I apologize in advance for the large cut and paste but this was just too good to pass up. When Kerry ran for president right wing pundits made extensive comments about his marriage to a wealthy woman. McCain also divorced a first wife to marry a wealthy woman, with whom he committed adultery by the way, and his lived a life of luxury. Where are the right wing pundits now?

I included the statements in this post for easy reference.

The right and men who live off their second wives' inherited wealth

What's most notable about John McCain's confusion over the number of homes he owns isn't merely that it demonstrates that, after running his campaign based on depicting Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist and himself as the all-American Everyman, McCain lives a life that is about as far removed from the Average American as one can get, and has done so for decades. What's notable is how McCain was able to live that way. McCain himself isn't actually rich. He just lives off the inherited wealth of his much younger former mistress and now-second-wife -- for whom he dumped his older and disfigured first wife -- and who then used her family's money to fund McCain's political career and keep him living in extreme luxury (after insisting that he sign a prenuptial agreement, which would make McCain the first U.S. President to have one).

In 2004, numerous leading right-wing pundits had many things to say about men who do that:

Joseph Farah, World Net Daily, "President Gigolo?":

But if there is one characteristic of Kerry's life that should disqualify him absolutely as a candidate for president, it is the fact that he has sought out millionaire wives to take care of him. Not to put too fine a point on it, he's a serial gigolo.

Let me ask you this: How many single women do you know worth a hundred million dollars or more? . . . After raising children with her, Kerry sought and received an annulment of that long-term marriage. Then he married Teresa Heinz Kerry, the widow of a Senate colleague five years his senior. She is worth approximately $500 million.

Is marrying well good preparation for serving as the president of the United States? . . . . He's always had a net underneath him throughout his political career -- in his case, a net woven of homespun 24K gold.

And, once again, as Boteach points out, his second wife, Teresa made him sign a prenuptial agreement when they were wed: "Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?"

Teresa Heinz Kerry is not sure about her husband's character. Are you?



Rush Limbaugh, throughout 2004:

I mean, [Kerry]'s been there, but he's basically a skirt-chaser, folks. He's a gigolo. . . .Kerry is cheap. Most gigolos are. I mean -- I think it -- I think it goes with the, with the definition. . . .[W]hat do you consider a fair wage? John Kerry considers a fair wage a wife with 500 million. So, he had to find a company that had one. Well, there aren't too many of these companies that have little heiresses running around that are single, have 500 million that some guy can marry into. . . .Because see, Al Gore's daddy was a senator and Al Gore's daddy worked his way up from wealth and power to wealth and power. I mean, he got more of it than anybody ever dreamed of for having as little to go on. I mean, he's one of those old boys. You know how that worked back then. Then John Kerry's daddy is his wives. (laughter) I mean, he's a gigolo. Everybody knows this. There's nobody in our party really has much respect for this guy and you can see it last night, but I can't say that. I mean, you got sugar daddy wife back then. You got sugar daddy wife now. He worked his way up from a blue blood to a platinum American Express card, and it doesn't have his name on it.



Knight Ridder, October 30, 2004:

In Kissimmee, Fla., when Cheney brought up Kerry's name, a listener shouted, "He's a gigolo!" Cheney's response: "Ahhh, I'm not sure. I got to concentrate here on my work."



Hannity & Colmes, Jan. 24, 2004:

ANN COULTER: John Kerry can't really speak to the middle class tax cuts, inasmuch as he is ...

SEAN HANNITY: Yes.

ANN COULTER: ... a kept man. He lives off the money made by other men and left to their daughters or wives.



Good Morning America, October 5, 2004:

CHARLES GIBSON: In going, in going through the book, John Kerry. You refer to him as a gigolo, the male Anna Nicole Smith . . . . What does that achieve, Ann?

ANN COULTER: Well, okay, then I don't want to hear him talk about a middle class tax cut when he has made his living living off rich women. I mean, it is simply a fact that he has married two heiresses. His specialty in life, I mean, if he has an economic plan, I think the one I'd like to hear about is how to snooker millionairesses into marrying me and living off them. I mean, that is not an, a, a trivial point.



New York Times, March 14, 2004:

Comedians have tried the Rich Guy persona along with a variation of the Gold Digger, which Jay Leno used in explaining how Mr. Kerry would eliminate the federal deficit: "He said all we have to do is find a really rich country like Switzerland and marry it."



