George Bush and John McCain, both Republicans right? They just have all the answers when it comes to our money. I'm sure we will all rush out and vote Bush III in 2008.

It doesn't matter he will lose. The Republican party is a ghost.

Anyone dismissing McCain in the general election is a fool.

The contest is electoral not popular. Republicans popularity and McCain's have no where to go but up. He's only two points behind in Penn. Dems need Penn to be a lock to compete in November. After all of the positive press Obama has only a 2 point lead! Not good news for November if you are a Dem.

I'm not a big fan of McCain or the Republican party but I have to agree on McCains stance on this. Spending is out of control in Washington and both parties need to pass this bill to reign in the earmarks inserted into bills. As a taxpaying American, WE ALL should be concerned that both parties cannot even discipline themselves when it comes to spending!

While I am sure there are plenty of Republican votes (party loyal) for McCain, if the dems dont get it together, there will likely be enough votes against the dem nominee to give the WH to McCain.

If Obama is the nominee without a mandate from dem and dem-leaning indies, the RNC will easily kill any chances of a dem in the WH. He clearly does not have a mandate from dems - just a mandate from liberals (fringe but party loyal), and indies (not loyal to any party), black voters (party loyal but only 12% of the electorate) and young voters (unpredictable voters).

I believe if Clinton is the nominee she will have her share of anti-Bill and anti-Hillary votes given to McCain. However, based on the numbers of voters and strength in swing states, I think she could still beat McCain. She clearly has a mandate from the dem party voters (party loyal blue and whitecollar working class including a strong white vote in the north and south and primarily women including Republican and indie women).

McCain has a strong military background (not everyone agrees with that though) and a long time Senate background. Some people say Clinton touts him to be the most experienced which is not what she said. She said he had more than Obama in terms of CIC readiness which is fact.

Clinton has a stronger chance because McCain is not prepared to be President which is a much more complex job than just being CIC. Clinton's broad-based experience better prepares her for both roles.

"You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience by which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, 'I lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Ideally, we the voters hope to elect the most qualified candidate to become the next President of the United States by an electoral majority. Unfortunately, politics and elections are all about timing and perception. The campaign wars wage on and it is a political eternity between now and November.

Most Republican and Democrat Senators alike voted against DeMint's one year moratorium on Earmarks late last night--when most of the press wouldn't be paying attention. McCain, Hillary, and Obama all voted for the ban--yet it crashed and burned by 71-29!

Pathetic!

Frank - I agree spending is a huge issue but I do not agree that the source is necessarily earmarks. Many earmarks are needed and that is how things get done as quickly as possible. However, I do want more transparency so we can oust the ones that are irresponsible spenders in both parties.

On balanced spending, I am sure the RNC does not want to point out a hard fact - of the last 35 years, only 4 of them had an actual balanced budget and that was during Bill Clinton's second term. Not only did he leave office with a surplus but the economic prosperity as historic for the country and the world. Using a well-known republican question - Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago? If the answer is no then voting democratic in the congressional and presidential elections is a no-brainer.

carl - it is an unfortunate reality that voting result occurred. But were you really surprised? Process improvements require incremental change to effect positive results without breaking the process. There is certainly a better answer than that politically-motivated (campaign-related) bill.

Senator Clinton has proposed a comprehensive, 10-point plan to restore Americans' confidence in their government by increasing transparency and cutting waste and corruption. Her plan includes:

Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.

Strengthening whistleblower protections.

Creating a public service academy.

Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.

Cutting 500,000 government contractors.

Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.

Publishing budgets for every government agency.

Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.

Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.

Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.

People worry about Obama's pastors comments for several reasons.

First, his pastor's comments are clearly racist.

Second, Obama claims that his pastor is like an "old uncle." That's a lie. A person doesn't choose their uncles. A person chooses their church. That is a MAJOR distinction.

Third, if another candidate went to a church that had recently honored David Duke, there would be A LOT of explaining to do. Rightfully so! There needs to be a lot of explaining about Obama's connection to Farrahkan.

NAFTA is the brainchild of Bush Sr. LOL Bill Clinton pushed it through because he was forced to politically. Hillary Clinton questioned the way it was written in 1993 and has a 4 point plan to fix it. However, on NAFTA, Obama and Clinton have identical positions which is: it is good for some but needs to be fixed for others so that the country does not lose jobs overseas. McCain on the other hand supports it as is. So you argument bringing up NAFTA is irrelevant to this thread. In any case, NAFTA in its current form is a Republican initiative with bipartisan support because it does have some benefits for parts of the country. Now that we know what needs to be fixed, congressional support for fixing it still does not exist. A dem in the WH and an increase in support in Congress is required to change it.

But this has nothing to do with the vote on earmarks or government reform. Care to comment on that aspect instead of trying to change the subject?

McCain is the only candidate who has a chance of curbing spending, slim though it may be. Hillary and Obama have no interest in it. Hillary at least would assure continued inactivity. She brings the dangerous combination of intense micromanagement and divisiveness that are arguably the worst possible qualities in an executive. If you have ever worked for such a - dare we say monster - you know.

The dollar is crashing in value and soon no one will accept it. Our economy is terrible, our banks are broke, stocks and property values are falling, millions of homes are now in foreclosure with no end in sight. Energy prices are going through the roof, our borders are wide open, our schools are failing our children and our reputation around the world is just awful. Obama can't win now and there's little or no difference between the very good friends, Clinton and McCain. In fact, they could easily run on a joint ticket. Both are pro war, pro open borders and dumb as dirt on fixing the economy, which is the greatest threat to our nations sovereignty. Real and positive change would include: ending the IRS, The Federal Reserve and the CFR. Get our worthless paper currency back on the gold standard and stop printing endless truckloads of phony paper money. Restore the constitution and bill of rights. Stop stooping to terrorist levels by using torture on people, we used to be better than that and I'm ashamed of it. Finally, get the US out of the UN, bring all of our troops home and use them to secure our borders. Now implementing those steps would be "change" you could really believe in! I wonder if there are any good Independents out there willing to run, cause we really need you bad!

Is Obama, or any candidate for that matter, responsible for what a minister says? This minister's comments were racist and shouldn't have been said, but is that Obama's fault? If you think about it, his pastor is probably more of a father figure than anything else. Obama didn't have a father is his life, and this man probably showed him the love of a father figure he had not been used to. Does that mean Obama should be held accountable for what the man says? I think it's obvious what Obama thinks of the comments, but his love and respect for the man is separate.

I think Obama can still win if he gets the nomination. What's the alternative, a third Bush term? Do you think that would be better?

Sorry typo--

I meant to type (Because I don't think that SHE worked for the 'Clinton' CIA!)