Redstate

...the answer is simple. You can't kill 40 million fetuses and expect to replenish your party. The oldest survivors of Roe v. Wade are 31. Every voter between 18-31 is a survivor of Roe v. Wade.

No, not every fetus was killed by a Democrat, but apparently most of them were. This helps to explain why in both 2002 and 2004 we are seeing so many prolife Senators being elected.

It might be worthwhile noting that in 1990, the youngest voters voted overwhelmingly for Democrats. In 1990, no Roe v. Wade survivor was old enough to vote. But today, the Democrats can't rely on the under-30 age group to give them the type of cushion they used to rely on.

Killing your offspring has a lot of negative consequences. One of them could be the demise of the Democrat party over time.

... paint here often?

With respect to your first paragraph, I think that you're reading too much into the vocal posters in places like Kos and other sites. I would venture that for every poster on Kos that posts about moving to Canada and vote fraud, there's a thousand Kerry voters who are perfectly content to stay where they are and think that Bush won the election fair and square. I voted for the senator from Massachusetts and I have no plans to move and I think that yesterday's election was proper and fair and Bush simply won by getting more votes. (Of course, this assumes that I'm considered to be in the "leftist" group - I've been accused of being a bad guy from the left and the right.)

With respect to the gay marriage issue, is there anyone here that honestly doesn't think that the Federal Marriage Amendment was a textbook example of a wedge issue? I've looked at the results of the election and combined with some of the material I received before the election from folk like the American Family Association and Focus on the Family (forwarded to me by my family) and the message that was coming through loud and clear was, "Don't vote Democrat, they'll let gays marry, and that would be bad, mmmkay?" Rather than try and distance the president's victory from the gay marriage issue, I imagine that the GOP should be proud. They framed the issue such that it brought the base out and it was devastating against the Democrats. Of course, this wasn't the only issue that got Bush reelected, but it appears to be the one that tipped the balance.

From my perspective, the one thing that Bush did and did to a devastating effect was to frame himself as one of the people. People thought that Bush held the same values and opinions as themselves (whether it was true or not) and felt that Kerry did not. Congratulations are in order for the GOP for their devastating strategy and fairly decisive victory. However, it does you no good to mischaracterize the opposition on the basis of a few Daily Kos posts. I realize that this is a moment of triumph for you over Kos, but mischaracterizing the left on the basis of your perception of Kos and his audience is rather unbecoming of you. You're entitled to your victory and a bit of gloating, but don't let it go to your head.

With respect to the gay marriage issue, is there anyone here that honestly doesn't think that the Federal Marriage Amendment was a textbook example of a wedge issue?

There's no doubt it's a wedge issue. The question is whether or not this issue could have waited until after the election.

I submit that the answer is no, and the blame for that should be placed solely on the few Democrats in positions of power who took it upon themselves to either ignore the law or change it by fiat: the Massachusetts Supreme Court, Mayor Gavin Newsome of San Francisco, and various lesser-known figures around the country.

Don't just take my word for it: the elder stateswoman of California, Diane Feinstein, rapped Gavin Newsome pretty good for his lack of political timing, as did many in the pro-gay-marriage community. They all understood that the bipartisan public was simply not willing to let such bold actions stand unanswered.

You speak of a broad brush: but given the overwhelming and bipartisan support enjoyed by gay marriage amendments around the country, no broader brush is there in today's political lexicon than the classic "only bigots are against gay marriage" line.

mcg-you beat me to the punch.

I am so sick of the dems of accusing Bush of making gay marriage an issue.  Thank you for reminding them that it was NOT Bush that started marrying gays in San Francisco last February!

If it was a wedge issue that defeated them dems, they did it to themselves!

First off, I'm not blaming anyone for anything. You are right that Bush did not initiate the issue, but it was the ruling of the MA Supreme Court that started the ball rolling. I never said otherwise. I'm not making a value judgment here.

What I'm trying to say is that in this election the gay marriage issue was a powerful motivator to bring people out to vote. I submit that trevino's thesis that it was a small or insignificant factor in this election is false. It may have only swung Ohio into the Bush column, but it did bring out enough voters and voter sentiment against the issue that it made swing states out of states that should have been much safer (for Kerry), forcing the Democrats to play defense. I personally believe that this issue, perhaps even more than abortion, is responsible for Bush's good popular vote counts.

