I read through this earlier post and realized I may have been a little too harsh in some regards. This is something I really struggle with, especially since I recently had a brief dialogue about this with a colleague from the other side of the aisle.

There are plenty of R's out there with whom I disagree on a great many issues, but with whom I may agree on a great many other issues. What is my proverbial litmus test then for supporting them as candidates? Where do I draw the line?

For starters, I think it matters what office she or he is running for. The wingnuts have different levels of control over different institutions. I have to consider my political calculus carefully. Am I helping strengthen the majority controlled by the far-right idealogues or am I helping to moderate their caucus with somebody who will stand up for the same principles I support?

When I moved from New York to Tucson, I used to say - and it still holds water but in a different way - that a northeastern Republican was better than a southwestern Democrat any day of the week. People in general are more liberal in the northeast and more conservative in the southwest. It's the lay of the political land. Just as all politics is personal and local, I realize now that all politics is contextual.

To borrow a phrase: you go to election with the Democrats you've got.

I'm learning that sometimes you also have to go with the Republicans you've got and that's not necessarily the end of the world.

I don't mean for this to sound like I've made a major revelation that perhaps not all people with a big R on their voter ID cards are bad. I just haven't expected them to be nearly as progressive as I've found them to be and it's a big relief. I'm really curious to know - with no judgement attached, simply out of pure curiosity - why anyone belongs to one political party, especially when the other party seems more in line with his or her politics.

I assume the Goldwater-era conservative values of local control and limited government would probably cover most of that answer, along with family tradition. With the religious right vastly overreaching at all levels of government nowadays, it's no wonder that some non-religious conservatives would try and distance themselves from the theocratic base that appears to control their party.

It's been said many times in the blogosphere (of which I'm much the newbie) that the old labels of "conservative" and "liberal" don't quite work anymore. This does make me uneasy because it signals yet again that the political center has shifted considerably to the right. Then again I never really much care for labels of any stripe, so perhaps it's OK.

I will say though that I have far more respect for someone who is totally committed to a cause, even if it's one that's totally contrary to my politics and to common sense, than I do for someone who considers himself or herself "moderate." You have to stand for something and be passionate enough to advocate for it.

It's easy to judge a person by the company they keep. But it's also helpful to have friends (or at least accessible colleagues) in high places. I stand by my earlier criticism of the HRC. And I'm still no fan of Congressman Kolbe, but that's mostly for his pro-"free"-trade, pro-deregulation, pro-big-business platform. As chair of the House subcommittee on foreign affairs appropriations, he holds the purse strings on all foreign aid. I would much rather have somebody hold that powerful position who would do more to help end starvation and poverty in third world countries, rather than throwing good money after bad to multi-national corporations so they can maintain their exploitative profit margins based on the antiquated and ineffective trickle-down theory.

He also gave me an icky feeling when I met with him for work a few months ago. Even my usually obtuse boss noticed that he eyed me up and down. Ew.