Many of the more thoughtful readers of this blog have been essentially disenfranchised by the mainstream media in their preferred explanation for Bush’s victory - that it was a redneck assault on gay marriage and stem cell research. This assertion relies on exit polling which lists “Moral Vision” highest among the voters’ motivations. Never mind that these same exit polls have been discredited for completely missing the result of the election, let’s examine the question itself.
What is “Moral Vision”? Well, it’s certainly subject to many interpretations - and one of them could be anti-gay, of course - but that wouldn’t have been what would have sprung to my mind had I been stopped by a pollster on my way out of voting. I would have thought immediately of the Middle East and the War on Terror, because I believe that to be a moral war against particularly dangerous brands of fascism that threaten to engulf the world. That was my reason for voting for Bush and it was, to me, entirely a moral one. Although I wasn’t stopped, I might well have chosen “Moral Vision” because of that and I favor gay marriage and stem cell research (though I am not qualified to say how extensively it should be funded vis-a-vis other research).
So what we are looking at is a junk question subject to the broadest interpretation. That it is being exploited for other purposes is dishonest and indeed almost sinister. It is also self-destructive to those doing it.
UPDATE: An interesting article on the subject here. (hat tip: Nancy Block)
PJM Home
126 Comments
1. RogerA:Thank you for pointing out this obvious truth, Roger–I have been deluged with emails from my liberal family members and colleagues–most of whom point to Bill Bennett’s egregious column in the NRO. They go on to compare evangelicals with jihadists in their alleged “fevor.” Of course, my response is that I dont recall any liberals being captured and beheaded in a Pentecostal church lately.
While I thought dragging gay marriage into the campaign was a bit tacky (on both sides), it was relatively meaningless in that the framers of the constitution in their wisdom built a high hurdle to amend the constitution. I dont see it happening. Finally, the people who are wailing and gnashing their teeth in fear of evangelicals,grossly overstate the number of evangelicals compared to christians as a whole–of course, they would not be familiar with either number, let alone observant Jews or American muslims. Religion, to them, is to be feared, not understood.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:13 am 2. nadadoc:Amen, Roger. The Left is destined to be more and more of the outer fringe if they continue to belittle the “heartland”. Like you, I consider my vote for President Bush to be a moral one that has nothing to do with stem cell research or gay marriage. It’s a pro-America, pro-humanity, pro-military, and pro-democracy vote. But the Left insists on continuing their anti-America Sept. 10th assault. It’s disheartening. My entire family gets together for the Thanksgiving weekend, and we have to make a “no politics in the house” rule because the majority liberals are so antagonistic. They truly believe a vote for President Bush is evil and ignorant. You and your readers are my support group. Thank you all.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:20 am 3. Howard:The topper was that they surveyed young voters and found that Moral Vision was their number one reason for Bush voting. Now tell me, when you were between 18 and 22 did you think of anything other than getting laid and scoring drugs? Moral Vision? My moral vision had to do with how low I’d go to get laid or how ugly the girl I chose would be.
BTW it looks like Bruce, Jam, and the Dixie Chicks drew 80,000 people who refused to vote. I love it.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:21 am 4. Annalucia:Nobody exit-polled me (probably because I voted at 6:15 am) but the constant repetition of “Moral Vision” has me wondering. Did the exit pollers say, “Who did you vote for, and why?” or were the voters given a multiple-list to choose from as they often are in telephone opinion polls? As in: “The most important thing to me was The War on Terror/Moral Vision/The Economy/Education. Pick only one, please.”
BTW even if I had been exit-polled, I probably wouldn’t have given a truthful answer. I vote at the American Legion Post around the corner from me and while there’s not supposed to be any electioneering within 50 feet of the front door, there was a guy standing there all but blocking the door, handing out a list of Democratic nominees for whom I should be voting. (This is Chicago, after all). Another reason to distrust exit polls.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:22 am 5. alcibiades:Speaking of Moral Vision and the Middle East:
the Paris hospitals keep reporting that Arafat “is in a stable condition.”
Yes, Watson, death is a stable condition.
Cause, like he’s dead and he ain’t getting undead anytime soon.
Tsk. Nary a vampire in sight when you need’em most.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:31 am 6. slarrow:“It is also self-destructive to those doing it.”
It is, indeed. It gives Democrats a pleasant rationalization for their loss–hey, we got beat by the ignorant bigot vote–that prevents them from facing the truth: their side was rejected and the other side favored by more people. They’re looking at people who they think should be on their side but voted for Bush, and they’re saying, “What’s wrong with these people?” instead of saying, “What’s wrong with us?”
Mickey Kaus has it right: “To win, then, it sure looks as if Democrats are going to have to start _convincing some people who are now on the other side._ …”
(Some are also repeating 2000 by thinking that now Bush will be “constrained” by reality to be a moderate and “heal” the nation. These people keep expecting Bush to govern like he lost instead of like he won. When are they going to learn? But that’s probably a topic for another post.)
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:35 am 7. Bostonian:The “moral vision” question was quite ill-posed. I am sure that the pollsters meant it as shorthand for obedience to traditional Christian values, but without any follow-up or any better questions, it’s guesswork as to what it means.
I’m personally convinced that for a large number of Americans, when they said yes, they were thinking of John Forbes Kerry and his deeply immoral behavior when he left Vietnam.
***
I would have liked to hear a different exit poll… Which of the following factors was the most important in deciding your vote:
*The fact that my nephew came back from Iraq and said our press is lying through their teeth
*The Democratic party’s embrace of conspiracy theories
*Disgust at the attempts to manipulate my vote
*The Oil for Food scandal
*The complete awfulness of John Forbes Kerry as a presidential candidate
*Fear that the Democrats would indeed try to steal votes
*The Democratic party’s comfort level with Yassir Arafat as a “statesman”
But they didn’t ask for my help.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:37 am 8. John Lynch:This interpretation of the meaning of the election has been bugging me.
I have read a number of pieces, seen the TV pundits, cruised both left and right blogs; and it is a recurring theme.
Funny, I do not think that is why I voted. However, I am only me - not significant, as I was not exit polled.
Nevertheless, having some time to think about it (what, three days?) I have this thought:
It might take a minute to develop, but: Is the economy really as bad as ‘they’ say? Is the war a ‘dismal failure’? Is the President a liar and a traitor? Is the U.S. acting unilaterally? Was Sadam really able to be contained, and therefore not a threat?
In my mind, there have been significant arguments from the left. They state these things are true. Now, I am just in flyoverland, therefore have no education and rely on my bible for all of my insights, but the recital above looks like postmodern constructivism to me. It looks like a reality that can be constructed if you are careful, very careful, about which observations you wish to internalize. It looks like repeated material, so repeated that it is taken as truth. Some of my Dem friends believe all of the above. Some are educated and are capable of constructing such viewpoints. Others are less so, and know these things to be true because the evening TV news says so.
To me, each of these statements are observably, demonstrably, and irrefutably false. However, I guess being in flyoverland, with limited intelligence (that incestuous breeding,) and relying only on my bible, what else can be expected of poor me?
What does rejection of a postmodern version of truth look like? To the great unwashed redstate ignoramus, that does not know the word postmodern; does not realize that the ‘well-educated’ blue-stater feels perfectly free to construct reality, as-reality-is-just-what-our-perceptions-make-it,-and-we-control-our-perceptions; and is only left to ponder his or her own cognitive dissonance with wait-things-don’t-seem-that-bad faith-based feelings? How does that person reject these assertions?
Could it be that such a person would say something like: I reject that person. I reject him because I do not believe him. I do not believe his friends either. That Moore guy, that Franken guy, that New York paper. I reject them too. I reject them all because, while my poor brain cannot reason out quite why: I believe that they are lying. They are fudging the truth. They are not … wait for it … Moral.
The single largest reason that I am going to vote against this guy is … well I can’t argue those facts they keep using in their arguments … those arguments must be true because the news says so … the reason I’m going to vote against that guy is … well I can’t say the economy, because the news says that Kerry would help more than my guy … the reason I’m going to vote for my guy is … the Iraq war, no, can’t say that as the news tells me that it is a disaster … Wait, I don’t believe all that … those guys are lying … I’m voting this way because I’m angry that those guys keep lying. They are immoral!!
Is that it, or should I believe Jane Smiley?
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:38 am 9. Hogarth:The already discredited exit polls are now being used as fodder for mainstream media to try and determine why us ignorant boobs in Middle America voted for Bush. The answer they come up with: we’re all evangelical bigots and are therefore against gays and gay marriage. Well, they may console themselves in any manner they choose, and if they want to bury their arrogant, elitist heads in the sand for another four years and inevitably face another drubbing in 2008, more power to them. For such nuanced people, they sure to like to boil things down to facile, simplistic fundamentals.
To illustrate the complexity they ignore, I thought it would be interesting to chronicle my journey to a 2004 Bush vote. I started out thinking that this might be the year I vote for a Democrat. Other than Bush’s foreign policy, I didn’t agree with many of his policies. Domestically, I find compassionate conservatism to be frightfully expensive. I think we need tighter immigration laws, not blanket amnesty. In balance, though, I liked (and deserved) my tax cuts, and I don’t want to pay $16 for an orange. I have always admired Bush’s tenacity, though. His detractors call it stubbornness, but I see it as leadership. I’ve believed for quite awhile that the job of President of the United States is not a position that should be filled with a politician; rather, it is a position requiring the steadfastness of a true leader. I see that in Bush, and I respect it, even when I don’t agree with his decisions.
That said, in foreign policy, even with regards to Iraq, I had some serious issues with President Bush. For example, I thought it was a terrible idea to waste two months chasing UN approval that could never be gained while that organization shaved billions off of the top of the well-intentioned but inherently corrupt Oil for Food program. These months gave Hussein the time needed to hide or dispose of the WMDs everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, knew he had. This led to the PR coup of this young century for our enemies, both domestic and foreign, when we were consequently unable to find the promised stockpiles of weapons. Even earlier on, I thought it was a terrible misjudgment to center on WMDs as the primary reason for going into Iraq. There were, and still are, many valid reasons for our actions in Iraq, but the Bush Administration apparently believed they needed to stress a single, over-riding justification, and unfortunately picked the wrong horse.
So, I was luke warm to a second Bush term, and looked forward to investigating an alternative. I followed the democratic primaries very closely and thought that out of the nine, there was one that I might be interested in voting for. Too bad for Joe that he was deemed by the elites in his party as being too Jewish and too ugly. He may still have been carrying the indelible taint from his prior run with Psycho Al by his side. Either way, long story short we ended up with John Kerry. Prior to Kerry’s nomination, I tended towards anti-Bush. After the nomination, I strongly turned Anybody But Kerry. When it came down to making my decision, my vote was somewhat for Bush, but primarily against Kerry and his party.
Specifically, I voted against:
- I voted against a man that clearly used his Vietnam experience as resume padding. After failing to get his requested deferments, he enlisted in the Naval Reserve, fully expecting stateside duty. When that didn’t work out for him, he went overseas and bought a 8mm movie camera to chronicle his exploits. Once enough film was in the can, he gamed the system and got his three purple hearts. Had he been an enlisted man, I think I could have lived with that. As an officer, expected to lead and set a positive example for his men, I cannot. His actions in Vietnam showed early on that this man does not understand or care about the responsibilities of being a leader.
- I voted against the man that came back from Vietnam and slandered his fellow soldiers, ostensibly in protest of our involvement in the war, but more likely in order to make a name for himself to launch his political career. I voted against the treasonous action of illegally meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives on two, if not three, occasions. The fact that he was still in our military at the time exacerbates my feelings of disgust at his actions. There are right ways to protest the actions of our government, and there are treasonous ways to protest. This man chose the path of dishonor.
- I voted against the man that can’t seem to tell the truth about even innocuous things like having run in the Boston marathon (he did not). I voted against the man that testified before the Senate that he was in Cambodia in December, 1968. He was not. As examples of this casual, and possibly pathological, lying became even more common I decided that there was no way in the world he could be trusted on any topic. It became even more obvious who had the most credibility between Kerry and the 254 Swift Boat Vets that had come forward to share their direct experiences with Lt. Kerry, war hero.
- I voted against a man that wasted 20 years of opportunity to lead his country as one of only one hundred Senators. I voted against a man that tried to play both sides of every issue. I voted against a man that couldn’t even stand up and take the responsibility for his senate votes. I voted against the man that voted against our military procurements as a habit. I voted against the man that voted to gut the intelligence budget, but had the gall to complain about faulty intelligence leading to the 9/11 attacks. I voted against the man who voted to cede Kuwait to Sadaam Hussein. I voted against the man that originally reversed his earlier decision and agreed that Hussein needed to be removed, only to recant when he thought it would gain him his partyís nomination for doing so. I voted against a man that is incapable of demonstrating the strength of his convictions because he simply hasnít any convictions.
- I voted against a man that would say anything, anything at all, no matter who it hurt to become President, simply to stoke his enormous ego. I voted against a man that accused the incumbent of having “secret plans” to bring back the draft, in order to frighten younger voters and their parents into voting for him. Cutting Social Security, dairy subsidies, whatever - Bush had a “secret plan.” These accusations from a man who had a “plan” for everything, with the exception of having a plan to deal with the Swift Boat vets, who clearly stated their plans well in advance. This from a man who could not or would not provide ANY details about his plans.
