Wasting Taxpayer Money: Clemens-McNamee Gamer

Pitchers and catchers report tomorrow. Unfortunately, that's about the last thing on everybody's mind this morning.

Things don't look good for Roger Clemens. We don't know if he was kissed, but it appears he was certainly betrayed by a friend, as Andy Pettitte apparently filed an afidavit saying he discussed using HGH with Clemens, and the New York Times also is reporting that congressional investigators dug up their own corroborating evidence for Brian McNamee's story.

It's a story fascinating for its tawdriness. You don't want to watch, yet you can't look away, so you might as well comment on the hearing here.

Comments

[LocklandSF]

You can watch it live online from CNNSI, except you have to download their special video player, asshats. When will people realize Flash video won the race.

[Paul SF]

That's how I'm watching it, Lockland. Waxman is saving the Pettitte affidavit for last :-P

[LocklandSF]

Love the opening, basically...

"One of you is lying, so, which is it?"

[Paul SF]

Waxman says Clemens hasn't been telling the truth about discussing HGH with McNamee and being injected with lydocaine in the team's training area.

Pettitte told the committee that in 1999-2000 Clemens "told me that he had taken HGH."

[YF]

For the record, I'm having no problem looking away.

[LocklandSF]

Wow, they are missing votes on the floor for this.

[Yankee Fan In Boston]

BOMBSHELL!

roger clemens in his opening statements:
"...I am guilty...."

[Yankee Fan In Boston]

that quote in full:
“If I keep my emotions in check, then I am acused of not caring. When I kept quiet at the advice of my attorney until he could find out why in the world I was being accused of these things, I was accused of having something to hide, so I am guilty. When I did speak out, I was accused of protesting too much, so I am guilty.”

will this all end today?

[John - YF]

Really Mr. Cummings is this the most important thing you can be doing for the state of Maryland and the United States? Stop reminding him he's under oath.

[SF]

Clemens appears to be the OJ Simpson of this whole saga. Not to create an equivalency between the two men since that would be grotesque, but Clemens seems to have truly convinced himself that he didn't do any of the things that many people have now corroborated he actually did. It's like he has no memory of the events, or truly believes that what he did wasn't wrong and as such they have been assimilated and consumed completely by his storied career; they were such tiny blips amidst his greatness that a few injections were inconsequential or, worse, his entitlement.

Clemens is just the figurehead, he's certainly not alone in his "guilt". But his guilt seems, at this point, to be pretty well established, at least to me. The fact that he is in complete denial of his transgressions reflects the game at the time he took HGH, etc. Don't ask, don't tell. Now that look-away policy has morphed into simply "don't remember", basically. It's like an existentialist trap. If it isn't remembered, it never occurred. I am sure there are many fans that wish that we could all forget this stuff, act like it never happened, just move on, rest on the accomplishments of the past and forget the context in which they were achieved. But that's Clemens' mindset, in the extreme. Me, I think it is important that we don't forget. I find the generic "this is a waste of taxpayers' money" quip to be simplistic at best, unconscionably cynical at worst. The amount of money that this is "wasting" should be quantified before a charge like that is leveled. How much is it worth if these minimal hearings help clean up the game, even a small amount? Why should people be allowed to lie under oath with impunity, just because these hearings cost money? What is the social cost of establishing that kind of principle?

I am extremely liberal. I have tremendous faith in government, even as the government continually fails it's citizenry. But baseball occupies a special place, culturally (and economically). It has an antitrust exemption granted by the government. And therefore the sport and those who have profited from it should be obligated to answer to questions asked by the government that granted such an exemption, truthfully. I have no quarrel with these guys being called to committee and expected to tell the truth. This isn't a waste of money, at least not a significant one worth bleating about. Wars are wastes of money. Using valuable time to grant telcos immunity for their violations of thousands of citizens' civil rights is a waste of money, effectively, as well as flat-out offensively undemocratic. These hearings pale in comparison by that measure, even as the sport they interrogate has great value to us as Americans. The cost of them (or value of them) shouldn't be measured in dollars.

