SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Proof that John Kerry is Unfit for Command -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (21240)10/22/2004 2:49:51 PM
From: tonto  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 27181
 
Kerry's Dirty Money
by MediaRevolution
Tue Feb 10th, 2004 at 03:57:30 GMT

Well, we knew generally that he's a corporate man, bought and paid for, but here are the specifics from an AP article a few days ago. If this has already been discussed, I apologize.

John Kerry intervened in the Senate to keep open a loophole that had allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the nation's most expensive construction project, then received tens of thousand of dollars in donations from the company during the next two years, documents show.
American International Group paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives also donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns, according to records obtained by The Associated Press.

But Kerry, the current leader of the Democratic presidential race, says there was no connection between his actions in 2000 and the donations that followed in 2001 and 2002.
"John Kerry has long supported getting special interest money out of the political system," campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "If anybody believes that a political contribution influences John Kerry then they are wasting their money."

But some government watchdogs said Kerry's story is a textbook case of Washington special interest politicking that he rails against on the presidential trail.

"The idea that Kerry has not helped or benefited from a specific special interest, which he has said, is utterly absurd," said Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity that just published a book on political donations to the presidential candidates.


Kerry has had no 'vetting' period, it's only beginning to show up in the media at this point.
Current issues in the national media:

The Chung 'contributions for SEC special consideration' - although from 1996 are recent enough for consideration of Kerry's method of operation [MO - not to be confused with 'mo' (momentum)]
Big Dig & AIG Insurance - Kerry helped to kill a bill to cut a loophole that allowed the conglomerate insurance company to hold overpayments for injured workers until the project was finished (then keep the accumulated interest) before returning the funds to the government. Kerry received a $30,000 campaign contribution from AIG when starting his bid for President
VVAW & Medals on the Mall - Kerry returned a decorated soldier from a stint in Vietnam (which he volunteered for by the way) and promptly joined Vietnam Veterans against the War. He participated in a 'sleep-in' on the Capital Mall with, from dated articles, thousands of compatriots. They threw their war medals onto the Mall lawn as a gesture of their disgust with the government's failure to end the war and bring US soldiers home. Kerry was interviewed during this time and is quoted as saying he threw his own medals at the time. A number of years later, when his own medals were seen on his Senate office wall, Kerry changed his story - he then claimed a WWII vet had asked him to throw HIS medals. This is a strange thing for Kerry to lie about, and the record is clear that he did. What effect this will have during the general election is unclear to me. However, make us of it to Kerry detriment, Rove&Co surely will.
Ineffective service in the Senate - the Kerry list of sponsered legislation, and the percentage of such legislation passed that is simply 'cosmetic legislation' (such as 'Mike Voter Day') appears to suggest that Kerry WAS an ineffectual Senator. His response to Dean recently that 'if you knew how washington worked...' only served to make him look like an Inside Politician working backroom deals. Do US Senators perform a majority of their work in committes? Undoubtedly. Will the general election turn on substantial facts such as that? Like the Magic-8-Ball says quite often, "the answer is no".
So get ready, what we're going to be seeing this fall will look a lot like the article in question - only it will have some very attractive pictures to go along with it - for instance, a shot of the cover of Kerry's own book - Kerry in military fatigues, marching along holding a US flag upside down. Hold that picture in your mind for just a moment and then think of what the Bush-Cheney team will run as a tagline.....



To: American Spirit who wrote (21240)10/22/2004 3:21:04 PM
From: JakeStraw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27181
 
John Kerry: Man of the Special Interests

By Mark Landsbaum
March 9, 2004

Even as John Kerry prepared to position himself before a national electorate as the arch enemy of “special interests,” he was exposed for receiving more campaign cash from lobbyists than any senator over the past 15 years.

Since 1989 Kerry has received $638,358, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit organization that analyzes Federal Election Commission campaign records.

Add to that reports that Kerry’s largest contributor, the Boston law firm of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Golovsky and Popeo, represents telecommunications interests and that he has carried its legislative water while interceding with government agencies on its clients’ behalf. And that Kerry sought SEC help for a woman with ties to the Chinese military and got a fund-raiser in return. And that Kerry supported a contracting loophole for American International Group insurance company, which repaid him with donations. And that Kerry recommended individuals for positions at federal home loan banks just before or after they gave him political contributions.

Were these interests not special?

It is becoming increasingly clear that Kerry, the self-described enemy of special interests, hypocritically has been lapping at the special-interest trough himself, and in no small way.

To those unfamiliar with the Massachusetts Democrat, it may appear curious that Kerry claims to be one thing, but actually is the opposite. But those familiar with the flip-flopping leading Democratic presidential candidate aren’t surprised. It’s perfectly in sync with Kerry’s say-one-thing-do-another track record.

After all, Kerry touts himself as a veteran who fought for his country in the Vietnam War, but he made his public debut as leader of a veterans’ group protesting that same war, and even labeled his fellow GIs as murderers, rapists and torturers. Three decades later Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq, but then voted against funding the war. Kerry insists he has always supported the military, but he has voted against nearly two dozen major weapons systems appropriations, weapons integral in the U.S. victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not surprisingly, Kerry’s latest anti-trade position also is a reversal. In 1993 Kerry voted for NAFTA, but has since said he wants a 120-day review of all trade pacts, and draconian measures to curb what he calls “Benedict Arnold” CEOs, as if it’s suddenly treasonous to do business in other nations to benefit U.S. stockholders and customers.

