Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Meet the Poor Republicans
NY Times ^ | May 15, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS

Posted on 05/14/2005 3:33:42 PM PDT by neverdem

Last week the Pew Research Center came out with a study of the American electorate that crystallized something I've been sensing for a long time: rich people are boring, but poor people are interesting.

The Pew data demonstrated that people at the top of the income scale are divided into stable, polar camps. There are the educated-class liberals - antiwar, pro-choice, anti-tax cuts - who make up about 19 percent of the electorate, according to Pew. And there are business-class conservatives - pro-war, pro-life, pro-tax cut - who make up 11 percent of voters.

These affluent people are pretty well represented by their parties, are not internally conflicted and are pretty much stuck in their ways.

But poorer voters are not like that. They're much more internally conflicted and not represented well by any party. You've got poor Republicans (over 10 percent of voters) who are hawkish on foreign policy and socially conservative, but like government programs and oppose tax cuts. You've got poor Democrats who oppose the war and tax cuts, but are socially conservative and hate immigration. These less-educated voters are more cross-pressured and more independent than educated voters. If you're looking for creative tension, for instability, for a new political movement, the lower middle class is probably where it's going to emerge.

Already, we've seen poorer folks move over in astonishing numbers to the G.O.P. George Bush won the white working class by 23 percentage points in this past election. Many people have wondered why so many lower-middle-class waitresses in Kansas and Hispanic warehouse workers in Texas now call themselves Republicans. The Pew data provide an answer: they agree with Horatio Alger.

These working-class folk like the G.O.P.'s social and foreign policies, but the big difference between poor Republicans and poor Democrats is that the former believe that individuals can make it on their own with hard work and good character.

According to the Pew study, 76 percent of poor Republicans believe most people can get ahead with hard work. Only 14 percent of poor Democrats believe that. Poor Republicans haven't made it yet, but they embrace what they take to be the Republican economic vision - that it is in their power to do so. Poor Democrats are more likely to believe they are in the grip of forces beyond their control.

The G.O.P. succeeds because it is seen as the party of optimistic individualism.

But when you look at how Republicans behave in office, you notice that they are often clueless when it comes to understanding the lower-class folks who put them there. They are good at responding to business-class types and social conservatives, but bad at responding to poor Republicans.

That's because on important issues, the poor Republicans differ from their richer brethren. Poor Republicans aspire to middle-class respectability, but they are suspicious of the rich and of big business. About 83 percent of poor Republicans say big business has too much power, according to Pew, compared with 26 percent of affluent Republicans. If the Ownership Society means owning a home, they're for it. If it means putting their retirement in the hands of Wall Street, they become queasy.

Remember, these Republicans are disproportionately young women with children. Nearly 70 percent have trouble paying their bills every month. They are optimistic about the future, but their fear of their lives falling apart stalks them at night.

Poorer Republicans support government programs that offer security, so long as they don't undermine the work ethic. Eighty percent believe government should do more to help the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt. Only 19 percent of affluent Republicans believe that.

President Bush has made a lot of traditional Republicans nervous with his big-government conservatism. He's increased the growth of nonsecurity domestic spending at a faster rate than Lyndon Johnson and twice as fast as Bill Clinton. But in so doing, he's probably laid down a welcome mat to precisely these poorer folks.

Even so, Republicans have barely thought about how to use government to offer practical encouragement to the would-be Horatio Alger heroes. They've barely explored their biggest growth market. If Republicans can't pass programs like KidSave, which would help poor families build assets for education or retirement, then Hillary Clinton, who is surprisingly popular with poor Republicans, will take their place.

E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alger; bush; bushvictory; davidbrooks; georgewbush; horatioalger; ownershipsociety; pew; pewresearchcenter; poor; poorvote; republicanparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last
To: amosmoses

Precisely.

That is the thrust of this article. That Kerry's latte liberal secularism completely failed to speak to the lower middle class.

