gehringer_2

One problem, which a couple of commentators brought up, is that there is just enough truth to some of the rebels' complaints to give them more credibility with some marginal crazies that might otherwise get peeled back to the mainstream. I can understand the frustration of Rep in a Congress where they basically are only there to rubber stamp decisions by their leadership. Why would a person serious about legislation run for the House where members haven't been allowed to offer amendments to legislation to take an open vote since Hastert? And we can certainly blame the Democratic House leadership almost as much for allowing these rules, which were started by the GOP, to become institutionalized instead of rolling them back once they were back in power. I am old enough to remember when Bills could pass the House with easy majorities made up mostly of the minority party because the legislation still commanded an overall majority. Such a vote is not even allowed in the House by either side anymore. Is it any wonder under such rules that partisanship dominates everything? The rules of the game matter, but few people are interested in them as political issues so this is what we get.

I wonder if it doesn't becomes a self fulfilling prophecy though. Once you start down the road of bringing in high ISO low OBP players, do high OBP low ISO players then become comparatively more useless because you won't have enough BA in the lineup to move them around if they do get on base? (which is basically where I would say the Tigers have been recently.) Which I think is an interesting question for the stat gurus. Based on considerations like this, I might argue that you can't really establish an truly predictive global correlation like one between OBP and runs created - maybe there are internal dependancies within team data depending on the properties of each line-up. If that is true, who knows how many teams may actually giving themselves bad (or at least sub-optimal) advice.

The logic (not sure we should admit the premise that the GOP conference is capable of logic, but be that as it may....) if you extend McCarthy's argument to the 202, it is that he must be elected otherwise the 202 is allowing itself to be 'held hostage' by the 20. But if he gives the 20 the ability to collapse his speakership at any time, then he is still allowing the 20 the hold the body hostage. So there really isn't any *logic* under which his speakership can make sense at this point. In fact, all he he is doing is making it more difficult the person who comes next, whether that is in the immediate case or when the 20 eventually force McCarthy out anyway (1st debt ceiling call?) who will need to walk back McCarthy's concessions to have any hope of succeeding themselves, at which point we probably get another edition of a similar dog and pony show. What kind of idiot voters elect people to serve the government who only want to kill it?

Look at this this way, it just means McCarthy won't be speaker for very long.

I don't think anything good can come of any of this in the end. The FC 20 are idiots but the other 202 are mostly spineless anti-democratic fascist enablers. No hope from having any aspect of the House GOP party in control of anything. But they have the numbers so one way or the other they are going to have control. And they will surely make a muck of it.

you don't think people in who can do one man jobs like carpentry or yes, coding tasks like web page prep, have opportunities to work off the books to avoid taxes?

I also wonder how many are just working black. People can be doing light fabrication and design with 3d printers, remote web and programming tasks for cash payment and with home improvement work through the roof (also due to remote work) you probably have a LOT of builder/home reno guys that might also be working black. IIRC we saw some of this in the construction business after the last crash when guys laid off as construction employees had to start freelancing.

ex Rep Jolly made a good point on MSNBC though. Just because McCarthy has the majority, even a large one, of the caucus, doesn't mean he in someway 'deserves' the speakership. You need 218 and he doesn't have them. Many other members might be able to find a majority but not 218. What is really going on is that the caucus is so devoid of internal leadership and maturity, that they are stuck hammering their heads against the wall between two bad alternatives instead of working up the internal negotiation process needed to get to the needed consensus. You can say the 20 are being intransigent, but so is McCarthy's refusal open the door to a different candidacy and sitting through repeated unproductive votes where he isn't moving the process at all either.

yup.

Not that easy though. That would take Dem support and 1)the Dems may or may not offer it 2) if you can't get a large % of the GOP members on board (and even if you do) any GOP rep that goes against the FC block is going to be threatened with a primary run against him.

Yeah - Urban's number is not in Warde's rolodex, not on his phone, not in his office, not in the building, nowhere on campus.

No question trust is the issue and why I don't see the Dems being in any hurry to accept offer from McCarthy's camp. I think it would have to be from someone they trust more.

I posted up thread last that one Dem spokesRep said the Dem opening position is no games on debt service or budget passage and no investigative fishing expeditions. Those are not low value gains for the Biden admin and so the Dems in general.

How is a 'compromise' bad if it nets you something you don't have today? The Dems are playing with House money (yeah- the pun works here). Anything they walk away with in a negotiation is pure profit. It's hugely in their interest for the gov not to shut down and for budgets to get passed in Biden's last two years.

meh - we don't really know. Maybe he understands that for whatever reasons he's not ready for the pressure of being back in the NHL. Considering the worst case - If it were an outright relapse situation he wouldn't be staying at GR either.

Rep Don Bacon on the air saying the GOP is willing to work with the Dems (i.e. make concession to them) to end this.

Make that 0/5

If Gaetz chairs Armed Services you're going to see a interesting donnybrook when DOD refuses the committee classified data.

For now I can't see the Dems dealing with McCarthy - he is just too untrustworthy and agreement with him would be worthless. Heck, that's a good part of the reason he is where he is. If McCarthy steps aside maybe another GOPer. OTOH - there is a danger the Dems overplay their hand. If they are offered a reseasonable deal and hold out for more, the risk is the GOP gets it act together and they get nothing.

A couple of people have predicted that if McCarthy loses the Speakership he resigns shortly there-after. But this is a guy who in his dealings with Trump has demonstarted so little self-respect that I find that hard to predict. I suppose if a compromise speaker backed by more Dems then GOPs is the end result, McCarthy could still end up as majority leader since the majority of his caucus would have opposed the Speakership. Otherwise it seems not.

but this goes back to the ball argument. Yes the shift can be beaten, but as long as your HR/FB ratio is high enough, you are still better off trying to pull the ball into the seats instead of taking fhe improved odds on one base. The good hitters don't hit into the shift because they are stupid, they do it because that is what the stat nerds in the FO are telling them to do and because OPS is what gets them paid and pulling the ball is how to get the total bases that drive their OPS.

We don't know, but that's the kind of thing I am OK with. Sure I want the team to play the kids, but also want them to have the option to pull them back when they are falling on their faces with enough major depth to keep a watchable team on the field. 90% of guys fail at the MLB level, we have to accept that. But that doesn't mean you don't give them their shot. Other than with Tork, the old regime seemed to be stuck on the wrong side of that equation - not moving guys through the system faster while over playing guys that had been around a long time and were only replacement level anyway.

If the twittersphere is to believed, Ukrainian offensive actions are racheting up.

Brian Anderson is still out there I think - I would hope they at least kick the tires there.

I get all this Chash. And I have no problem with them not chasing any of the 9 figure deals. But what I would argue on the other hand is that there is some obligation to put a better product in the field in the interim while you do all the requried foundation work. If that means paying a guy for two years instead of one, to me that is not adequate justification for running a terrible team out there again. For example, sure the Barnhardt deal is an overpay, but in the overall scheme of a major league baseball team the extra years being given out are not the kind of money that that is going to impact the org's ability to do anything else it wants to.