[quote]JPBear wrote:
Prof,
I do consider the morning after pill to be wrong.[/quote]
Thanks for responding to the question asked…but why do you think it is wrong? Is it a specific reason or just that you consider any sex act as sacred? How do you feel about contraception? That is also stopping a life from being formed. Do you believe in abstinance?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Exactly! You do not know that the baby is alive and feels pain. Until those questions are answered there should be no abortion.
[/quote]
That makes no sense. First, in terms of the morning after pill, there is no chance that the fetus feels pain because no nerve centers have formed yet. As far as it being alive, we have already covered this…the sperm is alive and the egg is alive. I know I typed that before, didn’t I?
I’m sorry I don’t see the connection of the morning after pill and abortion. Until the sperm and the egg meet/comingle there is no life. The morning after pill as I understand it alters the course of sperm and inhibits ovulation thereby preventing fertilization of the egg. It helps PREVENT pregnancy, NOT TERMINATE pregnancy. Big ass gaping difference!!!
Prof X, “the sperm is alive and the egg is alive”. What does that mean? Should I collect my sperm in a cup every time I masturbate because they are alive??? Killing sperm or killing an egg is not aborting a baby. Killing a fertilized egg is killing a baby. Again, big ass gaping difference!!!
Professor:
I am not discussing “the morning after pill,” clear?
However, when it comes to abortion since you and I (and no one else) seems to know when “life” occurs, or when a baby living inside the womb can feel pain, then we have no right to take that life!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Thanks for responding to the question asked…but why do you think it is wrong? Is it a specific reason or just that you consider any sex act as sacred? How do you feel about contraception? That is also stopping a life from being formed. Do you believe in abstinance?[/quote]
I think it is wrong for the same reason that you asked the question in the first place. By using the morning after pill you are purposely killing a life that has already been formed. It is no different than an abortion.
In regards to contraception, you just answered your own question. You are attempting to stop a life from being formed. There is nothing wrong with that. That is entirely different than ending a life that already has been formed. If your contraception fails, you have no right to kill the human you accidentally created.
Yes I believe in abstinence outside of marriage, and yes I believe sex is sacred, and I personally know many people who live by these beliefs.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
JPBear wrote:
Prof,
I do consider the morning after pill to be wrong.
Thanks for responding to the question asked…but why do you think it is wrong? Is it a specific reason or just that you consider any sex act as sacred? How do you feel about contraception? That is also stopping a life from being formed. Do you believe in abstinance?[/quote]
I grew up catholic and still go to church but still do not agree with all the churches teachings so I will step up to the plate here. I feel fine with contraception, again you’re preventing pregnancy, not terminating it. Of course I believe in abstinance but did not practice it before I was married. Yeah, I have had unprotected sex. Why is that being part of the abortion problem? I don’t get your reasoning. If I got a girl pregnant I certainly wouldn’t recommend her to have an abortion. It would be my responsbility to raise that child.
And this is to anyone on this thread who believes the following. Let’s not get by with convenient that “its just a group of cells, not life” that some of the liberals on here want to believe. Once the egg is fertilized it is life. Even Nate Dogg was able to admit this and still said I think the woman should have a choice. Fine, let’s just not make it easy for anyone to say I’m not killing anything, it’s just a group of cells.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
just because it has its own unique pattern of development, that does not mean that alone gives it the right to overstep the desires of the mother at the exact moment of conception. Again, do you agree with the morning after pill?
[/quote]
The IT you keep referring to in the above quote IS a human life when its in the womb. Again, let’s not make it convenient to think its just a group of cells, therefore killing IT is no problem. Let’s just step up here, be a man, and at least admit what we believe in. Come on, say it “I believe the mother has the right to terminante her child’s life at any time she is in her womb”.
Prof X - I as zeb has stated am not talking about the day after pill either, It is a whole other animal than abortion. And yes I have had unprotected sex, I have a 3 year old daughter so obviously she wasn’t an immaculate conception. Abortion was never an option even though I am not with her mother. I still support both of them to the best of my ability and am very much involved in my duaghters life. Conception is when the human being is created. Sperm and egg are not a human being. the two together are. I’ll say this as soon as conception has taken place abortion is no longer an option. I do not believe the morning after pill simply blocks the sperm from getting to the egg. Since it will work up untill 72 hours after intercourse that leads me to beleive t might destroy the fertilized egg before it fully attaches to the uterus.
