# How will Bush try to win the election ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2004, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661 "2004-02-05T13:38:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/41 "2004-02-10T14:20:21Z")
On a more serious note… will the mud flinging between the candidates be openly done or not ? Or better how much of it will actually be direct attacks ? How does the US voter react to open attacks or “accusations” from one candidate to another ? Do they view it as desperation, bad taste or normal ? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/42 "2004-02-10T20:57:13Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > How does the US voter react to open attacks or “accusations” from one candidate to another ? Do they view it as desperation, bad taste or normal ? From the studies I’ve seen, while most voters say they dislike negative campaigning, they also tend to vote more towards the canddate who throws the most dirt. Just another reason to be depressed at how the realities of democracy aren’t living up to the ideals, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/43 "2004-02-11T01:05:13Z")
Bush has that ability to use words the other person or group uses against them. In his second debate against Gore, Bush was stumbling badly, until he came up with this gem in support of school vouchers “I think it is racist to allow Blacks to perform generally poorly in schools and do noting about it.” (A paraphrase) Then he hit his stride. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/44 "2004-02-11T11:20:06Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > The “gay marriage” issue will be played to the hilt. I hope and pray. Please. _Please._ > [@](#): > > Kerry’s screwed on this one; either he stands firm against the issue- and alienates some of his support- or he waffles on it, and loses a lot of support. Either way, with it happening in his back yard, it’s going to be smeared all over him with insinuations that if he’s President, he’ll appoint to the Supreme Court the same people who ruled that Massachussets can’t allow ‘civil unions’. I think that if the Prez plays the gay-marriage card in the environment we’re in - a quagmire abroad with dubious justification, huge tax-cut deficits at home with no jobs to show for it - it will emphasize his unseriousness in a time of crisis. If he wants to be the President of Mars and a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, oh yes, let him go to it. > [@](#): > > As for the “angry voter”- all it will take is a few patriotic shots, a few reminders of 9/11, and a few vieled references to gay marriage to get Republicans to show up in droves at the polls. The problem for the Pubbies is, the angry voters are angry that they’re going a long time without jobs, the Bushies’ big tax cuts don’t help _them_ much, and it’s harder to see just how totally they’ll have to retrain, relocate, and rearrange their lives for the next job, if there is one. Anyone for a side bet on Michigan in November? (I’m serious.) If I were Karl Rove, my strategy would be a combination of slinging as much mud at Kerry as possible, and a vaguer-the-better trumpeting of Bush’s ‘successes’ on matters abroad (Saddam bin Laden 9/11 terror caves flag) and at home (more people keeping more of their own money, economy’s getting better and jobs are being created) and have a toolbox full of strategies for appearing to address specifics without really doing so. Use the bully pulpit, use the acres of money, hope it staves off the coming collapse in public support for Bush until at least Wednesday, November 3. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/45 "2004-02-11T13:36:22Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I hope and pray. Please. _Please._ I think that if the Prez plays the gay-marriage card in the environment we’re in - a quagmire abroad with dubious justification, huge tax-cut deficits at home with no jobs to show for it - it will emphasize his unseriousness in a time of crisis. Feh. And if he focused on those issues, he’d be called “out-of-touch” by Democrats for not dealing with more day-to-day issues. > [@](#): > > If he wants to be the President of Mars and a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, oh yes, let him go to it. Sure. It’s not like 80% of the country is against gay marriage. It’s not like championing a constitutional amendment won’t rally the Religious Right. And it’s not like Kerry is going to be stuck either insulting his base or insulting the middle trying to figure a way past this issue. > [@](#): > > The problem for the Pubbies is, the angry voters are angry that they’re going a long time without jobs, the Bushies’ big tax cuts don’t help _them_ much, and it’s harder to see just how totally they’ll have to retrain, relocate, and rearrange their lives for the next job, if there is one. > > Anyone for a side bet on Michigan in November? (I’m serious.) No, the advantage for the Republicans is that the only angry voters out there are the Democrat partisans who continually carp about 2000, Max Cleland, and the eeeeeevil of the Iraq War, then make shadowy hand gestures towards consipracy theories that Bush knew about 9/11, maybe planned it all along, and that he’s rigging the voting machines so he can declare martial law. Kerry may be the nominee, but Dean is to many people the spirit of the Democrats for 2004, and so long as Democrats can’t control their inner Dean-ness, they’ll be planting fodder for the Republicans all year long. