...he gets 70% approval rating in a state that, at the time, was easily RED.

Say Goodnight Gracie, I mean, Jim.

Also - I'm sick of politicians saying they'll cut earmarks.  I want to vote for a guy like Jim Moran, who says he'll use his position to pump as much money into the district as possible.  Personally I wouldn't be satisfied with McCain if I were an Arizonan - he ought to be getting that state money!

Don't get me wrong - balancing the budget is a necessity, but how about not spending over $1 TRILLION on a war we're losing.  Or how about not borrowing on Social Security.  The tens of billions in earmarks each year pales in comparison to some of the crap Bush gets away with, and they often provide needed infrastructure.

Have you ever been involved in earmarks from a business standpoint?  Let me educate you.  Earmarks are a means of rewarding campaign contributors, not putting Federal money back into a state or district.  Members of Congress have enormous control and influence over the President's Budget and can generally put money back into their home state or district through the budgetary process.  Earmarks, on the other hand, are often if not always directed towards a specified company.  Talk about No-Bid contracts!  I have witnessed dozens of earmarks that directed military spending to small and mid-tier companies who were campaign contributors of one of the sub-committee chairmen of the Armed Services Committees, either in the House or the Senate.  In every case, the earmarked company was over-priced and under-qualified to do the work they were being given.  And, my employer was already on contract to do the same work within our existing scope.  A contract that we had won through full and open competition.

You want to see earmarks at work?  Take a look at the Jack Abramoff scandal.  Or, look up Duke Cunningham and MZM, Inc.

Personally, I would vote for anyone who eschews earmarks (are you reading this Ms. Bryne?) as long as it wasn't Jim Gilmore.  

Whats up with the way he is tilting his head as he gives his point? I cant see why he thinks he could actually win

but the thing is, if you actually follow Gilmore's logic, if Mark Warner is saying that he will vote to repeal the unfair Bush tax cuts, doesn't that mean he will actually vote to make them permanent?

I'm really confused.

I covered up Billions of dollars in budget deficits that I handed down to Governor Warner to deal with.

this time thanks to Bush!