Comments on: Give ‘Em That Old-Time Religion? http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2004/11/04/give-em-that-old-time-religion/ Rory O'Connor's blog Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:18:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Randall Ryan http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2004/11/04/give-em-that-old-time-religion/#comment-220 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:22:28 +0000 http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2004/11/04/give-em-that-old-time-religion/#comment-220 I still can't believe I'm reading about "moral values" being what changed the outcome of this election. More and more, you and other journalists are sounding like people who can't believe what happened, and you're all looking for some explanation that wraps the beliefs you have about the electorate up in one neat package. I imagine it sounds something like this in your head: "Let's see...everyone I know was voting for Kerry, all the Bush supporters seem to be not very bright, or at least ill-informed, and the Republicans are running a campaign based on fear. How could he have won?" Then, along comes the exit pollers backpedaling on how they could be so wrong, they float out this wacky and utterly spurious theory, and wham!it all makes sense now. Those silly Republicans in the south and midwest are all just a bunch of Jesus freaks! Sorry, but there just simply was no dialog over moral values here in one of the most conservative states of the country, Indiana. I heard and read all kinds of reasoning, both good and bad, about why a particular candidate was going to get someone's vote. I purposely asked a lot of questions of people and also encourage them to relay what they were hearing from others. Not once, let me repeat, not once did anyone voting for Bush even hint that morals, religion, Christian principles, or anything even along that line play a role in their decision. In the past week I've asked people again what led them to vote the way they did. Same results. And if it's not a factor here, where do you propose this "moral values" vote is coming from? The Democratic Party would be better served by concentrating on selecting better candidates. This election was very winnable by virtually any candidate. That doesn't mean you actually put up "any candidate" and hope for the best, which is what appeared to happen. Kerry wasn't strong enough to win on his own. Period. Therefore, it became Bush's election to lose, and he didn't stumble badly enough to lose it. In 2008, try backing someone who has an inkling of what is really happening outside the coasts, and you might be surprised at the magnitude of support from that "Great Vast Wilderness" called the majority of the country. I still can’t believe I’m reading about “moral values” being what changed the outcome of this election. More and more, you and other journalists are sounding like people who can’t believe what happened, and you’re all looking for some explanation that wraps the beliefs you have about the electorate up in one neat package. I imagine it sounds something like this in your head:

“Let’s see…everyone I know was voting for Kerry, all the Bush supporters seem to be not very bright, or at least ill-informed, and the Republicans are running a campaign based on fear. How could he have won?” Then, along comes the exit pollers backpedaling on how they could be so wrong, they float out this wacky and utterly spurious theory, and wham!it all makes sense now. Those silly Republicans in the south and midwest are all just a bunch of Jesus freaks!

Sorry, but there just simply was no dialog over moral values here in one of the most conservative states of the country, Indiana. I heard and read all kinds of reasoning, both good and bad, about why a particular candidate was going to get someone’s vote. I purposely asked a lot of questions of people and also encourage them to relay what they were hearing from others. Not once, let me repeat, not once did anyone voting for Bush even hint that morals, religion, Christian principles, or anything even along that line play a role in their decision. In the past week I’ve asked people again what led them to vote the way they did. Same results. And if it’s not a factor here, where do you propose this “moral values” vote is coming from?

The Democratic Party would be better served by concentrating on selecting better candidates. This election was very winnable by virtually any candidate. That doesn’t mean you actually put up “any candidate” and hope for the best, which is what appeared to happen. Kerry wasn’t strong enough to win on his own. Period. Therefore, it became Bush’s election to lose, and he didn’t stumble badly enough to lose it.

In 2008, try backing someone who has an inkling of what is really happening outside the coasts, and you might be surprised at the magnitude of support from that “Great Vast Wilderness” called the majority of the country.

]]> by: Michael D. Setty http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2004/11/04/give-em-that-old-time-religion/#comment-205 Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:25:18 +0000 http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2004/11/04/give-em-that-old-time-religion/#comment-205 Are you familar with the work of the "Rockridge Institute"? If not, dial up www.rockridgeinstitute.org. I think you'll find these folks, particularly George Lakoff, know the linchpin of what "progressives" need to do to recapture the country: effectively communicate progressive values. e.g., those bedrock Englightenment American values. And no, I don't think most Bush voters are Fundies. A large percentage, but not even a majority of these folks. A lot of them are actually reasonable folks who haven't heard the correct message from the "left" probably since Harry Truman. Are you familar with the work of the “Rockridge Institute”? If not, dial up www.rockridgeinstitute.org. I think you’ll find these folks, particularly George Lakoff, know the linchpin of what “progressives” need to do to recapture the country: effectively communicate progressive values. e.g., those bedrock Englightenment American values.

And no, I don’t think most Bush voters are Fundies. A large percentage, but not even a majority of these folks. A lot of them are actually reasonable folks who haven’t heard the correct message from the “left” probably since Harry Truman.

]]>