Gun toting evangelical Christian gives Democtaric party some serious, genuine advise

[Yevgeny]

Dear sirs, I am a gun toting deeply evangelical Christian who happens to vote Republican. I'm not stupid; I have my bachelors in computer science, a minor in ehtical philosophy and am getting a Masters degree on the side just for fun. Please read what I have to say and think about it because I have some serious advice for the Democratic party.

I like Mr Bush. I know that makes some of you hate me with a passionate hatred. I was happy for Mr. Bush's reelection. To celebrate his victory I bought several hundred rounds of ammunition and went to the local range (ok, it was to celebrate our President's reelection and to prepare for Halo 2 next week as well). Lately I have made a point to read the editorial pages of left leaning news papers (esp. in England) to get a glimpse of the visceral angst on the left.

Now in theory, I should be as happy as the proverbial clam. I'm not. First of all, I am a realist and understand that the current administration has some formidible tasks ahead of it that will be rather difficult. Secondly, I don't completely agree with the Republican party. I'm not a dittohead. I would prefer to have a Democratic party that can legitimately compete for office because I think that they are right on some issues.

I'm concerned by the fact that one party really does have a lock on two of three branches of government and that it may soon have a lock on the third. I'm not concerned because they will try to bring back internment camps but because I don't think that it is in America's best interests to have one party with such power.

To be honest, I don't like the idea that the Democratic party seems to have relegated itself to obselescence. If you think that the Democratic party hasn't relegated itself to obselescence then you haven't noticed that over the last few elections it has progressively lost more seats in congress and hasn't been winning the presidency. Even Mrs Pelosi managed to realize that Tuesday was a defeat in about every way possible.

So what is my advise to the Democratic party? Culture matters to people and you are pushing the wrong culture. When Mr Dean said that political debate had to sop talking about "God, Gays, Guns, and Abortion", he demonstrated that he simply had no understanding of what issues mattered to people. You need to understand that:

1. The democratic party platform is pushing a culture. This culture includes abortion rights, homosexual marriage rights, gun control, etc.
2. Aspects of the culture that the Democratic party promotes are needless to say completely unacceptable to many people in America.
3. Culture matters to people. It reflects who they are and how they think the world should be ordered. In the same way that you get angry when schools allow prayer, many Americans get angry when teachers are told to teach that homosexuality is normal.
4. You have a tendency to simply ignore the opinions of others and to think that they are in need of education.

The optioins of the Democratic party include:
1. Staying the course. Heck, move further to the left and make western Europe happy by running an abusive shadow governement. Throw fecal material in congress and read the latest Steve Bell political cartoons.
2. Hide the Pelosi wing of the Democratic party. Tell the left leaning wing that resides in SF and NY that they aren't going to set the agenda. Heck, actively criticize the beliefs of the left.
3. Actively, openly, disown the Pelosi wing of the Democratic party. Kick them out. By this I mean kick them out and sign on to the right's cultural values while holding onto your own economic values.

How do these options work out?
Option 1:
This will either work because the second Bush administration fails miserably or fail horribly and isolate the party even more. This is a real gamble. If it works, you will basically rolll back time to the 80s. If it fails, you will have completely isolated liberal political thought in America for a whole generation.

Option 2:
It is hard to hide the left leaning faction because they have a tendency to do things that draw attention to themselves. For example, the whole issue of homosexual marriage was raised by people in this faction of the party, NOT by Mr. Rove. I think that the Dems will probably go with this option, but won't actively criticize the left.

Option 3:
To twist Mr. Dean's words, embrace God and Guns, reject Gays and Abortion. Arguably the most difficult thing to do becuase part of your party would see this as simply giving into bigotry (the bad kind, not the good left leaning kind that objects to European Catholics who think homosexuality is a sin being in positions of leadership). However, if your party did this, I would vote for you and I know quite a few other people who would vote for you as well.

The problem is that the Democratic party actively supports issues that are immensely repugnant to some people. For example, we find ourselves forced to choose between greed and murder. Support the greed of the Republican party or support the murder (abortion) of the Democratic party. Now the inclination of the Democratic party is to say "abortion isn't murder", but when you do this you simply demonstrate why it is that I could never vote for your party- I mean, we can't even agree on murder. The solution is not to change my mind about whether or not abortion is murder. Doing so simply demonstrates that you and I can't agree and I go and vote Republican.

