NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is nobody asking this?

Kerry says he's going to create jobs, but he's married to the CEO of a company that has moved ALL of its jobs overseas.

Is that helping? Didn't think so.

Kerry's hipocracy is really news worthy, yet the leftist news media will not cover it.

Just because they are married doesn't mean they have exactly the same political views. That's just like people bashing Kerry for his daughter wearing a see through dress. Wasn't John's fault. :roll:

Some people seem to miss the fact the Kerry has no control over what the Heniz corporation does. He is not the CEO, therefore, cannot make decision about where jobs are held. He may hold the view that jobs should be held by Americans, but he cannot enforce that position on the Heinz corporation unless he becomes president and manages to pass a no outsourcing bill through congress. Brigning this point up really does not do much because it is a situation beyond his control.

Do you have a source for that?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp

Theresa Heinz has had no control over the day to day at Heinz in my momory--ever.

Come on people--if you're going to smear the guy, you might try doing it with some style and substance instead of this mamby-pamby bullshit.

Kerry's hipocracy is really news worthy, yet the leftist news media will not cover it.

after reading the link would you care to elaborate on that?

Well, I know that Kerry-Heinz do recieve dividends because they have stock and such invested in the Heinz company, but I think that if Kerry was a man of principle (or believed what he says about "Benedict Arnold" corporations) they would take their investments to an American company that is based solely in the US.

I do think it's funny that he thinks he can create 10,20 or whatever million jobs that he says he can. And that ad that says he casted a "decisive" vote to create jobs in America is too exaggeerated, he was with a majority of Senators on that issue, so it's not like he pushed it through the Senate.

Oh, also the Senate a few weeks back, by a single vote, rejected an election year effort to extend federal unemployment benefits. Now, we're in the midst of a huge economic recovery and boom and the Democrats (as an election year political issue) tried to extend unemployment benefits another 13 weeks. They had to get closure, had to get 60 votes to move on to the vote, but this vote would have equated a vote to extend. The vote was 59-40 in the Senate. They fell just one vote shy of the 60 votes needed to overcome objections and to move on with the vote on extending the benefits. The one senator who didn't vote because he wasn't there, was the Democratic presidential "presumptive-assumed nominee" John Kerry -- the only senator who missed the vote!

Oh, and I may be misquoting him, but didn't Kerry say that he considers voting on of the "lesser" things that Senators do? I know he's probably referring to committees and such, but voting is the primary thing because it's their chance to represent the people who elected them.... *sighs*

Well, I know that Kerry-Heinz do recieve dividends because they have stock and such invested in the Heinz company, but I think that if Kerry was a man of principle (or believed what he says about "Benedict Arnold" corporations) they would take their investments to an American company that is based solely in the US.

I do think it's funny that he thinks he can create 10,20 or whatever million jobs that he says he can. And that ad that says he casted a "decisive" vote to create jobs in America is too exaggeerated, he was with a majority of Senators on that issue, so it's not like he pushed it through the Senate.

Oh, also the Senate a few weeks back, by a single vote, rejected an election year effort to extend federal unemployment benefits. Now, we're in the midst of a huge economic recovery and boom and the Democrats (as an election year political issue) tried to extend unemployment benefits another 13 weeks. They had to get closure, had to get 60 votes to move on to the vote, but this vote would have equated a vote to extend. The vote was 59-40 in the Senate. They fell just one vote shy of the 60 votes needed to overcome objections and to move on with the vote on extending the benefits. The one senator who didn't vote because he wasn't there, was the Democratic presidential "presumptive-assumed nominee" John Kerry -- the only senator who missed the vote!
This says pretty much my thoughts on the issue.

...The fact that the Heinz corperation was primarily an overseas company to begin with has little to do with your blind hatred. But I assure you that Kerry's Wife's company has not been moving jobs overseas so much as it is and has been for years, a company with multinational presence.

Frankly, I'm very sure you would attack him on this if the Heinz company's British Regional distribution center had 3 americans and 1 British guy working in it; so blinded are you by your hatred of your fellow man. I'm ashamed to think I probably share some of your same tendency for overlooking hard facts in a political debate.

Why is nobody asking this?

Kerry says he's going to create jobs, but he's married to the CEO of a company that has moved ALL of its jobs overseas.

Is that helping? Didn't think so.
I don't suppose any Republican CEO's are shipping American jobs offshore, while stuffing Billions of "tax cut" dollars in their pockets? Get real?

Bush was the one who claimed outsourcing was "good" and who thinks McDonalds jobs are "manufacturing jobs" --it would make more sense to ask if Bush would create more jobs--but we all know the answer to that now dont we?

Why is nobody asking this?

Kerry says he's going to create jobs, but he's married to the CEO of a company that has moved ALL of its jobs overseas.

Terresa heinz has nothing to do with running Heniz. Where is your source of information?

Bush was the one who claimed outsourcing was "good" and who thinks McDonalds jobs are "manufacturing jobs" --it would make more sense to ask if Bush would create more jobs--but we all know the answer to that now dont we?
Yes, it would. At the current rate of the last 3 months, Bush would create more jobs in his 2nd term than Clinton did.

Bush was the one who claimed outsourcing was "good" and who thinks McDonalds jobs are "manufacturing jobs" --it would make more sense to ask if Bush would create more jobs--but we all know the answer to that now dont we?

Exactly.

You guys are right to attack Kerry on this issue, but for the wrong reasons. Kerry isn't suppose to create jobs. No one is. No one is supposed to destroy jobs, either. All governments should leave jobs alone. Any politician saying that they'll create jobs is just an empty gamble on the economy, in a factor mostly outside of their control. In fact, the only way Kerry, or anyone, can actually create jobs is through huge tax cuts, and no one is interested in that, not even Bush.