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

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.