In-A-Gadda-Levitre

It's hilarious (to me) that so many are convinced that JP doesn't want to stay in Buffalo, when there is no evidence that it's true. No quotes, no indication whatsoever that he wants out. What he wants is to be paid like a Pro Bowl LT, regardless of the route he took to get there. He showed up in terrible shape? He reported in "good physical shape, but not game shape" said our Head Coach at the time. He cut off communication as a way of saying, "hey, I've told you what I'm looking for, there's nothing to discuss unless you're willing to pay me what I'm worth." When he played "hard ball", it wasn't clear at all what the FO would do. Lee Evans wasn't signed at the time and holding out was a choice, maybe not your choice, but a choice nonetheless. He tried and they didn't back down. So what? Nobody knows if he will repeat last year's tactic or show up and play. If anything, IMO, last year's outcome says loud and clear "Jason, you're under contract and we expect you to play for that contract. We're willing to discuss some changes, but at the end of the day, we own your ass for another 2 years..." Not that they will trade him, even though they might, if they get what the Bills feel is his perceived value.

ya, the season might be extended into February, but since when is the weather noticeably worse in February than January, especially where it matters in places like Chicago, Buffalo and Green Bay? Playoff games in northern cities are likely to be cold and snowy anytime after mid-December. This is a non-issue IMO.

Are NFL owners crying wolf? Maybe not "We're fortunate in a lot of ways," Murphy (Packers President/CEO Mark Murphy) said. "In terms of total revenue since our [stadium] renovation, we've been anywhere from 8th to 11th out of 32 teams. For the smallest market in the NFL, that's pretty good. We don't have a lot of the debt service like other teams do. From a net standpoint, we're pretty strong. But we're sensitive to the economy. The problems with the current agreement have been amplified by the economy." we have some things in common with The Pack...

ya, I agree, but check out SI's Dr Z from the 2008 training camp and CBSSports.com looks like he's been getting advice from both for a while...

Bills needs: Tight-end, pass-rush playmakers wanted

link

this whole coached thing is misunderstood. Every single press conference (athletics, business, entertainment, etc.) is coached by marketing communications people or it's an accident waiting to happen. You anticipate the questions and formulate the answers in advance, based on the messages that the team/business/individuals/partnership want to convey. It's just preparation, nothing more or less...

this looks like it.. but he sure didn't say that they didn't make adjustments in college. In some ways (saying your school didn't run a pro offense) could be construed as a cop out, but JH should get the rookie benefit of the doubt.

FoxSports contributor Kevin Hench tells another side of the Cowboys 2008 woes

me thinks this is the link

Florio doesn't mention timing of the actual deal and Mark Gaughan's point was that, by the time they had agreement, it was too late to file the paperwork. So really the only thing you can fault the Bills for is that they didn't draft all the paperwork in advance of a deal, in order to have it all ready just in case. I really don't know if that's commonplace with situations like this, do you? Get the paperwork all ready without a deal in place?

While the next administration shouldn't be focused on digging through the Bush trash, there's more than enough evidence that the public was blatantly lied to (i.e. the warrantless wiretap program), massive power was given to the executive branch via false interpretation of the constitution, signing statements, other legislation, etc., and it's very likely that many laws were broken in the process. Gauging the relative damage is probably the right thing to do under the circumstances, but not at the expense of fixing the economy and other pressing issues.

here's the fake interview

both have about the same credibility until there's more publicity, it's a wash

what loophole?

since the US now agreed to withdraw all troops by the end of 2011, the difference between Obama's campaign promise and the reality is getting much smaller.

since it looks like that article was the only page that mentioned it on the web (at least so far), it probably made sense to shut it down at the source.

that damn communist is starting to withdraw the troops before he's even in the White House!

so it's fake?

let's see, a relatively unknown (to the national stage) is chosen to be the GOP vice president candidate and you don't think the media should checking out who she is? Some probably went too far, but of course, that damn liberal, left-wing media that is actually part of the Democratic campaign was out to get her. turn that record over...

yes, he tries, but I was a little surprised he backed down, due to the obvious evidence against her, at least as presented by Carl Cameron. Bill O is rarely logical...

the article states that in the author's opinion, Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis "neither apparently saw her lack of familiarity with major national or international issues as a serious liability." I can't figure out if it means that: A) they knew she didn't understand basic issues and thought they could bring her up to speed fast enough so as not to hurt the campaign B) they really didn't know how little she understood about these things because she hadn't been vetted properly C) they knew and didn't they didn't think it mattered as long as she was "handled" properly, meaning she didn't need "campaign for POTUS/VPOTUS camp", keep her away from the media, etc. I'm guessing probably some combination of the three, but mostly A.

1. Gore was a weak candidate with a crappy campaign, compared to a GOP candidate with a strong brand name, a platform of uniting the country, and a well run (albeit ruthless) campaign. 2. I strongly disagree that he thinks it's his turn. Hillary wins that award in 2008. 3. Once again, the dems fielded a weak candidate with a crappy campaign, or at least a candidate who didn't listen to his campaign. Compare that to a well run campaign by the GOP and an incumbent president who was still supported by his party. Right, someone running for POTUS compares the cost of the campaign against the salary. That's a good one. 64 million lemmings? Get a grip dude.

while I don't necessarily agree with the statement that the media had a huge love affair with her, the thrashing she got by the media was due to her performance. The Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews, the debate, the 'pit bull' speeches on the stump; all that. It was made worse by the campaign's decision not to make her accessible to the media, which undoubtedly was due to the interviews and lack of understanding of key issues.

BTW, I'm not just saying this because he jumped all over McCain's campaign, but Shep Smith is a beacon of fairness on Fox News.