House, Painting and Wife Join in Kerry Financing
or Senator John Kerry, the five-story red brick house in the exclusive Beacon Hill section of Boston, with its climbing wisteria, antique furnishings and rooftop deck, offers a place of respite from his frenetic campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president.Now the house, worth perhaps $10 million, may offer Mr. Kerry something else: a quick way to get a loan to inject money that could jump-start his campaign.
And it is funny how all of a sudden all the Dems (of course Kerry's wife used to a Rep) keep talking about money, campaigning and the First Amendment:
Mr. Kerry's decision has renewed focus on his personal wealth, and that of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who has a fortune estimated to be $500 million. For the campaign, Mr. Kerry can use his own assets and borrow against those, like the Boston house, that he owns jointly with his wife. Ms. Heinz Kerry, meanwhile, cannot legally contribute more than $2,000 to his campaign, but she could be a secret weapon of sorts. Under the law, she can make an independent expenditure on her husband's behalf as long as she does not coordinate such an effort with him or his campaign.Posted by Steven at November 27, 2024 11:08 AM | TrackBackMs. Heinz Kerry, who has been actively campaigning for her husband, acknowledged in a recent interview that she would consider such a step if she felt that Mr. Kerry was being unfairly attacked. She hinted that such expenditures might take the form of an advertising campaign.
"I think that is a First Amendment right in America for me," she said. "I have that right. But that's a serious thing to do. It has to be really legitimate."
Not nearly as funny as hearing Republicans talk about fiscal discipline and a smaller government. And then there's the whole war on terrorism thing making us safer.
Hillarious.
Posted by: JC at November 27, 2024 01:20 PMI agree on the smaller government issue.
On the WoT--I think we are safer. Has there been an attack on US soil since 9/11/01? Didn't we all expect that there would be by now?
Posted by: Steven at November 27, 2024 04:46 PMWhen were we attacked before 9/11? Terrorism hardly ever happens here at all. That's an incredibly weak argument you have there... :)
Posted by: JC at November 28, 2024 07:13 PMTry the WTC in 1993.
And go back and check the tape, as they say: everyone was predicting additional attacks after 911, both from the left and right.
Posted by: Steven at November 28, 2024 08:09 PMGreat. So what was preventing them from attacking for another 10 years? And for bonus points, you're missing a few terrorist incidents. They were all domestic terrorists, so I can kind of forgive you for that. And let's not forget the OK bombing before WTC '93 (which killed far more than the WTC '93, BTW).
Look, I think Afghanistan was a good idea. It was clearly justified.
However, the follow through was absolutely pathetic. And if you read the article I linked to above, going to Iraq was not just a diversion, but stupidity.
Posted by: JC at November 29, 2024 09:28 AMJohn,
I can see an honest disagreement on Iraq, although I do think it was the right policy to pursue.
However, if you agree that Afghanistan was a proper policy move, then you do agree with my overall basic argument in terms of the need to use military action to curtail terrorism--but you simply disagree with the Iraq action. Fair enough--which is a different position than the rather dismissive tone of the overall concept that your posts seem to imply.
And you have to admit that in the aftermath of 911 that there was widespread speculation, and a general acceptance of the idea that we would be attacked again on US soil. As such one has to give at least some credit to the administration's overall anti-terrorism efforts, even if one believes Iraq to have been a colosal blunder..
And I would note that in the 93-01 period that there were a number of attacks on US targets internationally: Khobar Towers, the Cole, the two embassies in Africa--and there have not been any such attacks on US interests in the last two years, aside from those that are in Iraq, which is a different situation by type, given that it is in the context of a military operation.
At any rate: if you want to argue about Iraq's role in the war on terror, fine, but you keep making blanket statements as if every time I say anything about the war on terror it is solely about Iraq. Let me assure you: it is not. I see Iraq as part, but not the whole.
Steven
Posted by: Steven at November 29, 2024 09:59 AM