[John - YF]

This isn't a waste of money? I respect you tremendously SF, but this is the definition of waste of money.

[John - YF]

He's not even giving Clemens a chance to talk. Cummings is an idiot. Clemens is mid sentence and he is cutting him off. He has an agenda here and it's crystal clear.

[LocklandSF]

How much money could this hearing possibly cost, really?

[LocklandSF]

In all fairness, Clemens just keep repeating him self anyway, "misremember..blah blah" "he would have come to me...blah blah"

[John - YF]

Money, time, effort, it's a waste. This country has much bigger issues then steroid or HGH use in baseball. I wonder if Cummings attacks Maryland's problems REAL problems with the same vigor. I have been to Baltimore, Cummings needs to treat Baltimore like he did Clemens.

[DR]

What part of the interest in this story is based on disliking Roger Clemens and watching him go down or caring about finidng out about the role of steroids in the sport. I find the whole thing to border on farce. When the Mitchell Report first came out, I thought it was actually pretty important that it name names. Since that time though, I have come around to YF's point of view on the subject.

Even if Roger Clemens screams out to Waxman for redemption, I don't really feel as if we have gained very much.

[John - YF]

It doesn't matter Lockland, he asked him a question, he gets the chance to answer it.

[SF]

This country has much bigger issues then steroid or HGH use in baseball.

Well, I don't want to get into a huge political argument. What you say is completely true, John. There are far more important things. But the existence of much more important things doesn't make the less important things irrelevant or not worth investigating or discussing. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Ric]

"It doesn't matter Lockland, he asked him a question, he gets the chance to answer it."

Rog was being asked a yes/no question- an answer regarding a conversation in 2006 doesnt answer it.

[LocklandSF]

Also, if it wasn't this dog and pony show, these politicians would find something else to waste their time with, at least this is interesting to me.

[SF]

And John, I know next-to-nothing about Elijah Cummings, but a quick read of his biography shows that he has a lot more on his plate than just these hearings.

http://www.house.gov/cummings/about.shtml

[John - YF]

Understood SF, but in order for this investigation to have value the result would need to be something worth while. What is going to come from this other than he said, he said. The focus should be on fixing baseball and setting up new testing and protocol for today's game. If this is about the love of the game then focus on the NOW, not the past.

[John - YF]

Elijah Cummings was combative and short with Clemens. That's all I know of him, good bad or otherwise. But like I said earlier use that same vigor towards things that matter.

[LocklandSF]

John, I notice that you're paying attention to it, you're a fan of baseball and you're watching it.

Frankly, this hearing has little to do with baseball and Waxman was very up front about that at the start of this hearing.

This has to do with Roger thinking he's above the law or not.

[John - YF]

I am home on a snow day, so yes I am watching it.

"This has to do with Roger thinking he's above the law or not."

Well that's a great reason to waste the money and time of our government. I am not a Roger Clemens fan and never really have been, but Roger Clemens is not where this problem begins and ends. If that is the only result of this hearing it was a failure. How does proving Clemens guilt or innocence help the game of baseball or the country we live in?

[soxgirl]

I'm not sure it's a matter of proving Clemens guilt or innocence as much as validating the Mitchell Report. Let's say Roger had done the same as Pettite and admitted some use but said he also went years without it. Maybe MLB could have agreed that the Mitchell Report was the tip of the iceberg (as it most surely is) and moved on to implement new measures to combat PEDs. No punishments for past abusers, no fiddling with the record books, just a big sigh and "OK guys let's fix this". With Roger saying that it's all a lie, the point becomes proving the the Mitchell Report is valid and focus is moved away from fixing anything.

[Emma]

Oh god, the abscess. I can't believe they went there.

It is my sincere goal to never, ever during the course of my life have to use the word "buttock" on television.

I may be too easily embarrassed to watch any more of this...

[John - YF]

"With Roger saying that it's all a lie, the point becomes proving the the Mitchell Report is valid and focus is moved away from fixing anything."

