Mickey

They are 26th against the rush. They are not one of the better defenses in the league. They might be if their offense wasn't so bad that they are on the field all the time. Fact is though, their offense is that bad and that impacts the quality of the defense which isn't all that great. I would also point out that Willis didn't have such a good game going until that last drive. Further, Drew was having a good day which sooner or later forced them to play more nickel than they wanted to which helped the running game a bit. Willis had a great day and we should all be happy for him but it was one game. If that continues and that is a big "if", we obviously will re-evaluate at the end of the year. The bottom line is that they are both here for the year so lets worry about who to let go at the end of the season since it really isn't a relevant question at this point. The question that is relevant is: who starts against the Ravens?

Their rushing defense is ranked 26th. Because their offense struggles so much, the defense is on the field more than they should be which is one way having a bad offense can make it easier for the other teams offense to produce. The point is that the yards were not as impressive as they might have been if we had been playing a better team.

I know, it sounds crazy and that is what I thought when I first head the idea but then all the radio show callers after the game and the talking heads convinced me otherwise after listening to their flawless logic in advocating that we trade Travis Henry by Tuesday. They decided, oh so wisely, that it was time to turn over the rushing future of this franchise to McGahee on the strength of one decent half of running against a team that is 0-6 and thus, Henry should be traded without delay before the deadline on Tuesday. That got me thinking. Using the same genius, I reasoned that since Bledsoe just had a good game, we should probably trade JP quick, before the deadline as well as Henry. I know it is only one game and it was against the 0-6 Dolphins but still, since one game is enough proof to anoint Willis, it should also be enough to re-anoint Bledsoe. Seriously, Willis had a nice game and certainly, we need to see more of him on the field, maybe even starting but trade Henry by tommorow???? I'm thinking maybe not. One game doth not a career make.

I don't think we have any credible information about this incident at all. The people involved should not be excused or condemned at this point. I know that defies the "reach an opinion now and worry about the facts later" tradition we have here at the PPP but I feel it is my duty to at least raise the possibility that we don't know what we are talking about. Mind you, it is only the remotest of possibilities but it is at least conceivable.

No need for a court martial since you have pronounced them guilty from afar and without having a single speck of first hand knowledge of any of the facts. Nice. What is it like to be able to reach firm conclusions whithout having to be troubled by "the pale cast of thought?" You wouldn't be allowed to serve on the jury for a jay-walking trial.

Gee, way to jump to conclusions before having even a clue as to what really happened here. Keep supporting those troops.

I don't see him pulling out of there but the problem is that the ads cost a bundle in that market. That money might be spent better in Arkansas, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire and Maine. It must be a tough choice for the campaign manager types.

...and I suppose you don't think that Bush is doing the exact same thing? "America is safer" Is that not what we want to hear regardless of whether or not it is true? "Invading Iraq was a decision forced on America." Is that not what we want to hear? As for African Americans, I suppose you are smarter than they are and can see through Kerry while they just aren't sharp enough and so are taken in by his rhetoric? Of course, the alternative would be that the simple fact that he has a few African Americans around is proof enough for you that his policies are what is best for that voting block while African Americans themselves are not so easily fooled. By the way, please give me a link to where Kerry claims "republicans hate blacks" as opposed to having argued that the President's policies have not been of benefit to that block. If you were African American and stumbled on this board and constantly read posts from the right that said Kerry voters were immoral, stupid, kool-aid drinkers, degenerates, junkies, whores and felons and then you looked at the numbers showing that 85% of African Americans are voting for Kerry, would you take offense? If you then kept reading how Kerry was fooling them and Bush was really a much better choice for minorities if only they were not so easily deceived by those evil democrats, would you wonder if maybe a lot of people on the right think African Americans are not very bright? Just curious. Of course, Bush did come out strongly opposed to the Dred Scott decision. Did he mean it or was he pandering to minorities I wonder?

Actually, there are plenty of eating disorders that involve eating less to the point of illness. I have no idea why this particular woman is overweight. She could be a diabetic, she could have had a hysterectomy, who knows? How that is similar to the VP breaking with his own President on an important issue because his own daughter is gay and the opposition commenting on it, I'll never know. The fact that their own daughter is gay and that they support a gay baiting President, I think, is important. It's not like Kerry "outed" her, everyone knows and the VP himself acknowledged it. Slate has an interesting article on this issue: Bush and Gay Baiting If at some point Kerry supports a constitutional amendment banning the obese from getting married, then I think it would be fair game to go after Edwards for being Kerry's running mate.

