Bush haters motivated Bush voters

Moral Values != Anti-Gay Marriage

Published on November 5, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

The mainstream media still hasn't figured out why Kerry lost the election. Instead, they react in shock and surprise at the exit poll result that "moral values" was the #1 issue. And what do they conclude? That the anti-gay marriage issue and evangelical Christian vote is what caused that.

Let's ignore the fact that moral values was the #1 reason for Bush voters in states where gay marriage wasn't an issue. Why then are they latching on to that? Because Kerry supporters don't want to admit to themselves (yet) that the reason Kerry lost wasn't gay marriage or even really Kerry himself but rather the behavior and attitude of Kerry's supporters.

In talking with a great number of people since the election, it's become pretty clear that a big reason why people came out to vote for Bush this time was the pretentious and insulting attitude that Kerry supporters had for the values and opinions have for others.

Then we were subjected to months of "Anyone who supports Bush must be a moron, bigot, racist, redneck, homophobe, idiot..etc."

Then this past Summer we were subjected to months of Michael Moore and other media elites with their condescending attitudes towards those who don't share their philosophical beliefs. By the end of summer, we got to see celebrities coming out and telling us what we should think -- as if their opinions are somehow more valid than ours. Why does Sean Penn's opinion matter more than my neighbor's?

Time and time again Kerry's supporters made it clear how much they hated Bush and hated everything that Bush supporters stand for. The nastiness and pretentious behavior of Kerry's supporters thus motivated people who would not normally vote to come out in vote.

And when they did come out, and were asked why, which exit poll question would fit their reason? Which question most closely resembles wanting to come out because you felt your values and opinions were being trampled on? Answer: Moral values.

Gay marraige, the war on terror, and other such things definitely mattered. I don't want to make it sound like they didn't. But in an election that was decided by 3 percentage points, I think Kerry's supporters need to recognize that their attitude towards Bush and those who agree with his views were what cost Kerry the election. Otherwise, they're doomed to repeat their failures in the future.

Comments (Page 1)

Death_By_Beebles

on Nov 05, 2004

A very good description of what happened.

To be honest, the liberal elite need to come back down to earth. Forcing their views on the public isn't going to make anyone vote for them.

Excellent work.

Peace,

Beebes

Castle

on Nov 05, 2004

The left wants to know what happened and Draginol just spelled it out. Well said.
Here's another example of whats drawing more Americans away from the left.
"How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?" asks British Daily Mirror. The blind arrogance of the elite media never ceases to amaze me.

Deference

on Nov 05, 2004

It really all started becoming clear at the Superbowl. When Janet Jackson's breast was displayed for all to see, the left's reaction was "Get over it!" and "Deal with it!" They showed no respect whatsoever for the values of the majority of Americans who are trying to raise children in the way they see fit.

Wouldn't you say this reaction from people was because it was obvious this was simply a mistake that occurred? Come on, nobody wanted to see Janet's aging booty.
It's hard for an unintentional action to be held up as some grand example of moral outrage, but, hey, some people swallowed that.

...yep.

Anyhow, you're wrong, it was Republican grassroots groups who handed out leaflets declaring John Kerry was going to legalize gay marriage and ban the bible. It was the Republican campaign that was successfull in polarizing it's voters, not the Democrats, which is obvious in their failing to even show up to the polls in equal numbers to the Republicans.

Castle

on Nov 05, 2004

Wouldn't you say this was because it was obvious this was a mistake that occurred. Come on, nobody wanted to see Janet's aging booty.It's hard for an unintentional action to be held up as some grand example of moral outrage, but, hey, some people swallowed that.

an obvious mistake??! Are we talking about the same Janet Jackson here? The one that had a fancy nipple "hood" ornament attached but never intended for anyone to see it??! You may be able to spin that to a half wit but I'm still laughing that you might actually believe that.

Anyhow, you're wrong, it was Republican grassroots groups who handed out leaflets declaring John Kerry was going to legalize gay marriage and ban the bible. It was the Republican campaign that was successfull in polarizing it's voters, not the Democrats, which is obvious in their failing to even show up to the polls in equal numbers to the Republicans.

Ugh....In time, I hope the left gets past it's denial phase.

Deference

on Nov 05, 2004

You may be able to spin that to a half wit but I'm still laughing that you might actually believe that.

