Quote:
polls show clearly that people who voted Bush overwhelmingly cited "moral issues" as their #1 concern. You don't have to do too much reading between the lines to see that as a clear indication that they want someone at the top who's going to set laws that govern how people live their lives (i.e. God, gays, and guns.)
I don't think this follows logically at (i.e.: I'm having trouble reading the same thing between the lines that you are). People voted for a candidate who said he would do certain things they wanted done (and it's really only half fair to bring gay marriage into this as Kerry was also against gay marriage), not one they thought would run their lives the best. Yes, many conservatives want a man certain type of faith as them making decisions that affect the country, and yes they wanted someone who with a certain stand on these issues you've identified (as well as some others). This isn't any different from the liberals, who want someone with a different kind of faith (the kind that is either less obvious or nonexistent, but either way does not visibly affect his policy making) and who took a different stand on the issues. Believing that our idea of morality is what drives the laws of our country does not equate to wanting a dictator telling us how to live. Conservatives may want their values reflected in office (as do liberals), but they want it through democracy not dictatorship. The system worked, and it will next time too.

Quote:
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.
I wasn't making the case that the conflicts are the same, only that there are ethical parallels.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.