Early Look at Possible Vice Presidents

Here's an early look at possible Vice Presidents for the Democrats (Obama) and Republicans (McCain).

Preface: As I've mentioned before, I don't think age, gender, race or religion should be a factor when choosing a President or Vice-President, but I'm realistic enough to know that it still does matter to many people. For that reason, I have included these demographics as pros or cons for each of the potential vice presidents.

Democrats (Obama)
1. Jim Webb of Virginia (current junior Senator, former Secretary of the Navy)
Pros: White male with military experience; anti-Iraq War; attack-dog mentality; former Republican from possible swing state; age 62 (to counter Obama's youth)
Cons: Real or perceived over-aggressiveness; age 62 (perhaps too old for future of party)

2. Tim Kaine of Virginia (current Governor)
Pros: Washington outsider from possible swing state; 14 years of local and state political experience including city council, mayor, lieutenant governor, and governor; white male; Roman Catholic; age 50 (future potential)
Cons: Relative unknown; age 50 (too young of a ticket)

3. John Edwards of North Carolina (former junior Senator)
Pros: White male populist; admits mistakes; anti-poverty work; age 54 (future potential)
Cons: Couldn't carry home state in 2004 election; admitted too many mistakes

4. Wesley Clark of Arkansas (retired 4-star general)
Pros: White male with military experience; age 63 (same as Webb)
Cons: Uninspiring candidate; ties to Clintons; age 63 (same as Webb)

5. Hillary Clinton of New York (current junior Senator)
Pros: White female with 35 years of experience; health care reform; women's rights; popular among older and less-educated Democrats; age 60 (same as Webb)
Cons: Female; represents old Democratic Party; admits she has lots of baggage; baggage has not been completely vetted (one example: 1996 Bosnia trip); campaign debt; real or perceived negativity toward Obama; age 60 (same as Webb)

Who Didn't Make the Democratic List and Why:
Evan Bayh of IN: possible dark horse, but not likely to carry Indiana for Democrats
Ed Rendell of PA: age 64; ties to Clintons
Ted Strickland of OH: age 66; ties to Clintons
Bill Richardson of NM: minority; not a very good speaker or debater
Joe Biden of DE: age 65; from solid Democratic state
Chris Dodd of CT: age 63; from solid Democratic state
Al Gore of TN: never gonna happen; couldn't win home state of TN in 2000
Kathleen Sebelius of KS: female; boring speaker (reminds me of John Kerry)
Mark Warner of VA: currently running for an important Senate position
Chuck Hagel of NE: two words: current Republican

Republicans (McCain)
1. Charlie Crist of Florida (current Governor)
Pros: one word, Florida; Washington outsider; age 51
Cons: rumors of homosexuality

2. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (current Governor)
Pros: Governor; perceived as Washington outsider; age 47
Cons: Relative unknown; from solid Republican state

3. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas (former Governor)
Pros: appeals to Religious Right; former Governor; charismatic; age 52
Cons: appeals to Religious Right; from solid Republican state

4. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (former Governor)
Pros: appeals to social conservatives; former Governor; Washington outsider; age 61 (but looks much younger)
Cons: perceived as flip-flopper; Mormon; not sure McCain likes him; not likely to carry Massachusetts for Republicans

5. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Pros: acts and talks like a Republican; good friend of McCain
Cons: two words, current Democrat

Who Didn't Make the Republican List and Why:
Tim Pawlenty of MN: Minnesota looks tempting but a McCain-Pawlenty ticket doesn't
Jim Gibbons of NV: age 63; relative unknown; Mormon
Colin Powell: age 71; disenchanted with Republicans; now believes Iraq War was mistake
JC Watts of OK: McCain knows he's not going to get many black votes even if he has a black person on the ticket
Condoleezza Rice: see JC Watts; McCain and Rice on same ticket = too much Iraq
Rick Perry of TX: Voters are now leery of governors from Texas
Bobby Jindal of LA: at 36, still a political lightweight: too much too soon = Quayle

Why It's Okay to Vote for Obama

1. He's got a specific plan for bringing about change to politics as usual in America. You may not agree with his plan, but you cannot say he doesn't have a plan or lacks specifics. Click here for his plan, all 64 pages of it. If you want to continue politics as usual, please don't vote for Obama. And if you're a Republican, many prominent conservatives including Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin have expressed serious concerns about John McCain. Limbaugh and Coulter even suggested that there's not much difference between McCain and the Democrats. So why not vote for Obama?

