Rotating Header Image


Kerry’s last night oogie-boogie “Cheney’s daughter” lob emphasized to me just how repulsive John Kerry’s character is — and, I had the very same reaction when John Edwards went all besmirchy with Vice President Dick Cheney during the Vice Presidential debate — and was second only to the bottom out of Kerry’s reference to “The Sopranos” (“…like asking Tony Soprano about law enforcement…”).

But what was really, really awful last night was Kerry’s end all of darkness descending, with that parade about him, Kerry, having made the most noticable of all the marrying up of all the men present.

At that point, there should have been a moderator demand for Kerry to discuss his prostate. Or his mouth of pearly, new porcelain crowns (by the way, did his Blue Cross/Blue Shield taxpayer funded healthcare plan pay for those), a wrap-up about Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s “emergency level” tummy ache from a month or so ago, some discussion about how we all know that Teresa has emotional issues but are afraid to actually talk about them, things of that nature.

Kerry’s now saying that he ‘loves his daughters’ and so his motive in bringing up the “Cheney’s daughter” thing was based upon Kerry’s ‘love of his daughers,’ but if that was the case, is the case, why didn’t Kerry just say that he loved his daughters and aren’t daughters great or cute or, more or less, that.

But, no, Kerry brought up Cheney’s daughter. And not that Kerry loved his daughters, nor that he loved Cheney’s daugher, but that Cheney’s daughter was “a lesbian.”

Umm, again, why didn’t someone yell out, “and what about your prostate” to Kerry? Catch as catch can, donchyaknow.

But, whatever Edwards’ motivation was when he made that pointed blurb to Cheney during their debate — pointed blurb, as in, aggressive, outside the line of discussion, taste and interpersonal consideration — was there another frame or counter to that by Edwards? If so, I haven’t heard what that was, but I have read a few statements by Edwards’ missus today, and she has finally come out as the attorney that she is: blaming Mrs. Cheney, accusing the Cheney’s of “having shame” about their daughter when the question was posed to the missus as to Kerry’s outrageous diversion from good taste last night.

It’s not a case of anyone “having shame,” no more than it is about Kerry’s prostate or his ‘love of his daughters’ (hint to John Kerry: no one believes you when apply this excuse to your gaff, and gaff is too nice a word here but I use it because I’m nice and you aren’t), it’s about John Kerry’s behavior. It’s not about the Cheney’s, the Cheney’s daughter, the daughter’s sexuality or how the Cheneys feel or do not feel about any of that, it’s about John Kerry and Kerry’s subhuman smear, and the fact that Kerry’s pearly crowns cannot hide the darting tongue.

So, let’s discuss John Kerry’s prostate. Let’s talk about his divorce. Maybe Teresa’s disconnect from one of her own children. No? Why not?

Because some of us have character.

Someone tell Kerry that character isn’t the thing they took out of his arse.

Wait. Apparently, in Kerry’s case, it was.

C O M M E N T S : now closed