What did Bush know about Rafael Palmeiro and when did he know it?

August 2, 2005

I don’t usually deal with sports news, but there’s a political angle here. Bear with me.

As baseball fans already know, Rafael Palmeiro has apparently violated the game’s steroid policy and will serve a 10-day suspension.

Baltimore Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro, who had defiantly denied using steroids during a congressional hearing on performance-enhancing drugs in March, was suspended Monday for 10 days for violating baseball’s anti-drug policy.

Although Major League Baseball officials declined to identify the substance Palmeiro was found to have used, a well-placed industry source said it was “a serious steroid.”

Palmeiro, who on July 15 became one of only four players in major league history with 3,000 hits and more than 500 home runs, said he tested positive for a steroid but does not know how it got into his system. He appealed the suspension but an arbitrator ruled against him.

Where’s the political angle? Well, Palmeiro has been a friend — and employee — of the president.

In fact, former slugger Jose Canseco put Palmeiro in the spotlight earlier this year when he announced that the two of them had done steroids together when they were teammates for the Texas Rangers. And who was the owner of the team with these players using illegal, performance-enhancing drugs? At the time, it was George W. Bush.

Palmeiro and Bush have remained close. When Palmeiro hit his 500th homerun, Bush called to congratulate him. After Palmeiro’s 3000th hit, Bush invited him to the White House.

And yesterday, Bush said he’d take Palmeiro’s word over conclusive medical tests.

President Bush, the owner of the Texas Rangers when Palmeiro played for that team, told reporters Monday that he believes him.

“Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I believe him,” Bush said in an interview with the Knight Ridder news service. “He’s the kind of person that’s going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn’t use steroids, and I believe him. Still do.”

All of this led Slate’s Bruce Reed, among others, to wonder if Bush maybe, just maybe, knew about Palmeiro’s “problem” all along. Perhaps the president is supporting Palmeiro because Palmeiro could embarrass Bush with information from their Texas Ranger days. Perhaps Bush knew Palmeiro would eventually get caught, which prompted him to try to get in front of the steroids story in the 2004 State of the Union.

Some of this is kind of silly — there’s no evidence to suggest Bush was involved or knew anything about steroid abuse — but for some baseless speculation during a slower August news cycle, it makes for engaging scuttlebutt, doesn’t it?

Silly? Not at all. If you’re prepared to believe the worst about Bush as I am, this makes perfect sense.

  • Par for the course – what matters for Bush are loyalty and blind faith (“my heart tells me that…(insert any falsehood here)…is true”), not what the facts say.

  • Interesting.

    This consistent pattern by this president of loyalty to the person (as opposed to a higher loyalty to the State or the Law) is almost medieval (circa AD500-900). The Germanic peoples had no concept of State, so service and loyalty was offered to the individual. The consequence of this was that nobody did anything for the good of the state or out of respect for the law, but rather to advance themselves or their patrons.

    Maybe it’s best to understand the structure of power in the US today based on patron/client relationships rather than in terms of the legal powers bestowed by the Constitution.

    At least it might help us understand Bush’s own behavior with respect to protecting those who have broken the law (at least when the law-breakers are his clients).

  • Mr Flibble, I do believe that you are on to something. Considering the current administration’s desire to wrest all wealth from anyone but the wealthiest, I do see the America they envision: serfs and lords.

  • Mr. Flibble,

    I agree as well. Every time they have managed to strongarm one of their “reforms” through Congress the phrase “robber barons” has leapt into my mind.

    But I like your medieval construct better. More primitive. And these people are nothing if not primitive. Their code can be summed up in one word: GIMME.

  • Consider from a different angle why this story is not only not silly, but cause for a huge media frenzy and public outcry. If the parties were switched (funny how so many things begin this way these days) the Republicans would be fighting each other to get in front of cameras to say just enough to create doubts and make people ask questions. It doesn’t matter if in the end they turned up nothing (see Whitewater).

