It was another weekend of limited big time matchups but that did not stop some movement from occurring among the top 25. The biggest ripple comes from South Carolina getting a big SEC victory over Georgia who was coming off an impressive opening weekend win over Clemson. The other top 10 to stumble this past weekend was USC who may have had a bit of a hangover from a key win against Stanford on the road as Boston College ran over them to say the least. The top 5 remains intact and much of the top 25 who did win had blow out and statement making games as they make their case to play for a national title. Much like USC, Virginia Tech seemed to still have a big victory hangover impacting them as they fell to East Carolina in a close one. That loss knocks them out of the top 25 along with Louisville who got hit hard by a tough Virginia team. With Virginia Tech and Louisville falling out of the top 25, that allows BYU who looks very good and could run the table to move into the top 25 along with North Carolina who will need to take lessons from Virginia Tech as they get a very good East Carolina team.
With that, here are Week 4's power rankings:
1)(1) Florida State (vs Clemson)- They went to Death Valley and rolled over the Tigers last year and should expect Clemson's best effort in another primetime showdown.
2)(2) Oregon (at Washington State)- They continue to look nearly unstoppable offensively and it shouldn't change against a team they have had much success against.
3)(3) Alabama (vs Florida)- Their new quarterback is starting to come into his own in an offense geared to score points.
4)(4) Oklahoma (at West Virginia)- They took advantage of a spotlight game last week to show why they are positioning themselves as one of the best teams.
5)(5) Auburn (at Kansas State)- It is still hard to tell if this team can make it back to the national title game and this week will provide an opportunity to see where they might be.
6)(7) Texas A&M (at SMU)- It looks like they might be better offensively with a new quarterback and without a big receiver and can continue to position themselves to be a sleeper title contender.
7)(9) LSU (vs Mississippi State)- They are tough to beat under the lights at home but should still be leery of a hungry conference foe coming to town.
8)(10) Baylor (BYE)- Their quarterback looks to be healthy and that is not what opposing defenses want to hear.
9)(11) Notre Dame (BYE)- They can use a bye to further iron out a few wrinkles in what could slowly emerge as a team on par with a couple years ago.
10)(13) Michigan State (vs Eastern Michigan)- They have had a rough loss at Oregon lingering for two weeks and will likely look to quickly put that game behind them.
11)(12) UCLA (BYE)- They grind out close ones each week and that could help down the road but still need to develop a killer instinct.
12)(14) Stanford (BYE)- They should be able to build upon a lot of the good things they did after a loss as they are still a top team in their conference and the country.
13)(6) Georgia (vs Troy)- They had chances to pull out an important road win and build on their opening victory and let that slip away.
14)(21) South Carolina (at Vanderbilt)- They needed a win and got one and are back in the thick of things nationally and in the SEC.
15)(8) USC (BYE)- They were coming off a big win and got blown out and run over and could use a bye to regroup.
16)(16) Arizona State (BYE)- They have a week off to prepare for a huge conference game at home that could shift the conference's top tier.
17)(17) Mississippi (BYE)- They have slowly built up steam and could learn from last year's stumbles in big games.
18)(15) Wisconsin (vs Bowling Green)- They came out the gates strong but need an impressive showing to get themselves on track after not being able to put together a complete game.
19)(19) Ohio State (BYE)- They put their loss to Virginia Tech behind them quickly but still need to figure out how to grow from their struggles with a young quarterback.
20)(20) Nebraska (vs Miami (FL))- They have a chance to take advantage of some struggles of the top teams in the Big 10 if they play like they did last week.
21)(23) Clemson (at Florida State)- They did not play well in the second half against Georgia on the road and will need to figure out how to put together a complete game this time around against a slightly better team on the road.
22)(24) Missouri (vs Indiana)- They are molding nicely into form and might be better than some expected after losing some key players.
23)(25) Kansas State (vs Auburn)- They have a chance this week to show where they stand against a top 5 team at home.
24)(NR) BYU (vs Virginia)- They might have the most dynamic quarterback in the country who is tough to slow down and tackle.
25)(NR) North Carolina (at East Carolina)- Time will tell if they can make some noise this year as they continue to look balanced.
NEXT 5
1) Oklahoma State (BYE)- They get a week off to continue to build some good things seen so far.
2) Virginia Tech (vs Georgia Tech)- They have not done well in recent years after a big win and that trend continued last week.
3) Mississippi State (at LSU)- How good can this team be? This week will be a good test to show where they are.
4) Duke (vs Tulane)- While still not on par with last year, they are still proving to be a dangerous team.
5) Penn State (vs Massachusetts)- After 3 games where they needed strong finishes to secure wins, they should have a little more breathing room this week.
The big top 25 games this week are Clemson heading to Florida State and Auburn facing Kansas State. Also Mississippi State has a chance to jump into the top 25 if they can knock off LSU on the road.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Monday, September 8, 2014
College Football Week 3 Power Rankings
While it was not a deep slate of big matchups in Week 2, there were some thrilling games and finishes. The biggest one involving Oregon and Michigan State which saw the Ducks go up before the Spartans went up and then the Ducks blew away the Spartans in the end. The Michigan State highlighted a rough day for the Big Ten that also involves Ohio State dropping a primetime game at home to Virginia Tech. The rest of the top 10 in action looked impressive against lowly foes. Stanford was the weekend's other big loser as they threw away multiple scoring opportunities at home against USC. Finally, Notre Dame gave Michigan its first shutout loss in 30 years and put a big exclamation mark on their storied rivalry. The lone casualty to the top 25 was Texas with another rough loss to BYU as Virginia Tech slides into the top 25 after their big road win.
With that, here are Week 3's power rankings:
1)(1) Florida State (BYE)- They get a week off to prepare for another top 25 matchup with Clemson.
2)(3) Oregon (vs Wyoming)- They exploded in the 2nd half last week and they might finish this week's game by halftime.
3)(2) Alabama (vs Southern Mississippi)- They are strong on paper but still molding that talent on the field.
4)(4) Oklahoma (vs Tennessee)- They get a primetime game against a SEC team to showcase where they stand this year.
5)(5) Auburn (BYE)- They have a week off to get ready for what could be a good challenge on the road against Kansas State.
6)(7) Georgia (at South Carolina)- After their opening win, there is some growing hype for this team and they will need to match that against another foe from the state of South Carolina with a seasoned coach.
7)(11) Texas A&M (vs Rice)- Should be another week of dominance by the Aggies.
8)(14) USC (at Boston College)- They should look more like the team everyone saw Week 1 against a lesser opponent.
9)(10) LSU (vs Louisiana-Monroe)- Another chance for a young team to get into proper form before conference play.
10)(13) Baylor (at Buffalo)- They have their quarterback returning and either way this week should be another Bears' rout and victory.
11)(15) Notre Dame (vs Purdue)- They might have had their biggest win against Michigan last week and will need to continue their top play ability to build steam for their season.
12)(12) UCLA (vs Texas)- They have not looked especially great the first two weeks and a team coming off a rough loss could provide them with their first loss if they don't play better.
13)(6) Michigan State (BYE)- They get a week to heal their wounds and regroup after a rough loss.
14)(9) Stanford (vs Army)- A good week and opponent to get back on track after a game they let slip away.
15)(16) Wisconsin (BYE)- They have been strong at times but also have lacked a killer instinct at times.
16)(17) Arizona State (at Colorado)- They get a chance to make a statement in their conference this week and showcase that they are just as good as top conference teams.
17)(18) Mississippi (vs Louisiana-Lafayette)- They played much more efficient in Week 2 and should be able to build on that again this week.
18)(NR) Virginia Tech (vs East Carolina)- They broke a lengthy trend of struggles against top 10 teams unranked and now position themselves to be noticed after going under the radar to start the year.
19)(8) Ohio State (vs Kent State)- Everyone knew they wouldn't be as good with an experienced quarterback at the helm and should be able to regroup as long as they are refocused this week.
20)(19) Nebraska (at Fresno State)- They needed a bit of a Hail Mary to survive against a lesser opponent and have to play better this week or could stumble hard.
21)(20) South Carolina (vs Georgia)- They have a chance to put their opening loss behind them if they can get a huge conference victory at home.
22)(25) Louisville (at Virginia)- They have slowly emerged as a team that is stronger than some expected with a good offense.
23)(23) Clemson (BYE)- They have a week off to prepare to for the top ranked team in the country.
24)(21) Missouri (vs UCF)- They have seemed to go through the motions a bit and will need to be on watch against a gritty team.
25)(22) Kansas State (BYE)- They survived a close one and will now have a week to prepare for a big game at home.
NEXT 5
1) BYU (vs Houston)- They have a team with an elusive quarterback that could slowly make noise this year if they can keep up their play.
2) North Carolina (BYE)- They got lucky with a win and have a week to polish up some rough edges.
