Palin's the pick

Sarah Palin is the pick to run with John McCain. As I was talking to people who were asking my opinion over the past few weeks on who it would be, my money was on either Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty. I always guessed the third choice to be Sarah Palin, but more of a longshot bet. I also lumped Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman in there as well, but their pro-choice stances made them even longer shots. Although I did hear that Lieberman would have been the choice had the "trial balloon" sent out by his campaign a few weeks ago hadn't have been shot down by all of the conservative big wigs.

So, here is my take on Palin, starting with the questions/counters:

• Question: Her limited time in government can be a concern. With less than 2 years as an executive of the State of Alaska, her national resume is fairly thin. One of the issues is the ability to step in and be president if needed. That may cause concern, as 25% polled over the past 24 hours believe she would be ready.
  
• Counter: Barack Obama, running at the top of his ticket, has about the same amount of experience as Palin. In reality, Obama has been running for President a year and a half into his first term as Senator. Plus, he's at the top of his ticket, Palin is #2. So although the experience thing might be somewhat muted for the McCain camp in choosing Palin, it doesn't totally dissuade the argument, as Obama is just as green as Palin.
• Question: Usually one of the top 3 or 4 reasons on selecting a mate is if they would help carry a particular state, usually their own. Well, there were some Alaska polls that had it fairly close for Obama and a state we was planning on putting money into. Even with the tide rolling against the GOP, I believe McCain would be safe in AK, even if Palin wasn't on the ticket, just makes it more of a slam dunk for those 3 EV (Electoral Votes).
  
• Counter: Although she will ensure an already red state for McCain, she may add some extra might to over Western states. This includes Colorado. We have a huge conservative base here, primarily in the Colorado Springs area. With this, it will get many social conservatives extra momentum to try to help the GOP carry this state. Having the influential James Dobson fully on board now, only helps. Also, if you look at Rust belt states as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. her credentials as a card carrying NRA and hockey Mom only plays into this region.
• Question: The debate poses a question for the VP's. Biden is an experienced, fiesty debater. Many in the beltway believe that Biden will walk over Palin the way Gore was supposed to (and never did) walk over W in 2000.
• Counter: Palin is a fighter. She won't let someone outdo her. Plus, she will look great on TV. She can't be cornered as a partisan, being that she has beat back the GOP corrupt establishment in Alaska. Also, if Biden looks to be the know it all (think the first debate between Gore and W in 00), he will look like the class bully. Also, Palin looks MUCH better than Biden on TV. If you don't think this counts, you're fooling yourself.
• Question: Without experience on the national scene, will it overwhelm her? Will there be a freudian slip? Who Knows?
• Counter: This is a big question that nobody knows. Of course, Biden is the master at slipups and gaffes.
  

Now, here's some reasons why I really like the pick:

• Revs up the base. With a pro-life, NRA, economic conservative (taxes, wasteful spending), support of our military, she has the full backing of all conservatives that really matter. Think Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Dobson, Krauthammer, Kristol, Levin. Think Rush and his 20+ million listeners a week don't matter? Remember Bush's plan for wanting Harriet Myers as his SC nominee, or his Immigration policy? These conservative thinkers helped make these Bush decisions very unpopular and helped defeat them on arrival.
• Maybe dent the Woman vote that went for Hillary. We aren't expecting much, but don't need much. The most recent poll (taken before the Palin pick), said 52% of Hillary backers are now on board with Obama, 21-25% with McCain, and the rest are undecided or won't vote. Now, there have been 3 or four polls that I can think of that had these similar numbers (Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Fox News, Gallup). Even if McCain gets 10-15%, that might be enough to swing the election in his favor. Remember, Reagan was the last person to get many of these conservative democrats. He didn't need much to make it a 49-1 state massacre of Mondale.
  
• Adds real reform to McCain's agenda. McCain has been known as a reformer to many. He hates wasteful government spending, even in his days in the House. In fact, he voted against the first Bush tax cuts in protest of all of the wasteful spending. Adding Palin, who is best known as someone who takes on the establishment, brandishes McCain as very serious in wanting to really change things up in Washington. Palin took on corruption in the House and Senate (Don Young and Ted Stevens), challenged, as Commissioner of Ethics of Oil and Gas in Alaska, the Republican corruption. And on it goes....
• Piggy-backing on the last point, she is not partisan. Conservative yes, partisan, no. America will love this if she sells it correctly.
  