You're laughing 'cause YOU know for sure what Ms. Jackson's intent was? She was dancing at a football game, not posing for Playboy. You've nothing to back that up, so keep laughing, it'll cover my snide chuckle.

Ugh....In time, I hope the left gets past it's denial phase.

Denial of ....??? Yeah, that's right, you've got no argument, you couldn't even address mine, so step off.

DPS

on Nov 05, 2004

"It really all started becoming clear at the Superbowl. When Janet Jackson's breast was displayed for all to see, the left's reaction was "Get over it!" and "Deal with it!" They showed no respect whatsoever for the values of the majority of Americans who are trying to raise children in the way they see fit. "

You still remember that. I know there were some Democrats put off by it too and Republicans who said get over it. It's not even political. Anyway it wasn't that bad. I am still amazed that people are going off about that and your actually comparing it to Mike Moore Fanatics. Yeah it was crazy but come on it was a piece of female anatomy. Tell me if any of your children have acutally been severely effected by this and how it hurt anyone's morals at all...

Now excuse me for being elitist but I don't like it when people call me high on my horse because I don't think people should be so upset for a simple second slip of normal nudity. I guess you view us non-effected people as elitist immoral pigs who don't respect your opinion. I understand. Forgive me for being so stupid and not sympathizing with your stress over a barely second clip and your Far Right's reaction to it and the talk of a big crack down on the involved I must be under you. It all comes clear now. Sorry for being so arrogant. Obvioussly your wing is right in calling the liberals spineless Islamo Facists.

ALobos

on Nov 05, 2004

Well, in some cases I'm sure Deference is correct, but I more agree with the original posted article. And this is why.

I'm 37 and in the Military, and am a registered Republican, which I have been since I turned 18. The last election I voted in prior to this one was Bush v Clinton. I voted for Clinton, which went against my party I suppose. It just seemed to me that Clinton had better ideas. I didn't vote for Clinton's second term, since I really didn't much care for Clinton by then, but didn't like his opponent either (Dole? sorry, my memory isn't that great). The same went for 2000, I didn't care for Gore, but really didn't care much for George W, at least not then. There really wasn't much to bring me out to the polls and vote.

This time around, I started listening for something from Kerry, anything which would tell me that he had a better idea of how to run the country. I didn't like seeing all the jobs that were lost, nor did I agree with everything George W. had enacted, so I was ready for a change. Instead, all I heard was how much Bush screwed up, and how much if you liked Bush, you were screwed up yourself. Wait a second. I did, and do, have respect for him, especially after 9/11. Say what you will, but after sitting through Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole bombing, and watching while we did next to nothing, I was glad to see us take action. I have no doubt that we would have gone and complained to the UN after 9/11 if Gore had been in office, and nothing else, and consequently, would have had a repeat of 9/11 elsewhere. Agree or disagree, Bush got up and did something about it (Afghanistan). I haven't seen any other terrorist attacks in the US since, and is because of George W. I really don't know what to think about Iraq, and it didn't have much to do with my decision in this election anyway.

My respect for Bush came from his action, so when I heard from Kerry and all the DNC supporters that there was something wrong with me for thinking that, well, it didn't sit well. Add to that Michael Moore and all the loud mouth entertainers who were preaching to me about how evil Bush was, and how stupid I must be, well, that pretty much tipped the scale. As far as I'm concerned they're entertainers, they should keep their mouth shut unless I'm paying for a ticket for their movie or concert. If they want to share their opinion, put it in an editorial in a newspaper like the rest of us do, not over the TV or radio! I also think that for the entertainers who supported Bush (they should keep that to themselves), but funny thing was, I didn't see them covered much in the news.

Just to sit the record strait, I did not receive one leaflet from any grassroot group, I do not consider myself a Christian Conservative, and have voted for Democrats before. I can tell you that there were alot more people who thought like I do, including my wife (who voted in her very first election on Tuesday!), and she felt more strongly about it than I did. The DNC, and it's supporters, needs to tone down it's attack posture, start talking to us like people again, and actually give us credit for having credible opinions. If they would have done that, I very well might have voted the other way. They just pissed me off with their condescending attitude, and there was no way I was going to let Kerry into office if I had anything to do with it, and so I did the only thing I could. I voted for Bush.

Castle

on Nov 05, 2004

Denial of ....??? Yeah, that's right, you've got no argument, you couldn't even address mine, so step off.

