Posted on 07/12/2004 5:52:04 AM PDT by crushkerry
No, it’s not just a Jackson Browne song, it’s what these two millionaires want you to believe. These are perhaps the first “Johns” in history to not need a prostitute - because they are servicing other better than any Lady Of The Evening could ever dream of doing.
Reading this New York Times romance novel disguised as a news article we find out that they “finish each other’s sentences”, “touch each other’s arms”, “laugh at each other’s jokes”, hang out with no shoes or ties on, playfully correct each other, and that when John Edwards talks John Kerry liste…er.. Fiddles with his water bottle.
After seeing their 60 Minutes interview, which one could have mistaken for TLC show “A Dating Story” it is obvious these guys are working hard to make people think the like each other. Edwards jumped in while his boyfriend was being challenged on his Iraq stance (What is it again?) It’s like the couple in high school that swapped spit and played tonsil hockey between every class - they wanted everyone to know how much they were “in love”, but were at each other throats (absent the tongues this time) when they weren’t in public. You know it’s bad when hilarious spoofs like this are produced a day after the ticket is announced. We really think their next campaign stop will be applying for a marriage license at the Old State House in Boston.
But despite all their PDA’s, which are easy to laugh at, their mealy-mouthed, idiotic, and quite dangerous non-answers to questions about Iraq deserve further scrutiny.
The big story this week was the Senate report that concluded some WMD intelligence may have been wrong. Before delving further let’s set the groundwork. This intelligence was used by President Bush to make the case for the Iraq war. The Johns saw the same intelligence as President Bush in voting for the war. In his speech supporting President Bush‘s war resolution, Kerry mentioned the danger of Saddam’s WMD’s, and stated the reason he was voting for the resolution was to “disarm Iraq of WMD’s”. In his Senate speech John Edwards called Saddam’s possession of WMD’s a “basic fact”.
Yet when the information comes out that perhaps the intelligence was wrong the Johns have the nerve to say that THEY (meaning the Bush administration) cost American soldiers their lives. Earth to Johns: If Bush is responsible for their deaths THEN SO ARE YOU, as you voted to allow him to do go to war.
They also failed to mention that the Senate report, signed off on unanimously by Republicans and Democrats, indicated that THERE WAS NO POLITICAL PRESSURE APPLIED BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO COME UP WITH INTELLIGENCE JUSTIFYING THE WAR. Yet, the moronic Kerry supporters, even those who signed on the report are calling for an investigation into the Bush administration alleged coercion of the CIA to come up with these reports. We’ll won’t hold our breath for the Johns to tell their “useful idiot” colleagues like Rockefeller, Levin, and Durbin to stop making jackasses of themselves.
Still, the best (or worst) part of the Johns Iraq commentary, is that they efuse to simply answer a "Yes or No question. Wait, they’re both lawyers, it’s not that surprising. First, in the aforementioned NYT article both refused to say whether or not they would have voted for the war had the Senate report information been known by them at the time. Not a hard question, but an answer either way would expose their hypocrisy.
Then, tonight on 60 Minutes, Kerry was asked if he felt the decision to go to war was wrong. Instead of saying “yes” or “no”, which is really all the question asked Kerry, very lawyerly we might add, claimed “I think the war the President took us to war was a mistake.” Oh, you mean the way he did AFTER you gave him the authority to do so? But before he could go further John Jr., came to his master’s defense - touching his arm no less (just as a lawyer might to his client)- jumping in and saying that in a Kerry/Edwards America “no Americans will go to war needlessly.” What the hell does that mean? It sure implies that the 870+ Americans who died in Iraq did so "needlessly", in a war he voted for. And they wonder why there‘s a doubt about him being up to the job?
Finally, Edwards spouts something only a lawyer could say after the clear as mud responses: “ This is not a – I mean, we've now said it 10 times, this is not a complicated thing." Perhaps Ms. Stahl had a brain cramp, but the very simple follow up to that was “Hmm. Really? What have you said 10 times, let alone saying the same thing 10 times? And, come to think of it, did you really answer my question?”
