Decision 2004


As I channel-surfed through the Commiecrat National Convention, I was mostly impressed by how much they were trying to sound like Republicans -- particularly in that speech by Barack Obama, though even there the whiny liberal nastiness occasionally spurts out like the poison of a spitting cobra. Oh, that poor, put-upon "Arab American family"! Why don't they just go back where they came from?

Last couple of times around, the lousy Republicans were trying to sound like Commiecrats. I guess they're both trying to sway over those all-important, utterly clueless "swing voters." If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Bush (though I won't vote for him): doesn't everybody know that we're at war, and that Commiecrats just don't do war? Gee whiz -- the last Massachusetts liberal we "elected" President (thanks to massive vote-fraud in Texas and Illinois) bungled the Bay of Pigs operation and got us stuck in the Vietnam quagmire; and he's considered, in retrospect, an old-fashioned manly member of the Jackass Party! But maybe, what with each party dressing up in the other's clothes, all those dimwitted "swing voters" will be fooled into thinking that Jimmy Carter's party is the one to trust with our national security. I love my country, but sometimes it sure seems full of idiots.


After long thought and wide reading, I offer my $0.02's worth. My prediction: Bush will win, in a landslide. My evaluation: This will be a very bad thing.

Let's take the second half of the prediction first, because the first half is partly predicated on it. Looking back over history (with the liberal media and conservative counter-media each twisting everything to make its own candidates look good and the other's look bad, history is the only objective source of information), especially in light of the generational perspective, we're due for a landslide.

The first Presidential election was on April 6, 1789. (Not only was the date off, three of the original 13 states weren't voting; but never mind that now.) George Washington -- father of his country, "first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen" -- was elected unanimously; but this only papered over the profound division within the young nation, which re-emerged during his administration: that between federalists and anti-federalists. The federalists won the first round: the Constitution was ratified. The anti-federalists got their revenge by knocking the explicitly Federalist party out of the ring in the election of 1800. But the basic pattern was set and continued.

In 1860 -- 72 years after 1788 -- the country was divided on sectional lines: the Republicans won a landslide in the North, the Southern Democrats won a landslide in the South. The basic pattern was set, and it continued after the Civil War; the only variation was in the relative strength or weakness of the reunited Democratic party outside the South.

In 1932 -- 72 years after 1860 -- the sectional impasse was finally broken. The Depression gave the Democrats the chance to siphon Northern voters away from the Republicans in numbers big enough and enduring enough to build a nationwide majority for a European-style social-democratic Left.

Now we're in 2004 -- 72 years after 1932. We're due for another major realignment -- and the momentum of history is going to weigh heavily against the Democrats. They broke up their winning coalition in the elections of 1968 and 1972, and they've been playing a losing game ever since: whenever they get back in power, they provoke a massive backlash against themselves. When you think about it, maybe we should thank Carter for giving us the Reagan Presidency and Clinton for giving us the Republican Congress. When I think about it, it gives me a sense of faith and hope in the basic decency and good sense of at least a plurality of the American people.

These are the possible outcomes of 11/2:

  1. Democratic landslide: Kerry kicks Bush's ass and they recapture both houses of Congress by wide margins. Ain't gonna happen. If it did, I think they'd fuck things up so badly that the Democrats might well disappear. It would be like the destruction of the Federalists after 1800: the next party system would emerge from a split within the GOP (probably between the fundy and moneyist wings).
  2. Narrow Democratic victory: Kerry squeaks into the Presidency and they take over one or even both houses of Congress by one or two seats. Conceivable, but unlikely. If it does happen, the ultimate result would basically be the same as in scenario 1: the backlash will produce a major realignment in favor of the GOP. Painful in the short run, but pretty good in the long run.
  3. Narrow Republican victory: Bush squeaks back in, the GOP keeps one or both houses. This -- plus a significant showing of patriotic protest votes -- is what I'm hoping for. (I, for one, will hold my nose and vote for Cheney and my Republican Congressman, but write in Tom Tancredo for President.) Conceivable, but unlikely.
  4. Republican landslide: Bush and his party get a resounding national reaffirmation that will set the course of American politics for the next 72 years ... or, more likely, until his insanely pro-immigrant policies transform the American electorate into something unrecognizable.

Compatriots, be afraid. Be very afraid. But hope against hope, and vote Tancredo on 11/2!


This was the first party convention I've ever paid much attention to. This is the first election year when I really had a sense that history is being made, right in front of me, and I ought to be paying attention. I tried to pay attention to the DNC; but boy, those people are just too loathesome to bear for very long.