I don't think Clemens is saying the entire MR is a lie, just what is being said about him. The MR's validity is not linked to Roger Clemens usage or non-usage of PEDS. The focus of the MR was on the game's problems, not the individual's problems. The MR was put together not to out individuals, but determine if the game had a problem.

[SF]

Little known fact: Joseph Conrad, at the insistence of a nitpicky editor, changed the what was originally written as "the abscess, the abscess!" to the now-classic "the horror, the horror". Coppola (and we) are forever indebted.

[SF]

The MR's validity is not linked to Roger Clemens usage or non-usage of PEDS.

But this is naive. The MR has been branded a "witch hunt". That implies that there was a goal to brand players guilty regardless of the evidence. And this nomenclature, by its nature, tears down the validity of the MR. So if the MR's revelation that the greatest pitcher ever (as some believe) was using illicit substances, and that revelation is shown to be truthful, then the entire report gains credibility, whether that is a justifiable result commensurate with the revelation.

Conversely, if these allegations are proven to be utterly false, shouldn't the MR's credibility suffer? Isn't that a paradox? If Clemens is exonerated, wouldn't the MR be dealt a blow, regardless of the rightness of its conclusions about what should be done in the future to combat steroid use?

[soxgirl]

"Little known fact: Joseph Conrad, at the insistence of a nitpicky editor, changed the what was originally written as "the abscess, the abscess!" to the now-classic "the horror, the horror". Coppola (and we) are forever indebted."

Looks like SF owes me a new keyboard.

[Paul SF]

This is indeed a waste of taxpayer money. Is it Congress' job to prove or disprove the Mitchell Report? No. I thought the first hearings had merit because baseball and drug use are both of interest to the American public, and the sport got a much-needed shaking up.

This time, the issue is so narrowly focused, it's clearly a governmental intrusion into a matter I have no interest in seeing legislators govern.

It's interesting. I'm watching it. I just don't think it should be taking place.

[Paul SF]

Though, granted, Congress wastes far more money on far worse things than a hearing. That doesn't make this any less a waste of money, however.

[YF]

Paul can defend his own locutions, but to me the phrase "wasting taxpayer money" is shorthand not just for the financial cost of this hearing, but for the cost in diversion from matters of actual significance: the war, the recession, health care, education, environment, etc., and is therefore appropriate. In an election season, Roger Clemens makes a convenient target for grandstanding politicians. And that's what this is about; not "truth" or reform or what have you. Clemens's culpability, whatever it may or may not be, is not the issue here. He doesn't need to be held up in front of an open hearing to change baseball's testing policy. Certainly Chuck Knoblauch doesn't. I think those of us who are disgusted by this charade are not saying "forget history," as SF suggests. We remember it in its full scope, and don't need to see a scapegoat's shoved over a cliff, howevermuch that goat might stink, to make some point about what I'm not even sure. That's a disservice to history.

[DR]

I don't think the Mitchell Report has been branded a witch hunt because it was intent on naming players regardless of the evidence. It has been argued that naming a select group of players does not necessarily illuminate much about how widespread the problem was or the effect certain drugs actually have on athletic performance. As evidenced by the whole hearing today, it actually seems that the naming of players has distracted from the other more instructive parts of the Mitchell Report.

Mitchell himself said that he thought it was important to look to the future, not try to punish for things that have happened in the past. What conclusions are we going to reach about combating steroid use based on these hearings?

[Paul SF]

"What uniform will you wear to the Hall of Fame?"

Good grief.

[John - YF]

"But this is naive. The MR has been branded a "witch hunt". That implies that there was a goal to brand players guilty regardless of the evidence. And this nomenclature, by its nature, tears down the validity of the MR. So if the MR's revelation that the greatest pitcher ever (as some believe) was using illicit substances, and that revelation is shown to be truthful, then the entire report gains credibility, whether that is a justifiable result commensurate with the revelation."

The MR should be bigger than who it brought down. The goal of the MR should have been to resolve MLB's issue with PED's. The MR should never have been about who it brought down. Why would it's validity be ehnanced due to the stature of the player it brought down? The game is about the whole, not the individual and the same can be said about it's problems.