- I voted against the ìwhatever Bush has done, I would have done betterî load of drivel. 20-20 hindsight is not a quality I look for in a presidential candidate; I prefer one that can look ahead and see opportunities. I look for one that can decisively address unanticipated challenges without having to check the polls first.
- I voted against a man that has vacillated on the most important issue of our time, the war on terror. I voted against the man that has repeatedly denigrated our military leadership in a time of war to score political points with his far-left base. I voted against a man that believes the duplicitous and cowardly French and Germans are more desirable allies than the steadfast British, Australians, and others. I voted against the man that believes killing 3000+ civilians in cold blood, in an attempt to destroy our national will, is a ìlaw enforcementî issue, not an act of war.
- I voted against a man that believes ìrichî people like me should pay even more taxes, above the 34% I pay now, while he and his billionaire wife pay less than 14%. I voted against a man that doesnít understand that corporations are good, not evil. I make my living working for a corporation and do not want to see it damaged by populist rhetoric and class warfare. I voted against a man that believes every person that survives the democratic abortion on demand policy should be supported at a standard of living that surpasses the middle class of every other country in the world by redistribution of my hard-earned income.
If voting against Kerry wasn’t enough, I also voted against:
- I voted against a blatantly biased media that applied a double standard in their reporting that surpassed belief. I voted against a media that believed they could get more credible witnesses to Kerry’s Vietnam experience by traveling to Vietnam than they could get from 254 Americans, including retired Admirals and a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. I voted against a media that attempted to smear a sitting president using patently bogus documents, and to this day refuses to apologize or hold the responsible parties accountable. I voted against a media that used the despicable actions of a very small group of Abu Graib prison guards to tarnish our entire military and country in pursuit of their cause to get their anointed candidate elected. I voted against a media that apparently believes it was more honorable to run and hide in Canada (or Oxford) to avoid Vietnam service than it was to dedicate six years of your life flying a dangerously obsolete fighter jet in the National Guard.
- I voted against Massachusetts activist judges that feel that they should be able to decide social issues for our entire country. I don’t personally think gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage; I think Hollywood and Washington DC heterosexuals are doing a fine job of that themselves. I really don’t have a dog in this hunt so to speak. But I believe that this is an issue for each state to decide. Regarding a national constitutional amendment, I tend to favor amendments that grant rights to minorities over amendments that restrict rights.
- I voted against a party that embraces blowhards like Michael Moore, even to the extent of giving him a seat in the presidential box at their national convention. I voted against barely literate “celebrities” that feel that their opinions are somehow weightier than mine, and the media that enables them. I voted against the party of Terry McAuliffe. I voted against the party of George Soros. I voted against the party that will not denounce groups that cannot and will not tell the difference between the President of the United States and Adolph Hitler. I voted against the party that embraces the first amendment as long as it is not used to ensure the freedom to speak against or criticize them.
Too bad these questions were addressed on the exit polls. The media and democratic party might, just might, have gotten a clue.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:40 am 10. Hogarth:Wow, that was a bit wordier than I thought. Sorry about that!
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:43 am 11. ajf:Roger,
You can avoid the disfiguration of your text when using symbols such as &trade and © by encoding them. If you look at the html for this post you’ll see that I used (ampersand)trade and (ampersand)copy rather than alt-2 and alt-g from the keyboard.
As to the topic at hand, that the MSM is trying to cast the outcome of the election as some sort of uprising of bigots is hardly surprising. It’s projection pure and simple.
Though I have no animosity toward people who value religion or believe in God, I have personally never subscribed to those beliefs. So much so that I don’t even feel comfortable calling my self an atheist because I feel the word gives to much credit to the notion of the existence of God. But, anyway…
I don’t support “gay marriage” because I believe it’s silly and offensive to transfer privileges from one group to another by judicial fiat. Those privileges have been granted over time for reasons deemed beneficial to society. And, if another group wishes similar privileges they should have to demonstrate that there is a societal benefit to each privilege they seek and do so to the satisfaction of a majority of the citizenry, ideally on a state by state basis. It’s the only “moral” way to do it as far as I’m concerned.
I voted against public funding of stem cell research here in California because it’s a scam. All the evidence I need is that the proponents want public funding. If the research had any merit it would be swimming in private funds. For crying out loud, if all those internet startups could raise billions and billions on pie-in-the-sky fantasies you would think that the possibility of a “cure for x” might make for an acceptable investment.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:46 am 12. Springtime Jones:The enlightened class has explained that “moral vision” is a “code word” for hates gays and abortion. I guess I’ll need a secret liberal decoder to decipher the real reasons I voted for Bush.
Perhaps it’s unreasonable to consider that a lot of people agree with Bush’s Doctrine for the War on Terror and consider it to fall under the entirely vague label of “moral vision” which John Kerry had very little of.
Nah, that can’t be. We were all tricked.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:48 am 13. Kay in CA:I checked the issues exit polling at cnn.com:
Iraq 15%
Terrorism 19%
Economy/Jobs 20%
Moral Values 22%
Note that Iraq and terrorism combined = 34%.
I would venture that almost all of Bush’s voters see those two issues as one, making that the top issue. I also think “moral values” reflects our respect for Pres. Bush’s character and resolve.
In my opinion, the media is spinning the values issue to make flyover country and Bush voters seem like ignorant rednecks.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:48 am 14. Bostonian:RogerA:
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:51 am 15. charlotte:Isn’t it telling that our MSM and the European intelligentsia are spinning “morals” to mean something rather low-brow, distasteful and religion based, as if American people of faith are dirt ignorant, racist yokels and the only ones to whom “morals” mean anything? How unbelievably offensive their reactionary and elitist secularism. While it is completely valid for people to vote their faith if compatible with democratic and fair governance, I suspect that even more of us voted on civic morals in this election. I, too, would have told a pollster that my vote for Bush and Repubs was based on morals, for their vision of liberty and democracy for oppressed and failed countries and for their good fight to defend and protect our own country seem humanitarian, righteous and utterly necessary to me.
That the MSM, academia, Hollywood, and limousine liberals conducted an all out assault on truth and civility during this campaign was enough reason in itself to cast the more moral vote for the ones they sought to defeat unfairly. Also, mine was a moral vote cast against the Democrats’ pet UN and its arrogance, hypocrisy, succor to tyrants, and grand-scale corruption.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:51 am 16. Bostonian:Hogarth, I enjoyed every word.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:53 am 17. Rick Ballard:Hogart,
Bravo
Hear, hear.
Long but not repetitve and well worth the time.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:53 am 18. blogaddict:Preach it, Hogarth, preach it!
I have also been newly disheartened by the “Bush voters=antigay bigots” spin of the MSM. Of course, I shouldn’t be surprised, but somehow I am. It teaches me that, at least at this point, they are mainly interested in playing the same old game, and in demonizing the right as an entire block of bigoted idiots. Blogs like this are conveniently ignored; the ambiguity of the “moral vision” question is also ignored. As Roger so rightly points out, many of us who either favor gay marriage or have no objection to it could easily have agreed that Bush represented a better moral vision, a vision that had nothing to do with such issues, but had to do with things like steadfastness, courage, liberty. Are these not moral visions?
Leftists, it’s not all about sex. Andrew Sullivan, it’s not all about you. Sure, some of it was–I’m not pretending that some Bush-supporters aren’t homophobes–but do you really think that turned the tide? Do you really think those people would ever be voting for Kerry?
I also had thought that, post-election, the anger of some of my friends at my apostasy would calm down. That has happened with some (mainly the ones who weren’t all that angry in the first place). But I detect (or imagine) an extra bitterness and distance in others. They are very angry, and I fear I have become the enemy. My suspicion is that, as soon as Bush makes an error (which of course he is bound to do) or a policy they don’t like (ditto), they will hold it over my head.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:56 am 19. AlanC:As has been pointed out there are other definitions for “Moral Values”.
The most important one for me, sans liberal decoder ring, is character. Another might be trustworthiness.
Combined I think that I have always voted on those traits first. 9/11 was the validation of that approach for me.
In 2000 I voted for Bush over Gore not because of issues per se because the differences there were not striking enough. But, there was a huge difference in character (see “no controlling legal authority).
My position is that my crystal ball don’t work all that well, and when the shit hits the fan, I want the person in the office to be a trustworthy leader. It’s always the things we don’t predict, those pesky “unknown unknowns” that cause the trouble.
Just think how Bush would have reacted to the SU invading Afghanistan or Khomeini and the hostages, compared with the way Carter reacted. Or Clinton’s reaction to WTC I.
You need a person with “Moral Values” to meet the unexpected successfully and correctly.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:02 am 20. Hogarth:Geez, almost 2000 words and I get stinger wrong.
Should be:
Too bad these questions were not addressed on the exit polls.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:12 am 21. John Lynch:Wow!
Well said Hogarth, and others.
Now, my anger is rising.
This ‘misunderstanding’ is both willful, and dangerous.
Willful, in that it gives excuses that are more convenient and palatable to the left than to reconsider their positions and actions.
Dangerous in that it sends the message to the world that we are all a bunch of religious fruitcakes. Why is that dangerous? Who cares?
Well, we are in the middle of a war that is meant to go after religious fundamentalists. Not a war of religions, but a war against fundamentalists that have taken terrorism as their tool.
It would not be good to have our war recast as a war of religions.
This perception, the perception of the election being of religious moral values must be corrected!
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:12 am 22. Matt Evans:As a Christian and someone who has lamented the downward spiral of the morals of the far left over the last 4 years, I think I should speak up. I was quite heartened by the results of the exit polling indicating that morals were such a big deal to voters (and admittedly, surprised).
However, I do not think that morals necessarily means “Christian values”. It means moral values, period. My moral values come from my faith in God. Other folks values come from their religions, their family, etc. Most of us understand that there are “right” and “wrong” things- the far left does not think this.
I suspect the far left has embraced the excesses of Hollywood money and its lifestyle to such an extent, that admitting there are moral absolutes would force many to take stock of their own lifestyle. Self reflection is not the strong suit of the far left. Decadence, in many ways, is appealing- no rules, in many ways, is an appealing concept, in the short term. But overtime, a lack of values simply undermines what made this country strong in the first place- simple values- strength and courage, love and hope, honor and discipline, the inherent right of a people to be free. To me, those values arise from Judeo-Christian ideas but if somebody believes those same ideals come from another source, thats fine by me. As long as we basically understand, there are certain values and morals in our country that we not only tolerate but embrace.
The far left refuses to do that. I heard on the radio that Seymour Butts, a somewhat famous pornographer, was handing out porn DVD’s to people in New York who voted for Kerry. I don’t care if other people watch porn, I don’t care if other people make porn but isn’t Free Porn for Each Vote where some of us say “ok he’s crossed the line”. The far left attract many people who no longer believe in morals, in values. They subscribe to the concept of “Do as you like”. “Do as you like”, taken to its logical conclusion, inevitably leads to anarchy.
The lefties protesting in San Fran, with signs saying “Fuck Middle America” are what the far left has become. And I think its safe to say, if asked what their core values are, you’d get crap about the “freedom of the individual” and “freedom to do what we want”- thats not America folks. Middle America sent a very strong message to Hollywood and New York- the message was that values and morality still matter, to much of the United States. That doesn’t mean Howard Stern can’t curse on the radio or certain movies should be censored or even that Michael Moore can lie his big fat ass off. What it does mean is, there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed and the left is at a severe disadvantage, as it has no idea where those lines are.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:14 am 23. Knucklehead:The connection made by the MSM between “Gay Marriage” and “Moral Issues” certainly doesn’t hold in my case. Had the SSM issue been on the ballot in my state it would not have been “the issue” that drove me to the polls. I would have voted “no” wrt SSM and, if asked, I would not have identified myself as voting based upon moral issues.
I hate polls because they do idiotic things such as ask one to select from a short list of inadequate choices. I would not vote against SSM on the basis of “morality”. I would vote against it unless I became satisfied that my primary concerns about it are unfounded. If legislation allowing MSM were passed I would accept that despite whether I like it or not. Then I would wait to see if my concerns were well founded so I could then say, “Don’t blame me, I told y’all about this!” or “Hey, I was for SSM way back when I was at Woodstock. Did I ever show you the hat Country Joe game me for giving him a lift out to the farm?”
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:31 am 24. slarrow:Wow. Lots of good stuff in this thread.
Here’s what odd for me. I’m a conservative Christian from southwest Missouri, and I think George W. Bush is a fundamentally honest, decent, God-fearing man. I think he’s courageous and believes in a right and wrong he didn’t invent. I think he means what he says and believes that America is a good and great nation. I think it’s pretty clear that he’s just a good man, and I think those surveyed chose to convey this type of impression by checking “moral values.”
And if I were to say this to one of those blue-county types, they’d look at me like I was from outer space. Then they’d have the gall to treat me like I was the provincial one.
This is blind insularity masquerading as sophistication, and the fact that it’s already being bandied about so much suggests they just can’t break of that cocoon yet.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:36 am 25. Terry:http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Interesting nuggets in the exit polls:
When asked - POLICY TOWARD SAME-SEX COUPLES
25% said LEGALLY MARRY - Bush got 22%, Kerry 77%
35% said CIVIL UNIONS - Bush got 52%, Kerry 47%
37% said NO LEGAL RECOG - Bush got 70%, Kerry 29%
Looks like they split this issue pretty evenly.
