Who're You Calling the 'Party of the Rich'?

[Geee]

American Spectator:

If Republicans are "the party of the rich," how come "the rich" elect Democrats? While the first half of the question is conventional wisdom, the second half is congressional fact. At the risk of letting facts get in the way of a good story, here they insist on showing exactly the opposite of what most people think.

According to calculations of states' average incomes, those states with the highest average overwhelmingly elect Democrats to Congress. This iconoclastic insight was underscored by a recent USA Today ranking of the states by their population's average income.

The top five states in the ranking were: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York. Together these five states have 8 Democratic senators (and 1 Independent and 1 Republican) and 48 Democratic House members (and 16 Republicans).

The starkness of the contrast is evidenced by Congress's current configuration. The Senate has just a 53-47 Democratic majority, while the House has a 241-192 Republican majority.

Not only does the theory that the rich elect Republicans ring false, just the opposite prevails. The bottom five states in the listing were Mississippi, Idaho, Utah, West Virginia, and Arkansas. Together these five states have 7 Republican senators (and 3 Democrats) and 12 Republican House members (and 4 Democrats).

[NCTexan]

If the GOP is the Party of the Rich... It's the "Working Rich"...

 

Just take a look at how many of the richest and most vocal DEMs got their wealth... Soros, Kerry, Gore, Edwards, the Hollywierd know-it-alls, no talent entertainers, and Silicon Valley instant wonders.

 

Adriana Huff-a-ton now has an instant 1/3 billion dollars to add to her wealth.

 

Amazing hypocrisy from the limo-libs.