Things used to be simpler.

[whyverne]

I was born on the Southside of Pittsburgh, across the river from the J & L Steel Company's smoke stacks. My father was a boilermaker there.

My parents always voted Democratic. They said that the Republicans were the party of the rich. I've never seen anything to disprove that notion.

Even if the Democrat was dumb or boring or corrupt; it didn't matter, they would still vote for him. "He may be a jerk, but he's our jerk." That attitude is still strong in Pittsburgh 60 years later.

Now the "Party of the Rich" has been told no matter how much they screw the "little guy", they can still come back and do it again.

I despair. Then I think of the good people of Lichfield, England; who erected a statue to the captain of the Titanic. People are goofy.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adriennf/3992972806/

[DrDan]

1. unfortunately the "party of the rich" has become the "parties of the rich"

competing for all available dollars.

[Igel]

2. "Party of the rich" is a problem slogan.

If you make over $250k you're likely to be well educated. If you're well educated, you're likely to be a Democrat.

And that's the way the demographics break down. If you earned over $250k you most likely voted (D) in the last election or two.

Then there are the numbers from Congress. Yeah, there are some differences, but (D) and (R) are both fairly flush.

Then there are individual politicians. Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Gore. Pelosi's family has over $10 million.

"Party for the rich" might be better. But given how wonderfully the recession destroyed assets, we'd better wait for 2009 figures on income and demographics.