2. Obama opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, a war that even the conservative National Review said was a mistake. And here is what the late William F. Buckley Jr. had to say, "Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans." Let me repeat, these are conservative Republicans saying the Iraq War was a mistake and failure. So what difference does it make if Obama says it was a mistake?

3. Obama realizes that "It's the war economy, stupid." Many people don't make the connection between the Iraq War and our stagnant, if not recessive, economy. The average gas price before invading Iraq was $1.82, but now the national average is $3.39 with averages expected to hit $3.60 by summer. And the cost of the war for US taxpayers: 12 Billion dollars per month, that's 400 Million dollars per day. If you want to keep spending this amount of money on an unnecessary war, please don't vote for Obama.

4. Obama realizes that sometimes it's necessary to talk with our enemies. Remember when Ronald Reagan sat down at the table with the evil Soviet Union? Or when Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein? And Iraq's current Prime Minister al-Maliki recently met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. And even Reagan's administration negotiated with Iran. In 1985, the Reagan administration illegally agreed to sell weapons to Iran, a state sponsor of terror, in exchange for hostages. In the end only 3 hostages were released, but the US made enough money to help fund a "freedom fighting" militia in Nicaragua who engaged in terrorist activities. And if you're a Christian, please remember what Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you."

5. Obama is a healer. This is not to say that McCain or Clinton couldn’t be healers. I’m sure they could, but Obama represents the best chance of healing a wounded citizenry. I realize the last so-called healer didn’t work out too well. Bush claimed to be a uniter, but unfortunately many perceived him as part of the problem. I will not put all of the blame on Bush’s shoulders, but he should bear a good deal of it. It certainly doesn’t help when you have one of the most despised vice presidents of all time, a person who only listens to opinion polls when it suits his agenda (Click here and here for videos). Anyway, Obama doesn’t seem to think we’re as divided as it might appear. Obama had this to say in a 2006 interview, “The country is not as polarized as our politics would suggest.” Let’s hope he’s correct.

Each candidate has positives and negatives. Unfortunately, most politicians and voters respond to negativity, and since I’m not afraid to address Obama’s negatives, I will discuss that here. One of Obama’s negatives involves the words of his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Opponents of Obama can’t understand how Obama could have stayed in a church with such a leader for 20 years. What opponents incorrectly assume is that Rev. Wright preached “God Damn America” every week. If he did, where are the tapes? If more tapes appear, I’ll be the first to condemn them, but to my knowledge, only two clips were played endlessly on so-called news channels. But one must not forget the importance of context.

Blacks in America were slaves for 250 years, followed by another hundred years or more of inequality (see Jim Crow Laws). Rev Wright was born in 1941 and grew up during the most violent time of America's domestic history. During this time, it goes without saying that Rev Wright was subject to an oppressive culture on a daily basis. Many blacks living during this time witnessed some of the most inhumane treatment of blacks and others on a daily basis. And in 1961 Rev Wright honored his country by serving in the armed forces even before his country would honor him or his race as equals. And even though the Civil Rights Amendment of 1964 was passed, equality did not happen over night. Like Mr. Obama said, Rev. Wright is part of a different generation, and some of them haven't gotten over the past; not unlike the many Jews who have vowed to forgive but never forget the atrocities of Nazi Germany and others. And let's not forget the Native Americans and their ongoing grievances with the US government. And let's not forget women's struggle for the right to vote and equal rights. I certainly believe all these groups have legitimate arguments and frustrations with the governments that oppressed them, especially those people who actually lived under such oppression (like Rev. Wright did). By the way, Rev. Wright and others are not likely to forget that the Confederate Flag flew with the American Flag on top of the South Carolina State House from 1962 to 2000. It has since been removed but the flag now flies in front of the state capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers.