What the latte liberal in his arrogance fails to comprehend is that the blue collar parent does not see Karl Rove or "theocrats" or "*" or "Talibornigans" as the enemy. The blue collar parents daily struggle is to keep the street away from his/her children and if you give them a religious grounding when they are young, maybe when they are 13 they will still mind you and stay away from drugs and gangs and promiscuity. The secularist liberal is so incapable of respecting religion that he cannot see the world through the eyes of a blue collar parent.


51 posted on 05/14/2005 4:42:19 PM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bump for later


52 posted on 05/14/2005 4:42:50 PM PDT by Chuckster ("Silence is not golden. It is yellow" Senator Zell Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

NYT spin


53 posted on 05/14/2005 4:43:48 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoagy62
I hate living like this. I am trying to find a better-paying job, but I was a dummy back 20 years ago and didn't finish college.

Google free second hand computers

Maybe you could finish a degree online. Good luck Horatio Alger!

54 posted on 05/14/2005 4:45:06 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
My husband and I are conservative and we basically live paycheck to paycheck because I have stayed home to raise our children, and now I am helping my children by babysitting for them---and getting to spend time with my grandkiddies.

God bless you. I admire your dedication to your children.

55 posted on 05/14/2005 4:45:21 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

so true


56 posted on 05/14/2005 4:46:15 PM PDT by amosmoses (For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. Romans 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: hoagy62

Your situation is one like I was thinking about in my post-if the pork was taken out of our taxes, then the programs that help people while they are establishing themselves and working hard, would have the money they need....without dispute.

But, when the Federal Govt. keeps throwing good money after bad in the School financing, costs of health care and housing and education of illegals...NO WAY

Do you know that if one of your children wanted to go to the University of Texas (even with proof of your lower income status), he/she would have to pay humongous out-of-state tuition, but an illegal immigrant who isn't even supposed to be in this country, will get instate tuition!

BTW---IMHO, The Capital Gang on CNN is the most propaganda filled communist show on TV!


57 posted on 05/14/2005 4:49:41 PM PDT by Txsleuth ( Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cgbg
... their moderator is one of those arrogant types who tries to lead the participants to the "middle ground"...

Delphi?

58 posted on 05/14/2005 4:55:40 PM PDT by kitchen (Over gunned? Hell, that's better than the alternative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR; ClearCase_guy

A point I never, ever tire of making is that the social conservative is the child and grandchild of New Deal Democrats and the grandchild of William Jennings Bryan Populists. He flatly does not trust the morals of big business and wants a government that will stick up for him instead of looting this country to the benefit of multinationals.

We live in a society in which zip code indicates your income. The blue collar Republican does not live in the same town as the rich pro-business Republican. He knows the rich pro-business Republican can just wall himself away from the problems he faces every day. He knows the rich pro-business Republican will never send his own son to war, can move his money offshore, and reeks of free traitor callous indifference to people like him.


59 posted on 05/14/2005 4:59:52 PM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The NYT and the rest of Planet Left are hoping against hope for an HRC-versus-RINO contest come next presidential election. Only this time, they're starting early because they can't stand the prospect of another Democrat loss.


60 posted on 05/14/2005 5:10:15 PM PDT by dr_who_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I am the poorest republican here!!
*plays sobbing violin*

oh wait...I got a job, food in my belly, and a roof over my head...oh yah and a pick up truck(yeehaa)
Hell I am doing better than most of the free world and all of the not so free parts :)

perspective...its all bout it! :P


61 posted on 05/14/2005 5:17:37 PM PDT by Casaubon (Internet Research Ninja Masta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Your analysis is spot-on. I live in what is predominantly a blue-collar GOP town, and this is exactly the sentiment that exists. Trade and immigration are the hot issues in these areas.


62 posted on 05/14/2005 6:07:57 PM PDT by AZ_Cowboy ("Be ever vigilant, for you know not when the master is coming")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I LIVE in upstate NY...and Hillary the Bitch isn't popular with me!


63 posted on 05/14/2005 8:21:04 PM PDT by Livfreeordi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the poor republican and I also believe that the NY Times is full of it. In fact, I bet most poor republicans would agree that the economy benefits from these tax cuts to the wealthy.


64 posted on 05/14/2005 8:32:18 PM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Your reply has a flaw.