As for going off on tangents, I really don’t understand your point. We are debating abortion and the arguments for or against it. I have not started talking about anything else so What did you want me to do?
I guess here is the thing for me, the only argument I can see for abortion is if for some reason somone didn’t think of a fetus as a “human life”. If somone really believes it is a clump of cells at least I can say you have morals. For those of you who think of it as a “human being” regardless of it’s developmental stage, I am just in awe that you can justify destroying that life. Especially because most abortions are for “convienience” and not the result of a woman being raped or a medical emergency. Killing is Killing so just be sure you can answer to whatever god you beleive in for accepting this type of behavior.
All that evil needs to triuph is for good men to do nothing. This sums up how I feel about some people who accept abortion practices. I don’t view anyone who accepts it as a bad person, I just feel like you are a good person who is doing nothing and taking the path of least resistance.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I admit, it was a stretch, but the point is it has unique structure of DNA. That is why science has one theory that belives it was once its own organism that is now incorporated into our own cell structure because symbiosis is more efficient than independence. Either way, just because it has its own unique pattern of development, that does not mean that alone gives it the right to overstep the desires of the mother at the exact moment of conception. Again, do you agree with the morning after pill?
[/quote]
I appreciate all the ancillary info, but in my original post I believe I said that [quote]this group of cells is a human as soon as it is distinguishable that it is reproducing cells with unique DNA[/quote].
Now, is this the 2-cell, 4-cell, 8-cell, or 16-cel zygote stage?
I know that in the embryo transfer field, that the 16-cell stage is optimum.
My contention would still be that if it is an organism capable of reproducing itself, and has unique DNA fingerprints, it is a human being.
To me, this makes both abortion and the morning after pill taking a human life.
On a totally unrelated note: I think I;m getting a little crush on JPBear.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I do not believe the morning after pill simply blocks the sperm from getting to the egg. Since it will work up untill 72 hours after intercourse that leads me to beleive t might destroy the fertilized egg before it fully attaches to the uterus.
[/quote]
You are correct. Emergency contraception does doesn’t allow the fertilized egg to be implanted. It prevents fertilization. I was wrong. RU486 which was approved in the US in 2000, causes the uterine lining to shed after implantation. For this reason, RU 486 is sometimes referred to as an “abortion pill,” although it can only be used up to six weeks after conception.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I guess here is the thing for me, the only argument I can see for abortion is if for some reason somone didn’t think of a fetus as a “human life”. If somone really believes it is a clump of cells at least I can say you have morals. For those of you who think of it as a “human being” regardless of it’s developmental stage, I am just in awe that you can justify destroying that life. Especially because most abortions are for “convienience” and not the result of a woman being raped or a medical emergency. Killing is Killing so just be sure you can answer to whatever god you beleive in for accepting this type of behavior.
[/quote]
And that argument makes the most sense out of any I have heard and yes, it does come down to simply that…the belief that it is a “clump of cells” versus “a whole human being”. Like I wrote before, I personally would not ever want an abortion performed on any child that I helped create. Luckily, I wasn’t faced with that choice while going through my education because I am sure it would have changed my life and my goals. However, I can understand how others can believe that there is nothing wrong as long as the fetus has not fully developed. I think much of it comes down to religion (or ethics) versus science. It isn’t my place to force others to believe what I do…that life involves a human spirit along with the energy that keeps cells viable. The argument then becomes, what makes you so right that you have the right to force what you believe on everyone else in the country?
