They voted for moral values, they say.  I don't know what this means, because of my personal understanding of what is moral, because of my own values acquired from a lifetime of being Catholic, in contrast to what I see happening.  There something incredibly dissonant about their rationale for support.  I just don't get it...

There is nothing moral about undermining our military experts and subverting their efforts to protect our country and our troops by doing things on the cheap and just plain doing STUPID things. Abu Ghraib: STUPID, a perfect example of how not to run a war, now an example to every other potential enemy that they too, can ignore the Geneva Conventions. Abu Ghraib was a permission slip to every other country to vacate the idea of human rights. Al Qaqaa: STUPID, a perfect 380-ton example of protecting the oil and NOT protecting the *known* WMD, not to mention the 22-lbs. of missing uranium that walked from unguarded Tuwaitha. The entire invasion and subsequent occupation: STUPID, as in ill-prepared and ill-prosecuted. How well do you think troops function in 130+F degree heat when they are given only three bottles of water a day to drink? How is it moral that our troops still don't have adequate body or vehicle armor?  How is stupidity moral?  How is endorsing stupidity moral in itself?

And how is it moral that this president talks about our war dead but fails to do anything to either prevent their deaths or to actually mourn with their families and loved ones?

There is nothing moral about the blind, obstinate march to war in Iraq when the intelligence on WMD was indifferent.  In the mean time, six to eight nuclear weapons that have been built in North Korea since we f*cked up and pulled out under Richard Perle's plan of active disengagement. Why are we spending billions of dollars on a sand pit of death instead of constructive engagement with the countries that actually do have nuclear weapons, like Iran or North Korea?  How is terminating engagement that worked a moral value?

There is nothing moral about smashing up a city of 200,000 occupants (not once but twice), killing and maiming anything that might be mistaken for an insurgent, after upending their economy and infrastructure, then leaving known WMD unprotected for insurgents to acquire.  What is an insurgent after all, but another man's freedom fighter?  How is it moral to fail to see this?

There is nothing moral about the promotion of corporate welfare at the expense of citizens.  Corporations are NOT humans; they cannot vote.  They are not recognized in the Constitution.  Citizens are, and it's citizens that receive short shrift each time laws like Healthy Forests and Clear Skies and their ilk are passed for the benefit of corporations.  Conservation is a conservative value, is it not?  When did it cease to be so?

There is nothing moral about claiming to promote equality of children's education and failing to fund it at the expense of the states.  It really frosts my chaps that Michigan was forced to layoff 700+ teachers due to necessary spending cuts -- and yet the f*cking Bush administration pushes through their unfunded No Child Left Behind program that further reduces the number of teachers available to the class room (many, if not most school systems here have had to reallocate teachers and dedicate them to handling the flipping paperwork required by federal law under NCLB, meaning fewer teachers).

There is nothing moral about trashing our future.  Every child in this country should have access to basic medical care and a good education if we are to build a strong American future -- but failing to fund either is a denigration of their rights to that future and fails as a model to the rest of the world. We are far behind too many other countries on education and on infant mortality, children's health, literacy and child poverty; imagine what a dent in these issues we could have made with the money we spent on Iraq. Imagine how strong this country could have been and now will not be in 18 years because of this shortsightedness.  It is immoral that we squander our future for nebulous short-term gain.

There is nothing moral about this president's understanding of democracy. Everything this administration has done to date is how NOT to run a democracy and the world knows it. Ronald Reagan is surely spinning in his grave. Even Nixon could take lessons from this administration on being an arrogant dick; he at least had respect for dialogue and engagement in regards to influencing the spread of democracy. "Only Nixon could go to China" is a figure of speech, for f*ck's sake; the point is that Nixon engaged his greatest diplomatic challenges.  Nixon and Reagan as well as Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton all recognized the public's right to free speech outlined in the Constitution; they upheld this democratic moral value.  This presidency doesn't; it actively seeks to quash dissent.

What moral values did conservative voters seek to support?

Greed?  Sanctimonious self-serving false piety?  Naked ambition?  Self-centered self-interest?

Did I miss something?

7:09:17 AM    comment []