Again, this is not a value judgment, but just an observation. The GOP used the issue effectively and even though some posters at the Daily Kos are blaming the strategy for the Kerry loss, this doesn't mean that the thesis that the gay marriage issue really mattered this election is null and void.

A viable Democratic candidate with a coherent message would have won this Presidential election.

For years,the Democratic Party has been like the Titanic steering towards the iceberg.  They should have seen this day coming.  The Democrats' national leadership has been seduced and co-opted by people who loudly and violently ridicule the things most Americans cherish and believe in, and now they must atone for their folly.

If the Democratic leadership can't understand the American love for God, Mom, flag, and apple pie, then they are not the party of the yellow-dog Democrats (for all his faults, Clinton gets it).

If they cowtow to a hysterical "reality-based community", then they are not the party of Obama, and I believe he's their future.

If they allow their positions to be defined by folks like Micheal Moore, they are not the party my parents and grandparents supported til their dying days.

To the Democratic leadership:  find your way back to the people.  The elitist view that the majority of this country is ignorant and out of sync with your views is dead wrong.  It's you who are out of step.

You should have won this one, instead you got whacked.  Figure it out.

It would seem that you have little regard for the religious right if you think gay marriage is a bigger motivator than abortion. Killing an innocent baby is less important than the sexuality of adults. Ok.

That point aside, Kerry didn't seem to be supportive of gay marriage, however he was an ardent supporter of abortion. So I'd say that the candidates stances on those two issues don't support the premise either.

That comic has nothing to do with politics.  It's from a computer gaming webcomic that hasn't even mentioned the election, nor does it make pronouncements about liberal vs. conservative culture.

..the hatred and anger of the Democratic message, the negative attacks, the completely baseless assertions on the Bush administration's intelligence and deviousness, is what led me to vote for Bush this year. The Democrats found me a swing voter and left me a die hard partisan for the other side.

Other than the on issue of abortion (where I'm on the "extreme" of the pro-life movement - no abortions except for life of mother), I don't see myself as a social conservative (being against the death penalty and for gay marriage, for example, are two of my main tenets of morality). But there was just no way I could allow Michael Moore and Hollywood determine who my next president was going to be. I could not let them be vindicated. I wasn't "anyone but Kerry" as I was "anyone but the left".  

I would have been a Clinton voter had I been old enough to vote in the 90s.  I can't say I'd vote for a Clintonesque figure today, but that is because of this election cycle. The Dems need to realize precisely who and what they lost before they can move forward.

That comic was about country music line dancing and had nothing to do with this election.

He was making a snarky point, not connecting the comic to politics. I suggest that's why he hyperlinked it -- so that you could read the whole thing.

Deep, calming breaths.

Way to miss the point, guys.

I have little to no respect for the religious right, but that has nothing to do with my thesis that gay marriage was what motivated people to get out to the polls. Now, my sampling may be flawed, but I heard so little about abortion this election in comparison with gay marriage. I'm basing this upon the commentary from the right and left. This election, it seemed that there were more rhetoric about whether or not "activist judges" would force states to accept gay marriage than there was about "abortion on demand". Again, not a value judgment, just an observation.

I'd also say that there are more people out there who are not strong abortion voters, but would be perfectly willing and motivated to get out to vote against gay marriage. Also, as for Kerry being for gay marriage, he was as supportive of gay marriage as Bush and Cheney were against it. He said that he was against gay marriage, but for civil unions (moving to the center from the left) while Bush and Cheney's initial rhetoric against gay marriage and civil unions softened to the point where both would support civil unions. (Cheney said as much in the debates, and Bush told a reporter the same in the closing days of the campaign.) However, this is irrelevant given people's perceptions of the candidates. All of my gay friends thought that Bush was out to limit their civil rights while my evangelical friends and family thought that electing Bush was important because he pushed for the FMA and was thought to be against homosexual couples with benefits. Perception may not have matched reality, but it was a motivating factor in getting people out to vote.

Question for you: do you think that Bush would have won Ohio had there not been a ballot initiative on gay marriage and the run up of the issue to the election? Personally, I don't think so.

