- the party that increases government spending while hypocritically pandering to "moral values voters" got 23.3% fewer votes than in 2004.
- the party that increases government spending while denouncing moral values voters got almost 14% fewer votes than in 2004.
- the candidate that promises to cut all government programs and affirms moral values while rejecting government violence and coercion to impose those values received over 1,000% more votes than in 2004.
When I say "hypocritically" panders to moral values, I mean
- the Republican candidate denounces homosexuality while donating nearly $5,000 to disgraced Page-abuser Mark Foley's campaign last year, and nearly $10,000 since 2002.
- the Republican candidate exerted about one-tenth the effort to pass an amendment which acknowledges the definition of marriage found in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as he did to get CAFTA passed and expand the "New World Order."
- there is a strong spiritual tie between homosexuality and statism: those who are power addicts tend to be sex addicts. The recent case of Ted Haggard is a good example of this: power and sex.
I believe "moral values voters" are becoming increasingly suspicious of power-holders in both church and state.
Republicans lost 50,000 votes in this district. While Democrats re-gained the House, they lost 12,000 votes in this district. I suspect more Democrats in Southwest Missouri voted anti-Blunt than pro-Truman.
My conceited personal fantasy is that if I could talk to a voter and explain the ideal of "Liberty Under God," that voter would likely be inclined to vote for me, and if not, if I could say, "Tell me why you won't vote for me," and respond to that voter's answer, I could clinch the vote in a majority of cases. The problem, of course, is communication: physically reaching all those voters.
There is dwindling support for the two-party monopoly, with the prevailing attitude shifting from apathy to opposition. Voters are hungry for moral values separated from coercion and political power. I'm already looking forward to 2008.
1 comment:
A word on my math-spin. In the case of the Democrat and Republican candidates, I took the number of votes cast for each and caculated the percent decrease vs. 2004. But in my case, I calculated the change in the percent of votes received, not the actual number of votes. In 2004 I received .3% of the votes cast, while in 2006 I received 3.1% of votes cast. Now, I admit I learned math in a government-run school, so I may be wrong when I say that's a 1,000% increase. I never did well in percentages.
Post a Comment