It this 24/7 news cycle we live in, the pundits are making Obama's and McCain’s choice for vice president the story of the hour. Have you ever told yourself now that the candidate has chosen X, I am ready to vote for he/she for president?  I think the Democrats will vote for their own and the Republicans will do the same, it's those "I came make up my mind” Independents that might consider the vice president as a reason to cast their vote for that candidate. In McCain’s case, if he were to choose pro-choice Tom Ridge, I think the social conservatives would stay home.

Conventional wisdom tells us that candidate must first choose someone they are comfortable with, satisfy it’s needs like a state or excellent credentials in foreign or domestic matters.  They must do no harm.  Personally, I wish the candidates would let the public know the makeup of their cabinet prior to the election.  Now they would let the voters know exactly the direction the candidate wants to take this country. If the cabinet was filled with old hands, then it would be a status quo, if a mixture was used, then a message of diversity would be delivered, if it contained a lot of non-Washington types; the candidate wants to throw out the old and bring in the new.  The latter would never get below 55% in the risk factor.

The pundits have narrowed it down to Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia, Senators Evan Bayh and Joe Biden for the Democrats. Those same pundits think Obama will choose Tim Kaine, because he has supported Obama since the very start, he is 50 years old, not from Washington, Catholic, pro-gun ,pro-life, speaks fluent Spanish, and they think he can deliver Virginia.  On the Republican side, the short list has Mitt Romney, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Washington insider Rob Portman and dark horse, former head of Homeland security Tom Ridge.  If it comes down to Pawlenty and Bayh, you want avoid that debate, unless you have trouble sleeping at night.  Now Biden and Romney would be worth watching.

I always hear the pundits say no one makes their choice based on the vice president.  I can see a scenario where the 18 million voters that voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, or the Ron Paul supporters being swayed’ if their first choice for president was on the ticket.  Like every presidential election, there are those that say they will vote for the lesser of the two evils, I disagree, and I think this presidential election will break all voting records.

I am very interested in what my fellow Victorians think.

Yesterday Scott McClellan (former press secretary for the Bush administration) told Chris Matthews (host of MSNBC “Hardball”) that the White House would routinely send talking points to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.  A lot of people would just shrug their shoulders, and say “I’m not surprised."  I usually need some sort of evidence, and now Scott McClellan has come forward.  During Scooter Libby trial, we learned that Cheney and Libby used Judith Miller (former columnist for the New York Times) to print propaganda in the lead up to the Iraq war.

Why is this important?  Two reasons (a) Fox is issued an FCC license and is against the law to use the medium to spread propaganda(b)I understand all news outlets would  love to get the first scoop,but  if that scoop continues to be lies, then that news outlet is a carrier of propaganda.  Fox News is a successful organization, because it has a lot of viewers.  A different slant on the news is perfectly normal, but to lie to your audience on purpose, is another.  I know, right leaning blogs like Drudge, Newsmax, and Towntalk provide talking points for many of the right wing talk shows, but that information is just slanted version of the facts.  The left-wing blogs do the same thing.  The administration should only give the news outlets their version of the facts or a no comment, but in no circumstances should they use a news outlet to spread propaganda.  That is against the law.  Yesterday, John McCain said the administration was telling the American people that we were winning in Iraq, but the facts on the ground showed they were lying.  Think back to envision O'Reilly and Hannity Rush Laura Ingram and others repeating the administration's talking points they were fed that morning.

It was hilarious watching Laura Ingram describe Obama’s European trip as something being directed by Steven Spielberg, then an hour later, hear Hannity use the same exact words to describe the trip. I guess it was a left-handed compliment.  At one point, Laura said the Socialist Germans loved Obama, because  he was one of them; in the very next sentence, she said.  Germany is conservative, because of Chancellor Merkel.  Can’t have it both ways are Laura.

It's a shame the mainstream media will not use Scott McClellan statements to expose Fox news and the willing participants, because it is presumed to be old news.  Everyone knows that. I guess the fact that it wrong and illegal does not matter.

According to a Fox poll 67% of Americans think the media is in the tank for Barack Obama.  The fact that all the major networks sent their anchors to cover the Obama trip just reinforced what the McCain camp and his followers thought all along.  John McCain's trip to Iraq was on military aircraft, and he did not invite the press, but don't let that the trivia change the facts for the Conservatives. Why would ABC stay back to cover John McCain, while its competitors are reaping the benefits of covering the Obama trip.  It's all about the profits.  John McCain should have just taken a hit, rest up and go after Obama when he came back. All the whining and nitpicking did not do his campaign any good.

