• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Democrats and the Wealthy Rich

Don Surber imagines this edition of “Hardball.”

BOXER: Well it is great to see you, again Chris. Congratulations on beating CNN in the ratings.

MATTHEWS: It is like Cleveland beating the Carolina Panthers.  But thanks. The president just cut a deal with the Republicans  on the tax package. Why so glum, chum?

BOXER: Because this compromise  extends the tax cuts for millionaires.  This is unfair.  Millionaires should pay more.

MATTHEWS: You say millionaires. You mean like you? You are worth at least one million dollars, more likely five million.

BOXER: What? But, but, but, Republicans are for the wealthy rich. I am a liberal and we are for the poor.

MATTHEWS: Wealthy rich? You mean like John Kerry? Mark Warner? Jared Polis? Herb Kohl? Jay Rockefeller? Dianne Feinstein?

BOXER: No, no, no. I mean the really rich people.

MATTHEWS: Every one I listed is worth at least 46 million dollars, and maybe as high as  293 million dollars.

BOXER: But the Republicans are even richer.

MATTHEWS:  Eight of the ten richest people in Congress are Democrats, and not Republicans.

BOXER: Well, I meant people who make a million dollars a year.

MATTHEWS: You mean like me? I make five million dollars a year.

BOXER: Really? Given your ratings, you should be lucky to make minimum wage.

MATTHEWS: Really. I get five million a year. Do you wish to know my secret?

BOXER: Please.

MATTHEWS: By never ever pressing rich white limousine liberals like you on the hypocrisy of your rhetoric.

Now, I don’t know about Boxer — and I’ve never even heard of Jared Polis (who’s apparently a junior Congressman from Colorado with horrible fashion sense, not the guy who lost weight by eating sandwiches) — but certainly Kerry, Kohl, and Rockefeller don’t pretend that they’re working class stiffs.   Indeed, many Democrats — including President Obama — make a point to note that people like themselves can afford to pay more in taxes.

But the exchange is still mildly amusing, in that the Democrats have successfully portrayed themselves as the party of the Little Guy and the Republicans as the party of The Rich, even though the latter are so small in number as to be an insignificant voting bloc.

Related Posts:

About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway, an associate professor of security studies at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. He has a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter.

Comments

  1. Andyman says:

    Presumably Boxer would pay higher taxes along with others in her bracket were the cuts to expire. It’s certainly possible to simultaneously be rich and think that people like you, as a group, should have a greater share of the responsibility for funding the government. I fail to see the hypocrisy, even a little bit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  2. An Interested Party says:

    Oh come now, it’s not about pointing about hypocrisy or making a logical argument…it’s just an attempt to take a swipe at Matthews, Boxer, and Democrats…this is Don Surber we are talking about, after all…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. sam says:

    “But the exchange is still mildly amusing, in that the Democrats have successfully portrayed themselves as the party of the Little Guy and the Republicans as the party of The Rich, even though the latter are so small in number as to be an insignificant voting bloc.”

    Well, the irony is delicious, according to this:

    Republicans have been paying a high price in both public opinion and political coherence to defend the prerogatives of a class that despises them. It was to cosset just these people with tax cuts that George W. Bush destroyed the balanced budget. It would seem that Republicans are either an exceptionally idealistic political party (pursuing their ideology to the point of self-destruction) or an exceptionally foolish one (convinced that anyone with a great big pile of money is their friend). There may be another explanation. To paraphrase something Clinton aide David Dreyer said many years ago, Republicans have done Lord Acton one better—they’ve been corrupted by power they don’t even have. [Christopher Caldwell, American Oligarchy

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Herb says:

    “the Democrats have successfully portrayed themselves as the party of the Little Guy and the Republicans as the party of The Rich”

    Huh. I’m not so sure the Dems have been successful as presenting themselves as a party of the Little Guy. I just think the Republicans have been successful as presenting themselves as both the party of the Little Guy and The Rich. How else are you going to get a Rick Santelli to inspire a Tea Party movement?

    Also….Jared Polis. Colorado Democrat/ Entrepreneur. (Dude is RICH! He makes Boxer and Matthews look like paupers)

    He is also openly gay, and unlike Barney Frank, he was actually out when he was elected.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0