In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man

Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008
http://www.aspentimes.com

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential
elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has
to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with
two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while
the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod
to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of
special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender
people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to
evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will
decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from
all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents
all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural
redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

On Feb 19, 8:33 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

Still if you stack them up against everyone else, rich, poor, young,
old, etc... they don't have enough votes. Just women alone are about
53%% of the registered voters.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:59:26 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:

Senator John McCain is feeding off the anger of "angry white males",
hoping he will "win" in November 2008 with their votes, IMHO.

Fact is that whoever "wins" in 2008, the multi-national corporations
will still be in charge of this so-called "American" government as
they have been for a long time now.

----------------------------------------------------------

In article 4ax.com>,
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com says...

Actually I suspect that many of these four million are actually black,
women and Chinese.

On Feb 19, 10:33 pm, Hardpan yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:57:24 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:

I though conservatives want to redistribute any surplus to
corporations and the very rich while liberals want to redistrubute
surpluses to small bussiness and the middle and upper middle classes.
The second alternative seems to creat more riches and more
competition.

Well, this is horsecrap. First, if there is any 'surplus' [ha, now that is
a socialist language twist fer' sure], it is called new investment and is
vital to growth. Stimulating the economy on the demand side stimulates
consumption...which in turn usually is eaten up in inflation and just speeds
up velocity of money, increasing prices. Putting these 'surpluses' as you
call it in corporate hands is prime mover of new investment...which
stimulates jobs and REAL GDP growth [not nominal].

Now it would make sense if putting this 'surplus' [ha, I still chuckle at
the language spin]...if the average consumer would 'save' it...storing it in
banks that would give new loans and spur new investment, thusly jobs and
REAL GDP growth. But...households just spend it usually...which usually
just drives up prices [mostly].

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:23:59 -0500, "deadendDan" earthlink.net>
wrote:

In the days before the mass outsourcing of jobs and in particular the
manufacturing job sector here in America was still extant, you would
be most likely be correct.