[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.

[hchutch]

Do not take my actions agaisnt Warner as an endorsement of the attempts to indirectly vote for John F. Kerry. Warner's disloyalty is one thing - and were there other ways to make him pay the price for betraying Ollie North, I would exercise THEM as opposed to the write-in.

But as it stands, that was the only course of action available. And I undertsand that there are consequences to my choosing that course of action - John Warner will feel no obligation to give me anything unless it suits his purposes.

I certainly hope that conservatives who think about staying at home or going the third-party route keep that in mind. If you want a politican to grant patronage, you have to be someone that he can count on when the chips are down. Otherwise, why should he stick his neck out for you?