Why does the party that professes their love for letting rich people keep all their money make such a big deal out of the wealth of their opponents? Isn’t it a tad bit hypocritical for those who support a millionaire who went to Yale to scoff at their millionaire opponent for being a rich elitist who went to Yale?
There is only one answer, after which we can close the thread, goodnight gracie, the end.
Desperation.
Here’s a pit thread on the same subject
Because Republicans think that in order to speak for something, you have to be part of it - ie, in order to have policy supporting the poor, you have to be poor, or the inverse, in order to make commercial legislation, you need to be a businessperson.
That, and they got nothing.
(Oh, also, they think that liberals care as much as they do)
I’m sure one reason is to point out what is perceived by some conservatives as liberal ‘hypocrisy’; that while the candidates claim to be men of the people, they actually are members of an economic elite mostly interested in lining their own pockets, or beholden to special interests. Doesn’t stand up to logic very well, IMO, but anyway, it’s just one of many tried and true smear tactics. Sling lots and lots of mud; most doesn’t stick with most people, some does with some people.
It’s certainly worth debating whether, in a presumable democratic republic, the country is well served by a political system in which only the very wealthy can consider running for office at the highest levels, but that’s for another thread, I guess.
Can you quote a leader in the Republican party who has said that?
IOW, cite?
Kucinich made a decent run, especially considering his extreme views. I don’t think it is impossible for a true “man of the people” to run. Just not likely.
I can offer you cites from this board. We had a thread on a similar topic not too long ago. I can’t be bothered to find it.
Unfortunately, I don’t dig through prominant Republicans’ trash looking for quotes I can use against them - though I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if one turned up.
Who’s harping? The media has mentioned that the democratic candidates are rich. They also have mentioned the support that Bush has gotten from oil companies, and the not so legitimate practices of businesses associated with Cheney. They didn’t “harp” on that, either, though.
This is one of the most infuriating things to me. I see it all the time. I saw the same thing when The Citadel was required to admit women. Many of the right wingers who fought to keep it single sex because that was a good thing suddenly turned around and tried to get all-womens schools to have to admit men. Hey are you for it or against it?
I’ve seen it right here on this board, too. The same people who call retailers evil for making workers come in at all hours 24/7 critisize Christian businesses (Hobby Lobby for one) who are closed on Sundays.
Yeah, but that’s just silly because we all know that socialism won’t benefit anyone economically. Maybe they’re smarter than you think?
The real answer is that in this case, they’re trying to portray Kerry as a filthy rich liberal snob who doesn’t care about the average guy, and Edwards as a greedy money-grubbing lawyer.
Cite for where he said Republican leaders have said this? 
Can you honestly tell me you’ve never seen this kind of criticism of a Democrat?
Robert Hughes said it best: because “any stick you can beat liberals with is a good stick, and never mind what else gets flattened in the process.”
If the ticket were Cheney/Bush instead of the other way around, I imagine you’d hear nary a peep about Kerry and Edwards’ wealth and status. Bush, despite being the scion of one of the nation’s most privileged families, has successfully maintained his regular-guy persona; I can’t believe how many people back in 2000 told me they liked Bush because “he’s a guy I could see myself having a beer with.” (And the guy doesn’t even f#@$ing drink!)
The most disturbing thing about Bush’s persistent popularity to me isn’t even the policy issues, the fact that no one cares that Medicare and SS are being dismantled or that environmental protections have been rendered meaningless. What worries me is that so many people in this country like having a president who is obviously inarticulate, incurious, and rigid in his thinking, because they take some vapid comfort in the fact that the President is just an average joe who got lucky and not, you know … better than them.
Probably because he’s been a miserable failure at running all the companies he got handed. He does do a reasonably good job at one thing though: Being his dad’s son.
Given Bush’s past, he probably DID have a beer or 10 with him.
/cheap shot
Uh, are you sure about this? Isn’t it the liberals who are always harping that this administration does not represent the deomgraphics of the nation, state, city, or whatever?
I really don’t understand the confusion on this issue. The argument is not that rich people are bad. The argument is that liberals think rich people are bad and yet many of them are rich.
The argument is simplistic. Its a soundbite at best. But it seems odd that it is misunderstood so universally.
To go a little further, it’s the legislative record (tax cuts, etc.) that gets the wealthy part of the Republican base on board. The stuff we’re talking about here is, as cmason32 says, the stuff that keeps the Midwest and South on board: the claims that Democrats are rich, anti-American coastal types out of touch with the values of ordinary people, etc.
Cite?
“Rich people should pay their fair share of taxes” is not synonymous with “rich people are bad.”
Isn’t it funny how simplistic it is?
(bolding mine)