Nevermore shall we hear the plaintive call of 'Reluctant Nay'

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Yankee will be back. That I'm confident of.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Wrong. I stated explicitly what I wanted and my reluctance was because I hated the fact that I could not change the bill into that with the votes that were available. I wanted a system of market competing non-profits, not nationalization. The only way you can think that I was ambivalent on the free market requires that you ignore what I have stated publically then and subsequently. Nice try, Simmy, but it ain't happening.

I have never denied that I have some pro-labor sympathies, so does Hagrid ironically by the way or at least he did. So in that once sense don't expect much to change in terms of the Southern Senator.

I admit that I may have overlooked some of your proposals, but I do recall your proposal to replace the present electricity sector with a system of non-profit enterprises, which I thought was still very much a solution to a problem that did not exist, even if it was a (considerably) less harmful solution than what was being proposed. Regardless, it was to me a matter of principle- opposing the nationalisation of industries for the mere sake of nationalising them, as was the only real reason given for that bill, was something that had to be opposed and opposed uncompromisingly lest we start heading down such a path. You may have considered it to have had lower stakes, but- again as far as I was concerned- it was absolutely pivotal.

Hamilton said the same thing half way through my first Senate term. I always separated my service in the Senate from leadership of the Party and I have never been an ideological hack. I also know full well what it means to be dirt poor and thus haven't been afraid to compromise on some economic issues where I know markets alone won't cut it.

This comes as a surprise to me; I would think it impossible to separate one's service in office to the image they were able to project as a partisan leader. You were the face of the Federalists by default, at least that's how I saw it. Hence why I was appalled by your remarks during the debate on the Fuel and Power bill: it created (or frankly, merely reinforced) the impression that the Federalists were not an effective opposition to the Administration.

I don't think it's a matter of being an ideologue or not being an ideologue- it's understanding what the basic principles of a party are and communicating that effectively. It's steering the course of events as to not allow an actual ideologue who just re-registered to nearly successfully primary a popular incumbent President. It's not putting a party into a position where it is compelled to nominate a candidate despite the majority of present members having voted not to nominate that candidate. I don't mean to berate you- I sincerely do have a great deal of respect for you and think that you have probably put in more and contributed more to Atlasia than anyone else over the years- but these were my concerns.

Simfan, I dont remember, for who have you voted this election?

Bore/BK, but I'm not sure why this is relevant. I voted for Bore not only because I thought he was the most qualified candidate, but that unlike JCL's loonyism and the de facto fellow traveller Dallasfan's record, Bore would do the most to advance- even if I really mean "be the least harmful to"- the ideas in which I believe.

I ran on a simple, non-loony message of fiscal conservatism, regional rights, and improving activity regarding foreign policy. What's loony about that.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

@ evergreen I challenge you to prove that.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Would've loved to had you're vote though. But we can still help each other from our differing position Governor SimFan.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

JCL by and large has never struck me as someone who should be as controversial as he is on this board. He's relatively well-mannered and while may be a goofball at times, he expresses his (potentially offensive) views in a non-offensive fashion, at the very least. It's arguable that whomever you're referring to is actually positioned further to the left than JCL is to the right, and arguably much more vocal and aggressive in his behavior. I (at least think?) I agree with PiT in that JCL equivalents on our side do not find it as difficult to gain electoral traction within our ranks, in part because we as a force usually stick together, and the elements among us that choose not to are either those who use the brand for personal gain or those who haven't accepted the brand for what it is at its core (which is a close-knit group that sticks together no matter what).

Agreed. I still don't understand why JCL is soooo controversial. What is more, he doesn't even strike me as a socon! The only very strict socially conservative position I've seen him sponsor is abortion. That's it! I think even the least conservative Federalist will find him OK when hearing what he ACTUALLY says, and not what is rumored about him.

Well, his views on Foreign Affairs can some times be controversial. Such as his support of Greater Israel...

Yet many of my fellow players (not all) want Israel back to the pre-1967 borders with a Palestinian state. Those borders (pre-1967) are in my opinion nearly impossible to defend without resorting to the Sampson Option.