Mark,

I'll just state what I believe to be true. Not to be negative, but for keeping the standard on the one of the most defining issues of our time--Life, and the issue of Abortion that we grapple with.

When faced with Democrats and their agenda, we hold their feet to the fire on the issue, in our concern for the precious life of the unborn--I don't think we should lessen that standard of concern when it comes to our own party--it just risks that many more lives in the process, already over forty million.

I see a lot of promise in Mike Huckabee, a man who we can trust to do his best to put and end to Roe.

A lot of people may disagree with me, but those are just my convictions.

Jeremiah

Jeremiah,

I understand your point - but one thing we know for certain is that any Democrat will aggressively push abortion in the United States and around the world. While Giuliani might be pro-choice, he's not going to get out there front and center and try to push pro-abortion policies. He's one of us, and amenable to reason on the issue - Democrats aren't. Certainly, my preference would be for someone who has been as solid on life issues as President Bush (and here GW even leaves Ronald Reagan far behind), but we must be willing to take what we can get - remember, something which is likely to lessen the number of abortions in future years is a positive step.

Politics is the art of the possible and we must never let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The primary key, right now, is to keep the Democrats with their defeatism, creeping socialism and culture of death out of power - if I can do that with a rock-ribbed social conservative, then I'll be delighted...but if the only tool ready to hand is a well-disposed social liberal, then I'll take what I can get.

I'm waiting for your next electoral projections, Mark - whoever the "captain" is next time around.

2006 was quite a hoot - more fun times, please.

There can be only one true choice for the Republicans; Romney is a flip flopper of the worst kind, Huck has no machine, McCain's door was shut by Rove in S.Carolina, Thompson would put meth lab workers to sleep, Ron Paul believes in the Constitution, his election would interfere in the move towards an Iranian style theocracy.

Only Rudy has embraced the neocon mantra of those like Krauthammer. With Rudy Republicans get their dream; perpetual war. Every major advisor is a neocon. So he believes in a woman's right to chose and gay rights. The far right didn’t just lose its moral high ground in a Minneapolis airport bathroom; they lost the moral high ground a long time ago. Isn't Armageddon the real end game for the radical wing of the Republican Party? Only Rudy provides Republicans the best chance of bombing Iran January 20th 2009.

Besides we were cheated before out of a good old drag out Rudy and Hillary election when Rudy had to bow out of the Senate race because one of his former wives was going to go public with some bedroom banter.

I must taken exception with McCain, and I am an Arizonan. While his stance on the GWOT is admirable, McCain has sold out and pandered to the left tooooo many times to earn my vote.

winnow,

Much to my delight, the far left (and I include you) will most likely sabotage the Democrats and cause them to lose '08. Two indicators are Jindals victory in LA and Ogonowskis [sic] strong showing in Mass. Other indicators include the progress of the surge, the low approval rating for Congress and Reids and Pelosis continued missteps.

Mr Jindal's victory is only the icing on the cake. The Republicans are expected to take five of the six elected state offices in Louisiana when the run-off votes are counted next month.

Winnow,

Just thought I would rain a little more on your parade.

I live in Northern Virginia. One of my neighbors is running for the House of Delegates. He's Democrat and he's running against the incumbent Republican. When I got my "American Rifleman" (one of the NRA monthly publications) this month I was surprised to read that he had a higher grade from the NRA than his Republican opponent. So, I let him know I'll be voting for him. The first Democrat I'll ever vote for.

In a nearby area, the incumbent Republican is a woman and is running an anti-gun campaign against her Democratic opponent. A staunch Republican and conservative I know who lives in that district will be acting the same way as me - voting for a Democrat.

Our Senate Race looks like it will be between Mark Warner and Jim Gilmore - both former governors. However, one was a friend of the NRA and got rid of several stupid gun laws. That was.... Mark Warner the Democrat. If the race is between him and Gilmore I'm voting for Warner.

If the Democrats become the party for Second Amendment Rights in my state and throughout the South, they win.

Again, I have never voted for a Democrat before ever. But I do pay attention to issues and what people say and do. If the Republican Party is going to abandon me on Civil Rights (like the 1st and 2nd amendments), then why should I support them?

Well, that was cathartic.

Single issue voters, politicians just shouldn't spend time looking at polls to determine which way they should vote to please each and every single issue voter. Either they can learn to waffle and sound like they support all sides of a position (Kerry, Clinton, etc.) or they can just speak the truth and let the chips fall.

