For the last decade we've endured endless whining from conservatives about "liberal media bias."  Yet when the Right takes charge of any media outlet, the first thing to go is any semblance of objectivity.

I just heard Tony Blankley, editor of the Washington Times, declare on C-Span, "I'm so happy that we won."

I didn't expect anything different from such a clown as Blankley, but it does encapsulate the hypocrisy of the Right.  They accuse the New York Times of doing EXACTLY what they themselves openly do...openly work to advance the interests of one political party over another.  It is just fine with the Right for Blankley to say "we" regarding Republicans, but the slightest implication of partisanship from any media source in favor of Democrats makes conservatives throw a fit.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

I also appreciated Brit Hume calling John Kerry's concession speech "a load of crap."  Can you imagine if Dan Rather said that of Bush's victory speech?

Sheesh!
::)

The media has pretty much sucked for BOTH sides!

I also appreciated Brit Hume calling John Kerry's concession speech "a load of crap."  Can you imagine if Dan Rather said that of Bush's victory speech?


I loved his speech, though I wish he would have cut out the stuff about working together with the Republicans. Other than that, it was the best and most moving speech I've heard in years. It blew anything ever said by ANY Bush right out of the universe.

Evan the so called liberal media is actually quite far to the right.  Calling the Dems "left" is really rather silly.  What we need in the country is a real left.

Evan the so called liberal media is actually quite far to the right.  Calling the Dems "left" is really rather silly.  What we need in the country is a real left.


"Without a labor movement, you don't have a left."
--Thomas Frank

I agree.  Without the centrality of labor, the left is reduced to a hodgepodge of special interest constituencies and special interests.  The Right will ridicule a labor issue based movement as "class warfare" and "outdated," but the truth is it's their biggest nightmare.  Thomas Frank talks extensively about the self-destructive compact blue-collar America has made with the Right.  However, it's not immutable. 

I think part of the problem is is the fact that people don't know what is left or what is right. Because the media is so far to the right that anything even close to the center is concidered far left. I think this country really needs to be educated on their left from their right.



Cat

For the last decade we've endured endless whining from conservatives about "liberal media bias."  Yet when the Right takes charge of any media outlet, the first thing to go is any semblance of objectivity.

I just heard Tony Blankley, editor of the Washington Times, declare on C-Span, "I'm so happy that we won."

I didn't expect anything different from such a clown as Blankley, but it does encapsulate the hypocrisy of the Right.  They accuse the New York Times of doing EXACTLY what they themselves openly do...openly work to advance the interests of one political party over another.  It is just fine with the Right for Blankley to say "we" regarding Republicans, but the slightest implication of partisanship from any media source in favor of Democrats makes conservatives throw a fit.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

I also appreciated Brit Hume calling John Kerry's concession speech "a load of crap."  Can you imagine if Dan Rather said that of Bush's victory speech?

Sheesh!
::)


And we have yet another person who can't seem to tell the difference between news and opinion.

When it comes to Fox News and CNN, I just compare the main people.  Brit Hume or Aaron Brown?  Sorry, no contest.

And we have yet another person who can't seem to tell the difference between news and opinion.

When it comes to Fox News and CNN, I just compare the main people.  Brit Hume or Aaron Brown?  Sorry, no contest.

No contest for what?  FNC always throws out the old shuck that their "news analysis" programs are opinionated, but their hard news is objective.  But it is ALL so-called "analysis" from Neil Cavuto to Greta Van Susteren.  The only so-called "hard news" is on for 90 second stretches.

"Without a labor movement, you don't have a left."
--Thomas Frank

I agree.  Without the centrality of labor, the left is reduced to a hodgepodge of special interest constituencies and special interests.  The Right will ridicule a labor issue based movement as "class warfare" and "outdated," but the truth is it's their biggest nightmare.  Thomas Frank talks extensively about the self-destructive compact blue-collar America has made with the Right.  However, it's not immutable. 


Which labor movement are you talking about, the AFL-CIO?  The AFL sold it soul to business when Sam Gompers joined the Am. Manufatuingers Assoc. and the CIO did in the 1950s when it purged left-leaning unions.  It guess its our only hope though.  The United Farm Workers just won a victory over Gallo, again, but no contract yet. 

Boycott Gallo

Which labor movement are you talking about, the AFL-CIO?  The AFL sold it soul to business when Sam Gompers joined the Am. Manufatuingers Assoc. and the CIO did in the 1950s when it purged left-leaning unions.  It guess its our only hope though.  The United Farm Workers just won a victory over Gallo, again, but no contract yet. 