[Paul SF]

This thing over the Casneco party is a huge red herring, but it seems like Clemsns is wrong (lying?) about that, too. His nanny contradicts his story.

[Paul SF]

Ouch. Clemens invited the nanny to his house the day before his attorneys finally gave congressional investigators her name and number.

Uh, that's not good.

Clemens' response: "I was doing y'all a favor."

[Dirty Water]

Your time is up? For crying out loud, will someone please ask Clemens if he was at the Conseco party or not?

I can't believe they just let him slide there.

[Paul SF]

That's your classic coverp-not-the-crime scenario. Is it horrible if Clemens can't remember whether he was at a pary 10 years ago? No.

Is it horrible that Clemens made contact with a potentially damaging witness before turning her name over to investigators? Absolutely.

[Dirty Water]

Yeah Roger, why did you continue to employ McNamee after you knew he had injected your wife, which led to her having medical complications?

So busted. So damn guilty

[soxgirl]

I'm just getting NYT blog updates, not listening. Did someone really ask him what hat he would wear into the Hall of Fame?

[Dirty Water]

Yes. I was disgusted with the question

[John - YF]

He said his friend a congressman or something from Mass wanted to know what uniform he would be wearing into the Hall of Fame.

[John - YF]

I have to ask this question...

What is the true purpose of this hearing?

If you answered to prove Roger's guilt or who is lying, please tell me how that helps the game of baseball?

YF makes some very good points above. Adding to that please someone tell me how this helps the game of baseball and after all wasn't that the GOAL of the MR? I could be missing it, but I just don't see how this is good for the game.

[Dirty Water]

I wonder if Roger chose to be enshrined with a Sox cap they (the Sox) could stop him from doing so. Not that he has indicated he would, and not that he'll be enshrined before Rose.

[John - YF]

"Is it horrible that Clemens made contact with a potentially damaging witness before turning her name over to investigators? Absolutely."

Roger Cossack just called the lawyers attempts to contact the nanny "Standard Operating Procedure" and that "I would have done the same."

[John - YF]

"The choice of which team’s logo appears on a player’s plaque is the Museum's decision, though we always consider the wishes of an inductee. As a history Museum, it's important that the logo be emblematic of the historical accomplishments of that player's career. A player's election to the Hall of Fame is a career achievement, and as such, every team for whom he played is listed on the plaque; however, the logo selection is based on where that player makes his most indelible mark."

Neither the player or the team has say. But thanks for trying to make this a Sox/Yankees issue.

[John - YF]

Pete Abraham watching the hearings in the Legends field press box has this comment "The question I have is what will come of this? This looks and sounds like a trial but there will be no verdict."

[Dirty Water]

Well, John, if you heard the disgust from the committee chairman about how all of baseball has been unwilling to cooperate, I think at the very least the culmination of these hearings will lead to issues like drug testing being conducted by some company completely detached from MLB. And that's a real good start because it's pretty obvious at this point that the league believes it is above the law.

[SF]

but to me the phrase "wasting taxpayer money" is shorthand not just for the financial cost of this hearing, but for the cost in diversion from matters of actual significance: the war, the recession, health care, education, environment, etc., and is therefore appropriate.

Get real. There is nothing about this hearing that has any bearing on Congress' ability (or inability) to deal with those larger issues. Just witness the FISA BS that transpired yesterday: did that have anything to do with these hearings? Did approving Sam Alito? Does Barney Frank not do his job because a handful of congresspeople are spending a few hours with Clemens and McNamee? Is there a more unimpeachable symbol of integrity than Henry Waxman? Does Bush's new budget (and the future negotiations with congress) have anything to do with these hearings? Congresspeople can walk and chew gum at the same time, and brandishing these hearings as evidence that they are distracted or not doing their jobs or, gosh, wasting money is, I hate to use the word, stupid. There are all sorts of problems which lead to bad governance and the worst you can say about these hearings is they are evidence of that (if you in fact believe that, which I don't). But these hearings have no bearing on whether or not these congressmen and women do their jobs addressing other issues or whether they address them well. Their failures on other fronts are independent, glaring, and in some cases unforgivable. But baseball, steroids, and these hearings have less than nothing to do with that. These are systematic failures and failures of principle which have nothing at all to do with the Mitchell Report or these hearings.

