That line was hilarious. Bush drilled him in that debate. It's about time. He did leave some things on the table however. When sKerry says "we pushed our allies away", why doesn't Bush remind the people that the ones opposed to us were being bribed by Hussein? I wish he would state the facts that we all have known for some time now- the UN is corrupt, and France is our enemy . I hope Chirac gets hit by a double decker bus today.
How good of an idea was it for sKerry to say " I'm a lawyer too"?
Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."
In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right .)
So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.
Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.
Really...do you dabble in the stock market? If you buy shares of Disney stock and make money...do you own Disney?
Youve got to be kidding...
Boy..talk about STRETCCCCCCCHING something!
I think the point was that in the President's statements that Kerry is going to be taxing all small businesses, he uses a broad definition that would include him making $84.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
Inner City Blue said this in post #64 : I think the point was that in the President's statements that Kerry is going to be taxing all small businesses, he uses a broad definition that would include him making $84.
The question was first asked to Kerry, not Bush...and it was about about taxing people 200,000 dollars or more..and then he started talking about Bush's $84.00.
My biggest problem with Kerry last night...was that when one asked him a question, he talked more about what the President was doing or wanted and/or attacking Bush instead of directly answering the question before him.
Sometimes when he started to answer he didnt even touch upon the question until half his time was gone.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Really...do you dabble in the stock market? If you buy shares of Disney stock and make money...do you own Disney?
Youve got to be kidding...
Boy..talk about STRETCCCCCCCHING something!
According to Factcheck.org (the same site that Bush and Cheney named) this was not a stock purchase. I've seen many Republicans make this same arguement and it is invalid since it isn't the case with Bush. Now it's true that the $84 was actually from Bush's Lone Star Trust and not the timber company but if it had been from the timber company as the article that Kerry got his information from claimed than under the definition of a business owner, Bush would have been consider a business owner.
Last edited by Lion of Zion on 10-10-2004 at 02:49 AM |
According to Factcheck.org (the same site that Bush and Cheney named) this was not a stock purchase. I've seen many Republicans make this same arguement and it is invalid since it isn't the case with Bush. You can laugh all you want but it's been shown that this is accurate. If factcheck.org is good enough for Bush and Cheney to claim backs them up on their claims than it's good enough to use to show that Bush was wrong last night and that Kerry was right.
Of course you think that...
I never said it was a stock purchase...I was making it a point...someone who only nets $84.00 dollars in a company doesnt fully own that company.
From an article:
The question asked to him: "Will you look at the camera point blank and vow to not raise taxes for those earning $ 200,000 or less?"
What does this response have to do with Bush's rely to him after his response to that guy? What does $84.00 dollars have to do with ANYTHING about that question?
As if netting $84.00 qualifies someone a full company owner???...
like I said...talk about Stretching something to fit your ideology....its humerous!
The point is...the majority of small business owners make over 200,000 dollars per year. That is middle class...and that is who he essentially will get his tax money from to fund his programs.
You can yada yada your way through it like it doesnt exist...but it does.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I never said it was a stock purchase...I was making it a point...someone who only nets $84.00 dollars in a company doesnt fully own that company.
Anyhow..the point about the $84.00 dollars had nothing to do with the question at hand asked of him. The guy was asking him about taxes for 200,000 or more and Kerry went on his usual rampage about Bush....and about how Bush felt about it...
He never really seemed to get to the answer of the guy's question...at least I dont remember that he did...I know half the time I was like "what are you talking about? What does this have to do with the question asked?"
His $84.00 reply to this guy had nothing to do with 200,000 dollars or more in taxing people.
As if netting $84.00 makes someone a full company owner...
like I said...talk about Stretching something to fit your ideology....its humerous!
A dollar amount does not qualify or disqualify someone from being an owner of a business.
Kerry was resonding to comments that Bush made when he said 900,000 small businesses will be taxed under Kerry's plan because most small businesses are Subchapter S corps or limited partnerships, and they pay tax at the individual income tax level.
It was to that comment that Kerry responded The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business.
Your claim that it was in response to a question asked by the person from the audience is false. It was in response to Bush's comments which Kerry had every right to respond to.
