I really do care, Mr. Mag.

Mr. Mag - what I want, is very simple. When it comes to politics, I want people to adhere to the contract.

I mean, I don't really care from "red or blue". "Natively", I'm probably politically conservative, I "lean towards" the Republican mindset "most of the time", on issues like fiscal sanity, strong national defense, you know, the "traditional Republican politics", that kinda thing -

But I mean, I could see myself voting for a Democrat, or a Libertarian - as long as they can assure me in some way, that they recognize and are willing to uphold the importance of the Constitutional contract. (And probably by extension, "any other contract" that our nation makes).

And I mean, that would be true for the government, as well as for its citizens. I would "hope", that everyone would support and voluntarily buy into the contract.

So I mean, the only place I really "differ" from the "Republican Party" per se, is in the "logic" that has to do with "social conservatism". 'Cause I mean, I have acute first-hand experience with the whole issue of "moralism", and it's affected my life so greatly that I actually went out and studied the subject, to find out what (if anything) is known about it, so I mean, now I have a PhD that kinda covers the territory of "morality and values", and all it's really done is to reinforce my belief that these things are personal and it's kind of an "evil" thing to try to foist them upon others. I think it's fair to "educate" and "inform" - and I mean, I'd even say that latter part almost acquires the flavor of a "responsibility" in the context of an interdependent society - but I don't think it's fair to clobber people over the head with any kind of "model".

I mean, that's part of what I call "self-determination", 'cause that has "concepts" and then it has "meta-concepts". But you know, that "freedom from tyranny" thing, definitely encompasses morality.

So, you know, when I look around at the space of "candidates", what do I see? I see a lot of "policy", but I also see a lot of "morality". And it's not "personal" morality, it's someone trying to convince me that I "should" believe a certain way, because if I don't I'm not a "good citizen" or something.

Well, you know, to me, being a "good citizen", means that you're aware of what's in the contract, and that you do your best to "voluntarily" adhere to it. And if there's some reason you're "not" adhering to it, I expect that to be a very good one - you know, it needs to be something along the lines of "civil disobedience", or whatever, something "reasonable", something "justifiable" -

You know, it specifically can't be something like, "I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, so I'm gonna go shoot a few students" - you know, that kind of disregard for your responsibilities under the contract, is why people go off and do crazy stuff. And I mean, you can tell me they're not keeping "morality" in their head when they're doing stuff like that, but then I'm also gonna come back and tell you that they're not keeping the "contract" in their head either.

So, you know, then my next "tier" is only the "mechanistic" piece - and I mean that part, is mostly why I hate Bushie. That, and the guy's a weasel, but mostly, it's because he's a clueless weasel. If he had half a brain, I wouldn't even mind so much, you know - I mean, every Prez has had to do some "not altogether perfectly above-board and kosher" stuff - but I mean, at least be smart about it, right? Don't sit there and use the word "crusade" in a speech that's supposed to let Muslims know that it's Saddam we're after and not "all of Islam". Right?

So, I mean, my complaint with Bushie isn't so much "ideological", it's more "operational". You know, I agree with him on a lot of principles, like, there is a threat from radical Islam, and it is a good thing to control nuclear weapons proliferation, and we do need some kind of intelligence capability in the Islamic world -

But I mean, that whole piece, becomes a question of "how". You know, like in Iraq for instance, "how" that was done, is the part that I complain about. Not "that" it was done. I complain that we're still there, and I still think it was a bit of a mistake to go there in the first place, but I mean, that the Prez's call and not mine, and the mil did its job in like five days, right (I mean, exactly when Bushie said "mission accomplished" - that's when it was, in fact, accomplished - so Bushie was right) -

So I mean, see, he starts with good thoughts and principles and ideas, but then he blows it the minute he touches something.

So I mean, what I would like to see in the Republican Party is a competent manager. Rudy is such a person. He's definitely competent. I know this, 'cause I lived in NYC under his administration for a while, and I mean, I was "there", right? I saw the whole thing with my own two eyes. I know exactly how this guy operates, and what to expect. And what I'd expect, is that he'd try to do some good and helpful things, and he'd be completely merciless with anyone who got in his way. And I'm kinda aligned iwth him on the "social" bit too, I think it's a personal thing and it's none of the government's business. The only way I'd be "concerned" about Rudy, is that he's a cop, and so cops have a certain kind of "enforcement" mentality, that would probably lead to some kinda crossover into Bush-space in terms of "expediency" in that regard - but I do think, and this is probably just an "impression", but I do think, that Rudy has considerably more regard for the Constitution of the United States, than George W Bush does.

I really truly, in my heart of hearts, believe that Bushie is an aberration. You know, the 'Con sheeple are gonna stand up for whoever the top dog is, and Bushie happens to be the mutt-du-jour, so he gets praise and accolades. But ah.... you know, I "talk" to a lot of people too, face to face, and I mean, some of 'em will tell you things in person, that they won't say in any kinda public forum. I was talking to a Republican Party strategist on the phone this very morning, not three hours ago, and I mean, I heard all kinds of interesting stuff (most of it was pertaning to the possibility of "yet another" debate, since the last one was such a miserable failure) - but ah, you know....

I would like to see a good politically conservative President, who doesn't bring all this moral "baggage" to the table. 'Cause I mean, you know, if we're talking "conservative" politics, in the true sense of the word, then we're kinda on the opposite side of the fence from the collectivist-statist thing. That latter piece, would probably be more closely associated with the "Democratic Party's" way of thinking, wouldn't it?

So I mean, I "think", that puts me kinda "right of center" politically, but with plenty of crossover into liberal- and libertarian- spaces, so I mean, wherever I can draw from, is okay, if I can get the kinda representation I want. And you know, once we've understood that, then we can start talking about "policy".