The Democratic party finds itself responding to the moral concerns of people on the right by simply dismissing their concerns. The response is "how can we convince/fix such deluded people". This is fine and perfectly acceptable to do, just don't plan on ever electing a president. Or on holding a majority in the senate. The common rejoinder to this election so far has been to say that nothing is wrong and that once we fix people on the right, things will be better.

Another rejoinder is to say "Gosh, we need to get people to think about who will help them out more economically". Nice. Once again, I get to choose between greed and murder, except this time greed and murder are both Democratic. Personally, I would like to pay higher taxes, have a fuel tax, and fund a sensible welfare state. You don't need to convince me about economics, you need to convince me on what you label cultural issues.

Democrats, please reform the cultural values of your party. There is more to America than Frisco and New York. Some of us would like to vote Democratic but find ourselves voting for things that we simply cannot accept. Instead of saying "how can we change the incorrect and bigoted opinions of some Republicans", ask how you can support those opinions. I'm constatnly amused to see alleged post modern thinkers on the left bashing the morality of the right as if one culture or morality was superior to the other. Your party needs to do some soul searching to determine what values matter most to you and I think that you are going to have to choose between your economic values and your cultural values.

To be honest, I would expect to get flamed for this post. If you do so, please realize that it won't bother me in the least. The reason is that you can say what you want and insult me however you please, but the party that I voted for is winning and so I'll just think of you as being a sore looser. I on the other hand am just a concerned winner.

As an aside, my apologies for the typos in this post- I don't have the time to spell check. If you would prefer better written prose, go read Tom Wolfe's insightful pre-election editorial article about why the liberal elite don't have a clue. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1340525,00.html)

[Jubelum]

You ignorant redneck. ;)

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Jubelum
You ignorant redneck. ;)

<Sound of slide being released on my .45> ;)

[hardeeharhar]

Abortion.

It comes down to abortion. Most liberals are personally pro-life, socially pro-choice; that means that I do not believe that it is the place of the government to tell any individual what medical procedures they can or cannot have, but I also believe that abortion is NOT a valid form of birth control. What I would want the government to do about this is as follows: provide sex education to all students, talk about contraceptives and condoms (because sex happens regardless of the religiousness of the people having sex), and through these means provide a firm basis on which our children can recognize that sex has reprecussions and that if they are going to have sex before marriage (and they will) that they need to be worried about STDs, pregnancy and take responsibility for their actions. After a sucessful education program, abortion rights will only be necessary for cases of rape or if the mother's life is in danger.

The issue here is that the Republicans (and not the religious ones), have absolutely stood against this sort of education on nearly all fronts because if they lose abortion , they lose a significant fraction of the evangelical/religious vote. Wouldn't it be better if women didn't get pregnant to begin with through normal use of contraceptives and condoms -- even abstinence? Abstinence only education does not take into account that young unmarried people do have sex. Strom Thurman had it, and so did most of us...

[BRussell]

Believe me, liberals know all too well that the country is socially conservative, we don't need you to tell us. We've known it for a long time. But you know what? We're not going to change our values. I read that Clinton gave advice to Kerry that he should support some of the local anti-gay marriage amendments, but Kerry rejected that advice without question. Good for him.

The Republicans have made a choice, and they have chosen to be the anti-libertarian party. They believe in big federal government in every single respect: on social issues, on economic issues, and on foreign policy. Yet they still get the votes of people who think of themselves as libertarians. That's where the breaking point of your coalition is going to be.

I think we Democrats should do the exact opposite of what you suggest. We shouldn't change our values, we should make an effort to attract those members of the Republican coalition that don't identify with the religious right and their values, but still voted with them in 2004.

[MarcUK]

The Dems need to stay where they are. They would be a centralist party in any other country.

The right wing, is just becoming more extremist, and through fear and ignorance, dragging along a load of people in their agenda. This doesn't mean the Dems need to change values to pander to an extremist populace. Extremism has always proven to be wrong.

Germany and Japan had years of national guilt, when they realised what they had done and who they had become.