It was really funny hearing that Senator Barack Obama had no business talking to 200,000 Germans.  How dare he.  Some conservative commentators compared it to a Hitler speech.  They failed to see the small American flags, the Germans were waving.  That was one of the intentions of the speech; unite with us Germany, together we can defeat our new enemy.  Where is the rule that states a senator running for the president of the United States cannot address people overseas giving them his vision, goals ,and ideas for what his presidency might look like?  Prior to going overseas, Barack Obama said we have only one president at a time.  I don't remember the mainstream media questioning John McCain right to speak in Canada, Colombia or Mexico.  The media wondered why he was wasting his time going there.

Mainstream media hates bad press, so I'm sure they're going to overcompensate by giving John McCain a lot more coverage.  That's fine, because a fair-minded person should have figured out that (a) Barack Obama is a new kid on the block, brings excitement, and gives an awesome speech (b) Well, John McCain is John McCain.

According to a recent Washington Post poll  75% of  American voters believe that John McCain would be a good commander in chief, while only 45% believed Barack Obama would be.  That same poll revealed that by a 30% margin that Barack Obama is better suited to restore our relations with our European allies. The Obama camp knew three term senator, with no military experience, would not win the foreign-policy issue with the decorated military experienced Senator Jon McCain. I am not so sure that is a given.

Out of nowhere, Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki said Obama’s 16 month timeline was reasonable plus or minus a few months, according to a German magazine.  The Bush administration went into a full disclaimer mode, saying the prime minister was misquoted.  The New York Times printed the exact quote, showing Maliki was not misquoted.  Another news organization showed a clip with the Maliki translator repeating the timeline quote.  The Bush administration countered with a “general time horizon.” Translation: Time line spelled differently, leaving John McCain out in the cold, with his long-term commitment.  Andrea Mitchell of NBC news is reporting that General Petraeus and Barack Obama (or someone from his delegation) having a shouting match on the timeline issue.  To be continued.

The McCain camp first urged and goaded Obama to go to Iraq, but John McCain wanted to be to be the tour guide.  Obama politely declined, because he wanted Senator Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel to be his advisers on this trip.  So far this trip has backfired for John McCain, because he was greeted warmly by the military and the unexpected gifts by the Iraqi prime minister and the Bush administration.

The media have given the foreign-policy guru award to John McCain, because he's had so many trips overseas, and has voted on so many foreign-policy matters. I'll accept that, but I would offer sports analogy to describe my skepticism.  Sometimes that 48^th round draft pick will beat out that all-American higher-priced first-round pick, when they are put on the same field, with nothing but talent separating them.  It was not Obama who recently said Iraq borders Pakistan, It was not Obama who confused the Sunni and Shia, or that thinks Czechoslovakia is still a country.

Those on the right like to call Barack Obama a naïve idealist when it comes to foreign policy, but it was Obama who put the importance of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in Pakistan over year ago? It was not John McCain. The McCain followers like to say that Obama’s recent trip to Iraq would not have been possible if it not for John McCain’s surge.  They are quick to point out that Obama voted against the surge.  Barack Obama voted against escalation of the war, and he had the judgment against this war in the first place.  He voted against more money and more lives being lost in this mission.  The surge did help bring down the violence in Baghdad but so did a lot of other factors.

1) The 2006 elections allowed George Bush to throw Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld under the bus.

2) The administration's back was against the wall, and had to change course.

3) Iraqi Shi'ite leader Sayed Moqtada al-Sadar exited to Iran as US troops started coming in.

4) Ethnic cleansing caused over 2 million Iraqis to flee the country.

5) The Iraqi Sunnis finally woke up to the fact that Al Qaeda was not their friend.

Barack Obama may just be that true realist when it comes to foreign policy.

Yesterday, John McCain's communication director told MSNBC that Obama’s trip was just a a campaign rally.  I guess that's what the GOP contenders thought when John McCain made a trip to Iraq during the campaign.

 Fact-finding or photo op; this trip will be huge, and with all three network anchors reporting and interviewing Barack Obama at each stop.  John McCain should have saved his Colombian trip, because no one will hear from him at home, during this time.

The pundits have already set up all different kinds of scenarios like the tug-of-war between the Palestinian leader and the Jewish leaders for Barack Obama’s attention.  They hinted that the German chancellor Angela Markel and France's President Nicholas Sarkozy would not be friendly to Obama, because of their alliance with Bush. Are you kidding me? They're still politicians. Pat Buchanan said Petraeus might take advantage of the situation, and hold a news conference, letting all know that a 16 month withdrawal would lose all our gains from the surge.  He may be a general, but I don't think he’s that bold.  It's not like he deviated from the administration talking points when he testified before Congress.

Quite naturally, the McCain camp will not like all the attention Obama will be getting.  Especially, if he draws large, approving, cheering crowds in Europe.  An enthusiastic military reception for Obama will not be to McCain’s liking.

