1) I believe that Freddie and Warren don't like Almond Joys, even though they have never tried it.... so I'll just take it from their Halloween basket without them knowing. What are they missing?
2) I believe that the Browns have a shot at the playoffs this year. Hear me out.
First, we've got to predict a record for the final playoff team. With NY Jets & KC tied at that last spot now at 5-4, I think 9-7 will be in a tie for the final spot.
Now let's take a look at the Browns - their past (3-6) and future this year.
Home games: The worst team the Browns have played at home so far is 5-4, and the Browns won that game. They lost at home to teams with records of 6-3, 7-2 and 7-2.
"Now Eric", you say, " you're not going to somehow say that the Browns are going to beat a 7-2 team at home in the 2nd half of the year, are you?"
I don't have to.
The best team the Browns play at home the rest of the way - 4 games - is a 5-4 Chiefs team. The other teams are 4-5, 3-6 and 2-7.
So I believe there is a chance - not a great chance, but a possibility - that we could sweep these games and go 4-0.
Now for the road games; we've played 5 road games so far. We've lost to a 7-2 team; played two 5-4 teams and spilt, and beat a 2-7 team.
We have a 7-2 team, a 3-6 team and a 2-7 team upcoming on the road.
Why can't we win 2 of those?
That would give us 6 wins in the last 9 games, putting us at 9-7.
And a 9-7 record would most likely tie us with the Jets and Chiefs , who we have already beaten (Jets) or plan to beat (Chiefs, in Cleveland). There's the Jaguars also at 5-4, but we won't play them this year.
And for those that pooh-pooh this argument, but think the Steelers can still get back in it, let me compare two teams:
Team A: Record: 3-6. In those 9 games: 4 home, 5 away. Opponents record so far: 48-33
Team B: Record: 3-6. In those 9 games: 5 home, 4 away. Opponents record so far: 44-37
So Team B has played 1 more game at home against a weaker schedule, and still has the same record as Team A.
Of course, Team A is the Browns and Team B is the Steelers.
That's why this Sunday's game is sooo important. We need to prove we are better. At home.
3) So I've been thinking about the elections. I'm trying to figure out the Republicans' loss - and make no mistake, the Republicans LOST it, the Democrats didn't win it.
The Republicans shot themselves in the foot so many times over the past year:
"Bridge to Nowhere"
Doing nothing on immigration, until the fence... and then...
Not publicizing the fence
Not caring about the deficit
The whole Rumsfeld fiasco
and so on...
I finally gave up and said "It's as if they didn't WANT to win..."
and then a light bulb went off in my head.
That's the plan. They sacrificed this election.... in order to win 2008.
They knew that the Speaker of the House -and then the DE FACTO leader of the Democratic party - would be Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy may be smart, but certainly does not come across as a warm and fuzzy lady. She seems to be - and can be portrayed as - a cold and calculating liberal.
The Republicans are gambling that turning over the House to a lady with this demeanor is a small price to pay - in order to show the people that liberal women would be disastrous for the country. (Due to their politics).
And - what a coincidence!!! - who is the leader right now for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008???
Of course, Hillary.
After two years of Pelosi, would this country be ready to elect Hillary President as well? They're thinking no.
So - sacrifice 2006 with the intention of keeping the White House in 2008 by effectively disqualifying Hillary due to Pelosi's leadership and style.
Will this work? You males out there tell me - would you vote for a country with Hillary and Nancy as our leaders?
I'm not judging, I'm just asking the question....
6 comments:
Um, what are you smokin on the Browns.
And, I distinctly recall you blasting a Dem for suggesting the approach you now preach as the Rep stratgey.
...hmmm ...see you in vegas
Take others' feelings into consideration????
As Don would say, what are you smoking?
We'll see if that description fits Nancy, but I think 95% of teh nation has their minds made up on Hillary. Your description of a matronly mom - taking feelings into consideration, "bringing the country a nice bowl of homemade soup" is so clearly contrary to how Hillary has behaved in a position of power in the past.
Think Health Care reform, circa 1994? private meetings? Excluding Republicans? Remember that?
Interesting but flawed in my mind:
1. Why would you ever want to "give up something" that you had control of. Are you admitting that you can't get the job done?
2. Doesn't this happen all the time with Congress during the President's second term? Why are we surprised? Did the Reps have a fighting chance at all?
3. Hillary doesn't have a shot either way. Dems don't like her that much and the only way she can really win is if she goes up against some Ultra Religous Right Wing nut. Rudy and McCain will crush her since they are a little more moderate.
4. Does it really matter who the speaker is for the Dems? Seriously. Each will be hated by the Rep, just like Newt and company were hated by the Dems.
5. Everyone understands that gridlock is bound to happen over the next 2 years. The Dems will blame Bush, and Bush will blame the Dems. Who wins in 2008 because of gridlock?
6. With no strong Rep leadership in Congress, who will step up and unite the Rep?
Hard to believe that Derek's post is the most rational here...
Derek:
1) good point... but then why do people do sacrifice bunts in baseball?
3) Hillary does have a shot depending on the nominee. If he/she is too moderate, then the religious right may sit out.
4) Yes, it does matter. Who is the current speaker? no one really hates him. Newt was a polarizing figure.... so is Nancy. Steny Hoyer wouldn't be as hated if he was the speaker.
5) Ah - gridlock. But who will people blame? Bush WILL NOT be running in 2008! And I believe (correctly) that teh R's should run further away from Bush to a more fiscally conservaive platform. They can say "I'm not Bush!". The D's can't hide from congress, however, they will be leading it!
6) A great question that people are trying to figure out now.
Mer:
1) Where have you been? Where were you when we talked about great wedding food?
2) What have the Rep's done?
- no attack since 9/11 (safety)
- economic progress since the 9/11 disaster
- lower taxes
Of course they've made mistakes in running the war. But we are safe. There are no attacks on the US. Do you really think that that fact and the war are two completely, independent things?
2) And your WMD comment: obviously, you didn't read the NYT on Friday, Nov 2, where they reported:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
So Saddam was a year away from the bomb -and this is the NYT!!!!!
Laura:
I'm not doubting your first paragraph at all - women can be motherly and a politician - but you are joking yourself if you think Hillary is that woman. Please.
The double standard you mention, however, is out there. I know. But I think your argument that Hillary is a victim of this double standard doesn't pass the smell test.
Laura:
Well, I don't know how to read your first sentence of your second comment then, when you try to defend Hillary.
Attacks in the US since 41? Well, should I start with the WTC in 93? The embassy attacks in 97? ( I know, that's not the US, but Hawaii wasn't either in 41).
Is that a trick question?
To be clear - the embassy attacks weren't part of the United STATES, but Hawaii wasn't a STATE either in 41.
So -
attack in 93
no real response
attack in 97
no real response
attack in 01
a response (like it or not)
no more attacks so far...
Post a Comment