You obviously missed the point of my "moral values" post. I agree with the author that voters of both parties have morals and disagree with one another about which morals are most important. I think Bush won not because of a nebulous term like "morals" but because either a)more people agreed with his policies, b)more people thought he would be a better leader than Kerry, c) more people trusted Bush than trusted Kerry, or d) some combination of the above. Each person needs to decide for himself or herself what is moral. I voted for Bush because I think his long-term view of foreign policy is more sensible than what Kerry was proposing. I didn't make my decision because of morality per se. However, I did consider the character (if you can lump that in with morality) of the two men and I thought Bush had more integrity. But neither of those decisions mean I feel morally superior to those who voted differently, regardless of the outcome.
Bronco,I'm not altogether surprised to hear you say this. Still, I thought this article deserved a wide audience, and including you with the others was one way to make it happen.Dov Bear
Post a Comment