Juror#8

Hmmmm... 1. Ron Paul is popular because he is a constitutional originalist. He is a textualist. He believes that the Constitution is a contract and that we are obliged to abide by it. He doesn't believe that the expansive role of government is substantiated by the 4 corners of that 200+ year old covenant. He probably stays awake at night lamenting Wickard v. Filburn even 70 years later. If you feel differently than Paul with respect to constitutional interpretation, then I'd love to also hear your *historical* view of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. As an aside, for whatever reason it's usually the neo-conservative types who reconcile 21st century U.S. manifest destiny as being constitutionally palatable; however during the same meal, the same entree, the same bite, articulate a textualist argument with respect to the 2nd Amendment. Again I sigh....hmmmm...... 2. Also, wouldn't the free market, by it's very definition, address "tinpot dictatorships," and "theocracies" with either inclusion or avoidance based on the level of transparency? So if a regime is sour to free market principles, doesn't the show just go on? The free market will either bring goods and services or not and the citizenry will either acquiesce or rebel accordingly; "acquiesce" evidencing a lacking market, "rebel" evidencing a growth market. Isn't that was is happening in Iran? The free market sentiment is slowly freeing the market there. And isn't that the essence of the free market economy? 3. Do you believe in an imposition of free market principles by military intervention? Are you convinced that there are many in the Pashtun region of Pakistan who might enjoy beenie babies if they knew about them and that there is no better way to bring attention to cuddly blue, pink and purple toys then through coercion and threat of precision bombing campaigns? The funny thing is, if you do feel this way, then you may be correct. There are probably millions who would love Western Civilization if they were exposed to Western civilization. But if you really appreciate free market sentiment, I mean *really* appreciate it, then why not allow the free market to free the market - notwithstanding the incredibly slow gestation period. 4. But all of the above is likely just an over-simplification by scarf-wearing, Starbucks drinking, RINO-liberal-!@#$s, who simply don't understand the global political landscape in a nuanced enough way (I anticipate a "you said it, not me" response to this sentence).

Obama vs. Romney is a sure victory for Obama. It would be nice if the Republicans could put forth (or coalesce behind) a candidate that has potential in a general election context. Romney is gonna get smashed. Newt or Huntsman are the best candidates in the field. Newt's situation is tricky because of his infidelities; however because of the age and the nature of the infractions, I don't see a play with respect to negative ads. Obama didn't highlight McCain's infidelity during the 2008 campaign. Why would he take a different route with Newt? Also, I really would like to see Obama accept Newt's proposal of 3 or 4 Lincoln-Douglas style debates on healthcare, taxes, et cetera. Newt's intellectual brand of conservatism appeals to me. He is an idea guy. Whereas Newt is the theoretician, Huntsman is the best candidate pragmatically. He has the resume, the articulated fiscal policy plan, and the appeal to be successful. He is squeeky clean, self-effacing, and the administration doesn't know how to approach him tactically. He was on Obama's leadership team - so they're somewhat limited in their opposition! He'll never get the nomination though, because he didn't object to Obama's China policy and that obviously means that he can't be conservative in every other aspect of his political universe. Now, about Robert Gates...

Thanks for the shout-out. Unfortunately though, I'm not sure that Bill from NYC sees the advantage of a strong secondary vis-a-vis a strong edge rush. This despite the fact that I've referenced and given examples why the former *could be* favored over the latter in today's NFL. Obviously, having both unit's strong would be ideal. However, if one had to be considerably strengthed first, and in our division, I think the secondary should be the priority. That would be a fantastic draft. In my ideal universe I'd select: 1. Dre Kirkpatrick (CB, Alabama) 2. Robert Griffin (QB, Baylor) 3. Nick Perry (OLB, USC) 4. Nick Toon (WR, Wisconsin) 5. Xavier Nixon (OT, Florida) 6. Best available 7. Best available

I addressed some of your points in my response to Bill in post# 54. Here it is again: I actually think that we have a serviceable line. They're gelling and getting better game-by-game. Also, there are injuries that must be accounted for. Was their pressure on Fitz yesterday? Yes. Was it a sackfest? No. Also, we're in a division (and a league) where quick-outs, quick-slants, and screens are prevalent. That's how we've masked deficiencies in the line to a large extent. Given that fact, I'm just not sure that an edge rusher is as valuable as a lock-down corner in today's NFL. How did New England respond to the a$$ kicking they took a few years back in the Superbowl? By formulating a precision offensive strategy that gets the ball out quick to Welker and alleviates edge pressure on Brady. 2 Lawrence Taylor's and 2 Bruce Smith's can't stop that - they wouldn't have enough time. Look at Pitt's game plan a couple week's ago against New England. It was a plan that generally only rushed 4 and relied on the secondary to jam receivers, cover close, and disrupt timing. It didn't rely on the 5 year old strategy of "throw the house at Brady." To be sure, our win over New England was accomplished with almost no pressure on Brady. It was awareness in the secondary, being close enough to receivers to get hands on the ball, crowding receivers, disrupting routes that won that game. Does this mean that we shouldn't draft an DE? No. A solid DE is an integral part of any defensive strategy. I just think that the current NFL offensive trends implicates the need for improved secondary play. With that said...a beast CB, LB or DE would go a long way to making this team very competitive. I just prefer a CB (and coming out of the Jauron regime, I never though that I would be writing about drafting another CB high in the draft).

