jcookc6

This will be the last J.F. Heinz story I post. But then again I might Waffle or change my mind, just like my hero.

Kerry family's deep pockets on display this election cycle
By Howie Carr
Recent Columns by Howie Carr
Friday, April 30, 2004

How much would you pay for a bicycle? Is seven grand too much?

Not as much as John Kerry [related, bio], I daresay, now that we know, thanks to a front-page story about his butler in The New York Times, that he owns a Serotta bike.

The Serotta, see, is custom-made, with the ``holistic (whole-cyclist) approach to bicycle fitting.''

Translation: It's very expensive. How expensive, you ask. Serotta's ``price points'' are between $1,800 and $5,000 - just for the frame, mind you, if you want extras, like gears and titanium spokes, tack on another $2,000 - which raises the question: what do you suppose Kerry's point is?

Consider that Kerry's second wife owns a Gulfstream V jet, the Flying Squirrel, worth $35 million, and also bought him a personal powerboat, the Scaramouche, worth at least $800,000. So do you think Liveshot's wife's first husband's trust fund bought a bike on the low end, or the high end?

I'll go out on a limb and say Liveshot's bike is worth five large.

And that it actually belongs, not to the solon himself, but to his ``family.''

Repeated calls to Kerry's campaign spokesman over the last two days were not returned. So I looked up Serotta bikes on the Web and came up with a list of local dealers, most of whom operate in such Beautiful People enclaves as Manchester-by-the-Sea and Amherst. Nearest to Kerry's $12-million mansion were dealers in Belmont and a city the Web site described as ``Sommerville.''

Naturally I first called the Serotta dealership in Belmont. I asked the guy the money question. Is Liveshot a customer?

``Why yes he is,'' said the gent, who did not wish to be identified.

Let me guess - Teresa let him spend 5 grand on the type they use in the Tour de France, perhaps the Coeur d'Acier model, given its French name.

``We wouldn't comment on customers,'' he said, frostily.

Enough on the $5,000 bicycle. Now let's move on his fleet of gas-guzzlers. Pardon me, his family's fleet of ozone-layer destroyers.

Before he tracked down his second heiress in 1995, Kerry had a '91 Jetta. In other words, 10 years ago his car was worth less than his bicycle is today. And some people say being a gigolo doesn't pay?

Kerry still owns his old '85 Dodge convertible. The excellent New York Times story on his butler Wednesday said that Kerry's man Jeeves had ``inherited'' the car, but guess what - Kerry just re-registered the Dodge. Its plate is Purple Heart 3, which means he didn't have to pay for the registration.

Granted, he has every right to do that. But still, couldn't he have volunteered to pay the extra $75 . . . for the children? Then there's the 2002 Chrysler 300 sedan. Its current plate is USS 2.

Of course, Liveshot's not the only family member who likes special plates. Down on Nantucket, garaged at the $9 million mansion on Hulbert Avenue, his 65-year-old wife has a yellow '97 Land Rover Defender with the plate: MOZMBQ.

As in Mozambique, don't you know, the widow Heinz's country of origin. The '94 Jeep Grand Cherokee - its license plate is HZ 57. Her third vehicle, the 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser, has a regular license plate.

Then there's the stepson, Christopher. Apparently he, too, didn't get the memo about only buying Made-in-the-USA vehicles. He's tooling around the island in a gray 2002 Porsche 911.

We're all learning so much in this campaign about the kind of lifestyle that is created when a gigolo marries a gold-digger.

Say what you want, this guy is a lot of laughs, it will be exciting reading for 4 years if he gets elected.
This article was in today's Boston Hearld but it is a pay site.
but you can catch it here, the comments are good too.
http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=135533

HarmlessRabbit

Bush took a ride onto this aircraft carrier:



at a cost of much more than $7,000, and he didn't even pay for it himself.

Do you even know what the Bush family fortune is worth? Did you see the shots of Bush falling off a Segway? Do you know what two Segways cost?

This is the biggest non-story, since, well, the last non-story about Kerry.

Ho hum, boring, off to another more-meaningful thread.

jcookc6

HarmlessRabbit
You must remember the Democratic party is the party of the working class stiff, the elderly and poor. How can a person who has all of the expensive toys know how to represent those people.
I think he goes by the theory that the person with most, expensive toys, wins.
Besides, it seems like these stories are popping up all over the place, All you Kerry supporters can come up with are that
Bush might of missed a few Guard meetings. And that he flew onto an air craft carrier. As commander in chief, they all do it from time to time. Something about raising the morale of the troops. Kennedy, Carter and even the draft dodger Clinton have done it.
And speaking of draft dodging, your hero Kerry tried to get a deferment to go study in Paris after Yale but was turned down. So he did the safest thing he could do, joined the Naval Reserve. When he volunteered for the Swift Boats, they were not being used in combat.