Anyway, what was Obama’s response to Rev. Wright? Obama denounced and rejected Rev. Wright's comments saying, "Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

So let me put this all into perspective by asking you a few questions. How could any presidential candidate prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have sat in church week after week listening to preachers talk about how God and Jesus loved everyone equally while non-whites were degraded on a daily basis outside the church building? And this next question is specifically for whites: How many of you have disowned family or friends outright who said things far worse than “God Damn America,” words such as nigger, coon, or spade? Obama considers Rev. Wright family, and he did what most of us have always done; that is, he condemned the words but not the person, Obama attacked the sin, not the sinner. Even Mike Huckabee and other preachers agree with Obama on this (Click here and here for links). Even so, we (including all races) have come a long way, but we (everybody) still have work to do.

Here’s another question: How is “God Damn America” any different from Rev. Jerry Falwell’s comment that America deserved to be attacked on 9/11? (Click here for video). Or what about Rev. John Hagee’s statement that the Catholic Church is the Great Whore? John McCain rightly called Falwell and others “agents of intolerance” in 2000, but he kissed and made up in 2006 when he decided to run for president again. McCain even accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. And what was McCain’s response? “When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes.” I totally agree with McCain, but does the same standard apply to Obama? (Click here for video).

I don’t agree with Rev. Wright, Rev. Falwell, or Rev. Hagee, but that doesn’t mean they can’t express their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. This is, after all, America. To say they can’t say such things is simply un-American. And what did Thomas Jefferson have to say about dissent? “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Another negative associated with Obama is his so-called lack of patriotism. Most of this stems from his decision not to wear a flag pin. Here is Obama’s response: “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest; instead I’m gonna try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.” Enough said. If you don’t agree then you can just be like those bleeding heart liberals and wear your heart or, in this case, your flag on your sleeve, I mean lapel.

I included a section on Obama’s negatives to emphasize the fact that we all make mistakes and have weaknesses. It doesn't matter if you are Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc. I could just have easily spent my entire time writing about McCain’s and Clinton’s negatives, but I don’t respond well to negativity and neither should you. The world would certainly be a better place if we didn’t.

Anyway, you can denounce Obama's speeches and what he represents if you like, but you would only end up sounding like Hillary Clinton who stated, "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

I prefer to believe in hope: “Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we carry from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we will hope.”

Even if you still don’t think Obama is a healer, he’s certainly no less a uniter than Bush. At least Obama’s words or actions (or even those of his pastor) haven’t divided a nation against a war that has killed 4036 US soldiers and many thousands of Iraqis.

This year, the distinctions are clear: more of the same or a fresh start. Which are you going to choose?

Clinton vs Obama (The Stats)

Here's a look at some 2008 Democratic Campaign Statistics:

Pledged Delegates (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 1768 (+105)
Clinton 1663

Super Delegates
Obama 307 (+27)
Clinton 280

Total Delegates (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 2075 (+132)
Clinton 1943

Popular Vote (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 47.6%
Clinton 47.7% (+0.1)

Contests Won (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 33 (+12)
Clinton 21

Primaries Won (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 19
Clinton 19

Caucuses Won
Obama 14 (+12)
Clinton 2

Democratic States Won (According to 2004 Results)
Obama 12 (+4)
Clinton 8

Republican States Won (According to 2004 Results)
Obama 17 (+5)
Clinton 12

Big States Won (70 or more delegates)
Obama 10
Clinton 11 (+1)

Small States Won (Less than 70 delegates)
Obama 19 (+10)
Clinton 9

Money Raised
Obama $234,745,081 (+ $45,648,028)
Clinton $189,097,053

Categories Won
Obama 9 (+7)
Clinton 2

Upcoming Contests (Predicted Winners)
Obama 2 (SD, MT)
Clinton 0
Toss-up 1 (Puerto Rico)

Commentary:
I'm a life-long Independent who supports Obama for the Democratic nomination. I'm still undecided about voting for Clinton if she happens to obtain the nomination. Personally, I see very little difference between Washington DC Republicans and Democrats when it comes to corporate influence, over-spending, waste, voting to authorize unnecessary wars, disconnect from middle and lower class citizens, trade, and politics as usual (partisanship). And the longer this democratic process continues, the more Clinton acts like a Washington DC Republican.

