McCain's VP choice is...

UPDATE: It is official, Senator John McCain has indeed picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate


Well, just as an update, it does look more and more likely that it will be Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (which I had previously predicted would get the nod). According to CNN a private jet from Alaska arrived in Dayton, Ohio under cover of secrecy. Later today in Dayton the announcement will take place in from of 15,000 supporters.

John McCain's campaign and outside sources have already crossed Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Arkansas ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee and NYC ex-Mayor Rudy Guliani off that list. Still possible besides Gov. Palin are Florida Governor Crist, Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge, or Joe Liberman.


We will keep you posted on the latest so keep checking back or better yet subscribe to our feed by either clicking here --> <-- or finding an appropriate subscription for you in the left-hand bar under Subscribe Here.

McCain has chosen VP, will announce pick Friday

Oooooh, my McCain campaign senses were tingling like mad.. and here's why: Sen. McCain has chosen a Vice Presidential candidate and he is ready to unveil his pick on Friday in front of fifteen thousand (15,000) people in Ohio, a battleground state.

First, some sad news for the McCain camp about that last sentence, fifteen thousand people is about three times the largest crowd that has ever showed up to a McCain event. That is just sad. I know, I know.. McCain's supporters claim that that is because he is a Town Hall, up close and personal kind of guy.. but perhaps his campaign manager(s) should have told him that making LOTS of people vote for you is the key to winning an election not just making sure a bunch of small groups really like you. Their votes only count once no matter how hard they hit the lever, touch the screen, fill in the bubble, or poke out the chad.

Well.. more information should be coming by the end of this week.. and then I expect to post the VP pick on Friday (which also, by the way is Senator McCain's birthday!)

Kick Russia out of G-8? Bad Idea

Big Bad Russia. The New Russian Empire. The Crazy Bears. Sovietskis. The Cold War is Back.

All these things are currently being said about Russia in the continuing aftermath of the Georgian invasion and South Ossetian conflict. We've learned something about the character of today's Russia that we previously suspected but didn't have solid actions as proof for: Russia is being reborn and it is hungry. The Russian Bear is ready to tussle with anyone who gets in its way. Currently the Russians are keeping it local and safe, preying on breakaway provinces and nearby neighbors who aren't a part of NATO and aren't too close to China or the US.

So... how do we punish Russia? Senator Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator Graham (R-SC), both surrogates for Sen. McCain's Presidential bid, are advocating removing Russia from the G-8. Hmm.. seems reactionary and not very well thought out. This is the kind of politics that could have worked eighty or more years ago but nowadays you need to do like the mafia and keep your friends close and your enemies closer. We need to basically be sleeping with Russia (and China) so we can monitor them and be able to influence their actions more. I know that for you academics out there it sounds like I've taken a liberal (in the Kantian use of the word) position however my realism is still intact, worry not.

One of the many lessons taught to us by the successful foreign policies of the Reagan Administration was that engagement doesn't have to mean capitulation or even compromise. When Reagan and H.W. Bush met with Gorbachev it created a personal connection that kept a dialogue open and both sides were open with their criticisms of the other. Much the same must exist for the Russians and Chinese. In Russia's case it was a lack of effective dialogue and a distracted Administration that allowed the Georgian Crisis to come to a head without US intervention of any kind. In the end French President Sarkozy looks like a hero brokering the peace deal that exists. The US did not even send an serious diplomatic mission or a contigent of Senators until long after the deal was agreed to on both sides. Sad.

Kicking the Russia out of the G-8 is not just a terrible idea, it's also impossible. Try to get the other members to agree to expelling Russia, not going to happen. First off, let's face it - Russia is sitting on an oil well and they can pump it out faster than any other country in the world. They may not have enormous reserves but they sure do have the infrastructure to get it out of the ground and into a barrel quickly. No one wants to mess with an oil country right now... especially now. Second, everyone else in the G-8 is a part of NATO. Kicking Russia severs an important international forum for Russia and NATO to keep the dialogue running. Lastly, It is just waaaay to rash. It is as if the US is throwing a tantrum whenever things in the international area don't go it's way. Just because we can't control things like we used to doesn't mean we need to go out and lose our heads. Keep your cool and try to figure out how to get back on top or maybe just further up then anyone one else...

Smart Foreign Policy will lead to a Smarter and Strong America.


Links:

Lieberman: Kick Russia out of G-8 - Think Progress

McCain's VP Pick: Moderation is the Key

Dear Senator John McCain,

As a military man you know the new guy in a squad is always the target of criticism but mostly adapt to their comrades. The "new guy" is also a topic of speculation and mystery when a position needs to be filled. Obviously I'm talking about your pick for a Vice-Presidential candidate... Here's a couple names that have been floated that just plain won't work: Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge.

