Posted on 11/05/2004 8:30:26 PM PST by neverdem
Bump for later reading.
Explaining issues of faith and morality to liberals is like talking quantum physics with an chimpanzee, not worth the time and effort.
Dear friend, you have mistaken Brooks entirely. He is not suggesting that "throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top." On the contrary, he is saying that this explanation, while it is the official account among pundits, is wrong. He agrees with you that Bush's victory has far more complex causes than this simplistic liberal explanation.
His article is a very restrained counterpoint to Gary Wills's ugly diatribe today, which condemns middle America as brainless bigots. As Brooks notes in his first paragraph, it is the explanation with which loser liberals comfort themselves in their loss.
"I'm not particularly religious at all, but I figure lots of folks like me contributed, too."
That was what I was trying to say. Apparently, not successfully.
When I voted for President Bush, I did want him to stay on a correct morale track, but I realize there really isn't much he can do as President. However, when I voted for him I definitely was telling him that he has my support in the WOT and to drive on. Do you feel that your vote was a mandate for him to "drive on"?
The left will never get it - it's becoming hillarious to watch their death rattles....
"If Kerry had won, would it be a clear victory for immorality?"
Nope. It would be a victory for amorality.
I doubt the liberals would have written volumes of articles praising Kerry and gloating because they finally had an immoral leader in the WH.
This hits the nail on the head.
Also, both love to fling fecal matter, but then again if you don't fecal care then it don't fecal matter. Sorry.
Yeah pretty bad, huh?
"Moral values" were key in this election. But it is not correct to state that all those who shared this sentiment were conservative Christians. Many of the people who are concerned about the moral state of this country and its leaders are not devout Christians, or even Christians at all.
People who don't think morality should enter into the equation when choosing a candidate are prone to write off anyone who does. Thus, Brooks says it was just a bad question in the exit polls, since he can't correlate the results with an upsurge in Christian voters. The liberals say it was Bible-thumping rednecks, because then they don't have to think about it any further. But I think that there is a reawakening in this country, a realization that character and integrity matter, and that traditional views of what constitutes proper sexual conduct and discourse have merit.
John Kerry is not exactly a poster child for integrity. He tried to be all things to all people during his campaign. George Bush, on the other hand, is an honest man. Whether you like him or not, you know that he means what he says, and says what he means. If you were voting for integrity, the choice was very clear.
But I also agree that there were many factors which decided this election, and moral values was only one of those factors. We are all concerned about terrorism and national security. "W" wins on that issue as well.
What I have been trying to figure out is: Who are all these people who voted for Kerry? There are the labor unions (NEA, AFL-CIO, etc.), there are the standard minority blocs (shrinking for Democrats these days, though), there are the leftist nut cases (Michael Moore, Moveon.org), and I personally know a lot of people who immigrated from socialist countries and would prefer that we become socialists, too. (Which begs the question: Why don't they go back where they came from?) And there are of course some people who just see the world the way they want to see it and manage to ignore the realities of human nature. (That is, the soft, syrupy, all-you-need-is-love, why-can't-we-all-just-get-along, liberals.) But I still can't come up with 49%. I think that a lot of them in the blue counties must be just voting the way their parents voted.
You are missing the point, but that's okay.
Is Brooks gay? He seems liberal on "gay issues"
IF you heard that, you heard wrong. The Iraq war was an option, so was terrorism, and they both ranked below values (1) and the economy (2). Brooks is trying to diminish the influence of the cultural conservatives by wrongly claiming they didn't play a decisive role in W's reelection. I'm not surprised, since Brooks is very liberal on "social issues."
Gee, everyone who doesn't want to burn sodomites at the stake MUST be Gay themselves.
/sarcasm off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.