NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 03:35 PM) GOP : Rudy Guiliani, with the VP nod going to Florida Gov. Bob Martinez. Dems: Hillary Clinton, with the VP nod going to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. I'm fairly certain that Clinton already hand-picked Evan Bayh for her VP. On that topic, I'm willing to be Obama's pick for VP would be Richardson.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) For VP, do you mean Florida's Sen. Mel Martinez or their Gov. Charlie Christ? Martinez would be an interesting pick for that combination b/c of the appeal to hispanics, but if Rudy left office during that term Martinez would not become Pres. b/c he was born in Cuba. That's actually an interesting point. But, is it that he can't be President, or that he can't be voted President? If someone is in the line of succession, does the exemption still apply?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 02:40 PM) You are underestimating the absolute fear that the ultra-conservatives have for Hillary Clinton. They think she is the anti-christ or something. If Giuliani wins the primary, you will see more endorsements like Pat Robertson. The GOP's main problem is national debt, Iraq or the economy. I think you are assuming that the GOP today is the GOP from the 80's and 90's. I would agree the economy, debt and Iraq are huge, far bigger than social issues. But I think there is still a significant chunk of the GOP's voters that are of the opinion that getting a "real conservative" in office (in their minds, meaning a Christian Coalition model of conservative) is paramount. That's the party schism I've been referring to for a while. I think you are right about the endorsements of whomever wins the nomination, but I think that socially conservative bunch is not yet ready to crown Giuliani as the nominee. ETA: And Iraq is a nexus issue at the junction of religious conservatism, foreign affairs and economics.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 02:20 PM) As I said with both of them...whether you like them or not...they're under contract now. Which means it's simply a waste of money to dump them. Except in MacDougal's case, I think he's likely to be more damaging than most we'd bring in. Plus he's probably still seen as high potential by others in the league, so if you can, I think you try to trade him.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 12:50 PM) He's had a few good years. I don't think it's necessarily that people have a ton of confidence in him, just moreso than other guys out on the free agent market. I'll take my chances with Mac's arm over a lot of middle relievers. I think a lot of his good periods were under no pressure. He had a good year in 2005, with KC, when there was no pressure - and that was his first solid year, after being mediocre in 2001-2004. Then in 2006 he came to the Sox and had a very good year, but in limited appearances and not as a closer and usually not even as a setup guy - he was usually before Thornton and Jenks. Then in 2007, when he put in a lot more innings, and when Thornton started badly, MacD became the setup man. The results were horrible. And worse, his quotes lately make it seem like he just doesn't give a damn. Thornton has struggled too, but not as badly, and Matt has been a lot more consistent over his years when under pressure. Look at Thornton's numbers close and late, 2005-2007: a .240 average against, and almost a 2-to-1 K to BB ratio. RISP its .242 against, RSIP w/ 2 out its .206, 2nd and 3rd its .167. The guy does pretty well under pressure. MacD in the same period? .293 against w/ RISP, .256 close and late, .294 2nd and 3rd. See a theme? He doesn't do well under pressure. I think MacDougal has tons of skill, but he lacks the mental makeup to be a solid setup guy.

The GOP field is being led by two candidates with fatal flaws in that party's view (Romney and Giuliani), and the Dems are being led by a candidate with higher negatives than any serious candidate ever. The nearest contender to Clinton is black, and the nearest contender to those to GOP'ers has the misfortune of being named Huckabee. From a purely political point of view, these candidates have some major flaws that normally would put them in the "can't possibly win the nomination" category. I think its still wide open at this point.

Ham soda anyone?

I don't see where people keep getting their confidence in MacD. Everything I've seen about the guy is that he is immensely talented but just does really poorly under pressure. Plus he is wildly inconsistent. That is not a good makeup for a setup guy. Thornton's stuff is actually not nearly as good as MacD's, other than velocity. But Thornton doesn't seem to crumble under pressure (in fact he seems to do worst when in mop-up), has far better location, and seems like a workman out there. I think Thornton has a much better shot at a bright future as a setup guy than MacDougal does.