Can you clarify what you mean by "failed Eurpoean systems"? Karl Rove thought the same thing...he was convinced of it actually. Much like yourself, he genuinely believed that the Democratic base was slowly dissipating. According to people much smarter and more experienced than me, Franklin Roosevelt was lampooned for many of his HUGE public policy initiatives. His initiatives were supposed to bring an end to the Democratic party. The Democrats and their base, ostensibly, were positioning themselves WAY far to the left - way outside of the political mainstream....and just slightly to the right of Eastern European communism. The interests of the Democrats were becoming antithetical to the "American Way." All the hullabaloo, the sensationalism, and the histrionics notwithstanding, Roosevelt and his "way left" policies ushered in an entire generation of Democratic dominance much to the dismay of the prognosticators. Were their other interests at play? Yep. Am I analogizing? Not quite. Just want to point out the political ebbs and flows seem never to be understood prospectively. Most prognostications are incorrect. And if you feel that you've figured out the pulse of the American mainstream, you're probably lying to yourself.

Ok, so the subject title is somewhat hyperbolic, inflammatory, and screams "read the contents herein." But with that said, I just want to point out - as the Romney trends move in the direction that I've being saying for months that it would move - that Romney will lose handily in the general election and that there are much better candidates in the current Republican field IF the goal is a Republican presence in the White House. In the thread reproduced presently, I mentioned that the opp research on Romney, once publicized, will sink his support into the low 30% range (I've seen much of the material - it's an opposing campaign strategists' wet dream); that the Administration DOES NOT fear Romney; and that Jon Huntsman is the candidate that they fear the most: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/136890-is-the-white-house-trying-to-screw-romney-by/page__st__20 I also mentioned that my thoughts were not conjectural, however they were based on conversations with well placed folks whose job it is to know what is going on before most everyone else. Now read Erick Erickson's article from today: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/08/mitt-romney-as-the-nominee-conservatism-dies-and-barack-obama-wins/ He ascribed a legitimate conservative voice to the points that I've been discussing for months. You can't deny Erickson's conservative bona fides. He is the most influential conservative blogger in the country. He has also seen the same opp research that I (and others) have, and shares the same opinion on the WH's confidence in a Romney match-up, and alludes to Jon Huntsman's conservative bona fides. So again, the WH DOES NOT fear Romney. Romney will LOSE a head-to-head match-up (opining obviously). The WH fears a Huntsman surge. They worry about Gingrich in a debate and his intellectual conservatism. They had a healthy concern about Cain but the word is that they feel that he is smoke-in-mirrors. You can doubt, but unlike some, my info is not based on a couple of polls of "independents" conducted over a month span a year before the election, or some blind allegiance to talk radio, or just a feeling. Of course, much of what Erickson says is *his* opinion. And maybe that shouldn't sway you directionally. But he is basing his stance on the same info that is and has been percolating under the political surface for quite a while.

Just when you think that you've progressed enough away from Mississippi circa 1950, someone reminds you that 60 years moves slower in some parts of the world.

Big Government - meh. Strong national government; strong federal presence; competent federalism; judicious, deliberate but also confident and purposeful use of Article I Section 8, clause 18 - AWESOME! Translation - F(@k the Articles of Confederation and all it's indecision. Translation of translation - I want to know that someone gives a rats a$$ about salmonella in my chicken, dilapidated roads, lead in the paint of commodities being imported from China, and high flouride counts or fecal matter in the water supply. But I also don't want the United States' population to live under a perpetual state of martial law and re-education camps administered by "The State."

+1

I actually think that we have a serviceable line. They're gelling and getting better game-by-game. Also, there are injuries that must be accounted for. Was their pressure on Fitz yesterday? Yes. Was it a sackfest? No. Also, we're in a division (and a league) where quick-outs, quick-slants, and screens are prevalent. That's how we've masked deficiencies in the line to a large extent. Given that fact, I'm just not sure that an edge rusher is as valuable as a lock-down corner in today's NFL. How did New England respond to the a$$ kicking they took a few years back in the Superbowl? By formulating a precision offensive strategy that gets the ball out quick to Welker and alleviates edge pressure on Brady. 2 Lawrence Taylor's and 2 Bruce Smith's can't stop that - they wouldn't have enough time. Look at Pitt's game plan a couple week's ago against New England. It was a plan that generally only rushed 4 and relied on the secondary to jam receivers, cover close, and disrupt timing. It didn't rely on the 5 year old strategy of "throw the house at Brady." To be sure, our win over New England was accomplished with almost no pressure on Brady. It was awareness in the secondary, being close enough to receivers to get hands on the ball, crowding receivers, disrupting routes that won that game. Does this mean that we shouldn't draft an DE? No. A solid DE is an integral part of any defensive strategy. I just think that the current NFL offensive trends implicates the need for improved secondary play. With that said...a beast CB, LB or DE would go a long way to making this team very competitive. I just prefer a CB (and coming out of the Jauron regime, I never though that I would be writing about drafting another CB high in the draft).