I was born a blue collar Democrat...realized at an early age that my values were those of a Republican..

..and I worked and studied hard..and became a professional..

a physician..

So..am I now a "rich" Republican..who doesn't know anything about or care about "poor" Republicans?

Nope... I WAS a poor Republican!

My values and beliefs now ..are the SAME ones I had when I was poor.

..and I didn't envy or hate the rich then.

I was one of the poor blue collar Repubvlican "optimistic individualists"..described in the article.

Guess what?

In the USA..if you are smart and are willing to work hard..you succeed.


65 posted on 05/14/2005 8:35:14 PM PDT by Livfreeordi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: kitchen; Lazamataz
Lazamataz, your post from a while ago was linked. It seems to be on the money.

The DELPHI Technique -- (Let's us Freepers Dominate Liberal Planning Groups)

BTW, Brooks is, at least he describes himself as a conservative, somewhere on the right side of the political spectrum.

66 posted on 05/14/2005 9:11:34 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TBall

Because David Brooks is the liberal's "conservative," the William Safire replacement. He's always willing to tell you how the Republicans get it wrong. He's always willing to tell you how the Democrats are getting it right at the same time.

Not that he needs to do a whole lot of work figuring out the former, when there has been no Contract for America push by Bush or Congress, and the Democrats need only point fingers and say "they suck" to look better than the GOP to the average sheeple in the media.


67 posted on 05/14/2005 9:22:29 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Livfreeordi

Glad you made the big time. However, your pulling your own chain if you think you're speaking for the working class, Republican or not. Amongst the working class there is a growing resentment towards both the haves and the have nots. The haves for their success and the have nots for their entitlements. Anyone who's arguing otherwise is living in a dream world.


68 posted on 05/14/2005 9:36:34 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: cgbg; Carry_Okie

You just stumbled on the "consensus building" process.


69 posted on 05/14/2005 9:37:35 PM PDT by sauropod (De gustibus non est disputandum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TBall
I bet most poor republicans would agree that the economy benefits from these tax cuts to the wealthy.

If you had said, "some republicans would agree..." I might have agreed with you. Most? No way in hell. The vast majority of people aren't particular adept at big picture, long run thinking, regardless of party affilliation. The vast majority of people are only able to discern the immediate benefits.

70 posted on 05/14/2005 9:38:44 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
Because David Brooks is the liberal's "conservative," the William Safire replacement. He's always willing to tell you how the Republicans get it wrong. He's always willing to tell you how the Democrats are getting it right at the same time.

Maybe I'm getting dense. Could you explain to me what I'm missing?

71 posted on 05/14/2005 9:52:19 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sorry, meant to respond to poster #2. My apologies.


72 posted on 05/14/2005 10:03:47 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
Class is reality.

Social conservatives are mostly blue collar former New Deal Democrats. They were never laissez faire libertarian types. They don't believe businesses are run by Dagny Taggarts and Hank Reardens. They believe businesses are run by Kenneth Lays and Robert Vescos.


I probably would fall into that group, I call them "Pittsburgh Democrats (which I am on my father's side) had I been around in 1932, I would have been an FDR supporter or in the 1940's, a Truman supporter although I'm afraid I'm not much of a fan of Dagny or Hank either. I'm very conservative on most things but I tend to be moderate/centrist economically so I think I see myself more of a Populist.

