Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady for the Radical Left

[abu afak]

Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady for the Radical Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 13, 2004

"...Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 Billion over the years. The Tides Foundation, a “charity” established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes. The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left. These funds went to rabid antiwar demonstrators, anti-trade demonstrators, domestic Islamist organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open borders advocates..."

"...Tides Foundation is a major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the Left. Tides allows donors to anonymously contribute money to a host of causes; the donor simply makes the check out to Tides and instructs the Foundation where to forward the money. Tides does so, for a nominal fee. Drummond Pike told The Chronicle of Philanthropy, “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.” That becomes understandable when one views the list of Tides grant recipients. And who are the beneficiaries of this money?

The Antiwar Movement

"The grant recipients of the Tides Foundation, to which Kerry’s wife has steered more than $4 billion in “charitable” funds, understand no such nuance.

Tides established the Iraq Peace Fund and the Peace Strategies Fund to fund the antiwar movement. These projects fueled such hysterical protest organizations as MoveOn.org, the website that recently featured two separate commercials portraying George W. Bush as Adolf Hitler. (Howard Dean, not Kerry, won MoveOn.org’s “virtual primary.”)

The antiwar movement often boasted that MoveOn.org and the radical website Indymedia provided them “alternate media coverage.” Indymedia, an enormous news and events bulletin board with local pages in most of the world’s major cities, provided a vital link for radical activists often with violent agendas to coordinate their protests. Indymedia received $376,000 from the Tides Foundation.

The Institute for Global Communications is another leftist communications facilitator that received Tides grant money. IGC, which during the 1990s was the leading provider of web technology to the radical Left, links to “recommended sites” such as the War Resisters League (a group whose purpose is enabling peaceniks to refuse to pay taxes) and the leftist American Friends Service Committee. Most disturbing is the link to Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, which has supported Slobodan Milosevic and North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Il. The IAC is the force behind International ANSWER, which sponsored the major antiwar (and anti-Bush) rallies before the invasion of Iraq. When ANSWER was outed as a Communist organization, United for Peace and Justice, headed by longtime Communist Party member Leslie Cagan was created as a "moderate" alternative. UFPJ is also a Tides grant recipient.The Tides-funded “A Better Way Project,” which opposed war in Iraq, also coordinated efforts of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War Coalition. The celebrity-laden Win Without War Coalition, along with the Bill Moyers-funded Florence and John Schumann Foundation, ran full-page ads in the New York Times opposing the War on Terrorism. This will not be the last overlapping of far-Left causes.

The Islamist Front

Immediately after 9/11, Tides formed a “9/11 Fund” to advocate a “peaceful national response” to the opening salvos of war. Part of the half-million dollars in grants the 9/11 Fund dispersed went to the New York Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project to protect the rights of homosexual Arabs. The Foundation replaced the 9/11 Fund with the “Democratic Justice Fund,” which was established with the aid of George Soros’ Open Society Institute. (Currency speculator and pro-drug advocate Soros is, like Teresa Heinz Kerry, a major contributor to Tides, having donated more than $7 million.) The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration to the United States, particularly from countries designated by the State Department as “terrorist nations.”

Tides has also given grant money to the Council for American Islamic Relations. Ostensibly a “Muslim civil rights group,” CAIR is in fact one of the leading anti-anti-terrorism organizations within the Wahhabi Lobby, with links to Hamas. CAIR regularly opposes and demonizes American efforts to fight terrorism, claiming, for instance, that Homeland Security measures are responsible for an undocumented surge in “hate crimes.”

CAIR officials have reason to fight Bush’s anti-terrorism measures: all too many CAIR officials are on the record supporting terrorism. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad openly stated in 1994, “I am a supporter of the Hamas movement.” Community Affairs Director Bassem K. Khafagi has been arrested for visa and bank fraud. Randall Royer, a Communications Specialist and Civil Rights Coordinator at CAIR, was arrested along with a group of Islamic radicals in Virginia for allegedly planning jihad. CAIR has defended terrorist “charities” shut down by the Bush administration. Every few months some CAIR campus official is arrested for aiding and abetting terrorism.

The Legal Matrix

The Tides Foundation has funded a number of the pillars of the radical legal establishment. Chief among these is the National Lawyers Guild, which began as a Commnist front organization and is proud of its lineage. At its recent convention last October, the concluding speaker was Lynne Stewart, an indicted terrorist NLG lawyer arrested for helping her client – convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman – communicate with his terrorist cells in Egypt. In her speech, Stewart said she and her NLG comrades were carrying on a proud tradition of their forebears, past and present:

And modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara who reminds us, “At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.” Our quests like theirs are to shake the very foundations of the continents.