I brought up the “morning after pill” because it blurs the definitions that many have set up in their heads. It erases the thoughts of there actually being a “tiny baby” in the womb and brings it closer to what many believe to only be a clump of cells. I agree with JPBear and why she believes what she does. As far as the act of pre-marital sex without protection…You are part of the problem (as am I) if you engaged in that act whether a baby was born or not. One of you went on to discuss how social programs needed to be formed for the children and I made it clear that none of this would help if social understanding of sex in general never changed. There are so many abortions taking place, in part, because sex has become casual, therefore any consequence of that act is also looked at casually. I know one guy who has had his girl get at least 5 different abortions because she keeps getting pregnant (he hates to wear a condom). That was why this was brought up and I don’t understand why that had to be explained.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
Yes I believe in abstinence outside of marriage, and yes I believe sex is sacred, and I personally know many people who live by these beliefs.[/quote]
JPBear,
Assuming that’s you in the avatar…
Its too bad you’re such a prude, 'cause you are a hottie! 
[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
JPBear,
Assuming that’s you in the avatar…
Its too bad you’re such a prude, 'cause you are a hottie! ;)[/quote]
Thanks for the (sort of) compliment. As for the prude thing I don’t know if my husband would agree with you there! (I’ve been very happily married since I was 18)
I’m not a politcal activist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, politics today make me sick to my stomach. That aside, my opinion of why Bush won is simple, and probably more true than any dem will admit. The Democrats have NO backbone. They have no CORE issues that appeal to the masses and whatever they do have, they will change thier stance, opinion, whatever, if it offends one of thier constituency. I generally vote Republican. I don’t agree with everything that they stand for, but thier track record is pretty solid when it comes to thier core issues. I don’t like people who hem and haw around things. Take your stance and defend it! This is only my humble opinion.
Kate O’Beirne offers some thoughts – one of her main points is that it’s the hostility and condescension of the biggest voices pushing for the Democrats that won this election for the Republicans – quite apt, I think.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29550-2004Nov5.html?sub=AR
[Registration required to follow link]
A Coalition of Conviction
By Kate O’Beirne
Sunday, November 7, 2004; Page B01
Republicans were mocked when popular social liberals Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger were showcased to make their party’s case on national security and economic opportunity at the national convention in New York. What Democrats saw on the podium were dissident Republican politicians with enlightened views on abortion and gay marriage who had been enlisted in order to deceive voters; what we were all actually looking at was the makings of a successful majority party.
The moderate Republicans who spoke at the convention are at home in their conservative, pro-life party and represent countless others who share their views on such issues as foreign policy, tax rates or tort reform. Political parties are coalitions, and elections are won when a self-confident party can remain faithful to its core principles while appealing to voters with different priorities. President Bush’s success exemplifies that approach: He is unapologetically opposed to abortion but passes no judgment on those who disagree with him and encourages them to find common cause with him elsewhere. Last year, Sen. John Kerry was calling pro-lifers “the forces of intolerance.”
The election was won because neither Bush nor his party pretended to be something they’re not. George Bush was the Real Deal running against the Great Pretender.
Bush enjoys the appeal of authenticity. He is a conviction politician, utterly comfortable with who he is and what he believes. Throughout the campaign, he could be counted on to remain on course in the face of withering criticism. If mistakes were to be made, he would err on the side of protecting American lives. Kerry, meanwhile, tried to shed his party and his past by donning a yellow barn coat and attempting to pass himself off as a fiscal conservative, a defense hawk, a gun aficionado, a faithful Catholic and a proud veteran. The voters that Kerry needed to win could tell the difference.
Republicans find themselves on the majority’s side of the cultural divide because they don’t display the Democrats’ condescension and hostility to the moral sentiments and concerns of most Americans. Bush’s deeply held religious faith sometimes finds awkward expression but never seems insincere. His habits of heart and mind mark him as a man of faith. Kerry, on the other hand, glibly declared in the final debate, “My faith affects everything I do and choose. . . . And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.” Had Bush made such a declaration, it would have signaled to liberals an underlying intention to usher in a theocracy; but secularists were unconcerned about Kerry’s pledge because they knew he didn’t mean it.
Religious voters, too, can spot a phony. Talking the talk, as Kerry tried to do, won’t be enough as long as the Democratic Party’s most vocal supporters equate conservative Christianity with Islamic fundamentalism. The culturally tone-deaf glitterati clogged the red carpet for the premiere of “Fahrenheit 911,” when people who hadn’t been to a movie in 10 years made the “Passion of the Christ” this year’s box office smash.