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/46 "2004-02-11T13:56:38Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > Feh. And if he focused on those issues, he’d be called “out-of-touch” by Democrats for not dealing with more day-to-day issues. Out of touch for dealing with jobs? Only if he keeps ‘dealing’ with that one by throwing more tax cuts at the rich. > [@](#): > > Sure. It’s not like 80% of the country is against gay marriage. It’s not like championing a constitutional amendment won’t rally the Religious Right. And it’s not like Kerry is going to be stuck either insulting his base or insulting the middle trying to figure a way past this issue. However the country _feels_ about gay marriage, Bush’s problem will be getting people outside the Pat Robertson Jihad to _care_ about it, this year. Kerry’s appropriate response is, “I think Congress and the country have bigger things on our plate right now than this, like how to find good jobs for millions of Americans who need them.” > [@](#): > > No, the advantage for the Republicans is that the only angry voters out there are the Democrat partisans who continually carp about 2000, Max Cleland, and the eeeeeevil of the Iraq War, then make shadowy hand gestures towards consipracy theories that Bush knew about 9/11, maybe planned it all along, and that he’s rigging the voting machines so he can declare martial law. [Believe that if you want.](http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=cohn020904) I just hope Karl Rove keeps believing it, too, until it’s too late. > [@](#): > > Kerry may be the nominee, but Dean is to many people the spirit of the Democrats for 2004 Izzat so? Seems to me that Dean’s the guy who faded like snow in April when there was the first sign of a plausible alternative. My bet is that to possible swing votes, Dean’s the guy who was a bit too far out, and who was accordingly invited by the party to take a hike. YMMV, but we’ll find out over the upcoming months. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/47 "2004-02-11T14:45:48Z")
Bush is going for the strong man image. His campaign slogan this time around will be: **President Bush. Strong Leadership in Times of Change**. We’ll start seeing it everywhere once the president figures out how get his ad footage out from under its [copyright problems](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31234-2004Feb11.html). ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/48 "2004-02-11T15:09:18Z")
> [@codzilla](#): > > My solution for Kerry is to ask the President: “if ending Hussein’s regime was the MORAL thing to do, is it MORAL to use the US military in overthrowing other despicable regimes around the globe?” Ah, but then you get Bush saying, “Well, is it moral to leave a madman like Hussein in power?” I could only dream of Kerry replying, “Your daddy thought so.” Of course, if Bush were actually to say that, it would be more along the lines of “Well…ummm…you see…Hussein…erm, he’s a madman and, umm…leaving him in place just wasn’t the ummm…moral thing to umm…do. Do you hate America, Mister umm…Kerry, or do you just umm…love Saddam Hussein?” -Joe, expecting a variation on “If it does not fit, you must acquit” ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/49 "2004-02-11T15:19:18Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > From the studies I’ve seen, while most voters say they dislike negative campaigning, they also tend to vote more towards the canddate who throws the most dirt. Just another reason to be depressed at how the realities of democracy aren’t living up to the ideals, IMO. Oh I dunno. Not that I have a whole lot of faith or anything, but being from Wisconsin, I was around to see Feingold’s initial senate run against Mark Neuman. Feingold ran an entirely positive campaign. As a matter of fact, the only thing that could be remotely considered attack campaigning were ads making fun of Neuman’s attack ads. So, there may be hope after all. -Joe, not too hopeful ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/50 "2004-02-11T17:12:35Z")