When asked - ABORTION SHOULD BE …
21% said ALWAYS LEGAL - Bush got 25%, Kerry 73%
34% said MOSTLY LEGAL - Bush got 38%, Kerry 61%
26% said MOSTLY ILLEGAL - Bush got 73%, Kerry 26%
16% said ALWAYS ILLEGAL - Bush got 77%, Kerry 22%
This does not sound like a mandate to change abortion.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:38 am 26. blogaddict:Another thought. Remember the Australian election? Prior to the election, the media spin here seemed to be: this war will be a referendum on the war and Australia’s participation, as well as issues like the economy, etc. If Howard had lost, I have no doubt that it would have been major front-page news in the NY Times and elsewhere, and been cast as a repudiation of Bush and the war. But when Howard won, suddenly the news of the victory was relegated to p.16, and what was the spin? Suddenly, it wasn’t about the war at all, it was about the economy, stupid, even though the exact same person was writing the article (in the NY Times).
This is even worse. Now that Bush has won, it’s not just the economy, it’s the bigotry, stupid.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:40 am 27. charlotte:Had Bush lost, the MSM would be spinning the election as a referendum on Iraq, his prosecution on the WoT and on our foreign relations. Since Bush won, this campaign which scarcely mentioned the gay marriage issue at the national level was fought between the bigots and the nice people–? Oh, please.
Isn’t this derogatory “morals” spin by the media and Democrat/ Euro partisans just precisely why their man lost and Bush won? Their smear tactics, antipathy to absolute values and basic anti-Americanism are repellent. They’ve learned nothing from their defeat. They can’t comprehend that they defeated themselves and that they are a party of defeat.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:41 am 28. blogaddict:Oops, error: I meant “this ELECTION will be a referendum on….” (not this WAR will be a referendum on…)
Speed-writing; not a good idea.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:42 am 29. charlotte:Sorry, blogaddict. We were posting at the same time and you said the same thing a little better and first!
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:43 am 30. Terry:Also see http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/004035.php
“Invasion of the THEO-CONS”
“…In the first place, “largest single block” turns out to mean 22%, meaning 78% of voters — including two-thirds of Bush voters — named some other issue. Second, the pollsters only managed to elevated “moral values” to number one by dividing up the other issues into subcategories. Thus “Iraq” and “Terrorism” are treated as separate issues, though grouped together as, say, “national security” they would have claimed the top spot, with 34% of the total. Likewise “taxes” and “economy” were named by a combined 25% of voters. Had “moral values” been split into “abortion” and “gay marriage,” the spin would have been rather different.”
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:44 am 31. Rick Ballard:“This perception, the perception of the election being of religious moral values must be corrected!”
John Lynch,
Ain’t gonna happen. The polling company that developed the question did so at the behest of its client - an MSM consortium. The polling company behaved with all the ethical constraint of a well run brothel in that they determined a question formulation that could be interpreted in about 6,000 different ways, both by the survey subject and by the survey purchaser. Had Bush lost, the MSM meme development crew would have put a completely different spin on this or ignored it all together.
I now believe (and would pay good money to be able to empirically prove) that the exit polling was a last dirty tactic employed by the MSM using the hookers from the polling brothels, first to drive down turnout of W supporters with dirty samples and second to begin development of the ‘meme which will become the election trope’.
Watching the MSM defend the exit polling is quite entertaining. “I just play the piano here, I don’t have any idea what goes on upstairs.” The exit pollsters deserve to share the same reputation as their MSM employers.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:48 am 32. fatherson:I did a quick check of the Bush/Gore 2000 exit poll data
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
to see if the voters had been asked about “moral values”. They were asked about their views on abortion, and whether they were homosexual, but “moral values” appeared not to be on the list of items asked about. Whoever designed the 2004 exit polls must have had an idea what “moral values” is supposed to mean. We need to hear from the designer of the 2004 polls.
I couldn’t get my A’s and A HREF’s to work out for the link. Sorry.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:54 am 33. blogaddict:Terry–
It reminds me of the way sugar is sometimes listed on food labels, to make it seem like it’s not the main ingredient: they divide it up and call it corn syrup, sucrose, glucose, fructose, etc. etc. Since by law the main ingredient is supposed to be listed first, this way the sugar ingredients go way down on the list, even though sugar in general is still the main ingredient. Thus the war in Iraq and terrorism are always separated, to make them appear further down on the list.
Charlotte–
Great minds think alike (and at the same time!)
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:55 am 34. Knucklehead:Terry,
You’re good! You go girlfriend!
Rick Ballard,
Yuppers!
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:56 am 35. Samuel:Wow, Samuel “The Redneck” Freedman. I wonder if fellow rednecks Roger L. Simon, Ron Silver and Ed Koch would like to join in with me in hunting down a few of them there “Blue Staters”. The conventional wisdom and thought concerning supporters of Bush is… well just not that conventional… it is prejudicial.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:57 am 36. Matt Evans:Terrye, I don’t get the impression that abortion is the hot button topic that it used to be. Its been around, in some legal form, for 20 years. My parents, who were pro-life activists, have basically moved on - they support the ban on partial birth abortions now but have accepted (though they still don’t agree with) that abortion is legal.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, is in many ways, a reflection of the abortion fight 20 years ago - judges changing the law, far left activists, name calling, etc. I get the impression that many who strongly disagreed with abortion prior to its legalization, were very very surprised that judges could usurp the will of the people. I firmly believe those same people learned their lesson and will not let it happen again with gay marriage.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:59 am 37. Eric in Denver:OT
Got this from a MoveOn friend of mine…
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
I am not sure whether I should pity these people or just laugh at them.
I may just do both.
Nov 5, 2004 - 12:23 pm 38. Brian:As a New Jerseyan, a huge heap of my moral outrage this time round was enkindled by our infamous governor Jim McGreevy.
And not because he’s gay.
Nov 5, 2004 - 12:26 pm 39. Knucklehead:John Lynch,
Nov 5, 2004 - 12:55 pm 40. Bostonian:Knuck, no caffeine late in the day for you. You KNOW what happens.
Besides it’s “edumucate.”
Nov 5, 2004 - 12:57 pm 41. raf:Above and beyond all this, I am bemused by the sight of an organized political movement intentionally, purposefully, and forcefully positioning itself in opposition to “moral values.” Vote for me! I have no moral values! Whoda thunk.
Nov 5, 2004 - 1:20 pm 42. Terrye:If issues like gay marriage were so important to these people and they had eight years with Saint Bill in the White House, why not make it legal then? Oh yeah, that is right, Bill Clinton was the guy who came up with the Defense of Marriage Act. It was soon forgotten like the Iraqi liberation Act apparently. But hell that had nothing to do with morality did it? Just political expedience.
I don’t care if you are religious or not some of these people are insensitive and they have no respect for other people and their feelings. A lot of the time “Moral Values” means ‘I don’t have to worry about leaving the room if my kid is watching TV. I don’t want to get the willies when I hear fuck this and fuck that in their music’. This bothers people.
Remember Bill Cosby and his rant? I would say that was about morals.
And as for religion, there are a lot of Catholics in this country as well a myriad of denominaitons of Protestants and all manner of other religions, the Dems need to stop treating these people like freaks.
I think I read somewhere that about 87% of the people in the US believe in God.
Nov 5, 2004 - 1:26 pm 43. MichelefromLA:The eurphoria that I felt the first day I knew for sure Bush won has given way to a bit of frustration - after hearing from liberal friends who fear the draft, after reading the newspaper letters to the editor calling Middle America moronic, after hearing commentators speak of this country moving toward fundamentalist religion.
I voted for President Bush, my first Republican presidential vote ever, and I was not raised with religion. My parents were young, San Franciscan hippies who decided to shun much of what they felt were restrictions of their 1940s-50s childhoods.
After 9/11/01 I began to educate myself about the Middle East, terrorism, previous wars and political ideologies. I’ve met and spoken to people who’ve fled dictatorships and I’ve gotten to know more people who were always conservative due to their religious values. In these last few years I’ve learned how naive I was about so many things.
While my friends are all very liberal (the Michael Moore crowd), I now see how intolerant they are to hearing other opinions and to people of religion. I now see how many people I know who are vegans, PETA
protestors, “Feminists”, “progressive” educators, etc. and are even more radical, angry and in my face with their beliefs than any of the people of faith that I’ve met. Actually, the Christian and Jewish people I’ve spoken with are so amazingly tolerant, that I wonder how they’re saddled with such horrible stereotypes.
Yet my friends will pity me for my stunted brain, since ALL Bush supporters are morons. They might enjoy my company, but I’m quite certain this is what they think of me. I doubt they’ll be open to hearing all that I’ve learned over the years because it’ll be easier to put me in my little box and close their minds.
Actually, upon closer inspection, I’ve discovered my values on family, humanity, justice, economics…were always conservative - It took September 11, 2001 for me to stop and look a lot closer at the Democratic party. And when I looked - I saw the intolerance, anger and stereotypes that were used to manipulate people, like me, who weren’t paying close attention.
The more I heard the farther I moved away.
Nov 5, 2004 - 1:27 pm 44. ed:Wait, if 87% percent of Americans believe in God then, wait, that means that most Democrats belive in God! Can that be!? Democrats have morals?! Can it be moral to fight for universal healthcare and aliving wage? Of course not! That’s Commie talk!
Nov 5, 2004 - 1:39 pm 45. Ed Poinsett:Hogarth,
Beautiful.
You took the words right out of my mouth! Plus you snuck in a few I didn’t have. Thanks
Nov 5, 2004 - 1:40 pm 46. Terrye:ed:
Which means wait, the Democratic party has been taken over by a bunch of mouthy assholes who can not even treat their own respect and so more and more of them are going over to the other side where they are treated with tolerance.
Nov 5, 2004 - 1:48 pm 47. RogerA:Terrye: I think your stat is about right–What old Europe, and the blue state elites dont understand is this: American is a relgious nation. Clearly that religiosity is expressed in a variety of ways; but it is a fundamental element of the American experience.
What I wonder about are all those African-Americans who meet every Sunday–and whose churches always are filled by white democrats every four years–are they bigots because they oppose same sex marriages? are they bigots because they are fundamentalist Christians? When do you suppose the MSM is going after them?
I felt good after the election, but reading the crap coming from the MSM and the DNC, its going to be ground hog day in 2006, 2008 and the foreseeable future.
Nov 5, 2004 - 2:06 pm 48. michael ledeen:the other peculiarity with this poll is that it separates “war on terror” from “iraq.” that’s just kerry’s propaganda, the second is part of the first, they are not discrete entities.
Nov 5, 2004 - 2:09 pm 49. Rick Ballard:Mr. Ledeen,
It’s truly just meme development. It actually started with the Pew survey early in the year but Pew was doing it for legitimate reasons. The scandal of how AP hired the polling hookers and had them performing unnatural acts all election day long really needs some followup. I don’t believe that any of the regular political reporters can handle the investigation because of the unholy alliance between the political press and the pollsters. The folks on NRO Corner got played like yokels on their first day in the big city.
That exit survey needs to be pulled apart by someone like Jay Cost and NRO ought to give him a byline (and a little dough) to do it. IMO, of course. The MSM’s purchase of the meme du jour needs to be fully exposed and the shameless sluts at AP and the polling companies need to have their heads shaved and be driven from civilized society.
Nov 5, 2004 - 2:41 pm 50. Rhod:The State acts upon objective morality all the time. Promoting the general welfare in a multitude of ways, The State emphasizes the values of a good life in terms of comfort, health and a host of other things we feel to be “good”.
What is missing in The State’s version of objective morality, and now even in most mainstream Christian denominations, is a theology of right and wrong, good and evil if you prefer. Adding some features of this vision to The State’s various “moral” activities seems to horrify some people.
I personally don’t see how the first set of actions (The State’s) can be accomplished without some attention to the second set of issues, which is that the good life is impossible without some concept of a good person. If The State involves itself in the first, it needs to pay SOME attention to the second, and this does not have to be done by statute. It can’t be, other than in criminal law.
I agree with Tom Wolfe, who interviewed recently opined that evangelicals aren’t left or right (politically), they’re just religious. I think he’s correct, and they have something to offer. Everything should be discussed, but The Left is far too frightened, for reasons I don’t understand.
Nov 5, 2004 - 2:46 pm 51. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Terrye,
You posted:
21% said ALWAYS LEGAL - Bush got 25%, Kerry 73%
34% said MOSTLY LEGAL - Bush got 38%, Kerry 61%
26% said MOSTLY ILLEGAL - Bush got 73%, Kerry 26%
16% said ALWAYS ILLEGAL - Bush got 77%, Kerry 22%
This does not sound like a mandate to change abortion.
Actually that’s a huge mandate to change abortion law, since right now it is not only always legal, but requiring parental notification or permission is illegal, and the father has no say at all. Thus 76%, by your poll, are in favor of changing the abortion rules (you can’t call them laws when a court pulls them out of thin air).
These results are also consistent with other polls taken under other circumstances. The majority position is roughly Roe v. Wade, while the jurisprudence is anything goes, any time.
Nov 5, 2004 - 3:09 pm 52. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Someone mentioned that the Christian Right (or however it is described) is doing its best to prevent gay marriage from going the route of abortion - a court invented mandate. That is absolutely correct, and it is likely that the Gay Marriage amendments around the country signifricantly increased voting by evangelicals.
Here’s my voting issues:
1) War on terrorism
2) War on terrorism
3) Supreme Court - hoping for judges who will interpret, rather than reinvent the constitution This could preserve marriage and maybe put some sanity back into abortion jurisprudence.