More recently, the NLG has endorsed the March 20 call to End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine & Everywhere” organized by International ANSWER, and has posted a petition for “Post-Conviction Relief” for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal..."


"...Tides also funds the Alliance for Justice, a group dedicated to stopping Bush judicial appointees (a cause John Kerry can agree wholeheartedly endorse). Other Tides grants have gone to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and the Asian Law Caucus.


"....Moreover, they will have a close ally in the East Wing of the White House, an ally more intimately tied to them than she is to her (second) husband. (She only adopted his last name and political party registration less than 18 months ago. “Politically, it's going to be Heinz Kerry,” she recently said. “But I don't give a sh-t, you know?”) Teresa Heinz Kerry will play a potent role in saving her second husband’s presidential campaign now – as Hillary Clinton did in 1992, and again during her husband’s impeachment. Like Hillary, in return for her service, Heinz may demand a place at the table for her pet causes. Caveat emptor.

Full article at: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12187

[abu afak]

Teh-RAY-zah

Howard Dean in a dress
Michelle Malkin

January 28, 2004


It's only a matter of time before we witness another Howard Dean Moment in the Democratic presidential race -- but not, I predict, from any of the Democratic presidential candidates. Skulking in the campaign background is a ticking time bombette with a volatile temper and acid tongue who makes Dean look like Mr. Rogers on Prozac.

She's the wife of front-runner Sen. John Kerry, Teresa Heinz. Formerly known as Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira, the hot-headed widow of the late Pennsylvania GOP Sen. John Heinz is self-aggrandizingly known among her wealthy liberal friends and fellow environmental radicals as "Saint Teresa" (and that's pronounced Teh-RAY-zah, you ninny!).

Though she has been married to Sen. Kerry since 1995 -- "I would have bashed him over the head" if he hadn't proposed, she, uh, joked -- she only recently and reluctantly allowed herself to be known as "Teresa Heinz Kerry" in hubby's political brochures and during campaign events and press interviews. "They'll call me Mrs. Kerry, because that's what's natural to them," she complained to Elle magazine last summer. "I don't tell them to shut up. . . . I don't give a
S_ _T , you know."

Okay then. We'll just call her Howard Dean in haute couture.

Boston Magazine reports that she once snapped on Halloween, yelling at three children who had rung her doorbell on Beacon Hill: "I had a big barrel of candy, and it's all gone!" she ranted, shutting the door on the bewildered youngsters. Yeeearghh! She has reportedly chewed out members of her late husband's campaign staff, her current husband's campaign staff, her children, her stepchildren, waiters and sales clerks.

Sympathetic media profilers attribute this anger to the tragic losses she has suffered in her life; several family members died of disease or accidents. A more honest explanation for why she acts up and lashes out at the little people as often as she does is that she has felt entitled to do so all her life. The daughter of a prosperous Portuguese doctor based in Mozambique, she married into the Heinz ketchup fortune and has lived in a privileged, fawning echo chamber ever since.

Heinz/Heinz Kerry/Her Highness/The Big She first burst publicly onto the political scene during the 1994 Senate race in Pennsylvania to fill her husband's seat after he died in a tragic plane crash. The "moderate" Republican Heinz objected to GOP candidate Rick Santorum's social and fiscal conservatism, branding him a "Forrest Gump with attitude" who offers us "leadership by aphorism." Fumed Teh-RAY-zah: "We all know these types -- critical of everything, impossible to please. . . . They occasionally may mean well, but the effect of even their good intentions is to destroy."

Who knew she'd end up marrying exactly one of those types? Sen. John Kerry fits Heinz's description to a T. Only he's Forrest Gump without the charm. Watch him on the campaign trail as he stares into a TV camera, blandly reciting his sappy aphorisms: "We need to offer answers, not just anger. We need to offer solutions, not just slogans." Right. Not just slogans.

No wonder the missus is so frosted. Her comfy life has been disrupted by the electoral ambitions of an insufficiently attentive spouse who is not only dull, but also annoyingly duplicitous. He supported the war. He doesn't. He supports the death penalty. He doesn't, sort of. He wants to end the double taxation of dividends. It's an evil tax break for the rich. He loves teachers' unions. He loves them not. Unable to bear his lies, Heinz/Heinz Kerry had a famous fit during a Washington Post interview in 2002 when Kerry denied having Vietnam War flashbacks. Mimicking her husband screaming in panic, she told reporter Mark Leibovich: "I haven't gotten slapped yet," she says. "But there were times when I thought I might get throttled."

