The All New United States 2004 National Elections COUNTDOWN!

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Mar 7, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Your ideology is blinding you Gonk.

    Take the gay marriage issue for example. Kerry is trying to navigate the issue instead of taking a solid position. He opposes gay 'marriage' and votes against the DOMA (which essentially said that no State has to recognize gay 'marriage' if another State passes it). This brings up the 'full faith and credit' clause which the people in San Fran are using based upon the Massachussetts court decision. Now, Kerry can't simply say he's against gay 'marriage' and be for federalism on the issue, because Federalism will be trumped by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Hence, he's wiffle-waffling.

    As he is with NAFTA (for it, then against it)

    As he did with Iraq (against it in '91, for it in '03, against it in '04).

    As he did with 'no child left behind' (for it, then against it).

    For the Patriot Act, then against it.

    Against the DOMA, yet says he's against gay 'marriages'.

    It will be all too easy for the GOP to show that he's a wiffle-waffler, and his voting record is extremely weak on national defense while in the US Senate.

    Ever wonder why no one has been elected to the White House from the US Senate in modern history?

    The Dems would have been much more wise to pick Edwards instead of Kerry, but they've gone too far to the left and are far too blindingly angry to see straight.

  2. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Your ideology is blinding you Gonk.

    You know, I never really thought of it as an ideology before. You know, I don't attend rallys (well there was one some years back but I was dragged into it) or make contributions or anything else. Methinks the neocon doth protest to much.


    Take the gay marriage issue for example. Kerry is trying to navigate the issue instead of taking a solid position. He opposes gay 'marriage' and votes against the DOMA (which essentially said that no State has to
    recognize gay 'marriage' if another State passes it).


    And you're completely ignoring the weakness inherent in that attack. It gives Kerry the oppertunity to give his own reasons for voting against the bill which could have been for any number of reasons. Which then have to be countered which can then be countered back. You'd need a large salvo of these with very weak and uncertain responses to get mometum going in the proper direction. And I have yet to see Kerry give an uncertain response.


    This brings up the 'full faith and credit' clause which the people in San Fran are using based upon the Massachussetts court decision. Now, Kerry can't simply say he's against gay 'marriage' and be for federalism on the issue, because Federalism will be trumped by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Hence, he's wiffle-waffling.

    Voting against DOMA does not solidify Kerry's stance on Gay Marriage when it was voted on. This in fact proves the weakness of this argument: you're using his votes to prove your case when what you're really in need of are actual QUOTES. The sort of thing the Republicans could have used against Dean. The wiffle-Waffle argument is being made in a detatched 'by the numbers' stance where a single vote is being used to define Kerry's position for or against something. This will crumble as soon as Kerry is debated or interviewed about it. It would work against someone like Lieberman, but then ignoring Lieberman would have worked against Lieberman.


    As he is with NAFTA (for it, then against it)

    NAFTA is NOT going to fly because first of all he never said he is now against it, he's in favor of reviewing it, and NAFTA went well for a number of years before now.

    As he did with Iraq (against it in '91, for it in '03, against it in '04).

    He's made the argument already on how he's consistent with the current war. The previous war is a sticky item, that the conservatives could actually use, but Bush isn't picking up that stone to hurl. Not yet, anyway.


    I don't have time to get into the rest of it. Basically, it's not going to be easy to paint Kerry this way because Kerry comes across as too confident. Plus Bush has his own record running against him, which you've NEVER acknowledged as a problem, by the way. Somehow the voters are going to recognize Kerry as a wiffle-waffer and completely forget there were no WMDs, that there the job market is poor, that the deficit is out of control.

    But none of that will matter. Because Kerry is a wiffle-waffer.
  3. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Job market 5.6% isn't 'poor' jobless rate my friend. 6.0% is considered full-employment, and our employment rate here in the US is much better than our European counterparts.

    Americans will understand that Bush inherited this recession and along with 9/11, the economy took a hit. We're recovering now, and as everyone knows the job market is the last to pick up.

    What's Kerry's plan? Raise taxes? Yea, ok - that will fly, sure.

    As a fiscal conservative, I'm not pleased about the deficit, either, but it's certainly less of a percentage of GDP than in previous times.

    There are plenty of positives for the Administration to focus on: the housing market, the low interest rates, et cetera. I was able to buy a house due to the low interest rates, as have millions of other Americans.

