Change Dems Change!
By Michael Fogelberg
Jobin-Leeds Partnership for Democracy & Education
And so Scott Brown, a wealthy conservative Republican could run as “a man of the people” against the “Massachusetts machine,” against big government and elitist Democrats out of touch with real people. Sad but true.
Of course there is no single reason for Brown’s win. Candidate and campaign factors, national and state factors, all played a role. Still, I think Coakley could have won with a different campaign, and her loss certainly has lessons for activists and the Democratic establishment in Massachusetts and nationally:
1) Liberals and progressives win when they bring new voters to the polls and keep them and their natural base engaged.
2) Democrats’ need to challenge class privilege, power and inequality in their message and when they govern.
3)Conservatism created the current crisis and needs to be criticized directly.
Recruit New Voters & Engage Your Supporters: In 2006, Governor Patrick won with new and liberal voters. In 2008, President Obama won with new, liberal and swing voters.
In 2010, Coakley did not recruit new voters and she did not win. That campaign did not make an effort to get support from new voters, people of color and younger voters, and she discouraged working class voters, whom she likely thought of as part of her natural base. When Coakley, and then even Obama, attacked and made fun of Brown’s pick-up truck, they attacked an important part of working class life. These unfortunate remarks only reinforced Republicans’ mantra that Democrats don’t really understand and serve common people and are driven by ideology. Coakley and Democrats ignored new voters and lost the symbolic war to identify with average people.
As elections across the country and in Massachusetts have demonstrated, liberal and progressive Democratic majorities can be won and in some very surprising places. But this kind of majority is generally built with large groups of people who don’t vote regularly. Large segments of this majority are reluctant and even hostile to voting. While their attitudes aren’t empowering, they are not unreasonable given the history of disappointments at the hands of Democratic leaders. Simply, new and infrequent voters from these groups need a personal contact and their communities need to be brought in by the campaign and candidate, as well as by efforts of recognized nonpartisan and independent organizations and leaders with roots in these constituencies.
Challenge Class Privilege, Power and Inequality: Democrats need to do more to connect with new and working class voters. The victorious Republican Brown won with the votes of many who think the Obama Administration is failing to do enough to help average people. Recent polls by Research 2000 and Hart Research identified a large number of liberal Obama voters who stayed home, and swing voters who cast votes for Brown in 2010 but had supported Obama in 2008. But Brown’s claims to be on the side of the average person and the “candidate for change” would have fallen flat and swing voters would have tangible reasons to support a less than ideal Democratic candidate if the financial bailout money had gone to struggling households and communities, not greedy financiers and bankers.
Unfortunately, after assuming office, President Obama has pursued Republicans support for his legislative agenda and his message and statements have been moderate and centrist. His most prominent legislative proposals have been moderate and centrist. As a result he’s lost much of the active support of his liberal and progressive base and disappointed new voters, all expecting stronger rhetoric and bold policies. Here in Mass, our Chief Executive Gov. Patrick has also lost the active support of his base and disappointed new voters. His message of change has targeted state government and the legislature, where change is certainly much needed. But, like Obama, he has not challenged the role of greedy corporate and financial executives here in our state who have enriched themselves at the expense of the broad majority. His proposals to date have not included measures that would do so, such as a wealth tax to fund needed public programs. Both Democratic leaders and politics are still out of step with the people and the times, and they need to do a better job catching up and connecting with new and working class voters.
Republicans do have it easier. They simply attack the government and public institutions, making their case they are fighting for the average person, just as Brown did and so many conservatives before him. But the rich and powerful benefit handily from this political slight-of-hand. In our times, with great disparities of wealth and power, Democrats need to challenge this conservative frame directly and take steps to address the power and privileges of wealth and reign in the excesses of the corporate and financial elites. Doing so, they can begin restoring Americans’ confidence in government and political leaders.
Criticize Conservative Politics and Philosophy: Conservatives attack liberals and Liberalism regularly and repeatedly. But Obama and the national Democratic Party have not made a serious or sustained effort to call right-wing conservatism what it is: a mythology of American individualism that masks selfish enrichment and perpetuates inequality by design. Democrats have not helped Americans to see through the conservatives’ phony rhetoric and messaging, political framing that hides its exploitive and harmful impact on the overwhelming majority of people. Through his first year as President, Obama’s rhetoric and leadership have emphasized bipartisanship and “reaching across the aisle.” This approach has allowed conservatism and Republicans to stay current and seemingly survive a string of national catastrophes. Even in our Massachusetts, “the bluest state,” conservative attitudes among voters and Democratic politicians toward taxes, toward inequality of incomes and opportunity, have stymied the leadership of Governor Patrick.