• She is pro-life. Can anything be more important than this? Over 90% of babies who will have Down Syndrome, get killed in the womb. Well, she is one of the 10%. God bless her. In an election where you have a candidate as radical as they come (see earlier posts on Obama's abortion positions), there is clear distinction here. I like Giuliani, but always thought it would be tough to pull the lever for him if he were the GOP nominee. Even against Obama. That's how strongly I believe this issue is to me.
  
• Palin is not boring. The beltway consensus was that Pawlenty would have been a "boring" pick. Safe, but boring. To a lesser extent, same for Romney ( I disagree with that assessment, as I liked Romney a great deal). But Palin was a sexy pick. Just as Bobby Jindal would have been. New to the scene, having new ideas, etc.
  

A final, non-partisan thought on the two VP picks:

McCain's camp has spent so much time ripping Obama as not ready, too thinly experienced, etc. Now they choose someone with probably the least experience of them all. And Obama picks someone with experience.

Obama hits McCain on policies of old, no change. Now McCain picks someone with change truly in her arsenal, someone fresh who Obama says he is. And yet, Obama chooses someone of old, experienced politics as usual in Biden.


These are just thoughts off the top of my head. More to come as time goes on. We'll see if this is a good pick or not.

Isn't it ironic?

I didn't allow myself to watch much of the DNC convention this week. Thank heavens it is over. Now it's the big boys turn next week Anyway, something I noticed over the little I watched and articles I read....

If you notice the two biggest attack dogs this week on McCain?

They were recycled failed presidential candidates, Joe Biden and John Kerry.

Anyway, in the primaries, Biden argued that he thought John McCain would make a very good commander in chief. In fact, he wouldn't dismiss the idea of possibly serving with someone like McCain.

Back in 2004, it was widely known in political circles that Kerry confronted McCain about joining his ticket.

So isn't it ironic that these two now HAPPEN to see the light? What lying panderers they are. It's politics, but give me a break. How can someone be good enough to serve with you, but not Obama?

Obama's oratory flubs

Funny guy with those flubs (McCain gets murdered for flubs as being old and senile)…

• Said his birth was inspired by civil rights events that took place four years later. (He later clarified his dates didn’t match)

• Claimed to be campaigning hard in about 57 states, and had a couple more to go.
• Said his uncle help liberate Concentration Camps in Auschwitz, Poland. (Russia did, not the US.)
• Memorial Day speech saying America’s fallen heroes were present and listening to him in the audience.
• Says McCain wants war in Iraq for 100 years. Besides being a lie, there’s nothing wrong with this statement. McCain actually said as long as nobody is dying and they are safe, we should keep an unlimited presence there. Just like Japan, Germany, France, etc. after wars.
• "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.
  The death toll was 12.

Obama and terrorist William Ayers

According to Campaign Manger David Axelrod, Obama has a "friendly relationship" with unrepented Chicago terrorist William Ayers. Ayers and his wife were a part of the Weatherman Underground Terrorist Organization in the 60's. On September 11, 2001 of all days, Ayers wrote in the NYT that he is unrepented of bombing Capital buildings, the Pentagon, etc. and it fact, "wished we would have done more."

Now here's some facts-

• Ayers was one of the original grantees of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform organization in the 1990s, and was co-chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one the two operational arms of the CAC. Obama, then not yet a state senator, became chairman of the CAC in 1995.
• Later in that year, the first organizing meeting for Obama's state Senate campaign was held in Ayers's apartment.
• Served on a board with Ayers and gave speeches together.
• Obama says that Ayers "is just a guy who lives in the neighborhood." Yeah, whatever Obama.

I, in no way think that Obama approves of Ayers radical actions in the past. As Obama correctly stated, he was a little one when all of this happened. The whole point is, what in the world is ANYBODY doing being associated with this A-hole, much less somebody who wants to be our President?

Nobody can convince me that this doesn't matter. Obama's judgment is sorely lacking in many areas, look no further than his associations.

Giants' Osi Umenyiora out for season

Wow, terrible news for the Giants. We lose arguably our most dominate player for the year. This, added with the loss of retired Michael Strahan, will hurt. This reminds me of the 1998 preseason when Jason Sehorn was lost for the year against the Jets. Too many preseason games. They should stick to two, as we see so many devastating injuries to great players every year.