    How about last year when Soros was accused of making his fortune from illegal drugs simply because his dealings were overseas? Not a kernel of truth, but the QUESTION made headlines. Same thing with the Swifties (who should all rot in hell). That’s the game they play.

    I’d like to see a handful of stories out there that blow this up and call W’s role into question: “Did Bush Encourage Steroid Use” “Congressman Wants to Know if Prez Supplied Steroids,” etc.

  • I’m sure that Bush looked into Palmeiro’s eyes and saw the soul of an honorable man.

    Yeah whatever.

  • Feudal loyalty does seem to be the defining characteristic of our drug damaged, excercise obsessed bubble boy.

    I have no clue if George knew about steroid use – which was most assuredly there, on the Texas Rangers. However, I would bet good money that he spent more time than most owners down in the locker room.

    Why, well, I have two guesses…

    -jjf

  • Just as he has with Rove, Bush has plausible deniability with Palmeiro. And I am sure Raffy knew the Bush “MO;” Do what you have to do, don’t get caught, and if you do, the boss didn’t know about it.

  • How do Democrats counter the Bush machine? As this thread indicates, we have citizens who are not very well educated about the basics of democracy or anything else for that matter. Many people would be hard pressed to identify their Congressman, let alone demonstrate a basic understanding of how government is intended to work. Democrats can have long debates on which policies are best for American, but it won’t get through to the people as long as they lack this basic understanding of the workings of government.

    Some very basic groundwork is required to help prepare the American people to get ready to live in a functioning democracy. I think one way to do this is through a series of Public Service Announcements which would address the basics of high school civics. The Rock the Vote campaign, which aims to get out the youth vote, does this in very limited way. This should be expanded upon.

    Apropos the current thread, one such message could deal with the idea that elected officials primary loyalty is to the government and people they serve, and not to indviduals or party.

    The Amercan people may turn away from the Republicans temporarly when the consequences of GOP actions begin to manifest themselves, but, I am afraid, in the long run, without a basic education, they will be conned back into the Republican fold.

  • Here is what I find interesting:

    “And yesterday, Bush said he’d take Palmeiro’s word over conclusive medical tests.”

    Does this not define the neo-Republicans, and the
    Bush administration in particular? They will let nothing
    interfere with their agenda, their worldview. Not facts,
    not truth, not science, not morality, not right or wrong.
    They will do whatever it takes to get their way.

  • Mr. Fribble (et alii),

    The feudal model fits perfectly. That’s why I’ve liked the use in this blog of “Bush crime family”. The oaths of fealty in the Middle Ages were personal, not official. We now think of the “King of England” or “King of France”; back then it was “King of the English (people – those loyal to him)”, “King of the French”. You (the vassal) pledged your loyalty to Richard, King of the English; he pledged protection for you. Purely personal. And the oaths were sworn at the altar, in front of a priest (like an exchange of marriage vows); they were beyond earthly structures and authorities. The personal quality is still reflect in the proper name for Roman Catholic cardinals: not “Cardinal Joseph Smith” but “Joseph Cardinal Smith” – it’s that first , personal name which identifies the individual.

    The mafia has much the same structure. Loyalties are strictly personal. Official bureaucracies love records, files, account books; the mafia opposes them. In ordinary government you are defined by the office you hold; everything else is “personal” and out of bounds. In the the mafia it’s exactly the opposite. You may be my legal advisor, but I want to know everything about you – your weaknesses, how your wife behaves, can I put your son through college, etc. I need to be able to trust you (look into your soul, as Bush puts it). I’m not your superior, I’m your godfather. “La Cosa Nostra” (“our thing”) is a family – actually a clan of families, each with a “capo” (“head”). We have no need to respect the so-called rights of anyone not in our “family” – they are to be exploited or rolled over, as if we were the only humans, they non-human.

    Bush Crime Family. That is how they view themselves. It’s the only way to make sense of their behavior.

    • Comments are closed.