All this "value voter" silliness is just that.  Everybody knows what is meant when these pundits use that verbage - it identifies those voters, particularly evangelicals and those in the rightwing, who vote primarly based on social and cultural issues.  It's part of the vernacular.  Much like "swiftboating" has now become in politics.

Time to let it go.......... 

I couldn't agree more.

It should be documented.  I'm not all hot and bothered by it... but, these jackasses who have the audacity to label people 'valueless' should be identified.  It's absurd.

Besides, who are you chiding here... MMFA for posting this or the idiots who use this lame terminology?

The terminology is widely used and understood, so any deal made about it is overblown and unnecessary.....MMFA needs to stop being so defensive about it, it's nothing.

Where's the 'big deal'? You're getting all ornery about it... They just posted the piece. Sorry it offends you.  Personally, I think MMFA's 'duty' is to post the info... there is no statute of limitations... after 5 or 10 shots, it's over - 'get over it!'.  Come on. 

Mind you, this 'values' BS will be used more and more as the elections near... it's not going away.  In fact, what worries me is... the attitude of 'oh we all know what they really mean!'  Oh really? Do we? I'm not so sure. If so, I certainly don't want to be in that unquestioning 'values' group.

It is something.  It's blatant and deliberate arrogance.

It's biased.  This site documents right wing bias.  That's what the site did.

Where is anyone being labled "valueless?"

No where. People use the term "values voters" to refer to a specific group of people. Everyone knows what it means and who they are talking about.

It's still bullsh*t... It's a lame monicker.  Frankly, insulting.  This wink-wink nonsense about "Oh we all know what it means... let it go"... That's no excuse.

You think it's inconsequential? Fine.  In the grand scheme... yes it is. But, it's still - in my mind - a form of propaganda that should be identified. "Values". Please. It's nonsense.

We disagree. I'm not a "values voter" and I'm not insulted. Why am I not insulted? Because the term isn't referring to me!

 I don't buy the line that it's implying something bad about non "values voters."

It's just a stupid phrase. There is no deeper meaning to it than that.

I do disagree with you.  There's a subtle misinformation - an understanding, as you say - that cannot be ignored.  I believe that.  Paranoid? Maybe... I'm not going to jump off a bridge over it. But, it should still be identified. Along with everything else. That's all.

Read the George Will piece referenced above. He characterizes this issue very well... and more eloquently than I can.

It was born and is used out of pure arrogance.

No one is questioning who they mean when they're using it.  What they're questioning is the right wing's self-imposed monopoly on the word, and the vernacular in general. 

They get to determine which side of the political spectrum has values.

They get to rename the Democratic Party.

Do we just roll over let them dictate the vernacular for us?  BULL****.  I say, push back.

So push back, create your own "word" to identify with certain voters.  This is what it is.  The Democrats can whine about it all they want to, "I have values TOO!!", but it's not about values in that context - of course everybody knows that values are not ideological in nature, it's simply a benign descriptor. 

I say go with "integrity voters" for the Democrats then? 

Hmm! I like that... In fact, I would LOVE to see the outpouring of right-wing anger if that term were to be used...the indignance.  FOX would go nuts. It'd be the 'war on christmas' all over again. Oh wait... that's still coming too.

I think there's a reason the left wing hasn't bothered to come up with a moniker for their voting base:  they lack the arrogance to do so. 

Consider another verbage that is part of our vernacular - "elitist liberals"

No arrogance there. 

No, no... that would be something the Republicans would call Dems...oh, I'm confused ;-)

Your comment would only make sense if that were a term that liberals have adopted.  It isn't.  It's impossible for it to indicate arrogance when it's a term imposed on liberals from the outside.

Holy sh*t! Tommy, I think you're setting some new personal best here.

The media has decided that one political party is for those with values. Tommy's response? "Get over it! it's just a stupid term, and MMFA should quit whining". The media is fine, it's those damn noticers.

Then,Tommy offers a fair-and-balanced counterpart to "values voters".The right wing medias demonization of the word "elite" as applied to liberals.

You may want to consider Cannonballs advice, Time Traveller.I also suspect you've been sharing your needles with Jeter and Sueeld lately.

(sorry, Jeter, you have been a little wingnutty lately, but I'll write some of it off to the looming election, another Yankees postseason flameout, and Joe Torre's move to L.A.)

NOTE: ;0)

Let's see, in the first post we're told "Time to let it go.......... " and now Tommy urges "So push back". 

This site is all about pushing back.  This article is a push back against this particular bit of bias being perpetrated not just by those who think THEY are the sole values voters but those reporting on politics.  The latter shouldn't be promoting that sort of bias, and this site is justified in pointing out that bias.

