From Moveon.org about Bush's ownership in a timber company:

[Longhorn]

Under Cheney's definition a small business is any taxpayer who reports some income - even just $1 - from a small business investment or partnership. By this logic, "every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses."2 Also, by Cheney's definition, President Bush would have counted as a small business in 2001 because that year "he reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise."3 The overwhelming majority of actual small businesses are in the lower tax brackets and would be unaffected by the Kerry proposal.4

[GiovanniC]

1. Can We Find This From a More Mainstream Source?

I love MoveOn, but you know the eyes will roll if that's the primary source we use.

[TheWebHead]

2. ow, wow...

I guess Kerry will save that discussion for the post debate talking heads. I thought he was just saying that as a hypothetical example...

[KittyWampus]

3. Excellent! Bush Is TOAST When Factchecking Comes Out!!!

[napi21]

4. Good explaination, but Kerry's remark is going to require a lot!

Ill give him a pass on it, but lots of people are going to have to explain this one.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Busted!!!! he's screwed!

[MaineDem]

6. http://www.jregrassroots.org/jre/viewtopic.php?p=42883

President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)