Now the real issue should be Bush's statement that 900,000 small businesses will be taxed. That is completely false. Here is Factcheck.org analysis of Bush's claim. http://factcheck.asc.upenn.edu/article.aspx?docid=265
A dollar amount does not qualify or disqualify someone from being an owner of a business.
Kerry was resonding to comments that Bush made when he said 900,000 small businesses will be taxed under Kerry's plan because most small businesses are Subchapter S corps or limited partnerships, and they pay tax at the individual income tax level.
It was to that comment that Kerry responded The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business.
Your claim that it was in response to a question asked by the person from the audience is false. It was in response to Bush's comments which Kerry had every right to respond to.
Now the real issue should be Bush's statement that 900,000 small businesses will be taxed. That is completely false. Here is Factcheck.org analysis of Bush's claim. http://factcheck.asc.upenn.edu/article.aspx?docid=265
The majority of people who own small businesses will personally make over 200,000 dollars a year...
They are now in that tax bracket for Kerry's plan.
$84.00 doesnt qualify one as under this plan of Kerry's...not by a long shot.
Maybe Kerry would have been better off stating an oil company instead of a timber company.
You can state it anyway you want...that amount doesnt qualify you as a business owner..and if thats all you made...and you want to call it that...it makes you a BAD business owner.
Anyone that netted only $84.00 from a company alone..would be qualified for food stamps..not Kerry's tax plan.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
The Disturbing Words
Of John Edwards
By John Chuckman
8-1-4
I heard several lines from John Edwards' convention speech on the radio before I clicked it off. Anymore and I would have vomited.
As it was, I experienced a horrible flashback to being a twelve-year old at the Midwest Baptists' Camp Sycamore, sitting in the sweltering cinderblock meeting hall, shirt stuck to the back of a card-table chair, while a strutting little preacher sprayed beads of sweat and globs of spit into the twilight yelling about hell.
John Edwards is pure Elmer Gantry.
Well, what would you expect from a guy who spent twenty years chasing ambulances, looking for deep pockets to sue, always waving his arms and smiling like a chipmunk? America's litigation lawyers and its evangelists-for-profit have a lot in common, and when they come from places like Dog Bite, North Carolina, it's almost impossible to tell them apart. There's always a syrupy sweet exterior, the beneficent smile - just think of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson - in the ruthless pursuit of things that human society would be better off without.
Here's a few lines from John's official site on how he sees his career:
For 20 years, John dedicated his career to representing families and children hurt by the negligence of others. Standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their armies of lawyers, John helped these families through the darkest moments of their lives to overcome tremendous challenges. His passionate advocacy for people like the folks who worked in the mill with his father earned him respect and recognition across the country.
That sounds like a promo for the next episode of "Rescuing Little Nell from the Clutches of Snidely Whiplash." Of course, it's what the words don't say that is often important. Why did John only stand up for "families and children"? Is there something wrong with representing people without families or children? Of course not, but his language is reclaimed manure from the Republican family-values compost heap.
John stood against armies of lawyers? No, actually John swelled the ranks of lawyers who now swarm America like the aftereffect of a lab-accident release of killer bees, spreading conflict and fear everywhere they appear. The blurb doesn't say that in twenty years John had made himself a very rich man through litigation, that is by helping to raise insurance premiums for everyone, but that's the truth. "Standing up against the powerful insurance industry" could just as well read, "Mining the huge revenues of the insurance industry for all he could haul away."
Like any of America's current crop of crocodile-tear evangelists hoping to witness a repeat of the miracle of the loaves and fishes from a collection plate, John helped families through their "darkest moments," just managing to accumulate a fortune by the time he was in his forties. Well, I'm not against success, just against misrepresenting what it is you did.
Since most litigation is socially disruptive and economically unproductive, there is something particularly disturbing about one of its predatory practitioners seeking high office. After all, it is the abject failure of American legislators to provide sufficient enlightened laws and decent regulations that makes the threatening jungle where litigation flourishes.