Consistency is not Kerry’s strong suit. Playing both sides of an issue for gain is.

“Our position is that the American people are going to discover that John Kerry has a long, long list of issues where his record doesn’t match his rhetoric,” said Kevin Madden, Bush-Cheney 2004 spokesman.

The short-term political upshot is that Kerry’s claim to be the anti-special interest candidate is neutralized somewhat, potentially robbing him of one of the stars on his resume to distinguish him from President George W. Bush.

The Kerry campaign predictably complained that he is not a tool of “special interests,” and indeed that he has refused contributions from Political Action Committees, which is true. But that simply fogs the picture.

There are two things going on in the Kerry campaign’s disingenuous defense and opportunistic offense.

First, Kerry wants to be the one to define which interests are “special,” while dismissing interests as not so “special” when they happen to be aligned with him.

Are the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, the People for the American Way, the Sierra Club, for that matter the entire complex of environmentalists’ lobbies, abortion backers, trial lawyers and other assorted Democratic constituent factions some how not “special interests”? What then? Generic interests?

Indeed, the Democrat’s sacred cow, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” law, has resulted in piles of cash being channeled through what can only be called “special interest” groups that are now prohibited from giving directly to political parties. These are groups such as the radical leftist MoveOn.org, and America Coming Together, a pro-Democratic Party organization run by labor, environmental and abortion rights activists armed with pledges of $55 million. Are they not “special interests”? Will Kerry disavow such interest groups and urge them not to spend money on anti-Bush ads?

Or will John Kerry be the sole determiner of what constitutes “special interests”?

While the voting public may not notice such sleight of hand, it isn’t lost on political observers across the spectrum.

George Will wrote that it’s hardly cricket for Kerry to claim he’s opposed to special interests influence peddling while being financially supported by outfits like the NEA and AFL-CIO. “Is ‘special’ a synonym for ‘conservative’?” Will asked.

The New Republic’s Peter Beinart acknowledged “…virtually every governor or member of Congress which is to say, virtually every presidential candidate, has raised money from people with an interest in legislation and at some time or another has written a letter, or voted for a bill, on their behalf.” Moreover, Beinart conceded, “Kerry has occasionally helped out his financial backers, sometimes at the public’s expense.”

The truth is a case can be made that Kerry is very much a kept-man by his own interest groups, despite his desire to cast President George W. Bush as the one beholden to “special interests.”

Kerry clearly had hoped for a pre-emptive attack that would have pinned the derogatory label of “special interest” candidate on President Bush. But the label turned out to be just as easily applied to him. He not only accepts special interest money, he leads the pack in the Senate in lobbyists’ cash.

It is as Brown University political science professor Darrell West observed: “Every politician has to raise money and so every candidate is dependent upon some type of special interest.”

The second thing going on is Kerry’s method of operation, which is ironically rooted in the philosophy of pre-emptive attacks. This is ironic not only because Kerry was pre-empted on the special interest issue, but also because he has for months criticized the Bush Administration’s military pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

The President’s plan of pre-emption, the Kerry camp would have you believe, was improper, presumably because it would be better for the United States to have waited for another skyscraper to be devastated by terrorists financed, armed or otherwise backed by Iraq’s blood-thirsty dictator.

Kerry finds pre-emption distasteful when directed at murderous despots like Saddam Hussein. But it is his operating method of choice in politics. For example, the Kerry attack on President Bush’s National Guard service clearly was intended to pre-empt the anticipated attack by Bush on Kerry’s anti-war and anti-military record. Likewise, Kerry hoped to pre-empt the debate over what constitutes a “special interest” by defining the phrase to exempt his situation, and condemn the president’s.

Political campaigns can turn more on tactics and public perceptions than on facts, which explains both things that are going on in Kerry’s camp. It would be refreshing to strip away the buzz words – words like “special interest” – to reveal instead exactly who is beholding to whom insofar as that can be determined by political campaign giving.

A little truth in advertising is called for. The same integrity demanded of tooth paste commercials would serve the voting public far better than a war of nebulous buzz words, especially when the words’ meanings hinge on who speaks first and loudest.

Speaking of commercials, the Republican National Committee immediately pounced on the Kerry-lobbyists connection with a scathing ad on the RNC website harpooning Kerry’s double talk about “special interests.” Democrats naturally complained that it is President Bush rather than Kerry who is the “special interest” candidate. But they missed the point.

The Republican ad was not complaining – at least not yet – about Kerry receiving special interest funding. The complaint was that despite receiving special interest cash, Kerry claims to be the anti-special interest candidate.

It’s the lie, not the subject of the lie that was the point.

The question ultimately may (and perhaps should) come down to which “special interest” camp voters prefer to have their candidate. But first things first.

Will John Kerry concede that the groups he receives millions of dollars from are “special interests” in their own right? Or will the pot continue to call the kettle black?

