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.

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.

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 5)

Deference

on Nov 10, 2004

Thanks for the clarification, citahellion, you are correct.

The Tormentor

on Nov 10, 2004

Deference is right that Kerry did not bash our troops ,but to change his mind back and forth on giving armor and weapons our troops needed I personally think sends the wrong messege to our troops.

Grim Xiozan

on Nov 10, 2004

Equal rights for Ostriches, DAMN IT!!

This message brought to you by the council of Ostriches Civil Rights Org. and Plinko!!

Deference

on Nov 10, 2004

Let me preface this by going over the paragraph of yours that started this dialogue between us:

Hey Deference, your very denial is proof that you're *in* denial. Look at the posts. Ignore the "Bush is right" rhetoric and the outcome of the replies clearly state that of those individuals who voted for Bush, one of the major issues of why they did *is* because of every point Draginol brought up. If Lil_whip says "I voted for Bush because of the kerry supporters"..then how can you argue she voted because of "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."..

I am and have been, from the very start, speaking of voters in the U.S. in general, not specifically little whip or whomever you want to pull out of your hat at JU. I would not waste all my time arguing that I know what lies within everyone's head here. I would hope you've known this, if not, you and I have been honing our typing skills only, while talking past each other. That said, little whip and Draginol have consistently provided arguments for Bush policies and given reasons as to why people should vote Bush. It's common knowledge (by most frequent JU posters) that these two were Bush-friendly a long time ago for reasons other then the rude lefty argument produced after the election. It's kinda' hard to produce that reason after you've already voted, when you most possibly voted for your candidate for any of the other abundent reasons you've provided here at JU. I will not scour the whole JU record for examples for you simply to waste my time on a point that is so easily seen.

A reasoned individual would take this into account and most possibly derive that these two were going to vote Bush a long time ago. You know this but you force me to spell it out. The last line where I speak of the grassroots organizations is obviously an example to prove my point on the broader scale, not one to counter the reason you applied it to. You either purposfully or incompetently confused this. Give it up, you're simply wasting both our time.

The final nail in the coffin for your argument (if your argument does pertain to mine) is there is simply no proof to back your position, though there is proof that people (voters here and abroad) voted for Bush for other reasons. The fairy tale that lefties twisted your arm and made you vote Bush is just that amongst the majority of the voting population, so don't blame the left for your bad judgement.

The Tormentor

on Nov 10, 2004

Well Helix, I do not think that lefty advertisments or negative ads really had too much effect on the voting or on you. In the end when looking at the two candidates the majority in votes and popular votes came out for Bush. Republicans voted for Kerry and democrats voted for Bush it is really the same. Just because your democrat does not mean you have to vote democrat. Same with republicans who can also vote democrat. But in the end the population clearly wanted Bush to go for four more years.

drmiler

on Nov 10, 2004

Reply #63 By: Deference - 11/10/2004 5:42:30 PM
That was only 22% of the voting public

"Morals" were held as the highest concern amongst voters, topping out all other issues. You know this drmiler!

Again you miss the point! ONLY 22% voted the way they did because of moral issues.So it was the highest concern for 22% only! In case you still don't get it, that means 78% of th voting public voted for Bush for reasons OTHER than moral values!

Draginol

on Nov 12, 2004

Michael Moore had this to say today:

"We want to document and commercialize it,” added Moore, “Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them. "

You see, those of us who voted for Bush just need to be educated and enlightened.

Deference

on Nov 12, 2004

I do not feel I made a bad judgement call. Yet because I didn't vote for the left, I made a bad judgement call? It is that very behavior that is highlighted in Draginol's article

In my opinion, voting for Bush was a bad call. Why? I voted for him in 2000 and now I'm one of those still kicking my own ass for not voting Gore. We probably wouldn't be in Iraq today, Sept. 11 probably would not have been addressed by liberty limiting Patriot Act, etc. etc. . It is in that light that I feel it was a bad judgement call to re-elect Bush, not because you simply didn't vote for Kerry (whom I met in his visits to Fulton and Jefferson City, MO).

I find Draginol's argument hard to swallow, simply because I feel that there must be other factors in deciding the new C.I.C. besides the opposition's criticisms (or outright derision of his supporters) of him. The fact that one would take offense to those in the first place nails you as already sympathetic to the president.

I don't know if somehow there was a confusion on my or your part when we began this, but I apologize for not catching it before. Your obvious unhappiness with my approach to you and zobelisk is totally with merit. I'm usually a bit scrappy when I perceive someone else going on the attack, as I felt you were with your paragraph addressing me after my comment to zobelisk.

Finally, my argument rests, the majority of Americans did not vote for GW because of the left, they voted because of other issues, as is evidenced by polls, etc. .

Welcome, Helix, you're now also in a minority.

drmiler

on Nov 12, 2004

Reply #74 By: Deference - 11/12/2004 2:00:40 PM
I do not feel I made a bad judgement call. Yet because I didn't vote for the left, I made a bad judgement call? It is that very behavior that is highlighted in Draginol's article

In my opinion, voting for Bush was a bad call. Why? I voted for him in 2000 and now I'm one of those still kicking my own ass for not voting Gore. We probably wouldn't be in Iraq today, Sept. 11 probably would not have been addressed by liberty limiting Patriot Act, etc. etc. . It is in that light that I feel it was a bad judgement call to re-elect Bush, not because you simply didn't vote for Kerry (whom I met in his visits to Fulton and Jefferson City, MO).

