At least it’s an actual convention.
Well, I’d have to say Clinton qualifies, having grown up in lower-middle-class Arkansas. His academic success (including scolarships) stemmed from his own intelligence and drive. He didn’t start to make serious personal wealth until after law school.
If you’re looking for a Prez who’d had blue-collar work as an adult, though, I think you’d have to decide if being an actor counts (for Reagan). Otherwise, you may as well choose Truman, who worked as a farmer and then sold suits in Kansas City before becoming an administrative judge in 1922 and eventually a Senator.
I think most of the Kerry criticism is based not on the fact that he is wealthy, but more in his trying to not appear that he is, per the following (not exact quotes, but you get the general idea):
It’s not my money - it’s hers.
It’s not my tax return - it’s hers.
even - It’s not my SUV - it’s hers.
Are there any members of Congress who aren’t in the top 10 percent, money-wise? And has any member of Congress pulled him or herself up by their own bootstraps?
You’re right. That’s the least.
Jimmy Carter was a farmer as well (although admittedly I don’t know enough about his biography to know if he tilled the soil himself).
And the most, I guess, would be democracy in action?
I think the great thing about watching the Libertarian party in action is that you see immediately they have more bureaucracy than they want for the entire federal government.
Actually, there have been lots of presidents who didn’t grow up with a silver spoon in their mouths. Nixon grew up poor, and paid for his first political campaign with poker winnings. Reagan started out poor. So did Carter. Eisenhower grew up desperately poor. Truman was at best a middle class farmer until he joined the military.
In fact, the only real wealthy aristocrats that have become president in the recent past are Kennedy, the two Bushes, and if Kerry wins, Kerry. The rest all started from humble beginnings, going all the way back to FDR, who was the first president before Kennedy to be born into wealth.
Well, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin lists his net worth as $148,000 dollars.
He’s also known for accepting only the salary that was effective at the date of his election, and giving back any raises congress votes itself.
Why is it acceptable to attack the opposition for being rich, but not for being black or female? The claim is that a rich man can’t understand middle and lower class issues. Well, why not? Nobody who matters attacks black politicians for being unable to understand white voter’s issues. Nobody who matters attack female politicians for being unable to understand male voter’s issues. Shockingly, it’s possible to be both rich and a good person who works to help everyone. But you sure as hell wouldn’t know it from all the bullshit coming from our political parties.
As to the OP, there’s a simple strategy for doing this. The Dems are trying to paint Bush as an elitist and out of touch with the working people. A big part of this is to have Kerry out bashing Bush’s wealth and claiming to be an everyman in touch with the middle class.
So you have the Democrats trying to use class warfare, and the Republicans calling them on it. I don’t see the problem.
Has he really done this? I don’t really doubt it, seems very likely, but I cannot recall Kerry bashing Bush’s wealth. That would of course be as hypocritical as the link my OP.
Where has Kerry bashed Bush’s wealth? As far as i can tell, Kerry isn’t stupid enough to be so hypocritical.
And, on a more general level, it seems to me that the Democrats’ focus right now is on Bush’s handling of foreign policy and the war in Iraq, as well as on domestic economic issues such as tax cuts, health care, social security, etc.
This is bullshit. The democrats may say that Republican policy hurts the poor, but that’s not the same thing at all as criticizing Bush for merely being rich.
It’s like Martha Stewart, busted for insider trading, complaining because the judge also “owns stocks.” It’s a complete fallacy.
<cynical>Everyone who is put off a presidential candidate by wealth is already not voting for Bush, so if GOP can persuade them Kerry is ‘as bad’ then it’s a net gain for them?</cynical>
BushYou’re black!
KerryWell, you’re female!
“Class warfare”? No, my friend, the French Revolution was class warfare. Criticizing Bush’s tax cuts and other policies doesn’t even come close.
I think we need a new term for the Republican’s brand of political correctness. Like “homicide bomber”, “stress position”, “class warfare”, “activist judge”, etc.
Oh, and thanks for that info on Senator Feingold, Qadgop.
Well, it’s not really a stretch when I so often hear Kerry talking about Bush giving tax cuts to his rich friends. I guess that makes me a rich friend of his since my tax bill is now lower. And why the dodging of disclosing tax return for the Kerry household? He enjoys the same tax breaks, but wants us to believe they are somehow wrong. Has he forgotten that you can add whatever you want to your tax bill? If you owe $1000 you can write out a check for $5000.
Just wondering how many rich people decrying the tax cut to my family are basing the returns they filled out on 2000 code?
That said, I’ll stick with my original reply to the OP. It’s what is essentially happening. IMHO anyway.
The point, of course, being that the tax cuts are far more beneficial for the rich. Whether they actually are is debatable, but you’re misinterpreting Kerry’s rhetoric.
There’s no reason he has to think they’re right and just simply because he benefits from them.
He did the same in '88 when he ran against that Harvard elitist, Dukakis.
Yale? Me? Naw, I went to Yale Locksmith school!