The Great Donkey Mystery of 2004 (Why Kerry?)

National Review Online ^ | Feb 11, 2004 | Jonah Goldberg

[lilylangtree]

Kerry? He's from Massachusetts. He's got many characteristics with the RATS demigod JFK, even down to the initials. He's a rich demonRAT elitist. He's a flaming liberal leftist communist. He's married to a VERY wealthy woman (who's richer than King Tut) that makes no bones about helping her husband get to the White House so that she can become First Lady. DemonRATS are already working overtime re-making Ketchup and Teresa Tut into the images of JFK & Jackie for the public consciousness. Ohmigosh! DemonRATS are reviving the Camelot sh*t. Ketchup Kerry's sexual escapades, and with all this modeling after JFK, have got to be on the same grand scale as Kennedy and Clintoon combined. The real truth of that has yet to be told. Anyone talking out in cyberland?

[radioman]

Kerry is a dupe for Hillary. She knows the dems can't win, that's why she isn't running. To win in 2008 she needs to get rid of any democrat competition now. Kerry is a total loser who is no threat to her.

[BlackRazor]

No, they are married so she can give him money and *he* can donate to his own campaign.

I thought I recently read that because of their prenuptial agreement, Kerry can't consider her money his, and therefore she could not contribute any more to him than the legally defined maximums. No source off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can find something...

[Tacis]

Remember where you heard this! The terrible risk to the Republicans of a Kerry candidacy comes in 2008, not in 2004. While Dean was the leader, Nader would not run and compete for the same lefties. Kerry is two faced and will try to cover the left and the center. Nader knows Kerry is a fruad and will probably run against him.

Thus, the dems will take a real beating in 2004 but the Republican candidate in 2008 will face a real contest (assuming they can dredge up a reasonable candidate). A problem as significant would be if blacks (and labor, if it had the brains) split off in great numbers to vote for other than the dems. A Nader Sharpton tickey might do this. The Republicans in 2008 might then have to treat black voters seriuosly.

Kerry suggests much more than Dean the possibility of a Nader or Green party candidacy!

[backhoe]

Thanks- grabbed it.

[BlackRazor]

This article gives a pretty good run-down of what Kerry/Heinz can & can't do with their money:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/7814537.htm

To summarize:

* His wife is prohibited from using her money directly on the campaign, though she could donate up to the $2000 limit.

* Kerry can only use his own personal assets (valued at somewhere between 400K and 1.8 million) or those jointly held with his wife (the latter valued at 300K to 600K). He cannot use those assets held solely by his wife (which I presume are spelled out in the prenuptial).

* Kerry can and did mortgage his home for $6.4 million, and can use these funds directly on his campaign.

* His wife can spend her own money on "independent expenditures" such as advertising, but she is prohibited from coordinating these activities with Kerry or his campaign. It sounds like this last one could be subject to a lot of interpretation.

[Akira]

I think you are right. There is SUPPOSEDLY something setup that prevents him from using her money for campaigns.

But that's a joke, IMHO. There have to be 100 ways for him to gain access to her money and to use it however he sees fit.

But I can't remember the details either...

[dano1]

Going from Dean to Kerry was a trade-off for the Dems. They got someone who presents himself better, but Kerry also brings a lot of personal baggage Dean did not have. Despite the hype from the press, Kerry's performance in the primaries seems somewhat less than awesome. Here are the numbers in terms of the percentage of the vote Kerry has gotten. In terms of delegates he has done much better, but the vote percentages say more about his popularity with voters.

Kerry's primary vote percentages:
Iowa 38%
New Hampshire 39%
Arizona 43%
Delaware 50%
Missouri 51%
New Mexico 42%
North Dakota 50%
Oklahoma 27%
South Carolina 30%
Michigan 52%
Washington 49%
Maine 45%
Tenn. 41%
Virginia 52%

IMHO, these aren't the numbers of a very strong candidate. The average is 43.5%. For example, the media seems convinced that Kerry has proven he can win in the South, but these numbers seem to say otherwise.

[alrea]

Libya chaired the human-rights commission

Why can't someone from the United Nations get the Democratic nomination?

[Akira]

Doh! I didn't catch your post with all the answers, thanks.

I remain sure that there are many ways she can funnel him money.

[alrea]

He's two, Two, TWO HEROS in ONE!

eany meany miney moe

[Akira]

They also have Kerry's Senate voting records as ammunition, plus all his hypocrisy.

He's out there campaigning for the common man, against special interests. But no Senator in the past 15 years has received as much lobby $ as he has, plus I believe I heard that he's the wealthiest Senator. Anyway, the common man doesn't get the city of Boston to remove a fire hydrant that is blocking his posh parking space.

There's also not a single bill with his name on it. Some leader. But he shrugs this off and infers that his input has made its way into lots of bills, he just chooses not to hog the exposure. What a joke.

I just can't imagine that Gillespie won't be able to tear him to pieces.

[meenie]

The polls have the answer, I think. In every poll up to date, the main concern seems to be nominating someone that can beat Bush. Never mind the qualifications, the voting record, the ideology, just find someone to beat Bush. The country is so polarized that we are in deep trouble no matter which way it goes. Politics is taking center stage over the welfare and prosperity of the public. The Founders had a deep suspicion of political parties, it is becoming obvious why they did.

[Akira]

I don't know how much more polarized we are these days, than in times past. All this liberal talk about a polarized nation seems to translate to a whine of "we're not in power!". Times of war also always add to the split.

What's even funnier about it is that, except for the war, Bush's policies should actually please moderate Democrats. He's outspending Clinton, letting Kennedy write his education bills and handing out entitlements left and right. That's why I think this talk of being polarized is more a whine about not having the WH, Senate or Congress.

My overpriced $.02...