Reading the balance of John's speech on the Internet had the advantage of not having to hear his backwoods, folksy tone and watch his flamboyant, well-practiced gestures, but I still quickly grasped why John was so successful at litigation. People would settle just to escape having to hear him for months in court. My favorite passage of his speech is this:
When you wake up and sit with your kids at the kitchen table, talking to them about the great possibilities in America, you make sure that they know that John and I believe at our core that tomorrow can be better than today. Like all of us, I have learned a lot of lessons in my life. Two of the most important are that first, there will always be heartache and struggle"you can,t make it go away. But the other is that people of good and strong will can make a difference. One lesson is a sad lesson and the other,s inspiring. We are Americans and we choose to be inspired
Apart from the fact that half of all America's marriages end in divorce, you could never convince me that there are many of the remaining families who sit around a breakfast table talking up "the great possibilities of America." Can't you just see squirming kids, screaming about how someone ate all the Lucky Charms or what a jerk the math teacher is, falling silent as a father decides to lift his Lincolnesque brows, perhaps having offered the blessing for the morning's Pop Tarts, to invoke the great possibilities of America? Doesn't that sound just a little bizarre? If this is what happens at John's house, you should be afraid of his holding office. If this isn't what happens at John's house, why is he saying it?
The truth is, and I'm sure John knows this, few families even sit together at the breakfast table in America, and, if they do, there's a better-than-even chance that a television is mindlessly blaring the whole time. As for millions of poor families, there is no breakfast on the table. Isn't that why Head Start supplies the kids with food at school? Even in suburban middle-class families, it's all they can do to each make it out of the door on time with rush-hour commutes and drop-offs for the privileged kids' heavy schedule of activities.
And how do like that injunction about adding to the breakfast-table sermon, "you make sure that they know that John and I believe at our core that tomorrow can be better than today." John and I believe at our core? Why can't they just believe? Why must it be at their core, whatever that means? The word suggests a nuclear reactor rather than a human being. Anyway, more than a few disturbed personalities in history lay claim to some kind of mystical core something-or-other. Frankly, this statement is so patronizing and ridiculous, it makes me wonder about John's rationality.
And what does John mean about tomorrow being better than today? It resembles the words of a certain old American religious huckster who used to open his pitch for money by saying "Something GOOD is going to happen to YOU!" But it is worse than that, because it is so utterly implausible and silly. He is giving you an injunction to talk seriously to your kids about the fatuous advertising claims of two bought-and-paid-for politicians.
John has one or more mini-sermons in almost every brief passage. You'd think he was running for church deacon instead of high political office. I like his great first lesson, "there will always be heartache and struggle"you can,t make it go away." Is that what the leaders of a great nation are supposed to talk about? Do we need national elections to hear lines borrowed from Oprah Winfrey?
Then there's, "But the other is that people of good and strong will can make a difference. One lesson is a sad lesson and the other,s inspiring. We are Americans and we choose to be inspired."
John probably has in mind the kind of "inspired" a preacher talks about, as the inspired Word of God. That kind of inspired allows of no mistakes, because God can't make any. It also allows of no questions or critics. Nice stuff for a politician to embrace - feel self-righteous while effectively telling people to shut-up.
In the real world, and it is the job of politicians to deal with the real world, inspired is not always a sound state of mind. Inspired about what? Inspired to do what? People are just as likely to be inspired to do terrible things as good things. The word is often used by the flunkies of great tyrants. Germans regularly used the word to describe Der Fu"hrer. The ghastly blood-letting of Vietnam was inspired by a loopy, religious-like belief in the need to stop communism. Would you say that that smiling humbug, Pat Robertson, was inspired when he recently advocated America's invading Iran to overthrow the heathens?
The passage is full of question-begging phrases. Make a difference to what? I can't help thinking of the cliche about the path to hell being paved with good intentions. Sorry, John, but there's no shortage of leaders with strong wills in the world, and each of them believes in his own goodness. That fact is almost certainly one of the human race's true curses.
The rest of John's speech is sprinkled with soul-deadening cliches and even contradictions. At one point, he said, "I stand here tonight ready to work with you and John [Kerry] to make America strong again." Well, I think the last thing any thinking person on the planet wants are people working to make America stronger. America has destabilized two countries, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, tortured, and improperly imprisoned simply because it had the power to do so. Power is like that, as Lord Acton so wisely said, it corrupts. Chase after enough of it, and you get absolute corruption.