[John - YF]

Did we really need to waste all this time and energy to come to the conclusion that MLB needs drug testing? What I would really like to have seen was the Owners and Selig in front of these politicians and have them be grilled since they are the root of the problem. In addition the testing that is required to eliminate all the problems is blood testing and that will never happen, ever! So at the end of the day what differences came from this hearing?

[Dirty Water]

Dude, I wasn't trying to make it a S/Y issue. Matter of fact, I doubt your Yankees would be too excited about Roger's polluting their history.

Didn't I read that Fisk was contemplating bids from CHI and BOS for which cap he would be enshrined with? That does not sound like the HOF committee deciding.

[SF]

Did we really need to waste all this time and energy to come to the conclusion that MLB needs drug testing?

I don't know, John. I think that's as close to unanswerable a question as you can ask.

I have one question amidst all of this: is it ok, regardless of context, to lie under oath? Whether you agree with the circumstance of Clemens' appearance or whether it is "fair" to him, is it justifiable for him to (conceivably) lie to congress? If so, why? Honest question.

[John - YF]

"The choice of which team’s logo appears on a player’s plaque is the Museum's decision, though we always consider the wishes of an inductee. As a history Museum, it's important that the logo be emblematic of the historical accomplishments of that player's career. A player's election to the Hall of Fame is a career achievement, and as such, every team for whom he played is listed on the plaque; however, the logo selection is based on where that player makes his most indelible mark."

That's directly from the HOF website. The player has no choice.

If Clemens does ever make the HOF it will most likely be wearing a Red Sox cap, like it or not.

[DR]

It is not a useful question without the context.

[John - YF]

"I don't know, John. I think that's as close to unanswerable a question as you can ask."

SF, again I respect you tremendously. You are a very smart man and I know that you cannot honestly believe that we needed this scandal to decide we needed testing. McGwire, Canseco, Sosa, ring a bell? The owners, the PA, Selig swept this under the rug for years and suddenly now we have this epihany that we need testing? Come on.

[Dirty Water]

Did Roger just attribute his "B12" use to his mother? Oh man, this guy has no shame. None.

[YF]

SF: You're talking about hours of the day--and i don't agree with you even on that front, for what it's worth--but the greater issue is symbology. The hearings are a representation of misaligned priorities and sanctimonious grandstanding to no good purpose. That's my opinion. If you think it's stupid, that's fine. I'm not going to take offense. We're just going to have to disagree on this one. And I'm not sure I'd describe Waxman as any kind of beacon of integrity. He's a politician. And I don't quite think he's acquitted himself too well in this situation.

[LocklandSF]

I'm pretty that is a relaivly new policy, in the past I think players were allowed to pick their cap and there is a good reason the HOF put an end to that. Can anyone back this up?

[LocklandSF]

Wow, I hit post WAY too fast on that one.

[Dirty Water]

John-

"Clemens said Saturday he will not attend his own induction ceremony if he is not allowed to go into the Hall of Fame as a member of the New York Yankees"

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0615/1568234.html

Yeah, I know Roger is always full of shit, but still, I thought I had read that.

[walein]

SF-

I think the "waste of money" involved here goes to the face that this "hearing" has very little to do with uncovering the truth of the matter or fixing the problems of PED in professional baseball.
The Mitchell Report Executive, sitting there in the middle, might as well get out some pop-corn and a fork because this is a big cake-walk for him. He's had to answer two or three questions about the shoddy-quality of his investigation. Everything else about this hearing is personal political ambition. Representatives telling everyone how they are against drugs and what bills they've supported seem to have very little to do with finding out anything more than why they should either be re-elected or why they should possibly run for even higher office.

