Lost? Follow the map.

Like break-dancing around the sixth-grade pod in the '80s and the flannel plague that swept south out of Seattle in the '90s, Bush-bashing is currently en vogue. Hell, Michael Moore made a pseudo-documentary that did nothing but and grossed millions at the box office. Now that Bush bashing has gained political support in the way of formal protest. Earlier this week, a handful of disgruntled politicians tried to block the congressional confirmation needed to certify last year's election results. In other words, they used big words, fiery rhetoric and parliamentary procedure to cast doubt on who we elected to be the next President.

Look at this map. It divides the country into red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) counties based on election results. Although the BDS has more in common with drunk tanks than think tanks, we know there's more red on this map than blue.

No, we aren't the total drunks a few wives think we are. We know the difference between the popular & electoral college vote (well, most of us do). We also know Bush received 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 252 and that Ohio proved the difference in the election. What we find amazing is that a scant 118,000 votes made the difference. With 4/5 of the country voting red, two precincts in the Ohio Valley region could have given us a president who voted for the war before he voted against it.

As a side note, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) was the lone senate hold-out on the vote confirmation; her action (or inaction) enabled a few grand-standing politicians to show their stupidity live on CSPAN. Fosty, this is the same Boxer who unsuccessfully tried to ban all private handgun ownership because she apparently skipped school the day her government class talked about the Bill of Rights.

Taking one step further aside, the BDS isn't totally surpised there's a lone blue stronghold surrounded by red in the central part of Texas. That part of the state recently signed football coach Mack Brown to a 10-year extension, so they have a track record of "what the hell?" decisions. The rest of the state tries to ignore them.

But back to the point at hand: most democrats can't believe they lost. Again. Contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't because the red states are run by goose-stepping neocons who make the town elders in Footloose look compassionate. It wasn't because Bush will try (and fail) to amend the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. And it wasn't due to the angry ramblings of a democratic senator from the south endorsing Bush at the Republican National Convention.

They lost because a bunch of people in middle America are scared.

Tax burdens, social security reform, education, environmental topics, all become non-issues if a nuclear explosion levels downtown Denver and paints the Front Range radioactive green. Unfounded fear? Probably. But it's an unfounded fear perpetrated by a couple of buildings falling down in New York a few years ago.

Driven by revenge mixed with fear of another attack, Bush relegates the Taliban to nothing more than a bonus question on Jeopardy with the support of Congress and the country. He then moves the fight to Iraq; a country on record as hating America and gassing its own people. Through faulty intelligence dating back to the Clinton administration, coupled with Iraq's removal of UN weapon inspectors in 2002, the world was led to believe WMDs were in the country.

And if they were, John Q. Public in Des Moines didn't want to see us get sucker-punched again by the bad guys-this time using WMDs that would make that September day in New York look like a walk in Battery Park. So he, along with his neighbors in Lincoln, Tulsa, Abilene, Helena and Dodge City supported Bush and the war.

So the question now begs to be asked: does a lack of concrete WMD evidence in Iraq make an otherwise "just" war now unjustifiable? Not when you consider Iraq had months to hide, dispose of and/or sell whatever illicit material it had while the UN squabbled over extending deadlines and strengthening ineffective sanctions. Besides, we eventually deposed a brutal dictator who invaded neighboring nations and, among other glowing attributes, condoned torturing and killing athletes for failing to win a damn soccer game.

Yes, it can be argued that a moral society is one that uses military action only as a last resort. However, "last resort" usually means the other guy shot at you first. By the time you respond, it's too late. Someone's already dead. Therefore, it can also be argued that a moral society has an ethical obligation to protect its citizenry at any cost. Even when that means throwing the first punch before the other guy has a chance. Simply put, NASCAR dads and Talking Broccoli moms in the heartland simply didn't trust Kerry to safeguard their well-being in the face of future (and some will argue unavoidable) acts of terrorism.

And don't buy into that crap Iraq's about oil, either. If it was, why didn't we invade Venezuela instead? It's the 3rd largest exporter of oil in the world and accounts for more oil reserves than any other nation in the western hemisphere. It's also a hell of a lot closer than Basra. Just think of the money we'd have saved on airfare alone...

So how did Kerry address the Iraq situation during the campaign? By claiming he would make America "stronger and respected again in the eyes of the world". Those who live in Flyover Country knew he was specifically talking about our relationship with the Germans and French; two old empires with stained pasts who can't believe they're still serving after-school suspention on the world stage after 60 years.

They, along with the Russians and Chinese, don't want to get involved in Iraq because they don't want to foot the financial bill associated with creating just the second democratic nation ever in the Middle East. They claim they don't want the blood of their soldiers spilled, but it's really about money. They are patiently waiting for the situation to stabilize and, once it does, they'll sweep in to steal Iraqi contracts for oil production and infrastructure rebuilding. For countries who apparently "hate" the way America does business, they sure as hell sound like a bunch of capitalists to me.

Did the gay marriage issue affect the vote? Probably, but not as much as most pundits believe. Yeah, there are those in this country who vote with their Bible. They are usually criticized and ridiculed by the west and east coasts for doing so, too. It seems strange that the same liberal voices screaming for tolerance and acceptance neither tolerate nor accept those who disagree with them. A vast majority of red-state voters fully support equal protection and rights under the law for all gay couples in the form of civil unions. A few loud ones simply scream "don't call it marriage". But did they vote for Bush because they're all homophobic? No. And Democrats who believe Bush won on the gay issue alone are grasping at straws because they can't see past the shortcomings of their own candidate.

Now before the hate mail from an otherwise loving (and growing) public flows into the BDS tavern because a few drunks decided to talk politics, know this: politics and beer go hand in hand. Hell, this country would be in a better place if all domestic and foreign policies were drafted next to the draft beer flowing out of the tap at the local watering hole. That's where they're debated anyway.

Besides, if you don't like the conversation you can always move to that empty booth on the other side of the bar.