If **John Corrado** ’s latest oeuvre is an illustrative example, then Bush is going to have to campaign as if the economy, jobs, and lying into a war just aren’t all that important, compared to the great job he’s doing with a chief executive’s core responsibilities of … well, what exactly, John? Preventing the grave and gathering threat of gay marriage? You’re serious? Keep whistling. Only got 9 months to go. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/51 "2004-02-12T16:20:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Big bucks matter, but Kerry can match or beat him in that out of his wife’s petty cash. > [@Shodan](#): > > Actually it was more in reference to where he gets his campaign funding, and his wife’s reluctance that he run for President, which may affect his ability to draw on that money. Contrary to uninformed perception, John Kerry can’t use his wife’s fortune to run for President. She can’t give him the money; that would violate campaign finance laws governing contributions. And it is unlikely she could loan the campaign money and then forgive the amount; that would be seen as a subterfuge to avoid the campaign contribution limits. _USA Today_ had a good article about this in Monday’s edition (see page 9A). Already, Mr. Kerry has obtained a $6.4M loan on 12/24, which uses his home as collateral. There is a feeling this will be a financial squeeze at a critical time, since he will be precluded from using contributions obtained after July 27 for paying off the loan. Likely, this will force him to repay the loan just before the primaries, though one can certainly surmise that he might get the loan re-issued for the actual presidential race. Still, that would be even tougher to repay, because it would have to come from contributions made prior to November 3 (under the new campaign finance law, post-election contributions from campaign donations to personal debts is limited to $250,000). Now, if Teresa Heinz Kerry were running, SHE would have something like $500M to work with of her own, though presumably she wouldn’t want to spend all of it to become the leader of the free world. And I’ll note that even then, combatting the $250M plus the Republicans are amassing would require that she use more than “petty cash”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/52 "2004-02-12T20:29:28Z")
You think he couldn’t get the money because it would be a _subterfuge_? Well, of course not, there are no such things as workable subterfuges in American politics. How silly to think it. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/53 "2004-02-13T00:56:30Z")
Call me naive, then, because I’d like to think Kerry has a _bit_ more integrity than his Republican naysayers. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/54 "2004-02-15T01:45:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You think he couldn’t get the money because it would be a subterfuge? Well, of course not, there are no such things as workable subterfuges in American politics. How silly to think it. Ah, yes, I love it when people refuse to use basic brainpower because they don’t like a particular poster. If he was going to use his wife’s fortune, why bother taking out a very expensive, possibly difficult to retire loan? Why take out a loan back in 1996 which he struggled to pay off, a loan based on the exact same collateral? Duh. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/55 "2004-02-15T12:54:33Z")
If you’re going to post a silly “explanation”, you’re going to have it called silly. That’s the price you pay here in GD. Now, where do you think the money to pay for the mansion came from? Who can pay off the mortgage if she wants to? Isn’t it just possible that the house is a way to launder the cash - a “subterfuge” if you will? And, if you think he couldn’t possibly do that because it might violate FEC standards, do you really think any pol has ever really given a damn about that? They can impose token fines, after the election, and they hardly ever get reported. It is truly hard to understand how anyone could reach adulthood and still think that something couldn’t happen just because it might be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/56 "2004-02-17T01:01:47Z")
Hehehe, like a trout to the fly, they always rise. I’m going to assume that someone hasn’t read the actual article from _USA Today_ I referenced, or they’d see how ridiculous their post is. (Ridiculous = open to ridicule, such as being received here). Let’s apply rational thought here. Hard concept, I know, for some. Mr. Kerry owns part of a home. Even supposing he got the money for his part from his wife (quite possible, actually, but Mr. Kerry isn’t saying), he now has mortgaged that ownership interest to a bank (Mellon Trust of New England, to be precise, and we do strive for precision here). This is not his first such venture. In 1996, he did the same thing to obtain a loan of $1.9M. He took three **years** to pay that loan off. He did so by raising money from campaign contributors. It was, at that time, legal to do so (now, he can’t do that after the end of the primary season). While $250M is not pocket change for Teresa Heinz Kerry, $1.9M certainly is. If the Kerry’s were interested in attempting back-door donations to avoid the campaign finance laws, they could have done so with the prior loan, and saved a bundle in interest payments in the process, probably with far less “stink” than if they attempt it during a presidential election (we know how the pundits and grundge-draggers of the right love to grab ahold of such “issues”). One finds it unlikely they will attempt it under the spotlight of a presidential campaign. Of course, they might simply have Ms. Kerry gift Mr. Kerry with a piece of property that he can then sell and use the proceeds of to pay off the loan. But if they were going to do that, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply gift the property ahead of