With the help of media-savvy "handlers," Heinz/Heinz Kerry has toned down the rage -- at least temporarily. She doesn't sulk so much at campaign events and hasn't mocked her husband openly in a while. But it's clear she finds her husband's campaign an exasperating drain on her energies. Which, of course, begs the question: If his own uninspired wife can barely muster up a public showing of respect for candidate Kerry, why should voters?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20040128.shtml

[I am David]

Why does the right have to stoop so low as to go after the wife of a democratic candidate, for her outspoken personality? What is the point of such an article? The Conservatives complain how the Democrats complain about Haliburton, and AWOL, all the while they themselves whine over things like Teresa's personality and Kerry hanging out with Jane Fonda :rolleyes:

Give me a break.

[abu afak]

Stoop? .. Not at all.. and it can't be dismissed as such.

The second article is personality oriented, but she is now fair game as the potential First Lady, especially if she is Wacko.

The First article presents interesting/Shocking and important facts about her causes and her politics....
which remain unaddressed.

[I am David]

It is stooping. They are attacking Teresa like she is Kerry herself, as if SHE is the one who's running for president, as if its her policies that would govern the country. They are smearing her because she says a curse word in an interview, because shes not afraid to be outspoken. What exactly is the point? How does all this de-ligitamize Kerry's candidacy? Because Teresa funds liberals and has an outspoken personality, we are supposed to..., Well, what ARE we supposed to do/think because of this information?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by I am David
It is stooping. They are attacking Teresa like she is Kerry herself, as if SHE is the one who's running for president, as if its her policies that would govern the country. They are smearing her because she says a curse word in an interview, because shes not afraid to be outspoken. What exactly is the point? How does all this de-ligitamize Kerry's candidacy? Because Teresa funds liberals and has an outspoken personality, we are supposed to..., Well, what ARE we supposed to do/think because of this information?

Her Personality is fair game especially if she's Dogamtic or crazy.

Her [apparently extreme] Politics and Causes are Definitely Fair game; Especially where compatible with her husbands, and certainly in light of the fact she is a very Politically oriented woman who's first husband was also a senator

[I am David]

Fair game? Fair game for what? What exactly does bellitling her personality and showing her charities do against Kerry? Am I expected to change my opinion about Kerry because his wife is outspoken and supports liberal causes? It's just pointless.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by I am David
Fair game? Fair game for what? What exactly does bellitling her personality and showing her charities do against Kerry? Am I expected to change my opinion about Kerry because his wife is outspoken and supports liberal causes? It's just pointless.
Charities?

International ANSWER? CAIR? Indymedia? Moveon.org?

This isn't just giving money to the Red Cross or Cancer Research.

These are POLITICAL Organizations. RADICAL political organizations... not innocuos 'Charities'.

And it certainly ISN'T pointless to know.

[I am David]

Wether they are charities or hard left organizations wasnt the point. I think I stated enough that it bares little relevance to John Kerry as a presidential candidate. THAT is the point.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by I am David
Wether they are charities or hard left organizations wasnt the point. I think I stated enough that it bares little relevance to John Kerry as a presidential candidate. THAT is the point.

EVEN In and Of Itself it would be Plenty Relevant..
Even forgetting the Fact she is now married to John Kerry which makes it more so.
Who and what [Radical] POLITICAL Charities this Prominent and Newsworthy woman is giving her Fortune to would have been enough by itself.

As it now stands now, that she is ALSO The wife of the leading Presidential candidate and potential First Lady.
Which makes It Intensely Relevant.

I suggest it is your partisanship that has you in complete denial of this.

[I am David]

I suggest it is your partisanship that has you in complete denial of this.

Please don't start with that. I am loyal to neither party, I disagree with whatever I think is wrong, reguardless of party affiliation.

I am not in denial of anything. My only point is, how important exactly is it that Teresa donates to this stuff? Kerry aludes all the time to how independant his wife is. Why should anyone assume that his wifes funding for the radical left is somehow rellevant to Kerry's candidacy as a president? You say its rellevant, ok? But relevant to what. Mabye to someone who was seeking right wing funding from Teresa might want to know, so he doesnt waste his time, but not someone interested in what JOHN kerry can do for the country.

[abu afak]

In case you missed it...

This string is about HER.

I didn't put it under the "John F Kerry" String.

