Dear Blue States:
Imagine our relief that you’ve decided to secede and form some sort of bathing-optional commune headquartered in California. The money we'll save in aspirin, now that we won’t have headaches from listening to your interminable whining, will be worth it to us alone.
We'll finally be rid of you lazy, moping, latte-sucking Streisand fans now that you're actually going to follow through--for once--on your promise to finally get off your butts and leave, as so many of you claimed you would every election cycle and then chickened out of actually doing. (Yeah, we’re looking at you, Alec Baldwin.)
But not so fast. You don’t get to take all the Blue States with you--just the Blue parts.
You see, your Blue States aren’t actually "blue." Mostly, they’re states full of Red counties with pockets of Blue urban blight in them, who vote Democratic in such numbers that if the same results came out of a Third World country which, come to think of it, many of the "Blue" counties pretty much are--we’d think it was fraud and send election observers from the UN. Even California is pretty much a Red State: Bush won 35 out of 58 counties, while Kerry won LA and San Francisco. You want 'em? We won't fight you for them, that's for sure, but you're going to have to found New California without 35 of your most beautiful counties and your second-largest city. Sorry about that.
Nationally, Bush won over 2.5 million square miles of U.S. counties (and an extra three and a half million votes, but we won't rub that in.) Kerry won less than 600,000 square miles--meaning that in most states he was popular downtown and pretty much nowhere else. In other words, your guy won the places that people like him would get shot if he walked through them at night. Our guy won every place else.
So, the bottom lines is that you don't get the Blue States. Those states have lots of towns and counties that would rather blow their dams and flood themselves out of existence rather than go with you. No, instead, you get the Blue Cities.
But we really feel we owe you full disclosure on this exchange. This might come as an unpleasant surprise, but you don’t actually get the lower divorce and single-motherhood rates and all that other good stuff you think you're going to snag. Those are the conditions that are actually found out in the Red counties, pardner, not in the Blue cities, and you can't have them.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Steve S
I liked the other one better, but I suppose to be fair you had to throw them a bone.
2 - gonzo marx
sorry Jimmy...but the whole electoral college thing, you know?
unless otherwise held in their state constitution...they get the whole state
so some of you red folks better pack
i joke, i kid...i Jest...
Excelsior!
3 - KC
You know the one pic you used really doesn't as much like a blue state resident.
But I think the "kidding" is to be expected as part of the last gasp. I think everyone on both sides know it's over.
Repubs have had what they always wanted--complete control, and it's no longer possible to ignore the huge mess they've made.
Keep giving yourself the desperate pep talks through and pretend nothing has changed. From your angle it's better than facing reality. The party's been done in by its own champion.
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
Pretty much the same, albeit toned back, style of the first failed attempt. It just falls flat on its face.
5 - Dave Nalle
>>Keep giving yourself the desperate pep talks through and pretend nothing has changed. From your angle it's better than facing reality. The party's been done in by its own champion.<<
Except that dissatisfied Republicans and Moderates will still face the same dilemma as ever when it comes to voting next time. The GOP may have failed them in many ways, but even the small chance they'll do a better job next time is superior to giving up all hope for a decent, free country and voting Democrat.
Dave
6 - Steve S
Voting next time?
voting has been put in the hands of Diebold and nobody cares that verifiable paper trails have been abandoned. Voting next time?
7 - andy marsh
gonzo - I thought the blue staters wanted to abolish the electoral college...I do remember calls for that during the last election. As a matter fo fact...I recall CO attempting to pass a law to split their EC votes...no?
8 - gonzo marx
yep andy, some states already do split their EC votes, others are thinking about it...but it ain't so yet
me, i'm ambivalent about it...but then again, i think that the 2 senators should be elected at the same time, whoever gets the most votes is senior senator, the next guy is junior senator
do the same thing for the VP...winner of the election is Pres, next guy is VP
think how much fun that would be, ya knucklehead
Excelsior!
9 - Dawn
Ya know what I find so stupid about this cliched, water-logged tripe of a post? It's counter-productive to what really needs to be done in this country.
