I almost could not talk with all of you fine people today. I "MISREMEMBERED" MY PASSWORD!!!!! It must be a Texas thing. I can so hear Georger Bush say misremembered in a speech
In his entire life, Roger Clemens has never met someone he couldn't back down, with his mouth or muscles or talent or his money. He accepted this hearing because he clearly figured he could do exactly the same thing here, to Congress. At first I was surprised at how bad clemens looked, especially with several members kissing his ass, but I guess it was predictable. Nothing from his baseball career translates well to that type situation. His bluster and BS didn't hide the facts nor the holes in his story. His heart felt remarks at the beginning, his talk about the children, his pride in playing for the U.S., none of it hid the facts. His autograph signings all week long only worked on some members of congress. He couldn't say 'how dare you question me' and then storm off. He couldn't fake an injury tweak a hamstring and get out of the heat. It seems almost every body expert has come away praising MacNamee while killing Clemens. And MacNamee isn't use to cameras and questions as Clemens, and it was Clemens, not MacNamee that had 2 lawyers whispering to him the entire day and speaking up for him at others. Clemens also threw everyone under the bus while only admitting to being a trusting guy in almost every situation. And now it seems the nanny is coming to clemens side, and yet it carries much less weight since clemens invited her over to his house before turning over her name. And his response? "I thought I was doing you a favor". Just unbelievable. Clemens was right on when he said in his opening statement that, and I'm paraphrasing, if he didn't say anything, he would look guilty and now that he's doing exactly what an innocent person usually does and that's scream to the heavens and anyone else that would listen that he never took steriods and still, he'll never be able to clear his name. In the beginning when he first came out so strong, sure. That statement made sense. Now? It doesn't. Throw it away. There's a difference between yelling your innocence and stomping your feet, and yelling your innocence while backing it up. He doesn't look guilty because he's fighting it. He looks guilty because of the testimony against him. Clemens quote ignores that, which is what he wants, of course.
Its the job of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to look into whether Roger Clemens used steriods? Try again. Does no one remember this? The freaking President made it a point of contention. Several politicians jumped on the PED bandwagon and started making veiled noise about MLB's antitrust exemption. So to quell the clamor, good ole Bud got on the horn with Mitchell. For all the righteous indignation, the pleading for the safety of the children, and the gnashing of teeth, its all PR. The members of the House get to show their constituents that they're "tough on drugs", MLB gets to act contrite for the fans, and the accused players defend themselves. All with varying degrees of success.
For all those wondering about Roger wearing the other pinstripes.
Some talking head on radio or TV, I can't remember who or where, this morning actually referred to Clemens as "articulate". I'm not sure in what language he was articulate, but it didn't sound like spoken American English. On the nanny thing, Clemens and his lawyers were specifically enjoined from contacting her prior to the Committee taking her deposition. So what's up with an invitation to the house when he hadn't had contact with her since 2001? Try doing this with a witness in a civil or criminal proceeding, and you have a felony on your head.
I'm not sure in what language he was articulate, but it didn't sound like spoken American English. I remember a Boston Globe columnist in a comparison of Pedro and Clemens list "Speaks intelligent English" as a plus under Pedro's name.
Whatever your opinion of Clemens, the forum for his crucifixion should not be in a committee with only the slightest connection to the situation. Clemens wanted yesterday's hearing, Chargdres. As others have pointed out, Waxman said his preference was to issue a report and be done with the matter.
For all those wondering about Roger wearing the other pinstripes. Dear little nontraditional God. That's...that's...words fail me. Really.
justgary, Thanks for the link. I think that kind of stuff is interesting. Also, i did appreciate her humility in recognizing that they cannot know "with certainty" if either of them told the truth b/c of body language. Good stuff.
Clemens wanted yesterday's hearing, Chargdres. As others have pointed out, Waxman said his preference was to issue a report and be done with the matter. He wanted to speak in front of the committee in order to refute MacNamee's testimony. If MacNamee hadn't been called to speak, or better yet, if that whole ridiculous proceeding were to have never taken place, I guarantee you that Clemens would not have volunteered to speak in front of Congress.
And if my mother had wheels, there'd be one more bicycle in the world. Clemens was free to do as he wished.
Clemens was free to speak or submit a written statement. He was not free to keep Congress from investigating him and from having MacNamee talk about his buttocks in the the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I am not saying that Clemens should not be investigated by other sources, ie, media, courts, etc. But Congress is not the body to do so. Again, my argument is that Congress was not the correct forum for this, and Clemens was not the one to choose the forum. The only choice he made was whether to respond or not.
He was not free to keep Congress from investigating him and from having MacNamee talk about his buttocks in the the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I disagree (Though I don't disagree that Congress could be making better use of its time). If Clemens had not gotten up on his hind legs and bellowed like a mad beast to protest the HGH accusations, the committee would not be investigating him. When he fought back against the charges the way he did, he, or his attorneys, should have known that it could have led this investigation and the appearance before the committee.