If this “special interest” flap accomplished anything, it highlighted once again Kerry’s duplicitous nature. As President Bush’s campaign manager Ken Mehlman put it, Kerry is a candidate “who says one thing and does another.”



To: American Spirit who wrote (21240)10/22/2004 3:22:10 PM
From: JakeStraw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27181
 
The Truth About Kerry's and Edwards' Special Interests

Monday, Feb. 2, 2004

WASHINGTON – Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards are fond of
telling voters they are spurning special-interest money during their White House bids, but voters beware. Their boasts hardly tell the whole story.

Sen. Kerry, who says he hasn't taken a dime of political action committee money for his presidential campaign, in fact ran a tax-exempt political committee that collected nearly a half million dollars directly from companies and labor unions just before those types of donations were outlawed in late 2002, tax records show.

Many of the biggest donors to that effort came from companies with direct interests before Kerry's Senate committee, and the Massachusetts Democrat spent much of the money laying groundwork in early presidential primary states, the records show.

Sen. Edwards, who tells voters he rejects donations to his presidential campaign from Washington lobbyists, took one donation in 2002 directly from a lobbying firm. He also collected more than $80,000 from people who aren't formally registered as lobbyists but nonetheless work for some of Washington's powerhouse firms.

Edwards also has accepted more than $150,000 worth of flights aboard the corporate jets of special interests, a helpful perk for a candidate crisscrossing the country that also allows the corporate provider to bend the ear of a White House aspirant.

'Up to Their Necks'

"They are both in up to their necks with special interest money," said Charles Lewis, head of Center for Public Integrity, a Washington watchdog group that recently published "The Buying of the President 2004," which tracks the sources of political money for the presidential hopefuls.

"This rhetoric has a rather hollow ring to it. It is hypocritical. They are splitting hairs when they say either, 'I don't take lobbyists' money' or 'I don't take from PACs' when both have received millions from special interests anyway," Lewis said.

Edwards' campaign declined Sunday to discuss the 2002 donation from a lobbying firm. Edwards' presidential fund-raising report "confirms Senator Edwards' policy of never having taken a dime from Washington lobbyists. Senator Edwards is proud of having the strongest campaign finance reform proposals of all the presidential candidates," spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said.

As his stock has risen after his surprise wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry has increasingly portrayed himself as free from special interests' money.

"I'm the only person in the United States Senate who has been elected four times who has voluntarily refused to ever take one dime of political action committee, special-interest money in my elections," Kerry said just last week.

Though technically correct, his boast omits the fact that he was one of the largest recipients of donations from individual lawyers and lobbyists among all senators and that he created a vehicle in 2002 to collect large checks directly from companies, labor unions and other special interests on the eve of his presidential bid.

Kerry collected more than $470,000 directly from companies and unions in 2002 for his Citizen Soldier Fund, and spent large amounts of it sowing goodwill in key primary states just before Congress banned the use of such "soft money" donations, according to records his group filed with the IRS.

Corporate 'Contributions'

More than $100,000 of those donations came from telecommunications and Internet companies that have had a direct interest in the work of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on which Kerry serves.

For instance, nearly every major cellular phone company donated to Kerry's committee, including AT&T Wireless ($7,500), Nextel ($5,000), Verizon Wireless ($5,000), T-Mobile ($5,000), and Cingular ($5,000). The head of Internet publishing giant International Data Group gave $50,000, and the chairman of the Google Web site chipped in $25,000.

Kerry turned those donations right around, distributing money for the fall 2002 elections to primary battleground states where his presidential campaign would eventually need help. He gave $40,000 to the Iowa Democratic Party, $39,650 to the New Hampshire Democratic Party, $20,000 to the Florida Democratic Party and $3,000 to the South Carolina Democratic Party.

As for Edwards ...

Edwards' claim that he hasn't accepted money from Washington lobbyists is technically true in that no person currently registered with Congress as a lobbyist has appeared yet on the donor rolls of his campaign.

But in 2002, Edwards created a tax-exempt political committee just like Kerry. The group, New American Optimists, reported in October 2002 a $3,333.50 donation from Ungaretti & Harris, a lobbying firm whose clients range from AirTran airlines to the Arthur Andersen accounting firm, according to its lobbying disclosure report to Congress.

That same committee collected hundreds of thousand of dollars from other special interests, ranging from $10,000 from AT&T to $550,000 from movie producer Steve Bing.

Furthermore, non-registered employees of Washington lobbying firms have given $82,000 directly to Edwards' campaign, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records conducted by Lewis' Center for Public Integrity.

That money includes $2,000 from Vernon Jordan, long regarded as one of Washington's pre-eminent power brokers, as well as donations from employees of such famous Washington lobbying firms as Hogan & Hartson, Patton Boggs, Arnold & Porter and Skadden Arps.

The North Carolina Democrat also has another special-interest venue. He has flown across the country in corporate-owned planes, taking $138,000 worth of flights with the Dallas-based Baron and Budd law firm and at least $19,000 in flights with the Archer Daniels Midland agricultural company, his campaign reports show.