Is Valid.

Eric Blumrich, that Master of the MoveOn from New Jersey, who has done so much to hone the MoveOn attack ad and Flash animation school of propaganda, is now of the considered opinion that the Republicans DID IT AGAIN.  They stole the electon through massive voter disenfranchisement using the Diebold electronic voting machines.  It's a fairly regular defense mechanism, sadly.  Since he can't admit what a complete catastrophe he is, and that he contributed to the catastrophe through his hate videos, he has to believe that dark, Manichean forces were at work to keep him and his fellow toiling, self-sacrificing intellectuals and truth-speakers down.

http://www.ericblumrich.com

Have a look!

Blumrich would be just another political crank like Greg Palast if it weren't for the fact that George Soros' money elevated him briefly to the realm of political operative and sage this year through MoveOn.org.  He was interviewed on Dutch TV along with Donna Shalala, because he submitted at least one video for their ad contest (he lost, to the "Children, Children, Children" ad that Donna favored, by the way -- but he served as a useful idiot to the Democratic party in the process.)  

And Palast, who until a few months ago was a leftist zero hack publishing his screeds and rants from Britain, was rescued from confinement and planted in the firmament of minor democratic lights by no less than Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who gave him new credibility by referencing him in his editorials.  

Any issue that forces a voter to make a moral choice is good.

The Democrats could have eliminated their vulnerability on this issue by saying "we agree, gay marriage is a bad idea." Presto. No more wedge issue.

But when you are defending a loser of a position and tying your candidates to that position you deserve whatever the electorate dishes out.

And a 'typical Republican dirty trick' because to many of them it's simply self-evidently true that everyone (including the church) should accept  gay marriage without any disagreement, debate or opposition whatsoever (even on the grounds of religious belief).  It's just as wholesome and natural as baseball, apple pie and the Unitarian church.

A friend of mine, a lifelong yellow-dog Democrat whom I enjoy wrangling with over things like this, once put it to me this way:  "Isn't that what we're all about as a country?"  End of conversation, end of argument with a single moral trump card; and obviously anyone who even dares to think otherwise is being "divisive."

Of course, each faction of the Democratic party has it's own particularized rights that it believes should be accepted and universally upheld and enshrined in law.  The list is long, in case anyone hasn't noticed.  

You referenced the comic as an example. I assumed before I clicked through that the comic actually referenced the election, and that you were providing an example of people who thought that way about election issues.

No big deal, really.

There must literally be an infinte, totally encompassing, 360 degree stage of issues that can be combed through so tightly, that literally in the end it's still the same enormous blob of speculative, undecipherable evidence that it was when we started.

As a pro-life pro-gay rights Republican, I was definitely motivated by abortion and activist judges.  Furthermore, despite my sympathy with the gay marriage movement, I don't think activist judges are the right way to implement the policy.  I voted against a gay marriage amendment in OK.  There was less debate about abortion because nothing major has changed this cycle (unlike gay marriage with the Mass. Supreme Court and Mayor Newsom), but it is still a huge issue to "moral issue" voters, including Catholics and latinos which are groups that the President improved with this time around.

I think gay marriage will get the headlines, but the Christian right is at least as animated about abortion and having a nominee who voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban put Democrats on the liberal fringe on the issue.

And add a John McCain twist to it:  in order for the Democrats to arrive at a semicoherent thesis of what happened to them in this election, the bedwetters and the thumbsuckers are first going to have to extract themselves from the fetal position, shake off the hangover, and face off in a softball game.  I expect they'll have it more or less together by this time next week.  

Well, not entirely leaving it the other readers, here's a quick analysis on the margins that I already did for another blog.  In each state, I'll assume that every Republican voted for the ban (a poor assumption since I actually wouldn't have), and then calculate the minimum percentage of Kerry supporters (aka Democrats) that must have necessarily supported the ban. It would, in truth, be higher.