Republicans don’t talk patronizingly about the issues that matter to voters by telling average Americans to “vote their pocketbooks.” Rich Hollywood liberals might put aside their own economic interests to support a candidate who pledges to raise their taxes, but the little people leading small lives in small towns are not expected to look beyond their parochial concerns about overtime pay or health benefits. Leaving aside whether Democratic prescriptions on taxes and the economy would actually benefit these middle-class voters, Bush recognizes that they, too, care about issues larger than themselves. Despite Ohio’s poor economy, moral values almost tied jobs as a matter of concern to the state’s voters, who – by the way – also gave the edge to Bush in handling economic issues.
Bush recognizes that American diners are filled with middle-class voters who likewise have concerns that transcend their daily lives. He let them know that he shared their worries about marriage and its weakening as society’s most fundamental institution, about the chilling brave new world of cloning and about the coarsening of the culture – at the hands of Kerry’s Hollywood supporters. The guests enjoying dinner at Tina Brown’s sparkling table have not had their daily lives affected by Halliburton’s no-bid contracts, the USA Patriot Act or missing munitions in Iraq, yet these are the kinds of issues that motivate liberal elites.
Bush believes Americans are smart and unfailingly decent. He doesn’t think southern conservatives are closet racists, that opponents of gay marriage are hateful homophobes or that pro-lifers are mean-spirited misogynists. He is well aware that America’s liberal media (and as well as European commentators) view him as a dangerous fool. Nonetheless, the majority of high school and college graduates voted for him.
A closer look at one crucial issue is telling: For about a fifth of voters, the war on terrorism was the priority issue and they went overwhelmingly for Bush. Although a majority of voters saw the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, only a bare majority approved of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. On balance, the war in Iraq and its aftermath probably hurt the president. It seems likely that those who approve of the president’s handling of the war on terrorism would remain supportive had Iraq not been invaded, while a majority of those who put the situation in Iraq at the top of their agenda voted for Kerry.
The president wound up having the personal characteristics most appealing to voters. Religious faith trumped intelligence, and being trustworthy trumped being someone who “cares about people.” To counter the culturally conservative, tough-minded incumbent presiding in post-9/11 America, Democrats nominated a Catholic veteran who promised change. But a majority of Catholics and veterans voted against Kerry and only a quarter of voters were interested in change.
In the aftermath of the Republicans’ historic gains, Sen. Zell Miller reiterated his despair over the state of his party in an article titled, "I Tried to Tell You. . . . " But the Georgia conservative is as unwelcome in the Democratic Party as Pennsylvania’s late pro-life Governor Bob Casey was a dozen years ago. Democrats in denial will continue to curse their Cassandras and pine for their siren in the hope that four years from now Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will seduce the rubes in red-state America. But she would be just another pretender, without the authenticity to create a true coalition.
Kate O’Beirne is the Washington editor of the National Review.
Prof X - “The argument then becomes, what makes you so right that you have the right to force what you believe on everyone else in the country?”
Ok fair enough, I don’t absolutely know if I am right. But neither does anyone else. Since we can’t measure human spirit and if it is attached or not, I believe it is necessary to be as safe as possible to avoid potentially killing millions. That is all I ask. Personally I do believe the connection with the source or whatever god you believe in happens in that moment of fertilization, the process when the DNA is combining itself. That is simply my opinion but like many have said it it just as valid as anyone elses opinion. So now I’ll throw it back to you, why do you think it is ok to risk killing all those babies when we really don’t know when life begins? What if I’m right and the clump of cells people are wrong? I guess thats all I have on this.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Kate O’Beirne offers some thoughts – one of her main points is that it’s the hostility and condescension of the biggest voices pushing for the Democrats that won this election for the Republicans – quite apt, I think.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29550-2004Nov5.html?sub=AR
[Registration required to follow link]
A Coalition of Conviction
By Kate O’Beirne
Sunday, November 7, 2004; Page B01
Republicans were mocked when popular social liberals Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger were showcased to make their party’s case on national security and economic opportunity at the national convention in New York. What Democrats saw on the podium were dissident Republican politicians with enlightened views on abortion and gay marriage who had been enlisted in order to deceive voters; what we were all actually looking at was the makings of a successful majority party.
