Conference back40::soapbox

 yawn.

Other than forcing the PRM to send a Republican to occupy another seat 
in the Senate (a good thing in and of itself), I fail to see any fundamental 
differences between the potential occupants of that seat.

    
    
    >Other than forcing the PRM to send a Republican to occupy another seat
    >in the Senate (a good thing in and of itself).
    
    Not likely
    

    As I'd said in News Briefs or wherever, I'd much prefer seeing a
    real Republican in there rather than one who calls himself a
    Republican only because it's a faster track for him in Massachusetts.
    
    Jack's right, these guys are virtually indistinguishable from one
    another in a dark room.  The only voting choice involved here is
    whether we like an orange-haired liberal or a salt-and-pepper-haired
    liberal.
    
    Weld has proven himself to be not only a Democrat in Republican's
    clothing, but he will gleefully abandon his elected job at a moment's
    notice for months on end if he gets bored or finds something more
    exciting to do, like jetting out to California to play kissyface
    with Pete Wilson.  There were several months where it was easier
    to find Elvis in Massachusetts than Bill Weld.
    
    His ambitions are obvious, and he doesn't care who he dumps on
    during his presidential ascent.  He's hoping we'll forget what
    he's done (or not done, as the case may be), and so far it looks
    like that's a safe bet for him.
    
    Chris

    By the way, was it Weld or Weld's wife (or neither, I'm just asking)
    that contributed money to the Clinton Defense Fund?
    
    Chris

    
    
    
    >    Republican only because it's a faster track for him in
    	 Massachusetts.
    
    
    I've been away from Mass too long. When did Republican become a 
    fast track there?
    
    and I voted republican every year I was there.
    
    

    Perhaps "fast track" is the wrong term...
    
    What I meant was, the Republican field in Mass. is far less
    crowded than the Democratic field.  If someone of Weld's moderate
    talents had entered Mass. politics as a Democrat, he'd still be
    someone's Assistant Gopher at the State House.  But as a Republican,
    he shot through the relatively-weak Mass. Republican field to the
    top in a much quicker time.
    
    Chris

Weld: I dislike him less than Kerry.

re: .5, Chris

It was his wife. Bill was on Howie's program the other night and Howie
asked him about that. He said his wife gave the Clinton defense fund
$200 becasue she knows the Clintons and felt sorry for them. He was not
pleased - he claimed. He also said it was "her money".

    i'm so thrilled i can barely contain myself.
    

>                   -< maybe i should start in on cars again >-

Nah - just start telling us about some of those thrilling Canadian political
rivalries, Chris.

    
    	RE .4 - Chris (and others)
    
>    Jack's right, these guys are virtually indistinguishable from one
>    another in a dark room.  The only voting choice involved here is
>    whether we like an orange-haired liberal or a salt-and-pepper-haired
>    liberal.
    
    On social policy I agree. However in other areas they are quite
    different. For example if Weld was in the Senate this year the
    Balanced Budget ammendment would have passed. Also Weld supports
    the Republican plan to balance the budget, including admiting to
    support the Medicare changes. Kerry on the other hand seems to
    talk the typical Democratic line of supporting a balanced budget
    but opposing any real attempt to do so.
    
    I suspect Kerry will win because the press will start hitting Weld
    hard on everything. Already they are calling for him to step
    down as Governer to run for the Senate....funny I don't recall
    hearing the press call for the Duke to step down, and he was
    running for president.
    
    					Ed
    
    

    let's hope someone else throws their hat into to ring.....
    

    
      The Globe has a new poll out today - dead heat 44-44, with 12
     undecided.  There is no chance for any third candidate from
     either party or independent.  This will not be a pushover for
     either Kerry or Weld, and big bucks will be spent.  There is
     strong evidence to suggest that it will NOT be a negative campaign
     by either of them, in what otherwise will be a very dirty election.
    
      Also, in Massachusetts, Clinton is a shoo-in, no matter who runs
     against him, in any scenario.  He gets these electoral votes.
    
      bb
                                                                         

    Looks like Kerry may soon be playing ketchup.

	Out of the two of them, I'm one of the undecided. They both have
qualities I really like. 

