GreekChat.com Forums - When did I become an "Evangelical" voter?

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - When did I become an "Evangelical" voter? (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=93762)

I think Bush and Rove do play into it. I think the association of "evangelicals" with the current administration has given the left and the media the opportunity to paint evangelicals in a negative light. Some of it may be by our own doing, but I think it is absurd for the MSM use that association to discredit a massive amount of citizens.

Of course, I think that about the media in any situation. Most Americans are intelligent enough to know that what Code Pink did in Berkeley or what Imus said is not to be commended. However, I find it disturbing even when moral judgments are dispensed by mainstream media, even in such obvious cases.

I'm an "Obamacan"... ;)

No seriously... EE-BO I just love how you use the word "hell"... That's the point behind a lot of this. I think that campaign directors are marketting spin doctor specialists that can convince the masses as to how to separate folks, easily and classify them. It is an old tactic they are using. "They" want you to feel guilty about YOUR choices in life and choose what "they" tell you choose.

You are subliminally told not have your own mind and to arrive to your own conclusions. And all "they" have to do is add the seed of doubt... Powerful isn't it?

What "they" didn't count on is the tide of change... And a whole new group of people will step in to replace the old with different ideas.

The question is whether those "different ideas" have any merit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by srmom (Post 1600973)

What party is left for people like me? Those who are socially moderate, but fiscally conservative?

srmom, you can join my party. It's called the Common Sense Party. The platform in very basic terms is, live and let live, and don't spend $$ that you don't have on programs that are unnecessary. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGD-GRAD (Post 1600851)

srmom,
I think your point about blaming the "liberal media" for demonizing those who are evangelicals is misdirected. Go back almost eight years to the antics of Karl Rove and the other Bush campaign gurus. They had to get more groups "fired up" to vote Republican, so they used issues like gay marriage and "family values" to fire up "the base" as they called them. Church pulpits became extremely political, and those born-again Christians (which many of us claim to be) were used to propel Bush to victory. The line between simply being a born-again Christian and a Bible-waving neo-con became blurred, and for a good reason, just like all those early speeches "mentioning" Iraq with 9-11 even though there was (and still is) no evidence linking them to the attacks. All but one of the hijackers had Saudi passports.

Then later, sadly enough, it came out that the Bush people actually made fun of some these folks regarding their homespun philosophies. So in many ways, the evangelicals were "used" for their vote in a very unattractive way. It may have been the "liberal" media that took the term and ran with it, but it was the Bush folks who said the word "evangelical" in every other breath. Remember how Bush's speechwriters included little "keywords" that appealed to the that particular religious base?

In a sense I agree with you but at the same time there are some flaws in your statement. Bush did use "traditional family values" to get elected and re-elected, getting 90% of the vote from the poorest section of the white population- a group that would be receive much more economically if electing a liberal (or a socialist for that matter).
However, the media (and not just Fox) has continued to push this term, usually (IMO) in an attempt to make people feel like they are shaming Thomas Jefferson if they take their religious views into consideration when they vote.
Were the Evangelicals used by the Republicans? Absolutely. That's politics though, if every informed voter votes against you, you could still win in a 3-1 landslide. Thats not to say that people who voted for Bush weren't well informed either, but President Bush certainly pulled off quite a feat by getting elected amid everything that was going on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scbelle (Post 1601339)

srmom, you can join my party. It's called the Common Sense Party. The platform in very basic terms is, live and let live, and don't spend $$ that you don't have on programs that are unnecessary. :)

Like welfare and the IRS.
I think she described moderate libertarianism.

And, if the Libertarian Party had a cut dog's chance in hell of winning, I might vote that way. But, it would just be a wasted vote.

I really wish we had a multi-party system so that I could find a candidate who most closely fits my ideal. As it is now, it may be the "hold your nose and vote" candidate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by srmom (Post 1601532)

had a cut dog's chance in hell of winning.

LOL! srmom's funny. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1601023)

You know, this is what I am seeing...somewhere out there a whole heaping of people are left with little or no real choice of a candidate that they like to vote for, thus they are pissed that no 'real' leader has emerged for them to rally behind.

All the candidates that are out here are just unsatisfactory in addressing their needs and wants in government and even when it comes right down to it, this whole race sucks...somehow I can't help but feel that this is familiar territory...heh!

Quote:

Originally Posted by srmom (Post 1601532)

Speaking from a purely mathematical standpoint your vote does not matter (especially if you don't live in MI, FL, or OH.) I know that it sucks to think about it that way but there is zero chance that the presidential election will be decided by your vote.
In fact, you may be better off making a statement vote for a small candidate or a write in than to vote for a candidate that you don't like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1601023)

Karl Marx? Is that you? Viva la revolucion!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiGam (Post 1601800)

Karl Marx? Is that you? Viva la revolucion!

That must be the only conflict theorist/analyst that you know. :p

i think that if everyone who ever said "i would vote for a third party if i thought they would win" actually voted for a third party, i think a third party would actually win

Quote:

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum (Post 1602901)

i think that if everyone who ever said "i would vote for a third party if i thought they would win" actually voted for a third party, i think a third party would actually win

I agree and so does Ralph Nader. All talk and no action.

A vote for freedom is never a wasted vote.

-stolen from Ron Paul site . . . :)