March 18, 2005

And Mark McGwire's Just A Beefed-Up Liar In D.C. You Know Where That's At

Apparently, taking steroids shrinks your testicles and your credibility:

Once, he was compared to Babe Ruth. Thursday, he was compared to Enron. That's not what you call a great day on Capitol Hill. But that's the kind of day it was for a fallen living legend named Mark McGwire. People are never going to look at him the same now. Not after a day of dodging questions the way he once dodged fastballs steaming toward his eyebrows.

Legally, of course, McGwire didn't have to answer those questions. Remember that. The men who wrote the Constitution handed him that right. So in a way, all he did was exercise his fundamental right to avoid ensconcing himself in a whole mess of trouble. But a lot of good that will do Not So Big Mac with millions of people who once loved him, cheered him, froze their existences those four times a night when he walked toward home plate.

It was way too clear what he didn't want to talk about and why he didn't want to talk about it. Now he has to know, just as we know, what that means. It means he drove his reputation off a cliff Thursday, and left his legacy irreparably splattered. Very possibly beyond repair. He didn't want to talk about the past. That's what he said. But now, that part he didn't want to talk about is all anyone else will ever want to talk about. And that ain't good.

Meanwhile, Instapundit cites Steven Chapman as saying:

We're at war in Iraq, at war in Afghanistan, threatened by Al Qaeda, mired in budget deficits, faced with gargantuan liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, struggling to sustain the fighting capacity of our military forces--and what does this committee think warrants its urgent attention? Whether a handful of overpaid entertainers are taking forbidden pills to improve their performance.

The hearing rests on two well-worn premises that ought to offend the conservative sensibilities of Republicans, who control this committee and Congress. The first is that absolutely everything is a federal responsibility. The second is that the private sector needs incessant guidance from government.

But, is it really so bad that Congress is preoccupied with something that might actually be mildly helpful rather than focusing on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, threats by Al Qaeda, budget deficits, gargantuan liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, and sustaining the fighting capacity of our military forces? Or do you really believe that self-serving, self-righteous, partisan propogandizing a la "No Blood for Oil!", "the brutal Afghan winters", "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11", "what Social Security crisis?", and the frequently mindless, disrespectful carping about Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputies refocusing of the Defense Department is preferrable to one pampered group giving a well deserved hard time to another pampered group instead?

But I do believe Donald Fehr is going to find Congress a somewhat more formidable opponent than Bud Selig. They play hardball, and moneyball, too.

Posted by Charles Austin at March 18, 2005 11:18 AM

Charles, Congress may actually save the game from the Union, despite the Owners' collective ineptitude.

Posted by: Steve Malynn at 01:11 PM

McGwire's done a weird Garbo thing in retirement - starting with faxing it in and continuing with his pleas to just be left alone.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at 03:33 PM