Draginol Draginol

Bush haters motivated Bush voters

▼

Bush haters motivated Bush voters

Moral Values != Anti-Gay Marriage

from JoeUser Forums

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.

politics
21,346 views 81 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have a lot of valid points. As a Democrat I have to say I am disappointed in my party in how it handled some things and I totally agree that just because someone is an actor or singer they're opinion isn't worth more than anyone elses (it's probably worth less because these people don't have too much contact with real people or the real world).

But saying that, if a 3-5 second flash of a boob that was not televised on purpose caused that much grief and stress, you might need to loosen up just a bit....As for the Liberal Elite I see mentioned, I think it's a lot more elitist of Evangelical Christians (who are heavily republican) to say they're going to heaven and I'm not....

Other things - Those who say Bush was just so great after 9/11, who knows what would have happened if Gore were President... What we'd all be reading the Koran now? Some of you mention the Dems running a dirty campaign. How about Cheney saying " If you vote for the wrong candidate, we might be at greater risk for a terrorist attack" - Vote for us or Die, that's real uplifting.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do you call 10,000 liberals running over the border to Canada?
A good start.


Poor Canadians...

What motivated me to vote for him is YOU...the liberals that i've met, (if only virtually) online in the past 6 months. You pissed me off enough to head to the polls on Nov 2.


Diddo, I voted for the first time this election.

And as far as this Jesus land crap.... I live in the area that "Jesus Land" supposedly encompases and you know what.... I don't know a single person that took (or was even offered) that stupid exit poll. It could also be the fact that most of the smaller towns had to vote in church parishes. Could be because the canidates thought that some states weren't worth their time and didn't really try to campain in. I live in the 7th most populated state in Nebraska and never saw a single yard sign for either Bush or Kerry, no bumper stickers, flyers, nothing. Every other election, something has been seen here, but not this time around.

Link

I found it rather odd that no other race is represented there. I know there are other races, I see them every day, what, did all the Hispanics and other minority groups stay home? Over the entire state? I just find that REALLY hard to swallow. Hence, exit polls mean shit and nothing more.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
"How far that little candle throws his beams!" Portia, Merchant of Venice.

On fox news, I just heard a democrat hack suggest the election outcome fraudulent because the result conflicts with exit poll data. At approximately 7:00 p.m., on election night, this party hack was sipping on champagne, celebrating a kerry win. Then, the juggernaut of raw data/real votes (the only data worth a lick of salt) resulted in this hack having to cork her bottle.

This hack is a perfect example of a self-hating American determined to unite post-election America? These hacks just don't get it. Why do the elite circles of "world citizens", e.g., U.N. Sec. Kofi, irrationally despise this Country? To the liberal world elitist, I have seen much of the world and it is a dark and shitty place. America, for all her short comings, is, indeed, a shinning city on the hill.
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
For those who voted on the "moral issues", do they think that Bush will suddenly propose and ammendment to ban abortion? That is what is needed or to have the Supreme court vote again on Roe v Wade. Do these same moralists expect Bush to not only put forth an ammendment not only banning gay marriage but civil unions as well? For all the talk on moral issues, there will be no headway made on those issues even with a Republican majority in both houses and a Republican President. Why would they move on this issue when they can keep it around for another four years and then decry about how those issues are still there so they can consolidate their base again?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
whoman69 -

First of all, Bush has gone on record as having no opposition to civil unions, so don't ascribe intentions to him that he doesn't have. And the amendment he's proposed doesn't "ban" gay marriage, it just would confirm in the Constitution that individual states have jurisdiction over the question.

There also appears to be a misconception about the what the Supreme Court can & cannot do, the thinking apparently being that just get a couple more conservative judges on the court & they'll suddenly overturn Roe v. Wade. Someone, somewhere, has to file a case that bears on Roe v. Wade, which then has to wind its way to the Supreme Court before they can either agree to hear the case or not. I'm sure that will happen somewhere, but the Bush administration isn't going to propose anything concerning abortion.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
One of the early and insightful comments by ALobos that was perhaps overlooked was:

It just seemed to me that Clinton had better ideas.