I will tune in, because I will be anxious to see how Barack Obama performs on the world stage.  I hope he gives an evenhanded speech embracing them as an ally, but reminding them how our country stepped up for them in their time of need.  He must emphasize the need of the countries support in Afghanistan.

The two presidential candidates have been going back and forth with fruitless ideas to fix the economy for quite some time.  There is nothing the candidates can do about gas prices, Fannie and Freddie, or the GMC layoffs.  I know the economy is the number one issue, but long-term ideas are one thing, and short-term fixes are another, which only the market and Congress can straighten out.

Today, only 16% of Americans think the Iraq war is a significant issue.  Personally, I think the surge has lulled them to sleep.  Yesterday, Barack Obama surprised me with his with his plan for Iraq and Afghanistan.  He does not have to go to Iraq to talk to General Petraeus because he has great resources right here home like Colin Powell, General Clark, and Senators Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed.  His upcoming foreign policy tour will include Iraq where he will speak and listen to Ambassador Crocker, General Petraeus, other commanders, and Iraqi officials.  He then is able to weigh the pros and cons on the positions he holds today.

Barack Obams’s Plan

·         First he is making it perfectly clear.  Iraq is not the central front on fighting terrorism.

Al Qaeda is based in the Northwest region of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan.

·         He will begin a reasonable withdrawl from Iraq and put the burden on the Iraqis to secure the country.  Up to two brigades, a month.

·         The withdrawn troops will redeploy to Afghanistan where they are desperately needed.

·         As president he will make nuclear proliferation a priority, taking the loose nukes off the market.

·         He will take the extra step to restore our relations with our former terror fighting allies.

Recently, the numbers of casualties in Afghanistan have outnumbered the ones in Iraq.  This caused John McCain to see Obama's two brigades, and one up him, calling for three brigades to redeploy to Iraq.  Huge difference, John McCain has yet to say where he would get his troops from.  After all he does have a long-range commitment to Iraq.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy trip is not without risk.  Pay close attention to see how well he has been briefed, and his delivery. Every word will be scrutinized.

We are finally having the Iraq debate; we should've had before the invasion.

Strangers are always coming up  my wife and I asking us how we like our Toyota Prius. I never get to answer, because my wife practically jumps in front of me (face all lit up), eagerly telling them it was her choice to buy the Prius.

 It was her first and only choice, when she saw the style of the car and the gas mileage rating.  I was reluctant to trade in my Dodge Dakota, because I just knew I would get some use out that truck bed someday,and since I am retired I couldn't’t continue to use the “I need a high water vehicle” line anymore ,now we can just wait until it stops raining and the water goes down.  After the salesman showed her the great hide-away compartment in the back , with a curtain to hide your purchases, I just knew making a return trip to Killebrew and the other car dealers was going to be useless.  The $30,000 was a little steep for the #5 option (GPS, backup camera, and electronic road stabilizing control) considering the salesman said he couldn't get one for six months. I almost had her considering looking at a new Dakota, but I started calling around, and I found a salesman that actually had a Prius in Corpus Christi.  The salesman actually had six on the lot with “Sold” on the window. The salesman told me it was a tactic they used to get around giving up their hot sellers.

One year nine months later, and I have stopped saying “We could be riding in a Dakota.” The car is still small, but I have adjusted to driving at knee high level.  That was hard.  The 41 mpg in town and the 47 mpg on the road are not the only pluses.  We're getting ready to go to Chicago for a one-week vacation in August and I calculated that we will use 73 gallons at about $4.50 a gallon ,totaling $328.50,not bad ;ask any trucker.  For old geezers like me, that large digital speedometer on the left side of the dashboard is a must, and that GPS system has saved our marriage more than once.  Oh, did I mention the $1575 income tax credit for buying an energy efficient car at that time. 

The Toyota comes with an eight-year battery with a replacement cost of $5,000. Someone is going to get a good deal on a used Prius in year seven.

The old straight shooter of the 2000 campaign is now controlled message McCain.

New campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, carefully screens reporters that board the “Straight Talk Express private jet.  Journalists that ask those pesky questions McCain does not feel comfortable talking about (like the economy) will not get access to the nominee.  What self respected journalist would board that plane?  Can you imagine them bragging to their colleagues. "I'm one of the chosen few.”  There's a price to pay for that type of journalist, ask former New York Times columnist Judith Miller. Today ,CNN was allowed to carry a 10 minute live press conference with John McCain ,but his assigned press pool(the ones with the questions) were conveniently 27 miles away unaware of the press conference.  These are the same tactics, the Bush administration, was using prior to the invasion of Iraq. Selective coverage.

Another tactic being used is a staged audience without protesters. Yesterday an elderly librarian was ticketed for carrying a McCain=Bush sign… She was told she would be arrested if she came back again. Now, Bush and McCain are both Republicans, so how is that a protest sign?I remember the questions Bush used to get at these controlled events,if it was not so laughable ;it would have been be sicking.