Like Patrick, Like Obama? Governor Patrick and President Obama both gave speeches within days of Republican Scott Brown’s victory over Democrat Martha Coakley. Both Patrick and Obama performed well, acknowledged Coakley’s loss, the shortcomings in their efforts, admonishing their political opponents and the frustrated public to be engaged in the process and contribute to solutions. Still, the obstacles to their leadership remain and their political prospects are in question.
Although Patrick and Obama both have partisan majorities in their legislatures, both leaders are frustrated by inertia and the status quo within their party. Obama also confronts an aggressive Republican opposition. But something is missing.
Neither Patrick nor Obama have an effective strategy to drive their agenda and preserve the active support of their new voters, voters who are the “value-added” to Democratic political capital. Neither has governed with or for their base. Gov. Patrick relinquished the support of his activist base, and dismissed the counsel of insiders from previous Democratic administrations. As President, Obama adopted the tired conservative leadership strategies of Clinton and Carter, Democratic presidents who each governed under very different circumstances than we find today.
Nothing better exemplifies this situation for Gov. Patrick than the tension with leaders from the African American community. The Governor has not been able to squarely address their community and political needs within his framework of “change.” Likewise, Obama doesn’t want to be too closely linked to the Congressional Black C
aucus, and he actively resists any strategic partnering with progressives in the House and Senate. Liberals and independents are drifting from Democratic leadership, unhappy with the lack of tangible changes that address the stark inequalities of wealth and power that undermine our confidence in government and politics. Both President Obama and Gov. Patrick are left governing without the engaged support of their once active constituencies.
The Democratic Party is challenged, here in Massachusetts and nationally, by the demands of our times, by enforcers of the status quo, and by their own assumptions of leadership. To make significant change, Democrats need a progressive majority and a progressive majority is built by reaching out beyond traditional voters to new voters and emerging constituencies. These are the people that will sustain them and support real change.
The moral of the story? Democrats-change thyself. Times have changed and the strategy of Democratic politics and governance need to change to lead. Recruit new voters, deliver for your base and keep your supporters engaged. Challenge class privilege, power and the stark inequality that undermines our confidence in government and political leadership. Call out conservatism for its falsehoods and failures and help Americans get beyond it. Change Dems, change.
For all the reasons you cite, Coakley clearly failed to excite her base. Turnout was significantly lower, relative to 2006 and 2008, in places where she got the highest % of the vote.
<
p>I see no easy answers for future Democratic campaigners, Given the new fiscal realities in this state and the country, there has to be some very painful cuts to programs dear to core Democratic constituencies. Just look at how the police are reacting to civilian flaggers and Quinn bill cuts:
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>Is there a way for Democrats to market an “austerity” message to their base?
If a campaign, as a matter of procedure and institutional culture, runs an Astroturf strategy, based upon electoral inevitability and X-chromosome essentialism, it deserves what it gets.
<
p>Coakley didn’t “fail to excite” core Democratic constituencies; she actively repelled them.
<
p>All in all, the second most incompetent campaign (after Capuano’s) of this election cycle.
<
p>Brown didn’t win. Coakley lost.
Still the status quo…more tax cuts for the wealthy?…
because….tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy and reduce our national deficit/debt…not.
<
p>Ezra Klein – Washington Post
And Your Move Games folded in Somerville because a long time business with quite a few employees had its line of credit pulled.
<
p>NO, I don’t see a passion for economic support on Main Street; I see support for corporate and organizational stake holders; an elite taking care of an elite on both sides of the aisle. Sad.
One question though…
<
p>
<
p>Wealthy? If Scott Brown is wealthy then how do you define it? I mean, we know he wasn’t in Ted Kennedy’s league and I don’t think he is iin the league of other wealthy Democratic Senators…
<
p>
<
p>Nor can he touch President Obama’s wealth or even our multi-millionaire Governor Patrick.
<
p>So, how do YOU define wealth in your “slap” at Senator Scott Brown?
http://www.massinc.org/fileadm…
Amount of Income Earned in 2008: 60,000-100,000
<
p>That’s a 40k range!
<
p>I’m guessing his wife files separately.
60-100K for the state senate, 10-20K for the reserves, and 80-100K from his law practice. So he earns between 150K and 220K a year, not including his wife’s salary, which is probably pretty substantial.
