There are several things going on here. I think it's a mistake to assume that all NASCAR fans are "working class" or "poor." I don't make or assume that distinction when I criticize them.

When I criticize white-male southern voters (Bush's base, and biggest demographic), I'm speaking of people with a narrow, uninformed point of view. It has nothing to do with one's economic status. I've spoken with a homeless Katrina victim who's more politically informed than some people I know who have advanced degrees.

My point is that it's a waste of energy and resources to try and reach voters who--through stubborness or ignorance--can't or won't listen to or understand an enlightened, liberal point of view. Anyone who listens to Russ Feingold or Howard Dean explain why the Iraq war is wrong and concludes that either man is "weak" has to be a complete idiot, whether they like watching cars drive fast in circles or not.

If I am "removed" from a homophic, mysogonistic, bible-thumping redneck, well, what's wrong with that? I'm supposed to "understand" his point of view? If those kinds of people are costing Democrats elections, I'd hate to think the solution is to steer the Democratic party to the right so that we can somehow incorporate them. Frankly, I'm GLAD the dixiecrats moved over to the Republican party, even if that means we've lost some elections because of it.

I almost didn't write anything else because "cgside" said it all so very well. However, I do want to reply to a few of the people who responded to what I wrote earlier.

To gigleorum: If you really voted for Bush twice because you thought the country would be better off that way, well..... just don't go calling yourself a "moderate" anymore. Or maybe you voted that way because “you” would be better off that way. I do respect your honesty, though. I'm also sorry I forgot to mention Duke Cunningham in my list of Republican poster-boy-criminals... it’s hard to keep track these days.

To carrick: I was touched by your comments. Really. Being called a bigot because I'm intolerant of people who are racist, homophobic and ignorant is an interesting bit of logical gymnastics that I did not expect. Bravo.

To figsinzen: I go through long stretches where I totally agree with you. My wife agrees with you. But when I look at how Bill Clinton and John Kerry--who are relatively centrist politicians--were treated, it makes me throw my hands up and say "Fine. Damn the torpedoes." We tried to meet the Republicans halfway and we got Swift-Boated to hell. Literally. What's the point? Clinton was/is a centrist, and Kerry played nice guy. To what end? The Republicans seem to understand nothing but "Shock-and-awe-brute-force," so why not give 'em some of that? Hillary’s strategy worked in rural New York, but the rural south is different. Trust me. I grew up in Texas, and lived in California, Massachusetts, Louisiana and Florida.

No matter what we do, the Republicans are going to lie about us, distort what we say, and distort what do. To try and dumb down our message for those who will never get it is a Sisyphean task.

Blake Mitchell

Austin, Texas

ps--To DKG: Dude, you must really have some great pot! Take a look at Bush's current poll numbers and then tell me who's the "minority/permanent/irrelevant" political force.

To carrick: I really didn't want to get into a semantic argument, but I feel I need to defend myself. Maybe some other letter writers drew the stereotypical connection that all NASCAR fans are homophobes and racists, etc., but I did not. I'm just saying that I don't want to be associated with a political party that openly welcomes homophobes and racists. It has nothing to do with whether they are NASCAR fans or not. If not wanting to be associated with racists makes me a bigot, then whatever, dude. If I look judgmentally toward folks who burn crosses, bomb abortion clinics, or drag people to death behind a pickup truck, then I guess that makes me the bad guy in your mind. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not Ghandi. If I feel justified in judging folks who spray paint swastikas on temples, I'm just as bad, by your definition.

I think most people associate other characteristics with bigotry: i.e., a bigot's views are based on fallacies, stereotypes, and lack any reasonable justification. The key words in your definition are "strongly partial," and "intolerant." That's just to broad for me. The definition you give for bigot could apply to practically anybody at some point. If that's the case, then what's the point? Are you telling me that you tolerate everyone you disagree with? That you aren't strongly partial to any of your opinions? Who knows? Are you a bigot for thinking I'm a bigot? By your definition, one could make that argument. Maybe you've never had a good friend have the crap beat out of him for being gay. Maybe you don't care that over half our population may soon loose their reproductive rights. I do. Strongly.

So in conclusion, I want to stress these points: I don't hate NASCAR fans. I have friends who are into it. Good for them. I think the whole point of a NASCAR demographic, in political terms, is wrong. It leads to people drawing conclusions based on stereotypes. I didn't do that. But I don't think I'm a bad person for wishing to exclude violent, racist, proto-fascist individuals from my political party. Whether they are NASCAR fans, or not.