Well, actually, Dusty, he never said sthat those who voted for Bush were "stupid," what he said was that they voted "against their best interests," which is exactly what you would have written had Bush lost, likely saying something along the lines of "Osama has won."

So, looking at it without the distorting lenses of partisanship, reading it as something written by someone who believes in his cause as much as you believe in yours, can you honestly say he is any less passionate for what he believes in than you are? And, just because he doesn't believe in what you believe in, does this make him evil?

I think not. Otherwise, what is a democracy all about?

Midwestern values do not equate with eastern liberalism. Those values go far beyond simply waving a gun or talking about religion, lip service is a poor substitute for substance in the Midwest. Those "poor" farmers and blue collar workers know that Kerry has no idea what it is like to work hard. They would have been fired a long time ago if they had his work ethic. A lot of them are employed by small business owners who are termed "rich" by the Democrats and targeted with higher taxes. The problem? Those workers either lose their jobs or don't get much in the way of a raise because it is just too expensive. Putting a billionaire who "married up" in office, one who has such a demonstrably poor work ethic, is laughable. Hypocrisy is easliy recognizable to people who actually live their lives. Politics is taken with a grain of salt and everyone is studied. We like to be loyal, but that loyalty is only given to someone or somthing of proven substance. The national Democrats with their Eurocentric views just don't understand our Midwestern American values. Although the article did not state, verbatim, "stupid", the implication is clear and shows a distinct ignorance on the part of the writer for fly over country.

And you are saying George W. Bush knows what it is like to work hard? A man who never had to worry about making a mortgage payment? A man who got all his jobs through connections? A man who never really had to worry about being a C-student in his ivy-league college?

Are you serious?

My taxes were reduced by George W. Bush because I'm one of those in the top 90% of income earners. I am a strong believer that those who benefit the most from our system should indeed pay the most in taxes, yet I am taxed far less in terms of real, consuable income than the 90% who make less than I do.

Would Kerry tax small business owners more? I don't know about that, but I can say that the "death tax" rhetoric from the Republicans was nothing more than a canard. The inheritance tax didn't kick in util more than several millions of dollars of assets were involved, which meant that mainly those who benefited the MOST from our system are now taxed the LEAST.

In addition, I am at risk of losing my job due to the vaguaries of the economy. Many of the "small businesses" you refer to are farms. Why should a farmer have MORE security than me that is gained through government subsidies that *I* pay for?

Sorry to rant here, but look in the mirror before you start accusing OTHERS of hypocricy.

Interesting - the tendency to couch "what's best for us" in terms of economics. I grew up dirt poor, in Oregon, surrounded by democrats, most of whom also had nothing. Thing is, I didn't know I was deprived because I had the things that mattered - a family that loved me (even if they were/are weird), an enduring faith, and a great public education - all allowing me to get on with my life, get a decent state university education, and launch myself along a path drastically different from my parents' and siblings' choices (and becoming a Republican along the way). What I'm saying is that America doesn't always make decisions on what makes sense, fiscally. There are things that are more important - and that's why America voted as we did. ML

Well, it's well known that NYT journalists have no values, and values seem to have been the key issue for a lot of voters.

Jack,

Thanks for proving my point.

Jack: And you are saying George W. Bush knows what it is like to work hard? A man who never had to worry about making a mortgage payment? A man who got all his jobs through connections? A man who never really had to worry about being a C-student in his ivy-league college?

Me: Well, actually Jack, GW has had to work hard (oil industry, sports industry to name two). In the first case, he wasn't that successful but I've no doubt he didn't sit on his ass all day and eat bons bons. What's Kerry done? Gone to Law School and been in politics all his life--this is a safe course. Not having to make a profit or produce wealth takes a lot of pressure off. I'm not saying he's a bad person for doing so at all, but I'm happy to give W as much credit as Kerry for what he did up to the time he went into politics. I also think it served Bush's constituents well--having "been there, done that" business-wise is, I think, good for decision makers in the political arena. As far as getting his job through his connections--that happens all the time. It's called "networking" and some people have better connections than others. I refuse to be jealous of that. Sorry. C student? Doesn't mean crap in the real world. George Patton was second from the bottom in his West Point class. (I could be wrong...he may have been Tail-End Charlie.) Check out the educational history of the owner of Virgin Air.

