gehringer_2

If the game ends with Philly inside FG range the decision to decline the penalty before Wash make the field goal won't look too good. EDIT: and a dumb roughing the passer insures it won't. LOL - and anyone with the under at 50 is PO'd!

yeah - I don't like the rule requiring teams to put all guys out long term back on the roster. I understand the abuse it's meant to stop but there are other ways just as effective and less punative to real injuries. For instance they could have said a guy who was on the 60 for 60 or more before the end of the season could stay on it. That would cover a guy like pitcher out on an unquestionably long stay like TJ (i.e. Mize). You aren't going to stash a guy that's worth anything more a few few weeks during a season just to save your 40th roster spot.

not getting much out of Suter IMHO, but he's probably too big an investment to cut his ice time .....yet.

I liked JV mostly because he was such a throwback; mostly FB/curve (esp early in his career) instead of sliders and he could challenge guys high in the zone before it was even fashionble. So all in all very old school even for 2006.

I could see Sinema. I get the impression that Dems in AZ want to primary her anyway. Manchin is a different beast. Even he switches parties, there would still be a strong chance he gets primaried by a MAGA Repub. Dem programs do help W.Va, so in a sense, being a contrary Dems gives him the potential to get the best of both worlds so to speak, and he seems to be skilled at navigating that space. I haven't followed him to any degree but he also seems like too stubborn a cus to change parties.

The exact count will be key I think. At one seat there may some kind of consensus effort. 2 seats and I would think the party in control (seems pretty sure the GOP now) probably will just try to power through.

Yeah - Detroit Sports Fan likely has more trouble 'moving on' than ex-detroit athlete originally not from here anyway.

So I had an open reel tape deck back in the day and my friends and I went through the whole deal playing everything backward and track by track. It's been so many years the memory fades but I think a big hook was that played backward you heard "Turn me on, dead man." But the air sort of went out the balloon when we played around some more and found out that any one of us could record ourselves saying "Number Nine" (I think?) and it would always sound like "Turn me on Dead man" played backwards. So that was the end of that for us......

He's just seen that George Blaha is in the next 30 yrs of his future.

well, maybe for the costume designers, not so much some of those folks filling them.

I think the big question goes back to the question Edman and I posted about, which is: would or could the House elect a new speaker if the speaker's party loses the majority during the session? It the membership is commitment to a rule where they won't make a change, that's a very different dynamic than if the out party believes it will just replace whoever is there if they win a special election somewhere. In the first case it's relatively easy to imagine a block of as many as 300 deciding a non-partisan speaker might be best for all concerned, in the latter case, I wouldn't see it happening.

and of course the actuarial table never loses in the end. For Trump (or Biden!) 2 more yrs could easily end up being more than the remaining heartbeats alloted.

Yes - the most a third party can do is push an item onto the agenda for the other two - i.e. Perot and trade, which isn't nothing, but it will never be a win either.

I would guess that for many moderate conservatives - Lincoln project types, there will still be the question of whether anyone who collaborated can be trusted or supported again, so while some of those people would be willing to come back, they may only do it new generation of a candidates. I would think guys like Cruz who would try to slide back into their old forms would still be rejected.

Possibley more on this. There is also reference in the House Practice manual ( House Practice manual Ch 34 ) to a source called "Deschler's Precedents" ( link ) which states the Speaker can be removed by the will of House. In the final analysis, the Consitution gives each House the right make its rules, and ultimately any rule can be changed by majority vote. Of course there are a lot things where precedent is extremely powerful and has vanishingly little probability of being overturned, but I would never say 'never' on an absolute basis.

I understand the logic, and will be happy if it's true, but don't forget that Trump won the primaries in 2016 without the party backing him, though he was getting a big boost from Fox. The cult of personality guys can have a lot of staying power - look at Berlusconi in Italy (and maybe Netanyahu is moving into this class), he just kept coming back when he shoud have been dead and buried.

If Fox annoints someone they might have a shot, but I'm struggling to think of what issues or approaches a GOP candidate can offer that would distinguish him from the field in some way that didn't happen in 2016. The GOP still doesn't have anything in the way of a program to offer which is what left the race open to be a personality contest then. If it is again, Trump still has the advantage. I suppose a GOP candidate could run in the primaries on a national abortion ban platform and pull enough evangelicals that it might get him through the primaries, but it would seem to be a disastrous course for winning the general election.

this could be spot on.

I would think it depends on whether they find leadership that can manage it - and I doubt a liar like McCarthy is a guy they can all have confidence in. If they hold it together, it's all downside for the Dems. If they devolve into a clownshow, not so much!

my dvr never blinks!

remember, never count your picks before they hatch.

they probably vetted the language of each question asked with legal. And TBF, maybe there are some procedural issues unique to the college environ - for instance how many of the witnesses were minors, did they need advocates before they could be spoken to, etc? The U might have internal policies on some of this stuff a regular PD wouldn't, that's one reason they run their own depts after all. And of course if a lot of 'witnesses' had lawyered up already you end up with negotiations on interviews that have to play out before you can write off who is uncooperative etc.

does anyone know what the most closely divided US House in history was?

Can open warfare between the Trumps and the Murdochs be bad for America? Maybe, but it would still be fun to watch.

no, the UMDPSS doesn't quite the match the investigative prowess of the FBI.