Two rich guys versus the humble backgrounds of Busheney
Egads, this is egregious.
No, Bush, after a series of business failures which always led to more opportunities due to his being the son of a US president, was essentially given his part-ownership of the Texas Rangers at a discount price and became a millionaire after the team was sold.
Cheney "earned" his millions at Halliburton by being made head of the company despite absolutely no experience in the oil business or, indeed, any business at all other than running that powerhouse institution known as the Ford administration. He further "earned" his millions leading the company to in acquiring Dresser Industries, known to have major asbestos liability issues, and "earned" still more by presiding over a company now accused of bribery in Nigeria and doing business, through an off-shore affiliate, with sanctioned nations such as Iran.
The Times has no trouble putting Kerry's and Edwards' wealth into context, but make no effort to do the same for Busheney.
Oh, and I think the Republicans will be making a strange and amusing argument when they attack two rich guys for wanting to give back some of that wealth to a nation that could use the dough, while the two rich guys in power just want to grab more tax relief for themselves and their pals.
It would be nice if the Times could just try a little bit harder.
As a political and symbolic matter, however, their wealth offers Republicans the chance to portray the Democrats as blue-bloods far removed from their populist, middle-class message, despite their railing against tax cuts for the rich.
"A billionaire has picked a millionaire," said a Republican strategist who spoke on condition of anonymity, in what amounted to a preview of a possible attack strategy. "They're part of the rich and privileged America that they will condemn on a daily basis. You will see a dichotomy between the wealth and the message."
Of course, Democrats note that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are men of considerable means themselves. Mr. Bush became a multimillionaire as an owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and Mr. Cheney earned millions of dollars as the head of the Halliburton Company.
No, Bush, after a series of business failures which always led to more opportunities due to his being the son of a US president, was essentially given his part-ownership of the Texas Rangers at a discount price and became a millionaire after the team was sold.
Cheney "earned" his millions at Halliburton by being made head of the company despite absolutely no experience in the oil business or, indeed, any business at all other than running that powerhouse institution known as the Ford administration. He further "earned" his millions leading the company to in acquiring Dresser Industries, known to have major asbestos liability issues, and "earned" still more by presiding over a company now accused of bribery in Nigeria and doing business, through an off-shore affiliate, with sanctioned nations such as Iran.
The Times has no trouble putting Kerry's and Edwards' wealth into context, but make no effort to do the same for Busheney.
Oh, and I think the Republicans will be making a strange and amusing argument when they attack two rich guys for wanting to give back some of that wealth to a nation that could use the dough, while the two rich guys in power just want to grab more tax relief for themselves and their pals.
It would be nice if the Times could just try a little bit harder.
posted by John at 9:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home