Answering on the shock that I wouldn't vote for a Republican

The fact that he's a part of any party in immaterial. The thing I don't like about parties is that the voter is shafted, stuck with party A or B, rather than voting in a person, which is what a voter is doing. Consider the fact that any person in congress or senate may not vote in the same direction as his/her party betheren. Why ... would that make that person an individual, capable of making decisions, maybe. If people applaud individual thought, then why applaud drones to a party?

I would rather have a nice research on individuals running. Hey, how would you get the word out with it requiring so many millions of dollars? Hmmm ... how is this message available now ... internet.

I say abandon the old way of skipping over Indiana for it only votes one way, and instead have a webstie specifically designed for candidates, with researchers finding out everything on each person. Then you would elect a PERSON not a party.

It would then be down to popular vote eliminating the electoral college which has too many faults to be useful. The website would only show candidates and the resarch on each. The voting would still have to take place in a voting center, coupled with fingerprints required for voting. One person, one vote.

Think about all the corruption and scandal and decide if the web were available and research on each person, including (questionable ethics ... questionable financial deals ...) would all the presidents we've had ever make it? Ted Kennedy certainly would be out of there! Clinton would have had so many red flags on "questionable ..." that he'd look like a UN building. It is the better way. Real reasearch providing people (voters) with real possibilities as opposed to schmuck one, schmuck two, schmuck lesser-known than one or two, schmuck lesser-known than the other three.

cleaner TV brings questions

I was watching, Ugly Dachshund, a Disney movie about a man who intentionally integrates a Great Dane into the family, hoping for a manly man dog. It is typical 60s-70s Disney. Anyway, there were a couple of scenes where the couple were in the bedroom and they had seperate beds. Charlie, Monkeyjack's son, was confused by this and wondered if they were in a hotel. That's really very funny and observant.

While most couples have ONE bed, I believe too often TV and movies tend to try to show you action in the bed that isn't appropriate for younger viewers. Generally speaking, the sheet rustling has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the plot whatsoever. This is the mark of a poor writer who can't captivate the audience without titilating them with scenes of sex (to varying degrees of explicitness, graphic content and nature).