[Hudson]

Wasting taxpayer money? This represents probably something like 1/10,000th of of 1% of the national budget.

If this site is so worried about budgeting, maybe it could help track down the billions in cash that the U.S. airlifted into Iraq but can't account for.

[Paul SF]

Should Congress be having this hearing? No. Is Congress spending money (real money and paying staffers to investigate, be at this hearing, etc.) to hold this hearing? Yes. Then it's a waste of money. Period, regardless of how long they walk or how many pieces of gum they chew.

"I would have done the same."

Yes, the attorneys should have contacted her -- not Clemens. It looks like he was trying to intimidate her, and if this were a real trial, there would be charges for witness tampering. Lawyers have every right through discovery to know what witnesses called by the other side will say, and I understand wher Clemens' attorneys are coming from because this is like a trial but with none of the rights for the defendant. But having Clemens himself get involved was stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Paul SF]

This represents probably something like 1/10,000th of of 1% of the national budget.

In that case, it's time to lay off the Bridge to Nowhere. It costs less than the war in Iraq, too.

Look, no one's saying this is the most egregious use of the Congress' time, or the biggest waste of money Congress has made this year -- or even this month, or perhaps even just today, depending on what votes are taking place. But it is a waste, and calling it for what it is does not seem unreasonable to me.

[A YF]

What's crazy to me, is that the best hitter and pitcher of the Steroids Era will have gone on "trial". This is well beyond the scandal of the Black Sox. It included every team, every record, every result. This is the worst moment in the history of the game and we have yet to see the end.

And still, I love this sport.

[Dirty Water]

"I must say, Mr. Clemens, that I have a hard time believing you. I really have a hard time believing you"

You and the rest of us, buddy.

[SF]

And I'm not sure I'd describe Waxman as any kind of beacon of integrity. He's a politician.

This kind of cynicism depresses me. The broadstroke generalization that this involves is just unfair. Certainly it takes a certain breed to become a politician, but not all politicians are created equally corrupt, or narcissistic, or misinformed, or have mistaken priorities. Certainly Dan Burton does not equal Barney Frank, and certainly Henry Waxman doesn't equal Dana Rohrbacher. This reductivism serves your cause very poorly.

And nobody has answered my question: when is it ok to lie to congress or Federal investigators? Is the fact that a hearing is a "waste" justification for lying at that hearing?

[Paul SF]

The NYT blog notes that Democrats seem to be ganging up on Clemens, while the GOP is going after McNamee. They say it comes down to the Democrats backing up their chairman while the Republicans are trying to show what a waste the hearing is.

"If you had 89 players here, I'd feel a whole lot better." That quote by a GOP rep seems to back up the NYT's analysis.

Or maybe more Democrats are Red Sox fans? ;-)

[Paul SF]

Is the fact that a hearing is a "waste" justification for lying at that hearing?

Absolutely not. I've made similar arguments about the perjury and obstruction charges against Bill Clinton. Just because an investigation is frivilous doesn't make lying to the investigators justifiable.

I'm like you, SF. I'm very much an idealist when it comes to the governmental system set up in this country, and regardless of whether Congress should be having this hearing, whoever is lying to the committee should absolutely be prosecuted.

[Dirty Water]

The owners union and players association are ruining the game of baseball. The gouge us fans; lie, scheme and complicate. For lack of better terms, they both suck.

So if it takes our federal legislators to bring that to all light, so be it. Someone has to stand up and put an end to their arrogance.

[Dirty Water]

Wow, that came out right - NOT

[Paul SF]

Interesting to note, by the way, that if not for Clemens' attorneys insistence, this hearing wouldn't have taken place.

And it's over.

[soxgirl]

Paul -
The whole thing is over?