Shouldn’t he be arrested and prosecuted.
I assumed the additional mention of 60-100k was a repeat. It’s actually multiple jobs, each offering that salary! Plus the reserves.
<
p>The second six is actually an right, on closer inspection. He has terrible handwriting…
<
p>So
<
p>Job one: 60-100k
Job two: 80-100k
Job three: 10-20k
<
p>Total: 150k-220k
<
p>At minimum, he makes 50% more than the 100k Wrentham household average, all by himself.
Ask me how many homes I own.
Should we gather the wealth and income of all our state senators and reps and include the worth “wealthy” when describing them from now on?
<
p>So yourself a favor and go back and EDIT your original diary and remove the word “wealthy” since all you are doing is continuing an old stereotype and we all know how BMG feels about “stereotypic” remarks! Not to mention how the data I supplied above says 8 of the 10 top wealthiest people on Capital Hill are Democratic Senators!
I notice you left his wife’s income out of the equation for Brown, but included it for Kerry. Rather dishonest, don’t you think?
The issue is that he tried to present himself as a common man with 200K miles on his old truck, while his kids went to a very expensive, elite private school and his wife parades around town in a chinchilla coat. ted kennedy never pretended he was a common working man, nor does John Kerry. Again, it’s the hypocrisy of parading around like an average Joe when you’re anything but.
The issue is that Michael Fogelburg said
<
p>
<
p>Which is not true!
<
p>You guys still don’t get it!
he is not your average Joe making 50K a year and trying to support a family.
You’re now making my argument. Thanks.
Scott on his own makes the town average for a household.. Adding in his wife’s should put them WAY over.
LOL.
I wouldn’t want to be selling against you.
<
p>
<
p>I know we won’t agree on this so continued back-and-forth may be meaningless (but fun). I will end sincerely by saying I do not think the general characterization of Scott Brown being “wealthy” is correct. I am not saying he is “poor” or even “average”. He is a State Senator and is immediately above the state income average by that. However, when most people here “wealthy” I don’t think they think of “just above average”. I think “wealthy” means they live in a six or seven figure home, have a mid to high 6+ figure salary, work because it’s fun and not because they have to. I know a lot of guys making what Scott makes and living like Scott lives and neither I or themselves would call them “wealthy”. I suppose some would say “wealthy” is anyone making more money than themselves and for those people making less than Scott, they may call him wealthy… I wouldn’t! I make more money than Scott and I would not call myself wealthy…
<
p>Do you consider yourself “wealthy”?
Remember Dan Quayle? Back in 1988, he considered himself to be middle class, even though his parents were worth about $600 million.
Does Wrentham make the servants live in the next town over?
<
p>I live in North Cambridge, and while the real estate is expensive here the average family here is $58,800.
<
p>I know a lot of people who’d be thrilled to make $100,000.
My understanding is that Scott Brown’s father left when he was quite young. He was neither born nor raised with a silver spoon. He has worked hard to accumulate whatever “wealth” he has. Does one cease to be a “common man” when one’s income crosses a certain threshold?
<
p>I have a friend whose grandparents immigrated here. His parents were born poor and died poor. My friend went to college ROTC and spent 30 years in the army. He retired as a full colonel and got a job with a defense contractor. I’m quite sure his current salary plus his pension exceed whatever Scott Brown is earning. Has he ceased to be a common man?
when you are clearly not. It’s the hypocrisy. Saying that Scott Brown represents the interests of the struggling family of 4 who make 50K a year before taxes is ludicrous, especially when his combined family income puts him in the upper 5% of income earners nationally and his voting record proves otherwise.
It’s an ideology thing. Was Ted Kennedy incapable of representing the average working person because he never was one?
Or you are playing the typical wingnut game of trying to redefine the argument.
<
p>Ted Kennedy and John Kerry NEVER pretended to be anything but wealthy, yet they represented and fought for the needs of the average person. Scott Brown pretends that he’s Joe middle class and while in the state senate, voted for bills that benefitted the rich and screwed the average person. Now that I explained it nice and simply, do you understand?
For what it’s worth I am not affiliated with either party, never have been, never will be. But I guess anyone that disagrees with you is a radical nutjob.
<
p>I did read your comment and I do understand what you wrote.
<
p>My point, if you read what I wrote, is that people don’t want to be defined based on their income. There are many people that may be “wealthy” by your definition that can relate to Scott Brown’s journey because they are living it. Some of those people are democrats, some are republicans, many are independents.
