>>Charles Krauthammer has a brilliant analysis at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44082-2004Nov11.html
>
>Am I right that the conclusion is the "moral values" line is a myth?
>

Yes, it's the liberal's way of minimizing, which you should have taken from the article.

>So John Harvey heralds the opinion that religious undertones did not decide the election.
>
>Yet John Harvey also posted to my website his opinion that he's unable to accept gay rights. In fact, of the liberal positions he lists as untenable, gay rights is the first, and affirmative action is the only other he lists by name.
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Techmocracy/browse_frm/thread/60cc2589896d0c2d
>
>Somehow I get the impression that John Harvey is little more than a tool of the establishment.
>
>Ignore him.

Ah, Mike, you are a "good" liberal. You can espouse the talking points with ease. Try a little original thought sometimes. My points about the liberals positions on the "moral" issues are only a part of the reason I voted for Bush and against Kerry. It's more complex than just morals. However, for me, the morals issue was one of the top reasons. Having a president who falls on my side and who is CONSISTENT, was also way up there. I don't know that I could even rank them, they are so close to each other.

How can you ignore me? You are supposed to pity me. I am a stupid, redneck, truck driving, conservative, from the south!<g>