However, I ALSO quite relevant and important that she is a potential First Lady.
They met at a Political affair for environmentalists.

And for openers.. and even this early...
SHE may have Engineered the ouster in November of His Campaign Manager; a good Political move, which may have led him this far.

Unlike you, who are clearly more politically bent than you like to admit (and pooh-pooh tho you may), I think most on the board would like to know/would be shocked that the potential First Lady Gave/Gives money to CAIR, or International ANSWER, or Indymedia.
To say the least.

[I am David]

Unlike you, who are clearly more politically bent than you like to admit (and pooh-pooh tho you may)

Your mistake, your loss then, if you want to believe this. If you cannot understand that some people just dont like pointless smear propoganda (as this is what it is, ammunition against Kerry), then you need to seriously rethink your understanding of politics. Some people always stick with the left, others with the right. Yet there are some who simply chose no sides, form no biases, and do the smartest thing, and that is to not care what party you are from, and just go with the best candidate. That's me and thats why I can protest against this kind of propoganda and still not be "politically bent" as you suggest.

Now on to the topic, its great to know that this what Teresa has done, just for the information. But considering where this was posted "US elections and politics", I think its purpose is not just your average interesting before-bed read. I think its political ammunition meant to put John Kerry in a bad light.

Again I ask you, what SIGNIFICANT relevancy does this issue have on Kerry's candidacy as a president? And a logical answer for that is not simply "She may be first lady" etc, without any further explanation.

PS. I hope I dont sound rude in my above passage, but I am really sick and tired of always being labeled "politicall bent" or "a lefty" or other such assumptions, just because I dont like the Bush administration or how this kind of propoganda is passed around. So id just ask that people would open their minds and simply not think that "dislike Bush == left wing liberal who doesnt think for himself" if you know what I mean.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by I am David
Your mistake, your loss then, if you want to believe this. If you cannot understand that some people just dont like pointless smear propoganda (as this is what it is, ammunition against Kerry), then you need to seriously rethink your understanding of politics. Some people always stick with the left, others with the right. Yet there are some who simply chose no sides, form no biases, and do the smartest thing, and that is to not care what party you are from, and just go with the best candidate. That's me and thats why I can protest against this kind of propoganda and still not be "politically bent" as you suggest.

..Now on to the topic, its great to know that this what Teresa has done, just for the information. But considering where this was posted "US elections and politics", I think its purpose is not just your average interesting before-bed read. I think its political ammunition meant to put John Kerry in a bad light.

Again I ask you, what SIGNIFICANT relevancy does this issue have on Kerry's candidacy as a president? And a logical answer for that is not simply "She may be first lady" etc, without any further explanation....[/B]

1. This is the Only Section of the board these articles would be proper under.
AGAIN: I posted it in HER name.. NOT his.. Not under the 'John F Kerry' String.

2. Before I said word One about my own articles, YOU made it an election issue..
Not that it Isn't.

To pretend a First Lady, especially one of this strength of Opinion (and Power/Money to back it up) doesn't have any influence on the Potential President is Naive at best, and more likely Idiotic (sorry to be Rude as well but lets face it!)
She could also use her new power to push these ideas and Causes yet further.

3. The only reason it's "ammunition" is these are pretty Dramatic Disclosures, certainly Newsworthy.. Certainly Postworthy.

CAIR? Indymedia? Virulent Opponents of Israel.
This is ISRAEL FORUM.

I hope people are aware of this when they vote and take into consideration the Radical bias of the Candidate's wife and the influence she might have.

Although I agree with Bush's foreign Policy, I consider his handling of the economy Tragic/Dreadful.
I am an Independent as well, if probably more conservative than you, tho a Social Liberal, but I won't hide this info and consider it much more than Propaganda.. it was startling.

[I am David]

I never heard of anyone making their decision for candidate based on their wifes history. Although I do think its a ligitimate argument, I dont think its a very powerfull one, and not to the degree that someone should base their decision of Kerry on. Therefore its not an issue of if First lady has any influence (and Abu, I never went so far as to suggest your ideas are idiotic :rolleyes: ) But rather an issue of how much effect that will actually have on Kerry's presidency. Do you really think that when Teresa becomes First Lady, shes going to use her influence to make Kerry fund hard left, anti-Israel orginizations? That's what the question really comes down to.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by I am David
I never heard of anyone making their decision for candidate based on their wifes history. Although I do think its a ligitimate argument, I dont think its a very powerfull one, and not to the degree that someone should base their decision of Kerry on. Therefore its not an issue of if First lady has any influence (and Abu, I never went so far as to suggest your ideas are idiotic :rolleyes: ) But rather an issue of how much effect that will actually have on Kerry's presidency. Do you really think that when Teresa becomes First Lady, shes going to use her influence to make Kerry fund hard left, anti-Israel orginizations? That's what the question really comes down to.