[lolo]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Dear sirs, I am a gun toting deeply evangelical Christian who happens to vote Republican. I'm not stupid; I have my bachelors in computer science.
I like Mr Bush. I know that makes some of you hate me with a passionate hatred. I was happy for Mr. Bush's reelection.
Yevgeny (vi gavaritie pa russki?),

Thank you for your post. Even though you may not share Kerry's values on abortion and gays, wouldn't you agree that he was the smarter candidate as a clearly intelligent person yourself?
Bush doesn't seem very smart to me, at least not as smart as a president should be. Also, his actions seem to be guided by his religious faith, which is very scary for people who are not religious. Imagine a school bus driver driving at night with no headlights, only guided by his "faith"...

[Powerdoc]

Thanks for you input Yevgueni.

I will just point out that you can't agree with everything a candidate say. For example I am :
- pro choice
- against gay marriage, for gay unions
- I am for gun control

So no one represant exactly my opinions.

But I think that you pointed it out a very important fact that explained why Kerry loose dispite Bush's Irak and debt record (note that the both are linked). Kerry loose, because of this cultural background : most americans did not wanted that.

Add the fact that they where not very big to change of leader in the middle of a war, and you will have the two biggest key to understand Bush's reelection.

[SpcMs]

I've read your post, and I think you are wrong.
Maybe the democratic party should fake things a bit better, so they win some voters like yourself. It's what Bush has been doing so well, pushing a neocon agenda and still getting the compassionate conservative vote.
The democrats lost by 3%. Which means 47% supported the most liberal senator for president. And the only reason why he lost is because people in America seem to prefer the illusion (gay = evil, abortion only happens with immoral people, and tax cuts for the wealthy are good for me, because I will be wealthy some day also, and my president is keeping me safe against the terrorists by attacking Iraq) over a reality check.
And how easy it is to pretend you have higher moral values on issues that will never concern you. The hypocrisy of it all. In countries where abortion is legal, sex-ed is good and with a social system in place to help those in need, there is a drop in abortion rates. But in stead of choosing this humane solution, the republican party would prefer illegal abortions to thrive, limit sex-ed to 'no sex before marriage' and hardly any social network. But hey, voting for the democrats would be 'immoral', right?

[addabox]

In a word, no.

The dems will fair best by being a true party of opposition, not by trying to ingratiate themselves with people who are on the wrong side of history.

There is such a thing as being right. You can call it what you want, I call it integrity.

I imagine a similar post from an earlier era, explaining how "most americans" are not comfortable with Negroes being given full citizenship (not to say, heavens to betsy, that we dislike them, you understand, it's just that there are reasonable limits.

Most americans support legal abortion. Most americans support some form of gun control.

What the Republicans have excelled at (and what your post is a good example of), is framing the issues in a way that pushes the buttons of the electorate.

The notion that dems are "out of touch elitists" is an example of framing. It's very obviously not true, unless union iron workers, impoverished inner city residents, working mothers, new immigrants, that guy who just lost his heath insurance, disgruntled Gis just back from Iraq, college students, etc, etc, are somehow characteristic of "elites". (You didn't think 48% of the country is made up of snide college professors, wealthy hypocrites, dissolute urbanites and predatory homosexuals, did you?)

That being said, I actually believe we have seen the last hurrah of this brand of evangelical "cultural" conservatism. There isn't going to be any good way to dodge responsibility for the train wreck that the Bush admin has set in motion in the next four years.

Our enormous and growing deficit will either necessitate increased taxes, massive cuts in government services, or an ongoing exposure to having our economy depth-charged by foreign currency markets.

Iraq is what its is. I've yet to hear a scenario that sounds like a win for the US.

"Privatizing" SS is a recipe for a repeat of the Savings and Loan scandal and Enron combined. (Hey, remember all those new safeguards the Republicans were going to implement after Enron? Whoops.)

Somehow I don't think health care problems are going to solve themselves, and Bush doesn't really have an answer (why should he? The insurance and pharmaceutical industries are doing fine, and those are his actual constituencies before the people who are in trouble).

Not to mention the widening fissures in the republican party itself, amongst fiscal conservatives, evangelicals, pragmatists, and, oddly, the Bush white house, which is increasingly being perceived as autocratic and self serving.

But the Democratic party needs to change directions because of gay marriage.

