If Old Man McCain chooses a viable VP and doesn't royally screw up the debates, I will be able to vote for him.

Then I'll vote for a Democratic congressperson.

I have to say, if McCain was going to get the big seat..a democrat controlled congress might be a nice bit o' duct tape to keep him from going hog wild.

I thought much as you did, until I started to look more closely at his campaign. He wants people to think he's a centrist, but given that he just hired Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard as his deputy communications director and has completely reversed his stand on telecom amnesty, I'm starting to believe the people who tell me that he's not really so moderate. His pandering to the far right wing is really a turn-off.

Some of the nuttiest bastards on privacy are conservatives(a small yet significant number). If I was Obama I'd hammer this flip-flop point.

Then again McCain might hammer Obama for flip-flopping on unqualified, personal conversations with the "axis of evil" leaders before AIPAC :0)

It seems in the end that all politicians are prostitutes. Though I must admit McCain's flip flop is more significant than Obama's by far.

Only one who could go hog wild would be Obama with a largely Democratic congress, much like Bush did except this time with a liberal bend.

True, but then Obama's hog wild would bring millions health care, tax relief, better environment, MAYBE green jobs etc, while all we got for W's hog wild was a ton of OUR money funneled needlessly into the pockets of defense contractors & cronies' pockets. I don't mind the pres and congress agreeing on policies that benefit the MANY instead of the VERY FEW...

Health care costs need to be reviewed long before we go to a universal health care plan that would only go bankrupt in the end. Much like social security promises to do in due course.

As far as tax relief goes. I understand Obama wants/needs to tax to cover the expenses his policies could incur. Has he said he'll cut taxes?

How will Obama make the environment better?

Social Security will not go bankrupt. Social Security has been demonized since it's inception by the wealthiest Americans who feel that they will never need the program and therefore don't care to participate. History has shown that the program works.

The latest ploy for frightening Americans about Social Security's future is to warn of the impending wave of Baby Boomers swamping the system. It is true that a large spike (no pun intended!) in payouts looms ahead of us. You will be shown charts that indicate a line running into infinity at the top right corner. What you will not see is the next frame of that trend chart. Retired Baby Boomers won't live forever. (Sorry guys -- them's the facts)

The Social Security System has been operating in surplus almost since it's inception. Our politicians have had no qualms about using the fund's surplus as an excuse for deficit spending in the general budget. As a nation, we should have called them on this long ago. Al Gore made a weak attempt at broaching this issue with his rhetoric about the "lock box".

Now we have the President telling us that the Social Security Trust Fund is nothing but worthless paper in a filing cabinet. If that is true, then you can say the same thing about any federally backed financial instrument -- including our currency.

The system does face an upcoming shortfall. We will be required to engage in deficit spending in order to keep the system operational through a relatively short time-frame. Then the demographic curve will normalize. That is the next frame of the trend chart that the politicians don't want you to see.

We need only make some modest adjustments to the program in order to lessen the budgetary stress of the demographic aberration that we face. We shouldn't be convinced to throw out the baby with the bath water.