Of course, everyone over the past few days, including us, has been talking about the fact "moral issues" decided this election. At least, that's what the exit polls show was the no. 1 concern for a plurality of voters. What is interesting though is that of those for which the economy, the war in Iraq, and healthcare were the number one issues John Kerry was overwhelmingly favored. Those were the real issues of this election! The ones that should have decided who was the president and Kerry won hands down. But apparently there more Bush voters who thought "moral" values (i.e. against gay marriage) and "the war on terra" were more important. So in other words, Bush won because he played on people's most base fears and prejudices. That's not a "mandate" to be proud of, and rest assured, it's going to come back and bite the Republicans on their asses.
I also find it amusing that the places that actually suffered terrorist attacks, and are still the main targers for future attacks, namely NYC and D.C. voted around 90% each for John Kerry to protect them. Whereas rural America, which will probably never see and never have to worry about a terrorist attack (unless it's domestic like the OKC bombing!) voted for Bush. I'd say the "Northeastern elites" have the right to be angry with their "Heartland" brothers. They've put their lives in the hands of George Bush.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's not even been a week and yet all of the pundits have magically agreed that it was "moral issues" that won this election for Bush. They've made the mistake in thinking that, because a significant minority of Bush voters turned out on that issue, that ALL Bush voters voted on that issue alone. I still think it's safe to say that, Christian evangelists or not, without the attacks on 9/11 Bush would be looking at moving out come January. There were a number of issues at stake in the campaign; the moral issues may be the one on which Bush managed to turn out more or their base then Dems did theirs, but many people also still think Bush is the stronger leader to deal with terrorism. Democrats have to be careful about hinging the blame for their loss on one single issue; there are many ways they can improve for the next elections that require dealing with the many issues on which they lost.
Right I agree, Christian conservatives may have tipped the scales, but the truth is this election didn't really defy history. Undecided voters were really Bush voters that don't like Bush. But they fall for the "don't change horses" meme and that's why we've never unseated a president during wartime in all of our history.
It seems to me that people lose track of what "war" really means. Even with CNN bombarding us with war videos on a daily basis, the fight between the American soldiers and the Iraqis out there is still too impersonal for most people. I was surprised that the Bush called himself "a war president" as a campaign slogan. If a war president is what they wanted, it probably means people in this country have forgotten what a war is. There was never any glory in war, only endless deaths on both sides. A civilized country would only fight a war when there is no other option. I wonder if people have to wait till everyone has an acquiantence or two killed/injured from this war to realize the true meaning of that word, and regret the fact that we as a country allowed Bush to take us down that road.
This guy nails it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/arts/14rich.html?oref=login&oref=login&th
And here's Xanthipass comments:
"I think some of us on the left or the center forget that, on a lot of these issues that these 'values voters' turn out for, the GOP pretty much drops them after the election. That's just politics, and Democrats do the same thing to turn out their supporters. Part of the problem is I don't think these values voters realize that they're getting the raw deal; they make these issues extremely important in how they decide who to vote for, without realizing that regardless of how important the party says it is now, it won't be in 6 mos or a year or more. Does anybody really believe a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will pass? I mean, you'll note the only payback Bush gives to those who voted on that issue(and other "morals" issues)is that he would support it. Well sure, but hasn't that always been true? Nothing's different, and I wish they'd realize it. It would be the same as anti-war advocates voting for a Democrat who says he has a plan to get the troops home, then watching over the next 6 mos as that plan fades away once the new President faces the reality of the situation.
Anyway it would be nice if they(and those on the left)would realize that's the nature of politics, and try to stick to voting based on policies that are close to their heart(and their wallet)but also whose goals are remotely achievable."
Post a Comment