No sense in getting so bitter. It's obvious that you are having issues with the the decline of leftist extremism in this country. I will try to be more sensitive to your fragile state of mind

.

As for Janet Jackson - what was she doing wearing propellers on her nipples at the Super Bowl?! If not to create a stir by staging a peek-a-boo incident then what? Nipple therapy? Hey, if she really wanted to show us all her guns I'd be happy to check them out on HBO or pay-per-view but she wanted to push the envelope. Sagging careers (among other things) can sometimes get a lift from a stunt like that. Unfortunately for her, this time it backfired.

As for your bible ban, etc comments, I didn't address it because it's pure whiney, bitter BS and it's obvious!
Oh.....and I'll "step off" when I'm good and ready.....got it!

DPS

on Nov 05, 2004

"Agree or disagree, Bush got up and did something about it (Afghanistan). I haven't seen any other terrorist attacks in the US since, and is because of George W."

I think it can be attributed to any action that probably most Presidents would take after such an attack. Isn't this odd that they tell us Bush did a better job then Gore could have ever done and that Kerry would have backed down and lied in a corner on 9/11 and then call some people elitest.

I think what both sides fail to realize is they are both are filled with elitist snobs who talk down about the others. It' s the PoliMedia.

Democrats just scream louder.

ALobos

on Nov 05, 2004

I do agree that both sides are full of elitist snobs, which is why I say folks who support the RNC shouldn't jam it down our throats either. There just isn't near as many of those folks though, which is probably due to the 2000 election, and the number of people who still can't come to grips with the fact that George W won.

As far as any president would have reacted, well, quite possibly, but I'm just looking at the examples set. You know as well as I do that Republicans are more likely to deploy troops (Reagan), and Democrats are more likely to negotiate (Carter). Although, Clinton will go down in history as the president who deployed the most troops. He wasn't afraid to send them into conflict, yet wouldn't send them in response to terrorist acts (USS Cole, Embassies). He did launch a few cruise missles, but not much else. Alot of good that did. It really scared Bin Laden off didn't it! I don't see Bin Laden doing much else but releasing videos now, and that's due to us going into Afghanistan, and that was all George W. That's why I respect him, which has nothing to do with whether I agree with his policies or not.

Hamster 311

on Nov 05, 2004

Now, now, kids, let's play nice.

As far as I'm concerned, both sides played rather dirty and towards the end of the campaign, it seemed like both sides were playing a horrible game of catch-up. Except instead of competing to reach some higher ground, they just sunk lower and lower. While the exit polls revealed that "Moral Values" was the most important issue to most of the voters, I think it is an oversimplification to say that this is the only reason Bush won the election.

Liberals are not, for the most part, amoral. I am a liberal, and personally am not terribly offended by a flash of a breast, yet I concede that the Super Bowl was a wholly inappropriate place for such a display. Nor do I think that Janet Jackson's flash was an accident.

The fact is that liberals and conservatives are both very concerned with moral values. We just have different values.

No one likes having someone else's values crammed down their throat, and no one likes being shouted at or over; it only makes the other side defensive. We have to learn to listen to eachother and tolerate an opposing view.

To say that Bush won because voters, en masse, were rebelling against having liberal values thrust upon them only only seems to ask for an even louder shouting match next time. (ie: "Don't tell me I don't have any moral values! Let me tell you...") But to recognize that Bush won because we place different priorities on our values creates an opening for thoughtful, rational discussion.

ps -Q: Why does Sean Penn's opinion matter more than my neighbor's?
A: It doesn't.

ALobos

on Nov 05, 2004

Well said Hamster.

drmiler

on Nov 05, 2004

Reply #3 By: Deference - 11/5/2004 1:23:10 PM
Anyhow, you're wrong, it was Republican grassroots groups who handed out leaflets declaring John Kerry was going to legalize gay marriage and ban the bible. It was the Republican campaign that was successfull in polarizing it's voters, not the Democrats, which is obvious in their failing to even show up to the polls in equal numbers to the Republicans.

Like the democrats were handing out leaflets saying if Bush won that he would bring back the draft?

drmiler

on Nov 05, 2004

Just heard this:

What do you call 10,000 liberals running over the border to Canada?
A good start.

drmiler

on Nov 05, 2004

Just heard this:

What do you call 10,000 liberals running over the border to Canada?
A good start.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!