Boycott Gallo

We need a new labor movement.  The AFL and the CIO may have sold their souls business, but what we had in the '50s was many times better than what we have now.

I don't drink Gallo anyway because I don't like headaches.

We need a new labor movement.  The AFL and the CIO may have sold their souls business, but what we had in the '50s was many times better than what we have now.

I don't drink Gallo anyway because I don't like headaches.


I agree, lets resurrect the IWW.  There is a great film, old, called Union Maids  which shows what a workers' movement should be, militant and democratic.  "Don't mourn, organize" as Joe Hill said.

sometimes i wish America had a more-liberal-than-liberal party like we have in Canada, the NDP. Then everyone would call them crazy corpsehugging treekissing moon maidens and everyone would vote democratic.  ;D

sometimes i wish America had a more-liberal-than-liberal party like we have in Canada, the NDP. Then everyone would call them crazy corpsehugging treekissing moon maidens and everyone would vote democratic.  ;D


I lean towrd the NDP as well. Paul Martin's Liberals are corporate @$$kissers, though not as bad as the new Conservative party would be. I also support the Canadian Action Party... they are a minor part with no seats in an house, federal or provincial, whose aim is to save Canadian sovereignty from globalisation and corporate takeover. The two parties seem to compliment eachother well, and perhaps one day they will merge. One thing about the NDP I am not sure of is their support on abolishing the Senate... I'm not comfortable with a unicameral Parliament. Do you happen to know their position on the Monarchy?

Its been a long time since I lived in Northern NY and had access to the CBC, but I remember being impressed with the NDP, also with Canadian news.  I used to watch The National & the Journal and  found the reporting to be thorough and agressive, just what we in the states need.  Hope its still that way.

As usual, liberal diatribe is filled with name calling, which is about all the Democrats seem to be able to do, except sue people to perpetuate their well-being and prosperity.  Having been to a war that was not necessary but was started by the Democrats (ended by Nixon), I can only say that if you don't like it change it. But, before you can do that you probably need to seek out some facts such as John Kerry being in the 12% tax bracket
despite the fact that he is one of the "multi-millionaire crooks. People who have money create wealth and jobs for others. North Korea threatens us because Bill Clinton did nothing about them.  Same can be said for Bin-Laden, Saddam, etc.

I make good money and work 5O-6O hours per week and watch about half of what I make go to taxes in one form or another.  Despite that, I soldier on because I live in a country that enables me the freedom of choice to do and say whatever I want to.  I am tired of all the FDR and LBJ social welfare programs and hope that more Americans will start accepting the fact that the country was founded on principals of self-help and personal responsibility.  These principals have been largely forgotten by the masses who pull the "D" lever.  Why is it that a conservative path is "radical" but a liberal path is not called what it is: "socialist" or "communist?"

Maybe some day people will come to see the true spirit of America that many
of us who have fought her battles to preserve your freedom to act and speak
the way that you do.

Yes, the sun is shining and it is a great day for us and for America.

I make good money and work 5O-6O hours per week and watch about half of what I make go to taxes in one form or another.  Despite that, I soldier on because I live in a country that enables me the freedom of choice to do and say whatever I want to.  I am tired of all the FDR and LBJ social welfare programs and hope that more Americans will start accepting the fact that the country was founded on principals of self-help and personal responsibility.  These principals have been largely forgotten by the masses who pull the "D" lever.  Why is it that a conservative path is "radical" but a liberal path is not called what it is: "socialist" or "communist?"


If you want to look at American history, you'll find the country was built on partnerships between the public and private sectors.
Social welfare programs become necessary when the private sector decides certain segments of the population are unemployable, redundant, or surfeit.  "Personal responsibility" is a virtue when spoken of in earnest, but it is a floating load when used by the right-wing.  The idea that there is a vast underclass that doesn't want to work is a myth when you really get down to it.  Even moderates get upset when I say so, but it is true.  Most everybody would rather earn their own keep than live off of others.  However, the myth that poor people are shiftless and lazy is part of the indoctrination fed to Americans by the bosses.

The fact is capital only cares about next quarter's profits and there are a h*ll of a lot of people business doesn't want. 

If we make capital our god we set ourselves up for the tyranny of Wall Street.  We have got to rid ourselves of the idea that we fail the "free market" and have the courage to say the "free market" fails us.

