So it looks like a clean sweep for Republicans. President, House, and Senate races have all pointed that way. Of course, Ohio hasn’t been called, but the margin is big enough that even with the provisional ballots, it’s unlikely the results will be a surprise.
I have several things to talk about at this bright and early hour. First of all, why did Bush, a man many think lied about Iraq, win the popular vote by such a big margin? I think there are several reasons. Bush and Kerry are clearly divided on the “moral” or “faith” issues; abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research. I think that the Democrats have ignored those important issues and focused their attention on the war. If you look at the map, the middle of the country, “the Bible belt”, and the Southern states, all states with traditional Christian values, voted for Bush. I was watching CNN last night when the Crossfire group was talking. The Democrats from Crossfire conceded that the difference was very likely these very topics.
It’s easy to begin to believe what the liberal media feeds us… most Americans are pro-choice, several states are pro-gay marriage. Clearly that is not the case. A man with pathetic opinion polls has beaten the hyper-liberal Senator from Massachussetts.
I think another reason is that people throughout the Midwest… just can’t relate to Kerry at all. Chances are, Midwesterners are not going to elect a tax-and-spend President.
Another thing you find is that the Latino vote trended towards Bush. He didn’t win their vote, but he took far more than any Republican has before. Once again, I’m going to throw a stereotype out there… forgive me. The Latino population is very strong on family values, faith, and moral issues. Granted, Kerry claims to be Catholic, but many Latino families are Catholic, and when they say they’re Catholic, they mean “devout.” This is once again at odds with Kerry’s stances on several issues.
The Democrats have managed to put a man that the “moral majority” in the country just couldn’t stomach voting for, even if the alternative was “W.” Had they nominated a more moderate candidate, heck, even Hillary is more moderate, they could have whipped Bush. Frankly, Hillary probably could have taken this election had she run. I would not have voted for her (in spite of the sordid appeal of having Bill back in the White House) because of her stances on abortion, welfare, etc. But I think a majority of Americans would have disagreed with me. Kerry was as liberal as they could possibly find, and they lost the moderates.
On to something totally different I’ve been pondering.
When Bush invaded Iraq, Al Queda focused their attention on fighting us there. There haven’t been any attacks here, but many have occurred in Iraq.
What if that was the plan?
What if the White House decided to move the terrorism away from America? If that was the plan, I’d say so far it’s worked. You can argue that it would be immoral to do so, but heck… effective.
If that is the case, it could never be openly admitted, because that would defeat the purpose. The only way they could pull it off is if the President acted bull-headed and ignorant.
I’m just saying.