Ugh! I think this might be a long season for my Giants. The last two times we made it to the Super Bowl, we had bad follow up years. We'll see how it goes. If it goes bad, I'll watch this years Super Bowl win over and over to make me feel better.

Issues with President Bush

As much as I've supported President Bush, I do question some of his moves that has hurt the conservative movement:

• Bad at communication. As good as Reagan was, Bush is just the opposite. Despite all the negatives on the Iraq war, why can't he successfully explain his positions? And now that the war looks successful, why shouldn't he be shouting this from the rooftops? Maybe he has and the MSM is more in the liberal tank than we thought. Even so, whenever Bush has a good idea, he's failed to convince the American public. Even Clinton did a great job of explaining his reasoning, even unpopular decisions. That's part of being a president, and that's a big reason in my opinion why so many don't favor him in a good light.
• His Small government mantra went by the wayside a long time ago. Convervatism is largely about the government not intruding on our everyday lives. Instead, out of control spending and the inability to cut unneeded programs have hurt his conservative legacy.
• The nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. Although she passed when under pressure, what on earth was Bush doing nominating her? Seriously, what a joke. There were so many obvious great constitutional thinkers that we KNEW weren't pro abortion, why couldn't he have seen this from the start? Oh well, at least he still got in two great justices, unlike his dad.
• Same as above for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Just seeing him speak and explain himself, I cringed. Someone as obvious and well liked as Orrin Hatch would have been a great pick.
• The amnesty of the illegal immigrants issue. Enough said. Does he now realize this issue is important to many Americans?

What is Change?

We all know that Obama is about change, but what kind of change? I've seen several people interview him on this, and here's what I get from what he says-

" To rise above party politics. To change the way people see Washington. To fix a broken Washington. To allow people to once again have hope in their leaders."

• The part about him rising above party politics is so very laughable. Why don't Democrats see this? Isn't it obvious? This man is a party line liberal voter. When has he ever sided with Republicans on ANY controversial issue? Just hasn't happened. Try a 97% party line voter, named most liberal senator by non-partisan National Journal. And don't be fooled by those 3% that they are any issues controversial.
• Is his change being in bed with: NARAL Pro choice, Planned Parenthood, Environmental groups, Unions, Peace groups, trial Lawyer issues, etc. Has anybody heard him stand up to ANY of these liberal groups? Obama abides by the "don't bite the hand that feeds you" notion.
• He attacks President Bush, McCain, and the "right wing attack jobs" just like any other politician.
• I guess his change is someone trying to run for president who has NO experience. Look: Here is Obama's résumé: an Ivy League law degree, a few years of community organizing, seven years in the Illinois senate, three and a half years as a U.S. senator. Kind of modest. What has he accomplished in any of those jobs? Not much, not much at all.

Links to check out on Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOdysANCQUM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHnVZpA69j0&feature=related

Obama and Abortion

Continuing from my last post, here's some not so fun facts about Obama and the abortion issue:

1. When Obama said abortions haven't gone down over the last 8 years with a pro-life president, Obama flat out lied. Here's the facts- http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html . At least Obama is not alone in this flat out lie, Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton spewed these lies as well. Birds in a feather flock together, liberals?
2. Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act- When an abortion goes wrong and the child survives, he doesn’t want medicine so the baby can’t feel the pain. This, Obama concedes, would be admitting that it’s a child, not a fetus.
   Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed legislation that would protect babies born alive in botched abortion attempts. He explained, “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
3. Obama says he doesn’t want his daughters “punished” by a baby if they make a mistake.
4. In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter, which actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and that the ‘so-called’ partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.
5. Voted no on notifying parents of minors having out of state abortions.
6. Supports Partial Birth Abortion act, just as his wife does above. Here's the gruesome procedure: Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps;The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal; The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head; The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole; The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

Personal note: Sorry about the details on Partial Birth Abortion, but if the story isn't told, people won't know what really happens in this barbaric procedure.

Abortion

As a Christian, the most important issue for me has always been abortion. I just have absolutely NO respect for those who believe it's the "right" of a women to kill her baby, all in the name of choice.

