Nice work, JC.

Sure, people should check voting records. However, the fact is that 97.5% of all House Republicans voted for the war and only 2.5% voted against. It is not completely illogical to punish an entire political party when support for the war was that high.

Further, while Chocola may not have been in Congress to vote for the war, his campaign web site makes it clear he supports being in Iraq now and opposes any time table for withdrawal. He can try the argument (if that is his position) that we shouldn't have invaded but now that we are there we must finish the fight. However, the voters aren't obligated to buy that argument.

This is all hilarious to me. What did people think was going to happen 2-3 years ago when everyone was all gung-ho for the war? Did they think the occupation would go swimmingly? I find it very interesting, because obviously many these supposed peaceniks that constitute the "majority" of the population were once firmly in support of the war, and they elected GWB with a solid majority to the presidency in the aftermath of that war. Why are voters abandoning the president now? What's changed? The mission hasn't. The strategy hasn't, which means that likelihood of success hasn't. Hmmm.

What's changed? The mission hasn't.

I thought the misson was accomplished?

"What's changed? The mission hasn't. The strategy hasn't, which means that likelihood of success hasn't." Objectively, yes; but we might just know a lot more now that we didn't know at the time. Just to take a recent example, it was not well-covered prior to the election just how thoroughly the WH deceived the country about the real lack of evidence for serious Iraqi WMDs; or that the WH was so unserious about reconstruction that it staffed the CPA almost entirely with unqualified hacks & loyalists.

Sure, people should check voting records. However, the fact is that 97.5% of all House Republicans voted for the war and only 2.5% voted against. It is not completely illogical to punish an entire political party when support for the war was that high.

Rep. Hostettler has been rather outspoken against the war from the beginning and clearly voted against it, so yes, I do think it's unfair to punish him for it.

Further, while Chocola may not have been in Congress to vote for the war, his campaign web site makes it clear he supports being in Iraq now and opposes any time table for withdrawal.

That's why I wrote, "While Chocola and Sodrel are typically more likely to agree with President Bush, they're by no means a carbon copy either." Besides, as I said, Hostettler was the thrust of the article.

Josh,

I'm not suggesting that it is necessarily wise for someone to oppose Hostettler because he is affiliated with a political party that overwhelmingly supported invading Iraq. In fact, it could make a lot of sense to reward his courage in bucking his party. On the other hand, I might point out the Hostlettler voted in favor of a GOP resolution declaring the war in Iraq as a valid part of the war on terror and rejecting a timetable for withdrawal. So, I stand by my point that it isn't completely illogical to punish an entire political party. Certainly, when Republican had their "contract with America" they made no attempt to exempt more conservative Democrats from their campaign.

Perhaps rather than the conscience of the individual voter I was looking at it from the standpoint of the battle between the parties.

For instance, the national Republican party decided that the highest principle in Rhode Island's Republican primary was the idea that the conservative candidate was likely to lose in November and the party leadership found it more important to preserve the GOP majority in the Senate and thus endorsed a candidate, Chafee, who is outside the mainstream of the party. Many individual Rhode Island Republicans, however, found the highest principle in supporting a nominee who reflects their values.

My first vote for a U.S. Senator was in favor of Henry Bellmon, R-Oklahoma. I was rewarding him for his support of Gerald Ford's negotiations on the Panama Canal treaty, his support for school integration, and his support for the Equal Rights amendment. In many ways, I was closer ideologically to his Democratic opponent, Rep. Ed Edmondson, but found Edmondson to be of somewhat lesser integrity. As a 13-year-old, I had been heartbroken that Bellmon had one his first term, having defeated political giant Mike Monroney, for whom I spent countless hours putting up fence straddlers or placing handbills under car windshield wipers.

If your main focus was Hostettler, you may have stepped on your message and have done better by leaving folks such as Chocola out.

Finally, my main interest was in dialogue with you rather than simply dismissing what you wrote.