kerry
Friday, May 4, 2012
kerry
Monday, December 29, 2008
John Kerry: Bill Clinton 'abuses the truth'
Kerry blasts Bill Clinton for 'abusing truth'
WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Kerry, the Democratic Party's 2004 nominee for president, took aim at Bill Clinton Friday, telling the National Journal the former president does "not have a license to abuse the truth."
The Massachusetts senator, who endorsed Barack Obama's White House bid earlier this month, said Clinton's criticisms of the Illinois senator have been "over the top," and suggested the former president is getting "frantic."
Targeting Clinton's recent spate of attacks on Obama, Kerry said, "I think you had an abuse of the truth, is what happened. …I mean, being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top.
"I think it's very unfortunate, but I think the voters can see through that," Kerry added. "When somebody's coming on strong and they are growing, people get a little frantic, and I think people have seen this sort of franticness in the air, if you will."
The former president has faced criticism for aggressively interjecting himself into the race between his wife and Obama of late. On Monday, Obama said he feels as if he is running against both Clintons, a charge the New York senator’s campaign said was borne out of frustration. The former president himself later dismissed Obama's comments, saying “I thought he was running against me.”
Campaigning in South Carolina Friday, Obama said the Clinton campaign has stepped up its attacks since his Iowa win, and joked that it's good practice for him, so "when I take on those Republicans I'll be accustomed to it."
Kerry formally endorsed Obama on January 10, saying then that Obama "isn't just going to break the mold….Together, we are going to shatter it into a million pieces."
The endorsement was seen as a blow to both John Edwards — Kerry's running mate in 2004 — and both Hillary and Bill Clinton, who had campaigned on behalf of Kerry's presidential bid.
Obama
Saturday, September 20, 2008
AIG, McCain, Pelosi, Kerry, and Obama - Change?
It is now worthless - $4.00 a share. I did not receive any lobbyist funds. My mistake was an idiot and fool who should be fired from Wells Fargo Investments.
Anyway - remember Obama, different than the rest, going to kick the lobbyists out of Washington ... well, guess who has his fingers in the pots he intends to clean out?
First story -
Pelosi, in her most recent financial disclosure form, reported that her husband owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in AIG, which ceded majority control to the U.S. government this week in exchange for $85 billion of loans.
Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, disclosed that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had more than $2 million of AIG stock at the end of 2007, when shares were worth $58.30. AIG has fallen 85 percent this week to close yesterday at $2.69. The lawmakers' aides didn't respond to calls seeking comment.
Altogether, 56 senators and representatives had stakes in AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns Cos. or IndyMac Bancorp Inc. -- some of the biggest casualties of the market bloodbath -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The most recent annual disclosure filings list investments as of Dec. 31, 2007, and reveal the size of holdings only within a range of values. Lawmakers may have sold shares since then.
AIG: Government Bails Out a Heavy Hitter
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on September 17, 2008 10:06 AM
The Federal Reserve announced today that it's coming to the rescue of American International Group (AIG) to the tune of $85 billion. The nation's largest insurer, which asked the Fed for emergency funding in the midst of financial hardships, hasn't had trouble over the years giving money to lawmakers, however. AIG is on CRP's Heavy Hitters list, which profiles the 100 all-time contributors to federal candidates and committees. Of all of the companies facing major transitions over the last week, lawmakers owned the most stock in AIG. Twenty-seven lawmakers owned stock in AIG last year, worth between $6.4 million and $20 million. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), one of the richest members of Congress, was at the top of the list of congressional investors, owning stock worth between $2.8 million and $11.5 million, while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) followed with stock valued around $2 million. Of all the companies making headlines this week, AIG has been the most nonpartisan in its contributions, splitting evenly the $9.7 million it has contributed over time. Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate banking committee, has racked up the most from AIG, with a total of $281,400, while Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of both the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, takes second with $116,400. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama collected $103,000 and $82,600 from AIG, respectively.
