Arising from no single source, except possibly my brain:

In a democracy, rich and poor are of equal status. That is one of the main raisons d'être of democracy as we know it. Therefore, if a two-party system evolves in which one party becomes known to be "the party of the rich," that party system is undemocratic and should be dissolved. If that party system is allowed to continue, and the "party of the rich" subsequently takes power in circumstances which are in any way ambiguous, then it may be assumed that democracy in that society has ceased to exist for the duration.

If someone of the same political stripe as myself commits an unequivocally illegal act, is it my place to defend that person and/or his actions?

In a democracy, rich and poor are of equal status. So why do we pay our elected officials more than ordinary working people? The problem with our House of Commons is that there is no longer anyone in it who could honestly be described as common.

And one, final, nasty little thought:

When George Walker Bush has left the White House, with the thanks of a grateful nation ringing in his ears, and gone into his cushy celebrity retirement, with nine or ten lucrative sinecure company directorships to keep the wolf from his door, not to mention the publisher's advance on "how i saevd Amerika," and he's sitting down to dine at his favourite plushy restaurant, with his napkin tucked under his chin and a big beaming smile on his face, I hope a waiter accidentally spills hot soup in his lap.