3) Oklahoma State (vs UTSA)- They can continue to show the country that they could creep into the Big 12 conversation this year.
4) Penn State (at Rutgers)- They have had movements of great play but still need to monitor turnovers and missed opportunities.
5) Duke (vs Kansas)- They could start to prove that last year was not a fluke.
Not really any major top 25 drama this week as only one matchup of ranked teams (Georgia going to South Carolina) taking place.
With that, here are Week 3's power rankings:
1)(1) Florida State (BYE)- They get a week off to prepare for another top 25 matchup with Clemson.
2)(3) Oregon (vs Wyoming)- They exploded in the 2nd half last week and they might finish this week's game by halftime.
3)(2) Alabama (vs Southern Mississippi)- They are strong on paper but still molding that talent on the field.
4)(4) Oklahoma (vs Tennessee)- They get a primetime game against a SEC team to showcase where they stand this year.
5)(5) Auburn (BYE)- They have a week off to get ready for what could be a good challenge on the road against Kansas State.
6)(7) Georgia (at South Carolina)- After their opening win, there is some growing hype for this team and they will need to match that against another foe from the state of South Carolina with a seasoned coach.
7)(11) Texas A&M (vs Rice)- Should be another week of dominance by the Aggies.
8)(14) USC (at Boston College)- They should look more like the team everyone saw Week 1 against a lesser opponent.
9)(10) LSU (vs Louisiana-Monroe)- Another chance for a young team to get into proper form before conference play.
10)(13) Baylor (at Buffalo)- They have their quarterback returning and either way this week should be another Bears' rout and victory.
11)(15) Notre Dame (vs Purdue)- They might have had their biggest win against Michigan last week and will need to continue their top play ability to build steam for their season.
12)(12) UCLA (vs Texas)- They have not looked especially great the first two weeks and a team coming off a rough loss could provide them with their first loss if they don't play better.
13)(6) Michigan State (BYE)- They get a week to heal their wounds and regroup after a rough loss.
14)(9) Stanford (vs Army)- A good week and opponent to get back on track after a game they let slip away.
15)(16) Wisconsin (BYE)- They have been strong at times but also have lacked a killer instinct at times.
16)(17) Arizona State (at Colorado)- They get a chance to make a statement in their conference this week and showcase that they are just as good as top conference teams.
17)(18) Mississippi (vs Louisiana-Lafayette)- They played much more efficient in Week 2 and should be able to build on that again this week.
18)(NR) Virginia Tech (vs East Carolina)- They broke a lengthy trend of struggles against top 10 teams unranked and now position themselves to be noticed after going under the radar to start the year.
19)(8) Ohio State (vs Kent State)- Everyone knew they wouldn't be as good with an experienced quarterback at the helm and should be able to regroup as long as they are refocused this week.
20)(19) Nebraska (at Fresno State)- They needed a bit of a Hail Mary to survive against a lesser opponent and have to play better this week or could stumble hard.
21)(20) South Carolina (vs Georgia)- They have a chance to put their opening loss behind them if they can get a huge conference victory at home.
22)(25) Louisville (at Virginia)- They have slowly emerged as a team that is stronger than some expected with a good offense.
23)(23) Clemson (BYE)- They have a week off to prepare to for the top ranked team in the country.
24)(21) Missouri (vs UCF)- They have seemed to go through the motions a bit and will need to be on watch against a gritty team.
25)(22) Kansas State (BYE)- They survived a close one and will now have a week to prepare for a big game at home.
NEXT 5
1) BYU (vs Houston)- They have a team with an elusive quarterback that could slowly make noise this year if they can keep up their play.
2) North Carolina (BYE)- They got lucky with a win and have a week to polish up some rough edges.
3) Oklahoma State (vs UTSA)- They can continue to show the country that they could creep into the Big 12 conversation this year.
4) Penn State (at Rutgers)- They have had movements of great play but still need to monitor turnovers and missed opportunities.
5) Duke (vs Kansas)- They could start to prove that last year was not a fluke.
Not really any major top 25 drama this week as only one matchup of ranked teams (Georgia going to South Carolina) taking place.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
College Football Week 2 Power Rankings
While they did not look as dominant as they were for most of 2013 en route to a national championship, Florida State and QB Jameis Winston were slow and steady and used a few key big plays to set up a solid opening victory. It did not take too long before a top 10 took a loss and a big one at that as South Carolina was humbled and embarrassed by Texas A&M. Alabama, Ohio State, and UCLA among the top 10 teams were tested but found ways to pull away and avoid an opening weekend stumble. Most of the top 25 were able to start the year with a win and a couple who had losses fall out to make room for new additions.
With that, here are Week 2's power rankings:
1)(1) Florida State (vs Citadel)- It should be much easier this week as the champions return home and looking to show more flashes of their greatness.
2)(2) Alabama (vs Florida Atlantic)- The questions at quarterback are slowly being answered but Nick Saban will still expect a much overall performance this week.
3)(3) Oregon (vs Michigan State)- They are right on track offensively and will need to scheme accordingly to keep the Spartans' defense on their toes.
4)(4) Oklahoma (at Tulsa)- Should be another easy for the Sooners as they look to shape into form before conference play.
5)(5) Auburn (vs San Jose State)- They should have any quarterback issues behind them and ready to push ahead as a title contender.
6)(7) Michigan State (at Oregon)- If their defense doesn't bring their A game, their offense will need to be as good as last week if not better.
7)(12) Georgia (BYE)- Talk about a way to start the year as Georgia and their star running back have launched themselves into the national conversation.
8)(6) Ohio State (vs Virginia Tech)- They struggled a bit last week and will need to take lessons from their gritty win into this week.
9)(8) Stanford (vs USC)- They got shocked on the road last year against the Trojans and will be out for revenge as they host this year's contest with one of the best records at home.
10)(13) LSU (vs Sam Houston State)- The Tigers were asleep for 3 quarters before waking up with a mighty roar and should play dominant the whole game this week.
11)(19) Texas A&M (vs Lamar)- Talk about a debut for the new quarterback who can easily repeat that performance this week.
12)(10) UCLA (vs Memphis)- Their defense bailed out their struggling offense who showed some signs of the year ahead late in the second half.
13)(11) Baylor (vs Northwestern State)- The health of their quarterback won't hurt them this week but could against stronger opponents if he is not 100%.
14)(18) USC (at Stanford)- The Trojans offense looks very lethal if clicking and will need to do so against a tough mind Cardinal team.
15)(15) Notre Dame (vs Michigan)- They looked much more like the 2012 team than the 2013 team to start the year and hope to be as efficient in the last battle with the Wolverines for the foreseeable future.
16)(14) Wisconsin (vs Western Illinois)- They pounded the Tigers for much of the game last week and let a big win slip away and will likely take out their frustrations this week.
17)(17) Arizona State (at New Mexico)- They look to have a balanced team that could allow them to be competitive with the high power offenses and stifling defenses in the Pac-12.
18)(20) Mississippi (at Vanderbilt)- They lacked the killer instinct last week and will look to notch their first SEC win of the year in ironing things out.
19)(21) Nebraska (vs McNeese State)- They look like an improved team who can put up some points.
20)(9) South Carolina (vs East Carolina)- They got hit hard at home and will need to be prepared for a team in the Pirates who they cannot sleep on.
21)(22) Missouri (at Toledo)- They will continue to build upon their opening win as they prepare for a tougher challenge this year in the SEC.
22)(24) Kansas State (at Iowa State)- They displayed a lot of good things to start the year and get a team that fell to the same team they did last year to start the year.
23)(16) Clemson (vs South Carolina State)- They seemed poised to not have missed much of a step in the first half before the bottom fell in the second half and their offense will need to solve some issues.
24)(NR) Texas (vs BYU)- They were balanced and improved overall but now lose their starting quarterback for at least this week against a gritty team that blew them out last year.
25)(NR) Louisville (vs Murray State)- They replace a first round quarterback who is in the NFL but showed a steady approach that can lead to some big wins potentially this year.
NEXT 5
1) North Carolina (vs San Diego State)- Another chance to build up some steam for them before ACC play.
2) Oklahoma State (vs Missouri State)- They hung tough with the defending national champions and look to be better than some expected.
3) Penn State (vs Akron)- What a way to start the year and the James Franklin era and this week will be a great chance to build on that win.
4) Michigan (at Notre Dame)- They avoided a repeat loss to a team that beat them 7 years earlier and now prepare for a repeat of last year's meeting with the Fighting Irish as they close for now the storied rivalry between these two historic programs.
5) Virginia Tech (at Ohio State)- They will hope to shock many against a slightly less lethal foe than originally expected on the road.
Like last week, there will be a couple Top 25 contests led by USC visiting Stanford and Michigan State heading to Oregon. Who might move around after this week?
With that, here are Week 2's power rankings:
1)(1) Florida State (vs Citadel)- It should be much easier this week as the champions return home and looking to show more flashes of their greatness.
