Bring the pain

Anyone who is pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-smaller government and pro-leave-people-the-fuck-alone-if-they're-not-fucking-with-you yet voted for Bush should be lumped in with the racists, the sexists, the fundamentalists and the flat-out nutjobs. Bush is not for anyone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and it's not the older members of the parties who are the problem -- it is the younger members who are growing increasingly traditional, religious and prolific.

In the past, if I absolutely had to vote for a Republican or Democrat, I probably would have gone for the Republican because the party at one time believed in smaller government. Even in the 2000 election (with 9/11 on no one's mind), I preferred Bush to Gore (although I voted for Browne), mostly because he campaigned on a centrist platform that more closely aligned with my overall political opinion. He was still a moron, but I assumed he was a moron who wouldn't leave much of a legacy.

That's changed, and I don't see these alleged "open-minded" members of the Republican Party taking over, as long as they keep voting for candidates who don't embrace the same ideology. What better message to send to a fundamentalist-controlled political party than to vote them out of office?

The reason why the Republicans are so successful is that members of the party are willing to overlook a lousy candidate who completely disagrees with everything they believe, just to toe the party line. To them, it's a contest to prove that their guy can kick your guy's ass. It's not about choosing the candidate who will be the best leader (given the choices) or at the very least, not cause too much damage.

Democrats, on the other hand, don't feel the same misguided sense of loyalty, and they're more willing to vote for other candidates or sit it out. There's not the same level of organization or sense of urgency, and because Democrats tend to have a more "whatever" attitude, it's difficult to find a defining issue to rally around. The Republicans had their queers and fears, and the Democrats had -- well, "anyone but Bush."

And the Democrats are scared to field a candidate with strong beliefs that don't gibe with those of the Republican Party. They need to accept that they are never going to reach those who vote based on religious morality and instead, they should focus on voters who are searching for someone who isn't a pussy or a blithering idiot. Why vote for Republican Lite when they can get the real deal? Are you going to eat a Gardenburger when there's a one-pound patty of Grade A beef in front of you?

Keep and expand on the fiscal moderation and personal responsibility angle, since the Republicans don't seem interested in it, but stop trying to appeal to people who honestly think the end times are coming -- and are looking forward to it. Become the Libertarian Party that could actually win.

Belying the reader's claim that this particular writer "says it well," the site goes on to complain about the iconic figure that conservatives seem to think unofficially leads the coven of the godless. The overwhelming majority of heathens recognize Michael Moore for what he is: an opportunist who makes amusing, skewed documentaries with occasional valid, but superficial, points.

I'm sick of the right dredging up Moore as some sort of liberal/Libertarian hero, like it's their ace in the hole when he's mentioned. "Oh, yeah? Well, well -- MICHAEL MOORE!" It's tiring.

I think the left and the right could have an entire debate composed of:

Right: "Michael Moore!"

Left: "Hitler!"

Right: "Michael Moore!"

Left: "Hitler!"

Nader: "Snoochieboochies!"

I'm not sure why this reader thought that particular article was well-written because I can assure you it wasn't. I'm even sparing you the 10 seconds it would take for you to realize that it was copied verbatim from the 2004 Conservative Handbook. Any site that thinks Michael Moore is anything other than a right-wing strawman or that the current Democratic Party is any more liberal than your average moderate Republican is easily dismissed.

I've read comments from Republicans who think that we should just "talk to the 'red staters,' get to know them." What, exactly, would someone who bases her decisions and beliefs on logic and facts have to say to someone who bases her decisions and beliefs on faith, religious doctrine and a view of the world that doesn't extend beyond the Mason-Dixon line? There doesn't seem to be much room for common ground.

Those comments also overlook the millions of "red staters" who voted for a candidate other than Bush. Unfortunately, they -- like the rest of the country -- are stuck with the taint. No one cares about the two men in Saudi Arabia who support women's rights when the majority would just as soon cover them up and keep them secluded.

And it is the fault of the Democrats who didn't campaign in states they assumed wouldn't give electoral votes to them, even though the party could have brought it home by actually attempting to differentiate themselves from their opponent.

In the Northeast, few of us have daily exposure to fundamentalist Christians, and honestly, we find you all a bit creepy. Most of us would look askance at someone who seriously started a sentence with, "God hates..."

To us, religion means tolerating your family at Christmas, maybe getting ashed up on Ash Wednesday, going to five-dollar fish frys and tricky trays, making casseroles for and gossiping at the Lydia Circle, volunteering at the soup kitchen on Thanksgiving, baking cookies for the bi-annual bake sale, and worshipping through interpretive modern dance. It's not so much about the fire and brimstone; it's more of a social scene with religion often taking a backseat.

Kerry didn't win by a landslide in the Northeastern states, but based on talking to voters in the NYC metro area who voted for Bush, their decision rarely came from a special bond with God. Mostly, they're scared of being killed and they don't want to support their neighbors but they want the country to support them in the form of child, marriage and mortgage tax credits.

Then, of course, there are the residents of southern and northwestern New Jersey who just don't want the nigras and homos gettin' all uppity. They're generally insular assholes, not Jesus freaks. You can usually tell them by the ATVs.

One reader said I'd "gone off my rocker" and, like most good Republicans who look forward to biting themselves in the ass, said he took glee in watching those of us who weep for a country led by a religious spendthrift.

As I've gone off the deep end, I don't quite understand gloating about electing a man who thinks a higher power speaks to him and is on his side, but hey, if you can go to bed at night knowing that you helped return a guy to office who deserves his own HBO documentary sandwiched between "Graduating Peter" and "Hookers on the Point," make sure you say your prayers before hitting the sheets. I've heard God is a right bastard.

I can't imagine why any Libertarian or Republican of the old-school variety would cast a vote for Bush, since he's made it clear that he doesn't mind pissing away trillions of dollars on poorly planned or untested endeavors or forcing his born-again morality on us.

Kerry would have faced a Republican-controlled Congress that would have granted him little leeway in pushing even a moderately "liberal" agenda, and any doomsday scenario about Kerry raising the income tax to 60 percent so Shaniqua could keep pushing out welfare babies was highly unlikely. That's why you split a ticket: to ensure that no one can declare a mandate. No one party should have absolute control.

And the solution to this is one that should make any creationist -- excuse me, proponent of intelligent design -- cream his pants, if he were morally allowed to do so: a return to states' rights. Let the religious walk among Jesus, and let those of us in the financial centers of the country blow our money on $15 mixed drinks and throw away our old people and fetuses.

Everybody wins. And in 2008, when we field the unbeatable team of Jon Stewart and Chris Rock, it'll be a win in more than spirit only.

Providing jack-off material for white misogynists since 1997.

The Misanthropic Bitch does not encourage feedback. All submissions, though, become property of the Misanthropic Bitch. Submissions may be published or reused in any other medium.