Jenks is obviously solid (though you never know about that repaired part), Logan and Wassermann have proven very effective as a LOOGY/ROOGY pair. Those are the three I feel comfortable with. Thornton shows flashes in 2007, and had a solid 2006, so I wouldn't be opposed to him. But I don't want to go past those 4 at most. Mac will never put it together, in my opinion - I don't think he has the mental makeup for it. I'd like to see the Sox pick up at least one decent reliever, ideally a setup type guy (I am just not sure Thornton can be that). Maybe a second. If they get just one, then open up slot #6 to the best of the field of fireballers from AA and AAA (Day, Aadrsma, Hernandez, etc.) in an open audition. A bullpen like: Jenks Thornton Logan Wassermann *A Qualls-like guy or some other decent, experienced reliever *One of Day, Aardsma, Hernandez or some other guy from inside the system Would have a decent chance of being good.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 10:38 AM) I don't think Romney can win the election. The bible belt of the south, which has been a Republican stronghold, won't for a LDS candidate. Without the south, he can't win. And, I find it just as unlikely that the GOP can win with a pro-choice, socially liberal and multi-marriage New Yorker like Giuliani. So who can they put up in a national election with a real shot? To me, McCain is the only GOP candidate with a real chance of winning a national election.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 11:00 AM) Yep. One of my favorite kids, an Eagle Scout from my Troop and a summer camp staffer just left on his two year LDS Mission. He's going to be in the New York / Connecticut area. I just realized all those kids knocking on doors are almost like campaign workers. My only thought to the contrary is we elected a Catholic 45 years ago, so maybe a member of the LDS Church really isn't an insurmountable hurdle. But I'm guessing YASNY is spot on. Big, big, big difference in national perception of Catholics versus Mormons. Most poeple see Catholics as a branch of Christianity, though they may disagree with some of their stands. The majority of people view Mormons as a cult. Right or wrong, that's the perception. The two are just not comparable, when looking at it from the view of the nation.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 10:27 AM) The interesting thing about the AMT vote was that it was 216-93. The thing that should jump out at you is that only 299 reps actually voted. That means 136 reps didn't feel it important enough to show up and vote, or about one third of the whole house. Its embarassing. Actually, it was 216-193. Follow the link.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 08:03 PM) You guys hear about the Clinton campaign planting people in audiences to ask certain questions to her? Reminds of that phony press conference so many people were freaking out about lol She gets more and more like Bush every day.

Check out the graphs of the polls over time for Iowa and New Hampshire. Note the trends... In Iowa: --Clinton wavering but generally up --Obama gradually gaining --Edwards gradually plummeting --Richardson climbed to 10% or so but is now stagnant there In NH: --Clinton was stagnant, then up, now stagnating again --Obama up and down, lately up --Edwards steady to downward recently --Richardson same as Iowa - jumped to 10-ish, now steady Obama needs more traction to catch Clinton. Unless this dirt on her starts to really effect her standing, Obama needs a good run. But notice how Edwards falls match Obama's gains. I think they are battling for the same crowd. If one of those two drops out, the other will probably see enormous gains, probably enough to pass Clinton.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 07:28 PM) How do you explain Guiliani's 100% white campaign staff? I don't even know the sample size. Could be chance, could be that Giuliani tends to hang out with the suit and tie crowd that tends to be lilly white... I don't think its because he in the klan or anything.

Also, check out the graphs of how the candidates are doing generally (just below poll results)... In Iowa, note that Romney and Huckabee have been going up, Giuliani and McCain down, and Thompson stagnant. In NH, its pretty much the same trend.