    However, I think the two main issues will be one in the social arena and the other in the national defense arena. The first major issue will be marriage. The second will be national security.

    As weak as Kerry is on marriage and on national security, it will be easy for the GOP to show his record for what it is and how he wiffle-waffles as an uncertain man in an age requiring certainty and decisive action.

    Edwards is the better candidate, but you Dems are too blind by hate to see it. He doesn't have the record baggage of Kerry.

  4. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Forgive any spelling errors, I am at work. :)

    Edwards is the better candidate, but you Dems are too blind by hate to see it.

    With all due respect DM, this makes no sense whatsoever. Kerry does not give off a sense of 'hate' at all.

    For the record, I like Edwards, and would happily vote for him.

    Americans will understand that Bush inherited this recession

    Business activity peaked in March 2001.

    The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession.

    What's Kerry's plan?

    Similar to Clinton's...return the tax rate on the top 1.5 percent (or thereabouts) and focus on targeted tax cuts and closing loopholes.

    I'm not pleased about the deficit, either, but it's certainly less of a percentage of GDP than in previous times.

    The only previous time I can think of was during the Reagan years. And Reagan didn't inherit a huge surplus as W did.

    As weak as Kerry is on marriage and on national security

    I'll get into the marriage issue later, as I am already getting behind on my work.

    But yet again...the amount one wants to spend on the military does not correlate with being 'strong' on national security.

    But for fun, and since I have seen the same list of items that Kerry has voted against, here is some of what he has voted for, from the AP...

    Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding ? Including $200 Billion in the Previous 7 Years ? A 50% Increase Since 1996 ? John Kerry, a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has strongly supported recent increases in Intelligence funding, and, in the wake of 9/11, has supported the bipartisan call for an even larger increase in intelligence funding. According to a report issued by the Center for Defense Information entitled ?Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror? John Kerry has supported approximately $200 billion in Intelligence funding over the past seven years alone. The report concludes that Kerry has supported a 50% increase in intelligence funding since 1996 [Senate Intelligence Authorization Funding voice votes 9/25/02, 12/13/01, 12/6/00, 11/19/1999, 10/8/98 & 9/25/96; 1997, Senate Roll Call vote # 109]

    In 2002, John Kerry voted for what John Warner described as the largest increase in the defense budget since the early 1980s.

    This increase provided more than $355 billion for the Defense Department for 2003, an increase of $21 billion over 2002. [2002, Senate Roll Call Vote # 239; Websites of U.S. Senators Warner, Daschle, Dodd accessed 7/25/03]

    Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding ? Including $200 Billion in the Previous 7 Years ? A 50% Increase Since 1996 ? John Kerry, a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has strongly supported recent increases in Intelligence funding, and, in the wake of 9/11, has supported the bipartisan call for an even larger increase in intelligence funding. According to a report issued by the Center for Defense Information entitled ?Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror? John Kerry has supported approximately $200 billion in Intelligence funding over the past seven years alone. The report concludes that Kerry has supported a 50% increase in intelligence funding since 1996 [Senate Intelligence Authorization Funding voice votes 9/25/02, 12/13/01, 12/6/00, 11/19/1999, 10/8/98 & 9/25/96; 1997, Senate Roll Call vote # 109


    And from the AP...

    the four-term Massachusetts senator has voted for nearly all of the Defense Department's spending and authorization bills since 1990 ? as the overall total has crept closer to $400 billion...In the early 1990s, he voted to limit funding for the B-2 stealth bomber, which for years was plagued by cost overruns and had an eye-popping pricetag of $2 billion per plane. Under the direction of then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, the Pentagon decided to buy fewer planes.

    And while we're on that..
  5. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Job market 5.6% isn't 'poor' jobless rate my friend. 6.0% is considered full-employment, and our employment rate here in the US is much better than our European counterparts.

    Considering 5.6% is the highest US unemployment rate is the largest in more than 20 years (actually, 5.4% is the highest in more than 20 years), I'd consider that pretty poor. And the US has ALWAYS been better in the unemployment sector than its European counterparts. This does nothing to absolve the current administration.


    Americans will understand that Bush inherited this recession and along with 9/11, the economy took a hit. We're recovering now, and as everyone knows the job market is the last to pick up.

