riverman wrote:

My personal take on that is that this assessment is not entirely incorrect.
The only defense for how the right-wing voted that I have heard here, or
anywhere, is that the left wing has 'lost touch with America. (which, of
course, raises the question of our own nationality..) Not once have I heard
a right-wing voter tell me what the multitude of issues are that they have
lost touch WITH. They never support their vote with tangible analysis of
complex issues. Like the national debt. Like the environment...

Pax Christi (a religious NGO) undertook a survey asking voters what was
the most urgent moral crisis facing the country. Results:

33% greed and materialism
31% poverty and economic justice
16% abortion
12% gay marriage

Most media outlets focused on the 3rd and 4th place items, which were
outnumbered 65% by other issues. I read about it in a Noam Chomsky essay:
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2005/chomsky0105.html

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message ...
riverman wrote:

Pax Christi (a religious NGO) undertook a survey asking voters what was
the most urgent moral crisis facing the country. Results:

33% greed and materialism
31% poverty and economic justice
16% abortion
12% gay marriage

Most media outlets focused on the 3rd and 4th place items, which were
outnumbered 65% by other issues. I read about it in a Noam Chomsky essay:
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2005/chomsky0105.html


Very interesting article, although I can already see it being dismissed as
'sour grapes by the educated elite'.
Too bad.
--riverman

My only repy to this is that everywhere that Anti Gay Marriage
legislation was on the ballot, it recieved overwhelming support. It
even passed in the rather liberal North West.

I might have to question their polling method, although it could be
somewhat accurate.
The first two are broad areas that could cover a bunch of different
things and meanings while the last two are very specific.

It's probable that most of the country is like me on this issue, I
really don't give much of a damn about it one way or the other. But, if
you put it on a ballot and asked me to choose, Marriage is a social
institution and society should be able to dictate what it considers
acceptable. But this isn't a defining issue for me at all.

"Larry C" wrote in message
ps.com...
My only repy to this is that everywhere that Anti Gay Marriage
legislation was on the ballot, it recieved overwhelming support. It
even passed in the rather liberal North West.

I might have to question their polling method, although it could be
somewhat accurate.
The first two are broad areas that could cover a bunch of different
things and meanings while the last two are very specific.

It's probable that most of the country is like me on this issue, I
really don't give much of a damn about it one way or the other. But, if
you put it on a ballot and asked me to choose, Marriage is a social
institution and society should be able to dictate what it considers
acceptable. But this isn't a defining issue for me at all.


I bet you are correct, in the most part. about the country being like you on
the Gay Marriage issue. I think most folks support gay rights in an
intellectual sense, but if forced to choose between legislating it or not,
will choose the status quo. Things like this might always fail when put on a
ballot anywhere but places like SF, but if just left alone, will not be
defining issues.

Its been fun and rational discussing this with you, but I think folks like
you and I will never fully understand the outcome of the election or the
stance of the US public. Hell, I didn't even know a single person who voted
for Reagan, yet his second election is touted as the biggest landslide in US
history. We are all rather isolated in our social networks, and the US is a
pretty large, diverse place. Understanding the outcome of the election
certainly won't be as simple as we want it to be ("it was a morals issue" or
"the Right was fooled"), and I think the analysis has gone on into the realm
of the pundits and intelligensia. And even they are finding a lot of
disagreement.

I do think, however, that Bush's presidency, with all its characteristics
and idiosyncracies, will go down in History as one of the most unusual in
American history. And that there will be debate forever on his merits and
shortcomings.

Truce.

--riverman

Larry C wrote:

[gay marriage]
It's probable that most of the country is like me on this issue, I
really don't give much of a damn about it one way or the other. But, if
you put it on a ballot and asked me to choose, Marriage is a social
institution and society should be able to dictate what it considers
acceptable. But this isn't a defining issue for me at all.

Correct. Many of today's wedge issues are irrelevant to most people.
The Sierra Club makes an issue of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge,
but I don't expect to ever go there, and am much more concerned about
river access, parklands near home, and useless traffic lights that
exacerbate pollution while cars idle. I've never heard the Sierra Club
advocate removing or flow-timing traffic lights! And yet it could
probably reduce pollution more than scrapping every SUV in the country.

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Larry C wrote:

[gay marriage]
It's probable that most of the country is like me on this issue, I
really don't give much of a damn about it one way or the other.
But, if
you put it on a ballot and asked me to choose, Marriage is a social
institution and society should be able to dictate what it considers
acceptable. But this isn't a defining issue for me at all.

Correct. Many of today's wedge issues are irrelevant to most people.
The Sierra Club makes an issue of the Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge,
but I don't expect to ever go there, and am much more concerned about
river access, parklands near home, and useless traffic lights that
exacerbate pollution while cars idle. I've never heard the Sierra
Club
advocate removing or flow-timing traffic lights! And yet it could
probably reduce pollution more than scrapping every SUV in the
country.

Here, here, I am with you on this one Bill! TnT