Well, now it's gone from pure and irrelevant Smear/Propaganda to "Legitimate argument, if not strong".
Progress.
NYpost.com
"...One close friend said Teresa, 65, engineered the ouster of Kerry's former campaign manager Jim Jordan, who was booted in November after she and Jordan squared off in heated phone calls.

Others say her influence helped Kerry come from behind to defeat former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld in their Senate battle in 1996 - and made the difference in Kerry's New Hampshire primary win after she stuck by his side throughout the campaign...."
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/17020.htm
Good move that November Firing.. and not a small thing looking back even after this short time.

Kerry met his wife at the "Earth Summit" in Rio, another common cause.
(Yet Another Kerry interest is apparently wives with 9 Digit Net worths.. as his first also had.. unless you believe in remarkable coincidences)

[I am David]

Well, now it's gone from pure and irrelevant Smear/Propaganda to "Legitimate argument, if not strong". Progress.

The article on her personality was smear and propoganda, though the ARGUMENT that she may use her influence on Kerry to support the radical left is legitamit, but weak . In addition, I'd say its propoganda to go around shouting about a ligitimate, but weak and irrellevant argument as if it actually meant something. Perhaps I missused the word "ligitimate", I meant only to say that that argument, is in fact a real argument, as opposed to the nothing that the article on her personality is. However, I'd say it isnt something that should be used against Kerry.

And her influence on the campaign manager firing is irrellevant. If in fact that was a logical, clear choice (as it seems to be now), Kerry would go along with it purely on that basis. Also those commments about kerry (IE being a gold digger) is the kind of propoganda that is really is tiring and nothing but smear and mud slinging.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by I am David
The article on her personality was smear and propoganda, though the ARGUMENT that she may use her influence on Kerry to support the radical left is legitamit, but weak . In addition, I'd say its propoganda to go around shouting about a ligitimate, but weak and irrellevant argument as if it actually meant something. Perhaps I missused the word "ligitimate", I meant only to say that that argument, is in fact a real argument, as opposed to the nothing that the article on her personality is. However, I'd say it isnt something that should be used against Kerry.

And her influence on the campaign manager firing is irrellevant. If in fact that was a logical, clear choice (as it seems to be now), Kerry would go along with it purely on that basis. Also those commments about kerry (IE being a gold digger) is the kind of propoganda that is really is tiring and nothing but smear and mud slinging.

The article on her Personality was true.. call it what you will. there are others as well, not just from recent Political Pundits, but from the Society columns as well.
The First article was informational.. your judgement "weak" is ... your judgement. I'd say Strong.

None addresses my point that this is appropriate here in the First place and it's HIGH degree of Relevance to this board DESPITE your intiial dismissal (but subsequent partial retracement):
Originally posted by abu afak

3. The only reason it's "ammunition" is these are pretty Dramatic Disclosures, certainly Newsworthy.. Certainly Postworthy.

CAIR? Indymedia? Virulent Opponents of Israel.
This is ISRAEL FORUM.

"Her influence on the campaign manager was irrelevant"
Really? and what hat did you pull that conclusion from?

Were you a party to it... and have some contradictory/New info DESPITE what we know from the Post story? "If it was Clear and Logical" accorrding to who? .. HER it seems, not your 'Immaculate conclusion'.

As to the 'Gold-Digger Propaganda'.. draw your own conclusion.. Off hand, I can't think of another single example of a man doing so twice. You?

[I am David]

Really? and what hat did you pull that conclusion from?

Well if you included the entire paragraph I wrote, you would have seen "what hat" I pulled that conclusion from :rolleyes:

As to the 'Gold-Digger Propaganda'.. draw your own conclusion.. Off hand, I can't think of another single example of a man doing so twice. You?

Your just obsessing. I'm not arguing that it doesnt look like he's a gold digger, but calling him that is just smear propoganda. You will never be able to prove that hes a gold digger, and calling him so is just a cheap shot, especially in a place like this where we expect real solid logical arguments, with solid factual backing.

The article on her Personality was true.. call it what you will. there are others as well, not just from recent Political Pundits, but from the Society columns as well. The First article was informational.. your judgement "weak" is ... your judgement. I'd say Strong.