I never seen the welfare state as a threat, it is generally a good thing although it has gotten too bloated and encouraged a lot of people to be slothful and lazy. It just needs to be cut out in many places, why should there be 50 programs when 2 or 3 would do and it should be geared to provide a hand-up, not a hand out so we can get more people to be "pulling the wagon" instead of riding in it while having a safety net in for people who cannot work for bonafide reasons (health, age, etc) as well as provide TEMPORARY relief to people out of work and/or to get them educated into a skill or trade. Well, the other side of the equation is we keep whizzing a lot of our jobs offshore, buts that's another discussion. Pure socialism/communism never works, one people want to own things and two, they are inefficient and make everyone poor except the party bosses. On the other hand, we have evolved way past laissez faire libertariaism as a society to where it still sounds good in theory but still falls short so maybe we need to take a look elsewhere, "third way" perhaps? I know I might get clobbered for that, but I've always been very socially, morally, religiously (Judeo-Christian), and militariliy conservative but less so economically. Sometimes I get both conservative and liberals mad at me, for different reasons as you can probably see, I must be doing something right. B-D
73 posted on 05/14/2005 10:37:17 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham; A. Pole
What the latte liberal in his arrogance fails to comprehend is that the blue collar parent does not see Karl Rove or "theocrats" or "*" or "Talibornigans" as the enemy. The blue collar parents daily struggle is to keep the street away from his/her children and if you give them a religious grounding when they are young, maybe when they are 13 they will still mind you and stay away from drugs and gangs and promiscuity. The secularist liberal is so incapable of respecting religion that he cannot see the world through the eyes of a blue collar parent.

Exact on the point as well. The Democrats have been hijacked by the "barking moonbats" who want homosexual marriage, rabid feminism, activist judges, free love types, blame America first types, well you get the idea, they do alienate the "New Dealers," "Reagan Democrats," "Pittsburgh Democrats," whatever you want to call them. Had they been active back in FDR's days, he would have tossed them overboard just as fast as Jerry Falwell would. It's a shame really, they ruined the Democratic Party which I think we do need as an alternative, sort of a balance to keep ourselves on our toes. Plus there are times I do see the Republicans as the party of special money interests (although I do know the Democrats have their share too) while the Democrats are in the interests of the "barking moonbats," so yes, there are times I do feel politically homeless. In short, I think the Republicans are leaving me, but I'd never go to the Democrats and certainly neve, ever vote for Hillary and her ilk.
74 posted on 05/14/2005 10:48:52 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man; Melas; AZ_Cowboy; A. Pole; neverdem; LibertarianInExile

This article is right on the money.

Both parties are the captives of their upper middle class constituencies. As a consequence they are indifferent to the economic interests and moral values respectively of blue collar voters. Indifference breeds resentment. In the Minutemen movement, a movement of blue collar Americans who think their government has sold them out, we are seeing the first thunderclaps of that resentment.

There is such a cryin need for a party that is nationalist economically and conservative on cultural values. Such a party could dominate American politics. And frankly, Nowhere Man, if Hillary could even pretend to be such a politician, she would win in a landslide and in the process rebuild the Democrats as the new majority party. That is what is at stake here.


75 posted on 05/15/2005 4:06:43 AM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

You live in DC! Just kidding.

The gap between the Porsche driving Georgetown democrat and the democrat in Capital Heights is another.

We do have a pseudo-royalty in this country who is far removed from the wealth that suffered to found this country. It is on both sides. The difference with the current bunch is that they have no higher calling other than their own pockets, ego and "Legacy."


76 posted on 05/15/2005 4:12:56 AM PDT by OpusatFR (I live in a swamp and reuse, recycle, refurbish, grow my own, ride a bike and vote gop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: TBall
Even if the cuts include the most wealthy, why does this writer think poor republicans oppose?

Social programs, public works, etc.

77 posted on 05/15/2005 4:15:37 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bump for later.


78 posted on 05/15/2005 4:21:04 AM PDT by Springman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Amongst the working class there is a growing resentment towards both the haves and the have nots. The haves for their success and the have nots for their entitlements. Anyone who's arguing otherwise is living in a dream world.

So what is your solution? Use the power of the government to level the playing field?

That would mean taking from the haves (which never works) and taking from the have nots. Sounds like a successful election plan to me!

79 posted on 05/15/2005 4:35:50 AM PDT by listenhillary (If it ain't broke, it will be after the government tries to fix it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Livfreeordi
upward mobility

Your story is the key to Republican strategy and success.

The Democrat/Socialist/Leftist model depends on the blue collar worker (lumpenproletariat) remaining poor from generation to generation forever. Then they develop a dependence on government "services".

The Republican model depends on blue collar workers gaining more resources and wealth so they can take care of themselves and will vote Republican.