At first, it was totally opposite to what I'd expected. The star billing for the three most prominent non-conservative Republicans turned out to be a good thing: the party wasn't trying to hide its conservative base this time, but to include it while reaching beyond it. There was no sheepish, apologetic me-tooism; instead there was rousing, unabashed patriotism, hitting hard with all the right themes: 9/11, national unity, national security.

I saw most of McCain's speech, and it was very good. I gather that his voting record is actually pretty conservative, except on issues like campaign-finance censorship where he takes a "maverick" stance to suck up to the liberal media (who naturally love the idea of shutting up people who disagree with them). I also saw most of Giuliani's, and it was awesome. In a perfect world, he would stay in New York as Mayor-For-Life and come out every four years to deliver kick-ass speeches like this one.

Didn't see much of Schwarzenegger's speech; my impression was that McCain and Giuliani were either more sincere, or better at faking sincerity. But it was pretty good anyway -- except when the lousy Kraut was pandering to his fellow foreigners.

The convention started going downhill even faster when Jorge's daughters were on. They just kept getting more and more irritating each time I channel-surfed through them. If being a silly cunt were some kind of contest, those two would be tied for the prize. Hell, they weren't even worth looking at.

But that Elaine Chao -- now, there's a cutie. A flat chest and an unflattering hairdo, but a face that I'd be happy to wake up to every morning. A perfect example of how slope chicks tend to stay slim and pretty long after women of other races morph into the fat ugly creatures that make me glad to be a crotchety old bachelor.

Anyway -- before the front of my pants had a chance to start fitting more tightly, the bitch opened her yap and started spewing the sort of multiculturalist crap I'd been expecting all along. When she made the affirmative-action boast of being "the first Asian-Pacific American woman to serve in the Cabinet of a President of the United States" I shut off the TV in disgust and fixed myself a stiff drink. I guess the bright side of it is that she isn't a Chink anymore (except for having trouble pronouncing l and r), though she hasn't really become an American. Unfortunately, I was so put off that I missed Zell Miller's kick-ass speech.

On Thursday, Tommy Franks was on-message about fighting the enemy "over there" and not here. OK, fine; but the truth is that Jorge's relentlessly committed to keeping the country open to anybody -- including terrorists -- wanting to come here.

Then there was the would-be Senator from Cuba. I knew from the outset, with perfect certainty, that he was going to poke America in the eye. I doubted myself for a moment: maybe he'd settle for a token buenas noches to the spics back home. But I said to myself: "Wait for it, wait for it" -- and sure enough, after all that bullshit about how great America is and how grateful he is to America, the son of a bitch started jabbering in Spanish.

I noticed that the less-homely of the Bush girls was showing some nice cleavage. I could see then why some guys think she's hot.

Finally, of course, there was Jorge himself. If there was ever any chance that I'd vote for him again, it was annihilated when he started spouting Spanish. (Hey, asshole, what country do you think you're running for President of?)

His acceptance speech started off with his domestic policy, which boils down to lower taxes and bigger government. (Good luck squaring that circle, asshole!)

Then he went on to his foreign policy -- a mixture of about 1/3 Jacksonianism and 2/3 Wilsonianism. In me, the proportions are reversed; but at least he's living on the same planet I am. The Democrats seem to think they're living on Pluto, or maybe one of those planets recently found orbiting other stars.

One thing I noticed in his speech, which had bugged me throughout the convention, was the defensiveness about the Battle of Iraq in general and WMDs in particular. For me, the Battle of Iraq was primarily about settling old scores and finishing unfinished business (I'd been for "regime change" in Iraq since 1991), secondarily about kicking ass for ass-kicking's own sake, and tertially about anything else. Why am I the only American saying this?

Why bother to vote?

One thing is certain: either Bush or Kerry is going to be elected in November. Each of them is committed to an amnesty for illegal aliens. Bush's plan has a few trivial qualifications -- mainly, the utterly dishonest assertion that his amnesty somehow isn't really an amnesty. Of course, Kerry promptly outbid him for the foreign vote (which is basically Democratic anyway) with an even more sweeping amnesty plan. The bottom line is that, for someone concerned about the immigration problem, what reason is there to turn out and vote at all?

