gehringer_2

I also wonder how many are just working black. People can be doing light fabrication and design with 3d printers, remote web and programming tasks for cash payment and with home improvement work through the roof (also due to remote work) you probably have a LOT of builder/home reno guys that might also be working black. IIRC we saw some of this in the construction business after the last crash when guys laid off as construction employees had to start freelancing.

ex Rep Jolly made a good point on MSNBC though. Just because McCarthy has the majority, even a large one, of the caucus, doesn't mean he in someway 'deserves' the speakership. You need 218 and he doesn't have them. Many other members might be able to find a majority but not 218. What is really going on is that the caucus is so devoid of internal leadership and maturity, that they are stuck hammering their heads against the wall between two bad alternatives instead of working up the internal negotiation process needed to get to the needed consensus. You can say the 20 are being intransigent, but so is McCarthy's refusal open the door to a different candidacy and sitting through repeated unproductive votes where he isn't moving the process at all either.

yup.

Not that easy though. That would take Dem support and 1)the Dems may or may not offer it 2) if you can't get a large % of the GOP members on board (and even if you do) any GOP rep that goes against the FC block is going to be threatened with a primary run against him.

Yeah - Urban's number is not in Warde's rolodex, not on his phone, not in his office, not in the building, nowhere on campus.

No question trust is the issue and why I don't see the Dems being in any hurry to accept offer from McCarthy's camp. I think it would have to be from someone they trust more.

I posted up thread last that one Dem spokesRep said the Dem opening position is no games on debt service or budget passage and no investigative fishing expeditions. Those are not low value gains for the Biden admin and so the Dems in general.

How is a 'compromise' bad if it nets you something you don't have today? The Dems are playing with House money (yeah- the pun works here). Anything they walk away with in a negotiation is pure profit. It's hugely in their interest for the gov not to shut down and for budgets to get passed in Biden's last two years.

meh - we don't really know. Maybe he understands that for whatever reasons he's not ready for the pressure of being back in the NHL. Considering the worst case - If it were an outright relapse situation he wouldn't be staying at GR either.

Rep Don Bacon on the air saying the GOP is willing to work with the Dems (i.e. make concession to them) to end this.

Make that 0/5

If Gaetz chairs Armed Services you're going to see a interesting donnybrook when DOD refuses the committee classified data.

For now I can't see the Dems dealing with McCarthy - he is just too untrustworthy and agreement with him would be worthless. Heck, that's a good part of the reason he is where he is. If McCarthy steps aside maybe another GOPer. OTOH - there is a danger the Dems overplay their hand. If they are offered a reseasonable deal and hold out for more, the risk is the GOP gets it act together and they get nothing.

A couple of people have predicted that if McCarthy loses the Speakership he resigns shortly there-after. But this is a guy who in his dealings with Trump has demonstarted so little self-respect that I find that hard to predict. I suppose if a compromise speaker backed by more Dems then GOPs is the end result, McCarthy could still end up as majority leader since the majority of his caucus would have opposed the Speakership. Otherwise it seems not.

but this goes back to the ball argument. Yes the shift can be beaten, but as long as your HR/FB ratio is high enough, you are still better off trying to pull the ball into the seats instead of taking fhe improved odds on one base. The good hitters don't hit into the shift because they are stupid, they do it because that is what the stat nerds in the FO are telling them to do and because OPS is what gets them paid and pulling the ball is how to get the total bases that drive their OPS.

We don't know, but that's the kind of thing I am OK with. Sure I want the team to play the kids, but also want them to have the option to pull them back when they are falling on their faces with enough major depth to keep a watchable team on the field. 90% of guys fail at the MLB level, we have to accept that. But that doesn't mean you don't give them their shot. Other than with Tork, the old regime seemed to be stuck on the wrong side of that equation - not moving guys through the system faster while over playing guys that had been around a long time and were only replacement level anyway.

If the twittersphere is to believed, Ukrainian offensive actions are racheting up.

Brian Anderson is still out there I think - I would hope they at least kick the tires there.

I get all this Chash. And I have no problem with them not chasing any of the 9 figure deals. But what I would argue on the other hand is that there is some obligation to put a better product in the field in the interim while you do all the requried foundation work. If that means paying a guy for two years instead of one, to me that is not adequate justification for running a terrible team out there again. For example, sure the Barnhardt deal is an overpay, but in the overall scheme of a major league baseball team the extra years being given out are not the kind of money that that is going to impact the org's ability to do anything else it wants to.

yeah - the game is sort of out of whack, but I don't know what the answer would be - you can't move the 3pt line back any further without widening the court, which seems unlikely. I think what you want is for fans to able to see some effect of team play or apparent coordinated strategy having an impact on the game as opposed to just an exhibition of which players have a hot shooting hand at the moment. The latter will always play a big part in basketball but I don't think you want it to be only/all that.

I don't think any GOP members will vote for Jeffries, but some Dems might go for a plan involving someone like a Kasich or Upton. But is there any leadership level among GOP middle of the roaders to make it happen? Plans don't spring into life by themselves, someone has to lead them. That piece appears missing. The other factor is that I would estimate the odds of an out of the box solution don't start building unless McCarthy removes himself from the race. As long as he keep up the fight I guess the GOP middle is willing to stick with him.

yup. The sad truth is that we still have to hope that we have been wrong about Al and that he was just done in by an epic run of bad luck because if the foundation he put in place and the players in the pipeline he put there do not produce, Harris is going to have a mighty long build out to do.

If Harbaugh bolts MI will move heaven and earth to try to avoid hiring another old white guy as head coach.

yes - I think this is true. The difference is that the Squad's frustration is that they have a program they want to see move forward that they are frustrated more of the party won't support. The FC is coming from a fundamentally nihilist stance. Even ex-GOP members who knew and worked with these people from the inside before they left the fold say their disagreement with them is not over policy but more fundamentally that these people are not interested in governing.

If you lined up everything Al Avila said when he got the job and everything Harris has said since he got the job, you be hard pressed to see any daylight between them. Of course that could be because you have an owner who actually does know what he wants even if his 1st hire could only talk about it instead of doing it. And of course the ultimate irony now is that given that (barring a trade) there will be no impact offensive players added, if they do rebound it's going to be with Avila's players.