    In point of fact he inherited a slowing economy, not a recession. In June of 2001 it was cause of concern when unemployment hit 4.5%. Now its a full percentage point over. And its nice to think that the job market is simply the last to pick up. But if so why is the administration backing off its job forcasts? And why is it making the desperate manuver to have FAST-FOOD jobs re-classified as manufacturing jobs (a foolish suggestion if I ever heard one. And they say the Democrats insult people's intelligence)


    t's Kerry's plan? Raise taxes? Yea, ok - that will fly, sure.

    Actually he's simply advocated repealing tax cuts, taxes which worked fine in the 1990s and didn't drive any businesses away. Why don't you actually go LOOK at an actual Democratic nominee agenda instead of grabbing the Republican interpretation verbatim?


    As a fiscal conservative, I'm not pleased about the deficit, either, but it's certainly less of a percentage of GDP than in previous times.

    Gee, well, I guess it could be worse then. When were these previous times, BTW? I certainly hope they weren't the Great Depression.


    There are plenty of positives for the Administration to focus on: the housing market, the low interest rates, et cetera. I was able to buy a house due to the low interest rates, as have millions of other Americans.

    Funny, I remember the housing market being a 'positive' element of the economy in 1991/92 as well. Didn't save Bush Snr.


    However, I think the two main issues will be one in the social arena and the other in the national defense arena. The first major issue will be marriage. The second will be national security.

    As weak as Kerry is on marriage and on national security, it will be easy for the GOP to show his record for what it is and how he wiffle-waffles as an uncertain man in an age requiring certainty and decisive action.


    Like I said, you're going to need something stronger than a voting record -- actual quotes that defined his position -- to get that reputation on him. So far you've only got his quotes on the Vietnam War, something History's actually proven him right about. 'Hanoi John' is a clever little name, but its something that would have worked in 1974, when Vietnam's justification was still at least somewhat debatable, not 2004. And the allegations that he made these claims of war crimes for political gain completely ignores the fact that he didn't enter politics until years after his testimony. He went from there into a law firm, I believe.

    Edwards is the better candidate, but you Dems are too blind by hate to see it. He doesn't have the record baggage of Kerry.

    Actually if you look at the recent public interviews with Kerry and Edwards, it was Edwards who seemed the most uncomfortable with the Gay Marriage issue. He actually walked away from a person who was questioning him (though the person was undoubtedly biased). When questioned Kerry didn't seem particularly happy about the question but he gave a sigh and got on with his answer. And it was well given. The Kerry Camp knows exactly where the ball lies, which is why they're trying to get Bush to come to them face to face (debate) and offer up those questions. They know Bush will come off as looking more uncertain than Kerry.
  6. Darth_OlsenTwins Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    Considering 5.6% is the highest US unemployment rate is the largest in more than 20 years (actually, 5.4% is the highest in more than 20 years), I'd consider that pretty poor. And the US has ALWAYS been better in the unemployment sector than its European counterparts. This does nothing to absolve the current administration.

    Unemployment reached 7.8% in 1992.

    Old news story
  7. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Did it? Look like I have to check my figures again then, my apologies. I'd read 5.4 was the highest in America in 20 years.
  8. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Wow, all sorts of great discussions this morning:

    DS77,

    And Reagan didn't inherit a huge surplus as W did.

    Yes, but you know as well as anyone that's not quite accurate. The surplus was based on projected revenue, even while Clinton was still President.

    After the 2000 Dot.com bust, the projected surplus was reduced from 244b to 172b, even before Bush took office. Then after 9/11, the surplus was reduced from 172b to 60b, without a policy even being enacted.

    Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding

    But again, its how the money was spent that's the issue. Signals intelligence was increased, Human intelligence was cut. The long term effects were devistating.

    referring to the Crusader and Comanche.

    I supported the Comanche. I still think that the Army needs it. However, that's only part of the reality. In cancelling the Comanche, the administration has shifted the resources to upgrading other systems to take the role. Its loss does not result in a loss of capability.

    The Crusader, if you know anything about it, was completely useless in the modern battlefield. It was designed for mass fire against large attacks (ie the plains of Europe), and weighed, at its heaviest, 61 tons.

    Gonk,

    Considering 5.6% is the highest US unemployment rate is the largest in more than 20 years

    Really?