Of course, if you want to stay in the fantasy world of Ronald Reagan, I can't stop you.
:P

Why is it that a conservative path is "radical" but a liberal path is not called what it is: "socialist" or "communist?"


I like how people use the words 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably as though they were the same thing. They are not synonymous at all. The ubercapitalist system in this country would like people to believe they are, they like to equate socialism with communism because everybody knows that communism is 'evil'... no one will question that. I personally don't think that communism will ever work. I also think that complete socialism doesn't work any better that complete capitalism... in either scenario, a lot of people get hurt and overlooked. That is why I am a strong proponent of social democracy, where there is a balance between capitalism and socialism. The golden mean, the middle road. We need capitalism to facilitate a successful economy, and we need socialism to make sure that people are taken care of no matter how much money they have. The EEC is a great example of how this works, so is Canada. They have good, stable economies and very high standards of living for all citizens. By contrast, we have an economy that is good sometimes, extraordinary at others, and poor at others... in other words our economy isn't stable. And what's worse, is that we have the lowest quality of living of any of the G8 nations. There is a lack of balance between the two economic ideologies, and hence the gap between rich and poor gets wider and wider, and the burden upon the middle class to pick up the slack gets heavier just as the size of the class itself gets smaller. It's time for people to give up any preconceived notion of socialism's inheirant evil, and start looking at the world around them.

Incidentally...

In 2001, the US spent 13.6% of the annual GDP on health care (US$2168 per person). Canada spent 9.5% of their annual GDP on health care (US$1533 per person). In the US, 40 million citizens are not medically covered, in Canada nearly every citizen is covered by the national medicare plan.

Also in Canada, the infant mortality rate is lower, life expectancy is two years higher, and cancer rates are lower. Proof that the quality of health care in Canada is comparable to that of the US.

Why is it that a conservative path is "radical" but a liberal path is not called what it is: "socialist" or "communist?"

Please don't feel that you have to parade your ignorance for all the world to see.  To the outside world, the Democrats are right-of-centre conservatives - you obviously have absolutely no idea what socialism and communism actually are: to you they're just labels for bashing anyone slightly to your left.


Maybe some day people will come to see the true spirit of America that many
of us who have fought her battles to preserve your freedom to act and speak
the way that you do.
I'll bet you can't see the irony in that comment, as someone who's just voted for a president who's presided over the greatest reduction in personal freedom entailed by the hilariously inaptly-named "Patriot" Acts

In 2001, the US spent 13.6% of the annual GDP on health care (US$2168 per person). Canada spent 9.5% of their annual GDP on health care (US$1533 per person). In the US, 40 million citizens are not medically covered, in Canada nearly every citizen is covered by the national medicare plan.

Also in Canada, the infant mortality rate is lower, life expectancy is two years higher, and cancer rates are lower. Proof that the quality of health care in Canada is comparable to that of the US.

But McD, don't you see...it's not how much you spend on healthcare, it's who gets to rake in the loot.  We wouldn't want to see those sky high insurance and pharmaceutical firm profits fall off a bit, would we?

I think there are other factors that contribute to Canada's higher life expectancy.  I'm not like Michael Moore pretending life is all groovy in Canada, because it isn't.  However, Canada has less abject poverty per capita, and I would also put my money on less daily stress and social instability for most Canadians compared to Americans.

Of course, if you want to stay in the fantasy world of Ronald Reagan, I can't stop you.
:P
The 80's were REAL and Reagan was fantastic. He won TWO elections by a landslide so, YES, I will remember the 80's ;)

But McD, don't you see...it's not how much you spend on healthcare, it's who gets to rake in the loot.  We wouldn't want to see those sky high insurance and pharmaceutical firm profits fall off a bit, would we?

I think there are other factors that contribute to Canada's higher life expectancy.  I'm not like Michael Moore pretending life is all groovy in Canada, because it isn't.  However, Canada has less abject poverty per capita, and I would also put my money on less daily stress and social instability for most Canadians compared to Americans.


That's true, Max, but you have to consider the impact that quality of healthcare has on a poverty rate. Health poeple are far more likely to be industrious and to hold jobs than sickly people. The health care in Canada keeps people capable, and as a result, it is easier to climb the economic ladder. There is an excellent article on Wikipedia about this, which is where I gat all my stats. www.wikipedia.com Look up Canadian Health vs US... or something to that effect.

Also in Canada, the infant mortality rate is lower, life expectancy is two years higher, and cancer rates are lower. Proof that the quality of health care in Canada is comparable to that of the US.


How dumb is this?  Canada's healthcare can't touch America's.

