AKC

I wouldn't look for that to change regardless of how the season plays out. There is simply some small percentage of fans who jumped aboard deeply entrenched positions in the first half (or before) that are proving out false, and instead of gleaning a better understanding of the big picture they're trying to find any frayed thread to hold onto that might justify not admitting their flawed logic. The reason they're the loudmouths making the calls to radio shows is because the best of our fan base is too busy celebrating these recent Sundays to waste time on hold.

Watching one choking on his own vomit can be quite amusing. Perhaps we'll get real lucky and this time it'll prove fatal ;-)

I'm putting more stock in our performance against an AFC contender with a good offense than I can in conquering underachieving NFC pretenders. Beating the Bengals- at their strength- says a lot about those elements of our D that have evolved throughout the season. It appears to me that our susceptibility to deep balls is much diminished with Mr. Vincent playing in our D backfield.

I'd argue that he was held back predominantly by the inferior talent he was given at FS- Vincent truly is a difference maker and I love the way Jerry is getting him involved.

Funny how the presence of a pocket improves a QBs pocket presence ;-)

Edward's play is the biggest surprise of the '04 season to me. I keep wondering whether his improved energy will be sustained in a starting role. The simple fact that he is doing it part-time has as much to do with our excellent defense as any other element. To be fair, and as it's pointed out in this string, the addition of a starting quality coverage safety appears to have completed the puzzle of our defense. Nice to see that the QB obsessed boneheads are still keeping their games polished up ;-)

Peter's situation in Buff is perfect- probably one of 5 NFL cities where he'd be getting time at so may different spots. His good hands were actually talked about the past off-season when his size was the real lure.

It was the third segment of Playbook if I'm not mistaken. And throw your brother Simon a piece of unseasoned and uncooked meat of a red hue. He appears to be recatching his stride in sharing with us all that TD has a special touch.

Takeo was predictable but the audio captures of Mularkey were classic- "Just Hammer it Tom" "Let's Hammer it again" etc........

One thing for sure when it comes to DirecTV is that if they did it it was done exclusively for their benefit or for competitive reasons and not for the benefit of the customer. DirecTV's squashing of RF receivers is a perfect example of the way they do business- try and sell as many receivers for that extra 5 bucks a month versus giving customers features that would enhance the functions already available. The B word about RF is it was ALREADY in the field and when they realized that in LIMITED installations it might keep them from getting their little bit extra per month fee for an additional receiver, they actually "requested" that Hughes stop manufacturing the GCEBO and GAEBO receivers and not introduce any new models with the feature. I've got no problem with capitalism, but vulture tactics like these are BS where a service provider has a monopoly on a segment like the NFL.

Mark has responded to your question correctly IMO, but you additionally might want to consider that there's a very good chance that it won't be the Cincy O that is the unit from their side that plays a larger influence in the outcome. Passing games thrive on opportunities while the Cincy D, rated 5th worst league-wide against he run, is already giving up 138+ yards per game. Plus we've been running better all year on exactly the surface they use on their own field. The weather/surface issues being of no advantage to Cincy negates to some degree the gains of playing in their own stadium. Unlike a passing offense, a running offense kills you slowly while limiting opponent opportunities. The outcome of this game appears to simply hinge upon our ability to run the ball, and if we do that the potency of their WR corps will have little or no effect.

I'd go so far as to say he's playing at his highest level ever and one place it really shows is on the extra feed shows on NFL Network that have featured the Jets this year. Everytime you see the Jet offense on the sideline it seems Mawae is pushing the balance of his unit and sticking his head in other postion huddles to rev 'em up. In the game he's making plays all over the field, finishes every block and plays until the whistle blows.

It’s incredibly irresponsible to include the guy making more difference for the Jets than any other player on the offensive side of the ball. Mawae has been dominant in the running game, keeping 31 year old Curtis Martin among the top rushers in the league. He’s also one of the few Centers in football whose team trusts him with one-on-one assignments against DTs regularly. While the quarterback-obsessed press and that “naïve” portion of the Jet’s fan base who spend Sundays watching the ball and crediting Pennington and Carter with the Jet run, the actual reason has been the on-field leadership and individual play of Mawae at the Center position. The attempt to qualify the pick with the “only center who got more than one vote” garbage simply means Mawae is the only Center whose name the voters recognized. Surprise, surprise.

