Today's Reading
Costco vs. Walmart: A Political Twist
Here's a rather entertaining breakdown of today's electorate, divided between Costco and Walmart shoppers (courtesy of Slate):

On the left: Costco Wholesale Corp. Last week, Jeffrey Brotman and James Sinegal, chairman and chief executive office of Costco, respectively, joined the list of executives who endorsed John Kerry for president. The company is based in Washington (a blue state in the past four elections, and one that Kerry leads, by a 53-45 margin according to the Aug. 2 Zogby poll), and a list of its locations bears some resemblance to the Kerry-Edwards campaign: strong on the affluent coasts and virtually nonexistent in the comparatively poor Great Plains and in the Old Confederacy. (Here are some basics on Costco.)

[...}

On the right: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Founded in Arkansas (a blue-turned-red state), it grew by spreading into the adjacent South and Great Plains. Like today's Republican Party, it focuses intensely on rural areas and generally avoids cities. (Republican conventioneers won't be able to shop at a Wal-Mart when they visit New York City.) As this Bloomberg story notes, "Sixty-seven percent of Wal-Mart's stores are in the 30 states that voted for Bush and Cheney in 2000."

[...]

Consumers vote by shopping. And so far this year, they're voting more for Costco than Wal-Mart, yet another illustration of the Two Americas shopping theme. Costco's customers plainly have cash to spend. For the four weeks ended Aug. 1, Costco's same-store U.S. sales rose 9 percent; in the 48 weeks ended Aug. 1, they were up an impressive 10 percent. At Wal-Mart, the registers haven't been ringing quite so loudly. In its most recent four-week sales period, same-store sales rose a meager 2.4 percent. For August, Wal-Mart sees same-store growth of between 2 percent to 4 percent—about the same growth rate as the economy, if not slower.

Ron Reagan vs. W
The current edition of Esquire includes a rather lengthy essay by President Teflon's son, Ron, titled: The Case Against George W. Bush. (You may recall that Ron also gave a speech at the Democratic Convention--a non-political speech, he tried to posit--about stem cell research and the closed-mindedness of the current administration.) It's a good read, though it's a bit derivative from other sources, from David Corn to Al Franken to Michael Moore (still, it's a good synthesis):

Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.

[...]

UNDERSTANDABLY, SOME SUPPORTERS of Mr. Bush's will believe I harbor a personal vendetta against the man, some seething resentment. One conservative commentator, based on earlier remarks I've made, has already discerned "jealousy" on my part; after all, Bush, the son of a former president, now occupies that office himself, while I, most assuredly, will not. Truth be told, I have no personal feelings for Bush at all. I hardly know him, having met him only twice, briefly and uneventfully—once during my father's presidency and once during my father's funeral. I'll acknowledge occasional annoyance at the pretense that he's somehow a clone of my father, but far from threatening, I see this more as silly and pathetic. My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself. His Republican party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious Right and its kill-anything-that-moves attack instincts. Believe it or not, I don't look in the mirror every morning and see my father looming over my shoulder. I write and speak as nothing more or less than an American citizen, one who is plenty angry about the direction our country is being dragged by the current administration. We have reached a critical juncture in our nation's history, one ripe with both danger and possibility. We need leadership with the wisdom to prudently confront those dangers and the imagination to boldly grasp the possibilities. Beyond issues of fiscal irresponsibility and ill-advised militarism, there is a question of trust. George W. Bush and his allies don't trust you and me. Why on earth, then, should we trust them?

Fortunately, we still live in a democratic republic. The Bush team cannot expect a cabal of right-wing justices to once again deliver the White House. Come November 2, we will have a choice: We can embrace a lie, or we can restore a measure of integrity to our government. We can choose, as a bumper sticker I spotted in Seattle put it, SOMEONE ELSE FOR PRESIDENT.

OK, so not an out-and-out recommendation for Mr. Kerry. Still, I'll take it.