John's speech takes on the theme of two Americas, and were he to deal with the genuine problem of two distinct and separate societies in America (actually, I think it is three, including the wealthy class represented by all the Presidential candidates)), he might have said something worthwhile. John tells us: "Because the truth is, we still live in two different Americas: one for people who have lived the American Dream and don,t have to worry, and another for most Americans who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet. It doesn,t have to be that way." But it was John himself who already told us how struggle and difficulties won't go away, so what's he saying?
On education, John says: "We shouldn't have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else. None of us believe that the quality of a child,s education should be controlled by where they live or the affluence of their community."
John must know perfectly well that education is not primarily a responsibility of the federal government under America's 18th-century Constitution, so what's he talking about? What does he propose to do to change a situation where some suburban high schools have PhDs teaching and classes enjoy trips to Europe, while urban schools have labs with rusted taps and Bunsen burners that don't work?
The truth is that all good things in America, including medical care and political influence, are rationed according to ability to pay. So why would education be any different?
John adds: "We shouldn't have two different economies in America: one for people who are set for life, their kids and grandkids will be just fine, and then one for most Americans who live paycheck to paycheck." What does that mean, beyond populist hot air? I have no idea, and I suspect John doesn't either.
Here's Preacher John on adversity and hardship: "and you know what happens if something goes wrong"a child gets sick, somebody gets laid off, or there,s a financial problem, you go right off the cliff. And what,s the first thing to go? Your dreams." Your dreams? I really think dreams are the last thing people experiencing hardship worry about. They are worried about getting through with a shred of dignity, perhaps about surviving. Is John offering them genuine help or an airy hand-out of dreams and inspiration?
Here's a few selected gems from Preacher John on 9/11:
We will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to make sure that never happens again, not to our America. We will strengthen our homeland security and protect our ports, safeguard our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers and EMT,s. We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe.And we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you.
Does John think there are people in America - other than its substantial population of militia types, survivalists, millenarianists, and those looking forward to Armageddan - who want that to happen again? Does he think there's people, other than the two million or so in America's prisons, who don't support police?
John's promise to hunt down terrorists is pure comic-book superhero, and isn't it exactly what the delusional Bush believes he's been doing all along? What does John propose that is different? He says absolutely nothing about using proper diplomatic and legal channels to hunt down violent criminals or about strengthening international institutions. No, it's all America this and America that, the same totally narcissistic stuff that's making the world sick of hearing from America. Nobody wants a friend who only talks about himself and refuses to help anyone except on his own terms, but Americans like John think those same qualities somehow become attractive traits in world relations. Like his partner-candidate, Kerry, he promises only more threats about not hesitating to use the military to kill more people.
Keep in mind that John, sitting as he does on a Senate intelligence committee, has an extremely high intelligence clearance and ask yourself what he was able to forecast or advocate either before or after 9/11. Not much is the answer. John's pet project now is to start a new domestic spy agency - still another multi-billion-dollar agency on top the vast existing network of intrusive agencies and one dedicated specifically to spying on the homeland's residents. Does that sound like someone genuinely concerned about rights and freedoms? Someone should ask John if he is committed to rescinding the execrable Patriot Act, but I doubt he'd receive an honest answer.
Having Preacher John teamed up with Kerry - that drearily ambitious man whose concept of bravery ran to shooting civilians safely from a riverboat in Vietnam - leaves me with a bleak outlook for America and thereby the world. That this dishonest pair and the insipid Bush are the best America offers as leaders says something terrible about that frighteningly-powerful nation: it suffers a devastating poverty of imagination and spirit.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Edwards' ''Greatest Hits'' Show He's Dim Witted Empty Suit
We have been hearing the lefties and mainstream press (sorry, that’s redundant) claiming that John Edwards background as a trial lawyer will aid him in his debate with Vice President Cheney. In the words of President Bush (subsequently appropriated by John Kerry): Bring it On!
These cheerleaders obviously have never heard John Kerry discuss issues of national security in anything more than a 30 second sound bite. Because if they had they would have realized that John Edwards knowledge about national security and fighting the war on terror is about as deep as a puddle, and that his vaunted intellect is nothing but false front. Quite simply he's frighteningly uninformed about the most important issue of our time.
Don’t believe us? That’s fine. Just listen to John Edwards and you'll be convinced.