Even the most ardent supporter of Mr. Kerry would be hard put to tell me a positive, central idea of Kerry's campaign that would make people vote for him. I mean a "I am going to vote for Kerry because he is going to..." idea. A clearly annunciated campaign plank that was positive. And by positive I mean something where he said "If elected, I will do this..." not a "If elected, I will stop this."

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.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kerrys problem was obvious I think to everyone, he just didn't know what he actually believed himself, and in fact, probably took a "Poll" at home before taking his kids to the movie. Its unfathomable to me that the democratic party could actually nominate such a character, when theres consistant and moderate people amoung their party like Liberman, who probably would have stood a good chance of actually winning.

But hey, no skin off my back. But I do agree with the premise of this article, the hate coming from the liberals was intense. I'd bet 75% of my street voted for Bush, but you didn't see a single Bush sign on my street - why? Nobody wanted to hear the flak from the Kerry folk. They were downright hostile towards anyone that did, and usually got evil stares - about the most you'd expect in my city. But the side effect, they drove more people into the Bush camp - which is the basis of this article. To which I agree with.

BobM
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
Ah, I finally get back to my the wonderful JU forum to check up on old posts. Bush supporters still echoing talking points from Fox? Check. Sudden disappearance of class from some on the left and right? Check. Country still without change? Check. People still claiming Bush policies to be wonderful, thinking people voting for Bush makes everything okay? Check.

Just came by to get my *check*. Thanx guys!



I must add that I enjoy the lame attempts at needling me by saying I'm in denial. Kerry lost, I know it. Bush won. Was that your assertion? That I didn't know who won the election? Nope. Fish elsewhere, hope that's not the extent of the rhetoric....
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
This was the first time I voted Republican for a president.

I couldn't see Kerry as president, nor could I see him fixing anything Bush did or didn't do. Kerry was good at telling me what Bush did wrong, but I knew that already.

Bush seemed to me the better candidate, already in office, and I know his mistakes and sadly so does he (I hope). With half the country voting for Kerry, I hope that he sees that he needs to be more direct about his policies, especially if he decided to get us in another war.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hatfield vs. McCoys....Right vs. Left....Blue eyes vs. Brown Eyes....Black vs. White...Righteous vs. Indignant....Moral vs. Amoral....Birkenstocks vs. Boots....PC vs. Mac....SUV vs. Subaru....Dyed in the Wool vs. Tie Dyed.....Beer Huggers vs. Tree Huggers.....Red vs. Blue.....Touchy Feely vs. Ranty Raving....Aromatherapy vs. Coffee....Gay vs. Heterosexually Happy.....Hallmark vs. Handwritten......Bumpkin vs. Bran Muffin......Golden Parachute vs. There's No Reserve.....Farmer John vs. Permaculture Kiefer.....Analog vs. Digital.......Atkins vs. 40/40/20

I just can't decide who is more wrong.

Just replace "vs." with "and"

We're all whiners/martyrs, ignorant of the "facts", purveyors of "truths", and belittler of others. If you've cornered the market on any one of these things then YOU are the problem.

So don't forget that it's all just a tug of war without end. Grab the rope.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Karl Rove seems to beleive that it was the Kerry portrait as a Flip-Flopper.,

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Reflecting on how he delivered President Bush his second term, White House political adviser Karl Rove admitted Sunday that John Kerry's vote for, then against, funding in Iraq and Afghanistan was the ``gift that kept on giving.''

The deft strategy of Rove, whom Bush calls the architect of his re-election campaign, is credited with helping move the nation from the 49 percent to 49 percent stalemate of the 2000 election to a 51 percent to 48 percent split in the Republicans' favor.

``The country is still close, but it has moved in a Republican direction, and this election confirmed that,'' Rove said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

Tactically, Kerry's decision to vote for the $87 billion in funding for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then deciding in October 2003 to vote against it, was a bonanza for the president's campaign, ``the gift that kept on giving,'' Rove said.

Bush's campaign featured the videotape in thousands of commercials around the country to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper. The label stuck to the Massachusetts senator despite reports about frequent changes in various Bush positions.

Rove played down the importance to the campaign of ``moral values,'' which exit polls last Tuesday unexpectedly identified as a major consideration of many voters, especially those who voted for Bush.

Rove said 34 percent of the voters were motivated by issues surrounding Iraq and the war on terror, compared with 30 percent motivated by moral values. ``What essentially happened in this election was that people became concerned about three issues: first the war, then the economy, jobs and taxes and then moral values. And then everything else dropped off of the plate,'' he said.

