Red States voted for Bush. They wanted Bush. Blue states didn't [View All]

[bigtree]

Why do we assume that these Bush voters are deep thinkers with the best interests of the country in mind when they voted?

Why should we form any campaign around polls taken where they describe what 'red' staters wanted in this election? I mean, c'mon, can we really take what these states want seriously? They get the majority of our tax dollars in aid and relief and pay less than the blue states, according to reports. Our party would provide these red staters with health insurance for all, real prescription drug solutions, aid for schools and higher education, fiscal sanity . . .

These red states may be at risk of terrorist attacks, but it was our liberal leaning state of New York and our unrepresented (state) of Washington, D.C. that got hit by al-Qaeda. Why do should we form our anti-terrorism policy around these untouched state's fears?

These red states aren't paying as much for our nation's needs as the blue states and they seem to be at less risk of attack by foreign terrorists (at least so far). Why are we pandering to them on the issue of terrorism? Do these red staters really care about the satety of New Yorkers or D.C residents?

Folks in these 'red' areas need to give heed to the concerns and remedies put forth by folks in those states who have borne most of the financial burden and experiential anxiety during this Bush era of increased terrorism and economic disaster.

Aside from the fact that these red state voters vote overwhelmingly for republicans, and we want them to vote for Democrats, do these republican leaning red staters have anything different from blue state Democrats worth emulating or adopting?