To anyone paying attention, May 5, 2002, was the day that the luster came off this empty suit faster than a dress on prom night. For that was the day that Edwards had his disastrous “Meet the Press” interview which some compared to the historic 1979 Roger Mudd sit-down with Ted Kennedy that exposed the lush for the lugubrious half-wit that he was then, and remains to this day. Thankfully for the nation, Mudd's interview sunk Kennedy's Presidential hopes faster than “Swimmer“ sunk Mary Jo Kopechne.
There is one particular highlight from this appearance, in which Tim Russert made Edwards his bit…, er, female dog. The interview was so bad that at the end Russert got up and screamed at Edwards “Who’s Your Daddy!”. Ok, we made up the last part, but not this pearl of wisdom about what strategy John Edwards would bring to John Kerry about fighting the war on terror:
EDWARDS: "And everyone knows--I mean, I sit on the Intelligence Committee, Tim. Everyone knows there are huge parts of Afghanistan that are not secure, not in control.”
RUSSERT: “So what would you do, send thousands of more American troops?”
EDWARDS: “No.”
RUSSERT: “What would you do?”
EDWARDS: “No. What I would do is show leadership."
Yeah, that’s the ticket. If in command, John Edwards will withdraw all troops for global hotspots like Iraq and substitute his “leadership” to accomplish the goals. Sadly for him, however, he doesn’t get to use jury consultants to see if the dictator or terrorist is amenable to his boyish charms. Geez, suddenly, Kerry's plan of kissing up to Jacques Chirac and the UN doesn't seem half bad.
The most sought after item in the last day or two has been a video of the Charlie Rose show on September 11, 2001, in which John Jr. discussed the days horrific events, and what to do about them. Thanks to NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, we do have a transcript of that appearance. And it’s not pretty for the Breck Girl.
When pressed by Tom Clancy about what specifically he would do Kerry‘s loquaciousness was absent. He answered. “Well, I think the starting place is to do the thing”. Imagine if George Bush or Dan Quayle had said something similar. He goes on to babble about international coalitions and, ever the lawyer, giving agencies legal authority to do certain things. Read the whole thing. Clancy summed it up best when he said “You’re not doing anything, you’re just talking.”
It also appears that Smiling John didn’t get much better on the stump. The always brilliant Mark Steyn made him look like Ralph Kramden (“Humina, Humina..”) when he asked Edwards specifically what he would do in Iraq. . His first response was the knee jerk “Get the UN in”. When reminded the UN left after suffering one casualty, he said “Get NATO in”. When reminded that 21 of 34 NATO countries had boots on the ground, he mentioned how much he loved town meetings.
Our buddy Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot is doing yeoman's work in pointing out further idiotic comments by John Jr. about how we don’t need a preemption doctrine, which he would “scrap” because “the President can do what he wants to make the American people safe”. We’ll buy a beer to the first person who can explain to us how that’s different than preemption.
Geraghty also highlights Edwards bold initiative for more durable skyscrapers. Wow Senator Edwards, that’s using the old noodle. My then 3 year old also asked at the time “Well Daddy, why don’t they just make the building stronger”. Hey, why didn’t Kerry vet him for the VP slot. Oh yeah, he’s not a blood sucking Plaintiff’s lawyer.
One area of his life that Little John declared out of bounds to questions is his knowledge of foreign leaders. On the October 13, 2003 edition of “Hardball” Chrissy “I Squat to Pee” Matthews, reminded Edwards of the ridicule heaped on then Governor Bush for not knowing the names of various foreign leaders in world hot spots. Matthews proceeded to ask the Boy Wonder if he could name the leaders of 4 world hot spots, including Pakistan. Now, who anyone paying attention knows is General Musharref. But the man with pretty hair didn’t write a brief on that issue, so he told Matthews that “it wouldn’t be fair” to ask him those questions, and when given the opportunity to answer threatened Matthews saying “Let‘s Don’t‘ Go There”. Worse yet is this guy was on the Intelligence Committee.
