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.