I agree on NJ, a new poll came out that has a dead heat but an overlapping poll has Kerry ahead by 5%. Kerry has a small but consistently polled lead in Pa and Bush would have to nab more than 1/2 of the few undecideds left (4%), to take a lead. On top of that, Pa has gone for the democratic candidate 3 of the last 4 and NJ has as well. The only recent time either has gone for the repulican is Bush-Dukkakis. Clearly, neither state is a lock for Kerry but as close as they are, they are not as close as NH, Maine and Iowa. I could make a similar argument about Arkansas, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico maybe going for Kerry and then there is the strange situation in Colorado where that ballot initiative might split the award of EV's from there. Still, I am giving all of those to Bush for now. Statistically, all of those are swing states as well as Pa and NJ. What is startling about these numbers is that almost every swing state that has moved over the debate period has moved Kerry's way. Mainly Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa which had been polling pretty strongly for Bush. What remains to be seen is whether the movement generated by the debates has any depth or staying power. Bush is a war president and voters simply don't usually change leadership during a war. I am pretty amazed that Kerry is keeping it this close.

What are you talking about? What plan has Bush outlined other than to call Kerry a flip-flopper? His affordable health care plan is what? Beyond waiting until things hopefully get better, what would be his economic plan? He has had 4 years to accomplish something, anything. Unless of course you consider failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack in history, amassing a record budget shortfall, dividing our allies and uniting our enemies "accomplishments", fine you should really vote for him. The good thing is he could hardly do worse the second 4 years than he did the first.

Actually I have said several times that this election should be more of a referendum on who can best win it than whether it was a good idea to start it. Certainly though, the mistakes made by the administration then bear on the question as to whether confidence in their abilities now is justified or delusional. If Bush were able to admit and learn from his mistakes, I might be voting differently. Instead, he is set on "staying the course". That is often a good idea but not if you are the Captain of the Titanic and there is an iceberg ahead. Sometimes you need to change course, or captains.

Check the interactive map at the LA Times, you have to register but it is for free and it has all the latest state by state polls updated daily. Some of what you say would have been correct two weeks ago but not now. Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Arkansas have moved significantly. Minnesota and Pa are not that close. By the same token, despite closing the gap, I think Fla. is a Bush state for now and I don't think Kerry is going to get an upset in Arizona or Nevada, maybe New Mexico but probably not. Maine, NH and Iowa are toss ups. and based on the latest and greatest, that is where it will be decided but that will all change with tommorow's numbers, right? The national poll that has been the most favorable to Bush is the Gallup poll which at one point had him up 13 points. That changed fast after the debates and by 10/10 they had Kerry up by 1. Not much but huge considering where he was. The real problem with Kerry though is that he may have hit his zenith and though arguably ahead, he has almost no room to slip without losing. Bush doesn't have to hit a home run to win, a double will do. Kerry needs at least a triple.

c'mon, don't sell the republicans short. Have you missed what apparently happened in Nevada and Oregon regarding the destruction of democratic voter registration apps? Somebody is going to jail, either the ones who destroyed or "lost" the registrations or the accusers who have signed affidavits that this was done. Perjury or fraud, either way, someone is going to the hoosegow.

If I were voting on the past, I'd care. The question for those who find this to be an important issue is whether Kerry or Bush is going to do better on advancing this kind of research. For those who do not see this as important either way, I don't see why they would give a dip who is going to be the most supportive of this kind of research.

With all due respect to Mr. Krauthammer, he has not cornered the marked on wisdom when it comes to stem cell research. For example, in the article of his you linked, he states that "the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology" as support for his position that Edwards and Kerry were raising false hope when it comes to stem cell research and treating spinal cord injuries. In fact, the National Institute of Health states otherwise: "[the] dogma that brain tissue could not be regenerated is history. In the mid-1990s, neuroscientists learned that some parts of the adult human brain do, in fact, generate new neurons...Moreover, they found that the new neurons arise from "neural stem cells" in the fetal as well as the adult brain. These undifferentiated cells resemble cells in a developing fetus that give rise to the brain and spinal cord." Further, a study at Johns Hopkins is also discussed in the article: "Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently reported preliminary evidence that cells derived from embryonic stem cells can restore movement in an animal model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) ... The response was impressive. Three months after the injections, many of the treated rats were able to move their hind limbs and walk, albeit clumsily, while the rats that did not receive cell injections remained paralyzed. " To read the article yourself or to get more information than you ever wanted in your life on this subject, go to: NIH on Stem Cell Research Reach your own conclusions.

This is the Christians for Satan board isn't it?

The drool effect was replete with smiley faces but I should have known that you can't take a joke. After all, I am sure you were just as upset when the board was awash in jokes about Kerry's orange tan, weren't you? If you can't laugh at these guys, even the one you support, you can't laugh at anything.

Tom, if the point is that politicians make ridiculous promises in campaigns, you won't get an argument from me. Apparently you don't seem to think Bush is making ridiculous claims? If so, I disagree. If integrity is the issue, I can't imagine why you like Bush. I never thought he was very bright, I had hoped he had some integrity. I am thoroughly convinced that in fact, he has no integrity. None. I wish there were a better candidate but I don't see that there is so...the choice is easy. I have heard what Kerry has said about stem cell research and it is the same thing Reagan's kid has said and Nancy too. How else would you deal with nascent research? How much success would you get in terms of funding if you billed it as a lots-of-luck, pie-in-the-sky pipe dream? Not much. Instead you empahsize what it could do, the hope it represents no matter how faint that hope might be. That is the same way the moon shot was sold and just about evey other space mission. It is not pandering so much as it is rallying support for something new and promising. I wouldn't sell short the people who are sick and hoping that this kind of research will offer a benefit to them. It just may be that they know exactly the state of this research and what is realisitc and what isn't without being told what they can hope for and what they can't by someone else.

