NEW YORK (CBS/AP) ― The New England Patriots' shot at history Saturday night will be available for every household in the country with a television after months of wrangling.
The game against the New York Giants, in which the Patriots could become the first NFL team to go 16-0 in the regular season, was originally scheduled to be shown only on the NFL Network, which is available in fewer than 40 percent of the nation's homes with TVs.
But the league announced Wednesday that the NFL Network feed will be simulcast on NBC and CBS. It's a major concession by league officials, who repeatedly said they would not show the game anywhere but the NFL Network. The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers.
This will be the first three-network simulcast in NFL history and the first simulcast of any kind of an NFL game since the first Super Bowl in 1967, when CBS and NBC both televised the first meeting of the champions of the newly merged National Football League and American Football League.
"We have taken this extraordinary step because it is in the best interest of our fans," commissioner Roger Goodell said. "What we have seen for the past year is a very strong consumer demand for NFL Network. We appreciate CBS and NBC delivering the NFL Network telecast on Saturday night to the broad audience that deserves to see this potentially historic game. Our commitment to the NFL Network is stronger than ever."
Against all odds, and despite the usual drumbeat of criticism, President Bush had a very good year.
The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding. America remains safe from terrorist attacks. And the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.
At his year-end news conference, Mr. Bush said with optimism that the economy is fundamentally sound, despite the housing downturn and the subprime credit crunch. The very next day, that optimism was reinforced with news of the best consumer spending in two years. The prophets of recessionary doom, such as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Republican adviser Martin Feldstein, ex-Democratic Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bond-maven Bill Gross have been proven wrong once again.
On my last midnight tonight and then two weeks off (yay me). I'll still be around to visit everyone, but I may not get any more posts in tonight. I'll make up for it in the weeks ahead with all the off-time. Or not, hopefully there will be some overtime during my vacation, I need the money.
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 7 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush called for $4.4 billion in accelerated funding for "securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site" Thursday, as his administration and key senators struggled to revive controversial immigration legislation.
"We're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept," Bush said, two days after launching a personal rescue mission.
The measure's most controversial feature envisions eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million immigrants now in the country unlawfully. At the same time, it calls for greater border security and a crackdown on the hiring of illegal employees.
Bush made his remarks a few blocks from the Capitol, where the bill's supporters said they were closing in on a tentative agreement that could clear the way for the measure's revival within two weeks. (link)
Do W and the Democrats think that this will make the bill more palatable to the people? Why is it that we need 'emergency-type' funding to do what they SHOULD BE DOING ALREADY? Enforcing the border and the immigration laws have nothing to do with a NEW amnesty try. The laws are already on the books, it's almost like the anti-gun crowd has a hold of this one. If you simply write more laws, the problems will go away (ala gun laws) instead of enforcing the laws you have.
Some Senators are still skeptical (hopefully at least 41) enough that this won't push them over (they rightly ask why the spending is tied to this bad bill and not seperate), and the Democrats definitely want this bill passed before election season is truly in. With luck we can stall or kill this until a new president is sworn in. We know Fred won't sign this bill and probably not Rudy or maybe even Hillary (Obama would).
I just wonder why it is so hard for the pro-illegals to figure out why we are so adamant about enforcing the LAW... but might as well ask why they are tolerant of everything (that agrees with them) and have a love for Islam. __________ Reason amongst the dhimmikrauts
WASHINGTON - The co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group said Monday they were unsure whether the panel's goal of pulling combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008 remains valid.
The blue-ribbon panel's five Republican and five Democratic members concluded six months ago that most combat troops could be out of Iraq by the 2008 date if certain steps were taken. They said a smaller contingent could be left behind to train Iraqi security forces and conduct other narrowly defined missions.
The report received a tepid response by the White House and Congress until recently, as administration officials contemplate their next step in Iraq and congressional Republicans look for a solution to end the politically unpopular war.
Addressing a National Press Club luncheon, James Baker and Lee Hamilton said they believed the group's findings were still meaningful.
But the 2008 date "would, of course, be something different, in my view at least, because we were talking that date when we came with the report in December of 2006. This is now June of 2007," said Baker, secretary of state during the first Bush administration and Republican co-chairman of the group.(link)
Pretty much a non-story here, the ISG admit that times have changed, bla bla bla. Interesting quote though
"One thing I do know and believe very affirmatively, and that is if Iraq was not the center of the war on terror before we went in there, it certainly is now," Baker said.
