EVANSTON, Ill. Former presidential candidate Howard Dean wants the media to stuff its new conventional wisdom that "values" or "morals" drove the result of this month's election.

Speaking Thursday night to 500 Northwestern University students, many of them journalism majors, Dean noted there was little "statistical difference" between the percentage of voters who deemed moral values the top issue (22 %) and those who ranked as their top concern Iraq or the economy/jobs, according to exit poll data.

"How can you get to the conclusion morality was the most important issue in this campaign?" Dean asked. "It's beyond me, but that was what the media was riding. They're entitled to their opinion. It doesn't happen to be the opinion of thoughtful people who are looking."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1000718777

He has more integrity than the entire tv media corps put together.

yay for Dean! I'm glad he's getting on this.

I still contest that a significant portion of that 22% that ranked morals as their #1 issue were people who were voting solely against Bush. I haven't seen any data to the contrary yet.

TV media has become bobbleheads for rove.

Howard Dean is the man.

I like this:

Dean talked about his vision for the Democratic Party, saying, "We need to stand up for what we believe in ... so that the people who vote against their economic interests will now consider voting for Democrats."

Yes the media really got stuck with that "morals" crap. But what do you expect...it isn't about reporting news anymore it's about that latest spin-catch phrase.

Yes. That's it. That's the phrase for the next two years:
Republicans won because they got people to vote against their interests. Hammer it home. Dean definitely needs to be DNC chair. If for no other reason than to get in Joe Lieberman's face.

They don't have to be stuck. They just continually refuse to be journalists. The still won't ask tough questions. Part of the reason we are in Iraq in the first place. They won't hold Bush accountable. And now, with the election they go into a lock down on post election results. What are they there for? Whoever heard of journalists going into a lock down post election, especially with the myriad of voter descrepencies. It outrageous.

Hopefull Dean will continue running with the obvious, the truth.

The more I think about it, the more I like Howard Dean for DNC chairman. This is just the kind of crap the media puts out that has to be challenged. I was wondering the same thing. Why is the media focusing on the morals/values issue so much? We've got this MAJOR conflict going on in the Middle East and the media wants to talk about gays and abortion.

Howard also gets a lot of media attention, which is good.

Awesome! And so true.

he's right....the 4th estate has become the inadvertant pawn of the government and corporate interests.....those people were sold a bill of goods....
and they are even now wondering if their cause will be addressed...they are people whose concerns differ from ours...but they were used as surely as the sun sets in the west.....they were used to re-elect a mass produced product....

P.S Dean is a populist

I hope that you are correct on this one. However, when you look at the Congress, I shake in my boots! That is, if I wore boots, I'd shake in them!

Karo
why? because they have a majority? Should that stop us?.....
I understand your hesitation believe me.....but let's remember one thing.....and one is important......all it takes is one person to change the course of history...

They favricate stories like this so they can create other stories now qwe will see religion stories except there is a problem there are ,lots of other religions out there
and it can be unfair. Wiccan is the second fastest growing relion in the world next to islam.

Because they have a majority and the majority seem to be right-wing nuts.

Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts are my Senators. You ought to be worried. I hope we can change the course these people are taking. If these people are successful, we won't recognize this country in four more years. Just think. Asia owns 46% of our debt. Kuwait "owns" an island off our SC coast. This won't be our country by the time these people get through if they are successful with their agenda.

Remember, after 911 when bin Laden said his intent was to get the US involved in more than one conflict? He succeeded. He continues to say his intent is to bankrupt America. Look at our debt. They are going to raise the debt ceiling. Our debt is close to what our GDP is for one year. The hole continues to get deeper and deeper and all you hear coming out of Washington is, "Oh, my." The Congress just passed their corporate giveaway of another $136 billion we don't have and soon the Prez is going to request another approx $75 billion and there is no end in sight. Perhaps bin Laden has already succeeded and we're all too dumb to realize it.

I guess then the question is If they are successful.....you know sometimes we scare ourselves into believing what they say.....I think they have learned a lot from terrorism

Perhaps you are right. The next question might be, "Who are the terrorists?"

You are correct that debt is a problem. But remember that the total assets of the US is $45 trillion. The real problem is the large and growing trade deficit. It is a problem because we are loosing jobs and our manufacturing base. Remember China's labor force does not pay Social Security Taxes. That leads to more debt for the US government. It is a problem which will only grow larger as the years go on under the current policies.

