If you only listen to Democrats and don’t pay attention to what they do, you would believe they despise the wealthy. The rich got what they have by “winning life’s lottery.” The rich do nothing unless it is driven by the goal of accumulating more wealth. The rich are evil, and got their money through the hard work of the poor. We hate the rich.
Now, look at who the Democrats worship: FDR, JFK, RFK, Ted, Moore, most Hollywood celebrities. The Democrats of the ’40s and ’50s didn’t much care for Harry Truman. He didn’t even own his own house. And even Bill Clinton never got the buddy treatment from Ted Kennedy. But at least he’s rich, now. And proud to tell you about it. Jimmy Carter was no pauper, even though the “peanut farmer” moniker was supposed to generate visions of him in the field with a hoe.
So, this article from Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker makes some interesting points in this regard about Mrs. Kerry’s speech at the DNC Convention.
I’ve come to the conclusion that what the Democratic Party really wants is a King or Queen. Camelot redux. Worship is the best word I can come up with (now where’s that thesaurus?) to describe how the faithful, like those who attend conventions, feel about the rich in their party. And judging from the way Mrs. Kerry carried and presented herself, she views herself as a future queen.
Face it. Bill Clinton could have served as President for Life if the Constitution allowed it. And he would have. And faithful Democrats would have loved it.
Well, seems to me that the people who go so far as to attend these nutty conventions worship the leaders of the party, whoever they are, not just the rich in their party. It just so happens that the only people who can afford to run for these leadership positions are rich. And we’ll see the exact same kind of worship at the RNC. You may or may not choose to perceive it that way, but I am watching both parties with equal suspicion and cynicism and I will be very surprised if I see the attendees behaving much differently.
As for Mr. Lifson’s article, I can see where he’s coming from — I find a little something odd about Mrs. Kerry too. But I think his section on her “This is such a powerful moment for me” quote was blown way out of proportion. I’m sure Mrs. K has public speaking experience, but this was undoubtedly the first time in front of a crowd of thousands and a TV audience of millions — who wouldn’t be overwhelmed like that? If Laura Bush made the exact same comment at the RNC, I wonder if you and Mr. Lifson would be saying how touching it was for Mrs. Bush to admit the overwhelming personal gratification that she feels at having an opportunity to speak out in support of a cause and candidate that she believes in so deeply.
As for Kerry being beholden to his wife for financing his campaign, is it really all that different from any other candidate being beholden to the wealthy individuals and companies that supported his campaign?
Comment by Bogey — July 29, 2004 @ 10:41 am
No difference in being beholden.
I point out the desire of Democrats to attach themselves to the rich and famous as being out of sync with their professions about “the little guy.” And poor folks like Clinton have to wedge themselves in. They are not instantly accepted, if ever. As I pointed out, Kennedy never got close to Clinton in spite of his popularity.
All the top people in both parties have money. As someone (Boortz, I believe) pointed out, there are two millionaires on both tickets. Get over it. Nobody else can afford to take the time off from work to run for office.
Comment by Bunker — July 29, 2004 @ 11:25 am