A philosophical gulf between Red & Blue states, or Red & Blue people simply does not exist.  In most cases a Red is Red and a Blue is Blue by only a few percentage points.

People saying "fyou to the south"  or calling "middle America flyover country" really need to get a grip.  People referring to the left & right coasts as out of touch need a reality check of their own as well.

The people/party who continue to perpetuate the false Red v. Blue argument will have it explode in their face, and lose the next election cycle.
[right][snapback]126784[/snapback][/right]

I just think it's funny that "being stupid" has been replaced with "being from a red state" in vernacular.  Someone might say, "what is he from a red state."  I love that.
Blue States=
more cultured
more educated
contributes much more to economy. (more people making over 200g)
more likely to get hit by terrorist attack.
Red States=
more likely to vote with bibles instead of brains.
[right][snapback]126843[/snapback][/right]

http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/...ad-my-vote.html
[right][snapback]126844[/snapback][/right]

In the states Bush won... with few exceptions he did not win by a landslide. Example, he won Ohio by 2%.

In the states Kerry won... with few exceptions he did not win by a landslide. Example he won PA by only 2%.

So clearly looking over those numbers there is a north/south devide.  The same would be true if looking at the mountain states vs. the left coast.  the only true battleground states are midwestern states. 

These graphics describe my point... look at them and you'll see there is not this monolithic red/blue divide:  Red Blue Maps In Detail.

There just is no "state by state" divide by political philosophy as commentators, pundits, extreme liberals and extreme conservatives suggest.  I think the media pushes the Red/Blue state thing because it makes a easy to make, sound-bite sized story.  Extremists push the Red/Blue issue because it gives them something to squawk about.
[right][snapback]126979[/snapback][/right]

These graphics describe my point... look at them and you'll see there is not this monolithic red/blue divide:  Red Blue Maps In Detail.

There just is no "state by state" divide by political philosophy as commentators, pundits, extreme liberals and extreme conservatives suggest.  I think the media pushes the Red/Blue state thing because it makes a easy to make, sound-bite sized story.  Extremists push the Red/Blue issue because it gives them something to squawk about.
[right][snapback]126979[/snapback][/right]

In the states Bush won... with few exceptions he did not win by a landslide.  Example, he won Ohio by 2%. 

In the states Kerry won... with few exceptions he did not win by a landslide.  Example he won PA by only 2%.

A philosophical gulf between Red & Blue states, or Red & Blue people simply does not exist.  In most cases a Red is Red and a Blue is Blue by only a few percentage points.

People saying "fyou to the south"  or calling "middle America flyover country" really need to get a grip.  People referring to the left & right coasts as out of touch need a reality check of their own as well.

The people/party who continue to perpetuate the false Red v. Blue argument will have it explode in their face, and lose the next election cycle.
[right][snapback]126784[/snapback][/right]

Okay...I'll humor you.
The 11 states of the old confederacy
Georgia Bush +17
South Carolina Bush +17
North Carolina Bush +12
Florida Bush +5
Virginia Bush +9
Texas Bush +23
Louisiana Bush +5
Tennessee Bush +14
Alabama Bush +26
Arkansas Bush +9
Mississippi Bush +20
Now the northeastern states:
Maine Kerry +8
New Hampshire Kerry +1
Massachusetts Kerry +25
Connecticut Kerry +10
Rhode Island Kerry +21
New Jersey, Kerry +7
Delaware Kerry +7
Maryland Kerry +13
D.C. Kerry +81!
New York Kerry +18
Pennsylvania Kerry +2

So clearly looking over those numbers there is a north/south devide.  The same would be true if looking at the mountain states vs. the left coast.  the only true battleground states are midwestern states. 

This divide has gotten STRONGER over the last 4 years.  Read zell millers book "a national party no more" and i think you will begin to understand why.  The south used to be STRONGLY democratic, but slowly has turned more and more repubican.

Another quick comment about this divide thing.  Both political parties need to pit us against each other in order to have political success. Its sick, but its what they need to survive.  We as people need to step up and tell them we are sick of it.
[right][snapback]126905[/snapback][/right]

Okay...lets say you have 2 colors, lets say black and white.  Now add a little white to the black and it still looks pretty black.  Add a little black to the white and your white just got pretty gray. 