Here's Why: If there is one thing that has united the Republican Party through thick (Reagan) and thin (Nixon), it is the focus of the Republican Party on conservative social values. I'm talking about the biggies here: abortion, death penalty, and gay marriage. The Republican Party's answers to those issues have been No, Yes, and No, respectively. Now, of course, different brands of Republicans have succeeded in reaching the country's highest elected office but they have all shared those values. Some Presidents have had new or different views of domestic policy or foreign policy or both and the media as well as political commentators have chided each as "breaking" party unity or "gutting" the party's core, so far they haven't really quite got it. There are many simple people who just want to vote based on one thing, God. They believe that as long as the President doesn't like abortion, likes the death penalty, and is opposed to homosexual marriages nothing can penetrate or corrupt the invincible American fortress. You and I know that these people are wrong but these people vote and sometimes you gotta give the people what they want.. especially if you agree with those positions.

Back to the Vice-Presidential pick, both of the politicians I mentioned are not pro-life, Lieberman is neither anti-death penalty nor anti-gay marriage. In fact if we rewind just eight years there is a plethora of sound bites, articles, quotes, interviews, op-eds, and press releases stating those positions very strongly and attacking George W. Bush for supporting these conservative values. Now I don't agree with you at all about the way you believe the War in Iraq should be run or where the course of US Foreign Policy is headed but as a person who gives a great deal of weight to values.. you've stayed in tied as my top choice for President (the other being Senator Obama). If you decide to choose either Lieberman or Ridge my confidence in your ability to stick to your own morals will be shaken and possibly completely broken. I would rather have a person with a strong character that I respect than a politician with a weak character in the White House. It is character after all that is truly tested in trying times of crisis.

Many people who are in politics are mere politicians, those people who make plays for power, and some are statesmen and stateswomen who do what is best for their country given all the information they have. These statesmen and stateswomen don't come from a specific party but they share many character traits amongst them a firm understanding of when to change their positions based on facts and reality and when to stand tall and stick to their ideology no matter how popular it is. Picking someone who is pro-choice to attract centrists and blue dog democrats would be a clear example of being a politician first and a statesman last. Please do not do this.

Thank You,

Strong Moderate

Links:

Conservatives upset over abortion rights VP contenders - CNN

Toyota Prius hits 8-yr old boy, Officials worried about Car Noise Levels

[This post is totally unrelated to my previous criticisms of the Toyota Prius as an Hybrid-Electric Vehicle.]

The Story: An 8 year old boy, doesn't look both ways on his bike, rides out into the street and gets hit by a car. The boy isn't seriously injured but does end up on the car's hood with some nasty cuts and bumps. Sounds like an everyday near tragedy...

The Controversy: The car that hit him was a Toyota Prius. The reason he rode into the street is that he claimed he never even heard it coming. This brings up a long brewing controversy about minimum noise levels for vehicles. In the days that cars were first produced it was believed that a vehicle's noise was so loud and harmful to the ears neighborhoods and cities passed laws on when and where a car could be driven. Now, however, vehicles are getting better and better sound damping technologies and can even run silently (on batteries) which is cause the health hazard described above, people not hearing vehicles approaching and putting themselves at risk.

Links:

Left Lane News: News Story Here
Left Lane News: Fisker Karma Uses Speakers to produce engine sound
USA Today: Blind People Complain about threats from Silent "Hybrids"

Congressional Name-Calling: Shameful Words

If there is one thing that the late and great David Brinkely taught us it is that you don't have to be disagreeable in order to disagree. The act of name-calling, however, goes beyond being just disagreeable into the realm of infantile stupidity. That is why a few a few news stories caught my eye(s) today.

First, Senator Lieberman (I-CT)...

He insinuated on FOX news radio that Senator Obama was a Marxist as Bill Kristol claims. Shame on Lieberman for that kind of name calling and disrespect! I know they both don't agree on a the war among other things but as colleagues in the United States Senate he should at the very least respect his fellow Senator and not engage in name-calling with goes well beyond the realm of common decency.

Next comes Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY)...

Well.. Rep. Davis didn't claim that Sen. Obama is a Communist.. nope, he first decided go with stating that Obama was 'weak-kneed' because he "couldn't be the guy to push the button", referring to National Security exercises they both partook in. Now that comment is up for debate, I suppose it is possible that he in fact was a little apprehensive pushing the button in a nuclear terrorism situation which I don't think is particularly bad thing.

Rep. Davis however.. couldn't just limit his comments to something that would matter like National Security... he also decided to go the RACIST route calling the Senator a "boy". Now I know a lot of people say well.. maybe he was being condescending but not racist, but let's face it folks the Representative is from Kentucky which means that he would know that calling a black man a "boy" is going to be viewed as racist. So after few hours of silence and squirming he sent a letter to the Obama campaign apologizing for his comments which I respect, but the point is he should have just limited his attacks to Issue attacks instead of belittling the person (and possibly showing a little racist edge).

Well.. that's all for now, I'm sure there's more craziness in Politics coming right around the corner, so I'll be there with ya! Good Day!