Want to own a baseball team? Republican only, please. No Democrats need apply.

I would like to think that if it were 1975 and Steinbrenner were just now applying to buy the Yankees he would have done just that. However, that still does not excuse the illegal and/or marginal business dealings of Soros.

But here is the interesting point: The Left is criticizing Davis and Sweeney for their APPROACH to keeping Soros from buying into MLB in a rather obvious attempt to deflect the review of his shaky and/or illegal business dealings. Which was worse, Davis' APPROACH to the subject or Soros' HISTORY?

 

I went to RFK today to watch the Nationals play the Mets. I saw one of the most incredible double plays I've ever seen.

 

It was cool blowing off a half day of work today. My office is about three blocks from a Metro station, so I hopped on the subway and went down to RFK, where I met my brother-in-law. Drank about four beers, and had a blast.

Oh, and I hope Soros buys the team, builds a new stadium and names it "Pro-Choice Secular-Humanists for Stem-Cell-Research and Gay-Marriage Park."

 

Damn. And I had my hopes up for Lefty Moonbat Field.

 

Helluva race in the NL East. I still can't believe the Nats are doing so well, with virtually no big name players.

 

You are overlooking the fact that I said from the start that Davis made a mistake approaching this entire matter from a political perspective. The best I can say for him was that he was being honest about his true motivation.

However, I went on to suggest what a more logical way to attack Soros COULD be. You can agree or disagree with the man's political point of view but the fact he had bent and broken several rules speaks to his trustworthiness in the joint endevour know as MLB.

Look. I don't like Soros one little bit. That dislike is not based on his politics. If he wants to be a liberal, fine. There are a lot of people in the world with whom I do not agree on certain things but that doesn't mean I don't like THEM. In the case of Soros, I don't like him. Period.

As to your comment that a "shady past" has not prevented ownership of sports teams in the past; that is not true. The recent ownership tussle with the Minnesota Vikings is only the latest example. Fellow owners are NOT likely to admit anybody into their little clubhouse that is going to get Congress on their back by challenging their anti-trust exemption. Bud Selig may be a nincompoop about a good many things but this is any area that he rules rather tightly. The same goes for the NBA and NFL.

With that, I'm out of this thread.

 

"Absolutely! Owners of professional sports teams must be beyond reproach!"

- Al Davis, Oakland, CA

 

DJ, in general I find you to be one of the most thoughtful and well-spoken posters here, but this is complete and utter manure.

I am not a member of the Left, nor am I criticizing Davis' approach. I am criticizing Davis for getting involved in the situation at all, regardless of whether he's accusing Soros of being an inside trader, a currency speculator, a kitten killer, or a devout Satan worshipper.

If MLB decides "Hey, this Soros character is a son of an ill-tempered woman and has a past that is so shady and murky that we don't want to sell him the Nationals for fear of what he might do in terms of his business dealings with the league," fine, more power to them.

But Tom Davis, who is a politician to the core, is only getting involved in this because of politics. What right does he have to get involved in MLB's decision about who they are going to sell the Nats to?

 

Against my previous statement that I would bow out of this one...

thank you for the compliment.

That I have chosen this opportunity to attack Soros is not a point from which I will duck. I don't like political opportunists, especially when they are 2-faced money grubbers, and Soros fits that mold. Part of that is my disagreement with his political stance and part of it is his HISTORY. Unlike Steinbrenner who made a single illegal decision (that has been identified) over 30 years ago, Soros has a 30 year history. THAT is why the man truly gets me warmed up.

Davis does also but he has had far less impact on the face of the American political landscape, hence my selection. But the nature of the special anti-trust exemption given baseball, by Congress entitles Davis, and any other pol who chooses to do so, the right to comment on who gets into the club. That is the critical component that has been overlooked. I just believe Davis did not do it well.

 

Fair enough; I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Having lived in Davis' district for many years (and having voted for him, too, before he became much less of a representative of a fairly moderate district and much more of a partisan figure), I don't think the man could care less whether or not Soros is a felon. Davis is opposing Soros' involvement in the bidding purely out of partisan spite.