Point is, (and I could be wrong), that one blue vote will color a county more purple than one red vote will.

I think a government funded story is in order.
[right][snapback]129253[/snapback][/right]

I wish I could e-mail the woman who posted that letter which seems more and more idiotic everytime I read it.

She is pro choice and for gay marriage and yet voted essentially to over turn Roe v. Wade and ban gay marriage.  Why? Because she was upset about the constant drum beat of Kerry's Viet Nam service.  Hmmmm.......However, she didn't seem to care about the constant drum beat of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 of the right.  She was upset by all the "I hate Bush" stuff yet the swifties and flip-flopper attacks that dominated the conservative air waves for 3 months didn't seem to phase her.
She thinks privatizing social security and elimenating the income tax are two of the dumbest ideas she has ever heard yet, she voted for the guy whose mission it is to make those ideas a reality.  Why?  Because she found Kerry's positons confusing.  Ummm, okay.  She had "confusing" on one side and "dumbest ideas ever" on the other and she opted for "dumbest ideas ever". 

She has wept at the sight of innocent Iraqis killed in this war by bombs built with her tax dollars but, so what?  She still thinks it was the right thing to do.  She doesn't agree with Kerry's interest in allies because she learned in school that other peoples opinons don't matter.  Apparently she slept through history class and never learned the value of allies in war from the Revolutionary War where the help of France was the deciding factor and the Civil War where the lack of allies billsfanone the South. 

She voted for Bush because he has clearly defined values even though they are values with which she does not agree.        

Pleeez.  Sounds like a guilty conscience looking to rationalize having voted for a whole mess of things she is against.  When Roe v. Wade is overturned I guess she will blame Kerry for that because he was a Viet Nam vet.
[right][snapback]128940[/snapback][/right]

I wish I could e-mail the woman who posted that letter which seems more and more idiotic everytime I read it.

She is pro choice and for gay marriage and yet voted essentially to over turn Roe v. Wade and ban gay marriage.  Why? Because she was upset about the constant drum beat of Kerry's Viet Nam service.  Hmmmm.......However, she didn't seem to care about the constant drum beat of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 of the right.  She was upset by all the "I hate Bush" stuff yet the swifties and flip-flopper attacks that dominated the conservative air waves for 3 months didn't seem to phase her.
She thinks privatizing social security and elimenating the income tax are two of the dumbest ideas she has ever heard yet, she voted for the guy whose mission it is to make those ideas a reality.  Why?  Because she found Kerry's positons confusing.  Ummm, okay.  She had "confusing" on one side and "dumbest ideas ever" on the other and she opted for "dumbest ideas ever". 

She has wept at the sight of innocent Iraqis killed in this war by bombs built with her tax dollars but, so what?  She still thinks it was the right thing to do.  She doesn't agree with Kerry's interest in allies because she learned in school that other peoples opinons don't matter.  Apparently she slept through history class and never learned the value of allies in war from the Revolutionary War where the help of France was the deciding factor and the Civil War where the lack of allies billsfanone the South. 

She voted for Bush because he has clearly defined values even though they are values with which she does not agree.        

Pleeez.  Sounds like a guilty conscience looking to rationalize having voted for a whole mess of things she is against.  When Roe v. Wade is overturned I guess she will blame Kerry for that because he was a Viet Nam vet.
[right][snapback]128940[/snapback][/right]

I absolutely LOVE how you guys just refuse to deal with the fact that the majority of Americans have rejected your left wing views.

And of course, you couldn't even get through the first sentence without calling her views "idiotic" (yet another 'open minded' Dem!). 
[right][snapback]129315[/snapback][/right]

I absolutely LOVE how you guys just refuse to deal with the fact that the majority of Americans have rejected your left wing views.

And of course, you couldn't even get through the first sentence without calling her views "idiotic" (yet another 'open minded' Dem!). 
[right][snapback]129315[/snapback][/right]

She's telling your side how to get her vote, and you continue to illustrate her point.  Insults.  I for one am glad you will never get it.  BTW-the bush hatred people outspent the swifties 50-1.
[right][snapback]129320[/snapback][/right]

Lets see, to get her vote, all we have to do is fund those welfare programs she likes that kept her starving friends alive.  Wait a second, we did.  Oh, I see, we taxed the rich to do it and she doesn't like that.  Maybe in her next letter she will tell us how to pay for those programs.

