It’s post election and this year was especually devisive. One of the common themes seemed to be that democrats were looking for handouts, while republicans paid for them. insulting, but not unexpected.

It didn’t work. Mr Obama won a second term, and while his margin wasn’t massive, it was emphatic.

I guess it takes a lot of red to pay for the blue

Yesterday, I see this. Mr Rossi, this is precisely the kind of lowbrow pandering I expected from you and precisely the reason why you lost an election. “I guess it takes a lot of red to pay for the blue”. Really? Lets just consider your own state. Washington voted red if you look at the state map. It voted resoundingly blue if you look at a population density map.

In our consumer economy, it is individual incomes that drive the local economy. It is individual and corporate incomes that provide the tax base. I hate to break to you Mr. Rossi, but the incomes are where people live. I love my small town, but I am well aware that if it wasn’t for the blue county taxes, I wouldn’t live or work here.

You’re wrong Mr. Rossi. It is the urban areas that pay for the rural. It’s not a red vs blue (Houston is red, but it pays “more than it receives” just as Seattle does), its simple population dynamics.

As for his original quote, perhaps Mr. Rossi should do his research next time.

Republicans have to do two things before I consider them for major office again

  1. Present viable candidates (stop pandering to the extreme)
  2. Stop insulting my intelligence.

I’m perfectly happy to vote for a (relatively) fiscal conservative, as long as I don’t have to deal with a social conservative too. That is all.