1. Our life expectancy is only 2 years lower?  With all the smoking and eating Americans do, that SHOULD be much lower for us.  If we are going to get into that I could point out Japan, whose life expectancy is around 2-3 years HIGHER than Canada.  Eating and climate have a lot to do with it, considering all the food America consumes, we should be in the 50's.
2. Cancer rates are lower?  Depends on which cancer you want to look at.  Certainly not breast cancer and intestinal cancer, which are much lower in America.  Lung cancer is higher here, but we smoke a lot more, and personally I refuse to pay higher taxes to pay for someone else's healthcare after they ruin themselves with 2 lbs. of steak and 4 packs of cigs. a day.
3. In America, there are an average of 2.8 doctors per 1,000 people, in Canada it is only 2.1 per 1,000.
4. Waiting lists, I have went through this so many times.  The example I remember most is Cadbury, Canada.  The city has 4 major hospitals.  On average it takes 62 weeks to get a hip replacement at one hospital, and 54 weeks to get a knee replacement in Cadbury.
5. The number of people running from America to Canada for surgery is MUCH lower than the number of people running from Canada to America for surgery.
6.Infant Mortality Rates?  Most of the time that has to do with the MOTHER.  Good God.  Again your beloved Canada has an average of 7.9 deaths per 1,000 births, compared with 7.8 of the Netherlands, 6.8 is Switzerland, 5.9 in Finland, 5.9 in Sweden, and the 5.0 in Japan.  Again it has a lot to do with ones' own choices, and Americans do make pi**-poor choices, so stop blaming it our doctors.
7.Need I point out Canada's MRI crisis?
8.America has the current LOWEST percentage of people who think we need a healthcare change:

Question: Do you believe the health care system in your country needs fundamental change?

Answer: Yes (percentage)

Sweden-58%
United Kingdom-52%
Japan-47%
Netherlands-46%
France-42%
Canada-38%
United States-30%

9.According to a Gallup poll conducted around the world, foreign countries envy America's healthcare the most.


--I just thought I would put some statistics to throw off the American-bashing to left resorts to today.  In the end I would rather be treated by an American doctor any old day.

Also, we can argue healthcare all day.  BUT, which country is the best when it comes to the military?  Say what you want, I love being the #1 might, and the ONLY superpower in the world.  COMPARE THAT.

How dumb is this?  Canada's healthcare can't touch America's.

1. Our life expectancy is only 2 years lower?  With all the smoking and eating Americans do, that SHOULD be much lower for us.  If we are going to get into that I could point out Japan, whose life expectancy is around 2-3 years HIGHER than Canada.  Eating and climate have a lot to do with it, considering all the food America consumes, we should be in the 50's.
2. Cancer rates are lower?  Depends on which cancer you want to look at.  Certainly not breast cancer and intestinal cancer, which are much lower in America.  Lung cancer is higher here, but we smoke a lot more, and personally I refuse to pay higher taxes to pay for someone else's healthcare after they ruin themselves with 2 lbs. of steak and 4 packs of cigs. a day.
3. In America, there are an average of 2.8 doctors per 1,000 people, in Canada it is only 2.1 per 1,000.
4. Waiting lists, I have went through this so many times.  The example I remember most is Cadbury, Canada.  The city has 4 major hospitals.  On average it takes 62 weeks to get a hip replacement at one hospital, and 54 weeks to get a knee replacement in Cadbury.
5. The number of people running from America to Canada for surgery is MUCH lower than the number of people running from Canada to America for surgery.
6.Infant Mortality Rates?  Most of the time that has to do with the MOTHER.  Good God.  Again your beloved Canada has an average of 7.9 deaths per 1,000 births, compared with 7.8 of the Netherlands, 6.8 is Switzerland, 5.9 in Finland, 5.9 in Sweden, and the 5.0 in Japan.  Again it has a lot to do with ones' own choices, and Americans do make pi**-poor choices, so stop blaming it our doctors.
7.Need I point out Canada's MRI crisis?
8.America has the current LOWEST percentage of people who think we need a healthcare change:

Question: Do you believe the health care system in your country needs fundamental change?

Answer: Yes (percentage)

Sweden-58%
United Kingdom-52%
Japan-47%
Netherlands-46%
France-42%
Canada-38%
United States-30%

9.According to a Gallup poll conducted around the world, foreign countries envy America's healthcare the most.


--I just thought I would put some statistics to throw off the American-bashing to left resorts to today.  In the end I would rather be treated by an American doctor any old day.