The moderate Republicans who spoke at the convention are at home in their conservative, pro-life party and represent countless others who share their views on such issues as foreign policy, tax rates or tort reform. Political parties are coalitions, and elections are won when a self-confident party can remain faithful to its core principles while appealing to voters with different priorities. President Bush’s success exemplifies that approach: He is unapologetically opposed to abortion but passes no judgment on those who disagree with him and encourages them to find common cause with him elsewhere. Last year, Sen. John Kerry was calling pro-lifers “the forces of intolerance.”
The election was won because neither Bush nor his party pretended to be something they’re not. George Bush was the Real Deal running against the Great Pretender.
Bush enjoys the appeal of authenticity. He is a conviction politician, utterly comfortable with who he is and what he believes. Throughout the campaign, he could be counted on to remain on course in the face of withering criticism. If mistakes were to be made, he would err on the side of protecting American lives. Kerry, meanwhile, tried to shed his party and his past by donning a yellow barn coat and attempting to pass himself off as a fiscal conservative, a defense hawk, a gun aficionado, a faithful Catholic and a proud veteran. The voters that Kerry needed to win could tell the difference.
Republicans find themselves on the majority’s side of the cultural divide because they don’t display the Democrats’ condescension and hostility to the moral sentiments and concerns of most Americans. Bush’s deeply held religious faith sometimes finds awkward expression but never seems insincere. His habits of heart and mind mark him as a man of faith. Kerry, on the other hand, glibly declared in the final debate, “My faith affects everything I do and choose. . . . And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.” Had Bush made such a declaration, it would have signaled to liberals an underlying intention to usher in a theocracy; but secularists were unconcerned about Kerry’s pledge because they knew he didn’t mean it.
Religious voters, too, can spot a phony. Talking the talk, as Kerry tried to do, won’t be enough as long as the Democratic Party’s most vocal supporters equate conservative Christianity with Islamic fundamentalism. The culturally tone-deaf glitterati clogged the red carpet for the premiere of “Fahrenheit 911,” when people who hadn’t been to a movie in 10 years made the “Passion of the Christ” this year’s box office smash.
Republicans don’t talk patronizingly about the issues that matter to voters by telling average Americans to “vote their pocketbooks.” Rich Hollywood liberals might put aside their own economic interests to support a candidate who pledges to raise their taxes, but the little people leading small lives in small towns are not expected to look beyond their parochial concerns about overtime pay or health benefits. Leaving aside whether Democratic prescriptions on taxes and the economy would actually benefit these middle-class voters, Bush recognizes that they, too, care about issues larger than themselves. Despite Ohio’s poor economy, moral values almost tied jobs as a matter of concern to the state’s voters, who – by the way – also gave the edge to Bush in handling economic issues.
Bush recognizes that American diners are filled with middle-class voters who likewise have concerns that transcend their daily lives. He let them know that he shared their worries about marriage and its weakening as society’s most fundamental institution, about the chilling brave new world of cloning and about the coarsening of the culture – at the hands of Kerry’s Hollywood supporters. The guests enjoying dinner at Tina Brown’s sparkling table have not had their daily lives affected by Halliburton’s no-bid contracts, the USA Patriot Act or missing munitions in Iraq, yet these are the kinds of issues that motivate liberal elites.
Bush believes Americans are smart and unfailingly decent. He doesn’t think southern conservatives are closet racists, that opponents of gay marriage are hateful homophobes or that pro-lifers are mean-spirited misogynists. He is well aware that America’s liberal media (and as well as European commentators) view him as a dangerous fool. Nonetheless, the majority of high school and college graduates voted for him.
A closer look at one crucial issue is telling: For about a fifth of voters, the war on terrorism was the priority issue and they went overwhelmingly for Bush. Although a majority of voters saw the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, only a bare majority approved of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. On balance, the war in Iraq and its aftermath probably hurt the president. It seems likely that those who approve of the president’s handling of the war on terrorism would remain supportive had Iraq not been invaded, while a majority of those who put the situation in Iraq at the top of their agenda voted for Kerry.