As our men and women are being blown up left AND right, it makes the liberal in me want to pull out of Iraq RIGHT NOW. Then I see that Osama Bin Laden's right-handed douchebag is making dire proclamations about how they are going to kill us all if we don't get off "their" soil, blah blah blah - and instead of becoming afraid, it makes me ANGRY and ANNOYED and REALLY DEFIANT.
If we can learn anything about the tragedies of 9/11 and the London bombings, that is that we must not be afraid.
For all we know these pigfucking assplows have nukes and are going to kill a million next time - this is a distinct possibility. As a mother this terrifies me to my core, but I SWEAR that something even bigger than my own maternal fears is growing inside me and that is the righteous indignation that I have as a freedom-loving human that we cannot let these cowardly pigs gain one inch of control.
This war is no different in scope than defeating the Nazis, or any other fascistic dickwads of the past, present and future.
They are evil, and we (everyone else in the world) are good. We will overpower them, but only if we stay united, not divided.
So if you want to do some good, write a post about how we must come together to defeat these fuckers.
Now, that would be worth reading.
10 - JR
What this country really needs is a divorce. Sometimes we can't just all get along. We can agree to disagree on domestic issues and agree to agree on fighting terrorism, just as we do with Britain and our other allies.
11 - John Bambenek
What this country needs is people to STFU long enough to get a grip.
What this country needs is a lot less sore loser...
Wah wah wah, I don't like the President, I'm gonna secede.
Wah wah wah, the administration won't usher in communism, I want a revolution.
You want communism, go to China. You want socialized health care? Go to Canada.
It isn't the hard, either shut up and work with the system or get out. Democracy sucks when you're on the losing side, but guess what, if you want to piss and moan about it, maybe Democracy just isn't for you.
12 - JR
John Bambenek: What this country needs is people to STFU long enough to get a grip.
Then why don't you?
13 - Nancy
What we need to do is eradicate BOTH political parties, bar any current elected scumbags from ever participating again no excuses no exceptions, and start all over. Maybe a worldwise epidemic of bird flu would be a good thing. 40-60% overall mortality? Those left would be too busy trying to survive to fight about stupid stuff.
14 - gonzo marx
oh my stars and garters...
to sloop John B..
no..i, for one will NOT just STFU when i see shit is wrong..i realize that many oin the GOP would like to be completely totalitarian about things...ain't gonna happen
nope again..i freely admit i don't like the Shrub, and i despise most of his Administrations policies...no chance of anu seceeding...those Posts are a joke son...try and deal...K?...thanx...
i have not heard ANYbody talk about any kind of "communism" , just fighting against your type of totalitarian fascism...which we are allowed, and encouraged to do by the social contract of both the Declaration and the Constitution...again, get over it...as for Revolution...check Jefferson on that one....also Newt Goingrich and his "Republican Revolution" which started your whole neocon ball rolling...or aren't we supposed to remember that bit?
dealt with the first part (communism, try more hyperbole)...as for socialized medicin..that's what the legislative process is for, don't see it happening...so what's your point?...oh yeah..i forgot...more dittohead distraction, name calling and such
and finally, sorry again, we are a Republic...and democracy actually requires that those that don't like something piss and moan about it, as well as try and change it
totalitarian fascist neocon punks need to get used to it
nuff said?
Excelsior!
15 - Matthew T. Sussman
Gonzo, I agree with you (whoa!) we need to keep talking about it. S-ing-TFU (is that grammatically correct?) is the last thing we need in this country.
But debate -- things many people on BC, including yourself and myself -- is productive to the greater good of this country. I feel whining is counterproductive.
So I'm curious, G. Marx: do you find funny the satirical notion of seceding based on political beliefs?
16 - RJ
Cool post. No wonder the Leftists are so upset about it...
17 - gonzo marx
no Matthew...i really don't find it "funny" as in an amusing laugh
i find it "funny" as in existential Irony...
look at the 04 election map, in states, as Red and Blue
now go look at the Civil War map, make the Union Blue, and the Confederates Red
ironic, eh?
wasn't that the last time anyone took any kind of talk about secession seriously?
and look how well that went
Excelsior!
