Chafee, 55, is a former Republican Senator from Rhode Island. He was defeated in 2006 by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, despite having fairly high job approval ratings.

In the summer of 2007, Chafee left the Republican party and became an Independent. He endorsed Obama in February, a few weeks before the Democratic primary.

As a former Republican and Independent, Chafee could, as the VP candidate, help Obama’s appeal to some Independents and liberal Republicans. And while Chafee would bring some more from the center, he would probably not offend many Liberals, as his voting record is to the left on almost every controversial issue: He was the only Republican to vote against the Iraq war resolution (which 29 Democrats voted for, as opposed to just 21 who voted against), he is a strong supporter of abortion and gay marriage, and he has opposed many of President Bush’s policies and appointments, including Justice Samuel Alito and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Chafee went so far as to consider challenging him in the 2004 primary, and opting to vote for a write-in (George H.W. Bush, the current President’s father), rather than for President Bush.

Having spent over seven years in the Senate, Chafee would bring experience, particularly foreign policy experience, to the ticket and he would be able to do that likely without contradicting Obama’s message, which often emphasizes change and being an outsider to the government, since he is from a different party (change) and because he only spent seven years in the Senate (being a Mayor prior to that), and was then defeated (outsider). His years as Mayor of Warwick give him a small amount of executive experience. At 55, Chafee is a pretty good age, he is not young enough to accentuate problems people might have with Obama’s age, yet he is certainly not too old either.

Chafee does not however, hail from a key geographical area as his home state of Rhode Island, as well as almost every state close to it, should be easily carried by Obama (I do think that the value of having a VP candidate from a swing state is overrated; when was the last time a VP was picked from a crucial swing state?). Also, liberal activists may be a little hesitant since Bush campaigned for Chafee in 2006, and the Republican Senatorial committee spent millions trying to defend him.

One interesting scenario would be if Obama picked Chafee, and McCain picked Senator Joe Lieberman, both of whom came from opposite parties as the Presidential nominees, then switched to Independents and endorsed Obama and McCain, respectively. This scenario seems unlikely, but then again, this election season has been pretty unpredictable....

Some type of agreement is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year’s end. However, many Iraqi lawmakers had criticized the government’s attempt to negotiate a formal status of forces agreement, worried that U.S. demands would threaten the country’s sovereignty.

The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops),” al-Maliki said.

According to Iraqi national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

The U.S. should get out of Iraq as soon as the Iraqi Government can provide competent security without our help. Regardless of the overall mission achievability, we simply cannot keep sacrificing our brave young men’s lives indefinitely, as well as billions of dollars (or 600 billion, to be exact). Even if it is somewhat chaotic after we leave, we should not overstay our welcome there. Moreover, we should not continue to have a presence in Iraq, if the Iraqi Government wants us to leave. Let’s put it simply: we are currently fighting in Iraq in support of the “new” Iraqi Government. Thus, if the Iraqi Government asks us to leave, should we not leave? After all, is this not the very reason we are fighting? To establish their government as legitimate? To create a “democracy in the Middle East,” in order to, “stabilize the region”? We cannot ask the world to recognize Iraq as sovereign, if we are not willing to do so ourselves.

First off, the Blazers should NOT trade Travis Outlaw. I believe Outlaw (pictured) has All-Star potential, besides being one of the more exciting players and my personal favorite. There have been rumors of a few deals involving Outlaw, and I don’t think any of them would be worth it.

The Blazers have the thirteenth pick as well as three second round picks. I don’t believe that the Blazers need those four rookies in addition to Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez, who will both be rookies next season.

In my opinion, the Blazers should trade using a pick or picks, in addition to a veteran or two, to get a quality point guard. They already have great players (and I think, potential All-Stars) at four positions. They have a few decent Point Guards, but they could use someone with more experience and maybe a little more talent.

I think perhaps they should trade for Kirk Hinrich of the Bulls. The Bulls are expected to take Point Guard Derrick Rose with the first pick, which may cause them to trade Hinrich who is also a Point Guard.

A few Blazers mentioned in trade rumors include Jarrett Jack, Martell Webster, Channing Frye, and Joel Pryzbilla. Leandro Barbosa of the Suns and T.J. Ford of the Raptors have also been mentioned as potentially being traded to the Blazers.

If the Blazers do not trade their pick, a few good potential picks would be Joe Alexander from West Virginia, D.J. Augustin of Texas, Russell Westbrook of UCLA, and Anthony Randolph from Syracuse.

I am anxious to see what GM Kevin Pritchard, who will be the one making most of the decisions, ends up doing. I think he is probably the smartest GM (think back to the 2006 draft, when he got the better of three other teams to get both Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge).

Besides the Blazers, numerous other teams have also been talking about potential trades. I expect a very busy draft night, and will look forward to it!