    In 1995, the unemployment rate was 5.6%, which wasn't even the highest of the time. In 1994, the rate was 5.9%. (2004-1995=considerably less than 20 years)

    Gee, well, I guess it could be worse then. When were these previous times, BTW? I certainly hope they weren't the Great Depression.

    Well, not including the WWII years,the current deficit rate of 4.2% (as percent of GDP), was surpassed in the years 1983(6.0%), 1987(6.1%), and roughly approximated the rates in 1994(3.9%) and 1996(3.6%).

    The current percentage is not even close to some of the rates in the 80's, and roughly equal to the early 90's.

    Regarding the actual issues, I agree with you for the most part. However, it is important to keep in mind that the candidates aren't being pressured for their views.

    What I mean is, take the current marriage issue.

    Bush, as the current President, had to go on record to indicate what he thought, either way. That's part of any President's job.

    Kerry, or Edwards, as candiates, can get away without committing either way right now.

    Rest assured, whoever the offical pick is, will have to offically say, "I oppose or I support______"

    Then, it will become just as polarizing as Bush is facing now.








  9. QuanarReg Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2002
    star 3
    I think Democrats must be getting nervous with all the attention that is being payed to gay marraige. Now, I think we can say with certianty, that this will be a big campeign issue.


    Last night I was watching Hardball, (even though I normally don't, cause I can't stand Chris Mathews, but I actually found it a good program last night). Anyway, he had representatives from both the Kerry camp and the Edwards camp on, and they were discussing gay marriage. Both reps said how thier candidates didn't approve of gay marraige, but didn't want a constitutional admendment. Mathews then asked if Kerry or Edwards would protect states from having to recognize gay marriage. Niether man would answer the question at all. It was hilarious. I mean, representatives of both Kerry and Edwards, and they were totally PATHETIC. Mathews kept asking, and they, kept dodgeing.
  10. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Mr44

    The surplus was based on projected revenue, even while Clinton was still President.

    Well, sure, its ALWAYS based on projected revenue. But Bush still inherited a surplus,and as the WP article that I posted states, the projected deficits keep increasing.

    Then after 9/11, the surplus was reduced from 172b to 60b, without a policy even being enacted.

    Are you sure? I thought his first tax cut was enacted before 9/11.

    ...and roughly approximated the rates in 1994(3.9%) and 1996(3.6%)

    Are you really going to compare the current deficit situation to the 90s, when the trend clearly went from deficits from surpluses? C'mon Mr44. :)

    Sure, an argument can be made for 'who' or 'what' is responsible, but it is obvious that in terms of jobs AND the budget, much has changed during the Bush administration.

    Regarding the intelligence and military expenditures...as you know I respect and admire your knowledge and opinions on this matter. I would be happy to discuss these items more specifically in your other thread when we have a free moment.

    But the point is that when Bush cuts a program, its obviously for a good reason. When Kerry does it, its because he is soft on national security, he's a fringe extremist, he drinks blood, etc.
  11. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Someone mentioned "idealogy is blinding you" up above. I don't see much idealogy at all here, just blind partisanship.
  12. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I agree with you, DS77..

    My point wasn't to lay blame (well, maybe alittle ;) )
    but to at least support the notion that everything doesn't have to be so gloom and doom, on either side of the issue.

    Reagan, for example, ran with much larger comparitive deficits, and despite the "end of the world predictions" over Reaganonmics, we're still here.

    The GOP attacked Clinton with the accusations that his policies were not sustainable, but they were still relatively successful..

    That's kind of my point, ever since the budget deficit first developed back in the late 1790's, and Adams was considered the devil because of it, it has been tied to politics.

    I think the key is perspective.

    But the point is that when Bush cuts a program, its obviously for a good reason. When Kerry does it, its because he is soft on national security, he's a fringe extremist, he drinks blood, etc.

    Bush is the blood drinker, Kerry is the Crypt Keeper.. It's a result of party affiliation...

    (except for a brief time, when the roles were resersed in 1996...)
  13. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    I guess my question is since most people who post on these boards ARE partisan, why do you assume its blind?

    Isn't it possible we just happen to agree with a lot of one party's decision?

    How exactly is this "blind?" It's an easy charge to throw around, but how about proving it? Why is it so blind? Conservative or Liberal, I'm curious.
  14. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Very good post Mr44.