WALL STREET Shake-Up - Personal for lawmakers
Wall Street's grim news has plenty of people worried about their pocketbooks. Lawmakers are among them, not only concerned with how to boost the economy but with their own personal finances tied to companies that are struggling. The richest members of Congress seem to be the most invested in the companies at the center of the Wall Street shake-up. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, nine lawmakers have between $785,900 and $1.8 million of their own money invested in Merrill Lynch, the brokerage firm that agreed over the weekend to sell itself to Bank of America for $50 billion after facing tens of billions of dollars in losses. Because Bank of America offered to buy the company at a 70 percent premium over the company's closing price on Friday, those who own stock in Merrill Lynch stand to gain from the transaction. Two of the richest members of Congress owned the most stock in the company. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) reported holding between $500,001 and $1 million on his most recent personal financial disclosure, covering 2007, and Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) owned between $250,003 and $601,000 in stock. (Lawmakers disclose their finances in ranges, annually, making it difficult to determine their assets' precise values.) Merrill's white knight, Bank of America, which, comparatively, seems to be managing just fine in today's sour economy, is a far more popular investment for members of Congress. Fifty-four lawmakers who held stock in the company in 2007, worth between $1.9 million and $5 million, are probably breathing easier, knowing that Bank of America is buying--rather than having to be bought. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), another one of the richest members of Congress, owned between $865,004 and $1.8 million in stock in the company, while Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), yet another of the richest lawmakers, owned between $201,004 and $465,000 in stock. Seven lawmakers, led by Kerry, owned stock in both Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. The weekend's headlines also laid bare the state of investment bank Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy Monday after the federal government refused to bail it out and the company was unable to find a buyer. Eight lawmakers owned stock in Lehman Brothers at the end of 2007, valued at between $102,170 and $184,160. Rep. Jane Harman's stock in the company was worth the most at between $5,001 and $100,000. Harman, a California Democrat, was the wealthiest member of Congress in 2006.Of all of the companies facing major transitions, lawmakers owned the most stock in American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurer, which has asked the Federal Reserve for emergency funding as it faces financial hardships. Twenty-seven lawmakers owned stock in AIG last year, worth between $6.4 million and $20 million. Hayes was at the top of the list of congressional investors, owning stock worth between $2.8 million and $11.5 million, while Kerry followed with stock valued around $2 million. The 2007 reports are the most recent available for Congress, and they represent snapshots of members' finances at the end of that year. Lawmakers may have sold off these investments in the last eight months, as the outlook for companies darkened. In addition, CRP does not yet have the personal financial disclosure data for about 50 lawmakers who received extensions on the annual reports.Before the Fall, Companies Were Major ContributorsAs these companies struggle to stay afloat without bringing the economy crashing down around them, the government has said it won't bail them out, but will instead leave Wall Street to straighten out the mess. This is the sobering message that has been delivered to companies that are among the top contributors of all time to federal politics. Since the 1990 election, Merrill Lynch's PAC and employees have given $14.7 million to federal candidates, parties and committees. The company leans heavily Republican--64 percent of the brokerage's total donations have gone to GOP candidates and committees. All three of its top recipients have been (or still are) presidential hopefuls this election cycle. Republican John McCain received $394,300 from people associated with Merrill Lynch, making the company his top contributor. Democrat Hillary Clinton collected $290,650, and Barack Obama got $229,100. The company's favorite non-presidential candidate is Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of both the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. He has received $226,150 in this election cycle. Bank of America's PAC and employees have given $16.6 million, also favoring Republicans, though less sharply. About 54 percent of the company's contributions over time have gone to the GOP. Obama is the top recipient of contributions from employees at Bank of America, with $263,500 in donations. McCain has brought in $177,500, making him the fourth-largest recipient. Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate banking committee, has collected $144,650, while congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer (both Democrats) and John Boehner (a Republican) are all among the company's top 20 recipients over time. Lehman Brothers has given $9.2 million through employees and its PAC since 1989, with 54 percent of that going to Democrats. Clinton and Barack Obama top the list of all-time recipients for the company, collecting $410,000 and $395,600 respectively. Schumer hauled in $181,450, while Dodd has collected $165,800. The top recipient of PAC money from Lehman Brothers has been Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over banking and the securities industry. Castle has collected $38,500 from Lehman's PAC since 1993.This election cycle, Lehman employees have given about $1.3 million to presidential candidates. Only fellow financial giants Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley have given more to the presidential hopefuls this election cycle. Lehman employees have made their firm one of the top contributors to both Obama ($370,500) and John McCain ($117,500) this election cycle. (For a full list of recipients of Lehman contributions, see this post from Friday.)Of all the companies making headlines this week, AIG has been the most nonpartisan in its contributions, splitting evenly the $9.7 million it has contributed over time. Dodd has racked up the most from AIG, with a total of $281,400, while Schumer takes second with $116,400. McCain and Obama collected $103,000 and $82,600 from AIG, respectively.
