BS excuses

From the NY Times Op-Ed page, Sat. 11/6:

"Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily."

Although David Brooks uses these facts to construct a case about how the 3Mil-vote margin was made up of people who voted on security/terrorism, they show even more strongly that the evangelical vote story isn't what people are making it out to be. The Democrats did out-register the Republicans. It doesn't add up.

Another good point Brooks makes is this:

"Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying 'moral values.' But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result."

Maybe those moral values included not misleading the country into war. Or not putting corporate interests over those of ordinary people and the environment. Or not behaving like overblown cowboys in the international arena.