I don't have a problem with Guiliani's position on abortion because the president can only affect the issue in two ways: One is to speak out in favor of or against abortion, including openly supporting any legislation that has to do with abortion, and one is to appoint radical jurists to the Supreme Court, jurists who will legislate from the bench in pro-abortion ways.

I don't believe Rudy would do either of these things.

So if we have a president who does not take action on this issue, but who is in other ways a strong and effective leader, who is also smart enough to see the benefits of a continuing lower tax rate, strong borders, and a strong national defense, I'm happy.

Personally, I think Huckabee would be the best man for the job, but I am not sure how electable he is. However, the more I see of him the more impressed I am, and if he were to get the nomination and suddenly appear on the radar of the nation, he might very well carry those who are now just sitting back and waiting. He's very smart, a good leader, honest, and has no negative baggage.

Kahn, you are illustrating what happens when a Republican loses his compass, and gets so scared of running in a liberal area that he is afraid to run as a Republican. While I do believe that voting for the party is important, as it is the party which will set the tone for the state and/or the nation, I sympathize with your problem. I hope you've contacted the state offices of the party and told them what you think.

But I would seriously rethink the wisdom of helping retain a Democrat majority in the Senate. Warner is going to vote Dem no matter how he runs---please remember the lessons of 2006, when savvy libs ran as conservatives, out-hawking the GOP on Iraq and generally posing as conservatives, and what happened when they were elected and took over control of the Senate. Warner may posture as a pro-Second Amendment candidate, but when he is in office, how much of the legislation he faces will involve the Second Amendment? And in the meantime he will be voting on border control, taxes, Iraq, the general war on terrorism, and things that are really important right now. And the fact is, no one is going to take away your gun. It will take a long long time and lots of heavy lifting to get anything even remotely like more restrictions on the Second Amendment, and there will be time to fight that fight.

The RNC is seeing the results of RINO candidates and attitudes. Whether they admit it or not, their pathtetic showing regarding national fund rasing is directly attributable to the president's stance on illegal immigration. I know when I was called, I told them in no uncertain terms that until the national party took a strong stance on illegal immigration, one that did not involve citizenship, they would not get a penny from me. I said I will support individual candidates, but not the party---not till it pulls its head out of its nether regions and starts acting like the party of conservatives.

Ditto for the Republican Senate Committee.

But Republicans have a lot of money, and donate a lot of money, and I predict that when we have a nominated candidate he will get a flood of contributions directly to him, and contributions will also come in to solid conservatives running for other offices.

I've already offered to send money to the Republican opponnet to Trent Lott, if they find one to enter the primary.

The national party needs a good thumping, and individual candidates such as yours in Virginia need to be told that they can't count on support from Republicans if they don't act like Republicans.

plainjane illustrates both the simple-mindedness and the hate-driven prejudices of the far far Left in two sentences.

First she says "The far right didn’t just lose its moral high ground in a Minneapolis airport bathroom; they lost the moral high ground a long time ago."

First she refers to the "far right" without any definition of same. I've offered a definition of the far left several times, yet when I asked for a definition of the 'far right' I got total drivel, which I dismantled piece by piece, showing each claim to be wrong or stupid or just plain silly, and not one of them to be accurate or rational.

To a conservative, "far right" is nothing to be ashamed of, as it just means REALLY wanting small government, lower tax rates, a stronger free market system, personal responsibility, states' rights, an originalist Supreme Court.... Nothing to be insulted about there.

The "far far far far right" goes to the extremes of not believing in any form of income tax, for example, but they are such a tiny minority, with no representation in Congress, no respect within the party, and certainly no power or control or authority or stature, they are irrelevant.

On the contrary, you all hate being called the "far left" no matter how your positions prove the accuracy of that label, and furthermore the far far left DOES have power, control, authority, and stature within the Democrat Party. Right now, the rabid radicals are pulling the strings, thanks to the big bucks of Papa Soros and the Hollywood elite, and the entire party is dancing to their tune.

Anyway, the simple-mindedness is evident in the phrase "...lose its moral high ground in a Minneapolis airport bathroom..." Duh. How grossly simple-minded can you GET? One man taps his foot in a bathroom, in what was either an innocent action or an effort to hook up in what is, after all, a Liberal-blessed activity, and janie tries to make this a comment on an entire political party?

You'd better hope that ain't the case, janie, because if it is, the Dems are so far in the red, moral-high-ground-wise it ain't even funny. Homosexual sex with underage pages, running a gay brothel out of a Senator's house, drunken driving resulting in the callous decision to leave a young woman to drown in an effort to cover up an adulterous relationship, being sexually serviced under the desk in the Oval Office by a subordinate while carrying on government business---oh, the list is endless, and those don't even get into the money issues.

