WCSox

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Oct 2, 2008 -> 09:21 AM) I am not sure I agree with your analysis So which past-their-prime player do you think will come back to haunt the Sox?

QUOTE (beautox @ Oct 2, 2008 -> 04:47 AM) I'm very relaxed, no one expected us to be here and they've already staved off elmination not once, not twice but three times, any and everything from here on out is gravy +1 I should probably be nervous that they don't match up well with the other four AL teams, and I guess I sort of am. But the fact that they could survive three major injuries and still win the division after a 72-90 season is quite an accomplishment in itself. I don't want to keep clinging to 2005, but not having that "coke" label hanging over their (our) heads anymore is huge. Yeah, it'd be great if they won it all again. And it would be disappointing if they got swept in the first round. But overall, I'm just excited that they're "back" and that they're building around future (and current) stars like Quentin, Alexei, Danks, and Floyd. This season seemed like a "last hurrah" back in April. It doesn't now. It feels more like where the Angels were at a couple of years ago.

They can have both of them. Crede's back is completely messed up and Cabrera's me-first attitude may be more of a problem than his age and declining range.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 1, 2008 -> 08:52 AM) So do we go with a 4 or 3 man rotation? There's no question that you go with a four-man rotation. Guys have already been pitching on three days rest.

QUOTE (shipps @ Oct 1, 2008 -> 08:44 AM) Every playoff game is a big game. True. JMO, but I think it would be cool if the Black Out returned to the Cell on Sunday. And hopefully several more times this month.

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Oct 1, 2008 -> 08:40 AM) I voted for Griff-BA-Dye... only because in Tampa we need the coverage, but I don't see Ozzie going in that direction, I would be surprised if we saw a change from last nights line up. To my knowledge, Griffey hasn't played LF in a long time. Because of that, I agree that he won't go with a superior BA in CF.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 1, 2008 -> 06:10 AM) The blackout was completely awesome. It was surreal. I felt like I was watching a Raiders game. But it was cool in the sense that it was something new and unique to this season. I got the sense that Sox fans had stopped mentally clinging to 2005 and had forged a new identity with the current team.

QUOTE (G&T @ Sep 30, 2008 -> 07:42 PM) Can't pitch these guys on 3 days rest forever. javy will have to pitch at some point. Hopefully he sees how these other guys pitched and steps up. That pretty much sums it up. Ozzie needs to be especially careful with Danks, whose 195 IP this season is 39 more innings than he's ever thrown in a season. Losing Contreras may prove to be big here. With our rotation taxed and us historically sucking down there, I don't have a good feeling about this series. Then again, I had an awful feeling about our chances after the sweep in MIN last week, so we'll see.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 08:47 AM) Motivation is overrated Not true. Motivated workers almost always perform better than unmotivated ones. Remember how Freddy performed in meaningful games vs. games in mid-August against the Royals? In Javy's case, talent is overrated because he lacks the motivation to utilize his to reach the next level. One would think that that three years of Mark would've rubbed off on him. Guess not.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Sep 22, 2008 -> 10:16 AM) can be translated to, even if I give up 11 1st inning runs and we get swept, it doesn't matter. I will still go to Puerto Rico with my family with my millions of dollars. I'm not sure if that's what he meant, but it's kind of difficult to not read it that way. And it would explain why his overall ML performance falls below his talent level. Javy reminds me of Manny, in the sense that oth look like they're just going through the motions half of the time. Manny's ridiculous talent makes up for it. Javy's talented, but not talented enough to get away with a Manny-like attitude.

I'd put a significant amount of resources into Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado; and I'd also spend some on New Hampshire and Nevada (both are pretty tight), as well as Florida (still a little too close for comfort). I suspect that Iowa and Maryland will remain blue no matter how much they spend. Michigan and Pennsylvania are probably going to remain blue, but I'd pick one of the two and divert remaining funding there (probably the latter, which has more electoral votes). As far as strategy, I'd do a few things. First, I'd go after his extremely liberal voting record and try to paint him as an Ivy League leftist who is out of touch with mainstream America. This would include his opposition to more domestic drilling and his lack of support for nuclear power (and probably issues of lesser importance, like his support for partial-birth abortion). I'd use his positions on energy as evidence that he doesn't care how much it costs Joe and Jane Average to drive their cars to work or heat their homes (which plays into the "elitist" portrayal). Most importantly, I'd get a bunch of economists together and run ads attacking his massive tax hikes and especially his proposal to nearly double the capital gains tax. They'd explain that raising taxes in a weak economy would weaken it even more, and that raising the capital gains tax (1) has historically not increased revenue and (2) will likely trigger a significant sell-off on Wall Street, potentially costing millions their jobs. I'd use these ads (and his opposition to drilling and nuclear power) to portray him as an economic-redistribution Euro-socialist who favors reliance on the government over personal economic freedom. What advertising money I had left over would go to attacking Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and his judgement in that area. This would include his opposition to The Surge, his puzzling initial remark about the Russia/Georgia conflict, and his comment about McCain not invading Pakistan to get bin Laden. And if that doesn't work by mid-October (and there's a good chance that it won't), I'd be in contact with the 527 groups about running Ayers and Wright ads.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) I thought McCain gave the speech of his life. It didn't come off as political bulls***....it was genuine and touched a lot of people. There aren't too many speeches I have ever said that about. I agree. And because of that, I enjoyed it even more than the Palin speech.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 06:20 PM) That's a pretty accurate description of the little I saw. I think O'Reilly is a far more "fair" interviewer than Rush or Hannity. But Bill comes off as very far right most of the time. O'Reilly's definitely a conservative but is nowhere near as partisan or nasty as Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc. Nor does he toe the GOP party line. QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 06:20 PM) making him look like a coward, huh. Because during a hugely important election season, he totally should be putting off seeing actual voters to go a conservative talk show that few would vote for him anyways. I'd imagine that quite a few independents hear his opinion every once in a while. And, yes, he would've looked like a coward if he reneged on his promise, especially after HILLARY had the stones to go on earlier this year.

