Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You're thinking Cheney forgot that he used to work for Halliburton and that he continues to have an interest? And you're comparing that to the chances that Heinz Kerry manages her own portfolio and knows about investments that account for less than 1% of that portfolio?

Somehow, I think not.

Cheney/Halliburton is the new Hitler. Bring it into an on-line conversation and you lose.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think a bunch of what Cheney had was options and stuff in addition to actual stock. And he knew he had it because it was part of his no doubt hotly-contested compensation package.

But put into a blind trust.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Cheney/Halliburton is the new Hitler. Bring it into an on-line conversation and you lose.

I thought it was the new asterisk.


Perhaps someone could explain why sgtclub made the analogy. Did Cheney go out and criticize Halliburton's rapaciousness? 'Cause that's a speech I'd like to hear.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You're probably right. But there's a difference between being careless and actively hypocritical.

Agreed. Not that it's doing Rod Paige much good today.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm guessing you're probably correct, but I think that when someone with a huge portfolio goes on the active stump and calls out WalMart like she did, she should first check her holdings. If she is going to lay claim to the ethical investor contingent, she needs to take affirmative action to be one.

Maybe Kerry should just take the leap and get a new life partner. There's an undeniable hate-fuck attraction going on here, and it would add moral authority to his opposition to the amendment.



Photo courtesy of Wonkette (who else?).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I thought it was the new asterisk.


Perhaps someone could explain why sgtclub made the analogy. Did Cheney go out and criticize Halliburton's rapaciousness? 'Cause that's a speech I'd like to hear.

Argument: Teresa is not culpable because she doesn't control her investments (private manager)

Argument: Cheney is not culpable because he doesn't control his investments (blind trust)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A hypocrite is someone who professes a belief that is actually in conflict with what they do.

My point is 1) she has no "belief" in the first place about Walmart, and even thoses Demmy ladies in St. Louis know that, and 2) she didn't take any action with the stock- I'm sure she doesn't manage it.

So are you calling her a liar, then? Because if she stated it I have to presume she believes it, if not particularly strongly. She didn't preface it with a "My husband will fight for . . . " or something.

As for her portfolio, she needs to vet it. I don't care how many millions you have, and how many different stocks, if you're taking public positions (beyond cocktail party chatter), falling back on the "i didn't know I had that stock" isn't acceptable.

(ETA): IF it seems like the argument passed me by, well, sorry, but blame the fucker who called me while I was in the middle of the post.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe Kerry should just take the leap and get a new life partner. There's an undeniable hate-fuck attraction going on here, and it would add moral authority to his opposition to the amendment.



Photo courtesy of Wonkette (who else?).

Does it make him a homo if he does it just to get elected?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But put into a blind trust.

It's not blind if you put it there knowingly. It becomes blind only after its sold and used to purchase something else.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But put into a blind trust.

But forming a rather significant part of his fortune. I bet Teresa Heinz Kerry has a bunch of Heinz stock, and that even if all her money is in a blind trust, she could be pretty damn sure that in the last few years her Heinz position has not been liquidated.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe Kerry should just take the leap and get a new life partner. There's an undeniable hate-fuck attraction going on here, and it would add moral authority to his opposition to the amendment.



Photo courtesy of Wonkette (who else?).

I imagine he is assertively confirming that Edward's knows he (Kerry) served in VN.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Argument: Teresa is not culpable because she doesn't control her investments (private manager)

Argument: Cheney is not culpable because he doesn't control his investments (blind trust)

Distinction: Teresa can know the assets she holds; Cheney cannot.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's not blind if you put it there knowingly. It becomes blind only after its sold and used to purchase something else.

It's blind in that he has no investment control.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't care how many millions you have, and how many different stocks, if you're taking public positions (beyond cocktail party chatter), falling back on the "i didn't know I had that stock" isn't acceptable.

I'm not so sure. Occasionally even judges find themselves making the "I didn't know I had that stock/LP/REIT etc." mea culpa. I think the problem here --- obviously different from that of a judge --- is that average Dem base voters can't really sympathize with someone not knowing what's in their portfolios, and it makes the family seem even more removed from the travails of working class life.

Of course, anyone who thinks this means GWB knows more about the average American's daily experience is a waste of carbon. The Senate and the Texas governor's mansion/WH are both millionaire's clubs; one just has smaller enrollment.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Argument: Teresa is not culpable because she doesn't control her investments (private manager)

Argument: Cheney is not culpable because he doesn't control his investments (blind trust)

Oversimplification can be a fabulous rhetorical tool, can't it? Gotta love it.

Differences:
Knowledge of investment at time of acquisiton.
Ties to company.
Size of investment in comparison to overall net worth.

Also, Cheney is accused of favoring Halliburton which he may be doing for reasons other than increasing the price of the stock he owns, like, oh, making it up to Halliburton that he fucked shit up when he was heading Halliburton. Keeping his friends fat and happy. Etc. Fed payments to Halliburton have I believe septupled since Bush took office. Halliburton is a good company overall and I believe very, very good at most of the things they do. But it does look like they are getting favored quite a bit.