Sunday, August 07, 2005

Wealthy liberals exist?

Rich liberals? Hell, listening to the left's talking points, as well as innuendos by certain visitors here, you'd think there were no such thing as "rich liberals"! Story here, excerpt follows:
Alliance chairman Steven Gluckstern, a retired investment banker, said that President Bush's victory over Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) (D-Mass.) last year after millions of dollars had been poured into pro-Democratic "527" groups caused many contributors to think that a dramatically new approach is needed.

"It wasn't only the failure to win, it was the question 'What does it take to win?' " Gluckstern said. "Among the lessons learned was that to bring back the progressive majority in this country is not just a periodic election investment strategy."
Emphasis mine. Bring "back the progressive majority"? This statement implies that there was even a progressive majority to begin with! How can you bring "back" what never existed? Anyhoo...
"The infrastructure we have was built for a different time and mission. It was built around the congressional majority we had for 60 years in the 20th century, the labor movement and the urban-ethnic city machines," he added.
Thanks for the clarification. Here I thought that the reason the left kept losing elections was the public's disinterest in their failed policies, as polls and elections results show time and again. Boy was I's simply a matter of infrastructure! Well, thanks for setting us straight on that. No wonder you guys think you're so much smarter than everyone else: those of us in the electoral majority can't see and appreciate that level of insight!