HarmlessRabbit

Yawn, same old stuff. None of it sticks. Kerry is rich, Bush is richer. If you were married to a billionaire, you would probably treat yourself to a nice bicycle too.

I really hope the right-wing keeps making it a story though, so stuff like this can come out about Bush:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmillions.html

I love the attempt to say "but the democrats are the party of the working stiff, so Bush being rich doesn't matter!" It's funny, I keep hearing Bush talk about tax cuts for working families, and Rush Limbaugh appealing to the average american. However, if you're saying that the average working stiff should vote Democratic, I wholeheartedly agree.

Publius

What I want to know is this. Why is it somehow “ok” to be rich if you are a republican, but your looked down up if your rich and a democrat? I mean really, this is quit possibly one of the silliest stereotypes that we have going between the two parties. And tell me this, why is it not ok for rich democrats to be in favor of tax hikes. I mean after all they are the ones who are going to be paying a lot more in taxes, not the poor who usually affected either way. At least I can understand why rich republicans would be against tax hikes, that makes sense to me, but why on earth to poor republicans support tax cuts for the rich? They should know that in the end this means they are going to be the ones being screwed. Its all just very silly if you ask me.

jcookc6

Couple of things, your article links to an article on how Bush really MADE his millions, doesnt matter how he made em, he made em, didnt marry em.
Bush talks about winning the war on terror, Kerry talks about how he was in the war in Vietnam.
As to Publius, isnt it about time to do away with the 2 party system the way it is. It just doesnt make sense anymore. Parties should be conservative and liberal, and maybe something else like conservationalist or labor just to make it interesting.

fuzyfuzer

"At least I can understand why rich republicans would be against tax hikes, that makes sense to me, but why on earth to poor republicans support tax cuts for the rich? They should know that in the end this means they are going to be the ones being screwed."

there are too many reasons, maybe they don't concider themselves poor maybe they don't get the support from the government and don't want to pay for it for others, maybe they were raised tax cuts are good maybe they have asperations of one day becoming one of the most wealthy people around maybe they are just following party policy i think you generalized far to much

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

djtestudo

Seems to me that the problem here is people have been complaining since Bush was running for President in 2000 that since he's so wealthy he can't be in touch with the working people. So now, it's amusing that when people bring up KERRY'S wealth, from the candidate of the party that is stereotyped as the working man's party, it's being received as "so he's wealthy, BUSH is weathier."

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

mml

Is there actually an issue to discuss here?

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

Aletheia

Nice way of avoiding what was presented. Good job.

OMG the president didn't pay for travel costs while he is president, lets string him up.

Aletheia

There is you issue. Saying someone is richer is not a good reason to ignore the fact that they themselves are rich. I could say hey, yeah I hurt someone, but hey, that person hurt more prople then me, so what I did can be ignored. Doesn't work. To put it another way, hey I am paid off by 3 intrest groups, but the other person is paid off by 7, so ignore what I am doing and give all you support to me. It isn't a strong argument.

analog

jcookc6

John Kerry is not rich. His wife is. And when she gets tired of him, he will be riding his $5000. bike/toy to work.

HarmlessRabbit

So you really are just here to troll, not to actually discuss anything, right?

You went from telling us that Kerry was rich and wasteful to now telling us that he gets all his money from his wife.

Do you actually have a point?

guthmund

I've yet to find a point to any of jcook's posts other than "I hate John Kerry with heat that rivals a thousand suns."

So, he's rich? He waffles?

I've yet to see a "working class poor" President.

Some of the "waffling" is over issues that happened 30 years ago when he was a young man in his twenties. I would very much like to see any man over 50 who has managed to hold any opinion or stance from his youth.