When the nomination process began, conventional wisdom, the media, and the Clinton campaign projected that the nomination was Hillary Clinton's to win or lose. Even Mrs. Clinton said the process would be over on February 5, 2008 (click here for video). Well, conventional wisdom, the media, and Clinton were wrong.

Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton brand of politics are losing the election to a candidate who was a relative unknown until 2004, the year Barack Obama came on the scene at the Democratic National Convention. How could this have happened? How could Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton Machine be losing to such a political lightweight? How could the Clintons be losing in fundraising, the popular vote, number of pledged delegates, and number of contests won (even if you include Florida and Michigan)? How is this possible? How could the former First Lady of a popular Democratic president, a person with 35 years of experience and thousands of political ties, be losing to a bi-racial man whose father was from Kenya and who once lived in Indonesia? And how could the Clintons be losing to a man whose preacher once said "God Damn America"? It just doesn't seem possible. Perhaps it is the "vast right-wing conspiracy" Mrs. Clinton talked about many years ago. Perhaps "THEY" are behind this.

Or maybe it's something else. Perhaps it's Mr. Obama's character; his genuineness, intelligence, and inspiration. Or maybe it's because he doesn't change himself, his message, or his tactics every other week. Or perhaps it's because he doesn't appear desperate to win at all costs. Or maybe it's because he doesn't want to change the rules. Or possibly it's because he doesn't pit "US" against "THEM". Or maybe it's because he doesn't appear to think he's somehow entitled to the presidency. Or perhaps it's because he appeals to people's hopes that the government can and should empower people from the bottom up, not the top down. Or maybe it's because he stays on message week after week and talks about the issues (Those who say he doesn't give specifics are not listening or looking. Click here for Mr. Obama's specifics). Or possibly it's because words do matter, and people believe he will put his words into action (if given the chance). As Mrs. Clinton said, actions speak louder than words. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton has 35 years of action, but the majority of people just aren't buying it. I wonder why.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is winning because he opposed the war in Iraq on principle from the beginning while Mrs. Clinton appears to have favored the war for political reasons. Or maybe it's because Mr. Obama is acting "dovish" or "feminine" while Mrs. Clinton is acting "hawkish" or "masculine". Or possibly it's like Mrs. Geraldine Ferraro said, it's because Mr. Obama is black or because America is more sexist than racist. I hope not.

Or maybe it's because Mr. Obama's positives are higher and his negatives are lower than Mrs. Clinton's. And why should we believe Mrs. Clinton when she says she is more electable in the General Election when she can't even win her party's own primary election? And why should we trust that Mrs. Clinton will be better in the General Election when she has to lend her own campaign 5 MILLION dollars and she can't even raise more funds than her opponent in the primary election? Where are the organizational skills? Where is the Clinton Machine?

I agree with both candidates that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race until June 3, the date of the last primaries. When the dust has settled, the (conceptually undemocratic) Super Delegates should vote for the candidate with the most Pledged Delegates. Hopefully, that candidate will also have the popular vote, but if he or she doesn't, get over it. We all know the popular vote is not the way we elect our nominees or presidents. If you want to change the rules, do it before the process begins, not during it.

Considering the statistics above, I find it difficult to believe that the Super Delegates or anyone else will override the "will of the people" (Look at the stats). As you might have noticed, I included the results from Florida and Michigan for the sake of argument. Even if you include these results, Clinton is still losing. And if Clinton somehow obtains the nomination without winning the Pledged Delegates, I will probably vote for a third party candidate.

The nomination was Mrs. Clinton's to win or lose. She lost it.
Or maybe you could say Obama won it.

