Wonderful!
Sympathy for the Plutocrat
By Nick Hanauer Reuters
It’s great to be what you people are now calling a plutocrat. I know. I am one.
We plutocrats live incredible lives, surrounded by luxury and insulated from risk and discomfort. Things have gone very well for us over the last several years. Since George Bush left office, the stock market has doubled, we got a (sweet!) $700 billion rescue of the financial system, and corporate profits are at a 50-year high. BOOYA!
The growing economic distance between people like me and the little people like you hasn’t been this great in a long, long time. You may call that inequality. We call it freedom. But if things are going to continue to go this well, you people need to get with the program. Here, I’d like to have a frank discussion about that.
It is something of a puzzle to many of you little people why we plutocrats, who have benefitted most from these trends, view President Obama with such intense disdain. Why, you might ask, given how good the economy has been to you plutocrats, are you so maniacally angry?
The approximately half of voters in the US (who support Mr Romney) are by definition either plutocrats or extreme racists?
What a load of drivel.
Rgds,
*p*
Racists?
EXTREME racists?
Based on what?
Plutocrats are, by definition, a minority. Élite.
Don’t you think Romney-backers (really, Obama opposers) like the Koch brothers and Karl Rove’s PAC fit that description?
That article is just a bit of fun poormastery. And commentary.
If Mr Romney’s tactics say true to how he ran his primary campaign, it seems clear *millions* of dollars are going to be poured into attack ads in the next three weeks … ‘carpet-bombing’ the swing states.
Who is paying for those?
Plutocrats.
– P
Peter,
To be clear, supported by racists is the number one Democrat slur about Republicans.
This is not used here, because this piece uses Democratic slur number 2 regarding the Republicans – that they Republicans are only supported by rich people. Be sure not to mention Hollywood’s support of the Democrats!
What’s next?
Democratic slur number 3 is usually accusations of corruption (like it is only a Republican trait).
Ho hum,
*p*
Corruption is not confined to any end of the spectrum, it seems to me.
We (you and I) discussed some of Republican Richard Nixon’s documented dirty tricks in an earlier post: http://www.thepaepae.com/richard-nixons-dirty-dirty-tricks-2011/17422/
He is, of course infamous for his corruption and abuse of power and illegal black ops (complete with suitcases full of untraceable cash AKA campaign donations) once in the White House.
Reagan was either criminal or not guilty by reason of dementia wrt the Iran-Contra arms deals about which he lied to the public. Carter, whom you evince to despise, was I think more honorable than either of them.
But I also grew up reading about how the Democrat “machine” in Chicago had “raised the dead” to vote for Kennedy in 1960. How bribery and corruption were part of how politics worked there and elsewhere.
The Clintons, by reputation, engaged in pretty tough “full contact sport” politics and pulled no punches. They certainly were viscerally hated by some of their opponents from either side.
The wiretap transcripts of the disgraced Illinois governor Blogdanovich who was, I think, sentenced to 14 years in federal prison for “trying to sell Obama’s vacated senate seat” were foul but struck me as entirely plausible. He was crooked, it seems to me.
I put Obama’s friend and operative Rahm Emanuel in the same category as Jim Baker … who ‘handled’ the controversial Florida recount in 2000 for the Bush “machine” (remember the hanging chads?)
I put Karl Rove and Roger Ailes in a different, considerably more contemptuous class. Dick Morris is in a category of his own. Alas, politics will always attract and sustain such personalties and tactics in the scramble for power.
– P