the election effort, **THEN** sell it an use the money, rather than obtaining a mortgage on the house? That would save interest expenses, and would be no more or less legal than gifting property to pay off the loan. On top of which, $7.3M is penny ante money compared to the eventual expenditures of this campaign. Where else is Mr. Kerry going to come up with collateral for loans and mortgages which can then be paid off with sold-off assets from the Heinz fortune? Of course, it just could be that Mr. Kerry intends to play it straight, and that the campaign won’t be drawing on the off-limits funds owned by his wife. I’d like to think that would be possible for the Democratic candidate, else how would he be any better than the candidate from the party of the well-to-do? Of course, if you prefer, **ElvisL1ves** , you can continue to argue that the man who you will spend the next roughly nine months arguing should be elected president will spend his campaign violating the law. :rolleyes: Or, you could simply admit error in your statement about the use of Ms. Kerry’s money… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Termital](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Termital](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Termital)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/57 "2004-02-17T03:15:01Z")
Now, I can’t tell you how the whole show’s going to run, but I’m willing to put money on a conveniently timed Houssein trial, with the President showing how he helped these poor Iraquis close an awful chapter in their lives and all. Lots of ironymetres will go off the charts at that time, but it’ll work. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/58 "2004-02-18T18:21:02Z")
**DSYoung** , if you want to respond in a schoolyard way, there are places to do that. Doing so \*here \* makes it unlikely that anyone will bother to read the carefully-reasoned and cited, but still non-reality-connected, analysis that follows, although I’m sure you enjoyed writing it. I was replying to this statement of yours only: > [@](#): > > Contrary to uninformed perception, John Kerry can’t use his wife’s fortune to run for President. She can’t give him the money; that would violate campaign finance laws governing contributions. as unrealistic to the point of naivete. A candidate who wants money, and knows where it can be obtained, is not going to be deterred by toothless election laws. Is that not your real-world experience as well? If it is, why bother with the classroom lecture? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/59 "2004-02-18T18:58:22Z")
Oooh, that devious Kerry! Sneaking around with mortgages and such, rather than getting his campaign money in the clean, honest, All-American and aboveboard method employed by those sober paragons of integrity, the Pubbies. GeeDubya’s war chest might get around 200 million dollars. You know where it came from, and so do I. But think on this: if the people who pour their money into GeeDubyas campaign don’t get a return on thier investment…if all of this money still loses…isn’t that just about the most encouraging news our Republic could have? Power wrested from the grasp of corporate greed-freaks and back in the hands of plain ol’ folks? Oh, and this just in… \*\*White House Backs Off Job-Growth Forecast \*\* "The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician. " Niether is he a fact-checker. Faulty intelligence from the number-crunchers. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661/60 "2004-02-18T20:21:14Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq on 02-05-2004 at 08:42 AM](#): > > I suspect that the Republicans are counting on spending their almost $300 Million on extensive advertising that will swamp the opposition. … But money talks, and lots of advertising will be a tough barrier once the conventions are over and the serious campaigning starts. > [@ElvisL1ves on 02-05-2004 at 09:22 AM](#): > > Big bucks matter, but Kerry can match or beat him in that out of his wife’s petty cash. This statement, as show in the following, is untrue, because Mr. Kerry can’t use his wife’s cash. Many people make this mistaken assumption about Mr. Kerry’s ability to use her fortune. > [@DSYoungEsq on 02-12-2004 at 11:20 AM](#): > > > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > > Big bucks matter, but Kerry can match or beat him in that out of his wife’s petty cash. > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > Actually it was more in reference to where he gets his campaign funding, and his wife’s reluctance that he run for President, which may affect his ability to draw on that money. > > Contrary to uninformed perception, John Kerry can’t use his wife’s fortune to run for President. She can’t give him the money; that would violate campaign finance laws governing contributions. And it is unlikely she could loan the campaign money and then forgive the amount; that would be seen as a subterfuge to avoid the campaign contribution limits. > > USA Today had a good article about this in Monday’s edition (see page 9A). [description of article followed] Unlike some who post here, I offered some reasoning for my assertion, as