posted on February 19, 2004 05:11:14 PM
Wealthy Candidates Tout Populist Message
WASHINGTON — John Edwards (search) and John Kerry are trying to appeal to the common man with their populist notions and messages on the campaign trail, but the two multi-millionaires don't live like most Americans.
The top Democratic presidential hopefuls both own mansions in tony Georgetown, the Washington, D.C., neighborhood known for its prime real estate and high-end fashion boutiques.
On one historic cobblestone street lives Edwards, whose 184-year-old, 13-room home is valued at $3.8 million. About a block away is the residence where Kerry lives, a 104-year-old, four-story home with 23 rooms that is conservatively estimated to be worth $4.3 million.
Kerry's home isn't really his own, however. Technically, it belongs to his wife, ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz. Kerry does own half a home he shares with Heinz in Boston's Beacon Hill. He mortgaged his half of it a couple months ago for $6.4 million — money he used to keep him in the race when the prospect of his presidential bid was looking much bleaker.
"An old, long-whiskered man once said to Teddy Roosevelt: 'I am a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat.' Roosevelt then said: 'Then if your father had been a horse thief and your grandfather had been a horse thief, you would be a horse thief?'" --Will Rogers
posted on February 19, 2004 05:32:46 PM
Prof must have snuck up behind me & misspelled my header,
Should have been "Representatives"....of the working man....
"An old, long-whiskered man once said to Teddy Roosevelt: 'I am a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat.' Roosevelt then said: 'Then if your father had been a horse thief and your grandfather had been a horse thief, you would be a horse thief?'" --Will Rogers
WASHINGTON — John Edwards (search) and John Kerry are trying to appeal to the common man with their populist notions and messages on the campaign trail, but the two multi-millionaires don't live like most Americans.
Neither does your president, bear. He has always lived a privileged life, attended the most prestigious schools...even got special attention in the National Guard. He tries to appeal to the common man with his cowboy suits and slang.
posted on February 19, 2004 06:53:27 PM
Oh, now, Helen... you're going to upset Bear. He probably doesn't realize that, for all their attempts to reinvent themselves as Texas cowboys, the Bushes are one of the most elite families on the snotty Northeastern Coast, stretching back for generations. He probably doesn't know that they hail from such liberal states as Connecticut and Maine, and that they've done their damnedest to keep their Kennebunkport vacations a secret because no true Texas He-man would be caught dead sissyfying himself on waterskies in Ocean Bay...
posted on February 19, 2004 08:04:53 PM
Then there's Otis.
"Otis is a composite of two older settlements, Loudon, which at its incorporation in 1773 took the name of Lord Loudon, Commander-in-Chief of the American forces in the French and Indian War of 1756, and Bethlehem, incorporated in 1789. On June 13, 1810, by consent of the General Court, the inhabitants changed the name to Otis in honor of Harrison G. Otis, Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Perpesentatives."
posted on February 19, 2004 08:39:21 PM
Which isn't to say, given Kiara's post, that the snotwad Bushes have galloped so far away from their roots that they wouldn't embrace a new-age 'Otis' wholeheartedly, and even today try to buy him a seat in the House of Perpesentatives.
posted on February 19, 2004 08:59:54 PM
HAHAHAHAHA Helen take this:
Presiden Bush isn't even in the top five.
Kerry Would Be Third-Richest U.S. President
Dan Ackman, 02.13.04, 7:00 AM ET
NEW YORK - Whatever schoolboy lore says about Abe Lincoln's log cabin or Lyndon Johnson's "Aw shucks" Texas upraising, many, if not most, U.S. presidents were born well-to-do, and nearly all were quite well off by the time they sought the nation's highest office.
A few presidents were spectacularly wealthy, such as the nation's first president, George Washington, who we reckon would have made the Forbes 400 of his day on the strength of his Virginia plantation and his wife's fortune. Others, like Lyndon Johnson and Andrew Jackson, used government service as a springboard to personal fortune.
If the Democratic primaries play out as expected, this year the race for the White House will pit Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts against George W. Bush. President Bush, the second son of a president to attain the office, made our list of the richest presidents partly based on his claim to a family fortune, but mostly because of a windfall on his investment in the Texas Rangers baseball franchise.