My Primary Predictions (A Recap)

My primary predictions were wrong. I accurately predicted that Giulliani would not get the Republican nomination, but I was way off base in selecting Huckabee. In the end, Huckabee stayed around longer than many expected, but I should have known that the Republicans would resort to a nomination of entitlement much the way they did in 1996 with Dole. Unlike then, McCain is a much more formidable candidate with cross-party appeal and national security credentials in a post 9-11 world. His major disadvantages, however, are loyalty to Bush, unyielding support for the war in Iraq, lack of funds, and lack of support from the religious right. Some might also consider his age as a disadvantage, I don't.

As for the Democrats, I am pleasantly surprised. I never thought Obama or anyone else could seriously challenge the Clinton machine. My original preference for the Democratic nomination was Kucinich, Gravel, or Edwards. Although I do not agree with everything Obama advocates or represents, I still believe he is the best candidate for the Democratic Party and the nation at this time. Like I said before, I believe the country needs a healer now, not another Clinton (Hillary) or Bush (McCain).

Final Political Predictions Before Primaries

Back in August, I had this to say about the 2008 Presidential Election.
And the following is a quick summary of my August predictions:
Democratic Nominee: Hillary Clinton (VP: Wesley Clark or Jim Webb)
Republican Nominee: Fred Thompson (VP: Mike Huckabee or Mark Sanford)

Now it is December 6 and only 28 days until the beginning of the presidential primary season. Everything is the same with my August predictions with one major exception: I now predict that Mike Huckabee will get the Republican nomination. As I predicted in August, Huckabee is the dark horse for the Republican presidential nomination. He is now second in Iowa and might very well win that state and the nomination. In the end, Huckabee is the "ideal" candidate for the Republicans because he's young, a counter to Clinton in Arkansas, and a member of the religious right. However, Huckabee must turn early victories into financial windfalls or he will not make it very far on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2007). Nonetheless, I believe he is positioned to steal the political fortunes of Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain.

In August, the momentum was certainly with Thompson, but he has since squandered a chance to obtain the nomination. I believe his late entry, age, and lack of enthusiasm have contributed to his decline. Other major factors are the staying power of Romney and the rising power of Mike Huckabee. Romney has assembled a solid foundation in the early states which has fended off potential challengers with one exception. Huckabee, with the religious right starting to take notice, is beginning to challenge Romney. Nonetheless, I still believe Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain will do well enough to make it to the end of February, but Huckabee's rising political status and surprise victories will ultimately put Thompson and the others out of contention.

Let me reiterate that I do not believe Romney or Giuliani will get the Republican nomination because one is in the "wrong" religion (Mormonism) and the other "isn't religious enough." This is by no means their fault. It is the fault of the political party they support and aspire to lead. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is becoming more exclusive. President George W. Bush is the new precedent for future Republican nominees. Not only did he openly seek and accept the support of the religious right (nothing new), but he often professed private matters of faith and how they personally guided his decisions as the leader of a secular government. Under Bush, the line between Church and State has certainly gotten smaller, and he was not ashamed to throw the religious right red meat when he or the party needed their support.

As a result, the religious right will compare any future nominee to the standard Bush has set. The thought of President Romney or Giuliani scares many people, but I just don't see the U.S. or world falling apart if they win. But I just don't think they will get the nomination in a party that is becoming increasingly theocratic (in the Christian sense). Is it any wonder that Huckabee is gaining steam? If this trend continues I suspect the Republican Party will eventually split. Until then, those who proclaim blind allegiance to the religious right have a distinct advantage when it comes to getting the Republican nomination.

So my final prediction for the presidential primaries is this:
Democrats: Hillary Clinton (VP: Wesley Clark or Jim Webb)
Republicans: Mike Huckabee (VP: Mark Sanford)

As I mentioned in August, there is one caveat. If the U.S. is attacked again or war breaks out with Iran, the Republican nomination is likely to go to McCain, Giuliani, or Thompson. That is a big IF, but it would certainly change the dynamics of the race for both Republicans and Democrats.