Arkansas: Ban 75-25, Bush/Kerry 54/45, Minimum Dem's for ban: 46%

Georgia: Ban 76-24, Bush/Kerry 59/41, Minimum Dem's for ban: 41%

Kentuky: Ban 75-25, Bush/Kerry 60/40, Minimum Dem's for ban: 37.5%

Michigan: Ban 59-41, Bush/Kerry 48/51, Minimum Dem's for ban: 21.5%

Mississippi: Ban 86-14, Bush/Kerry 60/40, Minimum Dem's for ban: 65%

Montana: Ban 67-33, Bush/Kerry 59/38, Minimum Dem's for ban: 21%

N Dakota: Ban 73-27, Bush/Kerry 63/35, Minimum Dem's for ban: 28.5%

Ohio: Ban 62-38, Bush/Kerry 51/49, Minimum Dem's for ban: 22%

Oklahoma: Ban 76-24, Bush/Kerry 66/34, Minimum Dem's for ban: 29%

Oregon: Ban 57-43, Bush/Kerry 47/52, Minimum Dem's for ban: 19%

Utah: Ban 66-34, Bush/Kerry 71/27, Minimum Republican's against ban: 7.5% *

In short, in these states, between 20% and 65% of Democrats voted for these bans, at a minimum. In all likelihood, it was probably 10-20% higher since I believe some Republicans would have voted against the ban. Clearly there's something deeper at work besides the "Republican = evil homophobe, Democrat = enlightened saint" argument.  (My personal theory is that this is more of generational issue than a red-blue issue.)

*(Utah is a weird one and probably represents the unofficial Mormon interest in polygamy rather than gay marriage, per se.)

cjkarr, my response wasn't meant as a complete refutation of what you said, far from it. First, I only responded to the gay marriage issue. And I know you didn't take that issue as far in your post as I did in mine. You said it was a wedge issue, and I agreed.

I simply wanted to point out that the left did not play that card very well. The right would have been content to wait until after the election to deal with gay marriage.

That aside, I can only echo Doverspa's points. I recall a good bit of talk on abortion, at least as much as gay marriage directly from the candidates. The debates generally had one topic on each. If the press focuses on gay marriage more than abortion, it is only because gay marriage is the new pressing issue of our current day. Abortion and where candidates stand has not changed and is not a new issue.

Also, if you think that abortion played only a bit part in motivating the Catholic vote, as opposed to gay marriage, then you just weren't paying attention. And you definitely weren't reading RS during the past few months!! The Catholic wedge issue this year clearly was abortion. Many bishops condemned voting for Kerry. Some papers implicitly excommunicated politicians that support abortion. Many of the Kerry stump speech protesters were Catholics agains abortion.

The amendments may have drawn a few more religious right people out to vote than usual, but while they were there, abortion was a bigger motivator for voting for Bush. I think you also overstate religious right's increased turnout. Many of those who are typically uninvolved in elections, do so out of principle. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. No wedge issue is going to bring those people to the polls. Those who don't have such convictions yet feel strongly about their religious beliefs are more likely to be involved in the first place, and no wedge issue is needed. Lastly, I'd like to see data showing (not saying you have this, but I am curious if someone will ever look at it) whether the religious right turnout was any higher than other parts of the country and other demographics. IOW, if it turns out there was a 5% increase in turnout across all demographics and states, then it sort of confirms that the amendment wasn't as decisive in turning out votes among one group vs. another. Turnout would have been very high regardless of the amendment, I believe. I am skeptical that the amendment made a 130k vote difference. Maybe it did, but I am skeptical.

I agree completely that gay marriage is a generational issue, although most evangelicals I know are against gay marriage despite age. Regardless, I venture to say the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, regardless of party affilation, but the 18-24 year set (ex: ME!) are perfectly fine with it. I believe a lot of that (although not all) has to do with exposure, personally knowing not only homosexuals but homosexual couples as well. I think I remember seeing a statistic that shows that a rather large number of 18-24 year olds in Oklahoma are okay with gay marriage, although the stats for the rest of the age groups were as expected.

But the youth vote didn't show up to vote it down.

I was one of those Bush-voters in GA that voted against the ban. Most of the people (regardless of party) that I know were also against it. That's just who I know, though.

Trevino,

I've noticed that you blurred out the word F***ing. Yet you left profanity that is arguably more offensive to many people. I'm not blushing, and that is not why I am posting. I am just pointing out that if RedState has a profanity policy, it shouldn't be selectively enforced.