The Richest U.S. Presidents
It is difficult to compare personal wealth across historical periods, but below is our best estimate of the relative net worths of the richest five U.S. presidents. The rankings are based on our own calculations and extensive interviews with presidential historians.
Rank Name Party Term
1.George Washington None* 1789-1797
2.John F. Kennedy Democrat 1961-1963
John F. Kerry** Democrat NA
3.Andrew Jackson Democrat 1829-1837
4.Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat 1963-1969
5.Herbert Hoover Republican 1929-1933
*President Washington was generally aligned with Federalist doctrine, though he was not formally a member of the Federalist Party or any political party.
** Candidate. NA: not applicable.
Sen. Kerry, like the last JFK from Massachusetts to serve as commander in chief, is also extremely wealthy. We estimate his family fortune at $525 million, which would make him, if elected, the third-richest president ever. But the key word is "family." The Kerry money comes from his wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry, who inherited it from her late husband, Sen. John Heinz III of the Heinz food family.
This puts Kerry in a situation somewhat similar to President Kennedy's. President Kennedy's father, Joseph, and his mother, Rose, were both still alive when JFK was in office and when he was assassinated, so John never inherited even a share of the Kennedy family fortune, which we estimated to be worth $850 million at its height in 1990.
But Joseph Kennedy was, under campaign finance laws at the time, free to spend basically as he wished on his son's electioneering efforts, which he certainly did.
Here John Kennedy and candidate Kerry part company. Current federal law prohibits wife Theresa from donating more than $2,000 to her husband's campaign. Indeed, in December, when Howard Dean was riding high, Kerry mortgaged his share of his family townhouse on Boston's Beacon Hill to raise money for his campaign.
In the course of his career, Kerry's campaigns have received substantial funding from employees and affiliates of such companies as Fleet Boston Financial (nyse: FBH - news - people ), Time Warner (nyse: TWX - news - people ), Citigroup (nyse: C - news - people ) and Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ), according to the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based investigative group. Corporate lawyer firms like Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo and New York-based Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom have also been big backers.
While there are limits on what Theresa Heinz Kerry might contribute to her husband's campaign, she may, depending on how current law is construed, be able to spend as much of her own money as she wishes on "issue ads"--advertisements that advance a cause or theme. She might also contribute unlimited sums to other groups running their own issue ads.
Of course, if Sen. Kerry's campaign were to benefit from spousal spending, there would inevitably be allegations that he was exploiting a loophole. Others would say that the candidate was simply countering the incumbent president's huge lead in fundraising.
Either way, this was the kind of issue that the widow Martha Dandridge Custis, who married the legendarily forthright Washington--cherry tree and all that--never had to worry about.
"An old, long-whiskered man once said to Teddy Roosevelt: 'I am a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat.' Roosevelt then said: 'Then if your father had been a horse thief and your grandfather had been a horse thief, you would be a horse thief?'" --Will Rogers
posted on February 19, 2004 10:14:34 PM
Oh, bless you, Bear, for turning this into a debate about which candidate has more money!
(You're going to heaven for this one act alone, Papa Bear. Really! )
George W Bush's family wealth:
Well, really, I must in all fairness cut in here and remind folks that Georgie blew a chunk of it becoming a big failure in private industry, and that much of what he inherited from his Grandaddy's treasonous tradings with the Nazis during WWII went up in smoke ...
It is estimated that Georgie's family wealth today hovers near the billion-dollar mark, though it is impossible to nail down an exact figure because his family has so many shifting corporate ties. (Meaning, not all their income gets reported, because so much of it comes from 'offshore' business dealings.)
'Poppy' has his lucrative (and rather secretive) business interests ( -most notably with the multi-billion dollar Carlyle Group, on whose Board of Directors he is a most august member) .
Jeb now owns Florida and the extent of the kickbacks being funnelled into his pocket won't be known 'til he's out of office.
Neil has blown almost as much of Grandad's Hitler gold as his brother George in failed businesses and outright criminal scams that required him to fork over some cash restitution. Currently, he's embroiled in an investigation by authorities in Texas for a software scam he's grossly overpriced for the Houston School District.
