Front Office Football Central - The GOP has gone too far this time

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)

- FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)

- - The GOP has gone too far this time (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=40235)

The GOP has gone too far this time

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062701447.html

Soros's Nats Bid Irks Republicans

Tuesday, June 28, 2005; E02

Major League Baseball hasn't narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league's antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team.

"It's not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world," Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. "That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it's one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government."

Rep. Tom M. Davis III (R-Va.), who was a strong supporter of bringing a baseball team to Virginia, told Roll Call yesterday that "Major League Baseball understands the stakes" if Soros buys the team. "I don't think they want to get involved in a political fight."

Democrats weren't about to let the broadsides go unanswered.

"Why should politics have anything to do with who owns the team," Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) asked. "So Congress is going to get involved in every baseball ownership decision? Are they next going to worry about a manager they don't like? I've never seen anything as impotent as a congressman threatening the baseball exemption. It gets threatened half a dozen times a year, and our batting average threatening the exemption is zero."

Davis didn't return calls to his office, but spokesman Robert White said, "The point [Davis] was making was how it would look if Major League Baseball sells the hottest team in the market to a guy who spent more money than the gross domestic product of Colombia to legitimize drugs."

Davis chairs the Committee on Government Reform, which recently held high-profile hearings on steroid use in professional and amateur sports.

Soros has supported the legalization of some drugs as a way to combat their illegal abuse. A Soros spokesman, Michael Vachon , said the financier was out of the country and declined to comment.

Washington entrepreneur Jonathan Ledecky , who heads the bidding group that Soros joined, said in an e-mail: "America's pastime should be protected from the rhetoric of partisan politics. It's unfortunate that the negativism that permeates national politics today is infecting Major League Baseball and the Washington Nationals."

Baseball is interviewing lead members of the eight groups that have filed bids to buy the Nationals, who are owned by the league. Most of the bids are believed to range between $300 million and $400 million, with a couple exceeding $400 million, according to sources familiar with the sale process.

"We're going to act and make a decision in the best interest of the franchise and the best interests of the game," MLB spokesman Rich Levin said.

-- Thomas Heath

They better not mess with the Nationals!!!!! Although, I do happen to support revoking the antitrust exemption. I guess it wouldn't be that bad after all. Still, it's all very goofy.

I think they should start with Al Davis, personally...

That is pretty ridiculous - saw it on primer yesterday. Lets just assume its another idle politician threat.

I happen to agree with JohnGalt. There are better ways to have handled this. I can't speak for every conservative in D.C., but I've already told my friends that if Soros is part of the ownership group, I'll never spend another dime on Nats merchandise and/or tickets.

I like Rep. Davis on a lot of issues, but gimme a break.

*Edit*

I do think it's a bit unfair to say "The GOP has gone too far". This is the action of basically one guy. I don't believe I ever said "The Democrats have gone too far" when Dick Durbin went all nutty. In this day and age of fierce partisan divides, we should really try not to paint with a broader brush than necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Agreed - though its more than just Davis. The link on primer is from an article published elsewhere that the DNC website linked to, but the following section, assuming reasonably that the reporter didnt make this up, is worrysome. I don't think teams should have any federal funding, but to selectively highlight one for it is more than a little hypocritical.

Quote:

"Still, Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), vice chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that covers the District of Columbia budget, said if Soros buys the team and seeks public funding for the new stadium or anything else, the GOP attitude would be, "Let him pay for it."

"We're not going to interfere with [the sale], but from a fan's perspective, who needs the politics?" Sweeney said.

Another senior Republican lawmaker who requested anonymity said that the league should be aware of the perception problem that might be associated with selling the Nats to Soros.

"Why would Major League Baseball want to get involved with George Soros?" said the lawmaker. "It's about more than just the sale price."

Dola,
you have that much of a problem with Soros that you wouldn't watch the Nats play ? That's .. .amusing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, I wasn't really being serious in my post. It was supposed to be just goofy.

Estimated number of posts remaining in this thread until it gets nasty: 17

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Estimated number of posts remaining in this thread until it gets nasty: 17

Your mother puts out for Democratic/Republican/Commie/Facist Sailors !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dola,
you have that much of a problem with Soros that you wouldn't watch the Nats play ? That's .. .amusing.

