Friday, November 12

It's hard to believe I've been around for a fifth of a century as of today. Cool. That really flew by.

Got a nice link yesterday from a fellow Louisiana blogger. He referred to me as "something of a right-wing college student who may or may not spend a little too much time reading Hugh Hewitt and beating on The Daily Anvil." Yup, guess that about sums me up.

He may not have meant it as a compliment, but hey, I'll take it. Our opinions on things appear to be a little different, but I'm interested in seeing what he's got to say.

The Reveille didn't publish my letter today. I guess there's a chance they may run it Monday, but it's no big loss because most of my points were already made by other letter writers. Anyway, that's life. I just wish I hadn't spent 3+ hours researching, writing and editing the thing.

Here's the much-trimmed final cut:

Dear Editor:

I disagree with some of Andrew Midgett’s bold assumptions in his Wednesday column.

First, he asserted that people “voting their personal morality instead of the nation’s domestic and international interests” won the election for President Bush.

The exit polling asked voters to name the issue they considered most important. If voters backed Bush because of “moral values”, we shouldn’t assume that those voters didn’t also seriously consider his stances on “domestic and international interests.”

According to CNN’s Web site (and assuming exit polls are reliable indicators of voters’ motivations), in 2000, “moral values” was not one of the top seven issues voters considered. But neither was terrorism.

In the only foreign-policy related category – “world affairs” – George W. Bush beat Al Gore 54 to 40 percent or, by my math, by a margin of about 1.7 million votes among those who considered it the top issue.

In 2004, “terrorism” and “Iraq” were the third and fourth most important issues (behind “moral values” and “economy/jobs”). President Bush won the categories of moral values and terrorism by about 16 million votes each.

Even when the votes cast based on the issues of terrorism and Iraq, respectively, are combined, the President still got about 23.5 million votes to less than 16 million for Sen. Kerry.

It is clear that many more voters in this election considered terrorism a top issue, and perhaps some of these who went for Bush wouldn’t have chosen him had other issues topped their list. The results of this election cannot be so clearly attributed to “moral values” alone.

I also object to Mr. Midgett’s insistence on demeaning Bush voters as ignorant bigots. Under the guise of political analysis, Mr. Midgett unleashed a bilious and condescending attack on the millions of American voters who named “moral values” as their key issue.

Mr. Midgett managed, in the course of his column, to suggest that those voters were gullible, homophobic, ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, misogynistic rubes who are not out to improve our nation, and he called their concerns silly and irrelevant.

This is unfair and unsubstantiated, yet sadly, we’ve heard this sort of thing from many Democrats in the days since the election.

The party of inclusion, indeed.

Other than that, all's quiet on the southern front. LSU-Bama tomorrow - I might not post till Sunday.


At November 12, 2004 at 4:21 PM, Blogger ricky said...

It wasn't a compliment or a criticism, just trying to describe it to my loyal cadre of readers. I'm always hoping our little community of Louisiana bloggers gets stronger, so I'm glad when one from whatever side of the political spectrum pops up.

Keep on truckin'...


Post a Comment

<< Home