Christian values don't fit with Democratic Party

I am a working man. At no time in my life have I ever earned more than $27,000 in a year, and mostly I have gotten by on less than that. I pay a good deal of my modest income for health insurance and buying gas to get to and from work. I would personally benefit from an affordable government-backed health care policy and from lower gas prices brought about by government mandated increases in fuel efficiency.

However, I cannot vote the straight Democratic ticket anymore because above all, I am a Christian.

The new "Ivy League" dominated Democratic Party no longer represents my interests because the Democrats have chosen to adopt "fringe" social policies that run counter to the most basic tenets of the Christian religion.

What we saw in this election is that if asked to make a choice between the heart and the head, Christians will always choose the heart. No believer should ever be forced to make this choice! If the Democrats cannot support a social policy that is in harmony with Christian values, then they ought to abandon all social policy and go back to representing solely the economic interest of working people.

The Republican Party - the party by and for the ultra-rich - sure does not represent my economic interests. Unfortunately, it is the only party that my faith will allow me to support.

President's promise quickly fades

I did not think that it would be possible for me to feel as disappointed as I did Wednesday morning, having learned that there was no way for John Kerry to win the presidential election. Although later that day upon hearing President Bush's acceptance address, I did come away with a feeling that perhaps the future would not be as bleak as I had been believing it would be. After the president expressed his desire to unify a divided nation after a spirited campaign, the next four years seemed to have the chance to be different from his first four.

However, I do not believe that will be the case after President Bush's speech on Thursday. With a renewed arrogance, he set forth an agenda that welcomes all those who are receptive to his ideals and leaves behind all those who do not. According to the election, that means that just under 60-million Americans will be left on the sidelines. That is exactly the type of leadership that America has always fought against. I now feel a higher level of disappointment in the fact that George Bush is president and am disheartened at the direction America appears to be taking. Hopefully we are not facing another four years of disappointment.

Democrats need some soul-searching

Three national elections in a row (including off-year 2002), and the Democrats have steadily lost ground. Will they conclude that they need more of the same failing strategy? Or will they possibly consider a fundamental change in direction?

As a conservative Christian, I have a practical reason for wishing the Democrats well. First, they do have an edge on Republicans in a few of the issues that matter to me. I would like to have two parties competing for my vote, rather than one party taking me for granted. But if the Democrats are to survive as a serious force in shaping national policy, they need to take a long, unflattering look at themselves.

First, the Democrats must stop consoling themselves with the fiction that this election was close. It wasn't. Even though the popular vote for president seemed close, the vote on conservative issues was a landslide. Look at every state that voted on gay marriage. Every one of them, by landslide majorities, voted to ban gay marriage. And by even larger majorities, around 70 percent, most Americans oppose the Democrat position on abortion, especially partial-birth abortion.

Democrats have to stop sneering at conservative Christians if they hope to be taken seriously by the majority of Americans.

Second, the election was artificially close because the mainstream media are increasingly, and more shamelessly every year, propagandists for the social left. CBS News shocked the nation by its transparently anti-Bush advocacy, even to the point of trying to foist clumsy forgeries as Bush-incriminating letters.

Had the mainstream media been instead as pro-Bush as they were pro-Kerry, Bush's popular vote margin of victory would have been at least 10 percentage points higher than the 51 percent he posted.

To be a viable national party in the United States, you must rely on genuine persuasion, based on fairly reported facts, not propaganda.

Finally, the Democrats must eschew the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and John Edwards, and replace them with men such as Sens. Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh and Zell Miller. The hard-core left has led the Democrat Party from one disaster to the next. Bill Clinton's success resulted from his comparative moderation. Kerry's failure resulted from his, and his advisers', left-wing extremism.

Yes. The word extremism does not mean conservative, as the press would have us believe. Not until the Democratic Party reclaims its identity from its extreme left, will it be able to seriously compete for my vote.

