General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemeter
(85,373 posts)Social Darwinism at its finest!
Beartracks
(12,797 posts)... just "people" to be "special interests."
If they must divide the populace into sub-groups, then it's interesting that the only one of those sub-groups that is magically NOT considered by the GOP to be a special interest is "rich people" (well, AND angry white well-armed evangelical men, I suppose).
==================
ashling
(25,771 posts)Yours are "special"** interests
__________
*legitimate - this is, however, in no way an endorsement of the type of totally inappropriate language used by Tod Aikin who we totally renounce as being ... what? The election's over? - Never mind.
**special - socialist, commie, un-American, elite snobbish, probably ethnic, at least non-white, moochers, takers, and did I mention un-American?
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Or "Traditional" vs. "San Francisco-Marin County"... on and on.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)". . . I am convinced it will be elected a fifth time in November.
The reason is that the people know that the Democratic Party is the people's party, and the Republican party is the party of special interest, and it always has been and always will be."
Can anyone guess?
As for this long-time political observer, I can hear his voice when he said it. I'm pretty sure I didn't actually hear that speech, but I hear his voice talking about special interests.
I think I also may remember that the president who followed him used that same term.
Who were they?
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)ashling
(25,771 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)but if it was broadcast on the radio, I probably did since my dad was very interested in politics.