I have an observation and I am wondering if others agree and how they feel about it.

It seems to me that increasingly since the Reagan era, people have been voting their culture and not the issues.  It also seems to me that people are voting what they think is good for them and not what they think is good for the country.

This does not seem like a country first attitude at all.  I wonder what the rest of you think.

What do you mean voting their culture since the Reagan era? What is voting your culture?

If you mean some people vote Democrat because they think there will be way more free goodies for them, I wholeheartedly agree. If you're suggesting that a portion of the populace feel it is easier to vote Democrat than to work hard for what they want, I agree. If you think people who are unsuccesful in life like to blame others for their problems, whether it is gov't, Republicans, Jews, African-Americans, or even Democrats, I agree.

But, I don't think that's what you mean.

No it's not.  What I mean is that it seems to me that people feel it's appropriate to vote for those who are most like them.

I don't believe that's wise.  For example, while Bush Jr. was running, it was commonly stated that he was the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with.  Why is it that folks wanted a president with whom they might go drinking (or in his case, get high)?

My impression of the RNC chanting was the typical pandering of patriotism vs. anti-patriotism.  For reasons not logical to me, Republicans how have a tendency to label everyone and everything that disagrees with them as un-American.  Sadly, because most of the country votes on impulse- using perceived experience, age, appearance and now…culture as a basis to judge a candidate’s ability to govern our country- this strategy is very successful.

USA- translation- If you’re not with us, you’re against us

USA-translation- If you disagree you’re un-American

USA- translation- This is a war of “our” America vs. “their” America

USA- translation- We don’t know how our candidates plan to “reform” our government but by-god we are voting because they look like us

USA- translation- If you question ANYTHING we say, you’ll be attacked by the pit-bull

USA- translation- If you don’t vote Republican you don’t support Vets

USA- translation- If you don’t vote Republican you don’t honor Vietnam Vets

USA- translation- If you don’t vote Republican you’re too left

USA-translation- We’re scared of change, it’s easier to go with a known problem than something new

USA- translation- if I keep saying “straight talk” you might actually think I know what the hell I am talking about

USA- translation- if I say case dismissed enough, it gives me creditability

USA- translation- if I chant enough you might totally forget what the issues actually are

USA-translation- If you disagree, you’re not a “good” Anglo-Saxon Christian…because that is the only kind of “good” people there are

It is really tragic to me; it’s more about the pep-rally then about having a winning team.

XO
Melanie

You must really hate Anglo-Saxon Christians huh?  Lump them all into one clean, tidy group.  Very tolerant of you.

But I can't stand alias use.

Put the weight of your real handle behind your comments.  That's the American thing to do, lol!!

Melanie

but I wouldn't vote for Obama at gunpoint. Nor would I vote for Pelosi, Reid or any of the other members of the DNC leadership.

My observation was that the crowds at the RNC were extremely homogenous.  We know historically what groups come out to vote and I believe McCain’s (very wise) selection in Palin was to make the choice very clear.  It isn’t about issues- it’s about culture.  Are you like us or like them?  That is the reason Bush won (along with fear mongering).  The ultra conservatives were threatening not to come out and vote at all, that is why Palin was a good choice- to mobilize that extreme group to come out and support the ticket.

The true tragedy, for me, is that McCain isn’t the person he once was.  I really loved him in 2000, and if that same person was running today- he’d have my vote, no question (if he didn’t pick Palin, but there’s no way the former McCain would make such a desperate move).  The problem is, to gain his party’s support he had to become the candidate they wanted him to be.  The old “Maverick” is no more; he now amounts to little more than a good figure-head being used woo those swayed by impulse vs. issues.

I was in no way implying that I believe that Anglo-Saxon Christians are not good people (I grew up in the Midwest, so that goes without saying).  What I am saying is that Christianity is a religion of exclusion…either you believe, or you’re going to hell.  That sounds a lot like if “you’re not for us, you’re against us”.  This choice is to appeal to that fundamental belief, no more, no less.  This happens to dovetail into existing Republican strategy, that’s pretty convenient.

That is my opinion and my oberservation after growing up in a Christian High school and in the Midwest.

XO
Melanie

You already played this card in the thread below. Find something new.

considering the fact I just posted that I am not part of the demographic group you just opined about, but what the heck.

People that attend conventions are almost exclusively partisans, IMO all partisans represent the worst of what their party has to offer. In the case of the Republicans it is the religious right, they represent the intolerant religious wackos that you are referring to.

What I think you fail to realize is that the Democrats far from being the party of tolerance is even more rigid and intolerant than the Republicans. You just don't see this because you identify with the left and probably feel as many lefties do that people like Pelosi and Reid are moderates and the anyone to the right of them are far right wingers.

As far as my feelings about Christianity itself, my views are quite well known around here and are not unlike your own.

I don't completely disagree with inre to McCain 2000 vs McCain 2008 but I would like to have you ponder this for a moment. Do you think the "Maverick" McCain of the year 2000 would have the slightest chances of winning the election? He is a victim of the same two party system as the rest of us, but I still think he is heads and shoulders above his competition.