Rush Limbaugh Online, "John Kerry's Resume":

[Kerry] has lived the life of a millionaire living off the inherited wealth of his two wives. As an Ivy League educated millionaire who did not have to work for his fortune, Mr. Kerry never had to worry about the money he earned, the taxes he paid, or the programs he and Ted Kennedy forced the rest of us to pay for. . . . Mr. Kerry Heinz is not effected (sic) when these neighborhoods are destroyed and working class families lose the largest asset in their retirement plans -- their home's value.



Rabbi Smuley Boteach, World Net Daily, May 25, 2004:

Now, having a wife who provides you with a private jet and eight multimillion-dollar vacation homes provides for a comfortable life. But is this the right preparation for becoming president? . . .

To be sure, that does not mean Kerry never did an honest day's work in his life. On the contrary, he was a successful prosecutor, lieutenant governor and distinguished senator. But even while he did these jobs, his wives' wealth always gave him a safety net. He was going to be taken care of whether he succeeded professionally or not. . . .

Whether Kerry wins or loses the presidency, he will still be living like a king. For most people, that would be a blessing. But for someone who wants to be the president of the United States, having such a significant fallback position is actually a curse.

Alas, there is yet one other important consideration that should get us all thinking. Before they married, Teresa Heinz made John Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement. Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?



Taki Theodoracopulos, American Conservative, May 24, 2004:

If John Kerry wins in November, he will be the premiere president of this great country of ours to be also a gigolo. The dictionary defines "gigolo" as a man supported by a woman in return for his sexual attentions and companionship. It might sound rough for John Kerry, but it's right to the point. Let’s face it. The 44th president (maybe) is as close to a gigolo as I can think of, and I have known many.



John F. Cullinan, National Review, July 15, 2004:

To the mayor's ill-considered suggestion that commuters simply work from home, take vacation (on Menino's schedule) or just lighten up, the Boston Herald tartly responded with an editorial aptly headlined DNC to commuters: shut up, stay home. Howie Carr, the most irreverent local political columnist [who routinely referred to Kerry as "Gigolo John" and "Senator Gigolo"], greeted last week's addition of Sen. John Edwards to the Democratic ticket with this puzzler: "For this dynamic duo" — helpfully identified as "the gigolo and the ambulance chaser" — "all of Boston is to be placed under house arrest for four days later this month?



Michelle Malkin, "Limericks for John Kerry," July 24, 2007:

Lucianne’s rhyming readers have responded with their own verses. A sample:

There once was a phony named Jawn

Who almost sailed in on a con

He thought he was shifty

But got beached by the Swifty

Now lives as the Gigolo Mon

Somehow, the deep stupidity of our political discourse actually manages to escalate during presidential campaigns, becoming even more vapid and idiotic than normal. But, as I argued continuously when I did my book tour in April and May for Great American Hypocrites, this is the kind of campaign the GOP runs every election and in which they specialize, and there are only two options for Democrats in response: (1) purport to "rise above it" and thus ensure that they get slaughtered in a one-sided, one-way War of Personality Demonization which renders issues irrelevant (hence: the all-American Everyman War Hero versus the rich, out-of-touch, effete elitist), or (2) attack the GOP candidate using the same lowly character themes in order to neutralize the attacks and prevent the election from being decided on these grounds. It's good to see the Obama campaign, finally, engaging these issues aggressively. As I wrote in my book:

The reason why this has worked is that there are almost never any attacks on these myths, no aggressive examination of the real lives of these leaders. Critics of Republicans shy away from these themes. There is a squeamishness to use their own weapons against them. . . . It needs to be shoved into the media's faces and into our public discourse how false and deceitful and artificial are these "Republican Values" and personality attributes that they concoct for themselves. To do that, the most prominent right-wing political leaders need to be put under a microscope -- their actual lives and beliefs -- to show how lacking they really are in the virtues they claim to exude and revere.

There needs to be a lot more focus of this sort on John McCain's "character," given that, from now until November, no matter what Obama does, the Rovian disciples managing John McCain's candidacy will ensure his campaign is about little other than these sorts of slimy, personality-based, Freak Show attacks on Obama. It's what the GOP does and it's what the media is capable of disseminating.

-- Glenn Greenwald

APOLOGY ACCEPTED.....HONESTLY YOU MISSED MAKING A POINT WITH ALL THE BAGGAGE......NO ONE WANTS TO SORT ALL THROUGH THE DRIBBLE......SHORT AND TO THE POINT IS BEST....

LINDYY

Yeah, reading is such a bother isn't it??

HA HA HA HA HA

Excuse me while I laugh some more.