Pew Research reveals "values voter" a function of polling question format:


Excerpt:

This presidential election has been described by many as one in which morality mattered most to voters. But that perception might be driven at least partially by how pollsters asked voters about their priority issues.

Whether voters named "moral values" their key issue partly depended on whether that subject was included in a list of choices provided by pollsters, according to a Pew Research Center analysis released yesterday.

When "moral values" was included in poll questions, it was named more often than any other issue. But when voters were just asked to name the issue most important in their vote for president - without being given a list of answers - moral values trailed the war in Iraq and the economy, according to the Pew survey.

"The advantage of the open-ended question is it tells you what's at the top of mind for voters - what they're thinking," said Cliff Zukin, a veteran pollster and professor of public policy at Rutgers University. "Much too much has been made of the moral values answer."

Many Christian conservatives have sought to portray the election as validation for their emphasis on morality and the reason for President Bush's re-election. While it's true voters who picked Bush were more apt to cite morality as the reason, political analyst Thomas Mann said it's too simplistic to say that issue determined the winner.

"It's a big mistake to say it's all a function of religious conservatives being motivated," said Mann, of the Brookings Institution. But, he added, "To say it wasn't a factor is just as foolish."

More at: Morality's weight in vote depends on how you ask

indeed!

And this is what tv media is running with, knowing this. It's a travesty.

What morals? What values? The people who were voting Bush because of morals and values were voting for bigotry and superstition and the candidate who had more people in Texas executed than ever before.

Before they vote morals and values they ought to learn what morals and values are.

" TV media has become bobbleheads for Rove" I think I will steal this!

Abygail, this is an important distinction.....it would help us to understand how, as many of us ask, this issue would be placed above all others....it just seems inconceivable....and maybe it is

Be my guest, steal it

I think Newt Gingrich has had a struggle with morals and values. Dick Morris has also. Didn't Larry Flynt expose the hypocricy of key Republican figures quite a few years ago. I would put money on Larry having much more integrity than Bush and his cohorts combined.

So is dean going to run the dnc now or what? I can't wait forever for this party to change and they had better change. I am sick of the "we are not for gay marriage but we are not against it" Change this party, i am sick of all of this republican s*it. If they get five more senate seats in 2006, they will be able to do whatever they want. Fix the party or Canada here we came.

112,001! You forgot about Margie Schoedinger.

I emailed the DNC
Subject Line: Dean for DNC Chair

let's just remember....the repubs took years to make their party effective.....
we can't do this overnight....I took the opportunity to write to the DNC and tell them what I felt we needed to do.....let's look at it this way...if they are so sure of their strategy would they be asking us for input?....

Dr Dean is certainly not afraid to speak his mind!

The dems haven't really been ahead sine 1968. I think that an over haul is long, long over due.

DWB04 -- agreed.

Like the "security moms," the "values voter" is a group the Repubs are basically making up to support the narrative about how dominant they are, how much better on "values" and "security" they are than Dems.

Once that idea becomes "common sense" to America -- the way Dems are blamed now for the immorality/excessiveness of Hollywood (how in the world did we get tagged with this stereotype?) -- it will be close to impossible to override it.

That means the Repubs will have to implode before they lose again. And that means more horror for the country than we should have to suffer. Unless Kerry can really bring the fight to them with the resources he's amassed from this campaign.

I'll be calling my Senators on Monday to tell them I expect them to FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE A.G. nomination by Bush.

I want to see the Dems kicking and screaming every step of the 'fn way from now on.

I emailed Dean! a couple of days ago..

I told him "I heard you were interested in becoming head of the DNC. Ok - you're hired, get busy, we need leadership NOW"

The pretend "moral values" revolution of election 2004 as reported by the media relies primarily on one overriding force---BushCo and buddies who are blanketing the media pundits with such pablum. An incumbent president has great power in pushing his message across the airwaves, and Rove and his thugs are masters of the art.

Aside from the phony claim of moral values having driven this election, it is vital that Dems keep the following well in mind: the reich-wingers win elections, including this very latest, by rallying around one core principle---bringing together a coalition of four minority groups. The first two, evangelicals and NRA/gun jocks, are well-organized, well-funded, single-issue voters. The remaining two groups, made up on one end of the privileged and on the other, the economically disadvantaged, are lured into the GOP net on the basis of self-interest; that is, tax-cuts for corporations, the wealthy and the greedy, and a play to the baser instincts of the rural lower-income (the 'Joe six-pack mentality' that feeds on blame, isolationism, a deep mistrust of the 'outside' world, and a poor understanding of international political realities (fueled by the fodder of misinformation from certain right-wing media.)