2)(2) Alabama (vs Florida Atlantic)- The questions at quarterback are slowly being answered but Nick Saban will still expect a much overall performance this week.
3)(3) Oregon (vs Michigan State)- They are right on track offensively and will need to scheme accordingly to keep the Spartans' defense on their toes.
4)(4) Oklahoma (at Tulsa)- Should be another easy for the Sooners as they look to shape into form before conference play.
5)(5) Auburn (vs San Jose State)- They should have any quarterback issues behind them and ready to push ahead as a title contender.
6)(7) Michigan State (at Oregon)- If their defense doesn't bring their A game, their offense will need to be as good as last week if not better.
7)(12) Georgia (BYE)- Talk about a way to start the year as Georgia and their star running back have launched themselves into the national conversation.
8)(6) Ohio State (vs Virginia Tech)- They struggled a bit last week and will need to take lessons from their gritty win into this week.
9)(8) Stanford (vs USC)- They got shocked on the road last year against the Trojans and will be out for revenge as they host this year's contest with one of the best records at home.
10)(13) LSU (vs Sam Houston State)- The Tigers were asleep for 3 quarters before waking up with a mighty roar and should play dominant the whole game this week.
11)(19) Texas A&M (vs Lamar)- Talk about a debut for the new quarterback who can easily repeat that performance this week.
12)(10) UCLA (vs Memphis)- Their defense bailed out their struggling offense who showed some signs of the year ahead late in the second half.
13)(11) Baylor (vs Northwestern State)- The health of their quarterback won't hurt them this week but could against stronger opponents if he is not 100%.
14)(18) USC (at Stanford)- The Trojans offense looks very lethal if clicking and will need to do so against a tough mind Cardinal team.
15)(15) Notre Dame (vs Michigan)- They looked much more like the 2012 team than the 2013 team to start the year and hope to be as efficient in the last battle with the Wolverines for the foreseeable future.
16)(14) Wisconsin (vs Western Illinois)- They pounded the Tigers for much of the game last week and let a big win slip away and will likely take out their frustrations this week.
17)(17) Arizona State (at New Mexico)- They look to have a balanced team that could allow them to be competitive with the high power offenses and stifling defenses in the Pac-12.
18)(20) Mississippi (at Vanderbilt)- They lacked the killer instinct last week and will look to notch their first SEC win of the year in ironing things out.
19)(21) Nebraska (vs McNeese State)- They look like an improved team who can put up some points.
20)(9) South Carolina (vs East Carolina)- They got hit hard at home and will need to be prepared for a team in the Pirates who they cannot sleep on.
21)(22) Missouri (at Toledo)- They will continue to build upon their opening win as they prepare for a tougher challenge this year in the SEC.
22)(24) Kansas State (at Iowa State)- They displayed a lot of good things to start the year and get a team that fell to the same team they did last year to start the year.
23)(16) Clemson (vs South Carolina State)- They seemed poised to not have missed much of a step in the first half before the bottom fell in the second half and their offense will need to solve some issues.
24)(NR) Texas (vs BYU)- They were balanced and improved overall but now lose their starting quarterback for at least this week against a gritty team that blew them out last year.
25)(NR) Louisville (vs Murray State)- They replace a first round quarterback who is in the NFL but showed a steady approach that can lead to some big wins potentially this year.
NEXT 5
1) North Carolina (vs San Diego State)- Another chance to build up some steam for them before ACC play.
2) Oklahoma State (vs Missouri State)- They hung tough with the defending national champions and look to be better than some expected.
3) Penn State (vs Akron)- What a way to start the year and the James Franklin era and this week will be a great chance to build on that win.
4) Michigan (at Notre Dame)- They avoided a repeat loss to a team that beat them 7 years earlier and now prepare for a repeat of last year's meeting with the Fighting Irish as they close for now the storied rivalry between these two historic programs.
5) Virginia Tech (at Ohio State)- They will hope to shock many against a slightly less lethal foe than originally expected on the road.
Like last week, there will be a couple Top 25 contests led by USC visiting Stanford and Michigan State heading to Oregon. Who might move around after this week?
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
College Football Week 1 Power Rankings
The long road from early January to late August has finally reached its end. Florida State enters the year one of the favorites to win it all as they seek to defend their national title. Also in the mix is perennial favorites Alabama, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Ohio State. Not to be outdone, the SEC is again deep with half a dozen teams that could find themselves in the playoff conversation including the runner up in last year's title game, Auburn. Out west, Stanford and USC along with a reemerging UCLA should provide for excitement. The Rose Bowl winner Michigan State looks to build on last year's stellar season in the Big Ten. Notre Dame will get its quarterback this season whom led them to the national title game two seasons ago. With all that said, here is Week 1's power rankings.
1) Florida State (vs Oklahoma State)- The national champions open the season in Dallas and hope they end the season here as well.
2) Alabama (vs West Virginia)- They replace a star quarterback and other top talent as they hope to contend again.
3) Oregon (vs South Dakota)- With a Heisman contender at quarterback, is this the year the Ducks break through.
4) Oklahoma (vs Louisiana Tech)- They will look to build on their dominating win over Alabama to end last season and find themselves in this year's playoff.
5) Auburn (vs Arkansas)- They were 13 seconds away from a second national title in four years and likely will use that as motivation this season.
6) Ohio State (vs Navy)- They have lost their star quarterback and will need to depend on the rest of the team's talent to assist a young quarterback.
7) Michigan State (vs Jacksonville State)- They look to be as strong as last season and that could allow them to take another step and compete for a national title.
8) Stanford (vs UC Davis)- They have played spoiler to Oregon the last couple of seasons. Can they position themselves to via for a national title and avoid being the one getting tripped up.
9) South Carolina (vs Texas A&M)- They are without their top defender who is now in NFL but they are still positioned well to compete for an SEC crown.
10) UCLA (at Virginia)- This is their best team in a decade and in a half and with one of the top players in the country at quarterback they have a high ceiling for success this year.
11) Baylor (vs SMU)- They got slowed down by UCF in the Fiesta Bowl but do not expect that to stop them from being poised to be as dynamic this season.
12) Georgia (vs Clemson)- The health of their star running back could dictate if this team can be a national title contender and win the SEC as they look to avenge their opening game defeat from last year to start this season.
13) LSU (vs Wisconsin)- They have questions at quarterback but it might serve as an advantage as they should be quick and deep on offense.
14) Wisconsin (vs LSU)- The Badgers hope to prove their toughness and where they can go this year right off the bat against a top SEC team.
15) Notre Dame (vs Rice)- With their star quarterback returning, time will tell if this team can raise the bar to where they were in 2012.
16) Clemson (at Georgia)- They edged a tough win out against the Bulldogs last year and now have to travel to Athens as they hope some unproven players can replace a couple key players.
17) Arizona State (vs Weber State)- They are one of the wildcard teams out west this year and like UCLA could be poised to take another step towards being one of the best teams in the country.
18) USC (vs Fresno State)- They have had a couple off the field stumbles before the start of the season but a balanced team led by an explosive offense can have the Trojans thinking about going to places they haven't in a decade.
19) Texas A&M (at South Carolina)- Life with their star quarterback of two years begins, but don't be surprised in their new signal caller can conjurer some of his own magic.
20) Mississippi (vs Boise State)- They started last season very strong before hitting a brick wall against Alabama that seemed to turn their confidence. They will need to build on lessons learned last year.
21) Nebraska (vs Florida Atlantic)- They look to have rebuilt a bit more and could continue to emerge as a threat in the Big Ten.
22) Missouri (vs South Dakota State)- They will likely not be as dominant as last year but much more competitive than a couple years ago.
23) Oklahoma State (vs Florida State)- They may have some unproven guys at key positions, it would be foolish to sleep on this team in Big 12.
24) Kansas State (vs SF Austin)- They got shocked to start 2013 and have a better team in place this year that could surprise some people.
25) UCF (vs Penn State)- They lose their star quarterback and running back but still have a core group of guys who keep them in games as they will likely not drop much off from last year's amazing season.
NEXT 5
1) Texas (vs North Texas)- They begin a new era with a new coach and they hope to put a couple bad season behind them.
2) Virginia Tech (vs William & Mary)- They look to have another solid team. Might not be a title contender but definitely a viable squad each week.
3) North Carolina (vs Liberty)- Hard to tell yet but this team could shock some teams and be similar to Duke last year in the ACC.
4) Washington (at Hawaii)- They had a couple offseason issues but hope to build on the progress of the last couple seasons and start to make some noise in the deep Pac-12.
5) Michigan (vs Appalachian State)- They have had some highs and lows the last few seasons but could slowly position themselves in the Big 10 with a dynamic player at quarterback.
