http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041107-100745-8688r.htm Excerpts: The truth is that values, which exit polls found motivated many of Mr. Bush's supporters, have much less to do with religion than Democrats believe. Ironically, the real problem is liberals have imposed their beliefs on America in exactly the way they imagine conservatives want to do. Often, the real frustration isn't even with the liberal goal but how it was achieved. Consider the most divisive issue of all: abortion. Had the courts left it alone, the states would gradually have changed their laws, with some being very permissive and others maintaining tight restrictions. This would have eventually led to one of two outcomes. Either it would stabilize, as people moved to states that suited their moral or religious beliefs, or it would have pressured Congress to adopt something that probably would look much like the trimester system we have today. But the democratic process was not allowed to operate. It was too time-consuming, too messy and too uncertain for those who wanted legalized abortion immediately. So the Supreme Court imposed it by fiat, thus leaving those against abortion or even just uncomfortable with it feeling disenfranchised, as if their views count for nothing. Moreover, the lack of a legislative solution also means there is no way to tinker with the system to fix obvious flaws, such as the problem of partial-birth abortion, without reopening the whole question for debate. A similar situation has arisen over same-sex "marriage." Liberals are too quick to assume all opposition to it is based solely on hatred of homosexuals, when it is based more on a fear courts will impose it by judicial fiat without the consent of the people. Consequently, there are grwoing numbers of voters who are secular in their beliefs but find themselves within the values coalition. They oppose making abortion illegal, but also oppose Roe vs. Wade. They have no problem with same-sex "marriage," but are appalled that a single court in our most liberal state is effectively imposing a national policy allowing it. Such people are not prudes, but they don't want their children viewing nudity or listening to profanity on the public airwaves. If Democrats conclude there is nothing to the values issue except religion, they will be very mistaken. Unfortunately, they may conclude they will have to rely even more on the courts to impose their agenda in the future, thus making the fight over Supreme Court appointments even more bitter.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041107-100754-8806r.htm Excerpts: Arguably the most important election in our lifetime is over and the best man won. Americans must now band together and move past the constant stream of pessimism the Democrats forced on us over the past two years. Using fear, anger and rage, Mr. Moore and his band of lefties forced their "blame America first" message on the American people over and over again — a scare tactic the American people had seen and rejected before. The "Two Americas" theme woven into campaign rhetoric and repeated by the media was simply invented as a scare tactic. Democrats must end the level of hostility and anger toward Mr. Bush if they are to participate in our political process as the loyal opposition. As happened in the 1990s, by developing a positive message and agenda for America, Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Contrary to what John Kerry, John Edwards and their liberal surrogates would like you to believe, we are not a nation teetering on the abyss. As Rudy Giuliani said during his speech at the Republican National Convention, "great leaders need to be optimists like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush." This campaign undoubtedly was one of the longest and most calculated negative exchanges ever seen. The American people were introduced to the insertion of the political documentary, pop culture, "527" outside groups and the 24-hour Internet race into mainstream politics. Having an America-hater like Mr. Moore lecture Americans on how to vote was a gift. His so-called "Slacker Uprising" tour, bribing young people with clean underwear and free noodles, didn't get them out of bed. His brand of propaganda through documentary made him personally wealthy, but clearly energized a vast segment of the population in the opposite direction. They turned out to vote for Mr. Bush. Shock jock Howard Stern promised the defeat of Mr. Bush and claimed it would happen because of his listeners. Wrong. Once again, a negative message to the wrong demographic had no effect on the outcome and may have motivated undecideds to make sure to get out and vote for Mr. Bush. P. Diddy's Vote or Die was dead on arrival. Eminem and Bruce Springstein failed to Rock the Vote. Bill Maher and Chris Rock aren't laughing today. Once again the Hollywood left came out in force for the Democratic nominee and once again the resentment towards the Hollywood elite played to Mr. Bush's favor. Maybe, just maybe, Democratic candidates will realize that the American people don't care what Martin Sheen, Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon think. Because if anyone looked closely at the race between "The Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," Mel Gibson's movie scorched Michael Moore's world. Optimism is what defeated Mr. Kerry. The negative and hate-filled attack campaign run by Kerry surrogates only deepened a desire to win among Bush voters across the country.
It's not the fault of liberals and Democrats that the people of Jesusland vote oh a whim and not actual facts.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041108-094909-4676r.htm Excerpts: This past election was the most bitterly fought in memory, but nowhere was it waged more vituperatively than in Hollywood. In recent months, lifelong friendships have been torn asunder. Just this morning, I heard about a poker game involving writers and producers that had weathered 20 years of trials and tribulations but could not survive George W. Bush's re-election. One thing you have to give Hollywood celebrities credit for is their monumental gall. I mean, Barbra Streisand insults conservatives more often than she bathes, knowing full well it won't harm her CD sales. Julia Roberts announces that if you look up Republican in the dictionary, you'll find it right after reptiles, and yet she continues selling movie tickets, even though 52 percent of the electorate recently cast their ballots for Mr. Bush. You'll notice that show biz liberals are very outspoken, just so long as they're addressing the choir. But you rarely see them placing themselves in a situation where they have to debate the issues. Have you ever once seen Michael Moore addressing any groups that didn't consist of either American college students or French film snobs? No, neither have I.
Proving my point! You-just-don't-get-it...and you never ever ever will! Hence, you will always be on the losing end... but go on with your bad self, if it makes you feel better!
Wait a minute...you're quoting Washington's most ignored newspaper and you want to be taken seriously?