Consider this item pushed. 

Of course you're right.  It's like dealing with an insolent child...say 'no' firmly and move on. When they do it again - which every bad child does - you repeat. There's no end to this...but, one has to decry this nonsense. Set the boundries.

Exactly, Pete.  The subtext is "moral" or "traditional" values.  The implication is that the rest of us are lacking in morals and decency.  The appropriation of the label should be fought, because the Right has used such misleading labeling, with appalling success, for decades.

The irony is that the "values" are supposed to be Judeo-Christian.  If you look at the scriptures, however, you will find that that references to sexuality and reproduction are vastly outnumbered, in both old and new testaments, by exhortations to treat one's brother, and especially the poor, well.  Those values are conveniently ignored by "values" voters.

That it is "widely used and understood" is irrelevent.  It's wrong.  It's misleading.  It's proaganda.  AND IT NEEDS TO STOP.

Democratic voters have values.  Truth be told we care a lot more about families and our fellow man than the Republicans ven pretend too.

 The current Republican party does nothing more than use religion to get southern whites to vote against their economic interests.  If they didn't hijack christianity (or allow christianty to hijakc the party, not sure which was that wnet exactly) then they wouldn't even exsist anymore.

But the dem's passed civil rights legislation and the pub's somehow convinced a bunch of ignorant hillbillies that Jesus in on their side.  And thus you can sum up republican success over the last forty years with six words: SOUTHERN WHITE MEN STARTED VOTING REPUBLICAN.

And you wonder why this country's going to hell?  Because it's leaders have NO VALUES.  Just hypocrasy.

This absolutely belongs here, becasue as we have seen demonstrated time and time again by this rightwing propaganda machine, is that the more they repeat a fallacy and a lie, the more credibility that lie gets. These groups are  black and white groups - that is we all see something is black, we know it's black yet they continue to profess and state that it is white until lo and behold, it's white.

The funny thing here is these 'values voters" actually have no values - that's the rub. These so-called christian, evangelicals' values consist of homophobia and gay bashing, xenophobia and immigrant or muslim bashing, intolerance, bigotry and ignorance. These are their "values" and we know it, but they're busy trying to convince others what is black is white and trying to recruit like-minded bigots and phonies.

What ever happened to the old name for this voting block, the "Religious Right"?  That was a good descriptor which allowed for the existence of a "Religious Left" or "Religious Independent" block as well.  But then it mysteriously transformed into "Values Voters." 

But we needn't trouble ourselves at all with the idea that this change in terminology has a greater meaning, that it might have been coined specifically to create an idea that those not included in the block were valueless.  After all, it's not like the Right ever employed any renowned experts on the use of language to create and effect political beliefs or used extensive polling, focus groups and surveys to come up with ways to frame political issues.  This sort of thing just happens completely by accident and we should all just let it go on without comment.

I especially liked this line: "So they're both trolling in the same areas."

I think that about sums it up. The term "bottomfeeders" comes to mind.

I heard an interesting story on NPR this morning. Apparently, the Evangelical Christian "values voters" are conflicted over whether or not they can embrace Romney's Mormon "values". It's fun to watch when the Troglodytes eat their own.

If you troll for bottom feeders, don't be surprised if you get a snag.  :-)

What was it Carville said about dragging a $20 bill through a trailer park......?

You might get . . . mugged, dinner, crack, married, a new place to rent, blown?

I don't know  [he says sheepishly looking downward at his untied shoe laces]

Therick, thanks for reminding me. I forgot to congratulate you on breaking the "Blow me barrier" on MMFA( yesterday, I believe, directed at one of the thicker wingnuts).

 A phrase that my closest friends and I use in a friendly insult way, but I've deleted it from many comments here before posting.One of those things that might not always play well with strangers, just like the typed sarcasm that often fails here.

You are a pioneer and a trailblazer, a man of courage.Kudos, and Blow me!

when the media refers to values voters, what they really mean are clostecases and jesus chrispies. maybe they could simply refer to them as "family values" folks with the quotations in place and tell the truth for once. thank God for media matters.

Jesus Chrispies. I like that.

"Dogma voters" is a more fitting label. That some religious sorts dub themselves "values voters" is pretentious to say the least. They confuse religious dogma with human values. I do not. As an atheist holding values every bit as moral as those espoused by religious folks, I will not stand for them to usurp the term "values" and conflate it with their dogma. If they want to push their dogma, that's their right. But "dogma voters" they are, and that's what I'll call them.