Warner wins nomination unopposed, goes on the attack

I was stating a fact of where an increase in the size of government occurred. Liberals like to increase it in a way that caters to their targeted voting block(s) ususally with things like welfare, headstart, free breakfast/lunch programs and etc. I think of DHS in the same category as FEMA, not constitutional but to the majority of Americans it is a "necessary" function of government. I remember the midnight basketball fiasco they wanted so badly to deter crime in inner cities. Good intentions or just a way to buy votes by redistributing federal (taxpayer) dollars to heavy democrat/liberal big cities. I much rather liked Giuliani's approach to reducing crime. I don't think the President has approached the precedence you mentioned (Lincoln) since his inauguration. I think with hindsight being 20/20 there probably were better ways to do things but I don't believe he could take a chance dealing with the terrorists who are already here and their cohorts abroad.

While I understand your argument I philosophically have to disagree with your position regarding homeland security. DHS is by and large unconstitutional. Yes, Our administration is duty bound to ensure our safety. But when he implements measures that undermine out Constitution he rapidly goes from hero to tyrant. The last president who instituted the same measures was elected into office in 1860. I know that people elevate Abraham Lincoln to deity levels, but if you really study what he did to "preserve the union" it was very much identical to GWB today. Lincoln was a tyrant who removed the elements of the constitution. Under his administration the Bill of Rights did not exist and the day of inauguration he suspended habeas corpus. Lincoln weakened the constitution so much that future generations found it easier and easier to undermine it.

Mark(tax)Warner is counting on the short memories of his likely supporters and the glowing coverage of Shill-Bots like Warren Fiske,old-boy democrat.I remember how he cut only public services(like DMV hours),not his own bureaucracy,to make the public believe his wildly pessimistic guesses about future revenues.The 'huge deficit' he's running on was a sham,it never occurred.Before his 'biggest tax increase in Virginia history'took affect the budget was showing surplus,that's the real budget,not his projections used to justify an unnecessary tax increase.Auto registration fees will have doubled by the time Kaine gets HIS increase,and every other fee increased drastically under Warner,who then drastically increased spending.If you love higher taxes based on the lies of an expert at deception,Warner is your guy.If your memory lasts longer than the 'thousands of jobs in dozens of companies he created'(his deceptive gubernatorial campaign theme)you might want to look at the numbers and learn how badly this guy lies before you reward this deceiver with his 2nd government job.

...you liberals always loved big government! What changed? It's not a liberal who is the head of it this time. You liberals wouldn't be happy if Bush changed parties and handed everything to Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean! YEahhhhhhh! Brings back memories doesn't it! ha-ha-ha! But back to the point. In a post 9/11 world you are either danged if you do or danged if you don't. Much of his spending has been on the Department of Homeland Security. That is truly where the government got bigger. Do I like it? No, my preference is that it wouldn't be necessary but it is. You liberals have placed a noose around our economic necks by restricting our ability to drill for new sources of oil forcing us to deal with foreign suppliers. If liberals truly cared about our economy they would allow for more domestic oil production and also allow for more refinery capabilities. Where does Warner stand on the oil issue?

...you have to understand something. These liberals don't care about right or wrong. They just want it to be a tax and spend liberal to do the spending. It is about them having the power again. They had control of both housed for 40 years with nothing to show for it. Oh yeah they had Jimmy Carter! What a joke! They don't care about the constitution one whit! To them (as Al Gore infamously said) "it is a living and breathing document" and the interpretation changes with the current societal trends. Don't believe for a minute that liberals really care about you, me or our constitution. We are there only to be used to propogate their socialist agenda. These liberals need to read the history of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and what they endured/suffered to give us the opportunity to even have a constitution and bill of rights.

The most recent...Teddy Roosevelt.

Please read my bottom line. My implication is that Rs are just as bad as Ds. It's just that Ds are far more inclined to tax more. Rs are inclined to spend more. I don't like Bush. Don't know Gilmore enough to form an opinion. I'll have to do more research. But that is the big difference between me and all the party-line lemmings...I research...I formulate my own opinions...I measure elected officials on Constitutional lines. NONE of them measure up. I say impeach them all. They are all a big embarasment to this country. None worse or better than the other. Just embarasing.

For all you Taxaholics out there that find raising taxes a perfectly normal thing, let me ask you this one question.
If you find yourself in over your head with your personal finances what do you do?
Let's add some more choices. If your Gilmore/Bush you:
A) Go to CHINA and BORROW an exorbitant AMOUNT to feed your insatiable spending.
B) Go to your CHINA and demand that they all support your spending habit
C) You can go to your own established budget and make the appropriate changes to cut spending thereby paying down existing debt, freeing up money for emergency savings, and removing the impact your spending has on everyone in your household. Only to find out the person who held office before you ran the treasury into the ground and you now owe other countries an incredibly large amount of money and/or your bond rating is failing.