[SF]

As an aside, I think it is very interesting that I may be the only author at this site who isn't extremely bothered by this/these hearing/s. I don't know the absolute politics of my co-authors (though I have a general sense of most of their "leanings") but knowing myself as almost insanely liberal wouldn't one expect me to be irate over this supposed "witch hunt", over the scapegoating of "innocents"? I give to the ACLU. I have voted for one non-liberal in my life and still feel tremendous guilt. So I find it curious that these things don't really bother me. I am no "law and order" type, by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a (naive?) faith that government has the power to do good things, and these hearings in general strike me as plenty innocuous with some degree of upside. I am skeptical of grandstanding politicians to a great degree, but again this stuff hasn't gotten me nearly as apoplectic as others here. Is it because Roger is from Texas and I basically don't really like what's come out of Texas lately (besides Paul, of course)? I can't figure myself out on this one.

It's a bit odd to me as I do a little bit of self-analysis that I am not too exercised by this stuff.

[LocklandSF]

Like it or not, waste or not, it happened.

More than ever, I'm certain Clemens is guilty and he's really backed him self in to a corner on this.

[YF]

I don't know what cause you think I'm trying to serve. If you don't think politics is a dirty business, well, I'd disagree, and I don't suggest that all political figures are "created equally."

Nobody has answered your question because, under the circumstances, it's a non-sequitor.

But if you insist: No, it's not acceptable to lie before Congress. But Congress doesn't do much to encourage a sense of benign authority and justice when it yanks (no pun intended) Chuck Knoblauch out of obscurity for no good reason, and trammels on the reputations of citizens, however repugnant, so its members can score political points with their constituencies.

[LocklandSF]

Post-game interview with Cummings is going on now and it's pretty funny.

"Why would he only lie about Clemens?"

[Paul SF]

Well, I feel like in the course of defending my portrayal of it as a "waste of taxpayer money" that I've sounded far more strident than I really feel about it also.

I think it's a waste, and so it is, but as others have said, far worse wastes occur all the time in Washington, and I for one was interested in seeing Clemens questioned.

Now that it's over, I'm not sure anyone's going to be swayed one way or the other, but I don't think Clemens looked very good, and part of that is Waxman's nuggets of new information were very detrimental to Clemens' case.

[A YF]

Yeah, I'm pretty happy Texas gave us Ron Paul.

[soxgirl]

So what happens now? Will there be a perjury charge against someone stemming from this? I do think the committee has put themselves in the position of being a laughing stock if this is the end of it.

[SF]

if you don't think politics is a dirty business, well, I'd disagree

Where did I EVER assert anything like this? I am optimistic about what government can provide, that's a totally different issue. And yeah, you basically did (passive aggressively) suggest that all politicians are dirty when you wrote what you did about Waxman. He's one of the lone voices of strong oversight of this administration in congress, so you do him (and your case) a disservice by stating what you did. Nobody disputes that politicians range from the clean and honest to the lowdown and despicable.

[Yankee Fan In Boston]

"waxman's nuggets" sounds like a concept album.

[Paul SF]

lol

Waxman in posthearing comments says he found McNamee "very credible."

[SF]

so its members can score political points with their constituencies.

This too seems like one of those stock answers - is there any study, poll, that shows that the baseball hearings are registering at all with the voting populace? Every national poll that I have seen as of late about issues concerning voters (from Rasmussen, Zogby, SurveyUSA, etc - I am something of a political junkie) shows that this is nothing like what you represent. I find it very, very hard to believe that people are voting for congresspeople because they asked Roger Clemens questions today. If you can substantiate that this is "scoring points with constituencies" I'd be happy to eat crow. Otherwise, this line of yours comes off as completely canned, cliche.

[A YF]

Funny that folks are talking about the role of government in oversight and yet the Democratic Senate just allowed the most sweeping spying on it's own citizens - in the past and in the future. The House will be next to approve it because, even 6 years after 9/11, politicians can't stand the thought of being labeled weak.

Meanwhile, a Republican House impeached a president who lied when no one died, but a Democratic one (with Waxman near the front) won't do the same when tens of thousands of people have died.

[John - YF]

My mother is in politics so I would like to think that there are some honest, trustworthy politicians.

