1 middle-aged gal with a computer? the perfect Bush voter! soccer moms never knew what hit 'em.

2 Oooh, a celebrity at my own site! Chris Muir dropped by . . . ! Thanks for your vote of confidence, Chris.

3 You have a lot to say and you sound very level headed and your words are heard. Middle Age? Me too, isn't it great!?!

4 Hi there. This is actually in response to the letter posted at Dean Esmay's site. I'm Canadian, so pass over this if you want to spend today working on getting out the vote. I just found your arguments fascinating, because in some cases they had the *complete opposite effect* on me that you intended. And I know you meant it sincerely. It really illustrates the Red/Blue divide. The opener about 'wardrobe'... it was very patronizing. I think I know what you were getting at, but you seemed to dismiss your targets as having frivolous minds. Your argument about Iraq is basically that, even if you believe that the war was a big mistake, we can't switch leaders at a time of crisis. I've seen a lot of Bush supporters say this. The thing is, the average liberal believes that when the leader screws up that badly, you MUST replace him or her, even if you have your doubts about the other guy. I've noticed that when Bush stumbles, his base rallies around him. When Kerry stumbles, you immediately see articles in the Village Voice asking how did we get saddled with this loser, and is it too late to dump him? I think it's a fundamental divide between how liberals and conservatives view power structures.

5 Hi there. This is actually in response to the letter posted at Dean Esmay's site. Readers will find that essay here. I'm Canadian, so pass over this if you want to spend today working on getting out the vote. My presidential vote is of purely symbolic value, since I live in California. So I have a few minutes. I just found your arguments fascinating, because in some cases they had the *complete opposite effect* on me that you intended. And I know you meant it sincerely. It really illustrates the Red/Blue divide. The opener about 'wardrobe'... it was very patronizing. I think I know what you were getting at, but you seemed to dismiss your targets as having frivolous minds. Only to the degree that I do, and it's quite possible I'm more shallow than most. I live in L.A. I'm surrounded by people from the entertainment and media industries. And I myself, as my politics drifted "rightward," have had to deal with a lot of identity issues over it. There's a huge stereotype to the effect that anyone right-of-center is more rigid in his/her thinking, and less likely to be creative. I just wanted the reader to know that he/she could hold onto whatever symbols of his/her identity were pleasing, and wouldn't be required to sport a George Will bow tie just for voting Bush. Your argument about Iraq is basically that, even if you believe that the war was a big mistake, we can't switch leaders at a time of crisis. I've seen a lot of Bush supporters say this. The thing is, the average liberal believes that when the leader screws up that badly, you MUST replace him or her, even if you have your doubts about the other guy. It's basically a carbon-copy of the argument that was used during America's Civil War, which at times appeared to be going disasterously. Lincoln said we shouldn't switch horses in mid-stream; the people agreed. I suspect you and I have some disagreements about how "screwed up" things really are in Iraq. I have some schools, hospitals, roads and impending elections that say you might be mistaken. And there is no doubt that the terrorists there will be emboldened by a Kerry victory here. None at all. I've noticed that when Bush stumbles, his base rallies around him. When Kerry stumbles, you immediately see articles in the Village Voice asking how did we get saddled with this loser, and is it too late to dump him? I think it's a fundamental divide between how liberals and conservatives view power structures. We may be reading different sources. I do believe it's possible that criticism on the right has been a bit more muted this year than it is usually, in order to keep our collective morale up during an election season. But there are a lot of conservatives out there who are simply appalled at Bush's domestic agenda. There are people who are infuriated at what they view as a sub rosa amnesty for illegal immigrants, and there are a whole lot of conservatives who are mightily pissed off at the ham-handed attempt to "Federalize" an issue (gay marriage) that should have been left to the states. Libertarians like me aren't pleased with that one, either. Not at all. And the deficit hawks are eating more shit here than anyone. But most of us have decided that the security of this nation, and the defeat of Islamo-fascism is more important than anything else, and that Bush is the guy who is throwing the largest possible monkey wrenches into the terrorists' plans (including both terrorist-sponsoring states and non-state actors).

6 I have some schools, hospitals, roads and impending elections that say you might be mistaken. I wasn't actually referring to the state of Iraq, but the justification(s) for the war. But even on the state of Iraq, it's a mixed bag. I briefly met Iraqi blogger Salam Pax at a showing of his film in Vancouver. The picture he painted wasn't so pretty. While he was not a fan of the war, he had high hopes for the occupation, which are now all but gone. I don't know if I can get into a fruitful debate here, since neither of us have primary information. I read what I can. And there is no doubt that the terrorists there will be emboldened by a Kerry victory here. None at all. Really? The sense I get from Iraqis is that they don't care who wins the election. The shape of the occupation is pretty much set in stone now, and they don't expect anything different from the next president. Anyway, the issue is not how the terrorists feel, but who is the actually the most competent at combating them. You think it's Bush, but I hope you will forgive me if I have some doubts on this score. Re: circling the wagons. I do not mean to say conservatives do not question the man, what I find interesting is that they continue to support him. This is not criticism, just an observation. The liberal ethos is all about rebelling against authority, even to a suicidal degree. If the parties were reversed I think Nader would be polling 25% right now.