While Dennis beat me to Carville's carcass, there are a few bones left for me to pick.

According to James Carville, the Republicans were elected because they ran with the following winning "narrative":

we're going to protect you from the terrorists in Tikrit and from the homos in Hollywood.

I notice that the cacophonous Carville likes alliteration, so terrorists are to Tikrit as homos are to Hollywood. It's strained in light of what I know -- and in light of Roger L. Simon's direct observations of recent Hollywood area voting patterns:

Bush's support in Beverly Hills was up 22 percentage points (more than double) from 2000. Caveat: these stats are still unofficial but they are obviously very significant.

Here is the breakdown for Beverly Hills:

2004 UNOFFICIAL

BUSH 42.38% KERRY 56.98% OTHER .64%

2000 OFFICIAL

BUSH 20.47% GORE 76.51% OTHER 3.02%

I'm sure this is astounding news to the Democratic Party and supposedly liberal Hollywood. My source is now engaged in checking other neighborhoods, including ultra liberal West Hollywood, the central gay neighborhood of Los Angeles, where Bush's support has gone up 8% on first count. There may be many explanations for this, but it is interesting indeed. I received several emails explaining how the exit polls had undercounted Jewish voters for Bush. That seems to have been true.

Kerry supporter Jeff Jarvis (unsurpassed as media critic, for he's also a media insider) expresses this sentiment better than I could:

Moore lost the race for Kerry and the Democrats by turning them, by association, into a bunch of rabid seething fringie liberal loonies, all angry and extreme and too quick to forget what the real war is and who the real enemy is.

The right-wing is usually the side that is portrayed as fringie and rabid and extreme and, Lord knows, many of them are.

But Moore made the left seem just as extreme if not more so.

He demanded that we should all be as angry as he is. But what if we don't want to be angry at our own side?

He demanded that we see conspiracies everywhere but where they exist: in the Islamofascist world.

He lowered the level of discourse to this: hyperbole, hype, lies by omission, and attack as a substitute for fact and discussion.

And that make it harder for Kerry to complain when the other side did likewise to him.

....

But who wants to vote for the party of seethers and demeaners? Who wants to join the angry people and think that's going to improve life? Who feels welcome in the company of disapprove snots? That is the party of Michael Moore.

The moral to the story: Don't listen to Michael Moore. He led you astray, Democrats.

And Republicans: Just as I am tell Democrats not to believe that most of you are rabid religious nuts, you'd be unwise to think that most Democrats are rabid Michael Moore nuts; that would be just as wrong.

Moore drove away far more people than Carville's "Hollywood homos" ever could. The man radiates hatred for his country. Middle and upper class homosexuals, unpalatable as they may be to millions of Americans, far from hating their country, instead want full integration into the middle class mainstream. For the most part, they are the absolute antithesis of a slovenly Marxist apologizist for terror who wants to destroy American middle class values.

So why has Carville singled out "homos" for his sing-songy diatribe? Might he be too embarrassed to admit his party's endorsement of the Moore strategy?

Might it be because a higher percentage of the Michael Moore left voted for Kerry? (23% of the gay vote went to Bush -- and I'd be willing to bet that zero percent of the Moore vote went to Bush.)

Singling out "Hollywood homos" kills three birds with one stone:

Enough carrying on (or should that be "carrion on"?) about Carville. I hope his remarks prove as forgettable as they are regrettable.