4) Kerry was a skunk - a left wing idiot with a history of treason. His winning of the nomination turned me into an activist for the first time.
5) Freedom - Democrats tend to damage my economic freedom (liking very “progressive” taxes), my ownership of my land (Endangered Species Act), and potentially freedom of speech.
6) Economics - not just lower taxes, but fewer unpaid mandates on business, and less extreme enforcement of environment laws.Here in Arizona, the Democrats almost made our forests off limits, and also were responsible for huge fires.
Side comments:calling someone homophobic is usually a slander, as they typical don’t have a phobia about homosexuals.
You can be against gay marriage without being anti-homosexual
There is no way I would ever vote for a Democrat given the current party makeup. To me it stands for abandoning personal responsibility, centralized big government solutions that fail to solve social problems, too much immigration because it increases Democrat votes, radical environmentalism which refuses to compromise or apply any form of cost/benefit analysis, pandering to government employee unions (such as teachers), an anti-moral stance spread by many of its supporters, especially from Hollywood, oh, and support of racism in the form of affirmative action (or whatever it is called these days) and the very dangerous multiculturalism. If I had my way, every Black Student Union or Hispanic Activities Center would be destroyed in the name of cultural unity.
Matt, abortion is just as hot a topic as it was before, but the MSM is hiding it. My daughter went to the pro-life demonstration in DC this year, and it was huge - but no press. She attended the pro-choice demonstration, which had a surprisingly low outcome (shown by among other things the huge stock of signs left over) and it got a lot of press. She also was subjected to a tremendous amount of abuse as a counterdemonstrator. Her response, which she determined angered the abusers the most, was to say “God bless you.”
Nov 5, 2004 - 3:11 pm 53. Knucklehead:Hogarth,
I know all about “wordy”. In the case of your post, the wordy bit doesn’t matter. Excellent! Thank you. They won’t listen and learn, but it ain’t because people like you didn’t try to tell them.
Nov 5, 2004 - 3:43 pm 54. dick:I read this article and the first thing that came to mind was how really to define moral values. I think before this article should even be answered, that must be defined.
What were the possible options? From the ones I have seen there were several that I thought of equal consequence in my selection of who to vote for. Certainly I think morals are important. Without them who would bother with the truth. Without them who would give a damn about anything. There has to be a standard of what is possible and what goes beyond the pale.
The war was also equal in my view. How many times do we have to be told that if we do not submit to Islamofascism, then we should be killed and then presented with proof as to that being their real mission. Denial is not an option against people like that.
Strength of will is to me very important in my president. He needs to stand for something and keep standing for it. Anyone who governs by opinion polls (see Clinton) is not what I want in a president.
What I see is what I saw when the MSM kept saying why Bush started the war. Bush presented us with his reasoning going in and gave us 5-6 reasons for the war. The MSM keep beating on one until it proved false. Then they moved on to another one until it also proved false and then another. Only one at a time though. Apparently if there is more than one reason the left gets confused. Must be because they are so intelligent .
Nov 5, 2004 - 3:50 pm 55. Terrye:John:
As hard as it maybe to believe there are two of us, I am not the Terry who posted that. I put an e at the end of my name.
But in answer I think that even if RoevWade were overturned you would see the states giving women the right to chose. I do think there would be restrictions on abortion and I think most people prefer some restrictions but I doubt that we would ever see the days when abortion was illegal.
I just don’t think the states would allow it.
Nov 5, 2004 - 4:15 pm 56. John Lynch:Knucklehaid
Um. Thankee. Um. That 7 thing. That’s one less than the number of teats on a cow ain’t it?
Nov 5, 2004 - 4:33 pm 57. bill:I get the impression that most people voted for Bush based on his moral character. That he has religion and that the fact that he has religion should not necessarily be a bad thing as most liberals would think.
Well, how do you know that Bush has moral character and is a religious person, because he tells you so? This is what someone already accused the liberals of, accepting everything that was told to them about the war, the economy etc.
What we do know is that Bush was an alcoholic, he was a cocaine addict, he has an arrest record, his relationship with his own father was strained, he had several failed business deals where he walked away with millions while others went bust, he revelled at sending people to the electric chair (even to the point of poking fun at the first woman), he made jokes about weapons of mass destruction that couldn’t be found (while service men were dying), he avoided the Viet Nam war (maybe this was because of religious beliefs but he never claimed that), he got into college because of family ties and favoritism that he works diligently to prevent from happening anymore…
If this is moral then the road of the Lord isn’t as difficult a one as the bible thumpers claim it is.
Nov 5, 2004 - 4:44 pm 58. John Lynch:Terrye, Terry, and John
Our home has been debating the Roe v Wade issues as well.
What we came up with was along these lines:
1) The Judicial fiat part of this has got to stop.
2) The legislature can create law in the form of changing the existing, and probably going to fail, law on partial birth abortions.
3) This then creates the intended representative debate, and the legally defined lines.
In my opinion, existing precedents on the first two trimesters, the health of the mother, and the minor notifications are likely to be widely accepted. The debates will center on viable out-of-womb actions.
Just my sense of it, but other than trying to make sense of it for my family, I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
Nov 5, 2004 - 4:51 pm 59. Charlie (Colorado):Wow, Hogarth — I don’t think I’ve ever seen a comment get instalanched before. I think I’m jealous!
(I’ve probably just trashed Bear’s statistics. ;-))
Nov 5, 2004 - 5:14 pm 60. Barbara Skolaut:Hear, hear, Hogarth!
Well done!
Though I’m not against Bush as you originally seem to have been (though I don’t approve of all his policies), there is not way in hell I could have voted for Kerry - for exactly the reasons you stated.
Nov 5, 2004 - 5:23 pm 61. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):John Lynch
Your approach is pretty good. I would modify it to make it a state by state issue.
Polls show that Roe v. Wade is relatively centrist, with its different trimester rules. But the US is under Doe v. Wade and others, which are extreme judicial fiats.
Rolling it back out of the courts might be the best thing. Some states would prohibit abortion, other would allow it at varying levels of restriction.
RvW produced a ruling that discovered a previously unknown and unintended right of privacy which then served as cover for ever more restrictive rules on what states could do.
Personally, I would outlaw it except in extreme cases of medical necessity. One of the risks of sex is pregnancy, and the result of pregnancy should be a baby.
Nov 5, 2004 - 5:29 pm 62. Old Grouch:AlanC: Character and trustworthiness. Right on the nose! Because despite how closely we examine a candidate’s positions, there’s always the unanticipated. You have to trust people!
Hogarth: I wish I had George Soros’ money so I could buy a page of The New York Times and put your statement on it. (It might not do any good, but I’d be less frustrated.) (BTW, you just got linked by Instapundit, which is about as good! [Charlie(C), you beat me to it!])
I spent some time today lurking at Matthew Yglesias’ blog, reading the discussions of the self-proclaimed “reality-based community“. It was depressing. Not only the repeated rejection of the ideas expressed by the posters here, but the demonization– and I don’t think that’s too strong a characterization– of the religious. (”Jesusland“, anyone? (BTW, notice how Yglesias posts this, then, in the second update, weasels out of taking responsiblilty for it: “I didn’t create this graphic, and I’m not responsible for the decision to call Red America ‘Jesusland.’”) D*mnit, I want my non-idiotarian opposition back!!
But one thing I did gain from the above visit was a link to this Slate article. At least one person outside of Roger’s place gets part of it: The Gay Marriage Myth: Terrorism, not values, drove Bush’s re-election. (He gets the terrorism part, but misses the “character and trustworthiness” issue.) Let’s see how far it goes this weekend.
Nov 5, 2004 - 5:38 pm 63. Knucklehead:John Lynch,
I suppose that’s true. Not being a flyover sort, I’m not prone to counting teats on cows. I’ll take your word for it. What’s a teat? If it’s what I think it is then your weird hangup about how many there are is a darned good example of what’s wrong with you sicko red-staters. Why don’t you just get your milk from a store like normal people? Why do you have to get all weirded out with cows over it? Like, dude!
Nov 5, 2004 - 5:45 pm 64. Knucklehead:Darn! I meant that I’m a blue-stater! Why is this silly color thing with the states all backasswards anyway? How did you red-meat, red-blooded Americans let the urban blue-bloods dictate the colors… oh, wait… never mind.
Then again I still don’t get it. Tofu isn’t blue. The French don’t make blue wine. Why do the smart folks have blue all to themselves? Blue is better than red. Red is so angry and blue is so peaceful. That must be it. You guys are all angry and us blue-staters are so peaceful. Blue is so understanding and tolerant and inclusive. Red is so put-offish and demanding. Now I have it!
Nov 5, 2004 - 5:59 pm 65. Brian:Fifteen percent said Iraq and voted Kerry; nineteen percent said terrorism and voted Bush.
Put them together and it becomes undeniably clear that 34% of voters saw this election as a referendum on Bush’s foreign policy, and the majority of them were in favor of that foreign policy.
22% said moral values, with all the ambiguity we’ve here discerned, and 20% said the economy.
Gay marriage my foot.
To borrow a line from Sullivan: They’re trying to discredit the election which discredited them.
Nov 5, 2004 - 6:03 pm 66. Terrye:bill:
You are living proof of the problem.
How do you know if any of that is true?
It is like the shit about joking about weapons, that is what is called self deprecating humor and it is stupid to even make an issue of it.
As for the rest of it, propaganda. pure and simple.
And Viet nam? Well honey I guess he could have gone to Great Britain and ignored the draft like Clinton. He did not have to fly jets, he did not have to serve at all. The man I live with was in the Guard and not only did his daddy not get him in, his daddy was dead at the time. So Bush drank, so did Kennedy and unlike Kennedy he did not leave any dead women in a canal. And the drugs? I don’t know if that is true, but Bush never claimed to be perfect. I guess his critics are though considering the judgmental crap they throw around.
Nov 5, 2004 - 6:11 pm 67. John Lynch:Thanks Knuck.
I guess if I’m going to play the role assigned me, by the exit polls and exitpundits, I better go look at a cow and figure it out. I’m sure there is one around here somewhere. It is Ohio after all.
What did we decide: Is red OK for a color assigned us, or now that we’re the majority we want to switch colors? Would mauve and toupe be a better looking map?
Nov 5, 2004 - 6:21 pm 68. Brian:Theocon paranoia statistically debunked here, and psychoanalyzed here.
Nov 5, 2004 - 6:24 pm 69. John Lynch:Brian,
Also here (apologies for Andrew Sullivan) debunking that the 11 amendments had anything to do with turnout for Bush.
Hmm. href is http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_31_dish_archive.html#109968333683256538
Nov 5, 2004 - 6:30 pm 70. TmjUtah:Hogarth -
Brevity may be the soul of wit - but precision in thought expressed as you have done requires elbow room.
And I know all about wordy. Ask anyone.
It’s been two days since the end of the vote thing, hasn’t it?
This anti-gay bigot in the reddest state kind of expected the media that failed to accurately report the reality during the campaigns might just take a stab at fixing itself afterward…
Silly, silly, me.
Even a temporarily honest drunk knows that the only way to fix a problem is to admit it exists.
Here’s a clue, Pinch, and Katie, and Nancy:
You got voted out by Americans who don’t think you are Americans any more. So yes, there is a wee bit of truth to the angst and gnashing of those ready to study up on maple syrup making or how to haggle for rents on the West bank. They’d fit better there than here, and they should be careful to not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.
NCLB (v 2.0, without Kennedy sabotage), the Ownership Society, and reform of the tax code to cut the crap that empowers thousands of monied lobbyests will combine to knock the Left even further off the stage.
Bush doesn’t intend to cater to victims. He intends to put citizens in charge of enough of their lives that they will refuse to surrender their liberties in exchange for handouts.
We live in wondrous times. I feel privileged to be a witness to them, and that’s a fact.
Nov 5, 2004 - 6:44 pm 71. Doug:Values means a lot of things. I think they are all inter-connected. First and foremost I think it means respecting your fellow citizens whether they are like you or have different principals and ways of life. I am a Jew from New York. I have nothing in common it seems with a born again from Alabama. But I respect them, I respect their beliefs and I do not feel threatened by them. Even if they would like me to hear the good word. As long as they do not force it on me I respect their beliefs. I think it is quite obvious that “Blue State America” does not feel this way by and large. I think people resent being thought of by fellow Americans as evil or intolerant. I am sure Southerners who are as far from the segregated sixties as imaginable don’t appreciate being told they are rascists and that their party divides the country by race. Moderate independents don’t like it either. I am sick of the hate, the hypocrisy, the lack of core beliefs, the belief in “process” over substance. The refusal to engage in legitimate debate while trasferring these traits to your opponents. I love this country. I think we are doing good in the world. I think we are exceptional. I don’t hate other cultures. I just love my own. I think we stand for good and our love of freedom will ultimately spread through the whole world. As I said, I respect others. Unless they hurt others. These are the values and they are values that SHOULD be embraced by every decent person in the world. I see a president who does what he thinks is best without regard for his political standing. The hero of the left Clinton didn’t make a move without thinking of politics. I thought the Republican jihad against Clinton was too much. A majority felt the same way. But I think he is human pond scum. Yet a former secretary of state said “Clinton lied about sex, Bush lied about WMD.” Besides the fact that Albright knows Bush lied about nothing, she passes off Clinton’s actions as if they are nothing. They were not nothing. He was mired in scandal. Bush is a family man. I respect that as well. Why can’t liberals see this? I am deeply deeply distressed that this party has learned nothing at all. This is bad because if Republicans continue to dominate without real competition they will screw up just as the Democrats did. Our liberal elites are the very definition of sophmores, “wise fools”. They think they know everything. They know nothing.