It's important to note, just for the sake of hypocrisy, that when applying standards to others to first apply them to yourself. Of course, that's just my opinion.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Publius

OK this has gotten altogether to be much to silly (not this thread, but the general debate about rich candidates not being in touch with the people they are suppose to represent). Now as I recall, this debate goes much further back then the current conflict between W. and Kerry. Seems to me that Bush (Sr.) was accused about not being in touch with the people because he had no idea how much a gallon of milk cost (personally I think it was because he was a typical man of his era and poor old Barb had to do all the shopping). Regardless, there is a point that I want to make here and that is, what do you expect? Unfortunately, the way our governmental institution is arranged it is only the “rich” that can afford to run for public office (I use rich loosely here because it is a rather vague term to begin with as everyone has their own definition of what the “rich” is). Probably the most contributing factor to this is that most elected public officials are not payed enough to make it worth their time, in fact a lot of them are not even payed enough for them to pay their bills. This crosses over ever single level of elected government. Example. In Nebraska where I grew up, State Senators (Nebraska and Maine are the only two states with Unicameral legislatures, so everyone in Nebraska’s Assembly is a Senator) were paid about $17,000 a year. Now, I know that Nebraska isn’t a very big state and that their really isn’t a lot of governing that needs to go on, but do you know anyone who can afford to work for only $17,000 a year? Yip, that’s right, only people who are independently wealthy, which means that they have to own their own business that they are able to take time away from, or they are retired, or they are rich and don’t need the money. Now then, lets look at what US Congressmen make on average, $158,000 per year. Not bad, not bad that is if you don’t have all the expenses that a Congressmen has, like the high cost of living in D.C., or the fact that you have to maintain not 1 but 2 households, and hey lets be realistic here, your probably sinking a lot of your own money into your campaign, into maintaining public relations after you have been elected, and going to all those functions that you are expected to attended (not the official ones, but the unofficial ones that you are expected to give face time to). So now what about the President? $400,000 per year. Nice ehh? But remember everything I said about Congressmen goes doubly or triply true for the President. And besides, who would really want the job for only $400,000 per year? Take a look around in society at how much CEO’s make, private businessmen, (westcoast union doc workers ... cough) or hell the President of my ol alma mater. CEO’s make millions, so do many successful private businessmen, and the President of my ol alma mater? $300,000, and this is at public state university. Ok so the point I am trying to get to here is if you really want someone running the country who isn’t just the rich (who are supposedly out of touch with the “people”, still haven’t figured out what that means exactly) then the first thing you need to do is increase the salaries (about 10 fold would be a good start) of all publically elected officials straight across the board so that more people for the middle class can actually think about running for office. Until then, people should stop sniveling about how much money an elected official has and start focusing on the real issues, like which one is taller.

Publius

Harry Truman, last poor guy that I can think of to become President.

jcookc6

I don't hate John Kerry, he personally has never done anything to hurt me. I just think he is a pompous ass. He is in his 3rd term as my U.S. Senator and as far I can remember has never done anything for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy who appears to be half in the wrapper whenever he speaks has done alot for the state.
The only reason Kerry is the canidate for the Democratic party is that the Democrats thought he might be able to beat Bush. Maybe he will, Bush is no saint, but he doesnt change his story to whatever sounds good.

scott2162

It seems to me that Kerry is playing it safe by trying not to alienate either the central or leftist part of his party. And to touch on jcookc6's point from his last post about Kerry not doing anything for 3 terms, it's probably so he can say he also hasn't done anything wrong for 3 terms either. Maybe just his way to cover himself to give the GOP little to attack him on other than his "waffling".

guthmund

He might have been poor by Presidential standards, but he certainly wasn't "working class poor" before he became President. He was a judge, a senator, and VP for 80+ days before becoming Commander in Chief.

Here's a few of his house...


Didn't show up....here's the link



He might have been poor enough for the gov't to institute a Presidential stipend, but he wasn't living hand to mouth.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Publius

Hmmm, well what can I say? Truman was somewhat successful later in life, but what I was referring to was the fact that until he got into politics he really hadn’t had much luck doing anything else. And oh sure he wasn’t living hand to mouth by the time he was president, but then again would you really want someone living in that situation running the country? Didn’t think so. But I decided to go look up some numbers on good old Truman here. Now lets see, since their was a census in 1940 I will use those. The average salary in 1940 was about $1,300 and at that time US Senators were paid $10,000. So that is a little less then 8x the average salary in 1940 which is not to shabby. Now lets see, how does it stack up today? Average salary for 2004 is projected to be about $35,500 whereas today Senators are being paid about $154,700 so less then 5x as much. So I guess ol Truman made out pretty good as a senator then didn’t he? Don’t suppose he made quit so much as a judge, but I can’t find that number to be sure. However, my point was this, Truman did grow up dirt poor. Although Truman attempted to break from this mold early on, he didn’t have much success until he finally went into politics in Kansas City, but even then his biggest supporter turned out to be a mob boss which got Truman into a lot of hot water. (If you really want to learn about Truman there is a great program about him on the History Channel)