If you don't vote, you completely disenfranchise yourself. If you make a symbolic vote for Tom Tancredo or some Right-wing splinter party, at least you're making yourself heard; you're making a statement for the record; you are, to put it bluntly, giving the finger to Bush and Kerry and the foreign vote. If you sit out the election, you'll be sitting alongside the ignorant and apathetic masses who are silent, and might as well be silent, because they just haven't got a clue. But if you really do know and care about what's going on in our country, then it's your patriotic duty as an American to stand up and be counted.

More predictions

Maybe it's just the hubris that's inevitably followed by nemesis, but I just can't keep myself from trying to predict the outcome of this election -- these elections, I should say. The more auguries I try to read, the more convinced I am that the GOP will wipe up the floor with the Democrats.

Exhibit A: In 2000, Jorge narrowly defeated the incumbent-party candidate in peacetime. In 2004, he's the incumbent candidate in wartime.

Exhibit B: In the redistricting after the 2000 Census, the states Jorge won gained electoral weight.

Exhibit C: In 2001, the very big and very Democratic state of New York had front-row seats to the worst attack this nation has suffered in its entire history. It'll be interesting to see whether the Empire State faces harsh reality or seeks refuge in the peacenik fantasy-world. As I write this, polls are showing Kerry losing his lead.

Exhibit D: In the off-year elections of 2002, the incumbent party picked up strength in Congress. The last time this happened was in 1934.

Exhibit E: In 2003, more people polled self-identified as Republicans than as Democrats, for the first time since polling began. Also in that year, a Republican -- albeit a merely nominal one -- was elected Governor of California in a landslide. I wouldn't bet that California will go for Jorge (even if I were a betting man), but it's conceivable.

Exhibit F: John F'ing Kerry is such a pompous phony that I can't imagine how anyone can stand to watch him or listen to him. His glassy-eyed roboticism gives me the creeps. The whole war-hero act is so transparently thin, he's like a leper in a white negligee. He's a McGovernite liberal through and through, and the American people have never gone for McGovernite liberalism except when it came disguised as a Southern moderate.

Good ol' Jorge is an asshole, no doubt about that. But when I watch him and listen to him, I get the feeling that he's a plain, simple, honest guy. He's even gotten rid of that smirk, pretty much -- either keeping a straight face or giving an open smile. I don't know, but I think he sincerely believes that he can simultaneously cut taxes, expand the welfare state, accommodate about 1,000,000,000 new immigrants, and make the world safe for democracy. He's a moron, but he's a sincere and genial moron -- which will count with all the people who respond to soothing pabulum from someone as moronic as they are.

But here's the really important thing: a political party is bigger than any one man, even the President. If I'm right, and we're headed for an epochal realignment, then the last residue of hereditary Democratic voters will finally come to their senses the way Zell Miller did, and realize that the party they've been supporting has become totally unpatriotic and even downright insane. The Democrats will finally be reduced to their base of hard-core anti-American ideologues and ethnic minorities (the kind of people I like to call "internal secessionists"). If that happens, it becomes much more likely that the new Republican majority will split itself on the issue of Americanism vs. anti-Americanism -- with pro-foreigner moonbats like Jorge winding up in the Democratic camp.

If I had the talent of a Thomas Nast, I would draw Kerry and Edwards as midgets in clown suits riding a donkey off a cliff; Jorge, in sombrero and serape, riding an elephant with the cowboy Cheney up to a shining city on a hill; in the middle distance, an ominous horde of foreigners -- Mexicans, mostly, but also sinister Arabs with knives (or maybe boxcutters) and those old cartoon black bombs -- swarming over Tom Tancredo, a knight in shining armor, his shield arm against the swarm, his sword thrust into the air, waving in an appeal for aid.

Compatriots, be afraid. Be very afraid. But hope against hope, and vote Tancredo on 11/2!

First impressions of the first debate

Kerry was pretty much as pompous and phony as I expected; Jorge wavered between calm resolve and slightly desperate defensiveness. Kerry got in some good points, hitting Jorge from the Right; but knowing they were phony defused them for me. A couple of times Jorge made me stand up and cheer. Each of them was obviously trying to repeat the same basic message, as many times and in as many ways as possible: Kerry on the importance of multilateralism (which made me laugh out loud more than once), Jorge on the importance of staying the course. I'll have to read a transcript and do more thinking before I expound any further to my three readers.

My debate verdict

So Kerry says he'll "hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are." Yeah, right. If anybody else out there noticed that, this will be his Dukakis-in-a-tank moment. The man just can't be taken seriously by anyone who thinks.

But boy, it sure sounds good! After that, Jorge vowing to "bring them to justice" sounds wimpy and mealy-mouthed. What "justice"? The International Criminal Court?