This time I voted for Bush. But there are Democrats for whom I would vote, just as there are Republicans whom I would vote against. Democrats, if you want my vote, then next time, take me more seriously.

A deeply disturbing trend

It is being reported that George Bush was pushed to victory by the religious conservatives and that the election was decided on "moral issues" instead of the economy, the war in Iraq, health care, Social Security and the environment.

Doesn't anyone notice a disturbing trend here? Bush has already enraged the Islamic world by calling the effort to fight terrorism a "crusade." Now power is accruing to the Christian fundamentalists to the exclusion of other religious beliefs. I find this a deeply disturbing trend.

Tolerance and respect for different beliefs and the separation of church and state were embraced by the framers of our Constitution. Now these zealots threaten the very tenets of our Constitution in an attempt to legislate morality. How long will it be until we are ruled by a group of Christian mullahs who will be more than happy to do Bush's bidding?

We need a viable opposition

Now that the election is over, we'll no doubt be hearing from all sorts of "experts" about why John Kerry lost, and why Democrats at large were thrashed so badly. No matter what they say, make no mistake: What we have just witnessed is a mass repudiation of the Democratic Party, its tactics and its principles.

As a conservative, I'm delighted with the outcome of the election. I am, however, worried for a future in which there is no viable political opposition. A democracy needs an honest exchange of ideas to remain strong, and right now the Democrats are so bereft of ideas that they are in real danger of becoming irrelevant.

So what's a party to do? For starters:

Cut the wackos loose. When mainstream Democrats embraced Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, they sent a clear message that the lunatics had taken over the asylum. These delusional, conspiracy-minded extremists are not helping you. Run away from them as fast as you can.

Stop the poisonous rhetoric. Calling conservatives Nazis and comparing George W. Bush to Hitler is not constructive. If you have differences in policy, fine. Talk about that. Don't try to paint your opponent as the devil.

Be honest. Attacking the president as a liar because he received faulty intelligence on weapons in Iraq is fundamentally dishonest. Telling voters that Bush is bringing back the draft and gutting Social Security is patently false.

Stop hiding behind the media. Reporters did John Kerry no favors by giving him a pass on the tough questions. Bush, on the other hand, constantly had to defend his record even against the false allegations brought by CBS and its forged documents. The result: Voters knew all about the president, but next to nothing about Kerry. They also felt sympathy for Bush, because the media were so obviously hostile to him.

Make room for pro-lifers. In a country where an overwhelming majority of people believe that partial-birth abortion is an outrage, Democrats cling to abortion as an absolute right, no matter what. Put some distance between the yourselves and the militant abortionists. Make it clear that pro-life Democrats have a place in the party.

I don't hold much hope that Democrats will listen to any of this advice but until they do, they will continue to lose elections.

A party that's gotten out of touch

After Wednesday morning's disappointing news, I was talking to a friend in Los Angeles about Tim Russert's book about his dad. I said to my friend, "That's who the Democratic Party is supposed to be - Russert's dad, my dad, blue collar guys, working stiffs, the little guys. And the Democratic Party is supposed to protect them from rich white guys who wear expensive suits and ruthlessly run corporations. What has happened?"

And then I check the op-ed piece by Nicholas D. Kristof (Democrats lost touch with middle America) and he makes virtually the same points. How have we gotten so out of touch with our core? We offered Americans one rich white guy as an alternative to another rich white guy, and - guess what? - Americans picked the familiar one. And as much as I love Hillary, I don't think she's the right answer either. Barack Obama can't get to D.C. soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

Bush's agenda is in the mainstream

Re: A nation divided and Bush's promise, editorials.

I am growing very weary of hearing President Bush being blamed for a "deeply divided" nation. It is not solely the president's responsibility to reach out to the other side to heal the divisions. I think he has tried to do this and the Democrats have resisted and obstructed at every turn. I believe that the prime reason for this deep division is the seething Democratic anger over the loss of the 2000 election and the Democrats' resultant loss of political power. This anger was certainly the prime motivation for the backers of Sen. John Kerry rather than any support for his policies, whatever they were.