We also have to be pro-choice and pro civil unions.  Wait a second, we were.
We have to be against privatizing social security.  Wait a second, we are.
We have to be for a higher minimum wage.  Wait a second, we are.
We have to be against flat taxes and a fed. sales tax. Wait a second, we are.
We have to be pro-union. Wait a second, we are.
We have to be strong on protecting the environment.  Wait a second, we are.
We have to be for separation between church and state.  Wait a second, we are.
We have to be for rolling back the excesses of the Pat. Act. Wait a second, we are.

Oh wait, people were rough on the President unlike the kid gloves treatment oh so gentlemanly conduct of the Republican party.  Ann Coulter writes a book accusing every democrat in the nation of treason and it is the left that is disrespectful.  John Ashcroft accused everyone who thought maybe the Patriot Act went further than necessary of sympathizing with terrorists and it is the left that is vitriolic?  Perhaps she is the one person in the world who has not heard of hate spewed by Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, Dobson, Coulter, Hannity, Liddy or Schlesinger over the last 12 years or so.  Yeah, the left finally fought back and started to give as good as its taken, shame on them. 

We should just do what Bush did to get her vote.  Take the exact opposite of every position she holds, eschew her every value, smile a lot, wave some flags and repeat 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.  That ought to do it.
[right][snapback]129371[/snapback][/right]

In the states Bush won... with few exceptions he did not win by a landslide.  Example, he won Ohio by 2%. 

In the states Kerry won... with few exceptions he did not win by a landslide.  Example he won PA by only 2%.

A philosophical gulf between Red & Blue states, or Red & Blue people simply does not exist.  In most cases a Red is Red and a Blue is Blue by only a few percentage points.

People saying "fyou to the south"  or calling "middle America flyover country" really need to get a grip.  People referring to the left & right coasts as out of touch need a reality check of their own as well.

The people/party who continue to perpetuate the false Red v. Blue argument will have it explode in their face, and lose the next election cycle.
[right][snapback]126784[/snapback][/right]

She expressed seven clear points of what NOT to do.  You're still not going to get it, though.
[right][snapback]129392[/snapback][/right]

wave some flags and repeat 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.  That ought to do it.
[right][snapback]129371[/snapback][/right]

seemed to be more successful than shouting Haliburton! or Flightsuit!
[right][snapback]129648[/snapback][/right]

Well to be fair they did toss in a "liberal" helping of "family values, family values and family values" along with "flip-flopper, flip-floppr, flip-flopper" to name just a few choice morsels.
[right][snapback]129665[/snapback][/right]

And I pointed out no less than ten different issues in which the democrats reflected exactly her views. It didn't matter to her.

Now you're starting to get it. 

In your hurry to agree with her, you are not exactly using a critical eye for anything she says.  Maybe if you read her post as closely as you read mine, you might see some of the contradictions which are so obvious I can't believe you are missing them.  I can only conclude that you are just ignoring them as they might get in the way of your already made up mind.

Not agreeing, just understanding.

Her 6th and 7th point for instance complain about Bush haters and post election anger at the red states.  Where is the balance?  If this upsets her, then why was the same and even worse from Bob Jones, Dobson, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Schlesinger etc, etc, etc, etc, etc not enough to keep her from voting for the party she whose platform she says she rejects almost in total?  That doesn't seem to you to be at all inconsistent?  Tell me, since I don't get it and you do, why this is not inconsistent?

Dobson?  You got to be kidding.  I don't think any of those, except for maybe Coulter sunk to the same level as the Bush haters.  But that's just me.


Her 4th point, well Kerry said over and over and over and over that he wouldn't put our national security in the hands of any other nation.  Not good enough for her.  What was he supposed to do?  Slice his palm with a switchblade and swear a blood oath?  You don't see her comment that she learned in "high school" that you don't put stock in what other people think to be just a tiny bit dismissive and naive?  Kerry wasn't talking about smoking a joint because your friends are, he was talking about having allies in a wartime effort.  Any fool who has even a vague understanding of military history understands that all things considered, it is better to have allies than to not have allies.