When you think about it, the two phrases pretty neatly sum up the Jacksonian and Wilsonian world-views. And when you look over a transcript of the debate, you find that both candidates are basically Wilsonians with other stuff mixed in: Bush has a Jacksonian streak, Kerry has a streak of pure weaselry.

Kerry will say just about anything if it's somehow critical of Jorge, even if one utterance totally contradicts another, or is so wildly bizarre that one's jaw literally drops in amazement. For instance: yes, Old Horseface really did say, right out loud on national television, that he would offer to provide free nuclear fuel to Iran. And after all his gushing about multilateralism, he rejected Jorge's multilateral approach to North Korea in favor of the failed bilateral approach of the Clintonian past.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop and say that Jorge was totally right to hammer on this guy's flip-flopping, even though it kind of annoyed me as I was listening to it. Kerry says that Jorge has nothing to offer but "more of the same" failed policies; but neither does Kerry, at least in the Iraq context. All he offers is the totally unsubstantiated promise that somehow he'd be able to bring more allies aboard and bring our troops home faster. I guess he figures that a promise to bug out is not politically viable.

The upshot is that on issue after issue, Kerry has nothing to say that's worth listening to, except accidentally. He can't land any solid blows on Jorge's record because he has no real alternative. Jorge's record isn't very good, there's no denying that, but it's a hell of a lot better than that of some pompous fool who thinks that having enough summits will solve our problems.

The vice-presidential debate

What we need is a metaphor stronger than "kick ass" but not as strong as "crush like a bug." Whatever that is, Cheney did it -- calmly and methodically. He was gravitas personified. His performance wasn't perfect -- whose could be? -- but it was a great improvement over Jorge's, and leaves both Democrats looking pathetically outmatched.

Edwards was as obviously phony as Kerry, but in a slick rather than pompous way. He looked and sounded as if he were Bill Clinton's kid brother. It's hard to believe that anybody could be even less credible than Old Horseface, but he managed to accomplish it. The whole time, I could hardly stop laughing at him. Far and away the funniest thing was the Boy Weasel's attempt to talk tough on foreign policy, but I also got some good chuckles out of his efforts to portray modern-day Democrats as the party of tax cuts, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility. The sad thing is that the lousy Republicans have been recklessly irresponsible enough to make themselves vulnerable on these issues.

Cheney, pounding on their records, made a much more profound and important point than Bush did when pounding on Kerry's flip-flops. Taken together, they cinch the case. Kerry is a dove, and all the flip-flopping is his desperate, last-minute effort to put on some hawk's feathers for disguise. Edwards is slime in a suit, with no core principles of any kind, not even misguided ones like Wilsonian dovishness: he will say and do anything whatsoever to pursue his own (and his party's) immediate advantage.

Round 2: Jorge bleeds

There was only one reason why I bothered to watch the second Presidential debate: to see if the "i"-word would even be mentioned. Of course, it wasn't; so I wasn't paying close attention. My general impression was that Jorge sounded even more desperate than before. Kerry was just as phony, pompous, and glassy-eyed; but he seemed to be pounding hard and drawing blood. It was only toward the very end that Jorge recovered his calm resolve, and even then he was bleeding too badly to hit back hard.

All in all, it was a pathetically weak performance. Hell, I could have done a better job of defending the Administration on Iraq. I'm still 100% in favor of the decision to invade, WMDs or no WMDs. But there's no denying that they've made huge mistakes in the aftermath -- mainly, not doing anything about Syria and Iran. They keep talking about going on the offense in the War of 9/11, but instead of actually doing anything about it, they keep playing defense in the debate over Iraq.

Round 3: They both lost

So, though the final debate was supposed to be about domestic policy, the first question was about foreign policy. Both candidates repeated the same tired lines they'd repeated a thousand times before. I poured myself a stiff drink and settled in for a long, boring evening.

An old, old memory bubbled up from my subconscious: "We are not Men, we are Devo" -- he is not Man, he is Kerry.

The Smirk was back in full force.

Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.

Then my button was pushed, I sat up straight and raised the volume:

SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President.

I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration.

I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue.

How do you see it? And what do we need to do about it?

BUSH: I see it as a serious problem. I see it as a security issue, I see it as an economic issue, and I see it as a human-rights issue.

["Human rights"?! WTF? Does every human in the world have the "right" to come to this country? I think the moron really believes it.]

We're increasing the border security of the United States. We've got 1,000 more Border Patrol agents on the southern border.

