I would not call that ad a counter attack. Most likely it was supposed to be launched as an attack but got pre-empted by the Bush ad. The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush is not pretending that he does not get money from special interest groups. Kerry is, and that makes him a hypocrite.

Posted by: helen at February 15, 2004 09:29 PM

Not necessarily. When did Kerry claim that he didn’t get money from special interest? Everyone gets money, the question is whether that money buys influence over policy and if so how much. In actuality the answer may lie more in ideaology, than in anything else.

Both parties get large sums from a cross section of special interest; in many cases they overlap. Democratic policies relatively speaking, favor the middle class. Republican policies favor big business. When Republicans pass legislation that favors corporations, it looks like payback. In fact a special interest group will give more to candidates that ideologically favor their position. If you are an oil company, you are going to give more to candidates that support less control over your industry. On balance, the decisions politicians make, at least in the public eye, are based on ideology. Likewise a Democrat will get more from unions, because they are more supportive of workers rights.

To Kerry, ‘special interest’ means corporations and the rich. So Kerry’s call for less special interest is probably nothing more that the progressive Democratic call for a tilt towards the middle class at the expense of corporations.

Posted by: Anthony at February 15, 2004 10:49 PM

“Not necessarily. When did Kerry claim that he didn’t get money from special interest?”

During the first couple of presidential primary debates before the Iowa Cacuss.

I can go and post up some links if you don’t believe me and don’t feel like doing a simple google search?

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 15, 2004 11:25 PM

Anthony knows as well as we do that Kerry has claimed to not receive money from Special Interests, by characerizing it as “Special Interest PACs”, hoping people won’t notice the “PAC” part, or understand what it means. Spending the time to post a link won’t change Anthony’s pretence.

Heck, Kerry even did it in last night’s debate.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 16, 2004 03:13 AM

…the progressive Democratic call for a tilt towards the middle class at the expense of corporations.

Wow. Thanks once again for reminding me of another reason I changed my voting registration to Republican.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 16, 2004 03:29 AM

Jeff: I can go and post up some links …

I don’t mind searching. If you have a link it would be helpful.

Anthony knows as well as we do that Kerry…

I actually I don’t know that. I haven’t following the details of Kerry’s primary campaign. I haven’t bothered to watch one debate.

lewy14: Wow. Thanks once again for reminding me of another reason I changed my voting registration to Republican.

So a tilt towards corporations at the expense of the middle class is better?

Posted by: Anthony at February 16, 2004 10:05 AM

CERDIP: Spending the time to post a link won’t change Anthony’s pretence.

Where do you come off acusing me of lying?

Posted by: Anthony at February 16, 2004 10:30 AM

CERDIP: // .. hoping people won’t notice the “PAC” part, or understand what it means .. //

Enlighten me. Special interest vs. Special interest PACs. What does it mean? What is the difference?

Posted by: Anthony at February 16, 2004 01:00 PM

Gee, nice work Anthony. You even quoted me when you responded “I actually don’t know that…” at 10.05

half an hour later, you suddenly noticed what I said, and get upset ? I doubt it. Another pretense.

Then 2-1/2 hours after that, yet more. I don’t believe you. Prove to me that you are as ill informed and naive as you claim to be, and I might believe you.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 16, 2004 03:13 PM

So a tilt towards corporations at the expense of the middle class is better?

You don’t get it. You just. Don’t. Get it.

Would someone like to take a shot at letting Anthony in on what is wrong with his formulation?

Posted by: lewy14 at February 16, 2004 05:25 PM

Anthony,

Hint: It’s not that either one of your two statements which I responded to are preferable. It’s that both are (equally) malformed.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 16, 2004 05:28 PM

lewy14, How about: corporations don’t pay taxes - people pay taxes. When government raises taxes against corporations, they pass the increased costs along in one of several ways. They increase their prices, they cut wages - or they cut jobs. (Jobs, jobs, jobs - some people complain about them, but they don’t seem to understand where they come from)

Corporations are not real entities, they are legal constructs. The thought that we can transfer the burden from real people to corporations is the same logic that says we can make the rug longer by cutting off one end and sewing it on the other end.

While we’re at it, remember that ‘special interests’ are what the other guy kowtows to - not you. Enron dropped as much money on one side of the aisle as it did the other. And why not? It didn’t know who was going to continue in power and they wanted to cover all their bases. Kerry’s pot can call George’s kettle black all day if it wants, but everyone knows JFK was ‘amendable’ to a donation or 2 from not-so-special interests.

The only thing worse than working for a corporation in this country is working for yourself. I’ve got a couple of friends in this position and I wouldn’t wish it on a dog. Thought taxes were a pain in the ass working for the man? Try it when there’s no insulation between you and Uncle Sam.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at February 16, 2004 06:18 PM

PS Can anyone explain to me how Kerry can talk about ‘The Rich’ and ignore the self-referential implications?

Beacon Hill ain’t Frog Hollow, is it?

Posted by: torpedo_eight at February 16, 2004 06:21 PM

CERDIP: Do you know the answer to my question. I am beginning to think that you don’t. As far as the timing of my posts, you seem to think that there is only on explanation as to why; quite a narrow-minded approach to things. The world doesn’t spin around your notions of what is true. There are obvious reasons why the post came in as they did.

Posted by: Anthony at February 16, 2004 11:28 PM

T8, thanks for picking up my slack, I didn’t have another remedial capitalism lesson in me right then.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 17, 2004 12:44 AM

Anthony: Why, yes I know the answer to your question (SI vs. SIP). Just as I didn’t believe your other assertions, I don’t believe you don’t understand the distinction that is being sold by Kerry, but few but True Believers are buying. So answer your own question.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 17, 2004 11:05 AM

CERDIP Are you doin’ the Soft(Money)Shoe, or are those Canadian PACs you are wearin’? :o) Prolly Soros.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 17, 2004 02:51 PM

I want to know what you define as special interest? Are talking about PAC money, money from lobbyist, money from private individuals, all money received by a candidate including his own? Which of these to you consider to be special interest?

Posted by: Anthony at February 17, 2004 08:14 PM