What peeves me even more so is the fact that Christians and Catholics think that abortion is acceptable. The list goes on- Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Arnold, Obama, Hillary, etc. For those who are catholics, do they not heed to what the pope or their clergy say? Does it not matter? Many of them state their beliefs in the name of the Bible or their faith (poverty, environment), but when it comes to abortion, most of them say it's not their right to decide even if they personally disagree with this barbaric act. What backbone these leaders have. So pathetic, they don't deserve the high office they serve in.

Barack Obama is trying desperately to appeal to social conservatives to try to peel some of them away from McCain, by citing scriptures. Well, does he only insight the scripture that benefits his agenda? Does he not read Psalm 139 13-16? It reads, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful. I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body, All the days ordained for me were written in your book before on of them came to be." Or Jeremiah 1:5- "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born, I set you apart." How clear can this be? Apparently not clear enough that has the full backing and support of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

I'd at least say, ok, your opinion is different if Obama wouldn't equivicate like he did at Saddleback when asked about abortion. The fact is, he has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. A 0% rating from The National Right to Life Organization. He supports the partial birth abortion act, opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, etc. And his response to Rick Warren's question about when does babies have human rights, “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.”

Maybe the position of being president is above his pay grade as well??

Politico.com reported yesterday that 75 percent of Americans believe that John McCain can “handle the job of commander in chief.” Only 50 percent feel the same about Obama. A whopping 42 percent told pollsters they believe Obama is simply not up to the task.

Here's a great article on Democrats problem with Abortion, no less by Newsweek.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/155564/output/print

McCain waxes Obama at Saddleback Showdown

Wow, what a display put on by McCain on Saturday night at the Saddleback Showdown. I have never seen McCain perform so well at any event. His answers were quick, direct, and decisive. He did not equivicate on anything. He showed backbone in everything he talked about, including an issue he changed over the past few years, drilling.

Here's a few thoughts:

• McCain believes that life begins at conception, no exceptions.
• He believes in lower taxes for everyone, no wealth redistribution.
• He believes in Health Care free market solutions, giving a 7K credit to families to find our own healthcare.
• He believes in finishing the job in Iraq and actually......................winning!
• He explained his most difficult choice of his life was not leaving the Vietnamese prison camp, because of code of honor. Instead endured 3 more years of torture and pain.
• He now supports more domestic and offshore drilling for econonic (supply and demand) reasons, and security (not relying on rogue nations for oil) reasons.

Compared to Obama's equivications, overexplaining his answers, and trying to minimize his admitted unpopular decisions.

• He's not sure when life begins, he believes it's "above his pay grade". Perhaps he should read Psalm 139, or Jeremiah 1:6, then he'll know what the Bible says about this.
• He believes in raising taxes, mainly on small businesses, doubling capital gains and dividends tax, etc, etc, etc.
• Believes in government run healthcare. Hello more taxes, government bureacracy, waiting in lines for 8 hours. Plus, estimates say we'd need so many more doctors and nurses, we don't have them available.
• He believes in leaving Iraq in 16 months, no matter that we're winning and forming a democracy in the middle East. Apparently he knows more than General David Petraeus.
• Obama's most difficult choice was giving a speech against the war in Iraq when the war was popular. This as a state senator, where he had NO vote on the war itself. Wow, what an extraordinary courage!!
• He's against all drilling. I guess he'd rather pay $700 billion to foreign, many rogue countries for our oil.

Smart part of Hollywood

Those in Hollywood who are conservative/Republican supportors:

• Kelsey Grammer
• Jon Voight
• James Woods
• Gary Oldman
• Dennis Hopper
• Clint Eastwood
• Slyvestor Stallone
• Sarah Michelle Gellar
• David Zucker (Naked Gun, Airplane creator)
• Jerry Bruckheimer
• Joel Surnow (24 creator)
• Patricia Heaton
• Gary Sinise
• Jim Caveizel
• Freddie Prinz
• Adam Sandler
• Kevin James
• Angie Harmon
• Pat Sajak
• Jason Priestly
• Robert Duvall
• Jaclyn Smith
• Jeff Foxworthy
• Merv Griffin
• Sammy Hagar
• Bob Hope
• Wayne Newton
• Chuck Norris
• John O'Hurley
• Rick Shroder
• Jon Cryer
• Craig T. Nelson
• Lionel Chetwynd

