Rushman

Or indeed knocking one out to Terry and June

BigDavyG

I would almost rather admit to being English though I'll have to give that some more thought before I do anything too hasty.

Rushman

Thin Ice Davy boy, thin ice!!

RoadWarriorFromLP

Basic reasons for this:

-"Family values"
-The Horatio Alger ethic -- work hard and anyone can be wealthy. Don't envy the rich, just get there yourself. (Americans are more hostile to the dole/welfare state ethos that is more commonplace in Europe.)
-Democrats associated with weakness, and the commies/ homos/ feminists/ etc. (For the family values crowd, the evil doers.)

When times are good, it's easy for the electorate to vote on values, rather than issues, or to not vote at all. During good times, the masses are content, so there are effectively no issues, per se (the two-party system tends to dilute any meaningful policy differences between the major parties), and the ideologues on the right will drive the result.

Now that times aren't quite so good (read: Iraq verging on Vietnam), the pendulum may be swinging back, as values voting gives way to "voting the bums out". Issues trump values when the voters sense that things are going wrong and change is required, and the war may be just the thing to turn the tide.

Sally

So many good posts on this thread I started laying out karma - but I think some of it was blank -apologies to those offended - I'll get the hang of it one day.

psb182

because they would rather get shafted with a stick instead of a cigar
They all (polititions) talk garbage,my vote goes to ANYONE on the ballot that has never been a lawyer.The worst part about getting shafted by a lawyer is that they don't even give you a kiss.

iaink

Hey Im in Canada, of course Im a bleeding heart liberal
For the record its not the only paper I read, but The Guardian Footy pages are excelent, better I think than the Telegraphs (which I am more embarrased to admit reading).


Regardless, my point was more concerned with the facts than the source of the facts. No one seems to have denied them yet?

BritGuyTN

I shaft a lawyer on a regular basis..... Sometimes I even get a kiss for it

NC Penguin

Republicans = conservative Christians

Democrats= liberal Christians which can include gay & lesbian Christians + liberals in general + Democrats reach out to Black Americans, Jewish Americans and other minorities.

Lower income white Americans would consider themselves WASPs so fear anything that's not like them.

It seems to me that the group in the title of this thread don't vote according to what the Republicans do represent but more against what the opposition (the Democrats) do represent...


NC Penguin

ironporer

Well said. I might also add that the Democrats are typically viewed as being:
1) Soft on defense; since the end of Vietnam and the McGovern remake of the party, they have never fielded a candidate who takes a strong view on security. Carter was a disgrace, Mondale and Dukakis (remember the comical video of Dukakis driving the tank?? LOL!), Clinton did them no favors either...getting a bunch of our boys killed in Somalia helping out the UN search for Adid and bombing aspirin factories the day he was indited, Gore promised more of the same, and Kerry...puulllleeeeeeeeeeasssse. "The wus factor" I believe is how it is referred to in politics

2) In bed with every fringe group- be it the tree huggers, the gay movement, animal rights activists, the "Rainbow Coalition"...

3) Responsible for the welfare state in which generations of poor are condemned to continue in poverty...while providing very little in return to society.

4) Having forgotten about rural voters and being arrogant east/left coast liberals who view the entire middle of the land with disdain. In the past two election cycles, Al Gore and John Kerry lost the entire South and most of the Midwest and West.

5) Being anti-God/Anti religion. Like it or not, this country was founded and populated by people seeking religious freedom from oppressive governments- and America today still has a high percentage of very religious people.

6) Anti gun.

I honestly believe that if the Dems would field a candidate who is more moderate (as Bill Clinton falsely presented himself to be in '92) They would win easily. Unfortunately, until this election season when they seem to be putting a few more God fearin', gun-totin', pro-military (such as Heath Schuler in N.C., Joe Lieberman or Sam Nunn, former GA Senator). Unfortunately, the elite leftys such as Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Boxer, Kerry and H. Clinton all seem to doom such members to second class status...all the while fielding such goofs as Kerry, McGovern and Dukakis.

FYI- CNN had an excellent piece titled "Where the right went wrong" and another piece on what's wrong with the Democratic party (not sure about the title..may be "Dems trip over two left feet" (?). IMO it was spot on in it's analysis of both parties, which is quite uncommon IMO.

Irn-bru

nice to see you posting again - hope things are moving in the right direction for you

Elvira

For me, one of the saddest aspects of living in the US is seeing those who care for the environment and human rights labelled as 'fringe groups'.

anotherlimey

Most of this can be said of the Republicans currently - but in reverse (apart from the fringe groups, who everybody's in bed with)

I agree, moderation is what is needed, but are we likely to get it? I guess we'll see...

fatbrit

We have one poor Dem standing against a Repug at the moment who is a "member of an extremist group that frees child sex offenders". IOW, she a lawyer for the ACLU!

anotherlimey

It seems the Republicans are doing a phone smearing campaign:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...l/15898729.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/local/con...the_campaigns/
http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO33180/
http://www.wurfwhile.com/archives/001152.html
http://www.melissabean.com/index.php...5D%20roboCalls



Apparently it's illegal, but I'm sure nothing will come of it.