It is just too too funny to even hear a Lib whine about the "moral high ground". Simple-minded AND hypocritical---one more and you've got a hat trick.

Oh, that's right----there IS one more. This is the hateful and utterly stupid whine "...Isn't Armageddon the real end game for the radical wing of the Republican Party?"

Again, she fails to name or in any way identify the "radical wing of the Republican Party" but that's OK, that would just be a fact, if one did exist, and facts play no role in janie's irrational rants.

No, janie, Armageddon is the real end game of the fellow you Lemming Left radicals cheered, with standing ovations, when you had him invited to speak at Colunbia University last month.

Some Libs actually make a point every now and then. plainjane has only made the point that she hates hates hates HATES all conservatives. Oh, and the point that she doesn't care how dumb she sounds if she can just express that hate.

Good man Kahn. Come on over to the winning team. Semper Fi.

Excellent post Plainjane

But Almiranta - I saw both of these guys as governor. And Warner WAS the pro-gun guy. The Republican he ran against wasn't and the Republican he replaced wasn't. Its not just the rhetoric, its experience.

The Republican Congress wasn't all that great. Problem was there where too many RINO's. John Warner, the Republican who's retiring was no friend of the 2nd Amendment. Even Webb, who I despise for many things is better that he was on many issues. And though I strongly disagree with Webb on Iraq, the Navy Cross and his positions on other matters do make a difference.

The Democratic mainstream sucks. But with conservative leaning Democrats in the south - they could well win. The message? Republicans return to your roots.

Rudy said he thought the 2nd Amendment should be left to the states. He even recently repeated this to a NRA meeting in DC. I say, which other amendments should be left to the states? Speech and religion? Voting for women and blacks? Slavery? His position is absurd.

Almiranta:
If you want to gain some insight in to what has happened to the Republican party and why our constitution has been under assault by the executive branch, google Authoritarianism, John Dean @ Findlaw.com and Robert Altemeyer. (3 separate searches.)
The results of your inquiry will explain why you react so violently to anyone who disagrees with you, your penchant for one demensional thinking and your employmemt of "one size fits all" terms such as "liberal" or "Democrat".
The Bush administration has deviated so far from what is truly the idea of America that it is no longer recognizable. State sanctioned torture, unending war, fear of more war and threats thereof. Spying on citizens, the revocation of due process, tax cuts with astronomical increases in spending using borrowed money to fund the gaps.
Read a little of what I suggested and see if you feel a sense of shame and remorse for supporting the very policies that you claim you find abhorent.

alexanderatlarge, your post is stupid. Have you ever even read Almirtanta's posts? or any of the number of well reasoned posters? The Democrats are no friends of civil rights my friend. They do buy votes with public money, but they do not tolerate dissent.

1. Clinton's had the "raw" FBI files on over 500 Republicans delivered to the White House. These files contain all the dirt substantiated or not.

2. The Clinton Justice Department ordered the FBI to kill Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge whether he was posing a threat or not. They missed, and murdered hi wife.

3. The Clinton Justice Department used tanks and fire to kill over 80 people at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. This included women and children. The fire department was not called until the last fire was out and all the people were dead.

4. President Clinton enacted some of the silliest and ill conceived anti-rights laws when he put into effect the "assault weapons ban". My fully functional AR-15 was legal under this law because it didn't have a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug. Big deal. I guess gun laws aren't considered restrictive if you're one of the people the founding fathers wanted to protect us from.

There's more. But not just insults and dismissive definitions like you write. Dip.

What does ranting about Clinton and the assault on your assault rifle have do do with who will lead the GOP??
The mentality you exhibit is one of the primary reasons I suggested those google searches. Since you can type, I assume you can read. Read what they have to say yourself instead of dismissing me as a "dip".

State sanctioned torture, unending war, fear of more war and threats thereof. Spying on citizens, the revocation of due process, tax cuts with astronomical increases in spending using borrowed money to fund the gaps. - alexis

I will need proof of the state sanctioned torture and I am sure you have that at the ready. So please submit ASAP, otherwise I will have to assume that you're a liar.

Secondly, where is this never ending war? Iraq is a mop up mission now with the Iraqis taking the lead and AQ trying to figure out what went wrong.

Please provide proof of your assertion of spying on citizens. No need to give the names of everyone, just provide only 5 incidences of private American citizens being spied on, of which again I am sure you have at the ready. Otherwise, again, you'll be labled a liar.