You complain of the president's "intentionally divisive social policies" and divisive figures such as John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld.

I submit that your definition of "divisive" is anything or anyone that doesn't conform to the liberal ideals of the Democrats and the liberal media wing of the party. If President Bush would only do what the Democrats want, he would then heal the nation.

You state that President Bush's "uncompromising agenda" was barely vindicated by the election. You can try to spin the results however you like but the fact is that President Bush got the largest number of popular votes in history and defeated Sen. Kerry in a very convincing matter. The Republicans picked up four more Senate seats including the defeat of Minority Leader Tom Daschle. These facts tell me that the "uncompromising agenda" of President Bush is in the political mainstream and it is the liberal Democrats who sit on the far left bank, just as the president said. He has a mandate from the people and he intends to do what he said he would do so you can look for it to happen. Cheer up, America. The best is yet to come!

Bush should focus on important issues

I've seen many references over the past couple of days to President Bush's "mandate" in the election. I've also seen it written that more people have voted for this president than any other. The converse would also be true, that more people have voted against this president, his policies and his tactics than any other president.

My vote for John Kerry was a vote for real long-term solutions that would leave this country a better place for my children and theirs. This includes a more thoughtful foreign policy, providing a real solution for Social Security, protecting the environment, running a government based upon fiscal responsibility and addressing in a meaningful way the great divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots" including the issues on health care and education.

None of these issues will be resolved by attacking other countries, reducing taxes or creating private Social Security accounts. These are the only ideas to come out of President Bush's first term.

President Bush has not shown any intent to work with all of Congress or represent all of America for the last four years. In fact, in order to attend any of his recent speeches, you've had to pledge support to him. When he speaks to Democrats wanting support, he'd better show that he will earn it by standing up for these important issues.

Some values are real winners

It is obvious in reviewing the presidential election results, that certain values stand ahead of others. Moral values, truth, resolve and integrity will win out over elitism, debating skills and lack of decisiveness.

The voting turnout was wonderful and proves freedom and free elections do work.

GOP employed the fear factor

Re: Voters chose hope and prosperity over the politics of fear, letter, Nov. 4.

This letter is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. The Republican money machine, fueled by obscene amounts of cash raised by President Bush, I believe was responsible for 75 percent of the "politics of fear" materials that filled the airwaves and my mailbox.

If there was a Pulitzer Prize for excellence in negative campaigning, Karl Rove would walk away as the big winner.

The Panhandle factor, again

For four years Florida Democrats have wept and moaned about the purportedly "stolen" election of 2000, despite endless recounts to the contrary, including the million-dollar investment by the Times and Miami Herald (no bastions of the "vast right-wing conspiracy").

At the time I pointed out that Bush's margin would have been wider, perhaps considerably wider, if the networks had not erroneously "called" Florida for Al Gore with a full hour of polling left in the 12 heavily Republican Panhandle counties.

Thursday's article, Panhandle, President drive Martinez's win, leads me to reiterate the point. I hope this will help provide the "healing" we hear so much about - if Democrats are not permanently self-traumatized or simply luxuriantly masochistic.

A vote against cell phone abuse

I find it amazing that some folks just can't put their cell phones down long enough to do something as important as choosing our elected officials. I am bothered by them at the movies, in restaurants and airplanes. And on Tuesday, of all places, while I was voting!

While trying to concentrate on my voting Tuesday, I was bothered by a number of ringing phones or people speaking in cell-phone talk, which is louder than normal. One individual actually took a call while at the voting machine, and none of the election personnel did anything about it.

Enough is enough, people. Please use some common sense and respect those around you. Jamming devices are out there, and I feel the law will change to allow them if we do not change our habits regarding cell phones.

[Last modified November 6, 2004, 00:56:27]