Draft night coverage begins at 4 PDT on ESPN.

Despite allegations of paying for an abortion for a former girlfriend in 2000, businessman Mike Erickson still managed to win the Republican primary for the open fifth district Congressional seat. Erickson, however, lost the support of Oregon Right to Life, even for the general election, and is not supported by his primary opponent Kevin Mannix, leaving him a weakened candidate against Democrat Kurt Schrader.

Today, the Oregonian had a detailed account of the accusations against Erickson. Reporter Jeff Mapes had this to say on his blog:

“If Republican Mike Erickson were a typical congressional nominee, he’d be under terrific pressure to drop out of the race...

... The Oregonian’s account clears up any lingering doubt about whether there was an abortion and provides further corroborating evidence for the woman’s story. In addition, the woman, who agreed to be identified only by her first name of Tawnya, told the paper that she pointedly asked Erickson if he wanted to have a baby and went ahead with the abortion only after he said no....”

Mapes goes on to explain that Erickson, since he is rich and is willing to self-finance his campaign, can stay in the race and cause problems for Kurt Schrader and the Democrats.

I disagree. Just because Erickson can self-finance his campaign shouldn’t give him a pass on the pressure to get out. To me, it looks like the accusations are true, meaning Erickson lied about it. Also, many social conservatives will be a lot less likely to support him knowing that he once paid for an abortion.

It would not have been such an issue if he would have admitted to it to begin with, saying he had changed his position since then, and apologizing for any harm he had caused.

Erickson SHOULD drop out RIGHT NOW. Republican leaders and others should pressure him to get out. If Republicans want the seat in Congress back, they need an ethical candidate without the amount of baggage Erickson carries. We the people should also pressure Erickson to get out: you can contact Erickson’s campaign at 503-367-5505, or info@ericksonfor congress.com.

There are several good candidates who could replace Erickson, Mannix might be willing to step in, there are three current State Reps who were mentioned before, but who are in their own races now. Fmr. State Rep and radio-show host Jeff Kropf could also be a good candidate if he stepped in. Yes, it would be a challenge for a candidate to win after joining four-and-a-half months from the election, but I think it would be less difficult than it would be for Erickson to win.

I have already emailed Erickson’s campaign. I believe that dropping out would be the best thing for him to do, not only for the good of the party, but for his own good and the good of his family. It will be tough for them to undergo more of this for several months, only to see him lose in November.

Despite allegations of paying for an abortion for a former girlfriend in 2000, businessman Mike Erickson still managed to win the Republican primary for the open fifth district Congressional seat. Erickson, however, lost the support of Oregon Right to Life, even for the general election, and is not supported by his primary opponent Kevin Mannix, leaving him a weakened candidate against Democrat Kurt Schrader.

Today, the Oregonian had a detailed account of the accusations against Erickson. Reporter Jeff Mapes had this to say on his blog:

“If Republican Mike Erickson were a typical congressional nominee, he’d be under terrific pressure to drop out of the race...

... The Oregonian’s account clears up any lingering doubt about whether there was an abortion and provides further corroborating evidence for the woman’s story. In addition, the woman, who agreed to be identified only by her first name of Tawnya, told the paper that she pointedly asked Erickson if he wanted to have a baby and went ahead with the abortion only after he said no....”

Mapes goes on to explain that Erickson, since he is rich and is willing to self-finance his campaign, can stay in the race and cause problems for Kurt Schrader and the Democrats.

I disagree. Just because Erickson can self-finance his campaign shouldn’t give him a pass on the pressure to get out. To me, it looks like the accusations are true, meaning Erickson lied about it. Also, many social conservatives will be a lot less likely to support him knowing that he once paid for an abortion.

It would not have been such an issue if he would have admitted to it to begin with, saying he had changed his position since then, and apologizing for any harm he had caused.

Erickson SHOULD drop out RIGHT NOW. Republican leaders and others should pressure him to get out. If Republicans want the seat in Congress back, they need an ethical candidate without the amount of baggage Erickson carries. We the people should also pressure Erickson to get out: you can contact Erickson’s campaign at 503-367-5505, or info@ericksonfor congress.com.

There are several good candidates who could replace Erickson, Mannix might be willing to step in, there are three current State Reps who were mentioned before, but who are in their own races now. Fmr. State Rep and radio-show host Jeff Kropf could also be a good candidate if he stepped in. Yes, it would be a challenge for a candidate to win after joining four-and-a-half months from the election, but I think it would be less difficult than it would be for Erickson to win.

I have already emailed Erickson’s campaign. I believe that dropping out would be the best thing for him to do, not only for the good of the party, but for his own good and the good of his family. It will be tough for them to undergo more of this for several months, only to see him lose in November.