	The only thing that might sway me a bit more to Kerry's way is that
Weld said if he were elected Governer, he would stay for the full 4 year term.
This will not be the case, if he wins that is.


Glen

    Kerry's record, if properly ventilated, will doom him. This one should
    be fun to watch.

>    Looks like Kerry may soon be playing ketchup.


  and I'm sure he doesn't relish the thought.

    
    
    The real question is will he pass mustard with the voters.....

    <- I know the answer, but I won't reveal my sauces.
    

    
    	Will you re-sauce your veal instead?
    
    	Hellmann, do tell!!
    

    No way.  Never was one for raising cain.

    
    	ooh, a Krafty reply!
    

    
      So far, this is a sleeper.  Some may have noticed that a few
     weeks back, they caught a Mass. state worker on government
     payroll, working on the Weld Senate campaign, a no-no.  Weld
     admitted it happened, and said it was a mistake he didn't know
     about.
    
      Yesterday, the same thing happened to Kerry !  Only it was a
     federal worker.  Kerry, too, admitted it, and said it was without
     his knowledge.  Chagrined, both candidates have vowed to try to
     comply with the election laws in the future.
    
      bb

    
    Intersting story in today's Globe. While Weld gave $24K of his $110K
    salary to charity, Kerry gave $0 of his $126K.
    
    Of course the Globe did not cover this as a new analysis story. Instead
    their (only?) conservative op-ed writer, Jeff Jacoby, wrote the piece.
    I be if the roles were reversed, it would have been page 1.
    
    I wonder if any other news organization picks up on this.
    
    					Ed
    
    
    

    No doubt the Kerry forces will claim that he actually gave $100K of his
    $126K to charity, but didn't take the tax deduction...

who really cares what Weld gave and what Kerry didn't?

i'm having a hard time finding the relevance.

    
>    Interesting story in today's Globe. While Weld gave $24K of his $110K
>    salary to charity, Kerry gave $0 of his $126K.
>    
>    Of course the Globe did not cover this as a new analysis story. Instead
>    their (only?) conservative op-ed writer, Jeff Jacoby, wrote the piece.
>    I be if the roles were reversed, it would have been page 1.

    A little too simple for my taste.  How much net worth do they have
    because I'd expect the guy with more bucks in the bank to be giving
    more each year.  Weld is rich while Kerry has a very low net worth for
    a US senator.   (BTW - I still find $0 given to charities appalling as
    I would expect less than Weld but much more than $0).
                  
    If you want to bring in Kerry's wife's wealth than I think to be
    consistent you need to bring in her donations also  (both huge from
    what I've read).

    Greg
                                  

>who really cares what Weld gave and what Kerry didn't?

>i'm having a hard time finding the relevance.
    
    It seems that the junior senator from MA is much more generous with
    taxpayers money than he is with his own, leading the casual observer to
    question whether he really believes his own rhetoric re: social causes.

without any personal knowledge of his behavior
or activities with charities (not that it's any
of my business anyway) it's a tough one to judge.

	Kerry has more money (of his own) than his salary. So I wonder why they
didn't mention if he gave money to charity at all? Or where Weld is in the same
boat, why they didn't list that stuff? Unless of course there was nothing to
report. :-)

According to today's Globe, Kerry's refusing to disclose his assets.
Six years ago, he made an issue of Rappaport's refusal to do this.
This certainly tarnishes Kerry's image in at least one voter's mind.

-1 were the conditions of disclosure the same
  with Rappaport as they are with Kerry?

OTOH, I'd be interested in the specifics of Weld's contributions.  How much
of that charity went to the poor and how much went to charities like Harvard
University and the Episcopal Church (yes, I know they help the poor to some
extent).

    I failed to mention in .25 that the information came from Kerry's
    federal tax return. While he did show deductions for state & local
    taxes, he claimed nothing for charitable contributions. The
    piece went on to say that this was not unusual for Kerry.
    In the past five years, despite his 125K+ salary, he's averaged
    giving something like $750/year to charity.

    Of course Kerry is one of the first to claim how heartless the
    Republicans are. If he cared so much for the poor one would think
    he could spare a few buck out of the $125K/year he makes.

