A Story That Is Funny

[angrydemocrat]

I ran across this two page story parts are truly funny other parts are just bullshit or if you ask me opinions of the author in a lot of cases. But there are parts that are funny. For instance how John never called * by his name or president he always called him "idiot" or just said him or he, LMAO sounds like all of us. And Teresea calling John's campaign people when she got pissed and told them she wanted to challenge Dean to a debate LMAO. I found alot of it to be a pisser but to me this tells you that behind closed doors that John can be as mean as we can LMAO. He is a wild man and fighter and the repukes asses especially "idiot" as John says is in deep shit and fixing to drown in it LMAO!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/132qyomj.asp

I think we have a new name for * I think we should call him "idiot" all the time like John does LMAO.

[angrydemocrat]

1. kick

[Goldeneye]

2. Carville broke down in tears?

Somehow that wouldn't surprise me. The article is pretty negative, but I brought back the best paragraph...

The result is quite a piece of reportage. There are gossipy set-pieces (James Carville broke down in tears during a September meeting with top Kerry brass), there are tidbits of insider information (Laura Bush's Secret Service codename was "Tempo"), and there are quirky character notes (Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's campaign manager, once fell asleep standing up and "hit the floor with such force that he cracked a rib"). But the book is also a little bewildering. It contains so much detail, so many factoids, that
a reader's first reaction must be: How on earth did they get this stuff?

[TayTay]

3. Consider the source

It's the Weekly Standard. The bastards who broke all the Clinton stuff. They make shit up. Really and truly, they make shit up.

[Goldeneye]

4. Glad to hear that.

I'm pretty new to this stuff so I'm still learning which sources are reliable. Some of it seemed pretty out there as the original poster said.

[TayTay]

5. They did all the Paula Jones stuff

I know Clinton was a rascal and stuff and he did have relations with women of low character (and very big hair) but I don't think he did all that stuff the Weekly Standard said he did. It's a smear piece. Believe it at your peril. These guys are paid by the whole Richard Mellon Scaife (sp) foundation to lie their asses off in the hope that something will stick.

See David Brock's book: Republicn Noise Machine
See Joe Conanson: The Hunting of the President (book & DVD.)

If they can take a Dem out, they will. They are ruthless and without anything resembling morals or ethics. Again, they make shit up.

[Goldeneye]

7. Its not widely circulated is it?

I suppose anything that makes dems look bad will make its way around. Did newsweek actually have anything to do with the article?

[whometense]

6. I hate the way they do this stuff.

To my mind, this article really does point to a problem for Kerry - and that is, the way he was written up by reporters.

It really frosts me. * sends thousands and thousands of young Americans to their death for no reason, but Kerry gets written up in a negative way because he's always trying to get more information.

Perhaps if * did a little more "hand-wringing" the country wouldn't be in the dire mess it's in today.

The one part I liked, and that really did ring true, was the part about JK never referring to * respectfully. Hah! "These guys are the most crooked, lying..."

[TayTay]

8. To hell with them

They are liars. Read David Brock's book: Blinded by the Right : The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. He talks about this and other smear campaigns.

Kerry did say that these guys were liars. :wtf: they are the worst bunch of lying, cheating, chickenhawk bastards on the planet. You will not find anything that you can trust or believe in from these guys. No doubt some stuff happened. But by the time they get through with the exxagerations and half-truths, you got nothing believable.

Really.

And Whometense: Pats win :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
TayTay insufferable for the whole week.

[whometense]

9. hahahaha

Love your jumpies. It was a good game - though if I'm to be honest I'd have to say I'm a fairly casual football fan.

That said, after a week of bigtime media suckup to Manning it was a pleasure to see the Pats stick it to them. And I say that even though Brady's a friggin' repug.

[TayTay]

10. Oh no! First Schilling, now Brady, it's an epidemic

Well, my daughter always listed Tom Brady as husband possibility. No friggin way any spawn of mine is marrying a rethug, even if he is Tom Brady. Eeoooowwwwey.

I am not the biggest Pats fan in the world either (not like my beloved Red Sox.) At least Brady never publicly endorsed *. Yucky. And at least Brady never got a talking to by certain sports team owners who reminded said player that you shouldn't piss off powerful people who will still be around and still be powerful even if they don't win a certain national office. Especially people who helped us when we had some problems getting the team. Love ya Curt, but geez!

[whometense]

11. Yup. Brady does seem to be more

circumspect than Schilling.

