[hchutch]

Yes. His candidate (Jim Miller) lost the Republican nomination (which went to Oliver North) in 1994. I find it interesting that the same candidate ran against Warner for the nomination in 1996, and one of his big issues was Warner's conduct after the 1994 nomination was decided.

Disloyalty must have a price, Sabertooth. Writing in Oliver North was all I could do in 1996 and 2002 to make John Warner pay a price, although in 2002, I was hoping for a primary opponent. If you consider disloyalty in the form of indirectly electing a Democrat to be acceptable, or even understandable, then you really have no cause to complain when you find out that George W. Bush won't stick his political neck out for the issues you find important.

Or should I just pretend that John Warner's disloyalty was acceptable conduct?

[Sabertooth]

Disloyalty must have a price, Sabertooth. Writing in Oliver North was all I could do in 1996 and 2002 to make John Warner pay a price, although in 2002, I was hoping for a primary opponent. If you consider disloyalty in the form of indirectly electing a Democrat to be acceptable, or even understandable, then you really have no cause to complain when you find out that George W. Bush won't stick his political neck out for the issues you find important.

Or should I just pretend that John Warner's disloyalty was acceptable conduct?

I don't begrudge you any of that, I was simply applying your logic to your own conduct.

There are many things politicians might do that have price tags, and sometimes that price exceeds the value of a citizen's vote. Warner's actions against North exceeded yours. Fine.

However, now you've established the principle that there are times when it acceptable to indirectly vote for a Democrat.