<
p>If you want to claim him to be a hypocrite because of his voting record, fine. But most of your rant, and most of the campaign rhetoric, was about how his wealth disqualifies him from representing the middle class. Aside from the apparent strategic shortcomings, politically speaking, of this point of view I simply disagree with you as a matter of fact.
<
p>John Kerry fought for the needs of the average person? When did this happen? John Kerry never took up the cause of anybody but John Kerry.
Then you would know how Kerry voted on bills that benefit working and middle class people. We are also used of RW nutjobs posting hypocritical crap on BMG so excuse me for assuming that you’re just another RMG wingnut.
<
p>You also assume that I’m some sort of class warrior, which I’m not and what part didn’t you understand about my Kennedy/Kerry examples? No, wealth does not disqualify anyone from representing the middle class, however, Brown’s voting record makes him a rank hypocrite.
<
p>Maybe we weren’t watching the same campaign commercials, but I didn’t see any campaign rhetoric around his wealth. From his side, I saw campaign rhetoric depicting him as an average Joe, which he is decidely not. That’s the hypocrisy.
Kathy:
Your candidate ran a horsecrap campaign. Neither Brown’s truck, his barn jacket, or his personal “wealth” were the reason he won. He won because he connected with more people or put another way; more people actually liked and trusted him than they did Martha. Sorry, but that’s a fact. In two years you get to do this all over again. Get a better candidate and have at it. In the meantime, the class warfare crap is pretty damn ugly.
<
p>FYI, someone mentioned above that Scott and his wife may have filed returns separately. That pretty much never happens. As for his personal “wealth,” give me a break. He certainly has done well for himself through hard work and smarts. His spouse appears to have done well also. Calling him wealthy is hardly an accurate statement particularly when compared to his colleagues in the Mass Legislature and now the US Congress.
and Brown had some very savvy advisors. But we weren’t discussing that. We were discussing the HYPOCRISY of presenting yourself one way while your actions-in this case a voting record-proves otherwise.
<
p>You’re also projecting that Dems are poor and begrudge others their wealth. You’re also projecting that I’m some kind of class warrior, when all I was pointing out was the HYPOCRISY. You differently-winged voters are all about poutrage and are great at spinning based upon preconceptions and prejudices.
<
p>Gail Huff’s income was not reported on the document that was linked in liveandletlive’s post. See? Those pesky facts again.
I may have confused BMG chatter regarding Brown’s massive wealth with actual campaign rhetoric, which was largely non-existent from the Coakley camp (to the extent one can use “campaign” and “Coakley in the same sentence).
<
p>Kerry is a fraud. To compare his work to Kennedy’s absurd. Kennedy leveraged his office and worked his butt off for what he believed in. Kerry is a follower who votes with his finger in the air at all times.
<
p>Be careful, they will come at you now. You have a little * beside your handle. Be brave, be strong… your words will be questioned, your opinions discounted and you will have to prove anything you write with links, facts and notarized memos…
<
p>They will not answer a question like what is “wealthy” because they will be defining a bunch of “wealthy” Democrats for me to pick out in future comments.
<
p>John Kerry could not be anymore out of touch with the common man.
You obviously missed the point yet again. We weren’t talking about wealth, but the hypocrisy of presenting yourself as a working Joe while voting for bills that benefit the wealthy. Kerry’s voting record is in stark contrast to Brown’s. So you may say that Kerry is ‘out of touch with the common man’, but his voting record proves otherwise. Facts are funny that way.
Playing the victim never gets old for you, does it?
<
p>
or call himself an independent?
Isn’t it funny that we have to explain hypocrisy to the members of the Party that bathes in it daily?
I think it’s fair to say that neither party has cornered the market on hypocrisy. I’m finding that as I look back at Deval Patrick the candidate I am having trouble matching him up with Deval the Governor. Dare I start the charter school dialog here? Deval’s position on charter funding as a candidate was well thought out given his understanding of the challenges on both the charter side and the sending district side of the formula. One word just about sums it all up. That word is “Gloucester.” Hypocrisy in spades!
But since you’re on the subject, I can only think of one party that presents itself as the party of Family Values and morals:
<
p>http://www.republicanoffenders…
<
p>http://www.republicansexoffend…
The hatred is ugly. Real ugly.
So much poutrage, so little time.
<
p>And for the record, I never begrudge anyone their success. Ask JohnD. 😉
You don’t begrudge it, but you certainly question it a lot. And OBTW, my boss loves me!