It's true love for the Sox for me too - something about the sounds of baseball. So evocative.

Brady's cute, but your daughter can do better. ;-) My daughter was dating a repug up until the election (for 2 years), but she couldn't stand it anyore and had to break it off. He was in many ways a delightful guy, but he had this bad habit of turning his mind off when politics were discussed. She couldn't turn him to the light, and it drove her crazy. He was from a redder part of MA - the Springfield area, to be exact. Not that that's an excuse for being dim.

Good thing this forum's only for dems...my ass would be flaming.

[TayTay]

12. Kids, ya gotta watch 'em all the time

Thankfully, I sent my daughter away to the liberal oasis of NYC to go to college. She has a better chance of having monkeys fly out of butt than meeting a repuke in NYC. (Of course,that's why I keep a baseball bat near the front door, in case she does find one. Ever vigilant.)

Hey, wait a minute. Didn't a certain Senator from MA met, fall in love with and marry a Repub? Perhaps there are reformable Repubs. But not repukes, they are a different breed.

Still too happy. I think it was just the commentary that got to me. Manning this and Manning that. Brought out my evil, insufferable side that likes to gloat. (I said it was an evil side.)

[whometense]

16. So, we have our

repubs, repugs, and repukes.

Interesting. How would you define the differences?

Repubs - born that way, but don't particularly think that way. Sort of Lincoln Chafee-esque.

Repugs - born that way and proud of it.

Repukes - Christian right. Believe everyone else is going to hell, and that they deserve to. Will lie, cheat, steal in order to win 'cause (their) god wants it that way.

I'm a little vague on the difference between repugs and repukes. Feel free to fill in the blanks...

[JohnKleeb]

19. Go Steelers!

Sorry guys but I am a product of Southern Pennsylvania, I gotta go for Steel city. I don't know big Ben's politics but I do know that he is a classy guy, giving his playoff check to the tusaumi victims really means something. Hell he's now my favorite athlete, I hadn't had one for a while after my boyhood idol, Cal Ripken retired.

[angrydemocrat]

14. Weekly Standard Has Always Been Full Of Shit

I just like the part about Teresea and John always calling him a idiot and all that sounds true. But I said it had a lot of shit in the stoy as well. And when everyone seen who wrote that should say something.

[angrydemocrat]

13. I Said Alot Of It Was Bullshit LMAO

You have to consider the source. I thought it was somewhat funny. But I also said I felt like it was full bullshit and the authors opinions in most cases. This is the bullshit along with other that will be in that damn book they are putting out. But parts are funny.

[elshiva]

17. Bullshit is where they trash Dean and Kerry

like with Joe Trippi's fall and Kerry's alleged hairbrush tizzy.
This is all peanuts to Dubya falterings and idiocies.

[angrydemocrat]

21. I agree

Hell we need to write a book about the "idiot" with all his bullshit in it.

[elshiva]

15. Deja Vu!

"I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot."--Kerry said when he was behind in the polls.
Remember the Saturday Night Live skit, a parody of the 1988 presidential debates where Poppy stood up and intoned idiotically, "Read my lips no new taxes! A thouSAND points of light!"
Then Dukakis shook his head and said, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."

It is too sad to be funny...

[whometense]

18. Jon Lovitz.

It was hilarious when he said it - but sad. Now it's even sadder.

[TayTay]

20. Gotta go!

I have to get up at 5:30. But still happy from Pats win and finding yummy pics. See ya!

[angrydemocrat]

22. I agree

This is the bullshit that they are putting in that book by newsweek. Most of it is bullshit. Kerry has said * was a idiot or a fool before but so fuckin what he is. Hell at least he didn't tell the bastard to go fuck himself like Cheney told Leahey although I'm sure that's what he would like to tell him.

[elshiva]

24. Hey, thanks for remembering

Dukakis+Kerry= Two great men too great for the WH

[sandnsea]

23. The irony

"I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot." Later, faced with criticism over his "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" remark, Kerry said: "I can't believe I'm getting killed over a stupid thing I said, and this guy has totally screwed up the war--and he's not paying a price for it." And later still, on the day of the final debate, Kerry saw a newspaper headline which read: "Time to Break the Tie." "I don't understand this," Kerry said to no one in particular. "I've beaten the guy twice now--and somehow it's a tie. Why is this a must-win for me? When is it going to be a must-win for him?"