If I may, and forgive me if this has been mentioned before, Clemens inability to phrase sentences in proper English leads me to believe it is possible that Petite did not understand what Clemens meant. That is not to say that Petite misunderstood, but it is to say that Clemens may have misspoke.
If Clemens had not gotten up on his hind legs and bellowed like a mad beast to protest the HGH accusations, the committee would not be investigating him. If Clemens scurries off to some cave to hide and doesn't attempt to denounce the accusations against him, he's pretty much admitting his guilt. However, if he defends himself publicly, then he's put under even more public scrutiny and is drawn and quartered (or he simply lets the committee spit out ANOTHER report about him that he'd have to defend against...again). The only thing they didn't do was throw him in the water to see if he floats. (Side note: my opinion on this whole dog-and-pony show is not tied to my belief in which of the Clemens/McNamee sides is "less truthful".)
If Clemens scurries off to some cave to hide and doesn't attempt to denounce the accusations against him, he's pretty much admitting his guilt. Yeah. I considered that as well. But I think that there were alot of different ways he could have played it. He could have taken the Martina Hingis route and retired. He could have used the "I won't dignify that with a response" route. Or the "I used them before MLB outlawed them and it was a mistake." Or, (gasp) he could have just come clean. If he goes to the public with a heartfelt apology and dedicates himself to educating people about the evils of PEDs, I think he had an opportunity to save his reputation. And in that case, I think he does get in the HOF. Eventually. I don't think his only two choices were fighting back as hard as he can or crawling into a cave. And even if it was, crawling into a cave sounds better than what he's going through now. As my dad always said, "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt."* *Obviously I never listened to my dad.
He could have taken the Martina Hingis route and retired. I'm sorry, but there isn't a person on the planet that would fall for that a 4th time. Or, (gasp) he could have just come clean. Assuming, of course, that he actually did of what he's been accused. If you go by the assumption that he's innocent any/all he's been accused, then really he's got no real option but to go public to defend himself. That's the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
If you go by the assumption that he's innocent any/all he's been accused, then really he's got no real option but to go public to defend himself. And I guess that's where we'll agree to disagree. I'm assuming he's guilty. If you do assume he's guilty, I don't think he could have handled it worse. If you assume he's innocent, then yeah, I would certainly agree with you.
Tommy John or Phil Necro(?sic) would have told the truth. I watched the hearing and I have made up my mind, I have spent my life, ( fifty years) watching people, providing for my family, my mind is made up. I don't need an expert to tell me who is lying. Say it ain't so Joe. don't mean sh#t. oh my, supermodel wife used but i don't know nothing insults my intelligence and it should yours too, but lets talk to the nanny before the fed do, just to make sure we both tell the profitable truth. This indian getting out of the canoe.
Phil Necro(?sic) would have told the truth. Yeah, Phil Niekro's a great example of honesty; after all, he only threw a spitter for years and had a Doctorate in Baseball Alteration. I'm sure he told all the opposing team's batters before the game that he was going to throw an illegal pitch at them.
Yeah, Phil Niekro's a great example of honesty; after all, he only threw a spitter for years and had a Doctorate in Baseball Alteration. Remember, we've been through this before. Throwing a spitball in major league baseball, or doctoring a baseball (even though against the rules) is acceptable cheating! There were many in that argument who felt cheating like that is quaint, cute, and a part of the game. I, for one, don't buy it, and knowingly breaking written rules in any game shouldn't be accepted. Gaylord Perry won a majority of the games he pitched by cheating, and sits in the Hall of Fame because of it.
What dyams said. There's a widespread tolerance of "quaint, cute and a part of the game" rules violations that makes the self-righteous bombast leveled at other rules violations all the more nauseating.
A quote this morning from Henry Waxman:
"I'm sorry we had the hearing. I regret that we had the hearing. And the only reason we had the hearing was because Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it..." "...Roger Clemens's lawyers told us he wanted the opportunity to make his case in public," Waxman said. "He had his opportunity." Now, Waxman added, 90 percent of the people being asked their opinion of the hearing were stating that they did not believe Clemens.
Chico, as long as we are posting one sided views from partisan hacks in that article you linked, here is another: Waxman's regrets, and his assertion that Clemens's side was responsible for the hearing taking place, was assailed last night by Clemens's lead attorney, Rusty Hardin, who said Waxman's statements were "unbelievable, disingenuous and outrageous." "He is the one who created this circus in the first place," Hardin said of Waxman, contending that Clemens and his lawyers had asked several weeks ago for the hearing to be called off, only to be rebuffed by Waxman's staff.
Chargdres, it's the NY Times that story was in, not the Washington Times, and that "one-sided ... partisan hack" Henry Waxman is a Republican himself, who's been in that position for a long time now, and he's engendered way more respect as the Chair of the committee than anyone else in that room had, on either side of the gavel. I linked to the whole article, not just the one quote I found revealing. We get it. You're angry. Tone the rhetoric down, okay? Bullying people didn't work during the hearing, and it won't work in this thread.
