I voted Tuesday around 6:30 am, had to wait in the longest line I ever faced here in East Windsor NJ (about four people). Then went on to work and called Amy and invited her to come over for lunch, and we would all go, Amy, Rebecca (the royal daughter), and me, to Washington Crossing State Park. Beautiful day. Rebecca seems to love the fall, and I really enjoyed the playtime, especially since that was the last light of day I would see, for I was doing some benchmark testing in our computer lab as soon as I got back to work, and I would be there till after 9pm. It was a busy afternoon, and the testing took a long time. After 5:00 pm, with the second half of the testing about to commence, I holed myself up in the lab and started watching election results. Lots of thoughts to blog about, but I can't multitask too well, and wanted to get out of there before 10, so I just didn't bother. These are my first thoughts to write down.
So, what do I think? I'm glad for the results, but I don't see them as a reason to gloat, just as I think it would be wise for the left to refrain from making silly excuses or making fearful predictions of doom. I've held off on commenting for three reasons mainly: 1) I can't write fast enough to cover the election as well as others can, 2) I've been real busy at work, as noted above, and 3) I just wanted to digest it all so I don't put my foot in my mouth.
I think the values-based voting was a real factor this year, but not the only one. When the Unitarian Universalists and other religious progressives started their Faithful Democracy project, the whole concept of voting one's values was vindicated, what religious conservatives have been doing for years. Did the kickoff of this project imply that the "religious left" weren't voting their values in the past? That's hard for me to believe. Of course they were voting their values; all that project did was to vindicate the position of those who said all along that it was proper and right to do so.
What would I like to see as a result of this election? Based on the Senate results, and Tom Daschle's defeat, I would love to see an immediate renomination of every judicial nominee subjected to the Filibuster. In my opinion, this was the gravest injustice committed by the Democrats' minority in the Senate. I called Senator Frist's office today to urge him to stop the chairmanship of Arlen Specter to the Judicial Committee, and urge everyone concerned about judicial integrity to do so as well.
There are many other things I'd love to see, making the tax cuts permanent, killing the inheritance tax, making true school choice available, a Federal Marriage Amendment. And speaking of that Marriage Amendment, I'm glad that people are speaking up and saying they don't want the courts to decide this issue for them, and I agree with the thoughts expressed by Rush Limbaugh, quoted in a post below by Rick Penner, who said that the push to decide this issue in the courts would inevitably end up in a backlash.
For the Democrats, I think Nancy Pelosi should lose her job as the House Minority leader. Her strategy of taking the party left after the 2002 elections was clearly a mistake. I'd like to see the Democrats drop their class-warfare rhetoric. I wish the Democrats would also reconsider their fanaticism for abortion. I was a Democrat once, was even on the pro-choice bandwagon, but their vitriol for anyone who expressed a pro-life viewpoint drove me away (and this came from people who "worship" tolerance). I actually converted to the pro-life worldview before becoming a Christian. This issue is not a mere "article of faith".
That's all I want to say for now, but here's some links to others whose opinions I respect:
Joshua Claybourn credits the "culture war".
Joe Carter The Evangelical Outpost credits moral issues, such as embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and same-sex marriage.
Susan b. Lilac Rose talks about her two issues: security and social issues, claiming both as reasons for voting for Bush.
La Shawn Barber urges the President to be strong, lead boldly, and ignore those who tell him to compromise.
Larry Kudlow credits the evangelical vote.
"I wish the Democrats would also reconsider their fanaticism for abortion. "
This may very well be the most absurd comment I've seen. The only fanatics I've ever heard of in regard to the issue of abortion are the self-named "right to life" folks. I do know plenty of folks who are committed to freedom of choice. And most of them would not choose to have an abortion themselves. They just firmly believe in individuals right to search their own conscience, and have the option to do what they have determined is right for themselves and their family.
I do not know anybody who wants more abortions. In fact, just the opposite is true. The goal is to have abortion available as an option, but never to work for more abortions to take place.
The Democratic campaign made a lot of mistakes, but that is not one of them. The only fanatics here are the ones who think that their own beliefs should be forced onto everyone.
The Republicans were very successful in defining moralty in a way that benefited themselves in the election. They were able to paint an "us vs them" picture in which the Republican way was the only moral choice that could be made. But a strategy based on demonizing innocent people will never be successful in the long run. It won an election. Nor more, no less.
Sue
Posted by: Sue Unruhe at November 5, 2004 12:44 AMAbsurd? Planned Parenthood promotes abortion, and fights tooth and nail against any reasonable restrictions on the procedure, including parental notification laws and the partial birth abortion ban, both wanted by a significant majority of people (voters) in this country. I stand by my comments.
Another point I forgot to mention: I think the Democrats' exclusion of groups like Democrats For Life speaks volumes. Would it really be so terrible for a pro-life voice to be heard within the Democratic party? Their current leadership sure seems to think so.
"Planned Parenthood promotes abortion"
This is outright false. Planned parenthood does NOT "promote" abortion. The whole purpose of Planned Parenthood is to empower people to plan families through education and birth control technology.
In regards to abortion, the organization DOES promote ACCESS to abortion for those who have searched their soul and determined that is the right thing for them to do. That is a dramatically different thing from "promoting" abortion and a distinction very important to me.
Posted by: Sue Unruhe at November 5, 2004 11:47 AMAnd just how would you know what Palnnaed Parenthood promotes?
When was the last time you have ever been in one of their offices?
I think you need to rethink your beliefs on just what it is that Planned Parenthood is promoting.
Posted by: Moi at November 7, 2004 10:09 PMThat should say Planned Parenthood. Sorry.
Posted by: Moi at November 7, 2004 10:10 PMI believe that if this person really truly wanted to find what the real truth when it comes to abortions and this President.
He/She will find that under this current administraion, that the number of abortions performed has risen greatly.
Posted by: Moi at November 7, 2004 10:16 PMHow do I know what Planned Parenthood promotes?
Several sources, I read their website, and I read news and commentary of their critics, one which I respect very much is Dawn Eden's "The Dawn Patrol". Maybe I could learn something by visiting one of their centers, but I don't think it's necessary to do so before being qualified to criticize them. They'd only let me see information favorable to them, hardly an objective way to verify if something damaging to their reputation was true.
I know that they support abortion on demand, with no regulations or restrictions of any kind, evidenced by their opposition to the Partial Birth Abortion ban, and all parental notification laws, all of which can be verified by reading their website. I know that they were recently selling a t-shirt with the phrase "I had an abortion" (they stopped selling the shirt when its existence was exposed by Dawn Eden, and other critics). Let me ask you this question, if I had a t-shirt that had the name of a popular football team, do you think I would be: a)encouraging or b)discouraging people from going to their football games? Planned Parenthood is at least trying to move abortion into morally neutral ground, where it is viewed as an alternative means of birth control, regardless of what they say publicly. Amy Richards recent story in the New York Times, where she confessed to a "selective abortion" so "she wouldn't have to move to the suburbs and shop at Costco" is supporting evidence to that.
The argument that the number of abortions has gone up under the Bush administration hasn't been proven, and even if it were, that wouldn't be a valid argument for the status quo, that of unrestricted abortion-on-demand. You wouldn't argue for legalizing armed robbery just because the laws against it were ineffective, would you?
As an alternative to abortion, I think the country would be well served by encouraging pro-life alternatives. Strong families, encouraging adoptions, expanding the options available for people to help each other.