LOL…good one, Craig.

How quickly folks have forgotten the shady nature of Bush’s “ownership” of the Rangers:

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/bush-sec5.html

Wooden - There is nothing in that article that I can refute, BUT, there is certainly a lot that is left out.  Under Bush’s direct guidance, the Rangers went from being perennial, hapless losers, with the only question about their season being about whether they would finish last or next to last in their division, to winning three out of four division titles from 1996-1999. It was almost as if, when they moved from the minor league park with the added deck into the stately new Ballpark, they grew up.  They quickly reverted under the MISguidance of Hicks. 

Also, yes, there was discussion of leaving Arlington, and moving all the way to…..... DALLAS!  Kind of like the Cowboys moving from Irving to Arlington.  It may be a big deal to the cities involved, but doesn’t make much difference to the fans in the area.  Apparantly, the city of Arlington likes their sports teams.  They made a similar deal with the Jones family and the Cowboys to build that behemouth that now casts a shadow on one of the most beautiful Ballparks in either league.  They are both within walking distance of Six Flags and Hurricane Harbor, and there are countless restaurants and a few hotels as well in what is referred to as the Arlington Entertainment District.  It wasn’t really that hard of a sell on Bush’s part.

Just a couple of areas where the article didn’t go all the way and tell the WHOLE story….

The account of GW’s ownership of the Rangers doesn’t seem especially out of the mainstream for sports ownership.

He gave up control when he won the governor’s office.

Didn’t he throw out the opneing day pitch for the Orioles or Nationals pretty much every year?  I was there to see him booed at the 1st game in the Nats new stadium, so that’s at least 1 out of 8…

You’re right, TTB. That should have been in the singular form, since it primarily refers to the immediately preceding comment.

I’m referring to Richard in Dallas’s typed-with-one-hand comment about the Ballpark in Arlington and the new Cowboys stadium. Apparently, corruption is all well and good so long as the billionaires let the great unwashed pay to play in their taxpayer-funded sandboxes.

The underlying point, which I’m now not sure if folks are unable or unwilling to comprehend, is that of course the Rangers are going to name a suite after the person that helped make their boondoggle possible - why wouldn’t they?

So because there have been similar ethical transgressions this is somehow mitigated? Sorry, I don’t do relativistic moralism.

I’m sorry: Which one of us was confused by the “immediately preceding comment?”