Republican Athletes

It's always fun to know the people who actually think, in our athletic world. This is a list of Republican donors, mainly Bush, McCain, RNC, Romney, etc:

• Brent Jones
• George Brett
• Troy Aikman
• Vin Scully
• Jack Buck
• Bobby Bowden
• Mike Ditka
• Al Michaels
• Dan Dierforf
• Jim Nance
• Boomer Esiason
• Greg Norman
• Cylde Drexler
• John Elway
• Peyton Manning
• Raymond Floyd
• Dale Earnhardt
• Joe Gibbs
• Jeff Gordon
• Phil Garner
• Keith Hernandez
• Peter Jacobson
• Jim Kelly
• Davis Love
• Karl Malone
• Dan Marino
• Jack Nicklaus
• Mark O’Meara
• Lute Olson
• Roger Penske
• Byron Nelson
• Lou Piniella
• A Rod
• Curt Schilling
• Jason Sehorn
• Mike Shanahan
• John Smoltz
• Pat Summerall
• Lynn Swann
• Bobby Valentine
• Steve Young
• Kristi Yamaguchi
• Lanny Wadkins
• Jeff Burton
• Kurt Busch
• Ernie Banks
• Carlos Beltran
• Craig Biggio
• Adam Dunn
• Matt Hasselbeck
• Bernie Kosar
• Mary Lou Retten
• Roger Staubach
• Chris Spielman
• Keri Strug
• Bob Feller
• Steve Largent
• Danny Ainge
• Mario Andretti
• John Andretti
• Paul Azinger
• John Madden
• Tom Glavine
• Roger Clemens
• Johnny Bench
• Steve Carlton
• Gary Carter
• Jeff Kent
• Mike Piazza
• Cal Ripken Jr.
• Brooks Robinson
• Tommy Lasorda
• Carlton Fisk
• Al Leiter
• Dale Murphy
• Mark McGwire
• Dennis Eckersley
• Donny Baseball
• Ted Williams
• Joe Paterno
• Tom Osborne
• Ben Crenshaw
• Chris Evert
• Ozzie Smith
• Joe Torre
• Dave Winfield
• Barry Zito
• Greg Anthony
• Bob Cousy
• John Havlicek
• David Robinson
• Brett Favre
• Jack Kemp
• Lou Holtz
• Bart Starr
• John Lynch
• Joe Theismann
• Reggie White
• Arnold Palmer
• Gale Sayers
• Harmon Killebrew
• Bo Jackson
  

More on Democrats Energy

Why was it absolutely the worst thing for country to drill, but now Mr. Obama now thinks it's ok, as long as it's a part of a comprehensive strategy. Well Mr. Obama, welcome to the 21st Century, and nice of you to join the 70% of Americans who want more domestic drilling.

Nonetheless, Madam Speaker of the Do Nothing House, Pelosi will still NOT allow voting on drilling. Her response- "I want to save the planet." Wow, what a bunch of BS. Even though the majority of Americans want it, she won't even allow it to be debated and voted on. Sounds like somebody's scared that she'll be in the minority on this one.

Since oil speculators are who Democrats have their sights set on, we can solve that one simple way. Well two ways, but one was already done:

• To lift the ban on offshore drilling. Bush did that, and within 3 days, oil went down 15 bucks.
• If we start drilling, such as on the Outer Continental Shelf, more offshore drilling, Shale, ANWR, whatever, the speculators will see this as a sign that more oil is on the way. This will drive price down.
• Finally, the most basic law of economics. Supply and Demand. If our supply goes up, Demand goes down. Somehow Miss Pelosi and most Democrats don't get this, and would rather save a few Caribou in Alaska, than bring the costs of Energy down.
  

Thought on Obama's Energy checks to consumers

Barack Obama is proposing, as a part of his energy plan, to send out energy checks to consumers for $1,000.

Here's a few issues I have with this:

• Why is Senator Clinton's plan to have a gas tax holiday between Memorial Day and Labor Day called "a gimmick, no real solution" by Obama, when this energy rebate is the same thing. Pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Community Organizer?
• By adding a 'Windfall Tax' to oil companies to pay for this won't solve anything. Even though "sticking it to the oil companies and drug companies" is a nice liberal talking point, they fail to look at the implications:

1. The more oil companies are taxed, the more this gets passed on to the consumer. This is economics 101. If you own a company and your costs rise, of course you will raise your own prices to make up for it.
2. These evil oil companies who are making billions each year are the average American. They are the shareholders in these companies. How many millions of everyday Americans portfolio's would be affected by having our government continuously "stick it" to the oil companies?