Chico, since when is Waxman a Republican?
According to his wikipedia article he is one of the most influential liberal members of Congress.
Okay, I misread the article. I take that back. Whatever. My point remains: his credibility, more than that of anyone else who was in that room, holds actual weight in this discussion.
My point remains: his credibility, more than that of anyone else who was in that room, holds actual weight in this discussion. I dispute that point. Honestly, I don't know whose voice holds the most credibility in that room, to me, every single one of them came off terribly. Waxman has been known for a quite a while as being an overzealous prosecutorial-style Chairman. Here is an example. This is not to say that the Republicans who assail Waxman in this article are any better. Davis, the Committee's Ranking Member, when he was Chairman, began these MLB investigations. The point I am trying to make is that I believe it to be foolish to believe that Waxman, or any other politician for that matter, is somehow above partisanship and stretching the truth to make a point. Not that a lawyer is either. I appologize if I have come across as bullying to you, Chico. However, if you look back at the comments that I have made on this thread, I have consistently backed up my statements with facts and reasoned arguments. Some others on this thread, including yourself, have made statements that are incorrect, and I have challenged those points; not just about Waxman's politics, but you also contended incorrectly that Waxman's committee existed in order to deal with drug trafficking. You, and every other poster can reasonably disagree with my views, and I have no problem with that. I will however express my views and challenge inaccurate statements and faulty reasoning. That is not bullying.
Okay, I misread the article. Surely, dear Chico, you mean you misremembered the article.
somehow above partisanship and stretching the truth to make a point What's the partisan side to this? Is one side pro-drugs for kids? If so, they've got my vote, so please let me know. The problem with your argument, as far as I see it, is there's no there there. What would you prefer, that Clemens be allowed to ride into the sunset regardless of his possible drug use? If so, he had that chance and he blew it. About 4 times.
Unfortunately, it did become quite partisan. Clemens, like President Bush and his father, George H. W. Bush, lives in Texas. In his testimony Wednesday, Clemens told the committee that the former president Bush had reached out to him after the Mitchell report was released and told him "to stay strong and hold your head up high."
What's the partisan side to this? Is one side pro-drugs for kids? If so, they've got my vote, so please let me know. The problem with your argument, as far as I see it, is there's no there there. What would you prefer, that Clemens be allowed to ride into the sunset regardless of his possible drug use? If so, he had that chance and he blew it. About 4 times. You have taken my argument out of context and contstructed a straw man in order to misrepresent (or misremember?) the point I was making. No one in this case is pro-drugs for kids, obviously that is silly. There was, however, quite a bit of partisanship in the committee, with Dems lining up to slam Clemens, and Repubs generally lining up to defend him/urge a more cautious approach. Not sure why that was exactly, but I have heard a possible explanation that the Republicans dislike Waxman so much that they reflexively decided to oppose him because he was so agressive with Clemens.. Anyways, the point I was making was not that this issue was or should be particularly partisan, but rather I was responding to Chico by pointing out that Waxman himself is not above presenting a one sided interpretation of events and evidence, as the article I linked noted, and that therefore his credibility should not go unquestioned.
quite a bit of partisanship in the committee, with Dems lining up to slam Clemens, and Repubs generally lining up to defend him/urge a more cautious approach Fair enough. I gave up after about 5 minutes and shut them off. It seems like a funny place to make a partisan stand to me as I can't imagine basing my vote one way or the other on how someone interviewed a baseball player.
Alright. It's one thing to "[point] out that Waxman himself is not above presenting a one sided interpretation of events and evidence." It's quite another to call someone a "partisan hack" when they were giving their personal opinion, outside of the hearing, about other people giving their opinions, on both sides of the discussion, while still under gavel. Which he thought was inappropriate and self-defeating. For both sides of the discussion. If that's "partisan hackery," then what would you call your reductio ad absurdum argument? And jerseygirl, don't call me Surely.
If that's "partisan hackery," then what would you call your reductio ad absurdum argument? I really don't know where I made a reductio ad absurdum argument in this thread, would you mind pointing it out to me? I called Waxman a partisan hack not because of that particular statement, but because of his body of work which has been quite divisive politically and often (IMO) unneccesarily inflammatory. I gave an example of what I meant in the the link from before. Perhaps it was inappropriate for me to use that term in my argument, but I stick by my assertion that his credibility is no greater than that of Clemens' attorney, and that therefore his statements should not be taken at face value.
He's the Chair. He may not be universally loved, but he's done this before, many, many times, over issues of far greater import than this one. Calling him a liberal or a partisan hack doesn't change that. Clemens' attorney is being paid to argue his client's side as loud and hard as he can. He's supposed to be a partisan if anyone is. And poor Rusty is doing the best he can, given that his client isn't doing him any favors. But if you're buying the line of the guy at the furthest end of his side of the seesaw over that of the presiding Chair of the hearing, then your calls of bias kind of ring hollow.