Also, we can argue healthcare all day.  BUT, which country is the best when it comes to the military?  Say what you want, I love being the #1 might, and the ONLY superpower in the world.  COMPARE THAT.



You can boast about the american healthcare all you want, but the truth remains that the only people who really reap its benefits are the upper classes. You can point out these problems with the Canadian health care system, but that won't change the fact that they have succeeded in making sure EVERYONE'S health needs are taken care of, while we have cast 40 million americans aside as though they don't matter because they can't afford it. It takes a couple months to get a hip replacement in Canada, so what? At least everyone who needs one will get one... here, you'll get one if you can afford it and if you can't you'll just go without a hip. But poor people don't really deserve new hip... now do they?

Poor choices in America, now you got that right! I'd much rather have my tax dollars go to saving someone else's life no matter what poor choices they've made, than have it go to prop up corporate dictators in third world countries so that our fortune 500s can exploit cheap labour. I'd much rather see my money go to helping one of my fellow countrymen get his life turned around, than have it go toward killing innocent children accross the globe.

As usual, liberal diatribe is filled with name calling, which is about all the Democrats seem to be able to do, except sue people to perpetuate their well-being and prosperity.  Having been to a war that was not necessary but was started by the Democrats (ended by Nixon), I can only say that if you don't like it change it. But, before you can do that you probably need to seek out some facts such as John Kerry being in the 12% tax bracket
despite the fact that he is one of the "multi-millionaire crooks. People who have money create wealth and jobs for others. North Korea threatens us because Bill Clinton did nothing about them.  Same can be said for Bin-Laden, Saddam, etc.

I make good money and work 5O-6O hours per week and watch about half of what I make go to taxes in one form or another.  Despite that, I soldier on because I live in a country that enables me the freedom of choice to do and say whatever I want to.  I am tired of all the FDR and LBJ social welfare programs and hope that more Americans will start accepting the fact that the country was founded on principals of self-help and personal responsibility.  These principals have been largely forgotten by the masses who pull the "D" lever.  Why is it that a conservative path is "radical" but a liberal path is not called what it is: "socialist" or "communist?"

Maybe some day people will come to see the true spirit of America that many
of us who have fought her battles to preserve your freedom to act and speak
the way that you do.

Yes, the sun is shining and it is a great day for us and for America.


This post  is so filled with contradictions it boggles the mind.

What "mane calling" are you refering to?

Vietnam was NOT started by the Democrates but by Eisenhower, who first perventyed the reunification after the French got smashed at Diem Bien Fu, and second, sent "military advisors" to shore up the puppet government he installed in the south.  Domestic politics (Repub charges that the Dem's were soft on communism) forced Kennedy and Johnson to escalate.

If indeed Kerry is in the 12% tax bracket it seems to me that it is you Repubs who need to take the blame.  During the campaign Kerry stated that he would be willing to pay more taxes and certainly neither wanted or deserved the massive tax cuts he got as a result of Lil' Georgie's "tax the poor" policies.  But if,, as you say, the rich create wealth and jobs for the rest of us, why are you b..ching?

Bill Clinton DID do something about N Korea.  It was called "d-i-p-l-o-m-a-c-y".  They restarted their nucs program when Lil' Georgie repudiated the Clinton deal.  And insiders have terstified that there were several covert (means secret) operations aimed at Osama, which, of course, you wouldn't hear announced on Fox, nor I on CNN.

If half of you incomes goes to taxes, you probably need a better tax advisor, or you need to rethink your commitment to the Repubs, since they have been in charge of tax policy for the last 4 years and I guess you haven't benefited much.

Self help and personal responsibility will be fine when Halliburton and the rest of them start paying their taxes instead of getting corporate welfare and when those who are disadvantaged because of their race or gender get a square deal, like equal pay for equal work.

And last, to suggest that the "liberal" agenda is "socialist or communist" is, as I said above, the hight of  absurdity.  The question is, "what is the role of government?"  Is it, as the preable says, "to provide for the general welfare", or is it mearly, as C. Wright Mills put it "to watch in the night"?

I'd much rather see my money go to helping one of my fellow countrymen get his life turned around, than have it go toward killing innocent children accross the globe.


Our military's job is not to kill innocent people around the world!  Sheesh.  If that was true, Fallujah wouldn't be standing right now, we would have already dropped a bomb on it and ended that problem.

