John,

Almost all of what you say is true for almost every candidate in the last 30
years. It is a statement of the obvious. That the more well heeled people
are, the more complex their financial life. Hence, more room for reporting
error. Your error is that you focus only on the financials of the Kerrys. I
do not engage in the politics of personal finance, so I will only suggest
that you apply some energy into appreciating the financial lives of Mr. Bush
and Mr. Cheney.

To pass your test of who is qualified to run for office would mean not
having a complicated financial life. Perhaps not a bad test, but not
realistic.

I suggest that your comments are based in emotion. In the absence of
including in your analysis the financial "bloopers" of Mr. Bush and Mr.
Cheney, you have failed to establish a basis for comparison. Yet you seem
to conclude that Mr. Kerry has a "dirtier" financial life. This is the
outcome of an emotional reaction, not thoughtful analysis.

It is kind of like the people who say they will vote for Mr. Bush because he
is "moral". When asked what they know about the "moralness" of Mr. Kerry,
they state they "know nothing". Yet, they feel they confident in concluding
Mr. Bush is more moral.

Like them, it is obvious you have made up your mind and will continue to
find information that fits into what your emotions have already led you to
conclude.

As for me, I choose the same analytic approach I use to evaluate my stock
portfolio. "Has the management done what they said they were going to do?
Are there good reasons why they have not met their benchmarks?"

As already clearly laid out, Mr. Bush has failed to achieve the benchmarks
he himself set. When asked why those benchmarks have not been achieved, he
has lots of reasons, none to do with himself or his approach.

This is when investors who were paying attention got out of Tyco and Global
Crossing. Only those who were emotional about the stocks rode them all the
way to the bottom.

Finally, my analysis of American history leads me to a conclusion the seems
to escape many who make political decisions based on emotional reactions.
This Country is inventive enough, strong enough and flexible enough to
prosper and grow no matter WHO is in office. That is simply our History as
a People.

Yes, it is my nature to be skeptical of someone who claims we can only
survive under his leadership. But it is my analysis of the two different
visions being offered that leads me to support Mr. Kerry and to reject Mr.
Bush's vision.

No other President in our history has so based his leadership on promoting
FEAR. EVERY President in times of National peril has focused NOT on the
present dangers that MAY rear up; but, on the future that awaits us. What
is facing us RIGHT NOW is no different that the threat of Atomic War we
faced for 40 years. It is no more than that. Just isn't. Can you imagine
Mr. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan promoting
the level of fear being pushed by Mr. Bush?

These leaders then pushed efforts to help Americans learn to deal with
attacks that might occur. They did not say; "It is MY responsibility to
protect you completely; so trust only me." They said "The Government is and
always will do its best to avoid the unthinkable. But, you need to know how
to cope should the unthinkable happen."

Here we are, three years out, and what do YOU know of the laws passed giving
the CDC the authority to invoke quarantine and martial law and under which
conditions soldiers are authorized to shoot those attempting to leave a
quarantined area. What do YOU know of the plans for rationing drugs and
long term care equipment needed to care for those made sick or injured in an
attack (and some of the possible biological agents can only be treated with
long term supportive care such as a bed in an ICU)? What do YOU know of the
pecking order for who gets those drugs and access to those ICU beds?

I am certain you cannot answer those questions without first doing some
Google searches. Very few can. Is THIS the kind of leadership you want to
follow? A leader who says "The world is a fearful place and I am the only
who can protect you". But THEN he never prepares Americans for what to
expect should the unthinkable occur? Does he have that little respect and
confidence in average Americans?

Oh, and don't tell me it needs to be kept secret for National Security. You
will find what you need to know at the various University BioWarfare
Centers, CDC, FEMA, the Congressional Record and other such sites. But as
of today, YOU have to hunt it down.

In this area, I have no idea how Mr. Kerry would approach the preparation
issue. But at least he has not already failed at it.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark




"Your error is that you focus only on the financials of the Kerrys." My error,
Dewey? Hardly.

You were the one claiming that Kerry had made "personal sacrifices", not I.
When I responded to your claims about those "sacrifices", you reply with a
condescending diatribe covering everything from Tyco to Truman to the CDC.
Covering everything, that is, except the question of Kerry's "personal
sacrifices". I guess this was just the old Plan B approach - when you can't
win on the facts, baffle them with bull****.

I'd respond to some of your points, but it isn't worth it - for I fear you'd
just change the subject again.

Just for the record, Dewey, here in its entirety is the post you were
responding to:


BEGIN PRIOR MESSAGE

John,

You wrote:
Which personal sacrifices were those?

John Martin

Here are the two instances of John Kerry's personal sacrifice I had included
in the original post If you read the original post again, you will find
them.

"Also, he puts his money where
his mouth is. Not only did he mortgage his own home to risk all in the Iowa
Primary, but he is proposing to raise his OWN taxes"

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark


Actually, Dewey, I did read your post. I guess my interpretation of "personal
sacrifice" differs considerably from yours.

Let's see. "He mortgaged his own home". The townhouse on Beacon Hill he
sweated for, right? Oh, wait, his wife gave it to him. Hell of an investment
there. Maybe it was sweat equity. If so, it wasn't from using a hammer. At
least, not a Stanley. Six point four million dollar mortgage. Interest alone
on that will come to well over $300,000 per year, won't it. Add in real estate
taxes and he'll be hard pressed to cover it with the $395,000 he made last
year. I didn't think senators were paid that much. Oh, I forgot - that
included $150,000 in capital gains from a painting he sold. A painting that
was given to him by.... guess who?

So, how do you think JFK 2 will be able to cover that mortgage next year? Or,
was the whole thing maybe just a way for him to get around the amount that his
wife could legally contribute to his campaign?

"He is proposing to raise his own taxes". He very well may. If his intent was
to raise just his own taxes, he could simply contribute additional monies to
the government. But his intent is to raise taxes for a lot of other people as
well. Hardly an altruistic move. If he does become president, he'll
undoubtedly pay much more in taxes for the rest of his life. Because he'll
undoubtedly make much more. I don't think he's running for the money. He
doesn't need to, he's found a better way to get it. He's married it - twice.
Cheap shot? Yes. But every bit as valid as your claim that his proposal to
raise taxes is a personal sacrifice.

And while we're on Kerry's taxes, let's not forget that little mistake he made
regarding the capital gains rate on that painting. A mistake that was pointed
out and rectified only because his return was made public. For a man as
self-sacrificing as you believe him to be, I'm surprised the "mistake" wasn't
in the IRS's favor.

And we all know what campaign promises are worth. Yes, even Bush #1's "read my
lips".

If those are really your ideas of personal sacrifice, I've got a few candidates
for sainthood for you. Bush, who to serve as governor gave up a job with the
Texas Rangers that had netted him fifteen million or so. Cheney, who left a
job at Halliburton that had averaged nine million a year. And even Edwards,
whose ambulance chasing had left him with assets of fifteen million plus. All
three of them belong right up there with Mother Theresa.

Personal sacrifice? Crap.

John Martin

END PRIOR MESSAGE


John Martin