Adults say the darnest things
I’m talking to someone who retorts to some long forgotten debate comeback that “it is because NY is too liberal”. Even today someone commented to me that NY is a true blue state. (which prompted me to post this)
So I ask, why do we have Pataki ? Kuhl? Reynolds? Walsh? Maggie Brooks? Robach? Yep, Liberals all. Try again.
Silence
Well said.
Uh oh. Now they actually have to think about it. What was the context of their comment?
It constantly amazes me how thin their talking points are and how quickly and easily one can deflate them.
Well, one was a from a person who trends conservative. The “true blue” comment was from someone who trends Democrat. The comments usually were stated as a justification of a point. NY voted for Kerry (or is anti-Bush), it is a “blue” state, ergo it is liberal. Or NY is about to vote for Spitzer so it is blue.
The thread originated from an imaginary conversation I was having with a LTE a few months ago where the submitter blamed Hillary Clinton for not getting jobs in NY. Yep - 12 years of Pataki is somehow Clinton’s fault. Curious I didn’t see our upstate Republican Congress people mentioned in the LTE. Instead it focused on Clinton and Spitzer.
If you don’t challenge these comments when you can - you condone them.
Ah, the immortal “Red State/Blue State” myth! The media loves it, and the Dems have allowed themselves to be fooled by it, but it means nothing.
I try to explain this to my out-of-town friends, also: “listen, man, once you get out of the cities, it’s a red, red, red, red, red, red world.”
I would have thought that some clever strategist would have figured this out by now: it’s not Red State/Blue State, it’s urban/rural that decides elections these days. Understanding what makes urban voters interested in Liberal causes and what makes rural voters so disinterested would probably go a long way towards bridging that gap.