The president wound up having the personal characteristics most appealing to voters. Religious faith trumped intelligence, and being trustworthy trumped being someone who “cares about people.” To counter the culturally conservative, tough-minded incumbent presiding in post-9/11 America, Democrats nominated a Catholic veteran who promised change. But a majority of Catholics and veterans voted against Kerry and only a quarter of voters were interested in change.
In the aftermath of the Republicans’ historic gains, Sen. Zell Miller reiterated his despair over the state of his party in an article titled, "I Tried to Tell You. . . . " But the Georgia conservative is as unwelcome in the Democratic Party as Pennsylvania’s late pro-life Governor Bob Casey was a dozen years ago. Democrats in denial will continue to curse their Cassandras and pine for their siren in the hope that four years from now Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will seduce the rubes in red-state America. But she would be just another pretender, without the authenticity to create a true coalition.
Kate O’Beirne is the Washington editor of the National Review. [/quote]
Don’t take this the wrong way, but do YOU have any individual thoughts or positions of your own? I am all for posting links to information or points of view, but I swear, it seems that is nearly ALL that you do.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory42.html
This is a fantastic article that I wanted to share…
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So now I’ll throw it back to you, why do you think it is ok to risk killing all those babies when we really don’t know when life begins? What if I’m right and the clump of cells people are wrong? I guess thats all I have on this.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins[/quote]
I’m sorry, I skipped your post until now. As far as the justification for current abortions, I understand that life, while extremely important and a “gift”, is not so independently important that it overrides all circumstances at the time. What I mean is, I am of the belief that there are times when life can make sacrifices for the greater good. Anyone who is “for” this current war we are in obviously believes the same because I rarely hear any of you going off whenever yet another soldier dies for a war that we aren’t even sure of why it was started. For those who are pro-life to be justified in their hatred of abortion, they should logically show the exact same compassion for every life being shed by the men who are soldiers for this country…however, this is not the case. Not one of you will claim that human life is more important than this war so they should be brought home immediately because many of you voted republican…therefore, you clearly believe that lives are expendable depending on the circumstances. Why then, do you feel you have the right to overpower the circumstances that a mother finds herself in and force her to decide against an abortion? Do you feel that you have more understanding of the troubles in her life than she does in all cases? Have you fought the exact same “wars” that she has?
I have already presented my point of view on abortion and what I would do in that situation, especially at this point in my life. However, I can’t honestly say that I never would have gone through with it if I was 17 and been faced with this. I personally would never treat this situation like a “clump of cells” because of my own beliefs. Had I ever gone through with an abortion, I would have regretted it.
Your argument will probably range around soldiers having a choice to join the services, however, that doesn’t mean they joined to die. I know I didn’t.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Don’t take this the wrong way, but do YOU have any individual thoughts or positions of your own? I am all for posting links to information or points of view, but I swear, it seems that is nearly ALL that you do.[/quote]
I have lots of them, but with so many well written and well argued positions out there, it’s always interesting to take them into account.
As for why Bush won, my own position hasn’t changed since Kerry won the primary: Kerry wasn’t going to win because he was a bad candidate who couldn’t settle on a position – he managed to take so many caveats in a statement that it became essentially meaningless; he was caught between a rock and a hard place, in that he had to try to appeal to the middle but he had a rabidly anti-war left-wing base he couldn’t afford to alienate; and because he was generally liberal in the Senate, he couldn’t run away from that record when Bush zoned in on the “liberal” attack, and the majority of voters aren’t comfortable with a liberal as commander in chief, most particularly during war time.
I said that all before the election, but I’m happy to re-state for you now.
ADDENDUM:
I should add that I think the fact that people in the middle of the country and in the South think that people in New York, CA and Massachusetts view them with contempt is enough to push people to vote against the candidate they associate with those views if it’s the person for whom they should vote is relatively close question in their minds – and it think it likely was a relatively close question in their minds this time around, at least for the “persuadable voters.”
Unfortunately for Kerry, those persuadable voters were in “flyover country,” so I think his image, his location and his associations with the psuedo-sophisticates counted against him.