I find Draginol's argument hard to swallow, simply because I feel that there must be other factors in deciding the new C.I.C. besides the opposition's criticisms (or outright derision of his supporters) of him. The fact that one would take offense to those in the first place nails you as already sympathetic to the president.

I don't know if somehow there was a confusion on my or your part when we began this, but I apologize for not catching it before. Your obvious unhappiness with my approach to you and zobelisk is totally with merit. I'm usually a bit scrappy when I perceive someone else going on the attack, as I felt you were with your paragraph addressing me after my comment to zobelisk.

Finally, my argument rests, the majority of Americans did not vote for GW because of the left, they voted because of other issues, as is evidenced by polls, etc.

What polls? We've been over some of this before. 22% voted for him on moral issues, 20% voted for him for the war on terror, 19% voted for him on economy. Now lessee that equals 61%. Now what reason did the other 39% use to vote for him?

citahellion

on Nov 12, 2004

Actually, DRMiler, 34% of Bush voters listed Moral Issues as their most important issue. 33% listed Terrorism. After that you have Iraq (8%), Economy (7%), Other (7%), tax (5%), health (4%), and Education (2%).

This is calculated from the CNN poll previously mentioned, based on their stats in the "Most Important Issue" section.

Deference

on Nov 12, 2004

You tell me, drmiller, then provide some credible evidence to back it up.

whoman69

on Nov 12, 2004

You can't define a political campaign by negatives. Kerry was the "Anybody but Bush" candidate. Jon Stewart showed a campaign poster of Kerry that said "I'm not Bush." I think that was a satirical but accurate assessment. The fact that the election was close at all surprised me.

Here are my concerns these days (not necessarily in priority order):

- Stimulation of the American economy.
- Creation of new jobs.
- Reducing oil prices.
- Better, more affordable healthcare.
- Stabilization of the Middle East.
- Any solution to trouble-spots like Somalia and North Korea that doesn't require the US to be the world's police force.

All that I heard from Kerry were vague promises.

I don't see that as correct at all. If you take Kerry's positions as spoken by Karl Rove, then no Kerry did not offer anything. I believe the Bush campaign did a very effective job of making it seem that Kerry did not offer proposals, because the last thing any candidate would do would be to make a speech based solely upon what they will do as President. Such a speech would become immediate cannon fodder for the opponent. What did Bush say about what he would do to correct that which is wrong in the world? You know where I stand, stay the course, America is turning the corner? Are any of those policy statements? Kerry took too long in evolvling his positions for Americans to know what they were. They were on his website, but nobody looks at that. Let's just take the war in Iraq. During the summer when he was running ahead, Kerry's basic position was that he supported the war but could have run it better. He should have went with that, but for some reason he thought it wasn't strong enough to bring his base Democrats, some of whom were totally against the war, into the fold. So he had to mess with that position to say that he voted for the war to allow the President to negotiate with Saddam. He should have stuck to his guns, said I voted for the war but you messed it up from the start. You went in with the foregone conclusion that war was inevitable so no nations stood behind us knowing that we tried nothing to make Saddam back down and give in to all the demands, not just the weapon's inspectors but unlimited access by the weapon's inspectors and the power to remove any weapons found. All these nations agree you must capitulate or face military action. There were only three nations that entered into Iraq during the combat phase, not a coalition. There were not enough troops to control the nation and hold off looting and the general chaos that ensued. The chaos allowed the insurgents to recruit members and stalled the rebuilding phase. You did not make it clear to the troops that the United States would uphold the Geneva conventions in regard to the treatment of prisoners. And last, because you thought the country would welcome us without hesitation as liberators, you made no plans to be able to keep the Iraqi police in place and restore order which could have brought about a move to Democracy. Kerry messed that all up with his wrong war at the wrong time deal.

drmiler

on Nov 12, 2004

Reply #77 By: Deference - 11/12/2004 5:17:03 PM
You tell me, drmiller, then provide some credible evidence to back it up.

Why should I be the one to prove it? Your the one who made the original statement.

jeblackstar

on Nov 13, 2004

Brad, you know that most liberals/democrats do not advocate or even believe in the same things that Moore believes in. I honestly believe there are a lot of ignorant republicans out there, but than again, I've lived in Eugene Oregon for a number of years, and I know there's a lot of ignorant democrats out there too. Michael Moore, unfortunately, has a very loud position from which to speak, whereas the "silent majority" from both sides find their most vocal advocates repugnant.

Cheers

Draginol

on Nov 14, 2004

I agree that the average liberal and reasonable as the average conservative.

What the Kerry campaign did was make a huge tactical mistake - they embraced their kooks. There was no act of depravity on the left that Kerry would deplore. He never had his "sister souljah moment".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

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!