Most campaigns use a first-come first-served, when dealing with call-in journalist, not the McCain campaign, conference calls will be screened for questions much like the Rush Limbaugh show or the president’s daily press conference.

This not the maverick John McCain ,I admired in 2000.

You might come away with that assumption if you had watched any of the Sunday talk shows.  The John McCain campaign was in full force spreading the message “the surge worked." It started on Fox news Sunday, with Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes long range chastising of Barak Obama and the Democratic Party for waving the flag of surrender prematurely.  The two continued to praise John McCain for his call for more troops (surge) against the wishes of the administration and his own party.  They continued to exaggerate all the gains of the surge, as a reason for making John McCain.  Commander in chief.  Whoa, didn't John McCain support the initial evasion of Iraq?  The surge was a last-ditch effort to reduce the violence, so the central government could put together some kind of political resolution?  The surge was benefited when the Sunni decided to join forces to rid themselves of two enemies, the Shiite militia and Al Qaeda in Iraq.  A classic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  The article, "Ray of Hope" by Trudy Rubin in today's Advocate describes the way; Baghdad was stabilized.  Mara Liasson (NPR correspondent) told Fred Barnes, the Democrats will counter with "If the surge was a complete success lets start withdrawing and start reinforcing our troops in Afghanistan."  Fred Barnes said that the  oil-producing Iraq is so much better than Afghanistan, because Afghanistan is in the middle of nowhere. If we are going to colonize Iraq, then Mr. Barnes’s stupid response might have made some sense.  We need to stop the Talibans effort to regroup and overtake Afghanistan, because if we don't Al Qaeda (the ones that actually attacked us) will have another country for its base operations.  Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen said additional troops were needed in Afghanistan, but too many were tied down in Iraq to send more.

ABC Sunday with George Stephanopoulos had more of the same with Joe Lieberman repeating the same talking points, but he added the additional message of openness to an Israeli air strike on Iran.

The moderators did not ask, nor was the question of funding ever brought up.  The McCain surrogates were never asked about our overstretched military, the demand of more effort from the Iraqis, or the fact that we are using a new spy satellite to keep an eye on the Iraqi army, because we do not trust them.

Remember that "fool me once " ,because YESTERDAY  a new wave of attacks in Baghdad killed 16 and injured 15 ,even  thou Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government had defeated terrorism in Iraq. He wants us out of of Iraq so they can install his cabinet and renew his relations with Iran. Right now,we're the glue is told in all this together,but eventually we have to make a safe withdrawal,because we have commitments elsewhere. Al Qaeda is planning the next attack, without regard of our commitment to Iraq.  

The recent US Iraq security pact might have a UN mandate for a timetable for withdrawal.  After all, Iraq is a sovereign country. Or is it?

4114 American troops have been killed and 29,978 have been injured in this war of choice,with no end in sight.

The recent issue of Times had an interesting article titled “The New Patriotism” by Richard Stengel.  The author said patriotism has always been the most abstract of American values.  Conservatives and liberals have been arguing the definition of patriotism for years, even in our local forum.  Republicans say that they hold that mantel; accusing the Democrats of being ashamed of America.  Democrats say Republicans wrap themselves around the flag and prevent America from living up to its ideals.  Of course both sides exaggerate their stance.  We should accept our country's greatness, but we must realize what it takes to create and sustain greatness.  Torture, civil liberties, and habeas corpus come to mind.

The flag pin is considered to be symbolism by liberals, but that could be the difference between winning and losing an election.  Perception matters and conservatives know that.

The author went onto say, conservatives’ grade on a curb when it comes to evaluating America.  They know America has its faults, but they compare us to other nations, and they feel like we are the still the greatest.  Liberals like to accept the fault, correct, and become better for it.  Conservatives continue to follow the Reagan "Morning in America"  theme with the image of a paperboy running his route, the mother watching her daughter get married in church ,and  the elder gentleman hoisting up an American flag.  Liberals do not want America to rest on its laurels.

Liberals and conservatives look at handling terrorism differently. If some terrorist were to bomb the downtown Wells Fargo building, conservatives would be content to send them to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite harsh interrogation. Liberals have full confidence in our justice system.

Today's discussion is on the non-action of the Harris County grand jury against Joe Horn.  I believe Jonathan Turley of CNN had it right when he said “If you live in a rural area, you're likely to side with Joe Horn and against him, if you're from a big city.”  I was born and raised in continue to live in rural Victoria, but at heart; I'm a big city slicker.  In this issue, conservatives are usually pro-law enforcement, but are more self-reliant, when it comes to home intrusions.  They want to put the bad guy away. Liberals will dial 9-1-1.

I wonder if we will ever become,a give-and-take, or continue fighting the same old battles.