Jack: Are you serious?

Me: Yup.

Jack: My taxes were reduced by George W. Bush because I'm one of those in the top 90% of income earners. I am a strong believer that those who benefit the most from our system should indeed pay the most in taxes, yet I am taxed far less in terms of real, consuable income than the 90% who make less than I do.

Me: What do you think is a fair rate? In the top 10%, you pay the bulk of the US Federal Income Tax burden. Those below the national median income pay almost nothing. Personally, I think you are taxed FAR MORE than at least 60 to 70 percent of the American working population. When polled, most people think between 10 and 20% is a fair tax rate. The fact that wealthier citizens are taxed at much higher rates is based as much on class envy as it is on potential revenue. Take a look at Teresa Kerry's tax returns...I think she paid far less, proportionally, than GW did last year--she has the accountants to do that so, just because she's rich and the tax rates for her are, technically, higher, she ended up paying far LESS than you'd expect. So, what you end up having is a system that compels people to hide their income...having higher rates will not generate the income you think. People will either make less (and ask for compensation in other ways, like benefits), hide it in shelters or otherwise avoid the confiscatory rates you are so fond of. In fact, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were pretty shrewd--they knew that if people were asked to give a fairer share, they would (and did). If you're so pissed that your tax burden isn't high enough, put your money where your mouth is--contribute to your favorite charities or, better yet, figure out how to personally spend the money (rather than letting an organization do it) on someone or something that you think needs it...I'll be willing to bet the impact will be greater than it otherwise would.

Jack: Would Kerry tax small business owners more? I don't know about that, but I can say that the "death tax" rhetoric from the Republicans was nothing more than a canard. The inheritance tax didn't kick in util more than several millions of dollars of assets were involved, which meant that mainly those who benefited the MOST from our system are now taxed the LEAST.

Me: Again, more class warfare. Most rich people who die would prefer leaving what they earned in life to those they love, not the government. The swine. Right now, the tax kicks in at 1.5 million, rises to 3.5 million by 2009 and goes away completely in 2010. Trust me, the vast majority of people with that kind of money figure out how to keep it out of Uncle Sam's hands. Again, I just can't get envious...just can't do it. Sorry.

Jack: In addition, I am at risk of losing my job due to the vaguaries of the economy. Many of the "small businesses" you refer to are farms. Why should a farmer have MORE security than me that is gained through government subsidies that *I* pay for?

Me: So am I. What are you doing to adapt and/or not lose your job? I'm doing some off-time training and networking (there's that word again) with friends who are in the kind of business I want to be in. Farm subsidies...take 'em away for all I care. Just be ready for the screaming from the congresspeople in the rural states. BTW, the farmers I know work their asses off in an industry that is about as safe and predictable as Russian Roulette. If you lectured them about "security," I think they'd look at you like you had three heads. Should they be helped? Beats me. Are they the "small businesses" W refers to? I don't think they are what he's referring to in his references to sub-chapter S corporations, but I could be wrong. In any case, a small business is a small business and I KNOW they comprise the bulk of the American economic engine's fuel.

Jack: Sorry to rant here, but look in the mirror before you start accusing OTHERS of hypocricy.

Me: Don't mind the rant. I didn't accuse him of hypocracy, I accused him of being dismissive of almost 60 million voters who don't happen to agree with his world view...and implying that they're too dumb to vote for the guy who will "fight" for them. In other words, I criticize him for being a tiresome, predictable elitist who can't fathom why his boy lost.

Well, I *was* going to comment, but since the instapilot said it all for me, I'll just say "Ditto."

Instapilot, you are so right - that writer has nothing but contempt and disdain for

millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly against their own interests - for Republican candidates.

I do think that someone who is so sure that he knows the best interests of those of us in the hinterlands is saying we are dumb. How dare the Democrats tell us that we don't know enough to know what we need if we vote for Republicans.