America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

people on the right won't like this. it will strike too close to home.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16885

JonR

"Why wouldn't we people on the right not like this post"

too many big words and no pictures to color.

bet you didn't get past the first paragraph.

Rick, thanks for the link. Whatever one's political views, this is a pretty interesting article. I've always been baffled by working-class folks voting republican, and this does some interesting thinking on the matter.

Much appreciated.

First of all, I come from a working-class family, if you care. Second of all, I make working-class wages, no matter the labor I perform.

But neither of those facts are relevant. What is relevant is the basic truths outlined in the article (which I was referring to): republican economic policy is aimed at the rich and has long penalized the working-class. Republican economic policy never has had working-class interests in mind...witness union busting and opposition to raising minimum wage, long-standing republican traditions.

Quote from article:
“Let's consider the situation. Since Bush took office in 2000, the U.S. has lost 4.9 million jobs, (2.5 million net), the vast majority of them in manufacturing.”

This always bothers me when people compare Bush’s economic status to Clintons. You simply cannot do this.

How much of that 4.9 million was related to 9/11? And unless you talk to Hillary or some other wacko democrats, Bush had nothing to do with that. So already you can’t compare the two terms.

How much of Clinton’s economic prosperity was related to the artificial tech stock inflation? How many millionaires were created then, only to find themselves without a job and money a couple of years later? It is only just now that we are fully recovering from it.

The article started off well, with hard number and facts. Something I like to see, but when it gets time to start bashing Bush, it decides not to use hard numbers but anecdotal comments, such as

Quote form article:
“The loosening of Occupational Health and Safety Administration regulations has made plants less safe.”

Hmmmm… how unsafe? Give me number of injuries before and after Bush.


Quote from article:
“He has put industrialists in his environmental posts, so that the air and water will grow dirtier”

How do we know this? What is the proof that it will happen or has happened?

Quote from article:
“His administration's disregard for the severe understaffing of America's nursing homes means worse care for the elderly parents of the Nascar Dad as they live out their last days”

How do we know this? Did the death rate increase after Bush took office?

When it came time to bash Bush, they throw away the numbers they were so good at getting when quoting how the blue-collar people support Bush. Why not use some of that rigor to back up some of these horrible claims? I tell you why, because this is the opinion of the writer (which is okay to have) but not fact.

miluns, I wasn't trying to be **** either. BBS posts are tone-deaf, after all. Sorry if it came off that way.

John, it is the "if you care" at the end of your first sentence. Not everyone on this board is your enemy. I have not agreed with anything you have posted but believe you have every right to say it.

Most of my friends make working class wages. They all vote Republican. The Dems do not represent us. A lot of us associate the Dems with inner cities. We do not live in the city. We work there but get out as fast as we can. Gore carried the industrial states. Bush took the farmers and states with a lot of open land.

This is old info but when Clinton was president there were more Dem millionaires in Congress than Republicans - so how does that give any credence to Dems being for the working class? I also see a lot of rich Hollywood stars are Dems. Why, they sure aren't the working class. How about professional sports - they are all union. I see the Dems as being for the folks on welfare and counter productive union shops.

My Dad was in a union for 30 years and he votes Republican.

Rick,

I hate to say this but, you already posted a link to this exact same article. That's why you like it so much! This a retread.

http://www.cigarbid.com/...geDisplay=0000000017439

Here is my response again.

"Unfortunately, this article is simply more class warfare politics and this has become the key plank in the entire Democratic Party platform, perhaps even the only plank, and it has been failing miserably. The message that Republicans are only for the rich and Democrats are for everyone else and should get your vote by default should eliminate the possibility of any Republican getting elected anywhere based on sheer demographics alone, if people believed it.

The assumption that the article makes regarding the "Nascar Dads" follows right in line with this class warfare thinking. The article is quick to point out the decline in perceived power this group has had in the last thirty years and more specifically claims it has been hurt the most by the current administration. Therefore the group should vote Democrat but through some magic or trickery still supports Bush. The demographic just should vote Democrat, why don't they get it?

A glaring point the article fails to touch on because it would not follow the conventional party thinking is, has the Democratic Party done anything in the past thirty years or even more specifically during the Clinton years to help this demographic. Perhaps the demographic is voting Republican because it sees that as the lesser of two evils.

The Democratic Party needs to develop a platform that earns the respect and support of all the demographics that they chose to favor. If they want the support of demographic groups, the party should actually try to do things to help those groups, not just stake their claim on them because they are not rich. The party gave away the elections in 2002 because they thought anti-Bush and anti-rich would be enough. The party needs to work on a plan, an agenda, and things they stand for and will actually work towards. Right now the Democratic Party is just the party of the "anti-issue" and the Republican Party is picking and chosing all the issues for the Democrats to be "anti".

This article is just more of the same unfortunately. Why don't these "Nascar Dads" get it and just vote Democrat like all the other good, well-behaved demographics. It doesn't matter if the party actually does anything for them, they're not rich so they should be our votes automatically.

Now what are the Democrats going to actually do for the demographic or any other demographic to earn their votes?"

HockeyDad

see how easy it is to make a mistake.

i listened to dean tonight for over an hour. i am hoping he can beat the bush.