NationStates Jolt Archive

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109275/?GT1=5809

This is the second time I've seen something similiar. The first was on Fox.

Aww, what's the matter? Since you can't stupidly parrot "Jesusland" or "CRWN" you have nothing to say? Have to wait for Michael Moore to comment? :p

OMG, now that I know that Bush was elected as the best candidate to combat terrorism. I now support him!!!!!!!

It doesn't change anything for me.

It doesn't change anything for me either, and I voted for Badnarik. :p That's not the point of the thread though. :)

It was partisan politics that won Bush the election. A majority of the states that voted for Bush are Republican dominated states. They are republican for moral issues and gun control. If you want to say that they are republican because of the terrorism threat, I might ask you why Jimmy Carter (a southerner) was the last democrat to carry the south, and he only did it once.

The fact is, due to the present state of politics and the media in this country republicans who became Bush supporters (that should be about 95% of them) supported Bush 100% on every issue, while democrats who didn't support Bush (about 95% of them) hated Bush on every single issue. There were of course a few inbetweeners, I figure Bush got these, because if you don't hate Bush already, why would you have voted for Kerry.

I can site a report done by PIPA (whatever that stands for) that shows in October, Bush supporters were greatly misinformed on the issues today. A lot of posters on here want to blame that on stupidity. I blame it on selective hearing. Most Bush supporters liked the tough leader, John Wayne image of Bush, and republican moral stances and generally ignored news that went against Bush, or outright ignored them altogether. Before you start saying I'm arrogant and all that, I want to point out that I am a very politically and at least somewhat smart man, but I still ignored a great deal of pro-Bush news.

I don't know if you're arrogant and more to the point I don't care. ;)

You're right though: the South has been shifting to the right for a long time now. People seem to be surprised that of a sudden religion is important to people. I think that, although religion is important for a lot of Americans (and has been since the beginning) it's affect on this particular election has been overstated.

the South has been shifting to the right for a long time now.

nah, it was always part of the reactionary horizon of american politics. they just have been switching parties.

I don't know if you're arrogant and more to the point I don't care. ;)

You're right though: the South has been shifting to the right for a long time now. People seem to be surprised that of a sudden religion is important to people. I think that, although religion is important for a lot of Americans (and has been since the beginning) it's affect on this particular election has been overstated.

I thank you for not envoking the stereotypes floating around here.

I never made the mistake of thinking religion wasn't important to people. I live in the bible belt and know full well what religion means to people. What I was truly surprised about was just how many of the only on sunday christians that Bush managed to rally. The christians who aren't really religious but still find homosexuality and abortion disgusting.

However, I think that it had no more relevance in this one than it has in the past. However, the democrats had more support rallied than ever before to defeat Bush. I think Bush reacted to that by rallying the most moral issue voters ever. I think both sides managed to do an amazing job of squeezing to most votes out of their constituency, and since a great deal of Bush constituency consider moral issues to be very, very important, there were a great deal of people voting for moral values.

I don't know if you're arrogant and more to the point I don't care. ;)

You're right though: the South has been shifting to the right for a long time now. People seem to be surprised that of a sudden religion is important to people. I think that, although religion is important for a lot of Americans (and has been since the beginning) it's affect on this particular election has been overstated.
I don't think it's overstated when during the campaign a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage is proposed. This isn't coming out of left-field, that happened and the agenda to overturn Roe vs. Wade has been in effect. I don't have to pull anything out of my ass to see who Bush panders to with these things. It's generally known political analysis that Bush relies on that 20 or so percent evangelical vote as his base. The entire logic of the article is based on a false premise. We're just talking about the appeal to that base to maintain that percentage of the vote. The same proportion within a larger number of overall voters. And now that he's won it, he's making as a priority front page issue the federal Ammendment banning gay marriage. This is exactly what is referred to in regards to moral issues and voting.

Btw I think I saw that post (or a similiar one) about Bush supporters being uninformed. While I think the WMD issue is pretty straightforward, the Iraq/Al Qaeda issue is a bit muddled. I'm not debating the fact that the 9/11 commision didn't find a collaborative relationship between Iraq and AQ, but neither does it dispute the numerous contacts between high level Iraqi intelligence officers and AQ senior members, or the fact that Iraqis went to Afghanistan to train AQ members in forgery techniques.

Also I wonder if that study took the Russian intelligence into account:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123051,00.html

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/0.html?id_issue=9711979

How's that for derailing my own thread? :)

I don't think it's overstated when during the campaign a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage is proposed. This isn't coming out of left-field, that happened and the agenda to overturn Roe vs. Wade has been in effect. I don't have to pull anything out of my ass to see who Bush panders to with these things. It's generally known political analysis that Bush relies on that 20 or so percent evangelical vote as his base. The entire logic of the article is based on a false premise. We're just talking about the appeal to that base to maintain that percentage of the vote. The same proportion within a larger number of overall voters. And now that he's won it, he's making as a priority front page issue the federal Ammendment banning gay marriage. This is exactly what is referred to in regards to moral issues and voting.


If that were true then people would have been talking about "Jesusland" long before the election, not after. The point I'm trying to get across is that religious base has been a part of the republican party for some time now, and despite what they may think they or Moore thinks they didn't play any bigger role in this election than any other.

If that were true then people would have been talking about "Jesusland" long before the election, not after. The point I'm trying to get across is that religious base has been a part of the republican party for some time now, and despite what they may think they or Moore thinks they didn't play any bigger role in this election than any other.

I think democrats completely misjudged the American people. Before the election most liberals thought that terrorism and the iraq war was the most important issue to everyone. They didn't think anyone would make their decision based on gay marriage rather than the Iraq war or the war on terrorism. That would be highly fundamentalist, and this nation generally has been able to avoid letting that dictate the national vote. When the fundamentalists showed up in droves most democrats were blown away, as was I.