The GB game last year. D!*k head Rogers and many on the GB sidelines were mocking, laughing, dismissing, etc. as we were getting dismantled. Sean Payton two years ago in a post game presser insisting that he was confident that we wouldn't/couldn't score suggesting that the team/offense/coaching staff was offensively inept, stagnant, static, sucked. Incidentally, he was right; but for an opposing team's coach to articulate it amounted to an extreme level of jackassary. I don't forget these things....even years later. I will always dislike Rogers, GB, and NO (except Brees) for the way that they conducted themselves.

Agreed...but I'm probably in the minority because I think this game demonstrates why it just may be advisable to take best CB available in the 2012 draft. A Dre Kirkpatrick or Stephon Gilmore with a healthy Kyle Williams back and we win this game IMO. We can also use some significant LB, WR, and overall secondary assistance. I know that won't make me too popular with the "stack the lines" crowd though.

I'm a proponent of Fred getting a raise because he has considerably outperformed his current contract and he has been a class act about it. He should be paid commensurate with a top 10 (even top 5) back. 2-3 years, north of 20 million, most guaranteed - and without hesitation.

Looks like things are moving in the right direction: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7182446/fred-jackson-gets-buffalo-bills-assurance-new-deal If this link has already been posted mods, please consolidate or delete.

It makes NO sense why the Bills game is not on here in DC. For hundreds of miles in any direction it's the Bills game. And then there is this one little island of programming map nonsense couched in the middle of vast Bills game viewing-area expanse. Why?!?!?!?! Please no right wing conservative conspiracy theories....

Just to add on...they were also last second losses and in their buildings.

I was so glad that we didn't get Shenanigan and I was confused that so many here were enthusiastic about the possibility and felt that the future success or failure of the organization was predicated on a Shenanigan (or comparably "experienced" head coach) hiring. The trend recently has been towards coordinators (admittedly young ones) not re-tread head coaches who are a few years removed from being fired as a head coach (Shanahan, Gruden, etc.). Also, I always remember hearing that Shenanigan was a crappy personnel guy - phenomenal Xs and Os coach, but horrible with bringing in quality players at the right time. Eh, who knows...

The talk around the coffee table is that an Obama/Clinton 2012 ticket is being discussed....seriously. The info seems reliable enough and it comes from a solid voice. Justification is that she won significant margins amongst the Hispanic, senior citizen, working-class white, and female constituencies in the primaries. Also, she received 17.5 million votes...many of whom didn't transition support to Obama's team (at least to according to polling taken circa June, 2008). Her approval rating is at about 70%, and she is seen as someone who can influence policy. Her relationship with her husband is considered a net positive and she has legislative and international diplomatic experience. Any thoughts, ideas or criticisms?

I have NO knowledge of inner-circle info. NONE. ZERO. I have some information about strategy and inclination with respect to the upcoming campaign. It's really nothing that a somewhat diligent political reporter couldn't access. I'm NOT an insider. I'm NOT claiming to be an insider. I'm not close to any insiders. Conversations with some jr. WH strategists, and pollsters mean little more than evidencing an interest in the nuances of politics. I knew more insiders in the previous Admin because I'm acquainted with Ron Christie. Even he wasn't an "insider" beyond memo-writing opinions and strategy suggestions to COSs. I'll share what I hear though...for what it's worth.

Thanks for your contribution. And you're most welcome.

Maybe it will happen that Matt Barkley (and no quality DE, LB, OT or CB) remains at pic 24-32.

Agreed 100%. I don't think that drive happens last year and certainly not two years ago. The team had every chance to win the game on the road, having forced 0 turnovers, in a hostile environment, against an experienced pass rush, down multiple starters, etc. etc. A win would have been infinitely better, but maturation was evident...even in the loss.

Apologies if my posts offended your sensibilities. It appears as if you enjoy the jabs but then you want to be the arbiter with respect to scale. How about you call off the dogs and I'll put away the whip? I'm the new guy. The hits came. I fought back....against all contenders. But before that, I remained respectful. I tried to agree to disagree and I extended appreciation for responses and criticism. I didn't escalate the dialog. You'll point to today's posts as proof that I wasn't "respectful." I said that I began by being respectful. But when things escalated, I responded accordingly. I had people who I never communicated with writing for me to "STFU." How is that for tact? And you want me to observe some level of decorum? Above all, though, I've enjoyed quality, engaging, intelligent, point-by-point correspondence with yourself and others. For that, I thank you all.

I did miss the reference. I must not appreciate good music. But being a jazz guy with tons of Mingus, Monk, Brubeck, and Gordon in the rotation, I mention that skeptically.

I don't do anything to impress people. Nor do I peruse the Thesaurus looking for more elaborate ways to communicate an otherwise unexceptional point. It's just the way I speak brother. I understand that my comment above might invite more criticism. I'm prepared.