I know you don't believe it, but the demographics favor the democratic message. Younger people are not as nearly hung up on gay issues, abortion, guns, race baiting, et al. The country is getting ever more multi-cultural, and the repubs are hunkering down with aging protestant whites in the heart land. It's a losing strategy, long term, and the wounds that have been inflicted by driving the country apart so that bush might get the slightly larger half will certainly come back to haunt the party.

So let me say this: yes, you are stupid. You are stupid in the sense that you have allowed a handful of cultural wedge issues, cynically manipulated by a political operation, come between you and the long term well being of your country. I have no doubt that you are quite the clever fellow in most respects, but in this regard I do think you are stupid.


The idea that "liberals" need to approach the good people of, say, Alabama, hat in hand, and admit that have been too big for their britches is laughable.

Soon enough, the Republican party will need to figure out what went wrong in Illinois and stop trying to scare us with being gun-less when the fags come for our sons.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by addabox

That being said, I actually believe we have seen the last hurrah of this brand of evangelical "cultural" conservatism. There isn't going to be any good way to dodge responsibility for the train wreck that the Bush admin has set in motion in the next four years.


As I already said yesterday, Christians, you are siding with the devil on this one. You are being offered shiny deceptions for your vote.

When the mask of illusion comes off and is exposed, you are going to be in one hell of a comprimised position, and it may very well turn you into the hate figures of tomorrow. It will be the end of Christianity as you know it in America.

If you want to be involved in politics, split from the republicans and form your own party. Form it around Christian values and understanding. Dont side with the devil just so you can push through a gay marriage agenda, ban abortions and stem-cell research.

WWJD?

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Jubelum
You ignorant redneck. ;)
Take the ;) out of that.

[hardeeharhar]

Let's take this to the most logical point:

The country would fair best if the democrats differentiated themselves as best they can from the republicans.

[bunge]

This is more than hilarious:

Originally posted by Yevgeny
1. The democratic party platform is pushing...rights...[and more] rights....

[Aurora]

Looks like those caviar eating democrats ignored the yahoo redneck lawnmower loving son of gun who likes to vote. they missed all west, midwest and south yahoos period. As a tranplanted yankee i now enjoy grits:lol: Demo's had the chance and blew it and that partison turd Daschle is gone.:smokey: still a balanced govt is better then 1 party running the show. extremist on both sides suck. Get ready for rightwing ourway is the onlyway stuff.:\

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Aurora
Looks like those caviar eating democrats ignored the yahoo redneck lawnmower loving son of gun who likes to vote. they missed all west, midwest and south yahoos period. As a tranplanted yankee i now enjoy grits:lol: Demo's had the chance and blew it and that partison turd Daschle is gone.:smokey: still a balanced govt is better then 1 party running the show. extremist on both sides suck. Get ready for rightwing ourway is the onlyway stuff.:\

We don't eat caviar. The sturgeon is endangered. We do however enjoy our port with a side of baby.

[Aurora]

Thats the problem, you have Bud and Coors and Miller cars running around those Nascar tracks. Demo's are clueless on the yahoo vote. Yes i watch Nascar now.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Aurora
Thats the problem, you have Bud and Coors and Miller cars running around those Nascar tracks. Demo's are clueless on the yahoo vote. Yes i watch Nascar now.

I see we need a Brie sponsored Nascar...

(I am from the south, and there is NO reason to watch Nascar... except for the crashes)...

[Aurora]

A very valid point about the crashes and the fact the demo's arent part of the Nascar Dads if you will just as the Demo's have drifted away from core values years ago. It may piss some off but supporting gays,whale rights,and trees aint going to win over the bible thumping yahoo's redneck who just figured out how to get an extra 15 hps out of his old V8.

[bunge]

My thought for a Gun toting evangelical Christian: I'd rather our government make decisions based on rational thought, reason and science rather than mythology. Only smart people do that and I'd rather have smart people in government.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Aurora
A very valid point about the crashes and the fact the demo's arent part of the Nascar Dads if you will just as the Demo's have drifted away from core values years ago. It may piss some off but supporting gays,whale rights,and trees aint going to win over the bible thumping yahoo's redneck who just figured out how to get an extra 15 hps out of his old V8.

And what do the Nascar dads know about the 48% of the country that voted for Kerry? Why are the Nascar dads' values "core" values?