New GOP polls out for IA and NH... Iowa from Zogby (current percentage and change from last poll by same provider): Romney 31% (-2) Huckabee 15% (+7) Giuliani 11% (-5) Thompson 10% (-2) McCain 8% (+2) Paul 4% (+1) NH from Rasmussen: Romney 32% (+4) Giuliani 17% (-2) McCain 16% (even) Huckabee 10% (even) Thompson 7% (+1) Paul 4% (+2) So... Romney continues to lead in both states handily. Giuliani continues to fall. Huckabee makes a big run in IA to take 2nd place. Other than that, everyone else has only small moves. Note that these falls for Giuliani are before this Kerik indictment hit the news. Things don't look good right now for Rudy, which I have to say I'm pretty happy about. Can anyone catch Romney?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 06:14 PM) That's what bothers me though. "I won't even try to do something for the minorities. Heck, I don't even want any of them working with/for me." That's why so many people look at the Republican party as a party of old, rich white men. I don't think any candidate should ever "try to do something for minorities", in terms of hiring. I'd want them to hire the best people for the given job. The only jobs where your race is important, I suppose, is if the job itself was race-related, like marketing segment campaign work or diversity type roles. Other than that, get the best person. if you do that, you'll likely end up with a diverse group anyway.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 04:53 PM) Yeah, sending him down to the minors would be such a ridiculous move that floating it out there would have to be some sort of negotiation tactic on KW's part. If KW deals Fields, he'd freaking better get something outstanding in return. Fields may have whiffed too much last year, but it's not easy to find a young player who will be ultra-cheap for the next few years and who can play 3B and put up a 101 OPS+ as a rookie. I'd guess that the only way Fields is moved is if KW sees that is his only choice to acquire someone big - like a Cabrera or the like. Which I think is an outside shot anyway. Most likely, Crede gets traded, and probably not for very much (given the back issue, questions about his offensive abilities, and his one year left then BORAS-TIME). Fields moves back to 3B. Also, Crede may not be moved until Spring Training.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 04:49 PM) How about the super friendly guy who decides to strike up conversation while you are either at the urinal or in the stall. And not just the obligatory Hi, the "So what do you think about this TV show that was on last night." The entire reason to go into the restroom is to get something done, and to get out of there. As I am not a member of congress, I don't go in there to meet people. That one drives me nuts.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) I can see him being bad there at first, but LF is not a difficult position to learn. It'd be kind of stupid to send a guy who it 23 dingers in 100 games as a rookie down to Triple A, especially when the Sox don't have a better option in LF right now. Even if his low OBP is a concern, move him down to the bottom of the lineup. He's not going to adjust to major-league pitching in the minors. I think the chances of Fields going to AAA are near zero. Heck, KW couldn't even say it without a caveat after. Its just posturing. Either Crede or Fields will almost certainly be traded before the end of ST.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) Not sure which thread to put this into, but I found it interesting. An analysis of the level of diversity amongst high-level campaign staffers for each major campaign (It seems you need a subscription to get to the raw data about what level they chose to draw the dividing line at). Link where I grabbed this from. Where are the other GOP'ers? And I am amazed there is even that one AmerInd in there.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 04:30 PM) Spending is too high, thats for sure. A 9 trillion dollar deficit is atrocious. Cut spending instead of raising taxes. And if someone was saying that, that's a very good point to make. I personally think in this case the loophole really does need closing, but, I can see the argument you make as having a lot of merit too. What drives me nuts is people who want to spend money they don't have, which to me stands in direct opposition to fiscal discipline. And I think you mean a $9T debt, not deficit. A $9T deficit and this country goes essentially bankrupt in a few years.

By the way, if the GOP was saying they don't like the bill because they'd rather see Program X cut, then I can respect that. But they aren't. They are saying it doesn't need the offset at all. Which is ridiculous, because, removing it from the budget means less income. That means either you get new income from somewhere, or you cut a program. You can't keep this debt thing up.

The House passed a bill today to "fix" the Alternative Minimum Tax problem, saving taxpayers some $50 billion for the year. The AMT, for those unaware, was created long ago as a loophole-closer against the ultra-rich from getting out of taxes. But, as the legislation did not include any sort of inflationary adjustment, middle income families are now running afoul of it. So, each year, Congress fixes it for a year. There is a further $30 billion in tax savings, including extensions of things like child tax credits, some property tax exemptions, etc. Here is the part that is causing consternation. The Democrats, desiring to follow the pay-for-play guidelines, worked to find $80 billion in revenue to offset these costs. They did so, primarily, by closing what they see as a loophole - taxation of carried interest. Carried interest is currently taxed at the 15% capital gains level, even though functionally, its really income for the portfolio managers or high end proxy investors. So, they propose to put the carried interest rate into income tax, which would be 35% for most of them. This generates most of the $80 billion. Dems say this is closing a loophole, where investment managers are making income but not paying income tax. Republicans say its a new tax, therefore they won't support it. The White House promises a veto. Now, I don't like new taxes. But here we have a case where the majority is trying to follow the guidelines of fiscal responsibility - you know, actually paying for their spending - in order to fix something everyone knows needs fixing. And the Republicans, meanwhile, want to spend without taxing. Sound familiar? It appears to me the GOP has taken yet another step away from fiscal discipline, and towards spending money they don't have. In any case, for some of us, if this little tiff doesn't get worked out, that AMT might bite us in the ass.