well as a citation to an article examining the issue. Some might even have looked the article up to see what it said; I tend to doubt the following poster accomplished that task. > [@ElvisL1ves on 02-12-2004 at 03:29 PM](#): > > You think he couldn’t get the money because it would be a subterfuge? Well, of course not, there are no such things as workable subterfuges in American politics. How silly to think it. > [@DSYoungEsq on 02-14-2004 at 08:45 PM](#): > > Ah, yes, I love it when people refuse to use basic brainpower because they don’t like a particular poster. > > If he was going to use his wife’s fortune, why bother taking out a very expensive, possibly difficult to retire loan? Why take out a loan back in 1996 which he struggled to pay off, a loan based on the exact same collateral? Duh. The point to this post having been to show that the response on 2/12, instead of debating the conclusion that Teresa Heinz Kerry’s fortune was off limits to Mr. Kerry, or admitting the truth of that proposition, makes an assertion that Mr. Kerry, the probable Democratic nominee, would be willing to resort to subterfuge, probably illegal subterfuge, an assertion I suspect comes from the poster not because of any true feeling Mr. Kerry would do that, but because the poster has a personal animosity towards me. > [@ElvisL1ves on 02-15-2004 at 07:54 AM](#): > > Now, where do you think the money to pay for the mansion came from? Who can pay off the mortgage if she wants to? Isn’t it just possible that the house is a way to launder the cash - a “subterfuge” if you will? And, if you think he couldn’t possibly do that because it might violate FEC standards, do you really think any pol has ever really given a damn about that? They can impose token fines, after the election, and they hardly ever get reported. > > It is truly hard to understand how anyone could reach adulthood and still think that something couldn’t happen just because it might be illegal. Now, the poster proves the failure to read the article referenced previously, which dealt with these ideas. Further, the poster resorts to shaky thinking, as demonstrated in the next post I made, which I won’t repeat, since it is only a post or three up from this one. Which brings us to the last post: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > DSYoung, if you want to respond in a schoolyard way, there are places to do that. Quite to the contrary, I haven’t been “schoolyard” in my approach; I’ve resorted to facts and logic. Totally missing from the “con” in this debate, I’ll note. > [@](#): > > Doing so here makes it unlikely that anyone will bother to read the carefully-reasoned and cited, but still non-reality-connected, analysis that follows, although I’m sure you enjoyed writing it. I note that there is no attempt to dispute either my reasoning, or the evidence upon which it is based. There is no demonstration as to how it isn’t connected to “reality.” > [@](#): > > I was replying to this statement of yours only: > > > [@](#): > > > > Contrary to uninformed perception, John Kerry can’t use his wife’s fortune to run for President. She can’t give him the money; that would violate campaign finance laws governing contributions. > > as unrealistic to the point of naivete. Not true. The ORIGINAL assertion, for which the poster was taken to task, was that Mr. Kerry could use his wife’s fortune to match the soon to be amassed war-chest of the Republican Party and its candidate. Everything I’ve said is addressed to that assertion, and the continued failure of the poster to accept the error of that statement. > [@](#): > > A candidate who wants money, and knows where it can be obtained, is not going to be deterred by toothless election laws. Is that not your real-world experience as well? If it is, why bother with the classroom lecture? First, there are plenty of candidates who do not resort to violations of campaign finance laws to raise money; indeed, I’d have to say that the Republican party is doing a damn good job of legally collecting its money, and in the process making the Democrats rue their effort to stymie the use of big checks from fat pocketbooks to fund campaigns. But, more importantly, I do believe that **Mr. Kerry** is a person who will not resort to illegal efforts or questionable subterfuges to obtain the use of his wife’s money for his campaign. I believe that based on my estimation of his character (I certainly **hope** he’s at least as principled than the Republican candidate), and based on the evidence of his efforts in the past and present to avoid such efforts, despite the fact they cost him extra money, added hassle, etc. So what is it to be, **ElvisL1ves**? Do you believe Mr. Kerry intends to use his wife’s money for his campaign? If so, do you believe he will do so through illegal means, or will he do so through questionably legal means, given that completely, unquestionably legal means are not available? And for Heaven’s sake, let’s see some intelligent debate this time, not merely knee-jerk reaction based on your inherent dislike of the present poster. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-bush-try-to-win-the-election/227661.md?page=4)