Those readers that know me in the "real world" know all too well that I can be a little gullible, a little blonde sometimes. It happened again this week. I read all the talk about "moral values" deciding the election and fell for it hook, line and sinker. How can I have been so stupid? I know the media is biased, but for some reason I trusted them to report this election honestly. Will I never learn?

David Brooks says exactly what I want to say in the New York Times today.

Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Brooks points out that according to the Pew Research Center, there was no surge in evangelical voters. And, that much of the press and their liberal friend's analysis comes from an exit poll question that vaguely asks if "moral values" played a part in the voter's decision. Obviously, this leaves the question of what exactly "moral values" are up to the analysts.

The analysts have decided that it's all about gay marriage and that Bush voters are homophobes. Unfortunately for them, if you don't just take their word for it, you quickly find out it's a bunch of BS:

Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Let's see, 25 plus 35 is 60. So, in reality, 60% of voters believe that gay relationships should somehow be recognized by society. But, we haven't decided exactly how they should be recognized and we don't want individual judges making that decision for us. Fair enough.

But, liberals are making gay marriage into the decisive issue of the campaign for two reasons. One, to demonize the opposition as a bunch of redneck homophobes and two, because it allows them to believe that they are still right on all issues and that there is no valid, intellectual opposition to their foreign policy and economic positions. In other words, I didn't vote for Bush because I believe in the Bush Doctrine and supply side economics. I voted for him because I'm either homophobic or too stupid to understand the genious of the liberal positions. And they say Bush can't both sides of an issue?

Brooks sums it up just perfectly (and really, I'm shocked to be quoting something in the Times this much):

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?