So are the people who boycott Wal-Mart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So are the people who boycott Wal-Mart.

If you really believed Bud that all the teams lose money, wouldn't you want to subsidize Soros just enough to keep him as an owner, but not enough that he actually makes money? ;)

THey ought to rescind the exemption anyway, who cares who owns the teams, baseball ownership need their short hairs plucked to make them do whats best for the sport instead of the crap they offer now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dola,
you have that much of a problem with Soros that you wouldn't watch the Nats play ? That's .. .amusing.

Didn't say I wouldn't watch them play. Just said I wouldn't spend any money that would go in the pockets of George Soros.

The way the tv deal is structured, Angelos of the O's basically owns the TV rights to the Nats. So I could watch with impunity, go to the games with free tickets, etc.

But yes, I dislike George Soros enough that I would not give him a dime. I'm not really sure why that's so amusing. I imagine there were people in Cincy who felt the same way about Marge Schott. I KNOW there are people who feel that way about the owners of the D-Rays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

The way the tv deal is structured, Angelos of the O's basically owns the TV rights to the Nats. So I could watch with impunity, go to the games with free tickets, etc.

Doesn't that make you Angelos' bitch? Conservative slut!

If Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner have been able to own teams, why not Soros?

What about Rupert Holmes and Tina Turner?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner have been able to own teams, why not Soros?

Because he's a dirty drug-legalizin', gun-controllin' no good dastardly liberal.

Duh. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Actually, within a few years, the Nats get 50% of the local tv revenue (or something like that) and they get 10% right away. So, watching them on tv does indeed put money in the pocket of the Nats (and their soon to be owner). Quite the quandary, no?

I really do not think you have anything to worry about. I think all of the bids are going to come in ridiculously close in terms of dollars, and Wuss Selig will take the one that causes the least controversy. Methinks that won't be Soros.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Ditto here... I met and voted for Tom Davis when I lived in his district about 8 years ago (my first election I could vote in)... But this would turn me the other way if I was in his distrcit.

Dola- more from this idiot.

From the WP story citing the Roll Call story:

Quote:

n even nastier abuse came from Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), who actually suggested baseball's antitrust exemption might be in trouble on the Hill if MLB let Soros have the Nats. It's one thing to threaten MLB for failing to govern drug usage -- Congress was quite right to do that. It's quite another to threaten it over one prospective owner's politics. In doing so, Davis and Sweeney just cost themselves all credibility.

You can't help wondering what's behind the outrageous attack on Soros, who isn't even a major partner in the bid for the Nats. (Local entrepreneur Jon Ledecky is the real bidder.) Isn't it strange that rival bidder Fred Malek, the head of the Washington Baseball club, just happens to be a very big GOP fundraiser? And isn't it strange that, in a telephone interview, Davis went out of his way to praise Malek's bid? And isn't it strange that these attacks on Soros from Republicans came on the very day that Ledecky and his partners were being interviewed by MLB?

Davis doesn't bother to hide his agenda. He says straight out that baseball needs to cultivate some good will on Capitol Hill at the moment, given the steroid investigations, and that selling the team to billionaire Soros, a critic of President Bush and a massive financial supporter of liberal causes, would anger him.

"They could use some friends on the Hill right now, and this is not the way to make them," Davis said yesterday.

Davis called Soros "a convicted felon" and "pro-marijuana." He was referring to Soros's conviction in France on insider trading charges, and to the fact that Soros favors the decriminalization of marijuana, and clean needle programs, as a way to combat drug use.

"You've got a league with a steroid problem, and you're going to sell the team to a guy who is pro marijuana? I just don't think we need or want that in the nation's capital. I just don't think you want such a polarizing figure."

But Davis has another problem with Soros, too. He's an "out of towner." Listening to Davis, you wonder if he's next going to say Soros's Hungarian accent is too thick.

"I mean, to me, Soros is the guy who has so much money and wants to buy the world," Davis said. "I mean that's not what baseball's about. This is above all a fan sport. This is the Nationals, and they're going to give it to some multinational?"

he argument that Soros is the wrong person to own a stake in the Nats because of his politics, or his business dealings, or some perceived character flaws, is an insidious one. There are no fewer than eight bidders for the Nats, and every single one of them is engaged politically in some way.

