[hchutch]

The difference is that this is a fight that we can PROBABLY win, whereas the others are ones that would turn into very bloody draws. The key is to pick the fights, and to maximize your advantages while minimizing your vulnerabilities.

It's ugly, and messy, but that's how you have to play the game. Our guys do our principles no good if they lose elections.

[Howlin]

Alas, I have moved into the Red Zone; my representative is NOT on the list! :-(

[poet]

"Our guys do our principles no good if they lose elections."

What good do "our guys" do us if they are copycats and outspend "their guys"? The result is the same, which is to say, more spending by the "good guys" and less spending by the "bad guys" which accomplishes what the "bad guys" want in the first place.

[Linda Liberty]

It's ugly, and messy, but that's how you have to play the game. Our guys do our principles no good if they lose elections.

I have real trouble believing you're serious here. This letter is about $4 billion in overspending on the supplemental bill, on the same day that the house voted $330 billion, that they admit to, on drug benefits, which figure is more than Al Gore promised last Fall. The farm bill was, I forget, 100 billion or some such? And on and on.

Frankly, I think spending this year would have been smaller if Al Gore had won, and I'm completely serious about that.When the republicans are out of power, at least they fight for smaller spending. When they are in power, they propose more spending because they want credit for the goodies just like the dems do. I can't see why you care if "our guys" win elections if they behave the way they do.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

"Our guys do our principles no good if they lose elections"

FINALLY.. someone "gets it"!! Thanks for a succinct well stated reply!!