True? I never said contrary to that. But I'm still waiting for your explanation on how having an outspoken personality is somehow rellevant to John Kerry's candidacy for president. You call it a "strong" argument, I call it a weak one. However, it is up to you to prove that it is a strong argument. I never heard of a first ladys donations being any kind of deciding factor in ones choice for president. But you can believe that,...if you want.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by I am David
[B]Well if you included the entire paragraph I wrote, you would have seen "what hat" I pulled that conclusion from...

I did include it's main phrase (Which you conveniently Ignored in your response)
"If it was Clear and Logical"

Which you don't know and DID "pull from a hat", indeed contradicted the evidence I presented, and presented None of your own.

I didn't say Merely having an "outspoken personality" was an effect on Kerry.

I have shown the Radical Causes she gives to, and that Even without the Obvious influence a First Lady can have on a President, she would be in a Position to further these causes even more strongly.

AND.. That these posts are quite relevant to this Board on their own, regardless of any influence or not.

[I am David]

So if Kerrys wife brings up a good point about his campaign manager, and Kerry agrees, deciding on his own it is a good idea as well, thats proof that Teresa will manipulate Kerry in Office to fund radical left orginizations O_o? Aha.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by I am David
So if Kerrys wife brings up a good point about his campaign manager, and Kerry agrees, deciding on his own it is a good idea as well, thats proof that Teresa will manipulate Kerry in Office to fund radical left orginizations O_o? Aha.
Well, we can now add the "pulled from a hat" argument to the long line of retreats and fudges you tried.. that's now gone I see too.

The Causes:
Not for Kerry to Fund them necessarily (nice try at going 'absurd'.. didn't work though)
But the Agenda, funding or no, is a Concern; just How much, we may find out, we may not.
They do share a leftist views; her's obviously more Radical.

The other being, AS I SAID, she, as First Lady, would be in a position to push her own Agenda with even more power.

Mock, Minimize, and mischaracterize as you may (between your retreats that is)....
Sure IS Useful to know the potential First Lady Gives money to CAIR, International ANSWER, and Indymedia.
to name just a few.

[I am David]

Well, we can now add the "pulled from a hat" argument to the long line of retreats and fudges you tried.. that's now gone I see too.

Well great, you accuse me of fudging, and retreating, yet offer now counter argument to a sound rebutal. Pretty ironic.

So your original point was just that Teresa may use her influence to push her own little lefty agenda? Aha.

Mock, Minimize, and mischaracterize as you may (between your retreats that is)....

I just love those little personal tidbits you throw in there. It's like instead of us debating the actual issue, were trying instead to bellitle each other with little put-down comments like those. Yay.

[abu afak]

The issues were all settled.

Even the Secondary ones you created when you Lost the first group.
(you remember.. what these posts were doing here to begin with)

And ... Thanks
You've done more for this string with your silly objections than the ADL did for "The Passion" with good ones.

Keep up the good work. Maybe you can get me to page 3 and 500 views all by yourself. ;^}

[I am David]

That's your response? :confused:

It seems like your just saying "I won, I WON! I WON THE ARGUMENT. YAY!!!"

Well, the fact is you have not yet provided a decent reason for the relevancy of the somewhat rash, somewhat rude, and outspoken personality of Teresa. That second article was just smear propoganda, it's just the kind of article that leaves a bad impression about the subject, yet for little good reason. The first article is simply pointless, unless you provide a good reason why it should seriously effect our Kerry decision.

[abu afak]

First my articles were pure propaganda...
Then you admitted "Legitimate argument"...
Now pure 'Progaganda and smear' again!

When you get done arguing with you (and a therapist)..
do come back and try me.

[abu afak]

I guess ABC News and others figure this is a Real issue too.. and they don't even nknow about CAIR, Indymedia, and International ANSWER.

hmmm

The Other Half

Wives of Presidential Hopefuls Craft an Image
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/first_lady_impact_CSM_040113.html

"...Though their faces are not instantly recognizable, these would-be first ladies are nonetheless key players in the political game of 2004 and, as such, fair game for consultants...."


"..Kerry's Wife Gets Political

The two candidates wives that do stick out more are a study in contrasts. Mozambique-born Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, has a long record of advocating for and donating to environmental, human rights, and women's causes.

She is head of the $1.2 billion Heinz Foundation endowment, a job she inherited after the passing of her first husband, Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania (she, too, was a Republican until recently). She is wealthy, headstrong, and by all accounts an ambitious and independent woman.