I can’t see anyone but an employment counselor loving an “employee” who spends all day every day making anti-progressive comments on a progressing blog.
<
p>Unless status meetings go like this:
<
p>Boss: What did we all accomplish this week?
<
p>Fred: I closed two accounts, made 3 calls, and used my downtime to clean out bad leads and do some organizing in salesforce.
<
p>JohnD: I posted 107 comments, gave out 30 zeros, continued ignoring KBusch (he’s a big meanie), and got a diary front paged.
LOL.
The whole sub-thread here about whether or not Brown is “wealthy”, hypocritical, etc. is part of the problem IMO. The fact is that Brown succeeded in getting a message out that resonated with people and Coakley didn’t. Arguing about the legitimacy of Brown’s message doesn’t get us anywhere. If we spend our time trying to debunk his message, we’re spending our time in his framing, which just reinforces it.
<
p>Dems, elected and candidates, need to get their message out in ways that resonate with voters. And when they succeed in doing that, they need to follow though with action that matches the rhetoric.
Well said! Campaign on this and – just as importantly – act like Democrats once you’re elected.
<
p>We need to look more carefully at candidates before helping them, noting what they do, not just what they say.
Trucks and barn jackets are a sure sign that trouble is just around the corner. Throw in a successful spouse and two great kids and there goes the candidacy. Then conduct a thorough review of the candidates tax returns to insure that the family income is not greater than the average income of the residents of the candidates community. If there is a sniff of any military experience then no go. Likes John McCain then screw. Took a call from Sarah Palin then go take a hike. Patrick Kennedy thinks you are a jerk, no chance. Throw it all in a blender and what do you get? Joe the plumber for Congress.
You’re still missing the point, entirely. Beware of chickens coming home to roost. Especially the “independent voice” one.
I must say that it is strange.
You’re the one that came over here post victory and has been insulting your way through every conversation you’ve been involved in. This conversation was actually fairly cordial before you and pbrane turned it into a “dump on democrats” flamefest.
<
p>Hint: a little manufactured outrage goes a long way.
Wealth can be a very good thing or it can be a very bad thing. Too much of course in too few hands is disastrous. Whether wealth is good or bad is a matter of what is done for it, to get it and with it. Wealthy Republican Scott Brown is not doing things I think are good for society and especially for people with fewer resources than and his partner have. Since the early 1970s, our political and economic system has been making the wealthy richer, the middle riskier, and the bottom tougher. And conservatism is the culprit, whether in the extreme forms extolled by Republicans or in the less extreme but harmful hands of conservative and corporate Democrats.
<
p>We have lived and are living through one of the greatest transfers of wealth to the wealthy in at least the last century. The lower ranks of the income scale just gets more crowded while the rich keep getting richer and the riches keep growing seemingly without end. Similar to wealth, when too much political power is held by a small faction, democracy begins to fail. And the two tend to come along together, just as they have for us today.
<
p>Scott Brown’s political agenda is unlikely to reverse either of those trends. We need more progressive leaders in and out of public office who can make the contrast between the conservative symbols and rhetoric and deliver for the majority of Massachusetts and the nation. Is there a model that adds to the campaign achievements of Gov. Patrick and Pres. Obama?
<
p>Yes and I think fundamental starting points are 1) to campaign and govern for and with a progressive majority of new and traditional base voters, 2) to challenge class power, privilege and wealth, and 3) to attack conservatism for the problems it has created and help Americans see that will not help them overcome the challenges in lives.
<
p>I’m one of those believers in we get what we voted for. We have the society we have because we want it. Sometimes we find it hard to come right out and say it since it might make people feel “yucky” but it is what it is.
<
p>I think one of the things people miss is while people like you try to “pit” the rich against the poor causing “class warfare”, you miss the concept that many of the poor want to become “that rich person” you are trying to make them hate. If it was as easy as you portray it, the poor outnumber the rich overwhelmingly so it should be easy to elect not 60 but 85 progressive Democratic Senators… but we don’t. We don’t because many of those poor people and many of those middle class people have dreams of becoming one of the “rich”. They have dreams of over-performing and working hard every day in work and they want the rewards. Your portrayal of the “rich guy” as evil can be interpreted as a portrayal of this hard working middle class guy being an overachiever at work but his reward going to the slacker in work in a metaphoric “recognition” redistribution. Unions are great examples of this as a worker gets no extra credit for working hard and no degradation for just leaning on his shovel. We want our sweat and tears rewarded!
<
p>If things were as you believed, we would not be having this conversation. Welcome to BMG fantasy world!