We’re sure the blogosphere will turn up many more such inane ramblings (Because Lord knows the mainstream press won’t) and we’ll be there to report them to you. Sadly, as much as we can laugh at this now, there will be nothing to laugh about in November if these two Johns aren’t flushed.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
The John Edwards That North Carolina Knows
By Judson Cox (01/28/04)
Thanks to last Thursday's debate, the rest of the country is learning what most North Carolinians have known; John Edwards isn't the brightest bulb. Senator Edwards thinks the Federal Defense of Marriage Act means exactly the opposite of what it does, and has no clue about Islam. For a successful lawyer to be unfamiliar with this law is surprising, but to know so little about Islam, in the midst of the War on Terror, is shocking. Can you imagine a Senator being so uninformed about Nazi Germany during World War Two? I am a college student, half Edwards’ age, but I know more about issues vital to our nation than this Senator and Presidential candidate!
To give Edwards his due, he is a phenomenal public speaker. He could have been a sideshow huckster, or a salesman of 80 proof Indian elixirs in dry counties. For instance, he once claimed to channel the spirit of a child. "I feel her, I feel her presence," he said in a malpractice lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell. "She's inside me and she's talking to you. And this is what she says to you. She says, I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage." Such tacky techniques of persuasion earned this champion of the poor between $12.8 and $60 million, according to financial disclosure forms. It is little wonder that Senator Edwards is often confused with the famous psychic, John Edward. Unfortunately for Mr. Edward, hosting a maudlin television show is not as lucrative as practicing those same skills of mysticism in court.
The Senator is a skilled politician. Edwards portrays himself as a friend of the farmer and workingman, even though his campaign has raised millions, with nearly two-thirds of his cash coming from attorneys. Greedy lawyers have devastated North Carolina. Tobacco farming was a way of life for rural North Carolinians, even before America’s founding; now it is largely a thing of the past. The resulting economic decline and staggering unemployment is fodder for Sen. Edwards claim that there are two Americas, one comprised of the wealthy (like Sen. Edwards) and the other of the poor. I wonder how many of the poor were once employed by the tobacco industry.
Edwards’ good looks have earned him the title of “Sexiest Politician” (People Magazine) and caused him to be dubbed “The Breck Girl”, by Rush Limbaugh. In his only Senate race, he beat his opponent, Lauch Faircloth, by only 51% of the vote. To view the candidates side by side, Faircloth (age 70) and Edwards (age 45), was to recall the Kennedy/Nixon debates; youth and charisma carried the day. In a historically Democratic state, this was hardly an impressive victory. Considering that his approval ratings have been frozen around 35%, it’s not surprising he chose not to run for a second term.
His campaign of eyelash batting “uplift” is as phony as his increasingly syrupy drawl. My family has been active in American politics since my ancestor, Charles Carroll, signed the Declaration of Independence, and has been a cornerstone of the Democratic Party in North Carolina since the Civil War. Edwards sought the endorsement and friendship of my uncle, a Democratic Party County Chairman. My uncle worked hard to get Edwards elected. When my uncle passed away two years ago, condolences came from officials and office holders in every level of the party. Edwards’ office was notified, but he sent no card or flower, made no phone call, and did not appear at the funeral. This was poor form, and evidence of self-serving callousness.
The closer you get to Edwards, the more his flaws are revealed. As Americans become familiar with him, more will come to agree with Sen. Santorum, who said of the Democratic candidates, in an interview with the Manchester Union Leader, "I'm the least impressed with John Edwards. In his time in the United States Senate, he distinguished himself by arguing for things I would have thought he would have been an expert on — things like the Patients' Bill of Rights and medical liability — but was as remarkably uninformed as any general member of the United States Senate on these issues. The basic perception in the Republican caucus was that this guy is just an empty suit, that he just simply doesn't understand."
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Now it's true that the $84 was actually from Bush's Lone Star Trust and not the timber company but if it had been from the timber company as the article that Kerry got his information from claimed than under the definition of a business owner, Bush would have been consider a business owner.
Yes he would if $84 was more than 51% of the company's shares.
Inner City Blue said this in post #64 : I think the point was that in the President's statements that Kerry is going to be taxing all small businesses, he uses a broad definition that would include him making $84.
Good try, ICB. But you, as well as others, understand pretty good that that's not what he meant.
. I hope Chirac gets hit by a double decker bus today.
10-09-2004 01:40 PM
What does this response have to do with Bush's rely to him after his response to that guy? What does $84.00 dollars have to do with ANYTHING about that question?
