Oh, he sometimes pretends that he doesn't care about our special interests. He puts on that callous populist facade. But deep down he cares. Maybe he cares too much. When he's out on the stump saying otherwise, he's just being a big old phony.i mean, how many times can halliburton steal our tax dollars by billing for meals that don't exist and overcharge the military for fuel before the bushies stop giving them contracts? they have now been caught overcharging the u.s. for more money than the company paid in taxes last year. there has practically been new evidence of improper financial dealings every other week. each time it is caught, the company apologizes and repays the government, but how many times can we be ripped off by a company before we say we won't do business with them anymore? in my opinion, a single one of these allegations against halliburton should exclude the company from federal contracts. the bush administration is not even considering that. oh, and meanwhile the company continues to pay cheney a six-figure salary as "deferred compensation" even as he sits in his vice presidential office. that is but one example of this administrations open embrace of "special interests." i won't even mention the energy industry.
so fine. let's say brooks is right and kerry has favored certain "special interests" during his time in the senate. but all that means is both kerry and bush are tied to special interests. and kerry, at least, has not been tied to out and out war profiteering (like the halliburton examples above) which in my mind at least, is far worse.
(postscript: the whole "special interest" buzzword is another aspect of this that i don't want to get into right now. in short, i think it's a term that is devoid of any actual objective meaning. but let's put that aside for the sake of old brooksy)