As such, she is already raising political eyebrows. Heinz publicly called the nine-way presidential debates "silly" and a waste of time (even as her husband continues to participate).

She has attacked her husband's political rivals (not usually a role of the spouse) and, on one inexplicable occasion, made fun of his Vietnam nightmares in an interview with The Washington Post. Not surprisingly, the Kerry campaign recently brought in a media handler to try to work with her image.

"Obviously it will be tough to mold Kerry's wife," says Sandra Sobieraj, Washington bureau chief of People magazine. "That campaign manager must be losing a lot of hair every time she opens her mouth. Campaign consultants are freaks for control — and this does not mix well with wives who have a mind of their own...."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/first_lady_impact_CSM_040113.html


Now... No doubt you will respond again with nonsense, despite the fact I have shown an important issue and that the topic is a Legitimate one, as you are a last-worder of the Highest magnitude.

[I am David]

First my articles were pure propaganda... Then you admitted "Legitimate argument"... Now pure 'Progaganda and smear' again! When you get done arguing with you (and a therapist).. do come back and try me.

Please, I was speaking generally, the type of thing you posted IS propoganda. Mabye not PURE propoganda, but thats all up to personal judgment. Also I explained the "legitamate argument" bit, obviously you did not heed that explanation or you would not be useing that as some kind of argument for yourself.

And the bold, could you please stop being so personal? This is how arguments turn into pure flamefests, luckily I do not indulge my ego in such petty bellitlings, otherwise it likely would.

[abu afak]

Back in the News....

John Kerry’s misstep on Teresa’s taxes
may hurt his credibility
By Robert Novak


SEN. JOHN KERRY, having escaped intact a one-hour grilling by NBC’s Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” Sunday, slipped in the closing minutes. When asked why his multi-millionaire wife was not making public her tax returns, he misinterpreted the law and the facts. He can only hope voters regard this as arcane trivia.

Three days before her husband’s first full-length televised interview since he clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination, Teresa Heinz Kerry became the first would-be first lady to refuse disclosure since the practice became common. Kerry told Russert the law required him but not his wife to reveal tax returns, when in fact there is no such law. He is voluntarily disclosing the information, and Mrs. Kerry is not.

This becomes politically critical, because no previous Presidential candidate relied so much on his spouse’s wealth. Without backing from Heinz ketchup money, it is fair to say John Kerry would not be his party’s Presidential standard-bearer and probably would not even be a U.S. senator today. Thus, refusal to release his wife’s tax returns inevitably raises suspicions, however ill-founded, that the Kerrys have something to hide.

John Kerry, after more than 10 years in the Senate, was nearly broke in May 1995, facing a daunting 1996 election test against popular Republican Gov. William Weld when he married the widow of the richest U.S. senator. The late Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania left his wife, Teresa, $600 million. Kerry’s net worth, according to his official disclosure submitted in 1995, ranged from a plus-$34,995 down to a minus-$130,000.

In January 1995, Mrs. Heinz paid $1.7 million cash for the shell of a town house on Boston’s tony Beacon Hill, and restoration brought its value to nearly $3 million (though that figure is much higher today). She then transferred ownership of half the house to her new husband, and the mansion became the engine financing Kerry’s campaigns.

Running behind Weld in 1996, Kerry loaned his campaign $900,000 by mortgaging the house. By Election Day, he had loaned it $1.7 million and was $2.1 million personally in debt. That began a laborious process of paying off his debt, including the 1996 mortgage, which was completed in 1999. Kerry was then positioned to dip into the Beacon Hill mansion for a future attempt to be President.

In December of last year, Kerry’s campaign treasury was empty and his candidacy going nowhere. He then loaned his campaign $6.4 million by mortgaging his one-half share of the Boston home. Without that, Kerry’s Presidential bid probably could not have been revived.

At the end of the “Meet the Press” interview, Russert noted that 1984 Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro’s husband first refused to release his tax returns — adding to the furor over his alleged ethical problems — before he succumbed to pressure and made public the information. Russert asked: Would Teresa Heinz Kerry finally release her tax returns?

“Well,” said Kerry, “my wife is doing exactly what the law requires, I mean, we have laws in America, and the law requires that the candidate release their tax returns.” He then launched into Senate-speak about “intrusive ethics forums.” In fact, while the Federal Election Commission requires candidates to disclose their financial data, there is no mandate for tax returns.

