Feb
17
Posted on 02-17-2008 at 04:04pm
Do sports need to be “public”? (Part II)
Filed Under (Baseball, Government & Politics) by nedwilliams on 02-17-2008

I was just reading (here) about Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and his reported regret about holding the Clemens hearings. John Hutcheson posted on the subject the other day, and Glen Dean at TennesseeFree.com has a round-up of Tennessee bloggers on the matter.

The NYTimes highlights the partisan nature of the hearings, but from other reading that I’ve done on the matter, the partisanship is unremarkable given the reason for the hearings. While the Times reporter emphasizes that Dubya, HW and Clemens are all from Texas (and as we all know, Dubya and HW were both Republican presidents–see how fun this is?), I think it is a little more relevant to consider that Republicans and Democrats have a different view of the role of the Federal government, the legitimate reach of “Congressional Oversight,” the extent to which Henry Waxman epitomizes the principle, “politics is show biz for ugly people.” That last one was just thrown in there for fun.

I guess that some in Congress are contemplating making Steroid use a Federal Crime, if local references to the “Commerce Clause” are any indication. Regardless, it is intriguing to observe the country’s fascination with this issue and these hearings. Even for those who oppose the idea of Federal legislators putting people under oath and grilling them. As the NYT pointed out, FoxNews broadcast the 4+ hours of hearings even though FoxNews anchors and reporters raised questions about the legitimacy of the oversight investigation. Henry Waxman regrets the Clemens hearing? It seems to me that this spectacle is a wholly predictable product of Waxman’s vision of the Federal Government as Supreme Overseer.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • RawSugar
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
    Read More   

Comments

Jeffraham Prestonian on 17 February, 2008 at 7:39 pm #

Why, Ned! I am shocked at your nonchalance concerning letting American youth watch and perhaps even revel a bunch of drug-using cheaters. My, my… if it were a nip-slip at the Supah Bowl, I would think you’d leave a smoke trail, spinnin’ out those tires to get to a pen and paper (or winger blog).

But I agree this is about the stupidest frickin’ topic that Congress could take up. Christ — finding an investigation to follow in the Bush administration? Fish in a barrel.
.


Ned Williams on 17 February, 2008 at 8:22 pm #

Gee, I guess that would make sense if I had complained that they didn’t hold congressional hearings to get to the bottom (!) of the Jackson/Timberlame affair.

Waxman has only shot blanks on the arguably serious issues they’ve investigated.


Jeffraham Prestonian on 17 February, 2008 at 9:35 pm #

Waxman has only shot blanks on the arguably serious issues they’ve investigated.

The night is young, my friend. If I remember, you’re the guy who talks big, but never wagers, right?
.


Ned Williams on 17 February, 2008 at 9:41 pm #

Uh, not sure what you’re talking about. No, I don’t “wager” and, being a Conservative, I am sure that you would interpret much of what I say as “talk[ing] big.”


democommie on 17 February, 2008 at 9:49 pm #

Jefferham:

You need to realize that Henry Waxman is just a grandstanding political hack unlike the Republicans who were involved in the congressional investigation, into the same issues, that started back in 2005.


Ned Williams on 17 February, 2008 at 10:44 pm #

Good point . . . they weren’t acting very Republican, were they?


BrassAss on 18 February, 2008 at 12:18 pm #

Baseball enjoys special anti-trust protections courtesy of the federal government and Congress is well within its rights and responsibilities to ensure the government isn’t protecting unfair and unsafe enhancement by baseball players.


Ned Williams on 18 February, 2008 at 2:07 pm #

Yeah, I’ve heard that argument.