We had allies.  Everyone that participated in Gulf War I, except for France.  Plus some new ones that were formally part of the Soviet Union.  Germany didn't help with Gulf War I.

She is worried about taxing the rich yet she thinks all those programs that helped her poor friends were worthwhile.  Again, you don't see an inconsistency there?

And those programs are not going away because Bush is President.

She isn't explaining her vote to us, she is explaining it to herself so she doesn't have to take responsibility for the consequences of her vote, the election of a President and a party with which she entirely disagrees.  I agree with her on one thing, that kind of sophistry really does need explaining.  I can see why she felt the need to draft an open letter explaining why, although it looks on the surface that she is an idiot who voted against he own views, it is really the fault of the democrats for not finding a way to appeal to her contradictions.

Illustrates her point perfectly.  She doesn't agree with you about everything, so she is an idiot.  I love it.

See, Bush isn't her fault and if Roe gets overturned and all this other stuff she does not want to see happen happens, these "dumbest ideas ever", it aint her fault now is it?  She needs to take some personal responsibility, she voted for Bush, fair and square.  I can live with it.  So should she instead of rationalizing it and discovering that surprise, surprise, turns out it isn't her fault after all.

She is no snake handling evangelical.  She just votes like one so pardon me if I don't really care that deep down there is a difference.  She is like all these "moderate republicans" who are pro-choice, against banning gay marriage and support separation between church and state.  Who cares if they are or are not?  Those are not issues important enough to them to effect their voting so who cares if they are pro-choice or not?  Who cares if they are gay lovers or gay bashers?  The result is the same.
[right][snapback]129642[/snapback][/right]

Did you know Billy Graham is a life long Democrat?
[right][snapback]129719[/snapback][/right]

So is Zel Miller, your point?

All I am doing is taking her at her own words.  She says she is pro-choice, she says she wants gays to be married yet she voted for the guy who wants to end choice and keep gays from getting married, even if he has to amend the Constitution to do it.  I think voting for someone who you freely admit does not reflect the vast majority of your views is stupid.  Her entire letter was an attempt to explain that somehow, despite all appearances to the contrary, that made sense.  I don't agree.  I find her explanations and excuses to be self contradictory and naive.

Take the allies thing, we at least seem to agree that having allies is better than not having them.  You say we had as many nations as we did in the Gulf War, she didn't.  I don't know if 2 interpreters from Swaziland replaces a few thousand troops but if that is your measure of an ally, fine.  When it comes to combat troops it was us, us, us, us and a the British.  Was that the case in the Gulf War?  I think that comparison is laughable but she didn't even manage that.  Instead, her argument was some smart alek comment about what she learned in High School.  If she thinks we did enough to get allies fine, that would be an educated opinion but it sounds to me that she just swallowed the Bush BS about "handing over our foreign policy to France". 

We will just have to disagree about Hannity and Limbaugh and the rest.  You haven't had the pleasure of being called a baby killing, cowardly, immoral, unAmerican, femminazi loving, tree hugging, commie sodomite by them every day for the last 12 years or so.  Live through a decade or so of dehumanizing deligitimizing rhetoric like that and come to me crying like a baby girl about the terrible Bush bashing that went on for all of 3 months.  Boo-freaking-hoo.

Maybe you didn't read Bob Jone's letter to Bush about the pagans who hate Christ?
Maybe you missed Falwell saying that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment of America for its indulgence of homosexuals?  Perhaps you don't recall Limbaugh telling the NAACP to "get a liquor store and practice robberies" or when he called Chelsea the "White House dog"?  Were you not around when Savage called asians "little soy eaters" or told a caller "you should only get Aids and die, you pervert."  Tell me again about the left being vitriolic.
[right][snapback]129833[/snapback][/right]

There's just nothing better than making the same argument in the same thread 5 or 6 different times.  You feeling OK?

I especially liked the "allies" part of it.  Let's keep pretending Russia, China, France, and Germany were actually morally opposed to the war.  Because they're like that. 
[right][snapback]129841[/snapback][/right]