    Now I really do have to get some work done. :(

    EDIT: But first...

    Did anyone mention yesterday's primaries, after all this is an election thread? [face_mischief]

    Kerry won all three. I heard on the news that Democrats are more conservative in Utah and Idaho. If that is indeed the case, these are good, albeit not 'defining', wins for Kerry.
  15. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    regrding the deficit again,

    Greenspan just announced his concerns over the effect of the economy.

    I don't think his recommendations to cut SS benefits will ever pass, but he has a good mix of criticisms and proposals, especially for an election year.

    HERE

  16. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    YEah, I came home and turned on CNN and NOTHING, no election coverage at all!

    This was the most ignored primary night so far. Did Kerry even make victory speeches?

    I guess the media is just getting ready for...SUPER TUESDAY!!!!
  17. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Nothing wrong with partisanship OWM. I was just trying to point out the differences in this thread between ideology and partisanship.
  18. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    And what is the difference exactly?

    Generally, since people on this thread get slammed for following ideology, and then by the same people get slammed for partisanship.

    So curiously, what is the practical difference?
  19. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    the practical difference comes into play depending on how you use them... (I know, it sounds like a cop-out..)

    However, it's important to realize.

    For example, let's use the example about the Mass. legislative districts I posted last night.

    Now, if you support the ideology of civil rights, you might not not find that concept automatically included in the democratic party, because in Mass, the democrats got caught screwing the black residents over.

    It's the straight ticket voters, who say "I'll vote democrat, because they are always for civil rights," that might find their beliefs under-represented..

    It goes both ways..If you always vote Republican, because they favor small government, you would be unhappy with the current administration.

    The point is that party does not always equal ideology

    It's kind of the way you always throw out "conservatives will not like so and so," like with the same sex marriage issue.

    Well, in Chicago, there are large numbers of normally social-liberal voters who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

    But there are also quite a few normally conservative republicans who support the idea as a states rights issue.

    You can't just say "Republicans are always against gay marriage, Democrats are always for it."

    It's not universally accurate. Because party doesn't always mirror ideology...


  20. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Ah, but see, saying conservative voters IS playing to the ideology, the common ideology of conservatives. Same with liberal.

    And I didn't read that Mass case to closely, but from what I have read of election law, it is ALSO considered disenfranchizing blacks by putting them all in one district, assuring that the nine 'whites only' districts will have 9 reps who are under no constituent obligation to help blacks since none of their constituents are black...you get it? So either way its discriminatory...you can't just say the Dems were being discriminatory...

    Now I know that sounded partisan, but I won't be ashamed of defending my party either, if they are wrong (like signing the DOMA) than I will say so, but otherwise, my natural tendancy has shown that I generally agree with Democrats where Democrats and Republicans differ.

    One thing I find most interesting is reletivity. I know to TripleB I may seem like a fringe-left-wing extremist, but at a Youth in Government conference I helped out with I met some liberal women, who although I agreed with their ultimate goals, their methods of doing so shocked me. So I argued with them, and to them I was the one who sounded conservative, or like a partisan sell-out, because I was advocating the "slower and steady" rather than "quick and painful" approach to certain issues. Coincidently, the Liberals were preaching caution with Iraq while the conservatives were screaming for brown blood.
  21. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    OWM you don't see the difference between Republican and conservative? Democrat and liberal?

    There is a difference. Republican-Democrat is PARTY-san.

    Conservative-Liberal is IDEA-logical.

    There are conservative democrats and liberal republicans.

    Idealogy and party don't always fit.
  22. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    No, but they do much of the time.

    TripleB:
    No, but Kerry is much, much more liberal then Al Gore was.

    I agree (though I would go easy on the "much"'s. :) ).

    So the number of "Feak fring left wing extremist" (btw, congrats, I can picture certain other 'Centrits' taking your line but calling them selves Centrist) that would have voted Dem if Gore had been farther to the left, will be lower. I think only the most dedicated Pro-Ralph Nader supporters will stick with him, with most of the rest respecting Nader, but going with Kerry.

    I see that as well.

    Darth Mischeivous:
    Hence, he's wiffle-waffling.

    As he is with NAFTA (for it, then against it)

    As he did with Iraq (against it in '91, for it in '03, against it in '04).