"In the past Republicans went for C."

C'mon Phrog, show us. Who did this? Warner is running against Gilmore remember? Gilmore and Bush are both borrow and spend republicans. Please show us this fiscal responsibility you are talking about. Oddly, Warner is one of the few people running who is lauded by people from both parties for his fiscal

For all you Taxaholics out there that find raising taxes a perfectly normal thing, let me ask you this one question.
If you find yourself in over your head with your personal finances what do you do?
You could:
A) Go to your employer and demand an exorbitant pay increase to feed your insatiable spending.
B) Go to your neighbors and friends and demand that they all support your spending habit
C) You can go to your own established budget and make the appropriate changes to cut spending thereby paying down existing debt, freeing up money for emergency savings, and removing the impact your spending has on everyone in your household.

Democrats always go for A and B. In the past Republicans went for C. But they are all in the same bed now.
Free your mind – Cut the party strings.

I typed it. Now, name the last Senator to win a presidential race? Give you a hint, it was over 40 years ago. This election doesn't even count, because all three top contenders were Senators. Whoever the winner is, really had no genuine competition from anyone. Even if it's McCain. Because he was nominated by Democrats voting in Republican primaries.
Well, if they read history they would know that Senators were never intended to be popularly elected in the first place. The US Senate is supposed to represent the State Governments, not the people. And Senators are supposed to be voted in by each state's respective legislatures. The people are already represented by the House of Representatives. The bonehead idea to make them popularly elected has done nothing but destroy the concept of States and turned Senators into glorified Representatives. That's why every Senator who looks in the mirror,

So all you moronic liberals WANT to pay MORE taxes? You obviously don't work hard for your money or you wouldn't be so eager to be parted from it. How does the old saying go? A fool and his money are soon parted. Well go ahead and be parted from it if you want to but I will fight you tooth and nail to keep mine! To think that Thomas Jefferson once called Virginia home and now we have a runaway money/power grabbing (state)government forcing us to pay MORE taxes in almost every aspect of our lives. This is not what he envisioned when he and other great men faced down the King of England! You really need to go read some history books!

I predict that Mark Warner will win by just short of a 2 - 1 margin.

My wife and I had usually preferred Republican Candidates, until now!
Warner for the U.S. Senate!

and who says poitical races aren't fun? This one's gonna be a blast

Gilmore was a failure as a governor. It took years to repair the damage he did. He has also failed at every job he has had since. Warner will do a great job for Virginia, and for the nation. We won't fall for Republican lies again.

Where do I get my Warner yard signs and bumper stickers?

What do tropical birds have to do with anything?

I am voting for Warner, because Gilmore WILL have a Maccaw moment

According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center McCain's tax plan would offer less breaks to lower and middle class taxpayers than Obama's. McCain's, keeping in line the Republican mandate, would primarliy benefit those with very high incomes(2.8 million and above). Other tax and economy focus groups are aligning with the T.P.C. Under Obama those people earning $37,595 to $66,534 would see a decrease of $1,042 a year whereas with McCain that same person would see a decrease of $319. As for the tax increase that is false as well. Obama simply does not supporting renewing the temporary cuts put in place in 2001 and 2003 that largely favor the wealthy. Those cuts expire in 2010. The Congressional Budget Office considers Obama's plan as part of the current law and not an increase-unless the law is changed to make the cuts permanent. McCain sneakily is using the "average" taxpayer which includes people like Bill Gates in the mix. That type of analysis skews the reality of McCain's "cuts".

I am voting for Gilmore and hoping Warner has a maccaw moment:)

Gilmore cut 500 million out of the budget with no way to replace it. Sure, we all hated the tax, and still do by the way, but you cannot take that much money out of an existing system on a whim and not see a huge, not temporary Dr. Tabor, shortfall. It's kind of like going into Iraq with no idea whatsoever what to do once you get there. He then hid the impending deficit behind a change in the state tax refund process that tied up millions in refunds until after he left office and got his spot at the head of the republican national committee. As soon as the refunds went out, POOF, his budget goes from the black to the red. Not surprisingly, he only lasted six months in the RNC before being unceremoniously removed from that position. Gilmore is a loser. He hid the deficit that he created and then couldn't even fulfill his position on the RNC, which was his only goal all along. Gilmore was the lying, shady, self-promoting businessman in this deal, not Warner.