Most weeks tend to feature at least one ranked matchup and thus the rankings should change week to week. Wisconsin battles LSU in Houston while Texas A&M heads to South Carolina as the first weekend should provide an early preview of the exciting year ahead with the BCS gone and the playoff debuting.
1) Florida State (vs Oklahoma State)- The national champions open the season in Dallas and hope they end the season here as well.
2) Alabama (vs West Virginia)- They replace a star quarterback and other top talent as they hope to contend again.
3) Oregon (vs South Dakota)- With a Heisman contender at quarterback, is this the year the Ducks break through.
4) Oklahoma (vs Louisiana Tech)- They will look to build on their dominating win over Alabama to end last season and find themselves in this year's playoff.
5) Auburn (vs Arkansas)- They were 13 seconds away from a second national title in four years and likely will use that as motivation this season.
6) Ohio State (vs Navy)- They have lost their star quarterback and will need to depend on the rest of the team's talent to assist a young quarterback.
7) Michigan State (vs Jacksonville State)- They look to be as strong as last season and that could allow them to take another step and compete for a national title.
8) Stanford (vs UC Davis)- They have played spoiler to Oregon the last couple of seasons. Can they position themselves to via for a national title and avoid being the one getting tripped up.
9) South Carolina (vs Texas A&M)- They are without their top defender who is now in NFL but they are still positioned well to compete for an SEC crown.
10) UCLA (at Virginia)- This is their best team in a decade and in a half and with one of the top players in the country at quarterback they have a high ceiling for success this year.
11) Baylor (vs SMU)- They got slowed down by UCF in the Fiesta Bowl but do not expect that to stop them from being poised to be as dynamic this season.
12) Georgia (vs Clemson)- The health of their star running back could dictate if this team can be a national title contender and win the SEC as they look to avenge their opening game defeat from last year to start this season.
13) LSU (vs Wisconsin)- They have questions at quarterback but it might serve as an advantage as they should be quick and deep on offense.
14) Wisconsin (vs LSU)- The Badgers hope to prove their toughness and where they can go this year right off the bat against a top SEC team.
15) Notre Dame (vs Rice)- With their star quarterback returning, time will tell if this team can raise the bar to where they were in 2012.
16) Clemson (at Georgia)- They edged a tough win out against the Bulldogs last year and now have to travel to Athens as they hope some unproven players can replace a couple key players.
17) Arizona State (vs Weber State)- They are one of the wildcard teams out west this year and like UCLA could be poised to take another step towards being one of the best teams in the country.
18) USC (vs Fresno State)- They have had a couple off the field stumbles before the start of the season but a balanced team led by an explosive offense can have the Trojans thinking about going to places they haven't in a decade.
19) Texas A&M (at South Carolina)- Life with their star quarterback of two years begins, but don't be surprised in their new signal caller can conjurer some of his own magic.
20) Mississippi (vs Boise State)- They started last season very strong before hitting a brick wall against Alabama that seemed to turn their confidence. They will need to build on lessons learned last year.
21) Nebraska (vs Florida Atlantic)- They look to have rebuilt a bit more and could continue to emerge as a threat in the Big Ten.
22) Missouri (vs South Dakota State)- They will likely not be as dominant as last year but much more competitive than a couple years ago.
23) Oklahoma State (vs Florida State)- They may have some unproven guys at key positions, it would be foolish to sleep on this team in Big 12.
24) Kansas State (vs SF Austin)- They got shocked to start 2013 and have a better team in place this year that could surprise some people.
25) UCF (vs Penn State)- They lose their star quarterback and running back but still have a core group of guys who keep them in games as they will likely not drop much off from last year's amazing season.
NEXT 5
1) Texas (vs North Texas)- They begin a new era with a new coach and they hope to put a couple bad season behind them.
2) Virginia Tech (vs William & Mary)- They look to have another solid team. Might not be a title contender but definitely a viable squad each week.
3) North Carolina (vs Liberty)- Hard to tell yet but this team could shock some teams and be similar to Duke last year in the ACC.
4) Washington (at Hawaii)- They had a couple offseason issues but hope to build on the progress of the last couple seasons and start to make some noise in the deep Pac-12.
5) Michigan (vs Appalachian State)- They have had some highs and lows the last few seasons but could slowly position themselves in the Big 10 with a dynamic player at quarterback.
Most weeks tend to feature at least one ranked matchup and thus the rankings should change week to week. Wisconsin battles LSU in Houston while Texas A&M heads to South Carolina as the first weekend should provide an early preview of the exciting year ahead with the BCS gone and the playoff debuting.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Playing politics with Benghazi and the IRS
There were certainly valid conversation worthy points to be made and had with regard to the IRS and Benghazi issues in 2012. They were lesser issues in a year when jobs and the economy as well as health care reform took center stage in a presidential election year. With the 2014 Midterm Elections on the horizon in six months, both parties are looking to rev up their bases as they will be more crucial in a non-presidential election year when less people vote. At the same time, both parties will be trying to sway swing voters their way to assist with close races. What worked well for the Republicans in 2010 when they took back the U.S. House and picked up governor's seats and statehouse majorities was their messaging. Whether everything they said was factual or accurate through the campaign cycle pales in comparison to the spinning the same angle over and over until it might be perceived as accurate to a voter. With Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, Super PACs and billionaires can run wild with similar misleading ads.
With all that in mind, Republicans in Congress are looking to do their part to help their party remain in control in the U.S. House and potentially take the U.S. Senate this year. Two focal points to their strategy are constantly talking about the IRS and Benghazi despite multiple hearings and studies for both. The New York Times Editorial Board provided a look at this matter recently.
Their analysis is below:
The hottest competition in Washington this week is among House Republicans vying for a seat on the Benghazi kangaroo court, also known as the Select House Committee to Inflate a Tragedy Into a Scandal. Half the House has asked to “serve” on the committee, which is understandable since it’s the perfect opportunity to avoid any real work while waving frantically to right-wing voters stomping their feet in the grandstand.
They won’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, or reform immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn their pay for the rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration. On Thursday, they voted to create a committee tospend “such sums as may be necessary” to conduct an investigation of the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The day before, they voted to hold in contempt Lois Lerner, the former Internal Revenue Service official whom they would love to blame for the administration’s crackdown on conservative groups, if only they could prove there was a crackdown, which they can’t, because there wasn’t.
Both actions stem from the same impulse: a need to rouse the most fervent anti-Obama wing of the party and keep it angry enough to deliver its donations and votes to Republicans in the November elections. For a while it seemed as if the Affordable Care Act would perform that role, but Republicans ran into a problem when the country began to realize that it was not destroying American civilization but in fact helping millions of people.
Party leaders needed something more reliable, so they went back and revived two dormant scandals from last year, the embers of which were faithfully tended by Republican adjuncts on Fox News and talk radio. Their hope is to show that the administration is corrupt and untrustworthy, and if Hillary Rodham Clinton also gets roughed up in the process, so much the better.
Four Americans, including the United States ambassador, died in Benghazi, and their deaths have been crassly used by Republicans as a political cudgel, wildly swung in the dark. They have failed to provide proof for any number of conspiracy theories about the administration’s failures, including the particularly ludicrous charge from Representative Darrell Issa that Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, told the Pentagon to “stand down” and not help defend the American compound.
In fact, investigations by two congressional committees (including one run by Republicans) found that there was never any kind of “stand-down order” or request. But Mr. Issa and others keep repeating it because, for their purposes, the facts don’t matter.
Now Republicans are frothing about a newly released email message showing that the White House wanted Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations at the time, to go on television in 2012 and make the case that the attack was not a failure of administration policy. The message should have been turned over earlier because all it shows is a routine attempt to spin the news in the most favorable way to the White House. Though it is not the slightest evidence of a cover-up, it has become the foundation for the committee’s existence. Demonstrating the panel’s true purpose, Republican political operatives are already raising money by stoking donor anger on Benghazi.
Democrats who are now debating whether to participate in the committee shouldn’t hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lend legitimacy to a farce.
Similarly, the Justice Department should not press Ms. Lerner’s contempt citation before a grand jury. She invoked her Fifth Amendment rights at a hearing last year and refused to testify, but Republicans claim, without foundation, that she waived those rights by first proclaiming her innocence. Her refusal, they said, was contemptuous of Congress. Little nuisances like constitutional rights or basic facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way when House Republicans need to whip up their party’s fury.
With all that in mind, Republicans in Congress are looking to do their part to help their party remain in control in the U.S. House and potentially take the U.S. Senate this year. Two focal points to their strategy are constantly talking about the IRS and Benghazi despite multiple hearings and studies for both. The New York Times Editorial Board provided a look at this matter recently.
Their analysis is below:
The hottest competition in Washington this week is among House Republicans vying for a seat on the Benghazi kangaroo court, also known as the Select House Committee to Inflate a Tragedy Into a Scandal. Half the House has asked to “serve” on the committee, which is understandable since it’s the perfect opportunity to avoid any real work while waving frantically to right-wing voters stomping their feet in the grandstand.