We're using new equipment. We're using unmanned vehicles to spot people coming across.

[We don't need any new equipment, just good old-fashioned barbed wire and landmines.]

And we'll continue to do so over the next four years. It's a subject I'm very familiar with. After all, I was a border governor for a while.

Many people are coming to this country for economic reasons. They're coming here to work. If you can make 50 cents in the heart of Mexico, for example, or make $5 here in America, $5. 15, you're going to come here if you're worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families. And that's what's happening.

[What's happening is that Jorge isn't doing his job, which is to enforce the laws, including immigration laws.]

And so in order to take pressure off the borders, in order to make the borders more secure, I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there's not an American willing to do that job, to join up in order to be able to fulfill the employers' needs.

[Gotta love that dogged Republican devotion to the interests of big business.]

That has the benefit of making sure our employers aren't breaking the law as they try to fill their workforce needs. It makes sure that the people coming across the border are humanely treated, that they're not kept in the shadows of our society, that they're able to go back and forth to see their families. See, the card, it'll have a period of time attached to it.

[How about, you know, maybe enforcing the law against the employers? And why should any American's heart bleed for Mexican lawbreakers? We shouldn't keep them in the shadows, we should kick them out of the country, dammit!]

[And don't try to tell me it can't be done. This is America!]

It also means it takes pressure off the border. If somebody is coming here to work with a card, it means they're not going to have to sneak across the border. It means our border patrol will be more likely to be able to focus on doing their job.

[Secure the borders by opening them to everybody who wants to get in -- yeah, sounds like a plan. Asshole.]

Now, it's very important for our citizens to also know that I don't believe we ought to have amnesty. I don't think we ought to reward illegal behavior. There are plenty of people standing in line to become a citizen. And we ought not to crowd these people ahead of them in line.

If they want to become a citizen, they can stand in line, too.

And here is where my opponent and I differ. In September 2003, he supported amnesty for illegal aliens.

[Notice how he weasels out of calling it an "amnesty" by changing the subject from immigration to naturalization. Of course he's rewarding illegal behavior by letting them get away with it. And he's encouraging more illegal behavior.]

SCHIEFFER: Time's up.


KERRY: Let me just answer one part of the last question quickly, and then I'll come to immigration.

[blah blah blah -- snip]

Now, with respect to immigration reform, the president broke his promise on immigration reform. He said he would reform it. Four years later he is now promising another plan.

[What a flabbergastingly stupid, pointless answer. The problem with Jorge is that he's spent nearly four years now failing to enforce the existing immigration laws -- and he wants to make a bad situation worse. Sure, the laws need to be reformed -- but in totally the opposite direction to what Jorge wants.]

Here's what I'll do: Number one, the borders are more leaking today than they were before 9/11. The fact is, we haven't done what we need to do to toughen up our borders, and I will.

[Yeah, right, Mr. "Hunt-them-down-and-kill-them." I am so sure.]

Secondly, we need a guest-worker program, but if it's all we have, it's not going to solve the problem.

[In one clause of one sentence, he concedes the crucial issue to Jorge.]

The second thing we need is to crack down on illegal hiring. It's against the law in the United States to hire people illegally, and we ought to be enforcing that law properly.

[Totally true -- but coming from the Un-Man, just an opportunistic attempt to swipe at Bush and differentiate himself. And totally stupid, since the whole point of the "guest-worker" program is to let the employers do legally what they now do illegally.]

And thirdly, we need an earned-legalization program for people who have been here for a long time, stayed out of trouble, got a job, paid their taxes, and their kids are American. We got to start moving them toward full citizenship, out of the shadows.

[Gotta love that dogged Democratic devotion to lawbreakers. Also, notice that he's really just repeated that he agrees with Jorge on the crucial issue -- and goes one step farther by actually promising citizenship as well as legalization.]

SCHIEFFER: Do you want to respond, Mr. President?

BUSH: Well, to say that the borders are not as protected as they were prior to September the 11th shows he doesn't know the borders. They're much better protected today than they were when I was the governor of Texas.

We have much more manpower and much more equipment there.

He just doesn't understand how the borders work, evidently, to say that. That is an outrageous claim.

And we'll continue to protect our borders. We're continuing to increase manpower and equipment.

[Yeah -- but not enough to get the job done. Asshole.]


KERRY: Four thousand people a day are coming across the border.

[Schieffer said 8,000, but who the hell knows?]

The fact is that we now have people from the Middle East, allegedly, coming across the border.

