture we get there.

   http://www.amazon.com/Juicy-Confessions-Former-Baseball-Wife/dp/0060889454/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426877570&sr=8-1&keywords=juicy+jessica+canseco

   In Vindicated, he spends a lot of time talking about how he took 2 different lie detector tests which proves he didn't like in Juiced.

   http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/jose-canseco-steroids-and-who-cares.html

   As if lie detectors can't be wrong either way. I have no doubt that his basic narrative in Juiced was right-there was a lot of steroid use. Indeed, in the book, he more or less pats himself on the back for bringing steroids into the league-in Vindicated he also brags about driving them out as well.

    What I find interesting about McGwire's brother's book though, is that he contradicts Canseco who claimed that he introduced Mark to steroids in 1988 and would inject them into his butt right in the clubhouse.

    From what Jay says, none of this is plausible. He claims that it was he, himself, who introduced Mark to steroids and this was after he was injured throughout most of a second season in a row in 1994. At 31, he worried that his career was over if he had more seasons like the last 2. Jay argues that his brother was very cautious and would never have trusted someone like Canseco-who he wasn't terribly close to.

   Jay is a bodybuilder and knows a little about steroids-to say the least; again, he's a bodybuilder. He says he talked his older brother into using them in 1994 and that at the time he clearly had never tried them before.

   This is what led to his big run in the late 90s. So it's one author's word against another. So who do you believe? Well, I guess you have to judge who's more credible. For me that's Jay. To be sure, one could question his credibility as his older brother hasn't spoken to him since 2002-maybe because of his talking him into steroids?-but his story sounds more credible than Canseco's, who really isn't tremendously credible on anything.

    Some accuse Jay of throwing his brother under the bus

     http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070103

    but I don't think that's what happened. Canseco has already thrown Mark under the bus, and at least Jay helps us better understand the record.

 

 

   

     

The GOP House Budget: In Defense of Political Pandering

     As Paul Waldman points out regarding the House budget, it may be many things-including vile, foolish, and cruel-in the long view cruelty is usually foolish-but you can't accuse the House GOPers for telling Americans what they want to hear. 

    "Everyone condemns politicians for being too quick to pander, too concerned with doing the popular thing, too willing to hide what they really believe in order to curry favor with an unmerciful electorate. So when a group of politicians throws caution to the wind and tells us what they really think despite the political risk, they deserve our praise. So it is with the House Republicans, who have just released their new budget."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/18/give-house-republicans-credit-for-producing-a-budget-this-cruel/

    In a way, the very caricature of a phony politician who panders is a cruel hoax-it's like when Krugman mocks the knowing warnings of the Very Serious People about how politicians can't be trusted to cut the budget. You might think so, but there's very little proof of this, alas. 

    Say what you want about pandering; by calling it pandering it sounds pejorative, but another name of it could be a politician who actually respects the will of the electorate. William F. Buckley used to talk about 'standing athwart History and screaming 'Stop!'-but while conservatives may find this image admirable another more pejorative name for that would be a dictator. 

   http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamfb384475.html

   http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/05/standing-athwart-history-the-political-thought-of-william-f-buckley-jr

   On the other hand, these GOPers are not necessarily has crazy-or as courageous-in their very cruelty as it may appear. Remember that the rank and file House Repub from a Red, Tea Party state doesn't think it matters what anyone says about them nationally, just in their own Tea Party district. Sometimes the very fact that they are criticized nationally helps them locally.