They won’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, or reform immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn their pay for the rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration. On Thursday, they voted to create a committee tospend “such sums as may be necessary” to conduct an investigation of the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The day before, they voted to hold in contempt Lois Lerner, the former Internal Revenue Service official whom they would love to blame for the administration’s crackdown on conservative groups, if only they could prove there was a crackdown, which they can’t, because there wasn’t.
Both actions stem from the same impulse: a need to rouse the most fervent anti-Obama wing of the party and keep it angry enough to deliver its donations and votes to Republicans in the November elections. For a while it seemed as if the Affordable Care Act would perform that role, but Republicans ran into a problem when the country began to realize that it was not destroying American civilization but in fact helping millions of people.
Party leaders needed something more reliable, so they went back and revived two dormant scandals from last year, the embers of which were faithfully tended by Republican adjuncts on Fox News and talk radio. Their hope is to show that the administration is corrupt and untrustworthy, and if Hillary Rodham Clinton also gets roughed up in the process, so much the better.
Four Americans, including the United States ambassador, died in Benghazi, and their deaths have been crassly used by Republicans as a political cudgel, wildly swung in the dark. They have failed to provide proof for any number of conspiracy theories about the administration’s failures, including the particularly ludicrous charge from Representative Darrell Issa that Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, told the Pentagon to “stand down” and not help defend the American compound.
In fact, investigations by two congressional committees (including one run by Republicans) found that there was never any kind of “stand-down order” or request. But Mr. Issa and others keep repeating it because, for their purposes, the facts don’t matter.
Now Republicans are frothing about a newly released email message showing that the White House wanted Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations at the time, to go on television in 2012 and make the case that the attack was not a failure of administration policy. The message should have been turned over earlier because all it shows is a routine attempt to spin the news in the most favorable way to the White House. Though it is not the slightest evidence of a cover-up, it has become the foundation for the committee’s existence. Demonstrating the panel’s true purpose, Republican political operatives are already raising money by stoking donor anger on Benghazi.
Democrats who are now debating whether to participate in the committee shouldn’t hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lend legitimacy to a farce.
Similarly, the Justice Department should not press Ms. Lerner’s contempt citation before a grand jury. She invoked her Fifth Amendment rights at a hearing last year and refused to testify, but Republicans claim, without foundation, that she waived those rights by first proclaiming her innocence. Her refusal, they said, was contemptuous of Congress. Little nuisances like constitutional rights or basic facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way when House Republicans need to whip up their party’s fury.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
A "supreme" extension of money's influence on elections
The Supreme Court has had its share of major cases and decisions in the last few years. From the Affordable Care Act to two same sex marriage decisions to the Voting Rights Act. There have also been two cases related campaign finances and what limits individuals can spend to ultimately help influence elections. First came Citizens United now there is McCutcheon. Both cases essentially allow those with a lot of money to spend more of it. These two decisions have turned back reform efforts passed in 1973 and 2004 to prevent money from having a major influence on elections especially in the wake of what transpired involving Watergate.
This week the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne weighed in on the impact of these two campaign finance decisions by the Supreme Court:
"Supreme oligarchy"
An oligarchy, Webster’s dictionary tells us, is “a form of government in which the ruling power belongs to a few persons.” It’s a shame that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court doesn’t know the difference between an oligarchy and a democratic republic.
Yes, I said “the Republican majority,” violating a nicety based on the pretense that when people reach the high court, they forget their party allegiance. We need to stop peddling this fiction.
On cases involving the right of Americans to vote and the ability of a very small number of very rich people to exercise unlimited influence on the political process, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his four allies always side with the wealthy, the powerful and the forces that would advance the political party that put them on the court. The ideological overreach that is wrecking our politics is now also wrecking our jurisprudence.
The court’s latest ruling in McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission should not be seen in isolation. (The “et al.,” by the way, refers to the Republican National Committee.) It is yet another act of judicial usurpation by five justices who treat the elected branches of our government with contempt and precedent as meaningless. If Congress tries to contain the power of the rich, the Roberts Court will slap it in the face. And if Congress tries to guarantee the voting rights of minorities, the Roberts Court will slap it in the face again.
Notice how these actions work in tandem to make the wealthy more powerful and those who have suffered oppression and discrimination less powerful. You don’t need much imagination to see who benefits from what the court is doing.
Roberts’s McCutcheon ruling obliterates long-standing rules that limit the aggregate amounts of money the super-rich can contribute to various political candidates and committees in any one election cycle. In 2012, individuals could give no more than a total of $70,800 to all political committees and no more than $46,200 to all federal candidates.
The rule is based on a political reality Roberts sweeps aside with faux naivete: Access and power come not just from relationships with individual members of Congress but from strong links to party leaders and party structures. Someone who helps a party keep its majority by contributing to 200 or 300 candidates and Lord knows how many political committees will have a lot more power than you will if you make a $25 contribution in a congressional race.
Roberts writes as if he is defending the First Amendment rights of all of us. But how many people are really empowered by this decision? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 1,715 donors gave the maximum amount to party committees in 2012, and 591 gave the maximum amount to federal candidates. The current estimate of the population of the United States stands at more than 317 million.
Those using the word “oligarchy” to describe the political regime the Supreme Court is creating are not doing so lightly. Combine McCutcheon with the decision in the Citizens United case and you can see that the court is systematically transferring more power to a tiny, privileged sliver of our people.
I keep emphasizing the word “power” because the Roberts decision pretends that the concept is as distant from this issue as Pluto is from Earth. The philosopher Michael Walzer, in his book “Spheres of Justice,” made the essential distinction: “Freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly: none of these require money payments; none of them are available at auction; they are simply guaranteed to every citizen. . . . Quick access to large audiences is expensive, but that is another matter, not of freedom itself but of influence and power.”
In his McCutcheon opinion, Roberts piously declares: “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” This lovely commitment escaped him entirely last summer when he and his allies threw out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Suddenly, efforts to protect the right of minorities “to participate in electing our political leaders” took second place behind all manner of worries about how Congress had constructed the law. The decision unleashed a frenzy in Republican-controlled states to pass laws that make it harder for African Americans, Latinos and poor people to vote.
Thus has this court conferred on wealthy people the right to give vast sums of money to politicians while undercutting the rights of millions of citizens to cast a ballot.
Send in the oligarchs.
This week the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne weighed in on the impact of these two campaign finance decisions by the Supreme Court:
"Supreme oligarchy"
An oligarchy, Webster’s dictionary tells us, is “a form of government in which the ruling power belongs to a few persons.” It’s a shame that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court doesn’t know the difference between an oligarchy and a democratic republic.
Yes, I said “the Republican majority,” violating a nicety based on the pretense that when people reach the high court, they forget their party allegiance. We need to stop peddling this fiction.
On cases involving the right of Americans to vote and the ability of a very small number of very rich people to exercise unlimited influence on the political process, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his four allies always side with the wealthy, the powerful and the forces that would advance the political party that put them on the court. The ideological overreach that is wrecking our politics is now also wrecking our jurisprudence.
The court’s latest ruling in McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission should not be seen in isolation. (The “et al.,” by the way, refers to the Republican National Committee.) It is yet another act of judicial usurpation by five justices who treat the elected branches of our government with contempt and precedent as meaningless. If Congress tries to contain the power of the rich, the Roberts Court will slap it in the face. And if Congress tries to guarantee the voting rights of minorities, the Roberts Court will slap it in the face again.
Notice how these actions work in tandem to make the wealthy more powerful and those who have suffered oppression and discrimination less powerful. You don’t need much imagination to see who benefits from what the court is doing.
Roberts’s McCutcheon ruling obliterates long-standing rules that limit the aggregate amounts of money the super-rich can contribute to various political candidates and committees in any one election cycle. In 2012, individuals could give no more than a total of $70,800 to all political committees and no more than $46,200 to all federal candidates.
The rule is based on a political reality Roberts sweeps aside with faux naivete: Access and power come not just from relationships with individual members of Congress but from strong links to party leaders and party structures. Someone who helps a party keep its majority by contributing to 200 or 300 candidates and Lord knows how many political committees will have a lot more power than you will if you make a $25 contribution in a congressional race.
Roberts writes as if he is defending the First Amendment rights of all of us. But how many people are really empowered by this decision? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 1,715 donors gave the maximum amount to party committees in 2012, and 591 gave the maximum amount to federal candidates. The current estimate of the population of the United States stands at more than 317 million.
Those using the word “oligarchy” to describe the political regime the Supreme Court is creating are not doing so lightly. Combine McCutcheon with the decision in the Citizens United case and you can see that the court is systematically transferring more power to a tiny, privileged sliver of our people.