These first two groups will actually vote against their own best interests and those of the country, to support their pet issue. The remaining two groups, the wealthy Bushies and the right-leaning among the lower class, goaded on by the GOP, will vote against issues they feel important to the welfare of the nation in order to satisfy their perceived personal needs and inflated self-interest.

Lose support in any of those groups, or any combination, and Repugs cannot win. Obviously, the challenge for Dems is to look carefully at the perceptions of those groups, their strengths and weaknesses, discover the areas of greatest potential compatibility, and move aggressively to court members of those targeted.

At the same time, Dems have to learn down to the last detail the step by step approach used by Repugs to organize their base, energize it, and get every age group out in mass. We should never allow the Repugs to win elections because their tactics of voter suppression are effective.

As importantly, we have to realize that while diversity of opinion should be our strength, if not handled correctly, it becomes a heavy burden. We must use it to our fullest advantage. That means focus, focus, focus on CORE issues is the method; repeat, repeat, repeat is the mantra. Redirect our energies to issues of concern to the larger majority in ALL groups; fiscal restraint, healthcare, jobs, national security, education---the bread and butter issue of Dems. On hot-button issues where passions run high and rigid positions cannot be dislodged during the short duration of any political campaign, Dems should soft-pedal any such discussion and remain firmly fixed on core issues. This in no way suggests backpedaling on social concerns important to Dems. As we win elections at every level, all the diverse groups within our party will be carried up by the rising tide of social justice and equality that Dems rightly support.

I really like the tone in this paragraph. The "thoughtful people who are looking" line is great and he seems to be implying, not so subtly, that the media are NOT thoughtful. NO! REALLY?!

"

Good point.


One of the problems, though, is that the expression "moral values" is so vague.

On the one hand, there were a minority of people who voted for Bush primarily based on "moral values"= abortion, God, guns, gays-- the whole gamut of the Republican "Culture War" issues.

On the other hand, many people voted for Bush because they thought he was a "strong, moral Leader", a man of *character* and integrity and strong core beliefs -- in the broader, Reaganesque sense-- of someone fighting for freedom and democracy and not wavering in the War on Terror. This is the rightwing's beloved "moral *clarity* of Ronald Reagan-- his clear, black and white, "good vs evil" moral framework. For Reagan it was "the Evil Empire"..... Bush's speechwriters emulated that with the "axis of evil" and the constant use of phrases such as "the evil One" and "the evil-doers".

You see that in many of the Bush voters who explained their choice to the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3981669.stm

Examples:









--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-et...a-home-politics
CULTURE
It's a deeper shade of red
In Indiana, a state as reliably Republican as can be, Bush backers take exception to the Bible-thumping clichés.
By Robin Abcarian

November 10, 2004

INDIANAPOLIS — The day after President Bush swept to a second term with what he called "the will of the people at my back," many Democrats gnashed their teeth and e-mailed each other maps describing much of the United States as "Jesusland." Many Republicans, by contrast, felt deeply satisfied and relieved and maybe even wondered what the apocalyptic fuss was all about.

Here in Indiana, a state so reliably Republican that the outcome of the presidential campaign was never for a moment in doubt, Hoosiers were spared the rancor and passion that characterized the race in the battleground states. Indeed, Indiana seemed a good place to ask Republican voters why the nation's Democrats, many of whom are deeply depressed, should not consider moving to Canada.


"Pockets of hatred across the United States! Widespread panic if the president gets reelected!" Kim Preston, a 28-year-old staffer in the state Republican Party is expounding on some of what she considers the more ludicrous predictions about the election. Preston is sitting at a conference table in the airy, loft-like party headquarters.

It could pass for one of your hipper ad agencies. But Preston loves the political life. She says she and her husband, a lawyer who clerks for a federal judge, are "very much public servants."

Preston grew up on a corn and soybean farm in a Democratic household near Fort Wayne, and does not consider herself a member of the religious right. She is pro-choice in some situations. She is not especially worked up about gay marriage.

"I struggle with both those issues," she says.


Preston became a Republican after college, she says, because she is a fiscal conservative and "it just made sense to me."

She supported the president for simple reasons: "I trust him. I admire his integrity. And I very much admire someone who does what he believes in, even if it's not popular politically."