[If it weren't the Un-Man saying it, a line like this would rip Jorge's lungs out.]

And we're not doing what we ought to do in terms of the technology. We have iris-identification technology. We have thumbprint, fingerprint technology today. We can know who the people are, that they're really the people they say they are when they cross the border.

We could speed it up. There are huge delays.

[More fancy-shmancy technology, yet. Barbed wire and landmines, dammit!]

The fact is our borders are not as secure as they ought to be [too true], and I'll make them secure [cue snort of derision].

(Transcript from CPD.)

Tancredo for President

19 reasons to write in Tom Tancredo

Citizens Lobby - Mailbag

Colo. Rep. Tancredo flexes political muscle at fund raiser

Congressman Tom Tancredo

Free Republic

FrontPage Interview: Rep. Tom Tancredo by Steve Brown

An Interview With Congressman Tom Tancredo (R - CO)

LP: Tancredo Slams immigration Bureaucrat In Texas For Refusing To Enforce The Law (Demands Explanation, Action from President Bush)

Stop the Invasion!

Tancredo 2008 Presidential Whisper Campaign

Tancredo for president, group says

Tancredo presses White House on control of border

Tancredo will seek to abolish race caucuses

Team America: PAC

Tom Tancredo 2004

WorldNetDaily: Tancredo: Illegals plan will not pass Congress

Official results

For the record: 2004 Presidential Election Results, courtesy of Dave Leip. He's one of the few people who still remember that Republicans are "true blue" (or Blue Meanies, if you take the other side's point of view) and Commiecrats are Red.

Well, I never seriously doubted that Jorge would win; the only question was, how wide the margin. My confident prediction of a landslide was, fortunately, falsified. I guess it goes to show that history is like the stars: you may see patterns there, but they won't predict the future for you.

Instead, I got half of what I wished for -- a narrow win for Jorge, but not much in the way of patriotic protest votes. My hope is that this real but narrow victory will kick the guts out of the loony Left and the jackass party, without puffing up Jorge too much. We shall see.

The real good news is that the GOP picked up strength in Congress as well. While this election wasn't the dramatic realignment I predicted, it was one more step in the gradual realignment that's been going on since 1968-72. I'm starting now to wish that Kerry had squeaked in somehow, since he wouldn't have Jorge's partisan leverage. Fortunately, it seems that Jorge's amnesty plan is likely to face even stronger opposition anyway.

The real landslides were for the ballot initiatives. The Sodomy Lobby got slapped down hard, 11 times out of 11; Proposition 200 soared to victory in defiance of the usual suspects. Ah, the will of the people, unmediated by the warping and corrupting party-system -- it's enough to fill one's heart with a warm glow.

The aftermath

Man, am I sick and tired of all this "red state/blue state" crap. First of all, as I pointed out last time, everyone has the colors backwards. Second, it's only an optical illusion. There are plenty of pinkoes in blue-meany states, and vice versa. Third, while each party has its hard core of ideologues, most people vote Dementocrat because they just don't know any better, or they vote Republican because the other party is just plain nuts. Fourth, it leads to talk of secession, which is alarming -- not because there's any possibility of it, but because the mere mention of it shows how demented so many of our compatriots have become.

Finally, I take it personally, having exiled myself from Pinkoland without ever finding a home in Bluemeania. I'd rather attend an opera than a NASCAR whatchamacallit, for instance, and though I'm still a card-carrying member of the NRA I never actually do any shooting anymore. I suppose you could say, from the glass-half-full point of view, that I have a foot in each camp. So, as one who is part of neither "red" nor "blue" America, but just a simple (albeit peculiar) American, I'd like to say a few things to both sides.

To the losers of 11/2, I relay the excellent advice of Ray Davies: "Look in the mirror, and don't take yourself so seriously." Maybe, just maybe, you aren't smarter and better than 51% of your compatriots. Maybe, just maybe, you might actually be wrong, for once. Maybe, just maybe, you might acknowledge the fact that we're at war with bloodthirsty maniacs -- maniacs who hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings on purpose, who blow themselves up in public places, who kidnap people and hack their heads off with knives. Call me crazy, call me a warmongering fascist hyena -- but I really, really like to see the U.S. Armed Forces going out and killing those maniacs.

To the winners of 11/2, I say this: do you really want to keep our country open to those maniacs? And how can you be stupid enough to think that Mexicans will ever vote for you? Oh, I forgot -- you're just a bunch of ignorant fundamentalist yokels manipulated by rich corporate interests, just as the pinkoes say you are.