gehringer_2

Well, I agree that you don't need to posit any kind of collusion to believe no-one is going to claim him.

The obvious route is the majority of the GOP offer something to the Dems to get enough of them on board to disenfranchise the right side radicals, but I don't think the center of the House GOP conference is still moderate enough to even envision that.

I'd take Erne over Suter and probably Sundvuist as well, though the latter's not going anywhere.

plus the personal risk? Not a bad plan really if Vrana gets through waivers you let him work his way back at GR and it leaves you more time to put off a decision you don't want to make on the current roster.

OK, McCarthy is toast - (my earlier post didn't age too well!) no movement toward him at all. I have to think Jim Jordan would self-immolate as Speaker, but It could be entertaining...

I've been as down on US foreign adventures since and because of 'Nam as anyone, but to be fair, they thought they were doing a Korea, when they were really doing an Afghanistan. But how could they know? You can't look at Japan or S. Korea and not take some pride in what the US made possible there. You can't look at 'Nam or Afghanistan and not despair, and you can't look at Iraq and Ukraine and not realize the last acts are still yet to written. What I can look back and criticize is that LBJ realized the war was lost and the coward walked away from the presidency instead of ending it, leaving it to Nixon to make it worse. Just as we failed to course correct for way too long in Iraq (Mission Accomplished!) or Afghanistan. I guess I can forgive an American administration trying to do something they think is right, but not one that won't see when a mistake has been made and get out.

this is a fair point.

WTF is is Gaetz's angle?

I don't think Jordan's speech is particularly persuasive. Almost "I came not to praise Caesar but the bury him" LOL- the Dem made the same point!

The biggest one would be the instability. Don't see how it could be workable. TBH, the odds are still that McCarthy is going to win through after giving away every shred of the leverages he will need to stay in the job more than temporarily. And then there will be more disarray. I have a hard time seeing any stable Speakership emerging from the present mess unless it's someone like Amash, where no-one likes his politics but everyone trusts his integrity. But I think the only way a left field candidacy happens is a LOT of fast leg work by the Dems to drive it and at this point I don't even see why the Dems would be willing - why not just let the GOP continue to self-immolate? I could see Biden wanting things settled down into some workable order, but the House Dems themselves? Not sure if they would see it as in their interest or not. But we're all just spitballing

ya think?(!?) Indy I could see. I think there are two big pulls in tension for Harbaugh. The obvious one is the professional competitive pull to go back to the NFL and win a Super Bowl, but all the personal reasons pull him back to UM/Ann Arbor and the college game. As we all agree, he is an enigmatic character, I don't think anyone knows what balance he is seeking in his life, and I'd put it that he appears not know himself from year to year.

I would think the conference would trust her even less than McCarthy. Of course that's the rub with this GOP. They've driven every honorable person away and all the choices are bad.

Opening day is bring your kids to the floor. There are some little children running around the chamber.

I think Kornacki's scenario where a lot of the GOP defectors abstain on the 2nd ballot but lack of coordination ends up giving Jeffries a majority of those voting is as likely as anything. Of course that wouldn't go anywhere in the end because the GOP would just turn around and remove him, but it would be one more example of chaos brought to you courtesy of the US GOP.

E.T.T.D

Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes McCarthy!

lost 3 so far?

Gen X has a legit beef. Few generations have had their prospects for advancement more blocked than they. OTOH, history also dealt them a relatively smooth gig.

I don't know how the experience for women changed at your end of the BB, but certainly for men, worrying about being drafted was a defining property for those born before maybe 58 or so. You had to have been born before 54 to have actually been drafted for 'Nam, but I figure if you had reached high school with the draft still going it still would have been a major part of your consciousness,

The only thing sad about this is that people will have forgotten about it by 2024, plus the House in general won't be a big enough issue in a presidential year.

Matt Gaetz on McCarthy this morning: "If you want to drain the swamp you don't pick the biggest alligator" Are you kidding me? Matt Gaetz?

Agree. I think they pick 46 because it's conveniently post WWII. But the most of the vets didn't get home and settled and into starting their families for a while after VJ day and a pregnancy is 9 MO, so children born in '46-47 especially were still mostly being born into pre-war families. The true marker of a boomer culturally is who their parents were, which should properly be children of the Depression and of service age for the 'good wars', WWII & Korea. If you define it strictly by the demographic bubble (which is fine for that purpose) it extends further, but culturally the cohort ends earlier.

And he's not trustworthy and they all know it, which means no-one in the mainstream of the conference likes him enough for his support from the middle to be strong enough to force the margins along. i.e the support his does have is shallow.

there was a long piece in the Times critizing the way Cameron shifted back and forth between frame rates. I thought 'frame rate' was an odd critique. It seemed to me the real critique was really less about frame rate then resolution, maybe the reviewer didn't understand the technical difference or maybe the high frame video just happened to also be higher res. But in short, he basically complained that too often the video was too good, revealing flaws in makeup, scene and prosthetics that weren't high quality enough to withstand the level of video scrutiny they were getting - thus often destroying the ability to suspend disbelief. How much of this you notice may apparently depend on what format you see the film in. Almost reminded me in one way of people who criticize digital music because they miss the background hiss and noise. But the critique actually make more sense with film than for music. Just like a professional photographer may usea soft focus lens for portrature, there is such a thing as too much reality when it come to images - esp if those images aren't 'real' to begin with - you don't want to make that too obvious.

yeah - it's been something I've found interesting for a few years now. I remember posting about how I thought part of the bankruptcy (only part!) in US conservatism is that "good" conservatism normally frames itself as the moderating influence opposing activist over reach/extremism/over-idealized propositions like communism, but the Western left and especially the US left, with maybe the exception of Elizabeth Warren, has basically been bereft of any paradigm shifting economic concepts since 1930. That hasn't left an honest conservativism much useful to do....