This is, basically, what one hears over and over in the suburbs of this city. They trust the guy, know where he stands. They like his values. And by "values," they do not mean his views on gay marriage and abortion. They cite the president's stance on terrorism and Iraq, his passion for lower taxes.


Stereotypes about the unthinking, fear-motivated, ultra-Christian red state voter do not seem to apply around here. Republicans carefully choose their words to explain why they voted for Bush, what they didn't like about John Kerry and what this election means to them.

"There's been a lot in the press about morality — exit polls suggesting that 20% of the voters are voting on 'morality,' " says Carolyn Anker, a 37-year-old executive at Eli Lilly, who has hosted Republican fundraisers.

"I think it's a misnomer to equate morality to gay marriage…. A lot of it comes down to character."

Anker is sitting in the antiques-filled living room of her spacious brick home in Carmel, an upscale suburb in Hamilton County north of Indianapolis.

Although Marion County, where Indianapolis is located, reliably votes Democratic and gave Kerry 50.5% of its vote, the seven surrounding counties, Hamilton among them, are overwhelmingly Republican and voted for Bush in numbers ranging from 71% to 75%.

When asked if she has any Democrat friends, Anker laughs and says, "That is terribly over-simplistic and almost bordering on insulting. I would be concerned if your audience were to think that people in Indiana are terrifically closed-minded or couldn't possibly understand a more liberal perspective because they don't know anyone with a liberal perspective."

Her neighborhood may be red, but her social circle is purple.

Anker disagrees with the widespread idea that the country is polarized and thinks the high turnout on Nov. 2 is proof to the contrary. "I think it's not polarized because so many people took part in the process."

And as to the oft-expressed worries on the left that evangelical Christians will expert some kind of political stranglehold over the second Bush administration, Anker, who was raised Roman Catholic and attends a Methodist church, says: "I think it's too simplistic of a criticism of any administration to say, well, that person is owned by 'fill in the blank.' And the flavor of the month is evangelical Christians. Some years ago, it was union workers. It can be anything."

On a recent afternoon in Hancock County, east of Indianapolis, Johnathon Willey is sitting in an Applebee's restaurant, reflecting on a very successful election. A 34-year-old lobbyist for the giant health insurer Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Willey is the Republican chairman for his county.

"People believe in this president," says Willey, who lives with his wife, an attorney, and two bipartisan golden Labs — Chelsea (Clinton) and Eisenhower — in a 105-year-old farmhouse near his wife's family farm in Greenfield.

"People are fanatical about this president. Not from a religious standpoint. Obviously, we've heard a lot about how this 'moral religious Christian values' was really the deciding factor. And while yes, it did have something to do with it, I think it [Bush's victory] speaks more to the fact that we had a really good get-out-the-vote program and a really good message."

Here, as in other Republican counties of the state, there's no getting away from one simple perception: The president seems like a normal guy, and by inference, his rival did not.

"People feel comfortable and trust this president," Willey says.

"They identify with the fact that he is more comfortable in jeans and cowboy boots than a suit. We all saw a side of him post-Sept. 11, that warmth and compassion, and trustworthiness and steadfastness."


Willey and others interviewed last weekend don't think it's important to agree with the president on every issue.

"People just realize they have faith and trust in this president to make the right decisions," Willey says.

Late Saturday morning in Danville, Jennifer Thuma is sitting in the Mayberry Café, where "The Andy Griffith Show" plays on a continuous loop on wall-mounted TVs. A facsimile of fictional Mayberry's 1962 Ford Galaxy squad car is parked in front.

Thuma, 34, the director of legislative affairs for Indiana's attorney general, describes Danville, which is in Hendricks County, as "a typical, small Midwestern town: pretty traditional values, overwhelmingly Republican."

But not too far away, she adds, in Plainfield, there's the Islamic Society for North America. "It's a huge mosque. We have diversity you wouldn't guess at."

Thuma, a former prosecutor who says she is pro-choice but against gay marriage, has a passion for the Middle East. A decade ago, she spent a year studying in Cairo, and she has traveled widely through the Middle East, including a two-week bus trip through Syria. "I love the people," she says.

She also has dear friends in Los Angeles, liberal Democrats, entertainment lawyers, with whom she often has spirited political discussions.

"My friends in L.A. feel so passionately against the president, and I feel so much the opposite," she says. "I think they probably will never believe this, but I truly do believe the president is a good person."