In other words, the Democrats are slimy scum and the Pubbies are the good guys. :-)
80 posted on 05/15/2005 4:40:37 AM PDT by cgbg (When do I wake up from this socialist nightmare?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; ninenot; sittnick; steve50; Hegemony Cricket; Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; FITZ; ...
You've got poor Republicans (over 10 percent of voters) who are hawkish on foreign policy and socially conservative, but like government programs and oppose tax cuts. You've got poor Democrats who oppose the war and tax cuts, but are socially conservative and hate immigration.

Both groups are socially conservative. Democratic fixation of sexual deviations and abortion is what keeps these voters divided. Otherwise the Reagan Democrats would return to their original voting patterns.

81 posted on 05/15/2005 4:53:00 AM PDT by A. Pole ("Truth at first is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and then it is accepted as self evident.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; ColdSpringGirl; maica
The G.O.P. succeeds because it is seen as the party of optimistic individualism.

also the party of the non-elite private sector producers of this country.

Remember, these Republicans are disproportionately young women with children.

and husbands !

82 posted on 05/15/2005 5:03:05 AM PDT by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

And how exactly does outsourcing, job-exporting free trade agreements and illegal immigration empower blue collar Americans ?


83 posted on 05/15/2005 5:33:58 AM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary; Melas; Nowhere Man
So what is your solution? Use the power of the government to level the playing field?

Isn't government being used already to tilt the playing field against working Americans ? Government policy determines the level of immigration. A decision to leave a border wide open IS government policy. And the result of that policy is to depress American wages by flooding the labor market with cheap third world labor. Refusing to penalize employers who hire illegals, giving 100,000 H1B applications even as 15% of American tech workers are unemployed ARE government policy.

That would mean taking from the haves (which never works) and taking from the have nots. Sounds like a successful election plan to me!

Sounds like taking from the have nots (which works far too often) and giving to the haves. Great if you live off of investments. Lousy if you live off of a paycheck. Sounds like New Deal II on the way if Hillary can ditch the sodomites.

84 posted on 05/15/2005 5:40:39 AM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Melas
....They see that people on either side of them don't have this difficulty. The upper class can easily afford such things. The lower class gets it free. They on the other hand work hard, and suffer for it. In ways, they'd be better off poor and they know it.....

Bingo

A glaring paradox of our society today.

And the illegal alien benefits business is bringing it to a head.

The republicans and congress better be very careful.

85 posted on 05/15/2005 5:42:02 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
Isn't government being used already to tilt the playing field against working Americans ? Government policy determines the level of immigration. A decision to leave a border wide open IS government policy. And the result of that policy is to depress American wages by flooding the labor market with cheap third world labor. Refusing to penalize employers who hire illegals, giving 100,000 H1B applications even as 15% of American tech workers are unemployed ARE government policy.

In agreement with you here.

86 posted on 05/15/2005 5:44:20 AM PDT by listenhillary (If it ain't broke, it will be after the government tries to fix it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

You know if the bureaucracy (state and federal) didn't make it so damned hard to start businesses, there would be fewer people needing to "earn a paycheck".


87 posted on 05/15/2005 5:47:36 AM PDT by listenhillary (If it ain't broke, it will be after the government tries to fix it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
the big difference between poor Republicans and poor Democrats is that the former believe that individuals can make it on their own with hard work and good character.

The poor Republicans follow American values; the poor Democrats follow Marxism's pessimism.
88 posted on 05/15/2005 5:48:48 AM PDT by Reader of news
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

You are absolutely right.

A Reagan Democrat is not a Republican. He is not a Republican because while he is patriotic and culturally conservative and repulsed by the moral degenerates who have taken over the Democratic Party, he believes that Republicans will look out for fat cats and big money and not working stiffs like him. He believes that GOP economic policy is set by people whose money is in the Cayman Islands and whose sons are most definitely not in Iraq.


89 posted on 05/15/2005 5:52:34 AM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
poor people are interesting

No ivory tower liberals here
90 posted on 05/15/2005 5:56:35 AM PDT by Vision (When Hillary Says She's Going To Put The Military On Our Borders...She Becomes Our Next President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
Use the power of the government to level the playing field?