They're the obvious questions. Reported by the dumbass "liberal media". With OUR people calling it whining!!! God I'd love to know who that "top aide" was. Let me get a hold of a couple of these people and they'll wish they were only going up against Karl Rove. :grr:

[angrydemocrat]

25. I totally agree

That is what pisses me off. If Kerry questions any damn thing he is considered whining but the repukes it all well and good. I say fuck that and it is time to fight these people. I don't know about you but I don't feel we can just let the bullshit ride. Because all it is going to do is keep happening over and over. Something has to be done to stop this shit we have to fight back. We need to be rallying the troops and stage a all out war against fools like these. One of my number one target this next few years is the Swifty Liars. Those fools have got to go they have to be put out of commission!

[JI7]

26. it certainly does show Kerry views the media just as we do

i remember before his convention speech they showed him just hanging around with some of his friends and the media microphones were near and caught some of the conversation. they heard them just talking about the previous convention days and speakers and Kerry made some comments about how the speeches and people are great but the problem is that many people are not able to view it . he talked about how it seems most of the coverage is about the talking heads(he used that term) on tv rather than the convention speakers and their speeches.

it shows he wasn't out of it in some totally other world where he didn't know how the campaign was being portrayed to the masses by the big media.

[whometense]

27. Abso-f***ing-lutely

Who are these anonymous "aides" and "staffers" who were always giving out this crap?

[ginnyinWI]

28. this stuff was all in the Newsweek Special Edition, Nov. 15th

I bought that copy, despite the smirky face on the cover!

The Weekly Standard is just trying to get some more mileage out of it. Newsweek was already somewhat slanted, (just like they were for that Nov.11 interview put out recently), but then the Weekly Standard goes them one further--for their own audience,I'm sure. A writer usually has some idea in mind about what message they want to convey--to fit conventional wisdom, or their readers' expectations, or their own viewpoint. And whatever you write in the article, you compare it to the overall point of the story.

Ok so my take on the Newsweek coverage is: obviously they had both campaigns all written up in advance--it was extensive coverage and they would have only had time to tweak it one way or the other before sending to the printer. Once Bush was declared winner, they prettied up his stuff, but left Kerry's in--you don't want to be on record as having smeared the one who will take office and can limit further access (in Bush's case he does that anyway).

So Kerry would complain--so what? The guy was running the race of his life and everybody would have been exhausted. They had to keep going, whether they had enough sleep, were sick, hungry, or whatever. Notice how very thin JK got towards the end? As if he had much weight to spare, anyway--lol. And though he seems to have a tremendous amount of energy, everyone has their limit. If his aide didn't have his brush, he screwed up and deserved to be chastised. This has nothing to do with Kerry as a Northeasterner, or elitist, or anything. A lot of people would behave much worse, I'm sure. Everyone knew that there was little room for error, and little things could turn out to be very important, because the media was looking for every flaw. Bush got a pass, but Kerry had to be perfect.

But I mean to say, the guy is HUMAN. We've heard and read about Bush, how he is sarcastic and condescending with his aides and cabinet members behind closed doors. He's had some trouble re-staffing his cabinet, and that probably has something to do with it.


Kerry did say "the president" or "President Bush" or "George Bush" quite a lot in public. I don't think he was afraid to say the name out of insecurity! That doesn't wash with me--a U.S. Senator doesn't have those sorts of insecurities--as much as the journalist might wish to read that into it. It all goes to the "loser" meme they wanted to promote. They wanted to help us all "make sense" out of why and how Kerry lost--thanks but no thanks, Newsweek. Sorry, no sale.

What I think is that JK knows how to be a true gentleman and statesman--well bred, they used to say--but he also knows how to be a regular guy, swear and talk tough off the record. Someone you'd think twice about crossing; someone you'd hesitate to try to push around. He's not an elitest, out of touch aristocrat who sniffs down his nose at everyone else. That is more like Bush--I believe he really is condescending to everyone--calling people nicknames is being a holier-than-thou bully.

Throughout JK's whole campaign, the worst they could throw at him were lies that had no basis in reality. What does that say about a man? No secret affairs, no money scandals, no lies, no deceptions. So they said he lied about his war record (proven wrong), and was indecisive (an opinion not shown by facts) and speculated about what he would or would not do if elected (pure speculation--no facts there either). The worst they could do is cause a vague sort of doubt about him based on stereotypes people already had about Democrats and Massachusetts liberals and such. Which was bad enough, but says nothing based on facts. JK can be very proud of himself on that front. The guy is the definition of a politician with integrity, and that is why we believe in him as much as we do!