Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The TRUTH About John Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (1125)	4/22/2004 7:43:11 AM
From: Glenn Petersen	Respond to of 1483

Mrs. Kerry's secrecy townhall.com Robert Novak April 22, 2004 WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Kerry, having escaped intact a one-hour grilling by NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" Sunday, slipped in the closing minutes. When asked why his multi-millionaire wife was not making public her tax returns, he misinterpreted the law and the facts. He can only hope voters regard this as arcane trivia. Three days before her husband's first full-length televised interview since he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, Teresa Heinz Kerry became the first would-be first lady to refuse disclosure since the practice became common. Kerry told Russert the law required him but not his wife to reveal tax returns, when in fact there is no such law. He is voluntarily disclosing the information, and Mrs. Kerry is not. This becomes politically critical, because no previous presidential candidate relied so much on his spouse's wealth. Without backing from Heinz ketchup money, it is fair to say John Kerry would not be his party's presidential standard-bearer and probably would not even be a U.S. senator today. Thus, refusal to release his wife's tax returns inevitably raises suspicions, however ill-founded, that the Kerrys have something to hide. John Kerry, after more than 10 years in the Senate, was nearly broke in May 1995, facing a daunting 1996 election test against popular Republican Gov. William Weld when he married the widow of the richest U.S. senator. The late Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania left his wife, Teresa, $600 million. Kerry's net worth, according to his official disclosure submitted in 1995, ranged from a plus-$34,995 down to a minus-$130,000. In January 1995, Mrs. Heinz paid $1.7 million cash for the shell of a town house on Boston's tony Beacon Hill, and restoration brought its value to nearly $3 million (though that figure is much higher today). She then transferred ownership of half the house to her new husband, and the mansion became the engine financing Kerry's campaigns. Running behind Weld in 1996, Kerry loaned his campaign $900,000 by mortgaging the house. By Election Day, he had loaned it $1.7 million and was $2.1 million personally in debt. That began a laborious process of paying off his debt, including the 1996 mortgage, which was completed in 1999. Kerry was then positioned to dip into the Beacon Hill mansion for a future attempt to be president. In December of last year, Kerry's campaign treasury was empty and his candidacy going nowhere. He then loaned his campaign $6.4 million by mortgaging his one-half share of the Boston home. Without that, Kerry's presidential bid probably could not have been revived. At the end of the "Meet the Press" interview, Russert noted that 1984 Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's husband first refused to release his tax returns -- adding to the furor over his alleged ethical problems -- before he succumbed to pressure and made public the information. Russert asked: Would Teresa Heinz Kerry finally release her tax returns? "Well," said Kerry, "my wife is doing exactly what the law requires, I mean, we have laws in America, and the law requires that the candidate release their tax returns." He then launched into Senate-speak about "intrusive ethics forums." In fact, while the Federal Election Commission requires candidates to disclose their financial data, there is no mandate for tax returns. Kerry had been thoroughly briefed by his staff for the Russert interview, but he went off on his own in addressing his wife's reluctance. Just why she is so reticent is a mystery, though it hardly could be concern about privacy considering the flood of personal publicity welcomed by the Kerrys. That excites curiosity about her charitable contributions (which are not reflected in official U.S. Senate financial disclosures). Release of Vice President Al Gore's tax returns in 1998 revealed an embarrassingly small charitable contribution of $353 on an income of $197,699. Kerry aides shrug off as unimportant his incorrect statement that he was required to disclose tax returns but his wife was not. However, making up things in response to an unpleasant question can signal trouble ahead. Kerry's interview may have been smoother and more articulate than George W. Bush's press conference, but it planted seeds for the same credibility problems that trouble the president. *** President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted a purge of anti-New Deal members of Congress in 1938, not 1936 as stated in my last column. ©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

To: longnshort who wrote (1125)	4/28/2004 11:07:27 AM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 1483

Kerry’s medal story is a mess. Senator Contradiction By Jonah Goldberg April 28, 2004, 8:43 a.m. “Medalgate" — the inevitable name for the flap over Kerry's flip-floppery about what he did and what he said about his medals — is an amusing spectacle to behold and a story worth investigating. It's amusing because Kerry has forced himself to offer explanations that make pretzels look straight. It's worth investigating because Kerry has made his service in Vietnam a central qualification for his presidency. The superficial details of "Medalgate" are fairly easy to explain for anybody not determined to make Kerry sound consistent. From 1971 until about a decade later, Kerry wanted people to think he threw his medals away in protest of Vietnam. In a 1971 interview, Kerry insisted that he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine" of his medals. Around 1984, when Kerry ran for the Senate, the times changed and he wanted people to believe he kept the medals and "only" threw away the ribbons. Why? Because his union supporters in particular and voters in general were no longer enamored with the excesses of the antiwar movement. "It's such a personal thing," he told the Washington Post in 1985. "They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them. It shouldn't be a measurement of anything. People say, 'You didn't throw your medals away.' Who said I had to? And why should I? It's my business. I did not want to throw my medals away." A decade later, he told the Boston Globe that the only reason he didn't chuck the medals was that he didn't have time to go home and get them. And this month Kerry told the Los Angeles Times, "I never ever implied that I" threw away the medals. Because Kerry "flooded the zone" with every possible version of events, it's impossible for him not to contradict himself. His only defense is a screaming offense. So, he claims that anyone who questions any aspect of his Vietnam service or his anti-Vietnam service either is questioning his patriotism or is part of the "Republican attack machine," including the dyed-in-the-wool liberal producers and hosts of Good Morning America. Indeed, the first time Kerry felt the heat, he dropped his promise not to criticize Bush's National Guard service like a bag of dirt. But the problem goes much deeper for Kerry because this mini-scandal illustrates the more fundamental contradiction at the core of Kerry's candidacy. The "argument" (quotation marks are necessary since often it's really a sputter) from Kerry's supporters and the Democratic National Committee is that his service in Vietnam proves that he's strong on defense and qualified to be commander-in-chief. (They also suggest his service proves he is patriotic, manly, cool, sexy, and impregnable from criticism.) The response from his critics (which in fairness often takes the form of a growl) is that whatever Kerry did in Vietnam is vitiated by his antiwar behavior and his long and detailed record of peacenickery in the Senate. But if signing up for Vietnam proves Kerry's got the right judgment to be commander-in-chief, how come Kerry believes Vietnam was a huge mistake for America? Think about it. Kerry and DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe have mocked Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration for not serving in Vietnam. But Kerry made his political career by saying that Vietnam was a moral and national-security disaster. He claims that going to fight for "a mistake" (Kerry's words) was his defining moment. Well, if Vietnam was a mistake, how does it demonstrate Kerry's good judgment? You might fairly respond that Kerry's decision to fight was an indication not so much of his judgment as of his patriotism. O.K., though that's not always Kerry's position. Then again nothing is always Kerry's position. Plenty of politicians in both parties want to have it both ways on Vietnam. The problem for Kerry is that he's taken such diametrically opposed and ultimately irreconcilable positions on the war. He wants credit for fighting in what he insists was a criminal war. He even confessed that he and his comrades committed "atrocities," though he hasn't run any commercials bragging about calling his comrades war criminals. Kerry's position is a mess. He wants credit for throwing away the symbols of his service (the ribbons) and for the service he rendered to earn those medals (which he kept, but claimed until recently he didn't). If that sounds like a contradiction, it should. Because that's what Kerry is: a walking contradiction. nationalreview.com