Forsaking analysis, your editorial about the 5th District Congressional race ("City not tail wagging 5th," Nov. 9) chose instead to echo Virgil Goode's platform: re-elect him because his opponent is a liberal.

Given that three races in a row have been so much in Mr. Goode's favor, we would benefit from knowing just which "competing visions and policies" might "enjoy widespread support." Understand, of course, that the role of Congress should be to govern, as well as to represent.

Which is more moderate? An understanding that the massive deficit will be paid for by our children and that the Bush tax cuts may not be good for the economy, or the opposite?

That pointing out that a war aimed at the wrong enemy and threatening to bankrupt the nation may not be the best way to defeat Al Qaeda, or the opposite?

That a realistic effort to fix the dangerous cracks in our nation's health care system may take much more than just tinkering at the margins, or the opposite?

That fixing Social Security, especially if the deficit continues to drain the trust fund, may take sacrifice by all of us, or the opposite?

That new investment in vital infrastructure may take additional taxes, or the opposite?

Maybe suggesting that marijuana use be decriminalized was too shockingly liberal for this district, but after more than 30 years of the "war on drugs" even rural conservatives might begin to think something is amiss. That is, if someone has the temerity to point it out.

It may be that defending the right of a woman to choose to control her own body, or arguing that gay citizens should enjoy the same secular rights shared by the rest of us, is immoderate. It may also be that suggesting that the separation of church and state has served this country well for over two centuries, and that the ephemeral promise to legislate "values" is a smokescreen to cover a policy of corporate giveaways, are indeed "left hooks." I plead guilty, but suspect that the Democratic Party's faithful workers and donors will not substantially support the opposite.

When next you endorse Mr. Goode because of his affinity with the District's voters (though not with your readers and subscribers) you might also discuss with which of his well-articulated policies you agree, and why they are more appropriate than those of his opponent. This is truly something "voters would desire and benefit from." (Al Weed, published in The Daily Progress, November 13, 2004)