Bush support by Kerry Donors??

[PABuck_HNTR]

Kerry"™s Top Donors Favor Bush

The latest breakdown on who's contributing what to George W. Bush and John Kerry may tell the American public all they need to know.

According to Opensecrets.org, the Web site which tracks donors and recipients of campaign contributions, nearly half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more money to Bush through January 30 of this year.

During the first 13 months of the election cycle, Bush raised $145 million - more than four times Kerry's $33 million.

Of course, donors often wait to see who a party's clear-cut primary winner will be before going all out with their support. And it wasn't until the Iowa caucus at the earliest when Kerry truly emerged as the Democrats' clear choice, and that was in February.

But for now some of the major Kerry donors break down like this:


Citigroup Inc. -- $187,500 to Bush vs. $79,400 to Kerry

Goldman Sachs -- $282,725 to Bush vs. $64,750 to Kerry

Harvard University -- $8,250 to Bush vs. $53,100 to Kerry

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance -- $69,000 to Bush vs. $50,250 to Kerry

Time Warner -- $63,050 to Bush vs. $41,950 to Kerry

Morgan Stanley -- $177,075 to Bush vs. $40,000 to Kerry
Nine of Kerry's top 20 donors favor Bush with their contributions.

It is interesting to note that, for all Kerry's talk about special interests, trial lawyers and other attorneys comprise at least half of his core contributors.

And for all the whining by the media and the Democrats over the non-existent job loss and the often mythical evidence of outsourcing, two-thirds of Bush's core donors represent the financial services industries, which apparently are much more bullish on America's economy under its current leader.

Newsmax

[Cougar Mag]

the often mythical evidence of outsourcing]

Mythical? Where have you been?

[PABuck_HNTR]

I didn't write the article, but I would like to see proof of what the Democrats are saying. Give me Company names and where they've gone, give me examples of why the unemployment is worse now at 5.6 % than it was when Clintons numbers matched the same 5.6 % for a low , but averaged 5.8 % in his Presidency. I want facts to back up their rhetoric.

I want to know who has taken away the 3 million jobs that Bush supposedly lost? And I want to know how it is possible if the unemployment rate is the same as Clinton's? If Clinton created 22 million jobs and Bush lost 3 million, how does the unemployment rate stay the same?