I keep emphasizing the word “power” because the Roberts decision pretends that the concept is as distant from this issue as Pluto is from Earth. The philosopher Michael Walzer, in his book “Spheres of Justice,” made the essential distinction: “Freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly: none of these require money payments; none of them are available at auction; they are simply guaranteed to every citizen. . . . Quick access to large audiences is expensive, but that is another matter, not of freedom itself but of influence and power.”
In his McCutcheon opinion, Roberts piously declares: “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” This lovely commitment escaped him entirely last summer when he and his allies threw out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Suddenly, efforts to protect the right of minorities “to participate in electing our political leaders” took second place behind all manner of worries about how Congress had constructed the law. The decision unleashed a frenzy in Republican-controlled states to pass laws that make it harder for African Americans, Latinos and poor people to vote.
Thus has this court conferred on wealthy people the right to give vast sums of money to politicians while undercutting the rights of millions of citizens to cast a ballot.
Send in the oligarchs.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
The death of William Henry Harrison
In 1841, William Henry Harrison became the 9th U.S. President. A month later, he was dead and would become an infamous part of the history of the U.S. Presidency. Many can wonder what a Harrison presidency might have brought as well what it may have meant to the Whig Party. The most talked about element of Harrison's term in office is his death as he succumbed to pneumonia after getting sick from giving a two hour speech underdressed in the cold of Washington D.C. in early March 1841.
Over 170 years later, Jane McHugh from the New York Times is opening up the discussion on what may have ultimately did Harrison in and provides a new and different perspective on what might have ultimately killed Harrison.
Below is her commentary:
William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States, holds a distinction that with luck will never be equaled: He was our shortest-serving president, dying on April 4, 1841, after just a month in office.
What killed him? Historians have long accepted the diagnosis of Harrison’s doctor, Thomas Miller: “pneumonia of the lower lobe of the right lung, complicated by congestion of the liver.”
The pneumonia was thought to be a direct result of a cold the 68-year-old Harrison caught while delivering a numbingly long Inaugural Address (at 8,445 words, the longest in history) in wet, freezing weather without a hat, overcoat or gloves.
But a new look at the evidence through the lens of modern epidemiology makes it far more likely that the real killer lurked elsewhere — in a fetid marsh not far from the White House.
The first clue that the pneumonia diagnosis was wrong lies in Miller’s own apparent uneasiness with it. “The disease,” he wrote, “was not viewed as a case of pure pneumonia; but as this was the most palpable affection, the term pneumonia afforded a succinct and intelligible answer to the innumerable questions as to the nature of the attack.”
Harrison — who had had some medical training as a young man — summoned Miller to the White House on March 26, complaining not of a lung ailment but of anxiety and fatigue. Miller did not bleed him, as was the standard treatment for pneumonia at the time. (More about what he did do in a moment.) But Miller may have overlooked a clue that was in front of his nose.
In those days the nation’s capital had no sewer system. Until 1850, some sewage simply flowed onto public grounds a short distance from the White House, where it stagnated and formed a marsh; the White House water supply was just seven blocks downstream of a depository for “night soil,” hauled there each day at government expense.
That field of human excrement would have been a breeding ground for two deadly bacteria, Salmonella typhi and S. paratyphi, the causes of typhoid and paratyphoid fever — also known as enteric fever, for their devastating effect on the gastrointestinal system.
Two other antebellum presidents, James K. Polk and Zachary Taylor, developed severe gastroenteritis while living in the White House. Taylor died, while Polk recovered, only to be killed by what is thought to have been cholera a mere three months after leaving office.
Harrison had a history of dyspepsia, or indigestion, which potentially heightened his risk of infection by gastrointestinal pathogens that might have found their way into the White House water supply.
Although we have no record of how he managed his dyspepsia, the standard treatment in the 1840s was carbonated alkali, which would have neutralized the gastric acid that otherwise kills harmful bacteria. In the absence of the gastric acid barrier, gastroenteritis can be caused by as few as one ten-thousandth the number of bacteria usually needed.
In 1841 there was no effective treatment for enteric fever. The most a doctor could do was adhere steadfastly to medicine’s most sacred tenet, primum non nocere — first do no harm.
At least Miller did not bleed the president. But he gave him a host of toxic medications that were then considered the standard of care — including opium, which retards the intestine’s ability to rid itself of microbial pathogens, facilitating their invasion into the bloodstream.
Enemas, which Miller repeatedly gave to Harrison, are also potentially dangerous in such patients. They can perforate ulcers produced by S. typhi and S. paratyphi in the ileum, the lower end of the small intestine, through which the bacteria would be able to escape from the intestine into the bloodstream, resulting in sepsis.
As he lay dying, Harrison had a sinking pulse and cold, blue extremities, two classic manifestations of septic shock. Given the character and course of his fatal illness, his untimely death is best explained by enteric fever. Pneumonia was a secondary diagnosis — as Harrison’s hapless doctor perhaps suspected all along.
Over 170 years later, Jane McHugh from the New York Times is opening up the discussion on what may have ultimately did Harrison in and provides a new and different perspective on what might have ultimately killed Harrison.
Below is her commentary:
William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States, holds a distinction that with luck will never be equaled: He was our shortest-serving president, dying on April 4, 1841, after just a month in office.
What killed him? Historians have long accepted the diagnosis of Harrison’s doctor, Thomas Miller: “pneumonia of the lower lobe of the right lung, complicated by congestion of the liver.”
The pneumonia was thought to be a direct result of a cold the 68-year-old Harrison caught while delivering a numbingly long Inaugural Address (at 8,445 words, the longest in history) in wet, freezing weather without a hat, overcoat or gloves.
But a new look at the evidence through the lens of modern epidemiology makes it far more likely that the real killer lurked elsewhere — in a fetid marsh not far from the White House.
The first clue that the pneumonia diagnosis was wrong lies in Miller’s own apparent uneasiness with it. “The disease,” he wrote, “was not viewed as a case of pure pneumonia; but as this was the most palpable affection, the term pneumonia afforded a succinct and intelligible answer to the innumerable questions as to the nature of the attack.”
Harrison — who had had some medical training as a young man — summoned Miller to the White House on March 26, complaining not of a lung ailment but of anxiety and fatigue. Miller did not bleed him, as was the standard treatment for pneumonia at the time. (More about what he did do in a moment.) But Miller may have overlooked a clue that was in front of his nose.
In those days the nation’s capital had no sewer system. Until 1850, some sewage simply flowed onto public grounds a short distance from the White House, where it stagnated and formed a marsh; the White House water supply was just seven blocks downstream of a depository for “night soil,” hauled there each day at government expense.
That field of human excrement would have been a breeding ground for two deadly bacteria, Salmonella typhi and S. paratyphi, the causes of typhoid and paratyphoid fever — also known as enteric fever, for their devastating effect on the gastrointestinal system.
Two other antebellum presidents, James K. Polk and Zachary Taylor, developed severe gastroenteritis while living in the White House. Taylor died, while Polk recovered, only to be killed by what is thought to have been cholera a mere three months after leaving office.
Harrison had a history of dyspepsia, or indigestion, which potentially heightened his risk of infection by gastrointestinal pathogens that might have found their way into the White House water supply.
Although we have no record of how he managed his dyspepsia, the standard treatment in the 1840s was carbonated alkali, which would have neutralized the gastric acid that otherwise kills harmful bacteria. In the absence of the gastric acid barrier, gastroenteritis can be caused by as few as one ten-thousandth the number of bacteria usually needed.
In 1841 there was no effective treatment for enteric fever. The most a doctor could do was adhere steadfastly to medicine’s most sacred tenet, primum non nocere — first do no harm.
At least Miller did not bleed the president. But he gave him a host of toxic medications that were then considered the standard of care — including opium, which retards the intestine’s ability to rid itself of microbial pathogens, facilitating their invasion into the bloodstream.
Enemas, which Miller repeatedly gave to Harrison, are also potentially dangerous in such patients. They can perforate ulcers produced by S. typhi and S. paratyphi in the ileum, the lower end of the small intestine, through which the bacteria would be able to escape from the intestine into the bloodstream, resulting in sepsis.
As he lay dying, Harrison had a sinking pulse and cold, blue extremities, two classic manifestations of septic shock. Given the character and course of his fatal illness, his untimely death is best explained by enteric fever. Pneumonia was a secondary diagnosis — as Harrison’s hapless doctor perhaps suspected all along.
Monday, February 17, 2014
10 primary races to watch in 2014
The talk revolving around 2014 started practically a few days after the dust of the 2012 presidential election cleared. Now, we are shortly into 2014 officially. And with that, there will be a slate of primary contests in the coming few months that will set the table for November and what the outcomes might be in races that will impact the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives as well as Statehouses around the country.
The Washington Post and the Fix has been known to compile top 10 lists when it comes to elections and there is one that spotlights some of the most interesting primaries. The contest taking place in Florida's 13th Congressional District was one but now the general election race is set between Democratic candidate Alex Sink and Republican candidate David Jolly, who survived a heated primary.