    					Ed

>                    <<< Note 605.27 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>i'm having a hard time finding the relevance.

	Me too. 

    
    Well, just because someone doesn't deduct charitable contributions on
    their return doesn't mean they don't make them.
    

I remember Reagan had very low deductions for charitable contributions.
He claimed that he gave charity to private individuals.

| <<< Note 605.39 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| He claimed that he gave charity to private individuals.

	Those were tax breaks to corporations, right? :-)

    
    <-- No, Glen. He just gave the money to individual corporate officers
        in private.
    
        ;^)

    
    Re .35 - Gerald
    
    To quote from the Globe:
    
    	"They [the Welds] gave to the United Way and the Episcopal Church, to 
    	 Rosie's Place and Globe Santa, to Harvard College and Mt. Auburn 
    	 Hospital, to Catholic Charities and the Keene Valley Library, to 
    	 the Salvation Army and to the Special Olympics. All told,
         they contributed to nearly three dozen charitable institutions
    	 great and small"
    
    I realize this is not very specific, but it's clear he gave to almost three
    dozen more charities than Kerry.
    
    Also, since the piece ran last Thursday, there has been no rebuttal
    from Kerry. Some here have suggested that he may have chosen not to
    deduct his contributions. It appears that Kerry is unable to defend
    himself. 
    
    						Ed
    
    
           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 605.35               Kerry vs. Weld - a thrillah ?                 35 of 41
NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085"  4 lines  17-MAY-1996 11:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTOH, I'd be interested in the specifics of Weld's contributions.  How much
of that charity went to the poor and how much went to charities like Harvard
University and the Episcopal Church (yes, I know they help the poor to some
extent).

-1 defend himself from what, pray tell?

   lack of response or reaction indicates nothing. 

re .42:

Yes, I read that.  It doesn't say _how much_ he gave to each of those charities.
Did he gave $10 to Rosie's Place and $1000 to Harvard or vice versa?  If you're
going to argue about who's compassionate it makes a difference.

    Re .43

    Did you read the article in question? It was very negative towards
    Kerry. It essentially says that while he "talks the talk" concerning
    the poor, he fails to "walk the walk". The piece points out that
    Kerry claims to be compassionate towards others, and blasts Republicans 
    for their lack of compassion, yet his failure to give a dime to
    charity seems to contradict his words.

    Perhaps there was a reason for his failure to give money to charity.
    For example, maybe he gave much of his time instead. Maybe he had
    given huge amounts in the past. Maybe he had established a charitable
    trust. I was expecting a rebuttal from Kerry to explain why he 
    claimed $0 for charitable deductions.


    Do you believe that Kerry is a caring person?

    Do you believe that a politician would like to be considered 
    a compassionate person by others?

    Do you believe that one way to show compassion is to help others
    less fortunate than you?

    Do you see nothing wrong with someone making $125K, who claims
    to care for the less fortunate, to give $0 to help them?

    Kerry, despite making of $125K/year, seems to have done nothing
    in his personal life to help those who are less fortunate than
    he. You see nothing wrong with this?


    Re .42 - Gerald,


>If you're going to argue about who's compassionate it makes a difference.

    I agree. Just as it makes a difference that no matter what Weld gave,
    it was more than Kerry. 
    
    					Ed

i don't know if Kerry is a caring or not, but i'm
not going to base my opinion on charitable
contribution stories.

    
    	Unless you read it in AltaVista, and THEN it must be true.
    

    
      Second debate last night - I only saw parts.  Lively, but not
     frantic.  No knockouts.  Weld keeps coming, but Kerry is smooooth.
    
      bb

    Kerry's got the ability to not only give you an excuse for why he
    didn't get something accomplished that he promised would be his first
    priority in his campaign, but to make you feel bad for even asking.
    It's the hallmark of a career politician.

My wife and I picked Kerry as the winnah. Both of them were spouting
irrelevant junk most of the time. Kerry rolled out "the children", since he
has no dead brothers to fall back on. Weld harped on "death penalty for cop
killers" who are so much more evil than regular-person killers, or something.
He came off as a little too whiney last night.

It's really, really sad what passes for elected representatives...