Marvin keeps a low profile. Sure, he's a Bush 2004 'Ranger' but he's managed to hold corporate directorships without blowing even more of the family wad. In fact, one might even say Marvin is the smartest of the bunch, because in 2000, he was appointed to the Board of Directors of Houston-based HCC Insurance Holdings Company. He was not only awarded a very handsome salary, but given one of the sweetest stock-option deals of all time.
Now frankly, if you want to somehow slur Kerry for being wealthy through marriage, Bear, I'm going to suggest that the Bushes are already wealthier through their own generational corruption, and that wealth made from ketchup is probably far cleaner than wealth made operating a Nazi death camp or laundering the gold (teeth) that came from it.
And if you want more details, just ask, Papa Bear. I've got a real soft spot for you...
posted on February 20, 2004 12:03:17 AMJohn Kerry: Halliburton Investor
Sen. John Kerry, on Halliburton's business dealings:
"Halliburton is guilty of shameful war-profiteering, and they need to be held accountable."
He wasn't nearly as critical of the company a few years earlier, when his family's investment concerns were reporting a capital gain on Halliburton Stock. (Source: Kerry's 1996 Senate Financial Disclosure form. PDF, via OpenSecrets.org.)
In fact, Kerry's financial disclosures - which detail his personal wealth and that of his heiress wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry - show a series of investments in companies ranging from Enron in the U.S. to foreign companies like Nissan. And there are also investments listed involving American International Group.
The investments were fully disclosed and appear very routine for a family of wealth. But for a candidate seeking the support of working people, it might get in the way of any attempts at appearing populist. (It also might get in the way of Democratic playbook attacks on Republicans that reference Enron and Halliburton.)
By Ed Moltzen · 6 February 2004
·
posted on February 20, 2004 08:28:45 AM
Linda, good points, besides all those left wingers seem to conviently forget about Joe Kennedy's Nazi support, his bootleging & association with organized crime.
"An old, long-whiskered man once said to Teddy Roosevelt: 'I am a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat.' Roosevelt then said: 'Then if your father had been a horse thief and your grandfather had been a horse thief, you would be a horse thief?'" --Will Rogers
posted on February 20, 2004 12:11:58 PM
No, Bear, I Certainly haven't forgotten about Joe Kennedy's Nazi ties, nor the killing he made in 1929, nor his hob-nobbing with gangsters and his rapacious womanizing.
But we're talking about the Bushes now. They have candy-coated themselves as good Christians with 'family values' when in fact they're just as grubby as Joe Kennedy, or Nixon, or _____________________ (you fill in the blank).
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." -Jonathan Swift
The three that we are discussing now are Bush, Kerry and Edwards. Each one of the three is delivering a populist message. Kerry and Edwards are interested in the issues that affect the average man. Bush is not.
posted on February 20, 2004 12:52:00 PM
[b]Bush is not[/i].....well about 1/2 the country disagree with you helen.
And bush worked on ranches to earn money in his pre-National Guard days. He also worked at a bank. Then he takes care of his ranch on all those 'vacations' you continually refer to. UNLIKE those who have only experienced a wealthy lifestyle since birth, [KERRY]...he knows what working's like for the average American. An average Joe...more so that the northeastener.
posted on February 20, 2004 12:59:27 PM
You are calling George W. Bush an average Joe? George Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth in the registrar's office at Yale University. LOLOL
He also has a waterfront compound in Kennebunkport when he tires of *working* on the ranch.
Kerry caters to special interests....caters to lobbyists....and invests in all those corporations you all so despise. yeah...that's okay to make your money off Hallburton, Enron, etc....as long as most don't know about it.
Kerry: Halliburton Profits While American Troops Buy Their Own Body Armor
December 12, 2003
For Immediate Release
“Halliburton is guilty of shameful war-profiteering, and they need to be held accountable. It’s dead wrong that Halliburton is bilking American taxpayers by overcharging the government $61 million for fuel while our troops on the frontlines are underfunded, overextended, and some have literally been left to buy their own body armor. Think about what $61 million could buy for our troops in need rather than lining the pockets of Halliburton executives. The Bush Administration should be ashamed that they bent over backwards for their biggest contributors while leaving American troops in danger. We need to get our priorities back in order. As president, I will fight the special interests, not coddle them, and I will make sure that no American soldier ever goes without the equipment they need to do their job.” – John Kerry.