Due process is alive and well for all American citizens.

The tax cuts have been responsible for:

Real after-tax per capita personal income has increased by over 12.5 percent – an average of over $3,750 per person – since President Bush took office. More than 30 percent of the Nation's net worth has been added since the President's 2003 tax cuts.

Real wages have grown 2.2 percent over the 12 months that ended in August. This is much higher than the average growth rate during the 1990s, and it means an extra $1,266 in the past year for a family with two average wage earners.

Exports have increased by over 14.8 percent in the 12 months that ended in July. This has resulted in an $8.3 billion reduction in the trade deficit.

Real GDP grew at a strong 3.8 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced nearly six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.7 percent a year since the turnaround in 2001.

Care to offer up any more baseless assertions?

Alexander, I was responding to your inane rant. Sorry you'd already forgotten. You dip.

Kahn, while I agree that a RINO is not much better than a moderate Dem, the simple fact is that if the Dems have a majority in the Senate they have control. On individual issues, your RINO may vote with the Dems---but your Dem is pretty much guaranteed to do so.

Here in Colorado, Ken Salazar won a narrow victory over a proven conservative, Pete Coors---by running as an independent guy, a moderate leaning toward the right who would vote his conscience. One of the things he specifically promised was an up-or-down vote on nominees. HA! Salazar has proven himself to be a Lefty whore, kissing donkey butt at every opportunity. He is for open borders, voted against cloture on Supreme Court nominees, and in general has been about as far left as you can get in the Senate. He did not have the cojones he claimed to possess, and a lot of moderates have been very unhappy to have been taken in by his promises.

Yes, VA has had some disappointments---but somehow I doubt that a Dem from VA is going to make you much happier than your old GOP guys, and he is also going to shift the count to the left.

How did that Peevish Possum Harry Reid get to to his position? Because the Dems had more Senators than the Republicans. It's that simple.

I don't remember Rudy saying that gun control was a states' issue. He did say that about abortion. Basically, according to the 10th Amendment, whatever is not specifically addressed in the Constitution or its Amendments IS a state issue, and gun ownership is clearly addressed in the 2nd Amendment, therefore it is a federal issue. Abortion, which is not, is a matter of local control. It's that simple.

Alexi, while bemoaning the dreaded 'neocons' is a true 'neoMarxist'. I know which side I would rather be on. You have shown me what you believe: "State sanctioned torture, unending war, fear of more war and threats thereof. Spying on citizens, the revocation of due process, tax cuts with astronomical increases in spending using borrowed money to fund the gaps. " I think what you believe is crap. I know that you may believe it, as it is the same old same old the rabid Left regurgitates every chance it gets, but I also know it is crap.

I don't "react ... violently to anyone who disagrees with (me)..." I do react to simple-minded regurgitation of non-facts with a certain--vigor---but I would not consider it "violent".
But it is true, I have little tolerance for certain delusions. It is fine that you choose to believe what floats your boat---but I can't take it as fact when I know better.

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion, the major difference between left and right is that the guy on the right starts with a solid philosophy---smaller government, for example, or reasonable tax rates, or strong national defense, or sticking to the Constitution---and then proceeds from that firm foundation toward the political philosophy which most closely represents his personal philosophy. But my experience has been that the Left starts from EMOTION, and the latches onto a political stance that validates the emotion. And what I read here, the posts from the radical Left, support that hypothesis.

So you keep searching out those whose writings validate your emotional commitment to, for example, hating Bush and all he stands for, and I will keep making independent judgements based on fact and my objective personal foundation.

BTW, though it is a convenient shorthand to refer to "tax cuts" in fact we are talking about "tax RATE cuts". I think this is what gets the lefty panties in such a wad---when you say "tax CUTS" you automatically think that taxes have been cut. But the rates went down, and the tax revenues went up. So there was no tax CUT. And conservatives have not only taken the Bush adminstration to task for its increased spending, we have also committed ourselves to limiting spending by Dems when and if they are in power. Your other whines are just more Liberal pap.

"State sanctioned torture, unending war, fear of more war and threats thereof. Spying on citizens, the revocation of due process..." The same old whines. There is no "state sanctioned torture", there SHOULD be "fear of more war.." and I have no idea of what you mean by "...threats thereof.." "Spying on citizens" is a favorite fantasy of the radical Left, which managed to ignore the examples given by neocon when the spying was done by YOUR guy. "Revocation of due process" is another Lefty fantasy, just not a fact. I know you love to drag these hoary old canards out and hold them up as proofs of the validity of your pathologocal loathings, but as long as you are so determined to ignore the facts there is no reason to try to discuss them with you.