Nov 5, 2004 - 7:29 pm 72. Just Me:I think the problem is that “moral values” was left to the poll taker to define-and it is much more subjective than something like abortion or gay marriage, or terrorism for that matter.
Also, I would probably fall into the religious conservative/evangelical catagory, and had I been given an exit poll, security/terrorism would have been my primary reason for voting. My husband was exit polled, and the terrorism was his primary reason for his vote.
I agree with the assesment that if you combine Iraq and terorism catagories, you actually get the “security” number-and either people liked it, and voted Bushor didn’t and voted Kerry.
Nov 5, 2004 - 7:35 pm 73. Kevin P:Roger:
The exit polls are poorly done snap shots that only give a one dimensional look at multi dimensional political attitudes. The MSM uses these assumptions to pontificate about what the country feels. It is bad science but it is taken as proof positive.
I would qualify as a “values voter” but I would have voted for a pro war democrat over an isolationist republican, whatever his or her views on gay marriage and abortion.
The gay marriage issue drove many conservitive religous voters but contrary to the MSM vision of these people as bible thumping, witch burning morons they are often highly intelligent people who come to their opinions after much deep thought and contemplation.
I also think that the lefts attempt to call the gay marriage bills wedge issues is unfair. The flag burning bills were wedge issues because there wasn’t an epidemic of flag burning so it could be fairly called a trumped up issue. Whether you are pro or con on gay marriage it is hard to deny that there is a concerted legal effort to make gay marriage the law of the land and you can’t blame the voters who oppose this idea when they make their opinion known and when they attempt to fight this legal attempt at the ballot booth. And when blue states such as Oregon and California vote for the traditional definition of marriage you can’t portray all the opponents as red neck southern homophobes.
Nov 5, 2004 - 7:43 pm 74. Roberts:Bill, your comments are amazingly dishonest. And do a fine job of illustrating that you are not “reality-based”.
Nov 5, 2004 - 7:46 pm 75. DennisThePeasant:Here I thought I had been validated on Wednesday, only to find out on Thursday that I don’t exist-
I voted for George W. Bush and against Issue 1 (banning gay marriage). But to listen to every left leaning asshole on the planet, from Chris Matthews to Matthew Yglesias, I do not now exist and never have.
Well, I got news Chris, Little Matty and the rest of the shits, and it goes like this:
I elected George W. Bush. Had I voted for John F. Kerry, he would be the President-elect today.
It is that simple. I am a middle-aged, middle-class, middle-American living in the middle of the suburbs of O-fucking-hio. If John Kerry had managed to break even in half a dozen suburban counties in this state on Tuesday, he’d have won this state and the election. But he didn’t, and what it means is that I am now the most important person of the face of the Earth, and I will remain so far the next 20 or so years.
That’s because it isn’t the Hispanic vote, the African-American vote, the evangelical vote or the gay vote that picked this President or will pick the next President. It was and is gonna be the middle-class middle-Americans living the suburbs in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin who have that job. Fat, middle-aged, middle-class white men and women with mortgages, families and college degrees who take life and work and church pretty goddamn seriously a lot of the time. And any dimwit politician, Republican or Democrat, who is serious about becoming President of these United States better come to grips with that fact.
And in exactly the same vein, any political party or movement that does not come to an understanding that it is they who must now accommodate me is going to fail, and fail badly, for a very long time. That’s the way it is these days, and if you aren’t fucking smart enough to figure that out or mature enough to deal with it realistically, you’re going to be spending a lot of time every four years wondering what went wrong. Again, it is just that simple.
So if little Matty Ygelsias wants to spend his time whacking off to the tune of being “reality based” in between Maureen Dowd impersonations, be my guest. If Chris Matthews wants to cast me as some sort of mindless bigot to impress Katie Couric, he’s welcome to do so. If a moron like Marc Cooper wants to console himself with the idea that I thought I was picking a fucking prom date on Tuesday, and that this was all a popularity contest, go for it.
But if any of these assholes are really serious about advancing the agenda and the policies they claim to care so passionately about, then they need to come to a quick and clear understanding that the next President is going to be elected in my living room. And if they think denying my existence, or talking down to me, or vilifying me, or insulting me is going get their candidate coming out of my living room on the white steed of victory, well, they’re just as dumb as they come across as being.
These guys think they are smart enough to deny me what is mine, which is victory for George W. Bush and the Republican Party in 2004, but they aren’t. They all thought they were smart enough to foist John Kerry on me…How’d that work out, Boys? And until they get it figured out that they aren’t as smart or as good as they think they are, they should be prepared to spend some serious time in the wilderness.
Nov 5, 2004 - 7:52 pm 76. Roberts:There is an important point that the media polling omits polling upon - and I think deliberately.
There are a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage because they disapprove of homosexuality. There are a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage for reasons involving their view of marriage but are supportive of equal protections of gays in things like housing, employment and other realms. There are a lot of people who are mildly in opposition to gay marriage but whose vehement objection is the judicial imposition of such.
There are gradations of opinion on this subject but the media deliberately pretend that there are only two positions in this debate because its easier to demonize those in “opposition” to their ideology. It also easier to pretend that one’s own position isn’t extremist if one ignores the spectrum in the middle.
The exact same thing occurs in the abortion rights debate. The gradation of positions held by Americans is artificially and intentionally divided into “for” and “against”.
Nov 5, 2004 - 7:58 pm 77. Roberts:Ouch, Dennis, that hurt.
But its the kind of smacking around they need.
Nov 5, 2004 - 8:01 pm 78. Syl:Wow. Love the comments. Even bill’s, who illustrated succinctly why his side lost.
Just as a little exclamation point to the discussion, a good democrat (Pat Caddel..sp?) said on BOR that Southeastern Ohio is full of old-style Southern Democrats. They went for Bush.
Was the gay issue a moral one for them? Hell no. They just thought it was a stupid idea.
Nov 5, 2004 - 8:08 pm 79. Mary:At this point, I am just bone weary of hysterical
attacks by gay friends(or perhaps former friends), accusing me of causing grievous harm to
them and theirs.
I am a lifelong Republican who looks back on the
Ford administration as the happiest time.
I am a mainstream Protestant, social moderate,
who thought terrorism was THE issue in the election.
Had I been in a state with a gay marriage amendment, I’d have voted against it. I also think that the one in Ohio, against civil union,
was especially mean spirited. (And possibly a
violation of the interstate commerce clause? I’ve
heard that.)
Oops, now I’ve got to explain why there were no
WMDs found.
And I don’t think that explaining that Saddam was
paying $25,000(right?) to the family of each
Palestinian suicide bomber is going to cut any ice with some of these people, as to how Iraq was
linked to terrorism.
Nov 5, 2004 - 8:15 pm 80. sixpercent:Hogarth—
Very well said. I could have said it myself, and wish I did
BTW, you made Instapundit, which brought me here.
Nov 5, 2004 - 9:05 pm 81. Ari Tai:re: leading questions, guaranteed answers.
This reminds me of my other least-favorite polling question “right or wrong direction?” (usually in regards to Iraq or America).
I won several wagers based on the assumption at least a quarter of the people that said “wrong direction” simply wanted more (not less) of what the president was doing. i.e. More tax cuts. More aggressive behavior in the Middle-East. More free-markets. More reliance on markets (less on regulation). More voluntary-civil-society (less government competition w/ same). More coalitions of the willing (less accommodation of the UN and other kleptocratic NGOs). etc.
Meaning, if asked to rate his job, a quarter of the electorate would say he and his administration had been too moderate (but some of these folks would also say he had no choice given his Senate majority was insufficient to carry difficult legislation, and therefore these failings of the Bush administration would not put their vote at-risk).
Great blog Roger. Good words Hogarth.
Nov 5, 2004 - 9:40 pm 82. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):This whole “who elected Bush” thing is nonsense.
Ultimately, it is always a combination of groups of voters, and they have complex reasoning - not many are single issue voters.
There is no way in hell I would have voted for Kerry, because he was a traitor. But that’s an unprecedented situation.
Otherwise, there I fall into many of the groups identified. Maybe I should get a vote for each. Moral values: yes (specifically, get me a supreme court that rules on the text and original intent of the constitution. The rest takes care of itself). War Against Terror - critical - the most important issue.
Tax cuts: yes. And on and on.
The anti-gay marriage initiatives may have drawn conservatives to the polls who otherwise wouldn’t have voted.
Nov 5, 2004 - 9:49 pm 83. Henway:Since the exit poll check box read simply Moral Values (Vision), it was up to each respondent to decide individually what that meant. For a large number of people, Terrorism and Iraq were the top issues, and I suspect for many others Moral Values might have meant integrity, straightforwardness, and consistency in dealing with Terrorism and Iraq. That Moral Values = Religious Conformance is the faultiest of premises, and pigeonholing the morally concerned as being solely religious fanatics doesn’t do credit to either side.
Nov 5, 2004 - 9:59 pm 84. JB:Roger knows I fervently disagree with him on gay marriage, but gay marriage wasn’t what elected Bush. Those polls are nonsense giving rise to instant erroneous liberal CW. It’s interesting that I agree with Andrew Friedman, Paul Freedman of Slate and Roger on this. Moral values represent the will to fight the war on terror in the face of international unpopularity, so in that sense they aren’t mutually exclusive issues. But the implication that people who elected Bush care less about defending America is sheer bunk.
Nov 5, 2004 - 10:06 pm 85. void:The idea that because 1/5 of a tiny fraction of voters in a SURVEY selected a vague multiple choice answer that said “moral values” and this somehow means what it is being twisted to mean is absurd of course, but obviously the media (which ever way they might lean at any particlar moment on any particular day) is going to do its thing whether or not its faulty analysis.
Case in point: the youth vote. Contrary to what was widely reported in the media after the election it did turn out in record numbers, and it did swing for Kerry. But everyone else came out and voted as well so the youth did not make up a larger proportion of the total vote. The media ran with this little “fact” for days and we’re only now seeing the “Youth Vote Did Turn Out” stories.
For its sake I hope the Democratic party finds itself before the next election. I will admit that I do not think Kerry was the best they could come up with. I was surprised during the primaries when Kerry easily came out on top. Personally I think people were blinded with thoughts of “He’s a War Hero!” and didn’t really know who they voted for. There were too many candidates and nobody could tell them apart (aside from Howard Dean) so once Kerry won the first states the rest fell in line like ducks.
In the same vein I also hope people take a critical eye to the media’s immediate and almost reverent repeating of the “mandate” that was supposedly handed out during this election. The only thing impressive about these election results are the voter turnout and the massive amount of money and time spent to make that happen.
Both sides can twist the statistics how they see fit but it all tells the same story: this election got people motivated. And what I really hope comes out of this, once everone’s nerves have cooled, is a realization that this was GOOD for the country.
This was DEMOCRACY.
Our nation has always been “divided”. Its not a secret. This is what makes our nation so great. We might be divided on issues but we all love this country and a record number of us turned out to show just how much we cared.
I can say this because I voted for the other guy. And lost.
Besides a few days to put an ice pack on any bruised egos why exactly do we all need to start healing? What we need to do is take a minute now and then to read the opinions of others, when stated carefully and respectfully, and consider their positions carefully. Whether we agree with them or not.
Thank you all for sharing your opinions. Whether you want to believe it or not there are some on the “other side” who do “get it.” Of course we’re mostly registered Independent.
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:13 pm 86. Matteo:Great thread! I haven’t read through it all yet, but I must say that it was one thing to have the left and the MSM consider Republicans to be a knuckle-dragging bunch of bible-thumping Neanderthals during the late 80’s and early 90’s when we were an embattled minority, but it is just plain surreal and fever-dreamish to hear it after we’ve cleaned their clocks and are a strong ruling majority! I’m sure someone has said it somewhere else before, but they’re starting to act like the knight in Monty Python’s “The Holy Grail”. You know, the guy who wants to keep on fighting after all his limbs have been cut off, saying “It’s only a flesh wound!”
I think the Democrats are afraid to do the self examination inherent in asking the question “Okay, what do we stand for? What are we about? What purpose do we as a party serve? Where do we fit in?” I think they’re afraid to find that the answers may be “Nothing. Nothing. None. Nowhere.” If the Republicans offer sober, reflective, open, honorable, “Big Tent” leadership, there’s no reason why the various battles over policy positions need to be inter-party. They can take place inside the ruling party until history sees fit to generate a split. For example, I’m strongly pro-life. I’d love to see abortion disappear. But I’m not going to be a hardliner about it if the only chance for decent, honorable government which preserves the American Republic is with a Big Tent Republican Party. Abortion will go away when enough people want it to. The trends look good. These are generational changes. I’m not going to vote for a pro-abortion guy, but if they exist in the Party, so be it. The other Party is not about to go pro-life, and all they seem to offer is vitriol, nihilism, socialist despotism, and a dishonorable lust for power. We take what we can get in making common cause with others against those things.
Maybe the way the Dem party gets revivified is when some ambitious, charismatic, statesmanlike far-seeing Republican who can’t get his way in his own party sees fit to switch to the Dems and seek his fortune there. All highly speculative at this point, I know.