18 - sydney
The worst part about America is this two party system where everyone takes a side (red or blue) and calls the other idiots. The result? Extremism and political fanaticism, partisan politics, and a generally obnoxious voting public who cares less about the fate of their country than they do about towing the party line.
What the fuck is the problem with you people? Tone down the rhetoric for a few seconds and you might get in touch with what you really believe in. As it is, some of you, like RJ, just spout shit all day long. Rhetorical bullshit that does nothing to convince anyone of anything, but which hardens the opposition in their rejection of a differing view.
The point of arguing is not to convince the other person he/she is wrong (would that ever work?never), but to explain your point of view in a reasonable manner so that the other person might understand you better and find points of agreement.
This is what keeps America from being democratic. This is why America is so polarized. This is why America has so many fucked up and archaic values, beliefs and attitudes. It's because the political discourse in this country is reduced to fanatical extremes of hate. Each side defines itself in opposition of the other. It's sad.... this post is just another example. Thye got rid of this silly two party system and these family-entrenched political allegiances, than politics wouldn’t be reduced to the indignities of sports-talk and name calling.
Of course there is always room for a little rhetoric, and a little name calling, but most Americans seem to know nothing but…
19 - Matthew T. Sussman
Well said, Sydney.
I would hope the GOP splits in two, that way both viewpoints within can be relevant.
Maybe the DNP be split into two? Maybe one for social change, one for economic change?
Four parties, anyone?
20 - gonzo marx
sign me up for the one that is fiscally conservative ( ie:balanced budget) and socially libertarian (read: maximum individual rights)
anything else i can work with...but those two things are my top political priority...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
21 - Larry
The other interesting correlation: make a list of the ten most likely targets for the next time Osama has a hardon in his right hand and a suitcase nuke in his left. At least nine out of ten of them (if not all ten) will be one of those blue cities.
Ah, what a deal! It's like keeping your assets and selling off your liabilities. :-)
22 - Sacrilicious
I'm with you gonzo. Fiscally conservative and otherwise libertarian, and secular all the way. Why does this permutation never have a candidate?
23 - Dave Nalle
That's my philosophy too, but I add to it a healthy dose of distaste for those who spend all their time and effort attacking one side or the other because of a slavish adherence to extremist ideology.
Dave
24 - Dave Nalle
As for a party breakup, I think we're more likely to get three parties, a conservative and religious Republican party, a moderate Republican/Democrat/Libertarian party and a socialist Democratic party.
If the religious right doesn't fall apart, they are going to drive the libertarians and moderates out of the party or be forced to leave the GOP themselves. A similar dynamic exists among the Democrats where moderate Democrats are unlikely to be able to get along with the extreme socialists of moveon.org.
IMO libertarians and moderates have a lot more in common than people realize. Most libertarians are secularists and many moderates are fiscal conservatives, so there is a common ground. If moderates from both parties and sensible libertarians can get together and form a new party, I think it would have a lot of potential. My big hope is that it could become the Republican party, since that kind of political philosophy is the GOP tradition, but it may be harder to force the Neocons out than it is to form an entirely new party.
My initial guess is that a new, moderate party might start out with as many as a quarter of the total seats in the house and senate, which wouldn't be bad at all. They'd have a voting bloc which couldn't be ignored.
Dave
25 - Sacrilicious
Dave, what you're proposing would sound good to me, but I fear that there's no clear dividing line to split us into 3 distinct parties. Currently, the parties are partitioned essentially along big government/little government lines. Those of us who favor little government, but disagree with the intolerant views of the far right, don't naturally fall into a different grouping, we're just falling out right now, which is a shame. I'm sure the same thing is happening to those who favor progressive viewpoints on civil rights and social welfare, but dislike the extremist intolerance for religious beliefs and a ballooning deficit.
There seems to be enough popular sentiment outside of the two big parties, but we all seem to be characterized by a number of beliefs, with no one unifying quality.
Perhaps someone smarter than I am can come up with a solution.