Now on to the list of 10 races to watch:
Alaska's Republican Senate race: Former attorney general Dan Sullivan (R) arguably posted the most impressive fourth-quarter fundraising total, relative to his race, of any Senate candidate on the map. Sullivan turned heads after lapping Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell (R) several times over in the money chase. Democrats have started to keep a closer eye on Sullivan as he begins to look more and more formidable. Also in this primary is disastrous 2010 nominee Joe Miller, who stands virtually no chance of winning, but could be a factor in a very close race. The winner will take on Sen. Mark Begich (D).
California's 31st district race: Rep. Gary Miller (R)announced his retirement this week, making a likely Democratic pickup a virtual lock. But the question is which Democrat will emerge victorious. (California's top-two, all-party primary system makes the question even more interesting.) There's Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar, who is backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes, the choice of Emily's List; and a former congressman, Joe Baca. Baca seems like the longest shot of the three: He raised just $20,000 in the last quarter.
Georgia's Republican Senate race: Recent polling shows a wide open race, making this a must-watch contest ahead of the May 20 primary. Given that no candidate is running away, a runoff appears very likely. The conventional wisdom has long been that if Republicans nominate Rep. Paul Broun, it would be good news for Democrats, given Broun's tendency to make controversial comments. To his credit, Broun -- who nabbed the first national tea party endorsement in the race this week -- has run a pretty steady campaign so far, without any major blunders. But Democrats are still eager to see him face Michelle Nunn (D) in one of only two Senate races where the GOP is at risk of coughing up a seat it controls.
Hawaii's Democratic Senate race: The Aloha State is not expensive by campaign metrics, but money still matters -- and it's a good gauge of momentum. With that in mind, Sen. Brian Schatz (D) has the upper hand early over Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D), who has struggled to keep pace in the fundraising chase. This is the latest chapter of along-standing divide in state Democratic circles that falls along racial and generational lines.
Idaho's 2nd district Republican race: Last year ended on a high note for Rep. Mike Simpson (R): He outraised attorney Bryan Smith (R) more than 2-1 and got some backup from the Chamber of Commerce. Smith is backed by the anti-tax Club for Growth, a well-funded tea party group that isn't shy about spending money on candidates it likes. So don't count on a Simpson victory just yet. This contest is a key focal point in the business-vs.-tea-party battle in the GOP.
Kentucky's Republican Senate race: Matt Bevin (R) has about three months to close a major gap against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R). So far, McConnell's in good shape. He's raising tons of money, and polls show he leads Bevin by a wide margin. A Politico story out this week about how Bevin once backed the TARP program he likes to slam made matters worse for the challenger. This is McConnell's race to lose right now. Still, when the top Republican in the Senate gets primaried, we pay attention until it's over.
Mississippi's Republican Senate race: As we wrote earlier this week, the pool of Senate Republican primary challengers is wider than it is deep. That said, if there's one race where things could get interesting, it's this one. State Sen. Chris McDaniel has impressed national tea party groups and shown that he can raise money. Meanwhile, it didn't help Sen. Than Cochran (R) that he clocked in as only the 34th most conservative member of the Senate, according to National Journal's 2013 vote ratings.
Nebraska's Republican Senate race: This race is unique in that it has split the tea party wing of the GOP. Midland University President Ben Sasse has the support of the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund, while former treasurer Shane Osborn has the support of FreedomWorks. Regardless of who wins the GOP nomination, this race is a sure bet to stay in Republican hands.
Pennsylvania's Democratic gubernatorial race: We've heard a lot this cycle about Republicans being forced to move to the right. How about Democrats moving left? Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D) did just that last month when she cut ties with several centrist groups after coming under heat from liberals. Schwartz still looks like the front-runner here, but this race has become competitive in recent months. The contest includes well-funded former state revenue secretary Tom Wolf, former Ed Rendell administration official Katie McGinty, and Treasurer Rob McCord. To the victor go the spoils: A chance to take on deeply unpopular Gov. Tom Corbett (R) in the general election. Corbett is the most vulnerable governor running for a second term this cycle.
Rhode Island Democratic governor's race: As if a race featuring two blue chip rising Democratic stars wasn't enough, a third candidate recently jumped into the mix:Clay Pell, husband of former Olympic figure skating star Michelle Kwan and son of late Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.). Pell's connections may help him raise some cash, but the candidates to beat in this race remain Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras. The winner of the primary will be a heavy favorite in the general election.
The Washington Post and the Fix has been known to compile top 10 lists when it comes to elections and there is one that spotlights some of the most interesting primaries. The contest taking place in Florida's 13th Congressional District was one but now the general election race is set between Democratic candidate Alex Sink and Republican candidate David Jolly, who survived a heated primary.
Now on to the list of 10 races to watch:
Alaska's Republican Senate race: Former attorney general Dan Sullivan (R) arguably posted the most impressive fourth-quarter fundraising total, relative to his race, of any Senate candidate on the map. Sullivan turned heads after lapping Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell (R) several times over in the money chase. Democrats have started to keep a closer eye on Sullivan as he begins to look more and more formidable. Also in this primary is disastrous 2010 nominee Joe Miller, who stands virtually no chance of winning, but could be a factor in a very close race. The winner will take on Sen. Mark Begich (D).
California's 31st district race: Rep. Gary Miller (R)announced his retirement this week, making a likely Democratic pickup a virtual lock. But the question is which Democrat will emerge victorious. (California's top-two, all-party primary system makes the question even more interesting.) There's Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar, who is backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes, the choice of Emily's List; and a former congressman, Joe Baca. Baca seems like the longest shot of the three: He raised just $20,000 in the last quarter.
Georgia's Republican Senate race: Recent polling shows a wide open race, making this a must-watch contest ahead of the May 20 primary. Given that no candidate is running away, a runoff appears very likely. The conventional wisdom has long been that if Republicans nominate Rep. Paul Broun, it would be good news for Democrats, given Broun's tendency to make controversial comments. To his credit, Broun -- who nabbed the first national tea party endorsement in the race this week -- has run a pretty steady campaign so far, without any major blunders. But Democrats are still eager to see him face Michelle Nunn (D) in one of only two Senate races where the GOP is at risk of coughing up a seat it controls.
Hawaii's Democratic Senate race: The Aloha State is not expensive by campaign metrics, but money still matters -- and it's a good gauge of momentum. With that in mind, Sen. Brian Schatz (D) has the upper hand early over Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D), who has struggled to keep pace in the fundraising chase. This is the latest chapter of along-standing divide in state Democratic circles that falls along racial and generational lines.
Idaho's 2nd district Republican race: Last year ended on a high note for Rep. Mike Simpson (R): He outraised attorney Bryan Smith (R) more than 2-1 and got some backup from the Chamber of Commerce. Smith is backed by the anti-tax Club for Growth, a well-funded tea party group that isn't shy about spending money on candidates it likes. So don't count on a Simpson victory just yet. This contest is a key focal point in the business-vs.-tea-party battle in the GOP.
Kentucky's Republican Senate race: Matt Bevin (R) has about three months to close a major gap against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R). So far, McConnell's in good shape. He's raising tons of money, and polls show he leads Bevin by a wide margin. A Politico story out this week about how Bevin once backed the TARP program he likes to slam made matters worse for the challenger. This is McConnell's race to lose right now. Still, when the top Republican in the Senate gets primaried, we pay attention until it's over.
Mississippi's Republican Senate race: As we wrote earlier this week, the pool of Senate Republican primary challengers is wider than it is deep. That said, if there's one race where things could get interesting, it's this one. State Sen. Chris McDaniel has impressed national tea party groups and shown that he can raise money. Meanwhile, it didn't help Sen. Than Cochran (R) that he clocked in as only the 34th most conservative member of the Senate, according to National Journal's 2013 vote ratings.
Nebraska's Republican Senate race: This race is unique in that it has split the tea party wing of the GOP. Midland University President Ben Sasse has the support of the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund, while former treasurer Shane Osborn has the support of FreedomWorks. Regardless of who wins the GOP nomination, this race is a sure bet to stay in Republican hands.
Pennsylvania's Democratic gubernatorial race: We've heard a lot this cycle about Republicans being forced to move to the right. How about Democrats moving left? Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D) did just that last month when she cut ties with several centrist groups after coming under heat from liberals. Schwartz still looks like the front-runner here, but this race has become competitive in recent months. The contest includes well-funded former state revenue secretary Tom Wolf, former Ed Rendell administration official Katie McGinty, and Treasurer Rob McCord. To the victor go the spoils: A chance to take on deeply unpopular Gov. Tom Corbett (R) in the general election. Corbett is the most vulnerable governor running for a second term this cycle.