The one thing you simply cannot deny is that in this great country you not only have the freedom to post your paranoid anti-goverment fantasies, you also have the freedom to leave, to go live in a place which more closely meets your standards of socialist government. I just do not agree that you should be able to remake THIS government into your ideal. And I will fight every effort you make to do so.

Almiranta, you make good arguments. I'll think about it.

Kahn,

Don't listen to Almiranta. He lies, and he's a wuss.
So what is they outlaw guns, Almiranta wants a republican elected.
So what if they abort a million babies, Almiranta wants a republican elected.
It's sad but this is what happens when you sell your soul to a political party.

How do you think Giuliani, cleaned up the crime in New York? Yep, he took away all the guns.
And then there's Romney who says he's been hunting all his life - only to find out he's never had a hunting license in his life.

Rudy's for federally funded abortions and Mitt was for abortions before he was against them.

Don't be a neocon-moron. Vote on the issues. You were in the Corps so I know you have the guts to do what's right.

He's a she mack.

She has a point about the committee heads and leadership. About the ability to ram through bills by party-line votes.

2006 was quite a hoot - more fun times, please.

Shouldn't you be asking HWAF for your fun times, minnowhead?

I must taken exception with McCain, and I am an Arizonan. While his stance on the GWOT is admirable, McCain has sold out and pandered to the left tooooo many times to earn my vote.

While I agree with you on McCain's embracing the left, especially the drive-by's, I have to differ with you, neocon, on your "sitting on hands on election day" stance if McCain should be the nominee. I'd vote for him over any of the Donkaroach candidates, and I think a Guiliani/McCain ticket would be a winner. Of course, not here in Maryland, but in Arizona, and all of the "red" states, and maybe in some of the blue-to-purple ones too.

Where in Arizona are you from, neocon? I spent five great years there while in the military, and played the best golf of my life there. I was at Williams AFB--now closed, sadly. I'd live in Arizona in a heartbeat; it's one of my choices if Maryland continues on its socialistic path.

Don't listen to Almiranta. He lies, and he's a wuss.

Why do you say this, Mack0.55IQ? Because she disagrees with your warped views? Because she's obviously head-and-shoulders above you intellectually? Or because you're a freakin' moron, a phony Marine like Jackoff Murtha?

Answer: All of the above. Mack0.55IQ, Agent Fart, and iranian are three morons, best left ignored. They are B4B's Moe, Larry, and Curly.

Geez, I insulted the Three Stooges--again...

Neocon:
I just got off the phone with John Amato and he programmed me with the responces to your demands.
Enjoy!

The Military Commissions Act suspends Habeas Corpus. Bush has the pwer to name anyone an enemy,detain them indefinately without cause and torture them into "confession". Ironically, according to the definition of an "enemy combatant" Blackwater guards may be subject to same for the killing of Iraqi civilians.
It is for no small measure that we have been witness to a debate over whether or not waterboarding amounts to torture but be that asit may, up until 9/11 The United States honored the tenets of The Geneva Convention because we as a people believed that torture not only produces false results but to be morally and ethically abhorent. An anathema to what The United States represented. Torture gives false information and creates an imagionationland of untruths or half truths which, unfortunately have guided the war in Iraq since it's inception. Take Abu Ghraib for example. This was not an exception to the rule but rather a predictable result of an existing torture policy. We very well may have entered a world where the empirical reality of our national security is lessimportant than the fantasy land that every torture regime creates. This hideous fate was made possible by an inexperienced president with a fundementalist psyche and a paranoid power hungry VP who is still trying to avenge Nixon. Bush is putty in Cheney's hands. He is so cowardly and lazy that he never asked the hard questions about torture but rather, enabled by his dry-drunk Christianist levels of reality denial, whose interaction with reality can only operate on the crudest levels of analysis, all he needed to be told is that what ever it is we are doing, it is not torture. He doesn't ask any more questions because "they" are evil and we are good and to find out otherwise, would undermine his entire world view.

Spying on citizens. Ever heard of FISA? I will do better than to offer just 5 names. HOw about every customer that AT&T, Sprint and Verizon has? Why do you think there is such a heated debate going on now in congress about granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies for providing the records of their customers...without the customers knowledge or consent...to the government? If the government was not breaking the law, why the need for immunity? It is not so much a question of if they have spied, but rather that they can and the fear is, that they have. Hence the battle.