If you weren’t such a tax cheat, maybe you’d get it.
But JohnD has repeatedly bragged about hiring illegal aliens.
<
p>He’s the complete “do as I do, not as I say” package.
And I never break the IRS tax codes. I follow them to the letter whenever I can.
<
p>I build in the taxes on all decisions. I’ve been nervous about the market these last few weeks. My wife says go safe (ya, 2% return). Well I jumped into US Steel at $44.25 and jumped out today at $48. A 9% return in about 9 days. But of course I have to count for the CAPITAL GAINS TAX eating away my profits!
<
p>one that can never be achieved because they keep raising taxes, fees, and prices, which takes a disproprotionate amount of money from the middle class, while at the same time they lower the tax rate for the wealthy. If you paid your taxes you would get that.
<
p>Just so you know, we really don’t begrudge wealth. We begrudge being trampled on by the wealthy, and nickled and dimed to death so the wealthy get wealthier, while our standard of living declines.
<
p>
<
p>People vote for what they are told during the campaign.
People voted for Barack Obama and Governor Patrick because they were seeking that change. It’s not the voters fault that the change never materializes to a palpable extent once the electeds take office. The reason for that is all of that damn wealth (nickles and dimes) pulled from the middle class to redistribute to the wealthy. It gives the wealthy a lot of power and ability to manipulate the government. Infuriating.
<
p>Are you kidding? You have to look to your employer (corporation) to reward your sweat and tears. They haven’t been doing so… they see your sweat and tears and want more sweat and tears for the same pay. Cost of living increases are obsolete. Corporations are withholding pay increases so that they can redistribute the wealth to themselves. It’s ruining our country. I can’t beleive you don’t get that. You clearly are not paying attention to what is happening.
Pot, meet kettle.
Kirth’s comment here shows that harder work does not equal better pay. It just means more money for the wealthy.
Redistribution of wealth from the working class to the wealthy….the new socialism.
In a union environment, harder work does NOT equal better pay. In a real world NON-UNION environment, it does. It means advancement. If you truly believe it doesn’t than you really are living in a socialist’s world. That is one of the problems of socialism, no rewards for outstanding efforts. Same thing for government workers, same pay no matter what so why bother braking your ass.
like it was George Bush’s policies that created what you call a “socialist’s world”. Because the productivity/pay gap increases significantly during his administration.
The Bush Administration did begin the cycle of taking from the middle class to give to the wealthy. I know that you don’t get it. Many people don’t. Maybe you have to feel it in order to see it. People did not vote for Scott Brown because they wanted a Republican in office. They voted for Scott Brown because he faked being an independent, and people see an independent voice as the only way to get our country back from the special interests and the power of money. It’s too bad the electorate was tricked again.
your candidate sucked!
If only the electorate was as intelligent as are you all. The disdain for the average voter which is contained in that comment is, in my opinion, a big part of why Scott was elected. I find it over and over here at BMG. You are all so enlightened, if we suckers could just “get it” and become progressives, utopia could finally be born. You’re all so smart and the rest of us are so ignorant.
it has to do with engagement and awareness. Most people only pay attention to soundbites, news clips, and newspaper articles, which are either one sides or sadly missing in details. If you don’t dig deeper, you get tricked. I don’t call voters ignorant; I call them uninformed.
<
p>But apparently, you do call them ignorant, and suckers too.
But thank you for helping me make my point. I didn’t call “them” anything. I said “us”. You understand the difference I’m sure.
<
p>You characterize those who fail to “dig deeper” or “pay only attention to soundbites” as the “tricked” electorate, and label them as uninformed. Still sounds to me as if you have disdain for them, and their “uninformed” opinions and choices. That’s what I think people find offensive.
I think a better idea would be to take what you see and
wake up. I was a soundbite newspaper article voter once too. I was referring to “they” because I was referring to Scott Brown voters, of which I am not one of. And some of “them” were tricked by Scott Brown’s fake campaign.
calling me “buddy” must make you feel superior. It’s ok with me, call me anything which makes you feel better. I did vote for Scott Brown and I do read beyond the headlines. Actually I come to BMG because of the many thoughtful posters here. I’ve been enlightened often by reading the posts of those who think and care deeply about the issues which confront us these days and I’m thankful for the give and take when it’s done respectfully, Buddy.
“In a union environment, harder work does NOT equal better pay. In a real world NON-UNION environment, it does. It means advancement.”
<
p>No, John. It means wage stagnation, if not wage deflation.