Rotating Header Image



This comes from Boston, so it should be taken more seriously than if it was coming from DailyKos (where, by the way, John Kerry is accredited as having written lately — which reinforces to my view that he’s “done,” that Kerry is just, plain over).

‘STICK A FORK IN JOHN KERRY, HE’S DONE(03/2010 Update, URL no longer active.)
by Howie Carr, Boston Herald Columnist, January 22, 2006

John F. Kerry still dreams of becoming the next John F. Kennedy, but he’ll never even reach Ted Kennedy heights, or is it depths?

Not that anyone would ever dare tell Liveshot this. Seldom is heard a discouraging word when you’re a 62-year-old gigolo married to a 67-year-old gold digger worth close to $1 billion.

Ever more delusional, Kerry still fancies that his next job is commander-in-chief. He refuses to face the reality that he’s already well into his final role on the public stage.

He has become the Mike Dukakis of the 21st century.

John Kerry, reporting for doody – – er, make that, duty.

The twilight of John Kerry is nicely sketched in an amusing new story about him in GQ, by a writer named Michael Crowley. Everyone in Massachusetts, including his ostensible supporters, knows what a complete fraud Kerry is and always has been, but it’s nice to see the news again reaching a national audience, even if it’s just in a fashion magazine for fops.

Poor John. Lately he’s been on his foreign tour – – don’t ask me where; all I do is read the headlines, roll my eyes and immediately turn the page – – and he’s still getting slammed back home.

One of the set pieces in the GQ story concerns a speech Mama T’s boy toy made at Georgetown University. It was pretty good, the writer says, but then the junior senator began taking questions from the students.

“The pain of it all came rushing back,” he writes. “Kerry’s responses were brutally long-winded, as if he were intent on slowly suffocating their earnestness with leaden filibusters. Eyes glazed. Yawns unfolded. Even the kids at the mike shifted their weight impatiently.”

Anyone who has ever suffered through a live appearance by Liveshot knows exactly this feeling. After 22 years in the Senate, the scion of the Forbes fortune is an empty suit’s empty suit, a windbag di tutti windbags.

Here’s another quote from the GQ piece, from an anonymous Senate staffer:

“There is this weird cognitive dissonance. You see Kerry in the Dirksen (Senate Office Building) cafeteria getting a salad, and you think, ‘You were inches from becoming president, and now you’re getting your own salad. And it’s not even a good salad.'”

Thank God – – and the late Sen. Heinz’s trust fund – – the junior senator will soon be back in his Sperry Topsiders biking down Hulbert Avenue on Nantucket, and if this parvenu wage slave had ever been to the Chanticleer Inn, he would know that their lobster salads are…to die for!

The GQ story mentions a radio interview in which an NYU professor says Kerry said he thinks the 2004 election was “stolen.” Apparently Kerry’s office denies this, but everyone here knows Kerry’s people have been saying the same thing for almost a year.

Amazing, isn’t it? The guy loses by 3 million votes, and he thinks it was “stolen.” It’s beyond cognitive dissonance. If his second wife hadn’t inherited a billion dollars, guys in white coats would be sneaking up behind him with a net.

But Kerry is running again, it’s his destiny, it’s why his initials are JFK. That’s why his equally crazy younger brother Cam Kerry wanted to run for secretary of state this year, to set himself up to run for what would have been the open “Kerry” Senate seat in 2008.

Anyway, it’s a funny story in GQ, and I can only hope it’s read by one group of people in particular – – Kerry’s fellow snot-nosed, trust-funded Birkenstock-wearing layabouts who refuse to peel those absurd Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers off their new Volvos.

There is also, for your viewing entertainment, “THE ULTIMATE JOHN KERRY AD” by Mark Simone

For added emphasis that the Swift Boat Vets are American heroes, read:


5 C O M M E N T S

  1. justaguy says:

    I figured you would enjoy this…

    Documentary casts Kushner in flattering light”


  2. -S- says:

    I would not expect anything realistic about him, given that the motivations are certainly there to carry forward with presenting him as a worthy individual. It boils down to my view that there is incentive provided to tell the tale so, and so, it’s told as this tale. It’s certainly non-objective, like, well, a school of tuna: they’re all going to be swimming in the same direction and in one noticable mass because, well, they’re all tuna! Flocks flock together, Kushner’s “favorable” to others like him, it’s more of the closed society that ensures the closed society that ensures that the closed society favors the closed socialites. It does not evidence nor substantiate that it’s a good society, nor that the socilites in it are valuable or worthy, but that they are minding the behaviors that mind the structure in which they are contained: a closed society.

    I’d never associate the word, “moral” with “Kushner,” however, based upon who he is and what he has chosen to involve himself in, to the denial of other choices.

    I was reading a while ago that Peter Bart opines that there will be less films next year from Hollywood because — he actually said this, actually seems to believe this — that the market no longer wants to see a variety or large number of films. He does not get the fact that it’s not a question of audience not wanting to see a large array, as in quantity, of films but that Hollywood seems to only be able to make the same type of film over and over again and it’s not a type that is appealing to most people in one title or in multiples of dozens of titles. Hollywood, the closed society, goes apey over issues, subjects and perspectives that are oftentimes quite disgusting and objectionable to most people and it’s the ISSUES/PERSPECTIVES that are being rejected by audience, not the number of films by and about the same general perspectives.