Social justice is a core value. Corporate responsibility is a core value. Civil rights are core values. An ideology of something other than "might makes right" and "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" are core values.

"Supporting gays, whale rights and trees" is a deeply ignorant caraciture of liberal policy. Why is OK for you to be stupid about what I think, but I'm obliged to take gay bashing seriously as some kind of moral stance?

Half the country is me. The hubris of the Republican party at the moment almost assures its downfall.

[Aurora]

Dont get upset just a observation just as its interesting that the republicans got out the new young vote more so then the Democrats. Core heartland values won this race for Bush. Im still amazed. Democrats better start figuring out what they are and stand for if anything.

[ast3r3x]

Politics aside, can we agree NASCAR is stupid?

I mean watching cars go around a track x hundred times. I can understand people being ignorant/afraid of gays just like they were blacks, but cars flying around a track, come on :lol:

Longer read from this biased article, but tell me it isn't scary how close the two are!.
http://www.thepubliccause.net/articles/bushhitlerstalinGOP.html


Until he discovered politics, Hitler failed at just about everything he had ever undertaken, and no one expected him to rise to power. However, Hitler found a simple way to the top: Just tell discontented people what they want to hear and make promises you have no intention of keeping. He found that in the world of propaganda and power plays, a gift of gab and bullish determination could replace sound principles and honesty.

In his first radio speech after becoming Chancellor on January 30, 1933, Hitler---a fervent Christian---invoked God's blessing on the German government and pledged

. . . to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation,
but die Führer (the Leader) had no intention of being a uniter. His Nazi Party's battle cry throughout the campaign was
Down with the liberals!
He included Social Democrats, gays, Jews, and any threat to his model of Christian society in this group, and they all became his sworn enemies.
As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. [On-line information about The Decrees of 1933 has been provided by Professor Joseph V. O'Brien, Department of History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NY - Ed.] His side-kick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary:

The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state
(including the judiciary). In addition, he noted the
Radio and press are at our disposal.

Hitler believed that to consolidate his power, he needed to create an enemy of the state. Because they were the most outspoken activists against his regime, Hitler's first enemy was the Communist Party, and he was the first to invoke the spectre of the Red Menace. He sought to provoke Communist Activists into committing violent acts of protest so that they could be rounded up and arrested them under his new aggressive laws suppressing public dissent. Aware of this ploy and believing that Hitler was merely a puppet of reactionaries and his regime would not last, the Communists laid low. But the Führer, becoming progressively more drunk with his new power, was not so easily thwarted. To facilitate his demonization of the Reds, he sent provocateurs to stage an act of terrorism. Their dupe was a young revolutionary named Van der Lubbe, who was implicated in (framed for) the bombing of the Reichstag (the German equivalent of the Congressional building). This incident gave Hitler the excuse he needed for cracking down on enemies of the state. He rallied the Germans against the terrorists and passed the odious Enabling Acts, in which the government was granted the right to bypass any due process for suspects. One human right after the other was revoked:
Jews were stripped of all rights,
trade unions were broken, and
rival parties were made illegal.

Hitler also worked toward isolating Germany from the rest of the world: One of his first actions after assuming power was to withdraw from the League of Nations.

Hitler courted the conservative Christian clergy from the start, and the clergy's first role was fueling anti-liberalism and anti-Semitism. Jews, according to Hitler, were

. . . the source of every ill that had befallen Germany and of every continuing threat.
(Substitute the word liberal and you have the new GOP's main party philosophy.) Historian John Weis pointed out that
Hitler inspired only those who shared his anger.
To their shame, many clergymen became his closest allies and most effective tools as propagandists, spies, and suppressors of dissent.
Hitler made public dissent all but impossible at first, and later made it illegal. Whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech, he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall and also made sure that the media did not give provide the public with any coverage of dissenters or public protests because it was

. . . encouraging of destructive elements.
What the media faithfully recorded was only Hitler and Hitler supporters. To see an old German newsreel, you'd never guess there were plenty of dissenters around - at least until they were all shot or sent to concentration camps. When I recently asked an Associated Press Reporter why protests are not being covered, he said reporters are instructed not to because to do so
would be encouraging of destructive displays.
Hitler was very fond of photo ops. Believing they were his best form of Public Relations, he pounced on them at every opportunity. The files abound with shots of Hitler with bright-faced German families; he especially liked being photographed with school children. At the same time, Hitler actively promoted family values and high moral standards. He believed women should go back to being at home with their families and not in the work force. He also believed there should be little or no separation between the state and his brand of Christianity, especially since he firmly believed that the emotional fervor of religion could be used to effectively to promote the state's objectives.