    As he did with 'no child left behind' (for it, then against it).

    For the Patriot Act, then against it.

    Against the DOMA, yet says he's against gay 'marriages'.

    It will be all too easy for the GOP to show that he's a wiffle-waffler, and his voting record is extremely weak on national defense while in the US Senate.


    Kerry oppponents keep bringing that up over and over again, even though Sen. Kerry has already explained his positions on most of those issues and will most likley explain his other votes in the months to come. It's okay to make assumptions and generalizations, but not when there's facts and rationale contrary to them.

    And President Bush has also wiffle-waffled and misled voters on a number of issues, which isn't exactly going to help him.
  23. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    These are the facts.

    Kerry can't dispute his voting record.
  24. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    From The Washington Post.

    Can you say, 'hypocrite'?

    Kerry donors include ?Benedict Arnolds?
    Candidate rips tax-haven firms, but takes execs' cash
    By Jim VandeHei

    Feb. 26, 2004

    Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, frequently calls companies and chief executives "Benedict Arnolds" if they move jobs and operations overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

    But Kerry has accepted money and fundraising assistance from top executives at companies that fit the candidate's description of a notorious traitor of the American Revolution.

    Executives and employees at such companies have contributed more than $140,000 to Kerry's presidential campaign, a review of his donor records show. Additionally, two of Kerry's biggest fundraisers, who together have raised more than $400,000 for the candidate, are top executives at investment firms that helped set up companies in the world's best-known offshore tax havens, federal records show. Kerry has raised nearly $30 million overall for his White House run.

    Kerry has taken aim at "Benedict Arnold" companies as part of a much broader political and policy debate over stemming the flow of well-paying U.S. jobs overseas, a chief cause of unemployment, especially in the hardest-hit manufacturing sector. Kerry's solution, detailed in a speech yesterday in Toledo, is to enforce trade agreements, track and slow the outsourcing of U.S. jobs, and stop government contracts and tax incentives from going to companies that move operations or jobs offshore.

    Kerry has come under attack from President Bush, as well as some Democrats, for criticizing laws he voted for and lambasting special interests after accepting more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years. Some Democrats worry that Kerry is leaving himself open for similar attacks on the latest issue.

    Given the vast sums raised during the presidential campaign as well the growing number of companies with offshore operations, it seems almost inevitable that candidates would receive contributions from some of them.

    Bush has taken exponentially more from these companies than Kerry, though the president has not made a major campaign issue out of clamping down on them.

    'Not to my knowledge'
    On Monday, Kerry was asked why two of his biggest fundraisers were involved with "Benedict Arnold" companies. "If they have done that, it's not to my knowledge and I would oppose it," Kerry told a New York television station. "I think it's wrong to do [it] solely to avoid taxes."

    Then he sought to clarify his position: "What I've said is not that people don't have the right to go overseas and form a company if they want to avoid the tax. I don't believe the American taxpayer ought to be giving them a benefit. That's what I object to. I don't object to global commerce. I don't object to companies deciding they want to compete somewhere else.''

    David Roux, who has raised more than $250,000 for Kerry since 2002, is co-founder of a California company that helped purchase Seagate Technology Inc. four years ago and incorporated it in the Cayman Islands, one of the world's best-known tax havens. Roux described himself in an interview last fall as the "anchor tenant in John Kerry's fundraising mall."

    While the State Department lists Seagate as among the companies that reincorporated offshore to save on taxes, Roux said yesterday that he works for a "global" company forced to make "thoughtful" business decisions about where to locate its offices and jobs. Roux said he does not consider Seagate or himself a "Benedict Arnold." That term, Roux said, "is, like many things in politics, a label that [was] meant to cover a lot of sins."

    Stephen J. Luczo, chief executive of Seagate, has contributed $4,000 to Kerry, the maximum allowed under law, and $2,000 to the candidate's legal defense fund. Luczo was on vacation and not available for comment, according to his assistant.

    Thomas F. Steyer, who said he
  25. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    I don't know where my last post went, but Shane, obviously I know the difference, I don't know why you felt the need to explain it to me.

    Didn't I mention the example of the DOMA's which Clinton signed, which were I a blind party-san, I would support, but since it contradicts my IDEAology, I don't.

    I don't know what I said to make you think I didn't know the difference.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.