Kerry had been thoroughly briefed by his staff for the Russert interview, but he went off on his own in addressing his wife’s reluctance. Just why she is so reticent is a mystery, though it hardly could be concern about privacy considering the flood of personal publicity welcomed by the Kerrys. That excites curiosity about her charitable contributions (which are not reflected in official U.S. Senate financial disclosures). Release of Vice President Al Gore’s tax returns in 1998 revealed an embarrassingly small charitable contribution of $353 on an income of $197,699.

Kerry aides shrug off as unimportant his incorrect statement that he was required to disclose tax returns but his wife was not. However, making up things in response to an unpleasant question can signal trouble ahead. Kerry’s interview may have been smoother than George W. Bush’s press conference, but it planted seeds for the same credibility problems that trouble the President.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=36460

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by I am David
I never heard of anyone making their decision for candidate based on their wifes history. Although I do think its a ligitimate argument, I dont think its a very powerfull one, and not to the degree that someone should base their decision of Kerry on. Therefore its not an issue of if First lady has any influence (and Abu, I never went so far as to suggest your ideas are idiotic :rolleyes: ) But rather an issue of how much effect that will actually have on Kerry's presidency. Do you really think that when Teresa becomes First Lady, shes going to use her influence to make Kerry fund hard left, anti-Israel orginizations? That's what the question really comes down to.
I look at Ehud Olmert and from the time years ago that I learned that his wife is a radical left Meretz part activist, I've expected only bad to come out of him for the Likud.

[abu afak]

Killing The Questioner
'Shove It' Victim Shoves Back

Perspective on the News
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Colin McNickle

A week ago tonight, I asked Teresa Heinz Kerry a simple question here: "What did you mean?" And a wicked firestorm was sparked. Incredibly, most of it was directed against me.


Moments earlier, Mrs. Heinz Kerry had talked of "un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits" that supposedly have crept into our political discourse. Her talk before the Pennsylvania delegation was, in part, a plea for a return to civility.

She was not specific. As any journalist would, or should, I sought an example. Instead, I got a finger in the face and was told to "shove it." I have been told worse things by more important people.

By week's end, I and/or the exchange had been immortalized in some hilarious editorial page cartoons and become a part of David Letterman's "Top 10." But liberals also did their best to demonize not only me but the Trib. "Right-wing rag" became the pejorative du jour, vomited repeatedly by liberal media elitists.Heinz Kerry said I attempted to "trap" her.

To defend her intemperance, she publicly impugned my personal and professional integrity. On national television the woman who herself raised the specter of McCarthyism with her unexplained remarks insinuated I was engaging in the same tactic.

Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry called his wife's actions 'appropriate'.

Entertainer Patti Labelle told the Boston Herald that Heinz Kerry "should've pimp-slapped" me. Molly Ivins either repeated or created the myth that I had grabbed the possible future first lady. I didn't touch her.

Bombastic, fact-challenged liberal filmmaker Michael Moore supposedly called me "rude." A friend told me that Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, a leftist journal, said the exchange was the result of a long-running personal feud between Heinz Kerry and myself. That's absurd, patently; I don't run in those circles.

Longtime liberal national political columnist Jack Germond -- now retired and a convention "guest" who was shilling for his new book -- told CNN's Judy Woodruff that I was "not a legitimate newspaperman."

Ms. Woodruff allowed the slander to pass without challenge. Mr. Germond's wife, Alice, is secretary for the Democratic National Committee, noted a profile published before the incident in Editor & Publisher, a trade magazine.

I report, you decide...."

The rest at: http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=3451

[Elisheba]

Charities?

International ANSWER? CAIR? Indymedia? Moveon.org?

This isn't just giving money to the Red Cross or Cancer Research.

These are POLITICAL Organizations. RADICAL political organizations... not innocuos 'Charities'.

And it certainly ISN'T pointless to know.


For me, this is the heart of the issue. A first lady's personality might not have much to do with who we vote for, although it will affect the way she interacts with other leaders' spouses ... However, as Kerry's wife, of course, she has his ear and her support of ANSWER and CAIR is unacceptable for anyone who supports Israel. PERIOD.

[minusthejihad]

My favorite part is that she used to be a Republican.

[Elisheba]

My favorite part is that she used to be a Republican.

nah

Her benefactor was a republican; she was always what she is: an opportunistic social climbing cretin.

[batyah]

:confused:
http://horowitzwatch.blogspot.com/2004/02/editor-of-frontpage-calls-teresa-heinz.html

[minusthejihad]

"You'd have to be an idiot" not to like her.