That's your point, not mine, hence there's no reason to disagree about it. To get you back to my point, Kerry has historically acted like a fly on the proverbial whenever he meets a loony-toon female with a big bankroll, and he's willing to trade one loony for a wealthier one if the MSM stories about THK are accurate. You're certainly welcome to admire those kind of motives, though they seem kinda' shallow and disingenuous to me. Could be I'm just naive, having grown up in a small town and being raised under those very different values a lot of the press are talking about now. Maybe you and yours know better- maybe we should discard those we claim to love when a better financial arrangement comes along? I'll stick with the small town values though, and perhaps in turn you'll excuse my naivate? On the issue of adoration of Laura Bush, a general Google Search for: adore Laura Bush brings over 40 thousand hits. You might find it educational to plug in: adore Theresa Heinz Kerry ;-)

While I wouldn't call the campaign trail an exclusively representative period of one's life, the study of those involved in most cases does answer a lot of questions about their makeup. I'll grant the reporter in Pittsburgh his time in the company of THK, but I can't ignore the virtually to a reporter assessments of her on the campaign. Time and Newsweek reporters who rubbed elbows with her over the full campaign and were granted special access came away "less than impressed" and there's nowhere I've seen where the word "normal" was even considered in stories about her. Post campaign each of these sources list "hypochondriac" as a primary trait of the potential first lady. She is reported to have mixed up various " holistic potions" to help her husband recover from the rigors of the campaign, concoctions that raised the eyes of staff and press alike while conjuring images of a newt's eye mixed with three hairs from a rhino's butt. If we're talking about proximity to the subject, these two sources seem to have had the closest look and it's at the very least provocative that Time and Newsweek come away with similar unflattering views of THK. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420966/site/newsweek/ I don't see the Time article online but it was far less flattering a picture they painted of her, and Newsweek's is hardly flattering. I don't know if the individual eccentricities tell us a lot about THK, things like her wearing sunglasses at night, etc. But I do have a broad frame of reference regarding hypochondriacs and frankly the company in which they reside on my life scale is somewhere between the Area 51 crowd and the sadly alone even when surrounded by others. The other thing that I get from the post-election coverage, and I guess perhaps an expansion of the subject I started the string with, is that Bush seems to genuinely be involved in a partnership with his wife while Kerry to a some degree appears dominated and perhaps even subjugated by his. Those are nuances that I'm confident are not exclusively seen from the distance at which I reside from the subject.

You might leave the obfuscation accusations in the garage of that glass house you spend so much time in. Let's try this, let's get back to the original opinion I posted: In the 2004 election I believe most Americans, and especially American women, made some mental acknowledgement of the fact that George Bush surrounds himself with strong, intelligent women who he truly appreciates and values in his decisionmaking processes. The alternative candidate has divorced one certified nutcase and is currently married to another woman that everyone in America except Mickey, plus a tiny handfull of leftist lunatics realize is a fruitcake. He also showed little respect for the women in his campaign, ignoring and demoting his top female staff as the campaign wore on. I don't expect you to see it the same way a centrist like myself does, I'm merely offering the opinion for those with even a minute level of objectivity that might allow them to consider why Bush did far better with women than conventional wisdom claimed he would.

Your strategy of ignoring all the facts in the string is very interesting. I hope you don't mind me asking if that's effective in your line of work?

Sure there's the 20 percent of Americans like you and Michael Moore who passionately hate Bush and everything about him, but the balance of America is proud to have a wonderful mother and outstanding person like Laura Bush as First Lady. And you're welcome as an American to believe that THK is a perfectly stable and normal holistic foul-mouthed gin-soaked raisin eater who would have made us all proud as our First Lady- after all, it is called "The American Dream"! As a centrist the most lilely poitical show to regularly be selected in my household would be hosted by Tim Russert or Chris Matthews-are they also part of that Right Wing conspiracy that so threatens you?

