Replies

It seems to a level we agree. I have never tried to imply that what GWB did was illegal. Obviously, it was perfectly legal. I just firmly believe that it doesn't coincide with the conservative values we wish he espouses. I have always been a strong conservative and my father has told me many times that it easy to be conservative when I benefit by being so. The challenge is to remain true to my beliefs when I do not benefit. In GWB's case, he appears to be conservative in rhetoric and in certain battles that he has waged, but he definitely abandoned his conservatism when he was able to benefit through the stadium deal.

You know ... I am always pissed when liberals defend liberals no matter what. For instance, Clinton on the lying under oath. McDermott bashing the US in Iraq. I really wish that we conservatives did not defend Republicans no matter what. GWB is definitely better than all of his democrat opponents. I will definitely be voting for him in the next election. This being said, I definitely think that although what he did with the stadium was legal, it was wrong; and although I can defend what he did from the legal perspective, I remain firm in my opposition to it. And d*mn it, I wish more conservatives here wouldn't feel guilty admitting the same.

I'm not trying to make excuses for George W. Bush and his dealings with the Texas Rangers. I am dismissing some of the reported details as false (when the selloff figure is anywhere between $10 and $50 million dollars, there is a lot of exageration going on). In 3 years or 30 years, the land becomes "private owned". Well, we are long past 3 years since that stadium was built, is it in private hands now?

Civic stadiums are always a questionable deal. I don't understand why the new football stadium reportedly only cost $260+million (somewhere under $300million) yet Reliant Energy paid $300million for the naming rights. Why didn't they just build a stadium? And why does the team owner get paid (on an installment plan) instead of the city that owns the building?

I don't offer this out there as a defense. I'm saying that some of what is rumored is not always true. I also know that the number of privately owned stadiums is virtually nil. Can one partial team owner buck the trend and build a private owned stadium when the team already has a publicly owned stadium? That would be difficult to sell to the investors (especially when they know that they could move the team to another town that would pay to build them a stadium).