One thing folks who attack Specter conveniently forget is that he's not running for office, but retiring in 2010 after his term expires, thus all of this is not about "grandstanding to his base" to get more votes. I also think the Comcast stuff is way overblown as well, since as Specter noted, while they are indeed his largest donor, their donations plus those of their law firm (which I'm sure has other clients than Comcast that they're funneling money for there) still have only contributed in aggregate about $500,000 OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS to him and his campaign, which, by political standards, is not a ton. For ex., he's raised in aggregate at least $25 million over that time, making their combined donation less than 2% of his total (once again, for argument's sake crediting the full $200-300k that Comcast's firm gave him as Comcast money, which we know isn't completely the case).
What has him running for re-election have to do with this? He's primarily IN office because business such as comcast and their law firm shelled out hindreds of thousands of dollars to put him there and now you try and tell us they don't want some return on those contributions? Right well I've got a nice bridge to sell you then. It doesn't matter what his intentions are after 2010 were talking about 2008 and in 2008 he's clearly in a position to look after the hand that fed him. Is the senate judicary commitee a commitee of one? So where are the other members on this? The fact that Specter has those ties to comcast is reason enough that he should step away from this just for the sake of ethics. If some great injustice was done wouldn't some other member of the commitee be capable of finding that out?
This is a judicary commitee and any judge hearing a case with ties to a defendant such as specter has would quickly recuse himself from said case on the mere fact he's not imparcial in the matter. Have you ever been called to jury duty? If you are chosen to sit on a jury the judge will ask you if you know the defendant, if you know the defendants family or attorney or have any connection with any of them. Why do you suppose they hold juriors to that standard? Perhaps Specter has no other interest in this other than the integrity of the game then why not let someone else from that commitee fight this battle? I myself don't believe he's only interested in the integrity of the game. Both the senate and the house have too much history of greasing the palms of those who pony up with large campaign contributions and thats a fact thats been widely known for decades and he talks about integrity.
I don't believe the goverment has a place in this investigation period. Unless some federal law was broken here and there was no federal law or civil law broken they simply don't belong involved in this. I posted a link to the so called antitrust exemptions called the Football Broadcasting act of 1961 and it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The fact that Specter uses that red herring itself to get involved reflects badly on his true intentions and his over all interest in this case.
He asked for an explaination from the commisioner which he received but he doesn't believe him and just as the senator has done in the past he will now try and manipulate witnesses to support his case, a case he doesn't even belong involved in. He did it on the warren commision and he did it with the Anitia Hill investigations.
I for one don't buy your expalination that he's just a big disgruntled eagles fan trying to find out if his team lost because of some unfair advantage. His team choked plain and simple. Nothing the Patriots did made Mcnabb blow chunks and the eagles ran that last 2 min offense down by 3 with no sense of urgency like they had another quarter left to play. Those things were obvious to anyone who watched the game so why doesn't he think those things played a huge part of their loss? Even Andy Reid and the Eagles FO don't believe that cheating was the reason they lost...so why isn't any of that testimony good enough for Specter? One reason comes to mind he's after something else and he grabs at anything he can to fan the flames. Defend him all you want but his history or underhanded manipulation has been documented in matters much bigger than this.
I honestly believe that what it comes down to with him is that he's a disgruntled Eagles fan who is pissed off that they lost that SB to a team that potentially had an unfair advantage. He's kind of like an everyfan, except he's got the power to do something about it. Heck, I know if I were in his shoes, I'd be investigating the referees who've worked some of the Pats* games over the years and their financial transactions, along with Mike Pereira (the NFL's head of officials). Anyone who watched this year's Ravens game or the 2006 season opener against Buffalo know exactly what I mean.....
Kind of like every fan? Yeah right.. I know when I want to attend a SB I just have my secretry call the league and have them send me over some free tickets...Don't you?
Did you watch the Patriots/Eagles SB on TV?
Didn't you wonder why with time winding down and the eagles down by 3 points they acted like they had all kinds of time? Even the announcers made light of the fact the Eagles dragged their feet during the two minute offense.
Down by three they certainly had a chance to win that game or at the very least tie it.
The accusations of the rams walk thru taping were made and Martz and warner stated they ran thru the red zone plays yet every time the rams actually made it into the red zone they scored. Well I guess NE must just be bad cheaters then.
Its easy to make accusations but the game tapes don't bear the friut of those accusations.
The Ravens game wasn't poor officiating. Every penality during the last drive was correct. Watson was mauled, Neil did leave before the snap, the ravens DC did signal time out and the Ravens players did melt down on the unsportsman like call. Its all on replay to be seen. The fact is the Ravens made mistakes and the biggest mistake is they played well for 58 minutes of a 60 minute game then they did some stupid things.
One last thing
I would also like to point out the opening day game in 06 patriots/bills on the first offensive play Spikes dam near ripped Brady's head off grabbing the face mask to cause the strip and bills first score which by the way is also on replay but it was a non call.... but I don't hear you complaining about that.