Dodgers split with Dbacks

After suffering two heartbreaking 2-1 losses, the Dodgers came back with more life offensively. This in large part should be credited to Manny Ramirez. On Saturday night, Manny hit a 2 run homer in the first inning and went 2-4. On Sunday, Manny put on a clinic and went 4-5, including three separate at bats in which he drove in runs. He had a double and a homer included. With Manny's addition, I've not felt as excited to see a Dodger come up to bat since Mike Piazza was around.

At this point, I'd put an unbiased opinion that the Dodgers have a better than 50-50 chance of winning the division. Currently, we are 1 game back from Arizona. I'd feel even more confident that we win the division if two things happened:

• Rafael Furcal came back from his back surgery sometime in September.
• Andre Ethier gets most of the playing time over Pierre (this won't happen).
  

Energy Policy

It is absolutely insane for our country not to explore more drilling for oil. We have become way too dependent on foreign countries for our oil supply. We send out over 700 Billion dollars last year, many to terrorists or rogue states such as Iran, Venezuela, etc. Instead of getting 75% of our oil from overseas, why don't we drill more to become less dependent?

Against the environmentalists argument for more drilling-

During Hurricane Katrina, there was no oil spills off the Gulf of Mexico. Now if these oil rigs can withstand Mother Nature's best, why do we think the nation with the best technology in the world can't make this happen? With such advancements as directional drilling, the footprint of oil drilling can hardly be noticed.

Maybe the best argument I've heard is if we don't do it with our environmental standards and wonderful technology, someone is going to. Such countries as Russia, Iran, China, will do it anyway with less regard for our environment. So why don't we do it, get ourselves less dependent on foreign oil, spend less money in the long term, and invest on the resources our country has: Oil Shale in Rockies, ANWR, OTC (Outer Continental Shelf), offshore, etc.

I believe with energy prices this high, we need to do it all: drill, continue to invest in alternative energy (solar, wind, etc.), conserve, build more nuclear power plants. Hey, even the French are succeeding with the nuclear power thing.

Getting political:

Polls suggest that better than 2 to 1 believe that we need to expand offshore drilling to ease energy costs.
58% believe drilling in ANWR is the right thing to do.
65% believe drilling in the OTC is the right thing to do.

..... And yet, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't allow this to even come to a vote, citing "Save the Planet" concerns. Give me a break. How pathetic is that? So much for her promise that she'd allow all options to be debated and voted on. So much for the will of the American people.

Dodgers get Manny

The Dodgers picked up Manny Ramirez from the Boston Red Sox. This was an excellent move by Ned Colletti (finally). In exchange, we gave up Andy LaRoche and Bryan Morris. LaRoche was widely known as one of our top minor league prospects but Dodger management was never really enamored by him. Morris, our second 1st round selection in 2006 was out all of last year with Tommy John surgery. His stuff is known to be great, but he's still a couple years away from making the big show.

In addition to picking up one of the best hitters of our time, the Red Sox are paying all of his salary for the rest of the year. Plus, to compensate for the loss of our two prospects, if we don't resign Ramirez, we'll pick up two first round sandwich picks for losing him.

Who knows how this will work long term, but this move was definitely needed. Now, if we can get some of our guys healthy again, our lineup won't look too bad.

My August lineup:

Matt Kemp (CF)
Andre Ethier (RF)
Russell Martin (C)
Manny Ramirez (LF)
Jeff Kent (2B)
James Loney (1B)
Nomar Garciaparra (SS)
Casey Blake (3B)

* Give Pierre starts depending on matchups. I'd start Pierre against tough lefties to give Ethier the day off, and tough righties (Peavy, Webb), to give Kemp's strikeout prone bat a rest. Pierre's can be used as a late inning pinch runner

** Two options with Andruw Jones- Either DFA him and outright to AAA, or use him only as a late inning defensive replacement. Better to cut bait than continuing to give him a spot on the 25 man roster.

*** If we can get Rafael Furcal back in September, that would be a huge lift for us. When healthy, he's our best overall player in my opinion. His absence has killed us these past three months.