The word "proportionately" is in the dictionary. Let me know if you'd like me to pick you one up for Christmas- er, excuse me- "The Holidays"!

The problem with your postion is that I'm a down the center American voter, without an allegience to any political party. You're the participant in the conversation with a cross to bear, and from the middle of the political arena it appears to this centrist that you suffer from exactly the type of hypocritical blindness that has turned so many of us in the center away from supporting the left. Let me give you an example of your hypocrisy- you have the audacity to question the intelligence of the voters who re-elected Bush while your own party offers free doughnuts, bus rides and crack cocaine to convince your "base" to simply show up at the polls. Your "base" in this past election was provided with "instructional" demonstrations to explain how to use different voting apparatus on their way into the polls. Your own party apparently believes your "base" is a bunch of knuckleheads, slackers, and drug addicts yet you dare to question the intelligence of the red state voters? Hypocrisy at its purest IMO.

The string is veering away from my original conclusion, which was "While traditionally not much weight is given to the influence of the First Lady on voter tallies, it may well have been a big part in the outcome of this past election." It is that that the polls cited seem to clearly support. On the implication of the Harris poll it might be helpful to know that Hillary Clinton never cracked 50% with the exact same question asked. The darling of the Dems '08 chances looks to be exactly the type of unpopular pol that's killing the left.

If you'd like polls that support exactly the supposition I posed in the opening post, drop to "First Lady Preferences" on this link. FYI, Laura Bush in a Harris Poll has 81% of Americans saying she has "improved the role of the First Lady". I'm sure you understand the implication of that, but don't explain it to Mickey; if he understood what the polled actually meant it could lead to his burning the wet T-Shirt clad Hillary poster on his ceiling! http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=512

There is little more unAmerican or gutless than making broad challenges to the intelligence of Americans based upon their voting for someone they believe would better protect the liberal bastions of America. Proportionately the red states are overepresented in the body bags returned from all our modern conflicts. In the current conflict we face, one clearly against a religious culture centered in the Middle East, it is not the Tastee Freeze in Oldham, Alabama that is threatened, nor the Civil War Statue in Wickham, Kansas. What is threatened are the same cowardly liberals in our big cities who will hold their children out of serving in the military. How ironic that the finest among us, those who would go to protect the liberal cities like New York, could be attacked by those same gutless liberals for protecting them! You truly should reexamine your own inability to exhibit appreciation for this wonderful country we live in by showing- if not respect for those who would die for your right to whine- at least the self-control of not calling into question the intelligence level of those same heroes. One measure of Patriotism is showing the restraint to avoid insulting those in the military with more balls than you have yourself. If you excercised that a tenth as often as you do your right to B word about the unfairness of the failures of your political party of choice you might just begin to understand the reason why the proudest Americans live in those Red States you hate so much.

Run and hide if you can't face facts- it does nothing to save the diminishing significance of the Democratic Party. Try this poll from Seattle- last I checked hardly a bastion of right leaning politics: http://www.kgnw.com/poll/viewall.asp?ID=2863 As far as his first wife, I understand she was institutionalized and continues to suffer from mental health disorders. Here's the dictionary version to answer your question: lunacy \Lu"na*cy\, n.; pl. Lunacies. [see Lunatic.] 1. Insanity or madness; properly, the kind of insanity which is broken by intervals of reason, -- formerly supposed to be influenced by the changes of the moon; any form of unsoundness of mind, except idiocy; mental derangement or alienation. I think it's fair to say either of his wives pictures could appear after the definition!

You can hide from the truth, it's become a way of life for the left, but national polls show that Laura Bush is one of the most adored first ladies since numbers began to be taken for them (I assume you adore Jackie O, who had similar numbers?). One does not have to admire Karen Hughes and Dr. Rice to realize they are strong, stable and intelligent, not the kind of women who would prescribe gin soaked raisins for the arthritic! But hey, if you submit a resume early Shrum may have some openings for partisans in blinders like yourself- Good luck in '08!