Rhode Island Democratic governor's race: As if a race featuring two blue chip rising Democratic stars wasn't enough, a third candidate recently jumped into the mix:Clay Pell, husband of former Olympic figure skating star Michelle Kwan and son of late Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.). Pell's connections may help him raise some cash, but the candidates to beat in this race remain Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras. The winner of the primary will be a heavy favorite in the general election.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Can Democrats and Republicans set a bipartisan agenda?
At the beginning of each new year, everyone can hit a refresh button. Restart a diet, get more sleep, find a better job, spend more time with friends and family, and many more things. Also, at the beginning of the year, the president has a chance to reflect on what went well and what did not the previous year and what they hope to accomplish with the help of Congress in the coming year. If a Democrat like President Barack Obama is giving the State of the Union speech, then most if all not Republicans remain seated almost regardless of what is said. The same could be said of Democrats during the annual address if Republican President George W. Bush was giving it. More often than not, what divides the two parties dominated the headlines and speeches. There are certainly many things that both sides can agree on and the president and Congress have seemed to echoed that yet limited progress has been made largely because of the loud voices of base party members.
A few years ago, an organization was formed to try to focus attention and energy on that common core that many Democrats and Republicans can agree upon. It is a method of putting the country before your party or next election. At the beginning of 2013, another crucial step was taken by the organization: officially integrating members of Congress. No Labels was founded by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. It is co-chaired by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and former Utah Republican Governor Jon Huntsman. The two former governors come from opposite sides of the aisle but see a common goal for the country. They are joined by over 80 members of Congress.
In lieu of President Obama's State of the Union address, Huntsman provided the following thought provoking piece:
What if, in the weeks leading up to the State of the Union address, the president invited the leader of the opposition party to the White House to talk about their goals for the country?
What if the two leaders focused on their areas of agreement and drew up a list of the objectives that they both want to achieve?
What if the president then delivered an address that spoke to and for all Americans, not just one party, and that brought the entire audience, not just one side of the House chamber, to its feet? What if there were no need for an opposition response?
Pure fantasy? I don’t think so. This consensus-driven approach to governing is not only possible but necessary if we are to break the cycle of fighting and gridlock that has paralyzed our political process.
As a former governor, I know it can work. I’ve seen Republican and Democratic colleagues bring about progress and innovation by building relationships with political opponents and working with them to pass budgets and other vital bills. They would look for the best ideas and practices and forge a vision that reflects the aspirations of both political parties and the collective interests of constituents.
We did this in Utah. We can do this as a country.
As a co-chair of No Labels, a movement of Democrats, Republicans and independents who value problem-solving over partisan point-scoring, I’m helping to launch a three-year campaign for a governing process that we believe can bring about the kind of wholesale change in Washington that Americans seek — and that the country desperately needs.
The process begins with both sides coming together to discuss and develop goals for the country that they both support. The mutually agreed-upon goals would form the basis for a national strategic agenda, a shared vision of where our country is headed and what it can achieve.
Today, the default mode in Washington is to fight. On health care, immigration, the national debt and other issues, too many “leaders” retreat to their partisan corners before there’s a clear sense of where we’re headed. If members of both parties came together first to determine overall goals and destinations, the hard work of developing policy would go more smoothly.
History is full of success stories from this sort of “goals first” process. The mid-1990s were replete with government shutdowns and dueling agendas. But once Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich agreed on the goal of balancing the federal budget, they got it done.
Similarly, President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill crossed swords on foreign policy, the size of government and more. But their effectiveness was based on more than their famous collegiality. They found common ground in goals such as their mutual desire to make the tax code simpler and fairer. Once they agreed to that objective, they created a bipartisan coalition that enacted one of the most comprehensive tax reforms in U.S. history.
In the past century, our nation has rallied around such bold agendas as universal public education, the interstate highway system and sending a man to the moon. These goals mobilized political will across the partisan spectrum and led to landmark achievements.
But little progress has been made in the past decade, especially in the economic matters crucial to U.S. competitiveness. The United States is unusual in not having a national strategy — and we’re losing ground as a result.
Political leaders like to talk about forging consensus and being “uniters, not dividers,” but they seldom explain how they would achieve this political holy grail. No Labels’ call for a new governing process — developing goals together that provide the shared vision for a national agenda — is a blueprint.
The American people, if not their elected officials, are fairly united on major goals for the nation. No Labels asked more than 1,000 registered voters late last year what our government should be focused on. Majorities from both parties pointed to priorities such as creating 25 million jobs in the next 10 years, securing Social Security and Medicare for the next 75 years, a balanced budget and energy self-sufficiency.
We know the public is on board: In our poll, 80 percent said the country should have a unified agenda that reflects the goals of both parties by the time the next president takes office.
What if the 45th president consulted with the opposition before taking the oath of office? What if he or she delivered an inaugural address that spoke to the hopes and dreams of both sides?
It may sound like a fantasy. But if the alternative is the status quo, it’s a fantasy worth making a reality.
Can this "fantasy" become a reality? With the current state of the politics in D.C., it will not be easy but it is not impossible.
A few years ago, an organization was formed to try to focus attention and energy on that common core that many Democrats and Republicans can agree upon. It is a method of putting the country before your party or next election. At the beginning of 2013, another crucial step was taken by the organization: officially integrating members of Congress. No Labels was founded by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. It is co-chaired by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and former Utah Republican Governor Jon Huntsman. The two former governors come from opposite sides of the aisle but see a common goal for the country. They are joined by over 80 members of Congress.
In lieu of President Obama's State of the Union address, Huntsman provided the following thought provoking piece:
What if, in the weeks leading up to the State of the Union address, the president invited the leader of the opposition party to the White House to talk about their goals for the country?
What if the two leaders focused on their areas of agreement and drew up a list of the objectives that they both want to achieve?
What if the president then delivered an address that spoke to and for all Americans, not just one party, and that brought the entire audience, not just one side of the House chamber, to its feet? What if there were no need for an opposition response?
Pure fantasy? I don’t think so. This consensus-driven approach to governing is not only possible but necessary if we are to break the cycle of fighting and gridlock that has paralyzed our political process.
As a former governor, I know it can work. I’ve seen Republican and Democratic colleagues bring about progress and innovation by building relationships with political opponents and working with them to pass budgets and other vital bills. They would look for the best ideas and practices and forge a vision that reflects the aspirations of both political parties and the collective interests of constituents.
We did this in Utah. We can do this as a country.
As a co-chair of No Labels, a movement of Democrats, Republicans and independents who value problem-solving over partisan point-scoring, I’m helping to launch a three-year campaign for a governing process that we believe can bring about the kind of wholesale change in Washington that Americans seek — and that the country desperately needs.
The process begins with both sides coming together to discuss and develop goals for the country that they both support. The mutually agreed-upon goals would form the basis for a national strategic agenda, a shared vision of where our country is headed and what it can achieve.
Today, the default mode in Washington is to fight. On health care, immigration, the national debt and other issues, too many “leaders” retreat to their partisan corners before there’s a clear sense of where we’re headed. If members of both parties came together first to determine overall goals and destinations, the hard work of developing policy would go more smoothly.
History is full of success stories from this sort of “goals first” process. The mid-1990s were replete with government shutdowns and dueling agendas. But once Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich agreed on the goal of balancing the federal budget, they got it done.
Similarly, President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill crossed swords on foreign policy, the size of government and more. But their effectiveness was based on more than their famous collegiality. They found common ground in goals such as their mutual desire to make the tax code simpler and fairer. Once they agreed to that objective, they created a bipartisan coalition that enacted one of the most comprehensive tax reforms in U.S. history.
In the past century, our nation has rallied around such bold agendas as universal public education, the interstate highway system and sending a man to the moon. These goals mobilized political will across the partisan spectrum and led to landmark achievements.
But little progress has been made in the past decade, especially in the economic matters crucial to U.S. competitiveness. The United States is unusual in not having a national strategy — and we’re losing ground as a result.
Political leaders like to talk about forging consensus and being “uniters, not dividers,” but they seldom explain how they would achieve this political holy grail. No Labels’ call for a new governing process — developing goals together that provide the shared vision for a national agenda — is a blueprint.
The American people, if not their elected officials, are fairly united on major goals for the nation. No Labels asked more than 1,000 registered voters late last year what our government should be focused on. Majorities from both parties pointed to priorities such as creating 25 million jobs in the next 10 years, securing Social Security and Medicare for the next 75 years, a balanced budget and energy self-sufficiency.
We know the public is on board: In our poll, 80 percent said the country should have a unified agenda that reflects the goals of both parties by the time the next president takes office.
What if the 45th president consulted with the opposition before taking the oath of office? What if he or she delivered an inaugural address that spoke to the hopes and dreams of both sides?
It may sound like a fantasy. But if the alternative is the status quo, it’s a fantasy worth making a reality.
Can this "fantasy" become a reality? With the current state of the politics in D.C., it will not be easy but it is not impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