Makes you wonder why the ISG and the left would be wanting to leave so fast if they truly believe this? (yes I realize Baker is a Republican in name, but not in action).
Bush immigration bill push tests clout
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 22 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush is putting his influence within his own party to the test Tuesday as he pleads personally with skeptical Senate Republicans to resurrect his immigration bill. Despite his confident tone Monday about the measure's fate, Bush is facing a hostile audience that has shown little appetite for following his lead on the contentious issue.
[snip]
Still, weakened by his sagging poll numbers and a sense within GOP ranks that the president has lost touch with his core supporters on immigration, Bush may well lack the clout he would need to persuade Republicans to back the measure, say lawmakers and strategists.(link)
Read that last paragraph well, seems that the A(w/t)P thinks the immigration bill is having problems because W has low poll numbers. Instead of looking at the fact the bill is having problems because NO ONE wants that bill, telling. __________ Reason amongst the dhimmikrauts
" type="hidden"> President Bush, trying to recover from a stinging setback on immigration, will personally try in a visit to the Capitol next week to revive the embattled plan for legalizing millions of unlawful immigrants.
Bush's scheduled lunch on Tuesday with GOP senators is part of a campaign by the White House and allies in both parties to placate or outmaneuver conservative Republicans who blocked the broad immigration measure this week. They said Friday they would try again to reach accord on the number of amendments the dissidents could offer.
Opponents of the bill promised to continue fighting all such efforts.
Democratic leaders accused Bush of being too tepid in pushing the legislation, which would tighten borders and offer employers more temporary workers from abroad in addition to providing lawful status to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens and putting many of them on a path toward citizenship (link)
Suddenly it seems we have a President back in the WhiteHouse. After defying the democrats and harshly speaking of the Speaker of the House, now comes news that W plans on actually enforcing the immigration laws of this country.
Immigrants March in LA over Bush Plan
By PETER PRENGAMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES - Thousands of people marched through downtown on Saturday, demanding a way for the country's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to become citizens and condemning President Bush's latest proposal.
Carrying signs saying "Amnesty Now!" and "Love Thy Neighbor, Don't Deport Him," about 15,000 people danced to Mexican ranchera music, chanted "Si, se puede!" or "It can be done!" and passed large American flags over the crowd.
Many were angry about a White House plan that would grant illegal immigrants work visas but require them to return home to apply for U.S. residency and pay a $10,000 fine. (link)
Although it's too early to tell and W has a bad track record on illegal immigration, it does seem to be a start. Of course now that the President doesn't have Congress behind him, he'll try to do the right thing. Now that it's virtually impossible for him (or Congress) to get anything done.
Hopefully this will indeed happen and somehow slow the open border policy we have now. There are millions of people in the world that want to live in this country and many of them are worth the effort to get here. We benefit greatly from the people the move here legally and contribute to society as a whole. What we don't want/need or can endure is more people here on our dime that commit crimes, drive down workplace wages and steal jobs from the 44 million or so poor people we have now.
I have nothing personally against anyone that attempts to come here (or wants to have a better life) but I do have problems with criminals. The act of coming to this country sans-rules constitutes a criminal and should be treated as such. Every crime that an illegal commits, every job they take is something that should NEVER have happened. It is not a question of being 'humane' or anything, it's a question of ideals, law and right.
Most everyone I know locks their doors or lives with a fence or some other way to protect what they have from people that want to take it. Studies will show that these things DO NOT stop criminals, but they inevitably will slow them down, giving you that chance to protect what you have. Hence immigration laws and the fence. Neither will ever stop the flow of illegals, but with the fence we have the chance of funneling people that want to be here to the proper checkpoints. And if/when the laws of this land are enforced, we have the means to do something about the people that bypass the first-line of defense. Exactly how it works in YOUR home if someone makes it past your first-line, then you have law and the police to hopefully get you justice. And maybe the first place the Feds need to start looking for people that shouldn't be here, is these handy little get togethers.
I know there are many people in this country that think just because someone is here, they have the right to be here. Happily I am not one of these. There are enough people that I support by working 12 hour shifts on any given day. I do not want to work another holiday to pay for someone that doesn't belong here.
Make of it what you will, but unless you have a legitimate argument for amnesty for ANY lawbreaker, then don't give me the spiel about these lawbreakers. _________ Reason to hope and rant
Stumble It!
