Anderkoo

Is it strange that it’s the Red States who are least at risk of terror attacks, while the very regions who are most
at-risk of terrorism lean Blue? It infuriates me to hear a midwestern
Security Mom get on her high horse about how we need to fight
“terrorism” (q.v. “Arabs”) more aggressively, when she and her family
are significantly less likely to be killed or hurt by an attack than
the New Yorkers protesting the Republican National Convention.

Actually, Red-Staters are more likely
to have children in the military, which begets a double irony: Bush’s
invasion of Iraq has actually put Security Mom progeny who are in
the armed forces at far more risk than the President had the right to
do. Nor does this risk come with it any justification, as the war in
Afghanistan had. Yet it’s the very policy that seems to turn Security Moms on, because, after all, we have to do something about those terrorists.

When you also consider that Red States are on the losing end (and
Blue States the beneficiaries) of federal tax cuts, it makes you wonder
whether anyone votes rationally.