All that drivel came for the pundits you hold near and dear.

Strike the name Kerry from their comments and insert McCain and it reads well. Except those rat bastards won't say it. Seems the right does some flip flopping and has at best fairly rapidily changing standards.

I included all that so I would not be called a liar by people too lazy to look up the statements themselves. I never imagined those same people would be too lazy to read. Oh, wait I take that back...I am not in the least surprised.

It's called moral relativism.

You never learn do you?

Real 'motivating'.....

LINDYY

Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
Aristotle

Communism is for suck ass losers who have no balls and have an insatiable desire for someone to replace their mommy.
Zapchaser

And communisim amazingly is working far better then the "democracy" we have, think if Russia and China were to join hands...what fun that would be for the "democrats". Face it, every political face has some sort of rotten background. Democrats have money issues at times and republicans...well they have slightly larger money issues...most of the time...last 8 years as a matter of fact...

Well white supremists think everyone not like them are commy. So what does that mean?

Communism has only killed 100 million people, we should give it another chance.

Zat is fery interesting. Tell me, is eferyone vho disagrees viz you a "racist"?

I was being facetious. Symbelmine's Russian teddy bear gave me that bit of humor which has apparently eluded you. I followed a famous quote with a not-so-famous one. Ha ha hee hee You see ANYTHING as being hate filled if it doesn't agree with you. Some people find it extremely difficult to go through life with such a dim "woe is me" outlook on their lives but I must admit that you handle it well.

Brilliantly ignorant. There is no response suitable to such a moronic statement as And communisim amazingly is working far better then the "democracy" we have. First off, we are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC!!!! You need to know what the hell you are comparing before you compare it. Secondly, you are 23 and are clueless.Your view of China and Russia, let's not forget about Cuba and the other communist sh!t holes, come from what? The Olympic blah blah blah? I have wasted enough time on this reply to such an ignorant comment.

Yes well that's secular liberalism for yu

No...communism never worked for the people. It ALWAYS leads to tryanny & more death to people than anything compared. It's called ACCOUNTBILITY...CHECKS & BALANCES...which goes right out the window.

Funny I still thought the people govern this country...so instead of bashing on my "ignorance" how about showing me some facts to support your views? Because well, I have the facts...and it appears however that you do not.

The US uses checks and balances all the time...does that make the US a communist government?

never apologize for what you believe in, it only cheapens your words and your character....
Symbelmyne....

Uh...no. Not when truth gets neutralized & made irrelevant. That does not lead to check & balances. Libs had to do something to justify their deceptions. So they "revise" everything to suit their "institutionalized" brainwashing.

That's communism...cloaking under "freedom."

Some people would be better to '... turn their keyboards 7 times, before typing such 'loud' inept insinuations as 'Representative Rebublic', somehow isn't a form of democracy.

As such, it is perfectly accurate to refer to the 'representative repubublic' system of governement of the USA, as a 'democracy'.

For those attempting to spread the kind of semantics 'affront', insinuating that the USA is not a democracy, and doing it in a rude, and condescending intimidation burst, you are politely asked to go wipe the egg off your faces!!!

... and to make sure you hit the shower, here are the different forms which DEMOCRACY can take:

Representative
(Example: FRANCE AND USA: REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLICS)

Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.

Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.


Parliamentary democracy :
(Great-Britain and most Commonwealth nations)

Parliamentary democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.


Liberal democracy

A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).


Direct Democracy

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue (i.e., voting).[28] Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. However, some see the extensive use of referendums, as in California, as akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with more than 20 million in California, 1898-1998 (2000) (ISBN 0-8047-3821-1). In Switzerland, five million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every March to decide on local issues.


Socialist Democracy

Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.

Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented though a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism)


Anarchist Democracy

The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Some anarchists oppose direct democracy while others favour it. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[29] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[30] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[31] Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.[32]


Iroquois Democracy

Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy.[33] Iroquois government and law was discussed by Benjamin Franklin[33] and Thomas Jefferson.[34] Because of this, some scholars regard it to have influenced the formation of American representative democracy.[34] However scholars who reject multiculturalism disagree that the influence existed or was of any great importance.[35]


Sortition

Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of choosing decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection. It is not universally agreed that sortition should be considered "democracy" due to the lack of actual elections[citation needed].


Consensus democracy

Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.


Interactive Democracy

Interactive Democracy seeks to utilise information technology to involve voters in law making. It provides a system for proposing new laws, prioritising proposals, clarifying them through parliament and validating them through referendum.