BTW, the best quote I saw this week was:
“If you want to win elections, you need to reconcile with the Red States before you even think about reconciling with France.”
I got that from this nice post.
http://darnfloor.blogspot.com/2004/11/open-letter-to-democratic-party.html
Nov 5, 2004 - 11:47 pm 87. Tom Grey:It is part of the “Moral Superiority” war. But the question is too difuse.
Is it more moral to fight evil, or to accept it? What about when the fighting of evil is done in an inefficient way? or an immoral way?
WHAT is the best way to help Iraqis create a democratic, human rights respecting legitimate government?
The MSM is pretty “immoral” today — willing to publish fake documents, but not ask Kerry about the real ones (no Form 180).
The heat over the gay-marriage issue is pro-life frustration about abortion. The Roe “amendment” was a mistake — it should have remained a states issue. Were abortion to be less legal, or even illegal (as in Poland), in some states, there would be less heat about gay marriage and it would obviously be more a states issue. It’s also heat over the ACLU against prayer in school, against the ten commandments, against the cross on the state seal — against being a Christian. And saying homosexuality is a sin.
In Sweden, Ake Green got sentenced to jail for expressing that Christian sentiment.
Nov 6, 2004 - 12:43 am 88. acemooney:This hogarth guy blew me away and I think I have figured out why. From the style of the writing it is obvious that Hogarth is either:
1.) Zell Miller himself
2.) The guy who wrote Zell Millers speech
or 3.) A guy who watched and listened to Zell Millers speech 43 times…. I am sure, because I listened to the speech 44 times…. Write more often hogarth we can use the straight truth with no chaser….
Nov 6, 2004 - 1:53 am 89. joon:Reading some of the posts I can’t help but wonder:
On “moral values”: If the whole “moral values” theory is just a rationalization ploy of the Democrats, then the whole outrage on this page sounds a lot like a rationalization ploy of conservatives who don’t like to be reminded that there were indeed quite a number of people who voted for “moral” reasons. Quite apart from that, you cannot deny that there certainly are differences in values between Kerry and Bush voters: For instance what actually constitutes morality.
The “liberal bias of MSM”: Go to any left-wing website and they will point to as many instances of so-called “right-wing bias” of the MSM. Most people including the ones complaining on this page about bias only see one kind of bias - you only see what you want to see.
On “democrats are just a fringe”: Hmm, not sure if I would call 48% of the nation to be fringe. Sounds a lot like “conservative self-motivational talk”. Mind you, there is lots of silly brave talk among liberals these days too. But it is a little bit too early to predict the demise of the Democratic Party.
On the apparent anger at the “liberal elite”, “liberals”, “the arrogant left”: Don’t you think this stereotyping and demonizing is a little childish ? There are rich and poor liberals, urban and rural liberals, uneducated and educated liberals, stupid and smart liberals, arrogant and humble liberals, just as there are all sorts of conservatives too. However, if you keep raging against the “liberal elite” and “arrogant, out-of-touch liberals” all you do is to propagate the exact mirror stereotype of the conservatives. Provide arguments, not epithets.
On the war on terrorism: The re-current theme on the page seems “Bush is the only one with back-bone” and “Everyone who is against the war in Iraw or disagrees on the war on terrorism is a coward/wimp”. I find that interpretation a little bit to self-serving - again, that is as selective in perception as many people on the left saying “Bush is a war-monger and liar”. I wish there would be a little bit more nuance and respect (not agreement) with diverging views. You know, “back bone” and “strong convictions” isn’t so easy to distinguish from “mental rigidity” and “cannot admit to having made mistakes” - it all is a point-of-view.
Nov 6, 2004 - 2:34 am 90. HA:Roger,
I’ve linked to this John Fonte article “Why There Is A Culture War” before, but it is worth linking to again given the “morals” debate that has erupted in the aftermath of the election:
http://www.policyreview.org/dec00/Fonte.html
The root cause of the blue/red moral conflict is that the political left embodied by the Democratic leadership, the MSM, academia and Hollywood are organized around concepts of Gramscian Marxism. It isn’t enough for blue and red to live and let live side by side. No, in order for the blue state moral principles to triumph, the red state moral principles must be destroyed.
I think as we focus on the moral clash taking shape in this country, Fonte’s thesis should take on the same significance that Huntington’s clash of civilizations thesis took after 9/11.
Nov 6, 2004 - 4:27 am 91. PeterUK:The left is incapable of acknowledging that their entire world view was rejected by a substantial part of the American electorate.To deal with this they will conjure demons out of thin air to target with their ire.
Once again they are wrong,they are attacking the wrong targets with the wrong methods and getting the wrong result.
Until they learn it is they themselves who are the problem,the left is going to keep drifting futher and further into obscurity.
So it is probably best not to disabuse them, keep defending their targets so they bog themselves down in a political Stalingrad.
The Democrats are fated to wander in the wilderness until they accept that what they are selling, people are not buying.As with the Blairite New Labour Party the hard left are going to have to be purged,bought off or sufficiently comouflaged before the voters will bite again.
It is no use burnishing the same old ideologies or believing that the electorate would vote for those ideologies if they were more rigorous or extreme.
What part of no do they not understand?
Nov 6, 2004 - 5:04 am 92. PeterUK:Ha,
I’ve always regarded Gramsci as one of those who knows how to take a watch apart but not how to put it back together again.
Nov 6, 2004 - 5:32 am 93. Charlie (Colorado):Um. Thankee. Um. That 7 thing. That’s one less than the number of teats on a cow ain’t it?
Uh, John, cows have four teats.
I can’t decide if I’m correcting a city boy or just missed the joke.
Anyway, here’s a picture.
Nov 6, 2004 - 7:48 am 94. Charlie (Colorado):On “moral values”: If the whole “moral values” theory is just a rationalization ploy of the Democrats, then the whole outrage on this page sounds a lot like a rationalization ploy of conservatives who don’t like to be reminded that there were indeed quite a number of people who voted for “moral” reasons. Quite apart from that, you cannot deny that there certainly are differences in values between Kerry and Bush voters: For instance what actually constitutes morality.
Joon, you’ve subtley recast things here. No one is arguing that there don’t exist voters who voted for Bush because they perceived him as against gay marriage etc; we’re saying that someone who says “moral values” was important in their choice may have had other moral values in mind.
I, for example, believe in gay marriage and am pro-choice (although not in so doctrinaire a fashion as some), and would like to see more sources of pluripotent stem cells for research (although I also know the reality is that all Bush did was restrict how federal funding is used, so now that California is putting $3 billion into new sources I’m happy).
I also know I’d rather vote for a reformed-drunk Methodist than a lying traitorous apostate-Catholic gigolo.
Fuck nuance.
But you’re absolutely right: there is a distinct difference between the two groups in what they consider “moral”.
Nov 6, 2004 - 8:11 am 95. Knucklehead:Charlie (C):
I don’t accept the “picture” you offered as proof of the number of teats on cows. It is a drawing - a cartoon. Maybe they just drew it up that way because crowding 8 teats in would have made the whole thing too busy - or maybe they were just on deadline and in a big hurry and figured, “Red-staters already know about the pumping machines and we can tell the blue-staters anything. And besides, if a red-stater doesn’t already know, they’ll look it up in their bible.” People only have four fingers on each hand in cartoons but we all know that people have… five fingers per hand. Or maybe that’s a drawing of one of the cows that give 2% milk and the whole milk cows have 8 teats.
One of y’all is just going to have go tip us a cow and take some real pictures. And don’t go photoshopping them, we’ll get LGF to check ‘em.
Nov 6, 2004 - 8:25 am 96. Knucklehead:Well, I’ve decided not to leave this teat thing to whims and fancies of dueling red-staters. So I googled it. Here’s the real deal (emphasis added. also note that the question was asked by a blue-stater)- from Wild File:
Nov 6, 2004 - 8:33 am 97. DennisThePeasant:Joon-
Let me clue you in.
Since the moment John Kerry conceded this election, there has been a systematic and deliberate effort on the part of the MSM and the LLL of the blogosphere to disenfranchise those people, like me, who voted for George W. Bush, by casting the results of this election in any terms other than those that actually validate the reality of the election’s results.
Ultimately, what we have being practiced by the likes of Chris Matthews and Matt Ygelsias is little more than Jim Crow By Other Means…They are attempting to keep the plantation running by keeping the Uppity Niggers of the world (that being the likes of me) from the levers of power.
It’s just that simple.
So if you find the level of my anger discomforting, well, good. It is the anger of the Uppity Nigger who, being promised franchise by Big White Daddy, now discovers that franchise only had license when it worked for the interests of Big White Daddy. And what Chris and Little Matty and the rest of those assholes need to come to terms with is that “Homey don’t play that no more”. Period.
I intend on keeping my franchise, and if it means being angry and confrontational all the time, well, that’s the way it’s gonna be. And as I said in my earlier post of this thread, I’m the one with the keys to the castle around here. They can give me all the shit they want today, but at some point in the next four years, each and every one of them is going to be at my front door, on bended knee, trying to get me to vote for Big White Daddy. What they should understand now is that I can keep up a red rage for 4 years. I will not forget this.
Nov 6, 2004 - 9:01 am 98. JJay:I have friends in the Bay Area, Democrats to the last man and woman, who buy into the empty-headed flyover land of thick-headed, hard-hearted bigots and fanatics theory busily being woven by the left. They were just utterly astonished Bush could be reelected. How could their surprise be so total? Simple. They talk only to one another, read the MSM (a pleasing echo chamber for their opinions), reach the appropriate consensus on the important issues, and then assume the question is settled. Thereafter, only idiots and morons could disagree. Oh, and those dullards and dotards blinded by raving, bible-pounding preacher delivering spit-filled sermons. Ugly and nasty as they were before, look for the left to pound away on this theme like a smithy at the anvil. What they would like is a system wherein the votes of smarter people with degrees from elite college who are better looking and wear nicer clothes are given greater weight than those cast by the hicks dressed by Walmart.
Nov 6, 2004 - 9:06 am 99. richard mcenroe:Charlie(colorado), John Moore ó
Charlie, the ugly truth is, John’s into threesomes. That’s why he’s upset with the whole “morals” vote…
Expecting self-examination, let alone self-knowledge, from the Democrats and the American left at this stage is pointless. They do not distinguish between their views and their character, thus becoming trapped in a self-reinforcing, isolated loop: “I’m a liberal because I’m a good person and I’m a good person because I’m a liberal.”
This is why, when they have to face situations that contradict their beliefs, they have to paint them as deliberately malignant: “Bush invaded Iraq for Halliburton and the oil,” and when they have to take actions that contradict their beliefs, they have to come up with elaborate fictional rationalizations for them: “I have to support Clinton, even though he molests women, because otherwise the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy will win.” To do otherwise is not just a challenge to their beliefs but to their very identities.
I don’t think they can change. I’m just going to take notes for 2006 (or, as we call it on the West Coast, “Take Back the Beaches!”)
Nov 6, 2004 - 9:18 am 100. Rick Ballard:Richard,
I believe that the Dems can win again. They did an excellent job in CO both in Salazar’s win and in taking back the legislature. They also did it in the only way possible - by moving to the center. Once the DNC leadership acts upon the fact that the whacko wing has nowhere to go and can be treated as contemptously as the black bloc is now treated, without fear of loss, there is a really good chance that they can move to centrist positions that will allow them to garner the support necessary for victory.
The left is irrelevant to the governance of the US. That is the “big” story that is being so assiduously avoid by the MSM. Noise does not equal power and all the moveon morons together never amounted to more than noise.
Nov 6, 2004 - 9:42 am 101. Skookumchuk:Powerline has a great post with excerpts from David Lebedoff’s Book, Uncivil War:
Nov 6, 2004 - 11:45 am 102. mamapajamas:RogerA: re: “They go on to compare evangelicals with jihadists in their alleged “fevor.” Of course, my response is that I dont recall any liberals being captured and beheaded in a Pentecostal church lately.”
Thank you for pointing this out!
However, it’s also necessary to point out that the word “Evangelical” is being used to scare people, and the news media has been doing this for years.
Look up “Evangelical” in a religion dictionary. An “Evangelical” church is one that teaches the life of Christ via the Books of the Four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
In other words, an Evangelical Christian is a mainstream Protestant.
The Protestant churches have rather recently started calling themselves “Evangelicals” to differentiate themselves from more recent offshoots like the Seventh Day Adventists and Latter Day Saints. The “Evangelical” churches include Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, aka: Anglicans, aka: The Church of England.
The news media and Democratic Party have turned this shift in terminology into a way of demonizing to marginalize mainstream Protestants because they are THE biggest majority in the country, and the biggest majority with an inclination to reject a lot of the liberal philosophies.
Please be aware of this.
Nov 6, 2004 - 12:07 pm 103. PeterUK:Dennis,Do watch the blood pressue old chap,your country will need you again in four years time.Perhaps a quiet stroll with the dogs,after all they have earned it.
Nov 6, 2004 - 2:32 pm 104. DennisThePeasant:PeterUK-
Thanks for your concern, but you needn’t worry. This is just my way of celebrating. Happiness and anger seem to be closely related emotions.
At least they are in me.
And the pups, well they’ve been getting an extra “Greenie” (their favorite treat) every day since Wednesday.
