Posted by Jed Lewison on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 7:54 AM Pacific

Republicans are the party of the rich. Duh.

What in the flying f**k is it with the Republican machine?

Now they are trying to claim that the 2006 elections make the Democratic Party the party of the rich?

Uh, no. The Republicans are the party of the rich, diptard. To wit:

Their argument goes something like this:

Actually, in the interest of further humiliating the nitwit at The Heritage Foundation who is trying to make this case, I'll show you his argument as transmitted by the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist hack stenographer Donald Lambro in the Washington Times:

Study: Democrats the party of the rich By Donald Lambro November 23, 2007

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

...

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

...

"The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new 'party of the rich.' More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households," he wrote on Nov. 5 in the Financial Times of London, in a preview of his study.

Um. On what crazy-ass planet does this genius live on?

Down here on planet earth, Democrats tend to represent the bottom-end of the income scale. Take a look at 2004, when just 43% of the wealthiest third of congressional districts sent Democrats to DC, compared to 58% of the bottom third.

Even in 2006, when the Republicans dedication to needless war, terrible economic policies, and neglect of the environment led to their removal from power in Congress, most Democrats came from the bottom third of congressional districts, ranked by wealth.

In 2006, Democrats did better across the board, but their biggest gains came right in the middle, where it hurt Republicans the most.

You probably didn't need this data to know that the Heritage Foundation report is yet another package of lies, wrapped in a nice little bow for the Washington Times by one of their brain dead research analysts.

Whoever did this analysis is so stupid that he probably got his college degree from the same place that Karl Rove got his.

I mean seriously, are you kidding me? Do they really expect people to buy this crap?

This is such laughably idiotic stuff that I can't help but roll on the floor.

Even William F. Buckley probably chortled (or whatever it is that he does) when he saw it.

Franc's boss must have been on Richard Brookhiser's best stuff when he approved this "study."

On the other hand, if this is the kind of stuff they are going to be pulling out of their ass in 2008, they are going to get slaughtered.

I mean reamed -- totally destroyed.

What a bunch of joking jokers. :)

Republicans are the party of the rich. Duh.

What in the flying f**k is it with the Republican machine?

Now they are trying to claim that the 2006 elections make the Democratic Party the party of the rich?

Uh, no. The Republicans are the party of the rich, diptard. To wit:

Their argument goes something like this:

Actually, in the interest of further humiliating the nitwit at The Heritage Foundation who is trying to make this case, I'll show you his argument as transmitted by the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist hack stenographer Donald Lambro in the Washington Times:

Study: Democrats the party of the rich By Donald Lambro November 23, 2007

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

...

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

...

"The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new 'party of the rich.' More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households," he wrote on Nov. 5 in the Financial Times of London, in a preview of his study.

Um. On what crazy-ass planet does this genius live on?

Down here on planet earth, Democrats tend to represent the bottom-end of the income scale. Take a look at 2004, when just 43% of the wealthiest third of congressional districts sent Democrats to DC, compared to 58% of the bottom third.

Even in 2006, when the Republicans dedication to needless war, terrible economic policies, and neglect of the environment led to their removal from power in Congress, most Democrats came from the bottom third of congressional districts, ranked by wealth.

In 2006, Democrats did better across the board, but their biggest gains came right in the middle, where it hurt Republicans the most.

You probably didn't need this data to know that the Heritage Foundation report is yet another package of lies, wrapped in a nice little bow for the Washington Times by one of their brain dead research analysts.

Whoever did this analysis is so stupid that he probably got his college degree from the same place that Karl Rove got his.

I mean seriously, are you kidding me? Do they really expect people to buy this crap?

This is such laughably idiotic stuff that I can't help but roll on the floor.

Even William F. Buckley probably chortled (or whatever it is that he does) when he saw it.

Franc's boss must have been on Richard Brookhiser's best stuff when he approved this "study."

On the other hand, if this is the kind of stuff they are going to be pulling out of their ass in 2008, they are going to get slaughtered.

I mean reamed -- totally destroyed.

What a bunch of joking jokers. :)

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison