This time, in response to a local conservative's remarks about the election results, he writes in the November 27th issue of the Laconia Daily Sun “...out of the six counties in Virginia that have a median income of $100,000 or more, Obama won five. [He] doesn't realize that four years of hysterical right wing fiscal, birther, and religious foaming at the mouth got them nowhere.”
One thing I realized right off the bat is that Veverka doesn't mention anything about those five counties in Virginia other than he median income. Then again he probably doesn't know anything else about those counties other than a bunch of well off people live there, thereby proving his point that even the rich love Obama. But I know far more about those counties that blows Veverka's claim right out of the water.
Those five counties are heavily populated by government bureaucrats, lobbyists, and others whose livelihoods depend heavily upon federal government largess. Their $100,000 (or more) median income is by way of direct or indirect government money (meaning our money). Very few of those within those five counties are CEOs of manufacturing, service, or other private commercial companies or corporations. So when the voters within those five counties in northern Virginia voted for Obama they were doing so to ensure their continuing employment at taxpayer expense.
A well known GOP pollster told me back in August that only two states he polled where people believing things were better in the country since 2008 were Virginia and Ohio. The Virginia perception was almost entirely the result of the massive amount of government spending and employees that spill across the Potomac bridges each day into areas as far away as Prince William and Faquier Counties.The people living in those five counties are out of touch with the economic and political realities the rest of us must face every day. So to use them as an example of wealthy voting for Obama is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Knowing Mister Veverka from his long history of vilifying non-Democrats in the local newspapers, in his case I'd have to say it's both.