A couple of counties away, Bill Barrett, 42, is sitting in the conference room of the legal firm where he is a partner, sipping a cup of last night's Starbucks. The office is in Greenwood, which is in Johnson County. A former state court magistrate, Barrett specializes in commercial and probate litigation.

He believes Bush is the most idealistic president since Woodrow Wilson. "Many Democrats would sneer with derision," he says, "but if you listened to the president's press conference Thursday, he repeated what he has said for a long time, which is that the people of the Middle East, just like the people in the former Soviet bloc, just like the people in the United States, yearn for freedom and liberty and that given the opportunity and the right conditions, they will learn to live in freedom and liberty."

Barrett, who will not disclose his stance on abortion and opposes gay marriage, was raised a Methodist, but is not, as he puts it, an "active churchgoer." He does not worry about an Oval Office takeover by the radical Christian right, yet he does fret about what he calls the "aggressively secular" attitude he sees on the left. He recently saw essayist Fran Lebowitz on "The Charlie Rose Show" and was distressed to hear her say she doesn't want a man of faith as her president.

"There's one thing I profoundly believe in, and that's American exceptionalism," Barrett says. "This country is different. This country is a refuge for the 'teeming tempest tossed.' That's the gift of this country. And whether you believe that gift flows from the Judeo-Christian god, or the enlightened ideals of the Founders, or whether you believe it's blind luck, we're different. And people who are scared of George Bush don't believe that."

He thinks Democrats who grimly joke about leaving the country are overreacting: "The Republic has survived for 216 years since its first election in 1788," Barrett says, "and the politics of the moment have changed direction and gone up and down ever since.

"Think of the strife between the Federalists and the Jeffersonians…. Think to the time of 1860 when Lincoln was first elected…. Everyone knew if Lincoln was elected, the South would secede. Southerners could not tolerate him. Well, what's next? The Civil War. Terrible time. Country survived it.

"Nothing like those times exists today," he continues. "You and I are sitting comfortably in a heated, well-lit office, having bottled water and fancy coffee.

"If you take the long view," he says, "belief in this country should provide some sense of assurance."

Good point!!



I have my doubts about both their willingess and their capacity to change. Sure, when it comes to more superficial campaign tactics and strategy-- suggestions are probably welcome. But do you think they are open to completely rethinking the Democratic Party?

And call me cynical, but I believe they realize they have to APPEAR responsive to a very, unhappy base while they figure out how to hang onto power.

Arianna Huffington's words ring true to me:

Great minds think alike. :D

On September 4 at the Kerry Forum, I said:



And on August 18, I wrote in response to neoPortia:

The people quoted in this article sound like rational, intelligent people. I find it odd that so many of us on this side thought Bush was this outrageous liar and yet these people saw him as a man of high integrity. This is weird. What does it mean?

You know makes me hot under the collar about this "Moral Values" nonsense? Its just another slick public relations phrase. Too many Americans accept this language without questioning what it means. "Moral Values" often means sexual behaviors disapproved of by religious conservatives who want to enshrine their taboos in legislation.

I understand the cynicism.....but I, at least, feel that I have to do my part in effecting that change.....That is my personal responsibility..."they" have their own.
And it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to conclude that people may leave the party if they don't.

The problem is that Democrats pander to the educated American, smart enough to understand the basics of economics and other issues. Republicans did pick the winning issues in this election, no doubt. The issues they raised were easy to understand, nuance-free and sound-bite friendly, lip-service issues so simple even a monkey could vote yes or no on. Problem is.... only good those coming out from those issues (e.g., gay marriage, abortion) probably only extend as far as the average monkey in a zoo.

But I think the article is suggesting that "moral values" does not necessarily just mean religious or abortion or gay rights issues. The people in this article, who seem quite educated, liked Bush because they saw him as sticking to a position even though it was unpopular, being a strong leader and having integrity. They are saying he is principled.

The difference in perspective between these people and people like us who saw Bush as a liar and dangerous for the country is quite profound.

Bush rides the horse all the way over the cliff because he wont change directions!

I know if they had asked me, I would have suggested Bush's immorality was my primary reason for voting for Kerry. Since I devoted myself to wanting Bush out of office the day Katherine Harris put him in. I developed more reasons after that, and I sincerely like John Kerry, but that would have been my numero uno.

I don't think anyone likes Bushie!

I agree with Dean. I hope they pick him to be the DNC chair.

I agree.