    It does all seem to come down to the fact that there is the liberal left, with a socialist, marxist perspective — those people who comprise the closed society of today’s “entertainment industry,” generally — and then there are the rest of Americans, particularly, who still miss John Wayne and truly appreciate Mel Gibson, at least most of what he’s done to-date, as also a few but only a few others currently producing entertainment (THE INCREDIBLES, SPIDERMAN I and II, MASTER AND COMMANDER, these are wonderful films also). And, instead, the left perseveres in these offputting explorations in some failed tangential pursuit, as if their interests were those of most Americans.

    The left just does not get this. They do not comprehend that their perspectives are a turn-off to many and thus, they are not producing product that people want to purchase. Not to the degree that theatre attendance exists, anyway. I scan through my PPV options and even most of HBO and Showtime and Starz, etc., and there are probably only about two, three films on any entire month that I value while the rest is, literally, all some sort of monster turning inside out and consuming eternity while freezing over heaven and impaling others by vanity and grotesque suggesstion, if not deeds…

    The left who is responsible for this vast waste of spirit and worth, just does not get it. Kushner is among them.

    End…writing to the choir.

  3. justaguy says:

    Hah! That’s funny…I was thinking the exact same thing…I read that article.

    It was this line that made me chuckle…

    “Talk to the corporate hierarchs and you quickly elicit the thinking behind this pullback: Too many movies have been crammed into a market whose appetite for new product has obviously leveled off.”

    That’s the problem…there hasn’t been any “new product.”

  4. -S- says:

    Yep. Exactly. It’s not a case of “too much new product” but of there being “too much of no (or losing) product.” Bart’s comments don’t so much reflect badly on Bart but they do reflect accurately and badly about the industry, although not the intention of Bart but Bart as vehicle of how limited the scope is of the industry on average today, and has been for several years.

    I DO accredit that to the industry now being too “P.C.” as an industry and what they’re producing reflects an intense levelling…flat, monotonous, not daring to explore truth and heroism, not daring to explore outside their own industry-wide “P.C.”ness.

    Even their so-called ‘political intrigue’ films (George Clooney and Spielberg of late come to mind): they produce excellent technical works, a clear indication of great organization, even quite talented organization as to technical innovation and expertise, and yet the message, the film content, runs counter to heroic and reaffirms some sort of “excellent average,” some sort of “masses superior to the heroic” monotony that effects a turnoff to most film viewers. Worse, it communicates strong distrust of the heroic, which I believe is exactly the problem that the “P.C.”ness of the film industry authors.

    Let’s see…monsters, ghouls, possessions of monstrous spirits of the evil spirits on earth, “evil is fun,” odd-to-horrid life forms from unknown worlds…these themes from the industry reflect the “P.C.”ing-dumbing down of content and even purpose: don’t try to explore because it’s all known and everything known is foul so just relax and ‘have fun’.

    This, to my view, is also why they can only realize true empathic, sympathic relationships with audiences when and only when depicting liberal and liberally left “P.C.” themed characters — because they are being rewarded by their own, self affirming, reaffirming the counter to the heroic, that everything else other than their depicted standard is enemy. They can’t recognize true heroics, although LADDER 49 comes pretty close in achieving that, as have a few other, but isolated, titles.

    But the ultimate worst to my view is the industry inability to explore the heroic. This, again, to my view, reflects the monotony of just what dedication to the “P.C.” perspective and standard (?) is: hold it here, relish in free stuff (no accounting of who ever pays for it), denounce those trying to make it on their own (the hero, in that sense, is denigrated by way of various trendy insults, including reducing heroic to insipidness — this is why I “like” DAWN OF THE DEAD among a few of Romero’s films, because they caricature the caricatures of heroes reduced to the insipid, in which case, reduce them to zombies for the ultimate caricature and counter effect), and literally, stomp capitalism, harass democracy. These “better zombie” films, however, hinge upon the heroic actions of a few, self determination, some one character taking the lead to, literally, survive by their wits; given the genre, doom is inevitable, I realize, but the process runs counter to the “P.C.” standards of, well, by-sameness/moral relativism-are-we-all-made-whole

    At times like this, that line from THE INCREDIBLES is befitting: “when everyone is special, then no one will be.” I often think THE INCREDIBLES is more a film about what’s wrong with Hollywood than anything else. And, it’s more of why THE INCREDIBLES is a very good film, in my view, especially in comparison with the awful-average, terrible-normal that Hollywood is today, that represents the “P.C.”ing down of daring do. I don’t have confidence that liberals of Hollywood today can even understand this, beyond making films that reinforce their perspectives that “communism is fun!”

  5. -S- says:


    Not that most of us have not noticed already, but the liberal media has gone completely dark since John Kerry’s Word Waste. A Google “News” search provides this exceptionally limited range of results, and among them are two Liberal site sources (the Ne…