Power of government is being used to UNlevel the playing field. When there is s shortage of workers in some field, the market forces are NOT allowed to raise the wages - instead special government program imports cheap workers from abroad.

91 posted on 05/15/2005 6:19:12 AM PDT by A. Pole ("Truth at first is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and then it is accepted as self evident.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
Sounds like New Deal II on the way if Hillary can ditch the sodomites.

This is the key question! Otherwise we have choice between joining Latin America or becoming Sodom and Gomorrah. If so we will have to chose the first.

92 posted on 05/15/2005 6:22:10 AM PDT by A. Pole ("Truth at first is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and then it is accepted as self evident.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Livfreeordi
..and I worked and studied hard..and became a professional.. a physician..

Not everyone can or SHOULD be a physician. There are no reason why honest people who do less skilled jobs should live in poverty.

93 posted on 05/15/2005 6:32:27 AM PDT by A. Pole ("Truth at first is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and then it is accepted as self evident.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: TBall
Why would poor republicans oppose tax cuts. Even if the cuts include the most wealthy, why does this writer think poor republicans oppose?

Deficits?

Whose CHILDREN are going to pay the bill?

94 posted on 05/15/2005 6:37:02 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Definition of poverty in America?

2-3 TV's
Cable or satellite TV
Couple of cars that run
Housing
Heat/AC
All the best junk food money can buy

Two income family on minimum wage earns $21,424. This exceeds the poverty level.

90% of the time people's income levels later in life depend on choices they made earlier in life.


95 posted on 05/15/2005 6:42:29 AM PDT by listenhillary (If it ain't broke, it will be after the government tries to fix it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: cgbg
The Republican model depends on blue collar workers gaining more resources and wealth

You are confusing the talk with the deeds. Keeping wages low does not help "blue collar workers gaining more resources and wealth". Wages (and yes, benefits) is all they get.

96 posted on 05/15/2005 6:46:24 AM PDT by A. Pole ("Truth at first is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and then it is accepted as self evident.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
The republicans and congress better be very careful.

They are secure as long as Democrats are kept on "gay" side.

97 posted on 05/15/2005 6:48:14 AM PDT by A. Pole ("Truth at first is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and then it is accepted as self evident.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
This article is right on the money.

Both parties are the captives of their upper middle class constituencies. As a consequence they are indifferent to the economic interests and moral values respectively of blue collar voters. Indifference breeds resentment. In the Minutemen movement, a movement of blue collar Americans who think their government has sold them out, we are seeing the first thunderclaps of that resentment.


I know myself, I feel a lot of that resentment. The reason why I vote Republican is because at least on moral and social issues, they are "better" than the alternative but there are times they do't follow through on what they say. I've seen it here where Trent Lott is put to the task of wimping out.

There is such a cryin need for a party that is nationalist economically and conservative on cultural values. Such a party could dominate American politics. And frankly, Nowhere Man, if Hillary could even pretend to be such a politician, she would win in a landslide and in the process rebuild the Democrats as the new majority party. That is what is at stake here.

That's what scares me, Hillary. I know better not to vote for her because of her background because she is a sneak, a snake in the grass. The average voter will not see that and if Hillary gets in, like a WWII era German commerce raider, the traps come off and she will open fire with her leftist agenda, then we will all be screwed. We need someone. Pat Buchanan, well I agree with him on most things, but I question his motives on being anti-Israel and the Iraq war, I'm afraid he is out to lunch on those. H. Ross Perot, well, he's getting up there and he has so much baggage from 1992 and 1996, I don't see him as a contender. Tom Tancredo, I support him, he seems to be my personal favorite but the Republican Establishment would doom him.
98 posted on 05/15/2005 6:59:28 AM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

"traps come off" = "tarps come off"


99 posted on 05/15/2005 7:03:13 AM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The short of this seems to be, "poor voters continue to vote for candidates who serve the rich because of their own (bigoted) social conservativism".

The left tried beating this drum leading into the 2004 election. "If ONLY they would all support the Democrats..."


100 posted on 05/15/2005 7:38:04 AM PDT by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson