I saw a headline on a major news network that stated, “The Blue State Blues” and the reporter asked people in New York City how they felt about the results of the election. The New Yorker responded, “It’s like it’s a totally different country out there.” He, of course, was referring to the large swath of red through the center of the country.

All I can say is that there are those of us in the red states who have the blues as well. Though for us, we’re thinking of moving to a blue state. The theory is simple: If we get all the Democrats to move to the blue states, then after the 2010 census, we can get more electoral votes to win the presidential election. This also means we get more congressional seats in the House of Representatives. The problem is that we would cede the Senate to Republicans.

Thinking about it — it really isn’t a good plan, but it’s clear to me that the Democratic Party must rethink its position in order to win in 2006. I find it interesting that after the Democratic Party’s loss on Nov. 2, focus has been given to the so-called “values voter.” I like to call it the GAG effect: God, abortion, and gays. Supposedly, the Republican Party nullified the economic issues that go to Democrats by using wedge issues like abortion, gay rights and God’s place in the public forum.

I’m not sure if I agree with that theory, but the exit polling data showed that social values were the No.1 concern of those who voted for Bush. Exit polling also stated that Bush won more than 80 percent of those who listed social values as their top priority in the election.

The question I want to know the answer to is this: Why do so many people put these social issues above the many other economic, education and national security issues that face our nation today?

The answer eludes me; apparently people are more afraid of two guys kissing than they are of terrorists and poverty.

So here is what I suggest the Democratic Party does. Go for the rural vote. No, this doesn’t mean the Democratic Party should give up its values — to change its position on principles would be to let the Republican Party win — but to focus on the values of the environment, people (not corporations) and community.

The economy can be made into a moral value since it is about poverty and how we treat the least in our country. See, other countries get it; John Kerry is right when he says we are the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn’t provide health care for everyone.

Like it or not, the environment is incredibly important for those living in rural areas. The success of agriculture depends on it. Do we really want acid rain falling down on our crops?

There is more to the American community than white evangelical Christianity. Unless we are able to live together in a diverse community, there will be little to which our country looks forward to other than more division and anger on both sides.

On each of these issues, the Republican Party sides with corporations, not families and people. For proof, look up Bush’s environmental record, or the Corporate Tax Bill that recently passed Congress. To the “values voters” who succumb to the GAG effect: Don’t forget about the values of environment, community and people.

The rural vote isn’t an exclusively Republican area. Tom Harkin, who is very liberal on social issues, survives in an agricultural state. Why is that? The reason is because Harkin works very hard on agricultural issues. If Democrats want to win in the future, we need to do better at targeting rural voters and carrying a message of values.