As for our political affiliations, my family is made up of Republicans and I am the lone Democrat. Makes holidays tough, but in a way it helps hammer home your convictions even more. Long story short I don't think political affiliation has anything to do on how you feel today or how you judge the hearing.

[SF]

Funny that folks are talking about the role of government in oversight and yet the Democratic Senate just allowed the most sweeping spying on it's own citizens - in the past and in the future.

Right. This pisses me off about eleven billion times more than today's stuff. And again, it's not Waxman. If anyone has asked the questions it's been him: he needs backup, and a good number of his Democratic brethren are doing little to nothing to help him.

[SF]

As for our political affiliations, my family is made up of Republicans and I am the lone Democrat.

My family is made up of Democrats and I am the lone Bolshevik...

(or at least used to be, back in college. Now I am a garden-variety BHL)

[Paul SF]

I usually manage to vote for three political parties in each election. Not sure what that makes me. The plurality of the votes tends to be Republican, but that's more a function of the area -- half the Republicans running for office were Democrats 15 years ago.

[YF]

I'm trying to be diplomatic here, SF, and you simply keep piling on. About Waxman I wrote: "I'm not sure I'd describe Waxman as any kind of beacon of integrity." That's all. I'll stand by that. Your response was that this was "cynical." I'm not trying to distort your positions. They're all here for everyone to read.

Political posturing isn't like some kind of baseball game. We can't just go and check the box score tomorrow morning to see how many "points" have been scored by the Congressmen here. These me live by publicity; by appearing to be effective, whether they are or are not. Hence the obsession with mom-and-apple pie issues (I'm against steroids!) that provide a convenient platform for publicity. Chuck "Red Light" Schumer, a man I've happily voted for several times and gladly will again, is a master of this. I really think you're so far off base here Johnny Damon could pick you off first from Monument Park.

[A YF]

Right. Waxman is all alone. He really wants to hold the telecoms accountable. Let's see how he votes on the House version. Hmmmm, the chair of a major committee has no power to influence his colleagues. Yeah, that seems plausible.

How many hearings has he held though on the lies in the sprint to war? Or the continuing lies of the Vice-President in linking Hussein and Bin Laden? Or the lies in Powell's UN testimony? Or the lies of the Niger claims? Or the lies in? outing Valerie Plame?

Good thing he has Clemens and McNamee in his crosshairs though! Thank goodness for honest, hardworking politicians in Washington!

[LocklandSF]

Honestly, after today, if anyone still believes Roger, they need to answer these questions...

Why would McNamee lie? Would would Andy Pettitte lie? Why would Andy Pettitte's wife lie? Why would Roger's own nanny lie?

Yes, everyone is lying EXCEPT Roger.

[John - YF]

That's fine Lockland, I don't think many could argue with you BUT:

1. Other then Knoblauch (who has NOTHING to lose) and Pettitte (Who fears God) how many other players would be 100% honest? Clemens is trying to protect his legacy, not that I agree with lying at all.

2. If other players were involved, other less hated players (Not Clemens or Bonds) and say Pujols, Ortiz, etc...would the quest for truth and the idea that these players need to always tell the truth be the focal point? I am not sure this is the case. Clemens is a hated man, Bonds the same, what if a fan fav was at the center of this? Unfortunately Sen. Mitchell only gave us the tip of the iceberg and not the whole iceberg!

[LocklandSF]

John, Clemens was only hated by RS fans, he was still a national baseball hero to many before the Mitchell report.

[John - YF]

I am not convinced of that. I am not a Sox fan and I never really cared for the man.

[Yankee Fan In Boston]

the MRI results from the examination of roger clemens' buttocks was CC'ed to a dr. gross.

http://tinyurl.com/3xf9t3

that made me laugh, but i am a child.

[LocklandSF]

Also, Sen. Mitchell gave us what he could find, had the players association been more cooperative, had Selig given him more power to enforce mandatory testimony, maybe you would have gotten your more liked players, or every Yankee fan's dream, Ortiz.

The quality of the Mitchell report, or lack there of, is the fault of Selig and the MLBPA, not Mitchell.