QUOTE (thedoctor @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 06:13 PM) does that emoticon mean, "i can't really factually rebut your answer so i'll attempt to be funny"? No, it's a substitute for the "irony emoticon." It's difficult to "factually rebut" an opinion, so I don't see what purpose your post serves.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 06:11 PM) I didn't hear anything about it, which is good for the Democrats. Problem for O'Reilly is Obama knows all the stories about him out there and has had answers in the bag well before the interview. You sure about that? Obama promised O'Reilly that he'd come on months ago and O'Reilly has been riding him during his show for a while. Since he's influential and has high ratings, Obama most likely decided that it'd be better for him to go in, rather than let Bill make him look like a coward on the air. I'm also assuming that Hillary's decision to go on earlier this year pretty much forced his hand as well. I heard some of it and Obama handled himself pretty well. He danced around certain questions and didn't give very good answers when pressed, but he was pretty solid overall. And I think that O'Reilly treated him pretty fairly (from what I've heard so far). Some of the left-wingers might want to listen to the interview, as it shows that O'Reilly isn't the Rush- or Hannity-like partisan goon that liberal America portrays him to be.

QUOTE (thedoctor @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 05:53 PM) too bad, too. her speech wasn't bad. it didn't really need a sideshow to prop it up. the insecurity is showing. It certainly is.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 05:23 PM) or that could be spin to make it sound like she did something special that validates her as a great speech giver. Not trying to belittle her, just saying that's what people do in politics. Make people look better than they are. The same source(s) that reported also reported that Guiliani experienced the same problem. I don't see their motive for propping him up.

QUOTE (thedoctor @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 03:58 PM) that was false. a reporter who was in the front in the press area could see both palin and the teleprompter said there was no malfunction. The teleprompter may have appeared to be "working", but apparently they weren't able to stop it during the applause about halfway through. That said, I think that they're making too much of a big deal about this. Everybody who spoke had been practicing their speeches for several days and I believe they all had notes in front of them as well. So it wasn't exactly some sort of super-human feat. I heard that the same thing happened to Guiliani.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 04:42 PM) Hah. That's funny, the University of Chicago is notoriously conservative. The faculty are or the University's atmosphere is? There's a big difference. Even Texas A&M (George H. W. Bush University) has overwhelmingly liberal faculty.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 04:13 PM) However, it turns out you did see some faces of African Americans who support McCain broadcast on their screen. Faces bought, of course, from istockphoto.com. What's wrong with showing pictures of everyday people on a screen and who cares where they got them from? Oh, right, the Daily Kos. Because they need something to be angry about.

At the risk of pissing on the parade, I don't like our chances with Quentin possibly out for a while and the wear on Danks' young arm beginning to show. I could see MIN playing worse and us squeaking by to win the Central, but I really don't like our chances against the Angels or Rays. JMHO.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 03:16 PM) From my Republican parents. One of whom is a Political Science professor. It's nice to hear that at least one Republican has broken through the glass ceiling of discrimination in academia.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 03:52 PM) I'm just saying. Dean called it "the white party." So we see the convention, and it's like 95% white. Dean may have said it pretty tactlessly, but what he said wasn't completely out of left field. Dean making a tactless comment certainly isn't completely out of left field.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 5, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) Ok, I'm going to stir the pot here. As I watched the RNC I saw like 8 people who weren't white. I noticed the people waving the cowboy hats more than anything else. There weren't a whole lot of minority speakers, not because the GOP didn't let them or anything, but because there really weren't that many to choose from. That's just how it is, really. You saw only about 8 people who weren't white at the RNC because the crowd consists of almost all delegates. BTW, Michael Steele (the head of GOPAC) spoke early on Wednesday.