We have heard concern that these two bozos are getting free advertising by not being asked difficult questions on their media tour. We shared them at first as well. But after reading, and especially seeing these two try to explain themselves, we think they should be on every night. First of all, they offer no solutions, let alone consistent answers. Further, their “I Love You Man” routine is easier to see through than Milli Vanilli’s lip synching in “Blame It On the Rain”.
But come to think of it, we would not be surprised if in trying to “out love” each other, some interviewer couldn’t get one of them to act out having the “Big O”, just like the Meg Ryan did in the famous “When Harry Met Sally” diner scene.
Ping
Somebody has a gay fixation. And I am not talking about the candidates. Whomever wrote this is obviously fixated on the issue, and not in a good way. Referring to the candidates servicing each other is a but much for me.
Perhaps you missed the 80% of the article that dealt with their idiotic responses to Iraq questions.
Freudian slip?
Their behavior with each other is an obvious play to their gay and gay-friendly base. They cannot be virulently anti-war which also appeases that base, but they've determined that (like Clinton) their base is more concerned with getting its rocks off than protecting our country from enemies foreign and domestic.
but why would you say that?
have to say I agree with you. I can't believe how many absolutely moronic gay jokes have been made about these guys, both of whom are obviously not at all gay. Wouldn't it be great if the campaign could be about crucial policy choices and not about sophomoric anti-gay snickering? Too much to ask for, I guess.
That "somebody" might be five of the Massachusetts State Supreme Court justices who sanctioned legal marriage for homosexuals this year. You must know that that decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court has had national repercussions, and that's the same state who's voters have blessed the rest of us with Ted Kennedy, Barny Franks, Michael Dukakis,and now the wannabe prez J.F.K(erry).
Again, Kerry's from Massachusetts where THEY have a gay fixation and all the jokes were inevitable when Kerry couldn't keep his hands off Edwards. It does take away from Edwards "manly man" redneck North Carolina charm, though.
bit yes.
Perhaps you confused parody with "snickering". Also, the article really deals with their non-responses to the Iraq questions.
Maybe there really were "witches" in Salem, MA at one time...
Kind of spooky isn't it?
What time would that be? Isn't it strange that Massachusetts had capital punishment in the 17th century and hung innocent people as witches, and now they don't have capital punishment and vote for politicians that Cotton Mather would have chased all over Salem with a rope.
No, just keyboard slip. On my keyboard, the "u" is right next to the "i".
Mine too. But it was funny in the context.
I suppose they have a right to privacy, but when they do it in public, it becomes public fodder.
I'll bet Edwards thought Kerry really wanted him as a real VP. I'll bet he was shocked when he found out what Kerry really wanted him for. I can't believe he went along with it.
Next thing you know, Kerry will demand a new law in Massachusetts allowing polygamy rights for homosexuals. That way Edwards can be his VIP - Very Inportant Person - forever!
The John-Johns are clearly trying to convey the fact that they are buddy-buddy and are a better team than Bush-Cheney. The fact is that Kerry is known to dislike Edwards and is only playing this charade as a means to try to get to the WH. Clearly, the dead cat bounce in the polls that Kerry got as the result of his VP choice, is coming back to haunt him 10 times over. Having made his choice (lemons) he is now forced to try to make lemonade. The choices (Edwards/lemonade) are not playing particularly well anywhere and Kerry knows he is toast. He's just trying to put a good face on a train wreck and hope that, through some huge error, he manages to get to the WH via the back door.
It won't happen, but J F'n Kerry has to have a reason to get out of bed in the morning (aside from getting away from Teraaaaza) and that's all he has. Therefore, the J F'n (for Fony) Kerry and John (I'm too young to know squat) Edwards lovefest will roll on in photo ops that make the rest of us a little ill. It's all they have.
agreed, it was an amusing typo.
BTW, I agree with your assertion concerning the real issues. But they sure are touchy feely to a point that it is sickening.
They refer to their fondling of each other as "Traditional American values."
Maybe in Sodom California and Gomorrah Massachusetts, but outside of those two are the people of the planet earth.
ROTF
What's interesting to me is the "power position" Kerry takes with Edwards.
The first time I saw it .. it reminded me of when aggressive male animals assume a "power position" over a younger female. I know that sounds weird, but if you watch lions or tigers, they exhibit this all the time when a new animal is introduced into the group.
Check it out!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.