Deinonychus antirrhopus

What Do You Call...

...a candidate who takes money from the equivalent of modern day "Benedict Arnolds"?

John Kerry.

John Kerry uses that very language to describe those CEOs and executives at firms that move jobs overseas, and yet he takes money from these people as well. Yes, yes I know John Kerry served in Viet Nam.

Executives and employees at such companies have contributed more than $140,000 to Kerry's presidential campaign, a review of his donor records shows. 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.

It makes me wonder when Kerry uses rhetoric with workers at various plants and factories that he wont promise them the impossible. Is he signalling that if he becomes President he'll sell them down the river to keep his big dollar donors happy?

This is just another example of how John Kerry, yes he served Viet Nam, and no I did not (probably because I was born in 1968), can manage to straddle both sides of an issue.

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 to similar attacks on the latest issue.

This quote is also revealing,

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."

So is Kerry demonstrating his own cluelessness or his own disingenuousness.

Thanks to Henry Hanks for the link.

Update: Prof. Bainbridge has more, and its good stuff. Namely Prof. Bainbridge askes the following quesiton,

If Kerry is so upset with these firms, why not send their money back?

A moral failing on Kerry's part?

Prof. Bainbridge also notes why these guys donate to Kerry,

Conversely, why do such firms give to a guy who bashes them? Access, of course. They want to have access to the policymaking process in the event Kerry wins. Yet, there is something odd about the way business thus ends up funding the anti-business left. Wouldn't it be easier to just keep the business bashers out of positions to which business needs access?

As to the last question I'd point out that maybe this is an example of "covering all the bases". Sure donate to Bush, or the Republicans, but also donate to Kerry just in case. Another alternative, is that their own probability assessment has Kerry winning in November, so its best to get in with the winning team now, and if they lose no worries as Kerry's policies fall with him.

Posted by Steve at February 26, 2004 10:25 AM