[johnmorris886]

I am a Conservative Yankee who now lives in the South. I don't make a lot of money, but my family doesn't go hungry. We don't vote on who is going to give us "free money" (never mind that no money is free) instead we vote on who is going to uphold the moral standards of this nation.

We Vote Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-Family, Anti-Homosexual and Anti-Immorality.

Those are really the only issues that matter to us. Lower taxes and other economic things are nice, but those are only icing on the cake. If a candidate wants to destroy one of the pillars of society (marriage) I don't care if they would eliminate ALL Taxes, They won't get my vote.

[WOSG]

I am a Conservative Yankee who now lives in the South. I don't make a lot of money, but my family doesn't go hungry. We don't vote on who is going to give us "free money" (never mind that no money is free) instead we vote on who is going to uphold the moral standards of this nation.

Well said. This author is clearly a liberal and has not a clue as to that concept of citizenship, nor even the concept of morality. Apparently non-college-educated hard-working low-income people have a better grasp of it than even this journalist.

I've managed to maintain the same political philosophy from studenthood to being well-off and middle-aged, because being conservative is not about my selfish interests or anyones individual interests, but what is the best set of principles to organize society as a whole so ALL of us can live in a free and civil society. Govt should be about protecting our society and its key institutions (like marriage and family!) and protecting rights of individuals to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It should not be about handouts and govt redistribution. This journalist wrongly thinks people should be emotion ("angry") that some have more and some have less. But that is ENVY, a sin.

Of course, there are people who vote for the "what can you, Big Daddy Govt, do for *me*?" ... reminds me of that pony-tail guy from the 1992 debate.