Shmessy, the original poster DID talk about the whole Comcast angle in his original post.
1) Of course, your contention is that Specter won't run in 2010, and I assume you're saying that because he said it. But that's 2 years away. Politicians drop back "in" the running all the time. At least you prevent that from happening, with enough participation.
2) Specter's got Comcast in mind, but he's also got a constituency -- the whole state, remember -- which hates the Pats. And half that constituency worships the Steelers' achievements in the 70s.
3) We're suffered to forget the steroids issues of the 70s steelers and the cap jailing of Carmen Policy of the 80s 49ers, and whatever was wrong with the Dallas of the 90s. But for whatever reason, Specter has decided that this particular scandal must be kept alive indefinitely.
4) Hey, maybe the same spotlight should be shone on some previous dynasties.
After all, he's concerned with the purity of sports -- conveniently, the purity of New England sports, it would seem. Well, part of the purity of sports is the arguments that the fans have over "greatest ever dynasties," etc. We can't enjoy our pure sports fan debate without knowing all the facts about the steroids abuse among the 1970s Steelers.
I agree with the original poster.
Of course, at the moment, he's still lining up his Goodell meeting. I also noticed, Arlen Sphincter's introduced a bill to get the NFL's license not to apply to church super bowl parties... which explains WHO provided the info about the story to the press in the first place (that the NFL is cracking down on churches screening the big game.)
PFnV