I correspond on a regular basis with our politicians, up to and including President Bush (of course, aids take those correspondence.)

From the White House, I received a nice letter, suitable for framing, last December thanking me for corresponding and “kind words.” Of course, it is a signature stamp, not his actual signature, but a nice gesture.

I meet with and talk to local candidates and have corresponded with Christine Webb, whom I look forward to meeting soon.

I am not averse to meeting with Michael, but I really don’t see the need. While I agree with much of what he says and desires, we are too far apart on the issue I value mostly.

Yes, as a Viet Nam Veteran, it is a very personal issue with me and I deeply feel and believe that both Michael Delavar and Ron Paul are seriously wrong regarding the War on Terror.

One could take this to be an indication of the accessibility of the candidate and not an indication that he or she is “thin-skinned”. Perhaps Mr. Delavar is interested in hearing what opinions the people of the 3rd district have in order to better understand the constituency he is intending to represent?

I would suggest meeting in person with Mr. Delavar in order to discuss your differences of opinion. I think that would be much more productive.

Next, all the cries of “undeclared war” are for naught. Bush followed legal and proper procedures in gaining Congressional approval for attacking Iraq. He had and has congressionally mandated authority to do so, even if Ron Paul disagrees.

It would be total folly to force an abandonment of Iraq currently as well. By all accords, we are winning, even the Associated Press begrudgingly admits that.

Betsy, I don’t know for sure, but I doubt you are old enough to recall much about “traditional Republicans.” The isolationalism advocated prior to WW2 ended up costing a lot of blood. The enemy faced today is no less ruthless and in many regards, even more ruthless than enemies faced in the past.

Abandoning struggling allies is not a conservative position.

Tom, it is fruitless to try to convince me that Michael has a better presence before the camera than does Christine. No matter what, you will stay behind your candidate, as I will mine. To me, it is the experience of ability to transform ideas into legislation where Christine excels and Michael is lacking. I’m sure you see it differently, which is your prerogative.

No, so far, third parties have not worked. I think that is tragic, as we need a strong third party to break the gridlock and power struggle between the Dems and GOP. Of course, I’d like it to be a strong conservative party, not a watered down version advocated by many claiming to be “true conservatives” today.

Instead of trying to take over a party for an agenda, why not work harder to see another party grow and become a viable third party? It can be done, but will require a lot of hard work and effort. Trying to redefine the Republicans to Libertarians will not.

As for the lawsuit being thrown out, yes it was over a technicality. But, if you will note, it was 5 years ago and has not been refilled. A simple Google search would also reveal that many other lawsuits were thrown out for just cause. The simple fact is the Iraq Theater is just and legal!

Paul, Kucinich, Delavar, Sheehan and others are dead wrong. If there were a clear illegality in it, the Courts and the Dems would have succeeded in their plan for abandoning another ally already. The “it’s illegal” cry is little more than a BDS inspired smokescreen.

Paul, especially, is just as wrong about Iraq as he was when he declared that Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War.

What many can’t fathom is that we are not ‘AT WAR with Iraq.’ We invaded to depose Saddam, which became Official US Policy under the previous administration in 1998. The goal being to free the Iraqi’s and cut off the possible movement of support and weapons to a radical Jihadist group.

In the letter I received from Delavar, sent out to all PCO’s, he says, “I am a strong Nationalist, and want to use the appropriate tools to declare war against the terrorists that attacked us on American soil. I don’t want to spend our citizen’s hard earned money in nation building efforts.”

How does he propose declaring war on nations harboring terrorists and not rebuilding them after they are decimated? Would he and Paul simply destroy the nation and leave the people to fend for themselves afterwards? If the goal is to breed even more contempt for America, that would be the plan to follow.

The notion of using letters of Marque and Reprisal, tantamount to outsourcing our defense to mercenaries, is even more foolish since other nations have banned them long ago, and rightfully so and “privateers” have no allegiance to America or our constitution.

I feel it is much better and even easier to finish the task at hand instead of abandoning it to regroup and try another avenue that Paul thinks dots every “T’ and crosses every “I.”

The House of Representatives isn’t the place to get your feet wet and learn how to do the job. Some knowledge and experience is a must before getting there.

That is why I will continue to support and vote for Christine Webb.

As to your other comments, who’s fooling whom? I’ve made no secret of my political leanings and positions, and am more than happy to discuss them at length at any time (at least on weekends .

The reality is that the GOP desperately needs new blood and new ideas. All political parties need that from time to time, especially one that has become as ossified as the GOP. Even someone who’s been a GOP member for many years, such as myself, recognizes this fact. I recently attended a good-sized fund-raiser for one of the other local GOP candidates I also support, and was aghast to find that I was probably the youngest person in the room. This is not a good sign for the future of the GOP, and refreshingly is never a problem at Delavar get-togethers.

Third parties in this country don’t work. But like it or not, certain Libertarian concepts are becoming more main-stream among younger conservative Republicans, and even when I don’t completely agree with a concept, I find this tendency refreshing and nothing but a positive sign for the future of the party. Of course, some entrenched forces within the GOP find different ideas and ways of doing things threatening. So be it. But others (including myself) will welcome the opportunity to integrate new ways of thinking into the existing party framework, and out of this process will emerge a much better and more vital GOP for the 21st century.