If you are not interested in discussing poll numbers or want to point out how they are not much better than guesses, don't bother responding as we all know that. Taking polls for what they are worth however, some interesting scenarios are emerging. I think the state by state numbers show things are moving in favor of Kerry however, he was definitely trailing so that movement doesn't really mean he is ahead at this point. I have been following this over the last few weeks so I have had the chance to watch the numbers in each state move this way and that. A lot of states look close when really, they aren't. Take Arizona for example. Bush leads in the latest poll there 49%-44% with 7% undecided. That seems close but actually, Kerry would have to pick up 70% of those undecided voters to pass Bush or else he would have to get some Bush voters to change his mind. For that reason, I think that for now anyway, based only on the most recent poll there, Bush is going to take Arizona. Using that same reasoning for a lot of "close" states really cuts down on the number of states that are seriously in play and will likely decide the race. Apart from those states, the electoral vote total is Kerry 234 and Bush 226. The states that are in play right now anyway, are Florida (27), Wisconsin (10), Ohio (20), Iowa (7), Arkansas (6),New Hampshire (4) and Maine (4). The most recent polls in Florida show Bush ahead by 4% in one and Kerry ahead by 2% in another overlapping poll with around 6% undecided. You just can't make a call on Florida yet though, for now, I would give Bush a slight edge in Florida. Wisconsin had been giving Bush a small but consistent lead but that has suddenly reversed. Kerry now leads by 4% with 8% undecided. I give Kerry the edge as the numbers are moving his way there clearly and the state has gone for the democratic candidate in the last 4 elections. Ohio had been polling in favor of the president with, like Wisconsin, a small but consistent lead. The last two polls there however have Kerry moving ahead. The older poll had him only ahead by 1% but the most recent poll shows him having built on to that lead so that he is now ahead by 4% with only 5% undecided. Bush would have to get pretty much all of the undecideds to catch Kerry in Ohio. Still too close to call but definitely bad new for the President. New Hampshire is dead even at 47% each. Maine is also a toss up as the latest numbers are 42-39 for Kerry with a whopping 15% undecided. Nader does better here than almost anywhere else polling ar 4%. It should be noted though that this poll is one of the older ones and I think dates back to before the debates. The most interesting states involved here are Arkansas and Iowa because until a short time ago, Bush had great numbers in both. An Arkansas poll between 10/2 and 10/4 had Bush up a whopping 52% to 43% with only 5% undecided. Kerry was out of it basically. Even if he got 100% of the undecideds, he'd still lose 52-48. The latest poll however has it Bush 46%, Kerry 45% and 6% undecided. That is a huge switch and I think it reflects how well Kerry did in the debates. Arkansas is out of the Bush column and back in play. A 3% Bush lead in Iowa has evaporated and it is now dead even at 47% each. If you give Bush the benefit of the doubt in Florida and Arkansas and have Kerry hang on to his growing leads in Wisconsin and Ohio, the whole shebang goes to Maine, New Hampshire and Iowa. That would put Kerry at 264 and Bush at 259. Bush would not be able to win without Iowa, even if he won the other two. Kerry could not win with just one of the smaller states if he in fact lost Iowa. This all adds up to a very, very close election. For Kerry supporters, you have to take heart at the reversals in favor of him in Arkansas, Iowa and Wisconsin and you have to like the situation in Ohio. For Bush supporters, you have to like how competetive he is in Maine and New Hampshire and now that the debates are over, Kerry may have peaked already.

Boy I am sorry I was in court all day today and missed this. "coinsidents" Now that was funny

You are posting numbers you made up, I am posting honest to goodness poll results. Maybe these are not poll results you like or from sources you care for but they are not made up.

Seriously, what the heck was that thing? It shouldn't matter bib but remember, we live in a country where "Survivor" is the top show around. A President with gloop on his mouth is about as substantive as we are going to get until they put you and me in charge and we can start lining these creeps up agaist the rhetorical wall. In the mean time, I choose to laugh the way we all did when Kerry was orange.

The drool effect continues unabated, Kerry wins huge according to CNN 52-39. Also, most recent Ohio poll has Kerry ahead by 4%, the best numbers he has has in that state since I have been watching the numbers.

Kerry wins 42-41 which doesn't sound like much but the poll participants were 38% republicans and only 30% democrats. That means the President had a head start of 8% and still lost. Kerry picked up 14% among the independents and the President only picked up 4%. That is pretty huge, I'll call it "the drool effect"