If indeed Kerry is in the 12% tax bracket it seems to me that it is you Repubs who need to take the blame.  During the campaign Kerry stated that he would be willing to pay more taxes and certainly neither wanted or deserved the massive tax cuts he got as a result of Lil' Georgie's "tax the poor" policies.  But if,, as you say, the rich create wealth and jobs for the rest of us, why are you b..ching?



Kerry pays 12.something percent, which to me is fair.  I get taxed 28% which is way to high.  You know the government is a little to big when it can take over 1/4th your paycheck.  I think all classes should get taxed equally, stop punishing the rich for being successful.

Kerry pays 12.something percent, which to me is fair.  I get taxed 28% which is way to high.  You know the government is a little to big when it can take over 1/4th your paycheck.  I think all classes should get taxed equally, stop punishing the rich for being successful.


And yet you supported the policies that led to this obvious disparity in tax rates.  In other words, you voted against yoiur own interests.  The overwhelming majority of "the rich" are not personally "sucessuful" but, to use Alexander Hamilton's phrase "well born".  With only a few exceptions they inherited their wealth, and now, thanks to Lil' Georgie, they will inherit all of it.  So we will reestablish an aristocracy, and concentrate power in the hands of the already powerful, and the more you conservatives win, the closer you will come to losing.  Bush's policies are going to create a social crisis that will make the great depression look like a Sunday church social, and there is no telling the outcome.  But the  right has always wanted one last dance.

And yet you supported the policies that led to this obvious disparity in tax rates.  In other words, you voted against yoiur own interests.  The overwhelming majority of "the rich" are not personally "sucessuful" but, to use Alexander Hamilton's phrase "well born".  With only a few exceptions they inherited their wealth, and now, thanks to Lil' Georgie, they will inherit all of it.  So we will reestablish an aristocracy, and concentrate power in the hands of the already powerful, and the more you conservatives win, the closer you will come to losing.  Bush's policies are going to create a social crisis that will make the great depression look like a Sunday church social, and there is no telling the outcome.  But the  right has always wanted one last dance.

In spite of the desperate cries of conservatives to deny their doing, America is indeed moving to re-establish the old robber baron aristocracy.  Remember, there is no such thing as the "death tax."  There is such a thing as an "estate tax" on a small percentage of lavish estates, but with Bush's help, this won't exist either in four years.
How do you like this one?  Alan Greenspan's plutocratic plan.  In the '80s, the poor subsidized tax cuts for the rich with increases in payroll taxes.  It worked.  It worked so well that by the late '90s, America was running record surpluses.  George W. Bush, with the approval of the same partisan Republican fed chair--Alan Greenspan, gave that surplus away to the rich in tax cuts.
So, Joe Sixpack and Mary Punchclock, the Republicans took your hard earned dollars from the '80s and '90s and gave them to the richest Americans.  If you don't like income redistribution schemes DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN!
::) ::) ::)

Well, unless my math is wrong, Kerry actually paid over 22% (using figures from his 2003 tax return), Bush was around 27%.  At 28%, you're lucky, hubby gets dinged for 33. ::)


And no doubt makes a lot less than either kerry (who said he didn't want or need the tax cut) or Bush (who hasn't created a single lasting job with all his failed companies, but no doubt revels in the tax cuts).  But this ios just the pattern.  The middle class is being driven back into the working class, and the working class is being driven onto poverty.  We are all being transported back into the  age of the robber barons, and sooner or later, one way or another, there will be he11 to pay.

And no doubt makes a lot less than either kerry (who said he didn't want or need the tax cut) or Bush (who hasn't created a single lasting job with all his failed companies, but no doubt revels in the tax cuts).  But this ios just the pattern.  The middle class is being driven back into the working class, and the working class is being driven onto poverty.  We are all being transported back into the  age of the robber barons, and sooner or later, one way or another, there will be he11 to pay.

I believed all along Kerry needed to get the message out that David Cay Johnston shows in his book, Perfectly Legal.  The poor and the middle class are subsidizing the rich in America.  Whereas the Republicans speak only of those in the top income brackets as wealth creators, Johnston demonstrates how they are leeching from everybody else via sneaky tax policies.  As it goes with individuals, so it goes with companies.  The huge corporations have the clout to transfer the burden of taxation from themselves and onto small businesses, mom & pop businesses.  The Republican lionizing of "small business" is a vile deception in light of this.

Of course, if Kerry did bring these truths to light, the partisan Republican media would drown him out with their cries of "Massachusetts liberal."  They would also refer to Johnston as a "New York Times elitist," and the red state electorate majority would swallow the poison once again.