And all of them have warts. You want a wart? Malek has a big one. Malek is a former Richard Nixon aide. When he was White House personnel chief, he was summoned by Nixon to discuss a "Jewish cabal" in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nixon believed Jews in the bureau were tilting stats to make his policies look bad. He wanted to know how many Jews there were in the bureau, and he wanted Malek to count them. Malek eventually complied and produced a list. Some of them were later demoted or transferred. Malek, who insists he is not anti-Semitic, has said that he resisted the order at first and argued with Nixon that there was no "cabal."

This is the sort of ugliness you get into when you start weighing the political desirability of baseball owners. Okay, Soros is a convicted felon in France. George Steinbrenner is a convicted felon in this country. A pardoned one, but still.

If congressmen want to ban major Democratic fundraisers from MLB, could they please start with Peter Angelos? Surely he's a more "polarizing" figure than George Soros? And then there is Rupert Murdoch, who as the head of Fox was nominally in charge of the Dodgers. Another "polarizing" figure. A lot of people find President Bush rather "polarizing," and he owned the Texas Rangers (along with Malek).

But polarizing to whom? Those who disagree with them? Or are they not polarizing, because they are conservatives? And then you have baseball commissioner Bud Selig, who "polarized" Milwaukee by engineering one of the more rapacious stadium deals in recent memory. What about Coors Field? Now there's a polarizing family, the Coors. But they get their name on a ballpark because they earned it the old-fashioned way: They put up the money.

Just like Soros wants to.

It would serve Davis and Sweeney right if Soros were to win a stake in the team. There may be a very simple and primal partisan reason why Republicans are so opposed to a Soros ownership of the Nats. If Soros is an owner of the club, does that mean the R's get really lousy seats and the D's get all the good ones?

"I don't think I'll be getting good season tickets if he gets the team," Davis admitted.

Scumbag. That line about "out of towner" bothers me a lot - Soros has a think eastern European accent, but is an American citizen- do you have to be a perfect WASP for Davis to accept you ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Galt

Davis didn't return calls to his office, but spokesman Robert White said, "The point [Davis] was making was how it would look if Major League Baseball sells the hottest team in the market to a guy who spent more money than the gross domestic product of Colombia to legitimize drugs."

High Times Day at the ballpark?

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

From the WP story citing the Roll Call story:

So, in short, this is a pissing match over whether Reds or Blues own the Washington baseball team? There's nothing of political substance but it's more about who owns the coolest toy in the backyard? Sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by story

This is the sort of ugliness you get into when you start weighing the political desirability of baseball owners. Okay, Soros is a convicted felon in France. George Steinbrenner is a convicted felon in this country. A pardoned one, but still.

Is being a convicted felon in France a plus or a minus here ;)

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner have been able to own teams, why not Soros?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

What about Rupert Holmes and Tina Turner?

John Holmes and Ted Kaczynski?

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm confused by your first point - I don't particularly care who owns the team, just the arguement that Soros is an "out of towner" is particularly noxious to me.

I like how the guy said "I just don't think we need or want that in our nation's capital." DC usually dukes it out with Detroit over who is the murder capital of the united states in a given year. Apparently Soros would tarnish its good name, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm confused by your first point - I don't particularly care who owns the team, just the arguement that Soros is an "out of towner" is particularly noxious to me.

It was more that you posted the article about it and that seemed like what I should quote. I suppose that specific passage had nothing to do with anything. Corrected above.

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaPo

Isn't it strange that rival bidder Fred Malek, the head of the Washington Baseball club, just happens to be a very big GOP fundraiser? And isn't it strange that, in a telephone interview, Davis went out of his way to praise Malek's bid?

I just wanted to highlight this quote from above. Obviously, this isn't a bid by the GOP to keep politics out of the Nats. This is a bid by the GOP to obtain a stranglehold over the politics of the Nats. The issue is not that the owner is political, but rather that the owner's politics do not support the ruling party. Shameful, fascist, but not surprising from this group.

And let's not forget, Malek is an old Bush buddy from the Ranger days, and according to Bernstein and Woodward was Nixon's official 'jew counter'. A real stand-up individual.