wrote
Hmmm....and why not:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html


also mostly thoughtful

but I don't think this part qualifies

" There is a final reason I support George W. Bush. A presidential election
is a Hatfield-McCoy thing, a tribal affair. No matter the quarrels inside
the family, when the shooting starts, you come home to your own "

IMHO, one test of true patriotism is whether one is willing to temporarily
abandon one's tribe if that tribe is clearly doing the wrong things.

Several Republicans for whom I've always had great respect, Powell and
McCain, by example, have largely lost that respect. Even though it's clear
they know Bush has and will lead in the wrong direction, a direction that
will likely still be damaging this country decades after I'm dead and
buried, they are still marching the Bush goosestep, towing the party line.
Any politician, or simple citizen, needs to be more loyal to country than
party to get my respect. And any discussion must do more than evoke "gang
colors" to qualify as thoughtful, to me.

Few things seem less thoughtful than supporting wrong actions just because
they were made "in the family." Much of this election reminds me of a
policeman getting attacked by the battered wife when the cop tries to arrest
the abusing husband beating her ... THINK lady, think voters .... "in the
family" does not = good for you

I've already voted, signed, sealed and delivered .... I voted AGAINST Bush
and I don't like negative voting, but I believe I made the best choice
possible for my country ...... and my "tribe" had nothing to do with it.

Our system is broken, I can't see how anyone can argue that ( well there are
the agrue just to argue types ).

This election has made me certain that what I want to help us all work
towards is changes in the system. Examples, ... the idea of "instant
runoff elections" seems good to me, we desperately need third parties and a
way for us to vote for what we actually believe in without wasting our
vote. .... campaign finance reform .... imho, after you are on the ballot, X
amount of money should be provided to each candidate and that is it, period,
spend more and you just broke the law. If nothing else, the ability to
budget and spend wisely and to good advantage is an ideal requirement for
any elected office ... I find it very ironic that the "money party" is
spending 6 to 8 times ( the figures I've heard, I don't know what is truly
accurate) on the campaign and is TIED ... if they are so damn good with
money why aren't they Way, way, ahead? how badly would they be being beaten
if the playing field$ were level? ... I really don't mean that as a
RepSlam, more as an example of how real control of the buck$ might yield far
better elected officials, ones that think deficit DOES matter, for instance