Nov 6, 2004 - 2:53 pm 105. Derek Scruggs:I grew up in Georgia, about an hour outside Atlanta. The stereotypes are overblown, but I certainly hear the “N” word there more than I do anywhere in Colorado, especially here in ultra liberal Boulder (which, to be sure, has a whole different class of of racial problems). The last time I heard it was at a country-club set Christmas party last year. All the people at the party older than 60 were once Democrats. They became Republicans post Voting Rights Act, post Nixon Southern Strategy. It’s also the only place where people have ever told me they think I will go to hell in the afterlife.
Does it mean the CW is completely right about “moral values?” No. But there is more than a grain of truth to it in my experience. I know this not because I read it in the New York Times, but because I experience it at least once a year when I visit my family.
Nov 6, 2004 - 5:42 pm 106. Catherine:DtP
Oh man, have I been SAVORING this victory.
I don’t live in Ohio, but I might just as well. I’ve mentioned before that my VIEWS are invariably dead center–and not just my views, but my picks in what sitcom to watch, my selection of Matched Fair Isle vests from GAP for my kids wear in the Xmas shot, my hardback purchases–you name it, I’m surfing the Zeitgeist. Me and 59 million other Bush voters.
So, yeah. Treat me nice, guys. You can’t win it without me.
I’ve been walking around with a smile on my face, alternating with a frowny-face sparked by the fact that in addition to being a stupid, racist warmonger, I am suddenly an evangelical homophobic creationist to boot. (See, e.g., Garry Wills in the NYTIMES.)
I dunno.
Maybe after the next 10 scathing moral condemnations from the left I’ll see the light and vote Hillary in 2008.
Keep it coming, guys!
So how sweet is it that Michael Moore lost?
Ben Affleck?
Bruce Springsteen?
I was watching CNN the day after election day–pretty great, actually–and the reporter was saying that the Springsteen concerts had been so electrifying the Kerry campaign got on a high, thinking they had momentum, they were sweeping the country, etc.
They showed a clip of a Springsteen-Kerry concert, and my God: it was damned electrifying, alright. Struck fear in my heart, and John Kerry was at that moment about an hour away from delivering his formal concession speech. Looking at that Springsteen crowd I was thinking, Did George Bush beat that??
Holy sh**.
The repellent aspect of it, though, was the beatific look on Springsteen’s face as he ambled selflessly off the stage, leaving Kerry to absorb the love. He had delivered America to his man, and the rest would be history.
Bye-bye, Bruce!
Bye-bye, Ben!
And Mike!
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
(Gee, you think Mike’s gonna have a place of honor at the next Democratic convention? I don’t. Bye, Mike!)
As to anger & happiness being closely related, I go back and forth between euphoria and cold fury, WHICH ISN’T EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS A HYPOMANIC STATE, SO NOBODY PANIC!
Charlie
My sentiments exactly.
Nov 6, 2004 - 6:39 pm 107. Catherine:Matteo
“If you want to win elections, you need to reconcile with the Red States before you even think about reconciling with France.”
Wow!
What a great line.
Nov 6, 2004 - 6:41 pm 108. Charlie (Colorado):believe that the Dems can win again. They did an excellent job in CO both in Salazar’s win and in taking back the legislature.
Don’t be too sure about this, Rick. The last time a Democrat won a Senate seat in Colorado was Ben Nighthorse. Colorado centrist ethnic Democrats don’t find the national Democrat Party all that welcoming.
Nov 6, 2004 - 6:43 pm 109. Charlie (Colorado):WB, look:
… especially here in ultra liberal Boulder….
Another one! We could have Boulder Simon posters meetings.
Nov 6, 2004 - 6:48 pm 110. charlotte:Derek,
Here in metro Atlanta I hear blacks use the N word against each other and choice racial epithets against whites all of the time, and I even know young white Dems who blatantly dislike blacks moving into their neighborhood, but I wouldn’t imply that the Democrat party is racist. Behind the scenes, Cynthia McKinney and her black and white supporters say even worse things about Jews than the terrible slips they have made publicly, but I wouldn’t consequently smear the entire Democrat Party as anti-Semitic.
I have some Democrat neighbors who insult gays behind their backs, but I still wouldn’t assign homophobia to their party. I know a number of uber liberals who drive big SUVs, have second homes, who conspicuously consume and who never recycle, but it wouldn’t be right to call Democrats anti-environmentalists. Most of the youth I’ve encountered who do and deal drugs have Democrat leanings, but I still wouldn’t call Democrats dopes.
Sure, rural America still has some racism. But aren’t you concerned about urban racists, as well? They vote in large numbers, too. Cynthia McKinney was just voted back into Congress by a significant margin and Michael Moore is happy. (I’m not- I live in her district.) Is McKinney now considered a good “progressive” Dem for the party?
Nov 6, 2004 - 7:06 pm 111. Derek Scruggs:Charlotte,
I didn’t say that all Republicans are racists and I don’t believe even a significant percentage of them are. Nor do I deny what you said about Democrats.
What I *do* believe is that there *is* a certain segment of the party that is motivated to vote based on wedge issues like gay marriage. That’s why they’re called wedge issues instead of, well, just issues. Karl Rove famously noted that 4 million evangelicals did not vote in 2000. He did not say “Republicans,” he said “evangelicals.” http://www.tompaine.com/scontent/8713.html
No, they’re not the only reason Bush was elected. But they were the difference between winning and losing. And just like in ‘94, the Christian Coalition et al will call in their chits even more than the last four years.
BTW blacks have a strong tendency to vote Republican on some of these issues, but you would never describe that as a Democratic party strategy, would you? Taking Black-Jew racism as a given (which I don’t, but just as a for instance), how much did that affect aid to Israel under Clinton?
Conversely, how much has evangelical insistence that abstinence is the only way to prevent AIDS affected aid to Africa? Short answer: a lot. (Yes, Bush proposed $10 billion in aid, but he has delivered almost none of it, and what has been delivered is mostly through new, faith-based organizations, not existing institutions like UNICEF. Because, you know, they do such evil stuff like handing out condoms.)
It’s one thing to have members of your party who are racist or homophobic. It’s quite another to play on those fears to win an election and, even worse, develop policy.
The old Solid South of the Democracts is now the Solid South of the Republicans. How much of that incredible shift has to do with, say, free trade, vs. “states rights?” Do you think Rudolph Guiliani could win a Republican primary there? Colin Powell?
BTW have you ever lived outside of Atlanta? It’s a very different world. I grew up in Newnan and regularly visited the Valdosta area as a kid. Newnan has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years and is slowly becoming a suburb of Atlanta. But when I was growing up it was Smalltown America.
Also, RogerR’s point about the difficulty of amending the constitution misses the point. On Novermber 2, several *states* used ballot initiatives to amend *their* constitutions. Some may prefer a federal amendment, but half a loaf is better than none.
Finally, just to make myself clear: I do not equivocate evangelical Christians to Nazis or Jihadists. But I definitely disagree with many of their views and their impact on public policy.
Nov 6, 2004 - 7:45 pm 112. Dr. Zed:On the one hand, it’s completely understandable that most people who voted for Bush (at least the ones who post here) are upset at the spin, distortion, and outright lies promulgated by the MSM, Hollywood, Liberal Academia, etc. Hell, how could it not bother you when some total stranger, on television or in the press, calls you a racist, evangelical homophobe? However, there is a real upside to all this.
There was a piece on the O’Reilly Factor a couple of weeks ago which reported on the influence of “Fahrenheit 9/11″ on undecided voters. The findings indicated that Moore’s film had influenced a substantial number of people to vote FOR Bush and had pushed very few in Kerry’s direction. I believe the same is true of all the endorsements Kerry got from George Soros, Alec Baldwin, Cameron Diaz, Ben Affleck, Robert Redford, and all the rest.
As those on the extreme left become increasingly marginalized, they become increasingly frantic and delusional at the same time. As a result, they become ever more marginalized. It may be the case, in fact, that Bush owes his victory to Michael Moore and his comrades. The fact that Moore had such a place of honor at the Democratic Convention, may very well have been a turning point in the entire campaign.
So, I say, three cheers for Michael Moore. I hope he comes up with similar films in the next four years.
In the same vein, I hope that Jane Smiley will continue to shower us with her infinite wisdom and insight. People like her ultimately do more harm than good to their causes. She either thinks that only died-in-the-wool, avowed leftists read her columns, or she thinks that moderate and conservative Americans are too stupid to realize how little she thinks of them. Her condescension toward those who voted for Bush cannot possibly do other than further alienate all the Bush voters and make moderate Democrats think twice about aligning themselves with such smugly self-righteous, delusional demagogues. Under no circumstances could such inflammatory rhetoric ever benefit the Democratic Party if it hopes to speak to average Americans.
Simply put, the crazier they get, the less people listen. The less people listen, the crazier they get. It all works out in the end.
Nov 6, 2004 - 8:17 pm 113. WichitaBoy:Derek Scruggs,
It’s good to see another Coloradoan on here. We’ll have to get together some time with Charlie (CO). Email me at yahoo.com.
There’s a lot more to this country than just Atlanta and Boulder. There’s a lot of variation right here in Colorado for that matter. Drive over to Louisville or up to Longmont some time.
In my view, most of the shift within the South from Democrat to Republican is a clear indication of the intention of the national Democratic party to completely abandon anything but a pretence of interest in the needs of Southerners and Midwesterners. As somebody said the other day, most Southern blacks aren’t urban intellectual deconstructionists, nor are most union members in the Midwest, etc. The Democratic party has shifted its base to what is after all a tiny fraction of this immensely diverse nation and they are suffering the consequences. The only things allowing them to hang on at all are the momentum of the past and the power of their allies in the MSM.
It’s incorrect to say “evangelicals” were the difference in the election. As an aside, “evangelical” is of course a pejorative code-word for Protestants. The very use of it is proof of my assertion about the abandonment of the American people by the Democratic party. But the fact is that every single vote made the difference in the election. Catherine’s vote and Dennis’s vote made all the difference just as much. Or my vote. Boulder liberals who can’t stand Kerry and believe him to be a traitor. Yeah, we’re the guys, we did it. Bush better listen to us.
To take a small piece of a vast coalition and attribute everything to that fraction and then proclaim that they will soon be controlling the government is a dishonest means of fear-mongering.
And if the Protestants do now manage to have some influence on policy, why is that wrong? Or should they be disenfranchised because you happened to grew up with them and didn’t like them?
Nov 6, 2004 - 8:32 pm 114. Uncle Mikey:I don’t know where I read this, but it strikes me as right on the dot: more people object to the way gay marriage advocates are going about their business than object to gay marriage. I think the same is true for abortion and sex ed; some on the left are so uncompromising and angry they make it impossible to work with them. They’re no more interested in real solutions than Yasser Arafat is (or was) interested in peace in the Middle East.
It’s a deeply frustrating pathology, but you can’t help people with their delusions unless they want to be helped. I sure hope Kerry’s demise gets some of them to that point.
Nov 6, 2004 - 8:44 pm 115. John Lynch:Dr. Zed
Cameron Diaz? Holy **it!
I better quit tipping cattle and chasing sheep and start apying attention!
Nov 6, 2004 - 8:48 pm 116. John Lynch:On the Christian right:
I am not sure I qualify, even though I go to church, occasionally read the bible, and have faith in a higher being; however, I occasionally debate (when we can actually talk about these issues) with my attorney sister.
I have not yet used this line of argument, but I believe that I would rather have the Christian right on my side, than to be against them. I would rather be debating against the entitlement class than trying to defend them. I would rather be arguing for people trying to make their own way with a sense of personal responsibility, than defending academics and media types. I would rather be defending businesses that are trying to make goods and services for people than lawyers who are litigating their way to millions.
I think the dogs in this fight are my dogs, and I will go to the wall for them.
Nov 6, 2004 - 8:59 pm 117. charlotte:Derek,
In metro Atlanta, all of the Repubs I know were infinitely more concerned about issues other than gay marriage. Many, including me, even support SSM, but it couldn’t factor into our voting decisions since foreign policy, Iraq, and the WoT trumped all. If we felt we had the luxury to cast our ballots over domestic issues, we’d still vote Republican and against our fear that the Dems are all misty-eyed over Euro-style soft socialism and big government programs. If I were gay and determined to vote on the SSM issue alone, I’d still be hard-pressed to choose between Bush and Kerry. Ultra liberal Kerry didn’t manage to articulate a position sigificantly different from Bush’s, other than over the FMA. I heard him tell the American people that he believed marriage should be between men and women only. If he was lying, well…
I’ve lived in big cities most of my life but have had good friends from rural and small town America, too. Funny, most of these friends were way more liberal than I, but having spent enough time on ranches, farms, and in poolhalls and dancehalls, I experienced the other rural attitudes from years ago. And they were parochial to be sure, but these people also were often really smart and nearly all patriotic. Most I met were capable of big picture thinking and so I have a hard time accepting that four million of our country folk/ evangelicals who otherwise would have voted for Kerry cast their vote for Bush over the wedge issue of gay marriage. Or stem cell research.
Perhaps some evangelicals do feel their faith that strongly and wanted to vote for Kerry but were manipulated by Rove to vote otherwise. Perhaps, also, Quakers and Mennonites and liberal Protestants and all manner of church-going people to include the African American congregations where Kerry campaigned voted for Kerry over the Dems’ anti-war stance or over his perceived pro-gay sympathies. The church vote between urban and rural and black and white and doves and hawks and liberals and conservatives and Catholics and Protestants would make for an interesting study, but we’re not seeing any such thorough analysis- just assertions that the “evangelicals” did Kerry in and now own Bush.