Rove said he felt sick, then got mad when he started reading exit polls on Election Day as Air Force One returned from a final campaign swing. Surveys of voters just leaving polling places around the nation tilted toward Kerry early in the day and through much of the evening, causing early optimism for a Democratic recovery of the White House.

That faded through the night as exit polls were adjusted to reflect official vote tallies. But the exit poll was still tracking toward Kerry as the president's plane landed at Andrews Air Force Base in suburban Maryland after Bush's quick Election Day stop to thank supporters in crucial Ohio.

``I was on Air Force One, and we were literally on final approach into Andrews,'' Rove said on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``The phone connection kept cutting out. I was holding a piece of paper on my knee, trying to scribble it down, holding the phone in the other hand. I got sick as I wrote them down, and then when I looked at them, I got angry, because they simply could not be true.''

``I mean, it had us 19 points down in Pennsylvania. It had us 17 points down in New Hampshire. It had us 1 point up in Virginia,'' Rove said. ``I mean, you looked at these numbers, and you realize, this is just insane.''

On one sideline row during the campaign, Rove said the president's tailor was devastated about a controversy over a box-shaped bulge in Bush's back that television cameras captured during the first debate. The mysterious bulge spawned speculation that Bush aides were feeding the president advice secretly through a radio receiver tucked under his suit jacket.

``Nothing was under his jacket,'' Rove said.

``The poor tailor ... he's an awfully nice fellow, he's a rather flamboyant dude,'' Rove said. ``I'm not going to use his name, but he's just - he's horrified. And, you know, it's - there was nothing there.''" -- News

Also my dad was actually convinced by the hard-Liberals (Moore,Soros) to vote against Bush. I guess he was easily convinced and must have been duped by them, after all they can't speak an ounce of truth can they?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yea, we really could have won if we said that we stood for everything the Bush supporters stood for. That would have been the perfect strategy! Are you insane? You don't win an election by saying that you stand for the same thing the other guy stands for.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
In truth, from what I read in the foreign press, both sides were equally nasty

IMO, Kerry supporters had concentrated on Bush's errors for one good reason: They were the most GLARING issue. Sure Bush's action post-9/11 was admirable, but I'm sure Gore would have done the same. I mean, 3000 LIVES were lost and 2 of what was formerly the TALLEST BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD COLLAPSED. What makes you think any American president would have left that alone?

The Democrats however, went overboard and I guess their extreme criticsm scared off moderate voters.
But I think the Republicans are just as elitist as Democrats. When have you heard a Republican confess his own mistakes???

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think this is undoubtedly part of the reason Kerry lost, but I think that it has to be acknowledged by everyone that there is more than one reason. People vote for different reasons.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Oh, my, it is so refreshing to learn that one party was pure in motive.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, my, it is so refreshing to learn that one party was pure in motive.


No, but the Bush supporters weren't alienating Americans as Kerry supporters were. If you want to deny that self-righteousness didn't win converts to the Kerry cause, then by all means let the Democrats repeat their mistake for 2008. I'd like to see them disappointed again.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Erm.. Let me correct what really happened!! It was about how the campaign was geared toward the Christian evangelics (sp). This was a masterful political ploy it has NOTHING to do with Kerry haters or Bush haters motivated anyone. I love this site but the political views sometimes are down right comical. (No offense to the author of course or anyone just my view!) Bush is not really a devote Christian nor will he overturn abortion or ban gay marriage. All of that was just political spin to win the vote. Now I promise you that he will not deliver anything too them now. No reason with his term up in 4 years. I sit back and laugh to myself at the entire country along with the entire world. I am in contact with the entire world at my website. The general feeling is that Americans are stupid and we lost more credibility in the world due too the stupid voters who DID NO RESEARCH like everyone should have. I know none of you did any because Bush is in office and the same rhetoric is being said in these wonderful political threads at this Blog.

All I can say is you made your bed America now lay in it and enjoy what you reap! If I could move away for 4 years I would because what is going to happen while he is in office will not be a pretty sight!
Reply #44 from PolMach Forums Top
1.)It was about how the campaign was geared toward the Christian evangelics

2.)This was a masterful political ploy it has NOTHING to do with Kerry haters or Bush haters motivated anyone

3.)Bush is not really a devote Christian nor will he overturn abortion or ban gay marriage. All of that was just political spin to win the vote.