U.S. Soldiers serving in Iraq are facing shortfalls in equipment including 1) special body armor, 2) armored Humvees to protect against guerilla attacks, 3) advanced anti-missile systems for helicopters.
Body Armor
One-fourth of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are still waiting for the latest body armor. The Department of Defense says it will be the end of January 2004 before all the troops have been outfitted. $61 million would provide funding to purchase more than 40,000 sets of body armor ($1500 each). John Kerry has introduced legislation requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse family members who paid money out of their own pockets to provide the personal body armor that the government failed to deliver.
Armored Humvees
Only a few hundred of the military’s 10,000 Humvees are armored with steel and thick plastic windows to protect occupants against the guerilla warfare they are facing in Iraq. $61 million would provide funding to purchase more than 400 Humvees. ($150,000 each).
Advanced Anti-Missile Systems for Helicopters
There are 600 helicopters in Iraq, many of which do not have anti-missile systems technology. It has been reported that the Illinois National Guard helicopter that was shot down in Iraq killing 15 and injuring 21 soldiers did not have the most updated anti-missile system. $61 million would buy over 1500 anti-missile systems helicopters (or buy anti-missile systems technology for all the helicopters in Iraq between two and three times over).
posted on February 20, 2004 01:56:47 PM
helen, helen, helen - You continue to bring up all the wrong doings that Halliburton has done. Yet they have never been charged with wrong doing [in the Bush administration]. Everytime one of these accusations has been brought up, an investigation has been done and it's found there was no wrong doing.
But the thing that makes it appear to me how very little you really know about kerry is your last statement:
Halliburton Profits While American Troops Buy Their Own Body Armor.
If you go look at Kerry's voting record you will see HE personally voted against buying the troops many things they were in need of.....that being one of them.
posted on February 20, 2004 02:09:38 PM
helen - That, as in most statements you make that have to do with anything military...and sometimes other issues too...just proves you don't know what you're talking about....as has been suggested by others more than once.
Kerry voted against the 87B Iraq/troop funding. That's a fact. Approx. $21B of that was funding to support our troops...supplies...etc.
Voting against that bill was voting NOT to support our soldiers nor supply them with what they needed while fighting this war.
posted on February 20, 2004 02:18:13 PM
Naa...It was really reconstruction money for corrupt corporations such as Halliburton. The troops would have received equipment wheather or not that bill was approved.
That is, if the equipment was ordered before it was needed.
posted on February 20, 2004 03:02:35 PM
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who is running for the White House, said the White House funding request underscores what he sees as mismanagement by the George W. Bush administration of the Iraq war and the postwar reconstruction.
"They rushed the war without a plan for the peace, and we are paying an enormous price for that now," Kerry told ABC television.
"The American people are asked to pony up 87 billion. This administration did not have a plan -- still does not have an adequate plan -- for how you minimize the cost to Americans and minimize the threat to our troops," Kerry said.
This 87 billion dollar bill was a vote of confidence for a president who deserved NONE. Bush was the guy responsible for placing the troops lives on the line -- waging an unnecessary war without a plan and without regard for cost of rebuilding the country.
posted on February 20, 2004 03:39:20 PM
[i]Where did you get that idea? We were discussing the fact that they are all wealthier than the ordinary man.[/]
Why is it that on the Forbes list is it that there is only ONE Republican. Three DEMOCRATS & one Feferalist.
Isn't the literal defination of liberal. free giving?
Looks to me that those demo's kept more than they gave.
"An old, long-whiskered man once said to Teddy Roosevelt: 'I am a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat.' Roosevelt then said: 'Then if your father had been a horse thief and your grandfather had been a horse thief, you would be a horse thief?'" --Will Rogers
posted on February 20, 2004 04:09:23 PM
I would put it to you bear that particularly in the American electoral system, there is little place for poorly funded candidates.
Therefore one whose wealth is truly representative of the masses, doesn’t have a hope in hell of ever being elected in the highest office.
Bear thinks that anyone with true liberal ideals should have no significant wealth and thereby hugely handicap themselves if not totally remove themselves from any high office.
