Sheesh John, are you really taking that position? I can’t believe that you think this election reflects some sort of moral victory or defeat….

I don’t think I’ve said that such moral views or differences (whatever they are, and if they exist) are wrong, nor has Christina. Should the sea of red cause us so much wonder? Perhaps not. The appropriate sentiment is disappointment, and the realization that it is possible to overestimate the intelligence of others.

But you have no proof at all or support for a statement like that! This is what drives me crazy about your comments thus far. You’re pretending that Bush represented some kind of superior moral compass, but there’s no real support for that position.

As for Bush supporters being informed and thoughtful voters, I’m sure some of them must be. But don’t begrudge me a blanket generalization of calling people stupid when I am upset over a democratic loss, unless you too desire to be lumped into that category. Asking what the Dems will do to regain “relevancy” shows that you just lack the most basic quality of a good debater: a sense of decorum.

As a libertarian, the principle that drives my sense of right and wrong is: I’m not allowed to coerce someone else into doing what I believe is right. That is a dramatically different viewpoint from those who believe that if something is morally repugnant that it must necessarily be legally banned or be made a punishable offense.

I have no clue as to how one begins to bridge that gap in viewpoints, particularly when, as a “Mormon” having an understanding of the importance that was supposedly place on free agency during the pre-mortal existence, I come in conflict with other members of the Church who find it entirely acceptable to support a President and a foreign policy that results in the killing of over 100,000 citizens of a foreign nation who have not been involved in any offensive moves against us.

I don’t know that such disparate viewpoints can possibly be resolved.

No I am not. I am saying that some principle(s) must have been driving the sea of red (you must admit that it is daunting) to support Bush other than a lack of intelligence. These people know that WMD haven’t been found and that the casualties are mounting in Iraq and yet they still supported Bush. Bigotry and stupidity don’t cut it for an answer. It is widely recognized that those who supported Bush did so for reasons of moral values. Superiority or inferiority is wholly beside the point that I am trying to make: I am observing the naked fact that moral values animated people to vote for Bush to a greater extent than the war or the deficit.

As to qualities of debaters and sense of decorum: (1) I never claimed to be a good debater or a debater of any kind; (2) questioning the intelligence of people just because they support someone whose views you don’t agree with similarly betrays a lack of decorum, in my view.

I am not begrudging you any bitterness that Kerry lost the election. But be honest: this election reveals that the dems are at a moment of crisis because, as David noted, they are currently not speaking the same language as the majority–or even the mainstream–of Americans. That is why talk of moral values in relevant in this discussion, not because I am making a claim (for purposes of this discussion) that either side is morally superior. My point is more pragmatic than that.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

John Fowles–Steve has provided a link above to the definition of troll (or are you joking?).

The Democrats will be back and rarin’ to go four years. Michael Moore will make another 100 million dollars preaching to the choir. Someone (maybe Hillary) will be the candidate and it’s going to get crazy all over again.

But you’re right on on at least one point. Moral issues like abortion and gay marriage seem to be more important than everything else in determining government.