I will now give my preferences for president as they are different from my projections. I seriously doubt I will vote for Huckabee or Clinton if they are the nominees. The only way I will consider voting for Clinton is if she offers the vice-presidency to Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, or Gravel. This is unlikely to happen even for Obama or Edwards. Therefore, I am left with the following:
Wishful-thinking choices for president: Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Ralph Nader
Realistic choices for president: Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani seems like an odd pick, but he is similar to the Democrats on some issues (especially social ones). And he certainly appears more compassionate, level-headed, and intelligent than President Bush or any of the other Republican candidates. But one major negative for me is that he continues to support the war in Iraq. This I can not accept.

Unfortunately, the only way I see Obama getting the Democratic nomination is if Edwards drops out early and throws his support to him. I doubt this will happen. Even if it did, it would still be very difficult to stop Clinton. I will likely vote for Nader, Michael Bloomberg (if they run), or some other third party candidate if Clinton gets the nomination. Until that officially happens, there's always the audacity of hope...

For the record, I will not contribute financial support to any candidate until the primaries are over and the ballots are set. Unfortunately, my vote on May 13, 2008 will be a moot point since the nomination will be wrapped up well before then. No wonder voters feel disenfranchised. The primaries are in serious need of reform. One suggestion is having the federal government divide the states into regions which vote first (like Iowa and New Hampshire) on a rotating basis. Another idea is having all states vote at once. I prefer the former because it allows candidates a chance to hone their political skills and more importantly, empowers voters (from different areas) with the opportunity to shape the political process and discourse.

Football Predictions

NFL: The New England Patriots look very strong, but they are not beyond vulnerability. Injuries late in the season or peaking too early can undo any team. I doubt they will finish the regular season undefeated, but if they do, more power to them. If the Patriots stumble in the playoffs, it will more than likely be to the Indianapolis Colts.

In the NFC, I believe the Green Bay Packers will beat the Dallas Cowboys tonight but lose to them in the playoffs.

Playoff Projections
AFC
New England Patriots
Indianapolis Colts
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
Jacksonville Jaguars (wild card)
Cleveland Browns (wild card)

NFC
Dallas Cowboys
Green Bay Packers
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Seattle Seahawks
New York Giants (wild card)
Winner of Philadelphia Eagles and New Orleans Saints on December 23 gets the final wild card

Super Bowl 42: New England Patriots over the Dallas Cowboys
A no brainer but not a certainty by any means

College: I'm seriously considering a boycott of college football if they do not implement a playoff system. To not have one is simply asinine. The crazy thing is you can still retain the top 15 major bowls with a 16-team playoff format. With this format, 15 games would be played over a period of four weeks. Each of the 15 games could be played as corporate-sponsored bowls with the final 7 games designated to the Sugar, Orange, Tostitos, Rose, Capital One, Cotton, and Gator Bowls on a rotating basis.

Anyway, here are my bowl projections
Orange: Georgia vs. Virginia Tech (or Boston College)
Sugar: LSU vs. Hawaii
Rose: USC vs. Ohio State
Tostitos: Oklahoma vs. Arizona State
Allstate Championship Bowl: West Virginia vs. Missouri

I might very well skip the BCS this season if Hawaii doesn't get into a BCS bowl. Even Kansas might not make it to a BCS bowl at 11-1. And if Ohio State makes it back to the Championship Bowl by default, I will certainly cheer for the other team.

Petraeus' Testimony

Here is what General Petraeus had to say...

"Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished."

in 2004, yes 2004.

Despite the optimism and progress cited 3 years ago, he still wants over 160,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq until March 2008, followed by a withdrawal of 30,000 troops (the number of surge troops) by next summer. When will it end?

8,000,000,000 tax dollars and 64 U.S. soldiers killed every month.
No thanks. I don't want my tax dollars spent this way.

It's clear that terrorism (like crime) will be with us for a while. The best way to contain terrorism is through pro-active intelligence gathering, diligent police work, and strengthening alliances, NOT through wars of attrition. Wars of attrition on distant shores will only serve to destroy our great civilization. Is this what we want for our children?