The economy.
The performance of the economy has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. My point was with borrowed money. Bush inherited a 230 billion dollar surplus and we are now 9 trillion in debt. That is a huge swing, would you not agree? We borrow money everyday from other countries. This is no different than you borrowing money from a bank to invest in a well performing stock. But the returns on the stock are not enough to cover your debt payments so you borrow more money just to pay the interest. Sooner or later you become insolvent because you owe more tha you are worth. It is called bankrupcy and certainly no way for a fiscal conservative to operate.

Iraq is a mop-up operation??? Are you insane??? They don't have a functioning government and Bush jusT asked for another 46 billion. The total cost could exceed (in dollars, not lives) 2 trillion dollars on a war that was sold to the country as costing only 50 billion, most of which would be paid by Iraqi oil reserves. And now he is talking about WWIII with Iran?

You, Neocon, are an authoritarian and if you still haven't looked it up maybe you should.
Have a regular day.

Alexis,

Every single one of your rebuttals are baseless. You can not prove a single one of them, they're only based on the fear that liberals love to promulgate.

Your adolescent, immature, fear-based and indoctrinated view of the world is rather comical. Your a fine example of our failed educational system.

Here is just one factual rebuttal to one of your lies. I could absolutely tear you a new asshole by factually refuting every single one of your lies, but I don't have time today to debate a moron. Sorry.

NEW YORK (CNNmoney) - The U.S. government's budget surplus shrank in 2001, the Treasury Department reported Monday, dragged down by a sluggish economy, falling tax revenue and the impact of last month's terror attacks.

The Treasury Department reported a budget surplus for the fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30, of $127 billion, compared with $237 billion a year ago.

The news is likely to put added pressure on the administration of President Bush, which must find a way to fight terrorism, spur economic growth and protect the Social Security fund after enacting a program of tax cuts this past summer.

Excluding the Social Security system, the U.S. government ran a $33.52 billion deficit, breaching the "lockbox" that was a focus of U.S. political debate until the attacks on New York and Washington set back an already weak economy and triggered new pressures in Congress for spending and tax cuts.

So, according to Neocon, Bush didn't sign a Military Commissions Act in October of '06. There is no controversy over waterboarding and our adherence to The Geneva Convention. The FISA laws were never violated and the telecom industry is not actively seeking immunity for providing the government with customer records. The United States is not in debt and we do not borrow money from other nations. Iraq is a success, our troops are on their way home and there is a fully functioning government along with the necessary infrastructure to have a peaceful functioning democratic society.
Oh, I forgot. Bush never brought forth the spectre of WWIII with Iran if they gain even the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon.
I see. Excuse me, I must have been hallucinating.
The authoritarian Neocon has spoken and as we all know, he has the power to fit a round peg into a square hole.
Take some Thorizine pal, you need it...

BTW, to the mathematicaly challenged, Sept.2001 was over 6 years ago.
Get some current figures.

Alexis,

You nailed it. Other than your hyper-paranoia blowing most of those items out of context, they're all true. So it would appear that you are hallucinating, or reading Daily KOS, but really it's the same thing. And I will remind you that you were the one citing surplus figures from 2001. I simply factually refuted it, and pointed out your lie.

Almiranta,

Your knowledge of Virginia politics is extremely limited. Gov. Gilmore was a complete fiasco for Virginia. From a fiscal standpoint: he was a failure. From a 2nd amendment: A complete failure.
he was reviled by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Cops didnt like him. Judges didnt like him. Firefighters didnt like him. Ya know why? Because his fiscal policies caused alot of hard working cops and firefighters to lose their jobs.

Mark Warner on the other hand restored Virginia to its AAA bond rating (the only state in the nation). He is the perfect center-right politician. He is an avid gun owner, avid outdoorsmans (and a pretty damn good fly fisherman).
You would be hard pressed to find a single rural conservative that has bad things to say about him.

He had to make some tough choices and worked with Republicans to balance our state budget.

He is the type of guy that does what is right and NOT what his party wants him to do.

Gilmore does not stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating him.

Kahn is right (and I dont readily admit that a lot ;) ) Mark Warner is very pro-gun. He is a fiscal conservative, and he is all about smaller government.
Im sure on some issues Mark Warner will side with the Democrats, but Im willing to bet on major issues he will vote his conscious. We need more politicians like him.

Maybe in Almiranta's eyes its ok to vote for a politician that caused hundreds of cops and firefighters to lose their jobs, all in the name of achieving control of congress.

Thats called compromising your morals.