Under Hitler, worker protections were dismantled, one by one. Soon workers were laboring for longer hours for less pay. (All trade unions had been smashed, so there was no recourse.) Unfortunately, the Social Democrats were not organized and did not offer a solid front for opposing Hitler and his initiatives. They soon found themselves overwhelmed by a highly organized, aggressive and fanatically single-minded army of Nazi Party appointees who did whatever Hitler told them to do without questioning. Here we end thus part of the story, because we all know what happens next: World War II and the Holocaust.

[Aurora]

Nascar short tracks can be great but the point i was making is there is what 100,000 - 200,000 at every race and millions watching. George won that crowd and having lived here in S.C' i have observed the crowd and its mentality way of life if you will. These folks saved Bush.

[ast3r3x]

Originally posted by Aurora
Nascar short tracks can be great but the point i was making is there is what 100,000 - 200,000 at every race and millions watching. George won that crowd and having lived here in S.C' i have observed the crowd and its mentality way of life if you will. These folks saved Bush.

Oh I know people love it, I have friends who love it...but I still think it's silly, and I bet I couldn't talk too many into watching a soccer game :D

[addabox]

Originally posted by Aurora
Dont get upset just a observation just as its interesting that the republicans got out the new young vote more so then the Democrats. Core heartland values won this race for Bush. Im still amazed. Democrats better start figuring out what they are and stand for if anything.

I'm for one am not upset, I'm just wondering why you're clinging to bullshit like you gave birth to it?

I haven't seen anything that suggest the Republicans got the youth vote out in greater numbers.

You keep harping on "values" and "core heartland values" as a kind of tautology: "core heartland values" are the values held by the core of the heartland, presumably, and you look at a red and blue map and decide that's what won the election.

But a county by county map that assigns color proportionately according to percentages of votes cast show a purple america, with a few mostly blue and a few mostly red states.

Quite a few people in your "heartland" voted for Kerry. Presumably they will be driven from the places of their birth by the bible wielding righteous.

A more plausible narrative is that just enough of a generally pragmatic, centrist population were persuaded by the Rove smear machine that Kerry couldn't be trusted to wage the war on terror. That's exactly why he went after Kerry's record as a war hero, using the media echo chamber to paint him as a traitor and a coward. This process does not speak to the honor and intrinsic superiority of your mythical people of the plains.

As far as the old "the dems better figure out if they are for anything blah blah blah", just the same old brain dead right wing talking point. I've been hearing it my entire life.

You seem to be actually incapable of accepting the fact that Bush won by a historically small margin for a sitting president (and a wartime president at that), and that close to half of this America-that-has-now-completely- rejected-the-libertine- godless -left that you keep fantasizing about and jerking off to voted for king hell liberal boogeyman.

Without 9/11, Bush didn't have a chance in hell of being reelected. The "values" that your made up liberals supposedly don't get (too busy doing coke off Barbara Streisand's tits, I would imagine) had fuck-all to do with it.

The "analysis" you and others are offering up for the results of this election is noting more than a self-congratulatory circle jerk. The trouble with being so deluded is that, historically, it tends to lead to getting your ass handed to you somewhere down the road.

[Aurora]

What a rant, i voted for Kerry dude and the bottom line is George with his pathetic record still won. Democrats didnt seem much different then the republicans and neither party is representing the common man. Democrats blew it.

[Placebo]

It's because people felt 'safe' with Bush. You have to understand that the human race as a whole is fundamentally afraid of change, and the lower intelligence/ less educated voters are more prone to that tendency.

[Kirkland]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
[B]I will just point out that you can't agree with everything a candidate say. For example I am :
- pro choice
- against gay marriage, for gay unions
- I am for gun control

So no one represant exactly my opinions.

John Kerry took exactly those positions on those issues. Those are also the basic positions of the Democratic party. Contrary to what some are claiming here, the Democratic party is not pro-gay marriage, though many Democrats (and some Republicans) are.