*****************************************************
The point is not to say - oh look, Obama took it but McCain took a few thousand more ... rather, Obama has made anti-lobbyists the center of his campaign along with anything else remotely connected to change.
Lobbyists
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Obamessiah on Iraq
ST. LOUIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Saturday his plan to end the Iraq war was unchanged and he was puzzled by the sharp reaction to his statement this week that he might "refine" his timetable for ithdrawing U.S. combat troops.
"For me to say that I'm going to refine my policies I don't think in any way is inconsistent with prior statements and doesn't change my strategic view that this war has to end and that I'm going to end it as president," Obama told reporters on his campaign plane.
Obama, who based his drive to capture the Democratic nomination on his early and ardent opposition to the war, said earlier this week he might alter his plan to bring combat troops home within 16 months of taking office if conditions on the ground changed.
The comment drew heavy coverage and sharp criticism from some on the left and the right, with Republicans saying it showed he was vacillating on Iraq.
"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off with what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said on a flight from Montana to St. Louis. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war. I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war."
Reuters, July 6, 2008
************************************
Obamessiah Fanatics: He argued throughout the primary that He would end the war and bring the troops home NOW. Hillary argued that she may have to leave troops in Iraq for some time, but she would bring most home, soon. Obamessiah attacked her for not pledging to end the war. So which is it lunatics? Is He ending it or back pedaling and lying to you? The Republicans say one thing you claim, Hillary says one thing you argued, and always did another. What is He doing?
Senator: You are puzzled by the furor? Then you really need to spend another 10 years in Congress and grow up. Read the above Senator. Did you or did you not attack Hillary over and over again during the primary on Iraq? Did you or did you not attack her on grounds that she would not pledge to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home? You did Senator. You wanted every soldier out of Iraq and were not about to listen to any excuse, and you attacked Bush and McCain over their excuses to keep troops in Iraq. The tapes exist Senator, and you will soon see and hear the tapes, again and again. Do you routinely make promises and break them before you even get a chance to vote on something?
Perhaps Senator you are so unsure of yourself, unable to articulate policy without a teleprompter, unable to develop a coherent policy - perhaps senator, you are simply in over your head and you are making up policy at every campaign stop regardless if it contradicts earlier statements. After all, earlier statements were to the party faithful in primaries and you have that all sewn up, they can't go anywhere - now you abandon them and move to the center (for the election only). You know you are not moderate. You are not interested in foreign issues other than to jawbone everyone to death.
Iraq is far more complicated than you presented during the primaries, but back then you were as dumb on that subject as you are on foreign policy today, yet you have somehow seen the light and realize the Bush plan has worked and is working. Now you change your position and Senator it is a change. You can pretend it isn't. You can be amazed that anyone thinks differently, but that is because those who are questioning you, actually can think.
Obama
Feckless policies
Iraq
Friday, May 30, 2008
John Kerry and Scott McClellan
Kerry: On September 11, we were at peace
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 "we were basically at peace."
Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, "well, we hadn't declared war," The Hill's Sam Youngman reports.
Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, "well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time."
Kerry also called John McCain "out of step with history and facts."
*************************************************
Maybe he was at peace. maybe he was thinking of his own life - at peace with Theresa. At peace - perhaps he had reconciled himself to the fact he would run in 2004 and was at peace with that decision. But as for the US at peace - what a clumsy, foolish, moronic, idiot.
1993 - attack on the World Trade Center
1994-1998 - Attacks on US embassy's and government personnel from Saudi Arabia to Africa to Pakistan and Afghanistan where bin Laden went in to hiding. Bin Laden declared war on the US long before 2001 and he made it public, and said it many times.
The USS Cole.
By 2001, the United States had been under attack for years by bin Laden and his band of evil doers.
Kerry was so clueless, and remains clueless.
Fool.
Dangerous fool.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
DNC Uses McClellan to Attack McCain
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is asking "Where was John McCain" while the White House was spreading war propaganda, as former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has alleged.
A new DNC web ad shows McClellan accusing the White House of spreading propaganda leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, then shows McCain speaking in 2002 in support of the invasion.
*********************************************
What is curious about this is - when Scott McClellan was the spokesman, no one believed him anyway. In fact, he was the least sought after person in the White House - NO ONE BELIEVED A WORD HE SAID ... now suddenly the Democrats believe every word he has 'written'.
Interesting.
.