4.)The general feeling is that Americans are stupid and we lost more credibility in the world due too the stupid voters who DID NO RESEARCH like everyone should have.

All true, Desert Fox. I wouldn't say that all JU has failed to be informed, however. There are many that did vote Bush or advocate his being re-elected, but sometimes they were heavily informed and did much research, unfortunately, when the majority of voters simply identify with a candidate, they'll go to any lengths to justify egregious policy.

What I really like is how some imply that because Bush won the election, that was confirmation that he's been ( and by extention, they have ) been correct about anything.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well...

Do any of you really beleive that the ONLY reason that we haven't had a terrorist attack in this coulntry since 9/11 is because of Bush and his policies?

That is such a lame argument and I am personally tired of hearing it.

We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 because they don't want to attack us directly (Hell, they got plenty of US soldiers in Irag and Afganastan to shoot at and kill, and it's easier there apparently!), or they aren't ready etc.

To terrorize Americans there is no need to blow up huge buildings with airplanes, just a few well placed suicide bombers in small cities across the country, would scare the hell out of people, and it would be easy and cheap to do it too!

Bush got re-elected becouse the republicans scared the american people into thinking that Bush was the only one between us and the terrorists, and people fell for it. How else could a man who has lied about the whole Iraq war not only not get impeached but get re-elected?

Think about it...
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Desert Fox: No offense but I'm quite comfortable with my "comical" knowledge on politics.  But thanks for making my point.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #46 By: thetech (Anonymous) - 11/9/2004 10:01:57 AM
Well...

Do any of you really beleive that the ONLY reason that we haven't had a terrorist attack in this coulntry since 9/11 is because of Bush and his policies?

That is such a lame argument and I am personally tired of hearing it.

We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 because they don't want to attack us directly (Hell, they got plenty of US soldiers in Irag and Afganastan to shoot at and kill, and it's easier there apparently!), or they aren't ready etc.

To terrorize Americans there is no need to blow up huge buildings with airplanes, just a few well placed suicide bombers in small cities across the country, would scare the hell out of people, and it would be easy and cheap to do it too!


Think about THIS! You haven't seen ANY attacks now have you?
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
To all of the liberals trying to tell conservatives why they voted for Bush- If you say you voted for Kerry because you feel he has a better plan for America, how would you like it if everyone was saying "That just isn't so.  You voted for Kerry because he and the democrats tricked you into voting for him"?
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know, I was watching the SuperBowl when the infamous Janet Jackson incident happened. I was sitting around the TV with my father, my grandmother, and her sister, my aunt. These are all three adults 40 and over who live in a moderately-sized town. One is a staunch Republican, one is a very conservative Democrat, and all three are very religious Christians. And "The Moment" was over so fast, that not one of the four of us really knew that anything happened! After the camera cut away and the lights went out, we all looked at each other for a moment and said, "Was that--?" Then we shook our heads, watched the rest of the game, and went to bed. I don't think it ocurred to any of us that that was anything other than a mistake, quickly glossed over. When I woke up the next day, it was all over the news as the crime of the century. I can't say I understand it. I mean, how many little kids watch the SuperBowl? How many kids have the patience to sit through an entire football game? I think we've seen much worse, done *intentionally*, many times before, without making such a fuss.

As to "moral issues": that whole thing is so ambiguous, I've never liked it. We really can only speculate on what was meant by voters when they stated this. I have a friend who says that he liked Kerry because Kerry was "reluctant to run a smear campaign" and he thought this was honorable. I have a family member who voted for Bush because he felt that the Democrats had "told too many lies and used too many scare tactics" and felt that the Republicans had conducted themselves more honorably. But the arrogant fluffy boys of the media will continue to spin this statistic to their own confused ends. I say, let them spin themselves dizzy, and let's get on with things. --LL
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
The idea of going againt our own values to preserve our international "credibility" is akin to an atheist going to church so he won't seem out of place in a rural community. Maybe being disingenuous is the status quo elsewhere in the world, but I don't think we in America need to sell out our beliefs to keep the respect of people who will dislike us regardless...