Ok so here is the question, how long before a fellow becomes President does he have to be “working class poor” for it to count? So a fellow grows up dirt ass poor, works his sorry ass all his life to make something for himself, then when he finally succeeds he decides to give something back to society by running for public office. BUT OH NO! now that he is no longer dirt ass poor he can’t possible represent the small poor working guy because now that he is “rich” he is no longer in touch with the common man. So again I ask, what is “rich” anyway? And why do we pay our elected officials so lousy and then expect anyone but those who don’t really need the income to run for public office? And what does the price of snow in Canada have to do with the cost of sand in Miami? Right so you see my point, NOTHING! It doesn’t matter which candidate has more money, or grew up poorer, or who has the most expensive toys, house, car, or any other garbage. The question really is which one will do the best job of doing the work of the people, and everything else is just noise being used by both sides to distract the voters from the real issues.

Sigh ... so I still maintain that this whole debate is just rather silly, next skit please. (Monty Python reference for those who get it)

tecoyah

In todays political world......you have to be rich to even hope for a chance to be President.

Another complete non- issue from jcook.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

bouray

I think the issue of the article is that we have 2 very rich men that are running for the presidency. They along with other rich men and women in DC are going to be deciding policies for the next 4 years of my life and they have no idea what it is like to be married with both spouses working, having thousands owed in student loans, and worrying about whether or not your middle class job will be there next week.

There is a big gap between those who are running and those who they represent. I think they have lost touch with the common american folk.

irateplatypus

this is why it irks me when republicans are characterized as being beholden to corporate interests... it's no secret that politicians come from affluent/powerful backgrounds. i see whatever influence big money has on politics to be something inherent in the system and not because of a particular party.


for good or ill, most of the big lifetime politicians are very rich and have extensive ties to major industry. although there are several notable exceptions, that's the way it has been since our country's inception.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Superbelt

See, that's the thing. A Senator is not a direct mouthpiece for the state he is elected to. Your congressman is your direct mouthpiece whose job is to actually speak for the specific people who elected him. A senators job is much more encompassing. Not only is he expected to represent your state, but the nation as a whole. He has the duty to think of the NATIONAL interest. Not just the local one. So don't complain if he doesn't pander to the state as your congressman does. It's not his job to. That's the way a republic works.

guthmund

We're hi-jacking the thread from the original point....wait there was no point....very well then.

That is exactly the point. There is no such thing as a "working class poor" President and I get a little irritated when folks run for political office on that platform. These guys have already made their money and by the time they manage to run for higher public office their perceptions are already colored differently.

To discuss this concerning the current election...Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bush and even Mr. Nader haven't had to worry about the bills for a long time. And yet, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush campaign as a man of the people. They give us the impression that they're regular working class stiffs just like everybody else. Mr. Kerry rolls up his sleeves, rides buses, and flips flapjacks and Mr. Bush "clears brush" in cowboy boots all in an effort to fool the voters into thinking their of the common man's ilk.

Does it affect the way he will govern? No, it shouldn't. People shouldn't care whether these guys grew up in the projects or were grown in some lab in Northern Maine. Ideas are ideas are ideas and it's the ideas that should be ran on rather than the background and actions of any candidate.

I think voters want to vote on issues. We want to be involved with the process. Instead we are subjected to the minutiae of the past. I don't give a rat's ass that Mr. Bush might have done drugs, drank a lot and got all his money from daddy. I don't care that Mr. Kerry might have threw his medals out, hung out with Jane Fonda, and marries rich. The problem is the media caters to this demographic rather than discussing the issues. There is a percentage who revel in this shit and there is a percentage who watch to accumulate cannon fodder to fire at the opponent and both are ruining the process. Instead of discussing tax plans, healthcare reform, social security, and the like, we're relegated to discussing likeability and botox.

I'm certainly not arguing with you Publius In fact, it seems we agree at least on this one. We both arrived at the same place just using different paths. We're bogged down in the minutiae.

/end hijack

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Publius

Agreed and thank you for the good debate, it is something that is rather rare to find nowadays. As for hijacking the post, well, maybe we are a couple of intellectual terrorist. Cheers.

Kurant

Wierd.

You did when you said Kerry was rich. 5 posts later, his wife was.

Man, you guys should hang out.

MSD

This is still going nowhere

Lebell

I agree.

Time for this one to die.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!