At any rate, here in Georgia I must have missed all of the campaigning and publicity over the gay marriage issue, both locally and nationally. What little I did hear was Kerry supporting Dems declaiming Repubs as homophobic. Also, racist, fascist, misogenist, warmongering, you name it. Can’t be a matter of policy differences, has to be ugly slurs and slams.
What about the Democrat wedge faux issues, such as the lie about the draft to come under Bush to frighten young voters or the perennial Social Security hype to scare older voters or that all-abortion-is-going-to-be-outlawed fiction to incite women voters or the Repubs are going to disenfranchise minorities at the polls outrageous claim to upset African American and Latino voters? How many votes did these tactics garner for Kerry?
Yes, I think Guiliani or Powell could win in the South. Take care you don’t stereotype the South and all the rest of flyover country as chock-full of provencial racists. Didn’t Jindal win in deep South Louisiana? He’s dark and he’s Indian and he’s a winning Republican.
Nov 6, 2004 - 9:31 pm 118. clarice:Hogarth–what a brilliant comment! I brought it to the attention of others and they agreed. You hit the nail on the head. Everytime they hugged Michael Moore, I sent another check to the brave Swifties.
Imagine a party which on one hand asserts it supports the troops and on the other takes to its bosom Michael Moore who compares the jihadis to the minuteman and cheers for them to win! I have never seen anything more disguting.
Nov 6, 2004 - 11:01 pm 119. Derek Scruggs:Charlotte,
I didn’t say evangelicals would’ve voted for Kerry. What I said (and so did Karl Rove), is that they wouldn’t have voted at *all* - which was exactly his concern in 2000.
Of course gay marriage wasn’t a big issue in Georgia - it wasn’t a swing state. But go review the advertising that ran in the 11 states (including Ohio) that had some form of a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot.
The draft as a wedge issue? How many people in the exit polls brought this up as their reason for voting? More than the 22% who cited moral values? How many states had the draft as a consitutional amendment on the ballot?
Circling back to the beginning of this thread. It has been posited that the difference maker in this campaign was the surge in evangelical voting put Bush over the top. That doesn’t mean that other Repubs voted for illegitimate reasons. I’m sure you and Roger and everyone else here have very good reaons for voting for Bush that have nothing to do with gay marriage, stem cell research etc. But don’t pretend the evangelical voter segment doesn’t exist and that it didn’t come out in droves in 2004.
This is a democracy. More voters is generally a good thing. I didn’t like the outcome, but I can live with it. And I also can see the elephant in the room as that explains why this election came out the way it did. Why are Repubs (save Willilam Bennett) so keen to deny it?
Nov 7, 2004 - 8:07 am 120. charlotte:Derek,
You say the gay marriage issue was used by Rove to get out the evangelical vote, since they didn’t vote in 2000. But what this construct doesn’t account for is the catastrophic 9/11 attack on our country and also the fact that we are at war. Is the suggestion being made that the only reason these citizens decided to go to the polls is their antipathy to gays and not their concern over our national security? They must be petty and myopic, indeed.
I don’t easily accept that we have four million church-going citizens who only bothered to “come out in droves” and vote this election on account of SSM. It could have been a factor for some of them, just as union workers may have believed Kerry would be a protectionist Prez for them, but four million people who wouldn’t vote at all save for those “scary” gays?? And why are you weighting evangelicals’ votes so significantly by suggesting they won the election for Bush and now he’s beholden to them when many other groups such as security moms, small business owners, military personnel, principled intellectuals like Roger Simon :), etc. also overwhelmingly voted for Bush?
Rather than just voting on SSM , I would imagine evangelicals could have specified a litany of “moral reasons” to the exit pollers were they asked, such as how this administration is: liberating and democratizing dangerous and failed states; blaming terrorists and not America in our current fight; not giving cheating rogue states the benefit of the doubt regarding proliferation; and supporting Israel. Also, Bush’s stick-to-itness; Bush’s caring less about international popularity and more about our security; and Republicans supporting law-making and voter participation over judicial activism.
They easily could have had “moral” reasons for not voting Democrat this election, as well: Kerry’s poor character; the DNC’s lying manipulations and below-the-belt rhetoric; the MSM’s blatant partisanship and unethical tactics; Brokaw defending Rather against blogger “political jihad”; MoveOn negativity funded by George Soros: Michael Moore’s anti-Americanism and lies spread globally which the Dem pols and voters embraced with ovations; “Vote or Die” hyperbole: reckless and rude celebrity endorsements; the UN’s obstructionism, support for tyrants and corruption; EU appeasement attitudes; Democrat class warfare and racial divisiveness; Democrats calling American Christians ignorant and Taliban-like (I don’t go to church nor much care for it, BTW, but am alarmed by the fear and loathing some liberals feel toward devout Christians and Jews).
I do think the Democrats’ phony scare issues which I previously mentioned added to their vote count, else the Dems are hopelessly inept and spent a lot of money and time on them for no advantage. Was the draft issue even an option for voters to cite on the exit polls, or did Kerry voters just cite the Iraq War in this instance? Most pundits now agree that those polls are biased and worthless in their wording and choices, but that’s another thread, yes?
Nov 7, 2004 - 10:08 am 121. klrfz1:Derek, you said
It’s one thing to have members of your party who are racist or homophobic. It’s quite another to play on those fears to win an election and, even worse, develop policy.
In 2000, Democrats in Florida ran TV spots accusing Governor Bush of complicity in the murder in Texas of James Byrd by racist ex-cons. That was clearly playing on racial fears. One week ago John Kerry was in an African American church preaching that one million blacks were prevented from voting in the 2000 election. That was also playing on racial fears. Both accusations were, are and always will be false.
So which is it? Is your statement above “inoperative” or are you a hypocrite because you voted Democrat?
Why is it Democrats always have higher standards for Republicans than for themselves? I really would like to know.
Nov 7, 2004 - 1:13 pm 122. Derek Scruggs:> In 2000, Democrats in Florida ran TV spots
> accusing Governor Bush of complicity in the
> murder in Texas of James Byrd by racist ex-
> cons.
Accepting this as true, whose rights will be violated if the people whose fears are triggered by those ads actually show up and vote? What impact, if any, would it have on public policy vis a vis civil rights? Will a Democrat introduce a constitutional amendment that takes away rights from a whole class of people?
Oh, and by the way. Texas executes black Texans disproportionately, *especially* if the victim is white. Was Bush biased? No. Did he preside over a judicial system that is institutionally biased? Seems pretty clear to me.
(Note that I did *not* say “racist,” which is an emotionally charged word that doesn’t take into account that bias can be unconscious and systemic, not just malicious and willful. I totally accept that Democrats and the left have made very poor use of this word. If may motivate black votes, but it turns off the middle and the right.)
Re: fears over 9/11. The people who suffered the most and have the most to fear about 9/11 live in Manhattan. Are they irrational nuts because they voted for Kerry? Maybe.But let me ask you this: How many church ministers were urging New Yorkers to get out and vote for Kerry because of 9/11? Now another question: How many church ministers in rural Ohio were urging people to vote against gay marriage?
Once more, circling back to the origin of the thread. I do not say that Republicans are all homophobes. I do not say that Democrats are morally pristine. I do say that is silly to attempt to deny that the gay marriage issue had a profound effect on this election.
It’s not just Democrats demagoguing the issue.
Ask Gary Bauer–> http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10115616.htm
Ask the libertarian Republicans over at Assymetrical Information -> http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004993.html
I see it. Some Republicans see it. Karl Rove sees it. (Hell, Karl Rove himself experienced something like it a few years ago when his candidate for Alabama Supreme Court was trounced by Roy “10 Commandments” Moore.)
Someone above posted poll results that he claims say the gay marriage issue a wash. He seems to say that because 70% of people who support gay marriage voted for Kerry, and 70% who oppose it voted for Bush, that this somehow makes gay marriage a moot point. This statistic is totally misleading because it doesn’t include the number of voters. As simple example shows why:
My family, which supports gay marriage voted Democrat. Another family, which opposes it, voted Republican. So statistically 100% of each position vote for the expected candidates. Except that it helps to know that my family has 2 people and the other has 4. Hardly a wash, eh? If it truly was a wash, why did 11 laws & amendments opposing gay marriage pass overwhelmingly, including in Ohio? The people who feel passionate about this issue and who came out to vote in some states were overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage and overwhelmingly supported Bush.
BTW I’m as tired of arguing this as I’m sure most of you are, so I’m not going to post any more after this. I’ll read comments from other posters, though.
Nov 7, 2004 - 1:59 pm 123. Yayoi:Just as many people on the Left are clearly guilty of lumping all those who voted for Bush under one huge “anti-gay, racist, religious fanatic etc. etc.” umbrella, a lot of the comments I’m seeing here are doing the same to the Left. Not everyone who voted against Bush are the angry, foaming-at-the-mouth, elitist, radical liberals everyone here is saying they are.
For instance, this person:
Link
It just sounds like there is an unwillingness to listen to people on the other side, all around. I came here to understand why people voted for President Bush, because I’ll be truthful, I was rather upset at the outcome of the election, and I wanted to know what the other viewpoint was. But I was getting a little frustrated at the posts which sounded like they’re making broad generalizations about the reasons people voted against Bush, at the same time they’re getting upset because broad generalizations are being made about the reasons they voted *for* Bush. Please just understand that not all the voters on the left are as intolerant and amoral as several posts here are making us sound.
And on a different note: “Now tell me, when you were between 18 and 22 did you think of anything other than getting laid and scoring drugs? Moral Vision? My moral vision had to do with how low I’d go to get laid or how ugly the girl I chose would be.”
Right. So I’m of that age group, and you probably meant to be funny, but what’s with this ridiculous generalization? Yes, voter turnout for people between 18-22 is typically low, but the…what, 20% who do show up do not appreciate being labeled as people who think nothing besides “getting laid and scoring drugs.” I’m probably going to be laughed at for having no sense of humor, but I know a good many very politically involved students, and the stigma of “everyone between 18-22 are apathetic, self-centered drug addicts” really needs to go.
Nov 8, 2004 - 12:25 am 124. Yayoi:Oh, and…I should mention: probably want to read the comments too. The one post I linked to somewhat makes it seem like he’s being elitist and saying that liberals are more educated and so should enlighten the ignorant midwest and south. That’s not what he’s saying.
See here
Sorry I’m bugging everyone, I just really want to…well, give an example of the other side that is not angrily denouncing everyone on the Right or thinking that they should die because they voted for Bush. We are quite capable of making rational decisions and not sounding like total assholes.
Nov 8, 2004 - 12:40 am 125. Bostonian:Yayoi, your points are well taken, but slightly off-topic.
I’d guess that everyone here recognizes that the Left contains many points of view and includes many different people. (Actually most of us used to be on the Left, so we’d know.)
Here we are remarking on the apparent attempts of the mainstream press to marginalize us, the people who won the last election. If the press and Democratic leaders persist in misunderstanding and misrepresenting the ass-kicking they just got, they’ll be getting more of the same.
Nov 8, 2004 - 3:37 pm 126. MSBiv:Derek - you seem to very have selectively picked sources which corroborate your claim that “…the surge in evangelical voting put Bush over the top.” The sources I read disagree. Strongly. Such is life.
Personally speaking, I am a lifelong registered Democrat, as is my spouse. We both voted AGAINST Bush in 2000. We both voted FOR the local gay marriage amendment when it was an issue (2000, if I recall correctly). Neither of us is an Evangelical Christian - in fact we’re pretty areligious. Yet both of us voted FOR Bush in 2004.
Why, you might ask. Well, I can only speak for myself (and suspect my spouse actually voted solely against Kerry), but here’s my rationale: as much as I disliked Bush in 2000 I think he’s done the best he could with the cards he’s been dealt since then. I believe his explanation re the WoT and the situation in Iraq. I think he’s proven to be a vastly better leader than I ever would have expected in 2000. And above all I am sick and tired of the absolute crap foisted upon the American people by the current leaders of the Democratic Party.
I think Michael Moore is a master propagandist, but I would get a second opinion before believing him if he gave me the time of day. I think John Kerry is a disgrace to the party of (the real) JFK and is a morally bankrupt, unprincipled opportunist who would say just about anything if he thought it would get him a vote or two. I am outraged by the blatantly partisan efforts of the traditional news sources - NYT, ABC, NBC, C-BS, Boston Globe, etc. - to influence the election in Mr. Kerry’s favor. I applaud the loss of the multi-millions George Soros squandered on the loser in this election. I find my former partners in the Democratic Party to be incapable of carrying on anything remotely resembling a dialog about the issues - instead they resort to name calling and insults directed at both the President and at anyone who dares to disagree with their out-of-touch view of the world (and I refer to people I deal with personally, not just reports I read on-line).
I was born and have lived in a ‘blue’ state for most of my 50+ years - one that has been so almost since statehood, but which is gradually awakening to the reality of Democratic Party corruption. I felt very strongly that President Bush represented the complete opposite in this election and voted accordingly. [While I do not agree with him on all issues, his opinion on SSM was of no importance to me at all.] I was not exit polled, but had I been, and had I been limited to the simplistic list that was offered, I may well have selected ‘moral reasons’ to explain my vote - albeit more as why I voted against Kerry than why I voted for Bush.
Aloha from the 50th State,
Manoel Silvestre-Borges IV
Nov 8, 2004 - 10:52 pm