That's great analysis there, USASoccer, though I'm not sure I agree with your take on the second article. Seriously though, I find it sad that the majority of the nation is out of touch with what real America is all about and values that are important to real Americans - accountability, honesty, reality - and decided to vote for Bush. Here's hoping that real American values become fashionable again in 2006 and 2008.
accountability--john kerry has spent the last 20 years in the us senate doing nothing. honesty-- john kerry voted for and against the war in iraq. john kerry told a group of detroit automakers he owns five cars, the next day he told an environmental group he owns no cars. reality- john kerry's favorite bible verse is john 16:3 and his favorite player on his beloved Boston Red Sox is manny ortiz.
If "it" is "voting based on values that neither candidate had, and then ignoring the issues and forcing the values on the most likeable candidate," I sure as **** never want it.
Speaking of not getting it. We, I, me personally...I don't want abortion legalized, I don't think it's a good thing. I don't think that homosexuals should be married and those who don't think so hate them. What I believe is that everyone is equal. I don't believe that we have the right to tell two people who are in love that they cannot marry or be united in civil union. I don't believe that we have the right to tell a woman that she cannot do what she believes is right for her and the fetus. I am not pro-either of these things, I am against people ruling all others by their belief systems (whether they are religious or not). A democracy should take into account the rights of all people and provide equal weight to them. I think it would surprise many socially conservative people how many socially liberal people like myself think like this.
Yeah, isn't it sad that so many people, 51% of the population in fact, ignores reality that it becomes a value?
Um... those links are to the Wash Times. You can even see that without clicking on them. Literacy - use it.
This goes to the heart of the "liberals/Kerry voters=smarty pants know it alls"; "neo-cons/Bush voters=ignorant, gullible" debate. I fully understand the argument about the perceived imposition of views from the urban cities upon rural America. However, the issue of truth and "the reality-based community" that was so widely bandied about following Ron Suskind's New York Times profile on W is a massive one. Here's the quote from a Bush aide: ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' Reality is in serious danger. --Bush likes to joke around, but his new press policy of "no follow up questions" is no joke -- he very much wants his statements reported as facts unchallenged. -- When the Duelfer Report says, verbatim, "We were almost all wrong on Iraq" and the Bush Whitehouse immediately claims the Duelfer report supports the war in Iraq because it said Hussein "intended" to develop a nuclear program, that is just plain at odds with reality. --When Republican delegates are proud to wear buttons saying "I Don't Believe the New York Times" that is a disturbing trend. -- The 9/11 Commission said without a doubt there was "no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States. Yet that same week, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.'' He also repeatedly cited the story that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission. -- Then, in a national debate, Dick Cheney flatly states "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." The vice president may have had an argument if he had used a definitive word such as "stated." But the word "suggested" here is completely untrue. Obviously this list can go on and on. But the idea that "reality" has become a value is a sad, sad turn of events.
Ah yes, another USAsocer macro: Liberals are completely out of touch because they believe [insert thing USAsoccer doesn't like] and will therefore never, ever get it. Yawn.
Yeah Dan. Good example. Especially since John Kerry was either a) CERTAIN that Daniel Ortega was not a Marxist-Leninist aligned with the Soviet Union or b) did not care. He sure had egg on his face when Ortega blithely tripped over to Moscow for aid only a few months after he undertook his little jaunt. Kerry's foreign policy judgment has been a day late and a dollar short throughout his career.
I would definitely agree with you. I personally don't think people should have abortions except in cases of rape or incest. But it's not MY choice what they do with THEIR body. Same thing with gay marriage. I think marriage should be saved as a purely religious term, and gays should be allowed civil unions, with all the same legal rights that a man and woman have. Just like a man and woman who get married by the justice of the peace. We aren't all extreme righties.. we just believe that "all men (and women) are created equal". And i'm not going to change my stance just so people won't be offended by me and my position and not call me a morally reprehensible elitist.
[rant]USASoccer, how many babies have you adopted today? Don't talk to me until you have 1 adopted child for each $10,000 of income. And take a look at the black babies, please. We don't get adopted, as a rule; I got lucky. Im pro-all kinds of life, personally. Get out of the uterus. Period. I'm heterosexual, personally, and actually think that population will be the real "threat" to the West's civilization model. Get out of the tongue-twined mouths of whomever, period. Use that sensibility to get out of other things that have nothing to do with you, and shape what DOES have to do with you - your family - the way you like. What this is about is railing against having to ACTUALLY live in an ever-exapanding democracy, versus paying lip service to democracy but really trying to live by the tenets of mob rule...when that which defines the mob goes your way. You folks ARE, ike it or not, the same folks who were smacking women around for disobeying the Bible by being in the streets fighting for their right to vote, the same types of people who felt more comfortable, and voted, locally, time and time again, to maintain separate water fountains and special voting tests for blacks, the same crowd who embraced the notion that the Indian needed your Christ and not their own traditions...you are, seemingly, a disease, a morbid condition, a damned and damning perversity, of the ethical soul of mankind. I'd be willing to live with you if it weren't for the fact that you can't live with me AS me, being me. Gotta spread that One Gospel Truth, right? Explain Iraq again to me, in Christ's (not the Old Testament, but Christ's) actual quotes and statements... ******** off, please; your hypocrisy, particularly centered around your take on Christ-like behavior, is vomitous at best. I HATE that Jesus (well, not Jesus, but Christianity, posing as the Commands and Directives of Jesus) has been used as a shield for this dirty, anti-democratic raping of the words of a man who Commanded love, and somehow got interpreted as the sanction for not only climbing up in uteruses and telling gays who just want to love that THEY are wrong, but, more importantly, a sanction for killing at home and abroad. Hate it.[/rant]
I'm pro-abortion rights, but this is yet another bogus argument since it ignores the other body involved.
Yeah, but that's what the message was back in '96 when Clinton got re-elected. Why are you surprised when it happens again?