What Candidate Kerry Can Expect From His Party

Chron Watch ^ | 20 March 2004 | Joan Marie Nagy

[Lando Lincoln]

There is something strange and very scary going on within the Democratic Party. It’s sinister, it’s diabolical, it’s maleficent, and it’s totally in keeping with what we have learned to expect with ''politics as usual ... Democrat style.'' There’s a dark moon rising on the political horizon and it is threatening to wreak havoc with this summer’s political process.

I’m afraid the leading Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, is unknowingly and unwittingly trapped in a classic real-life horror story. He will inevitably re-enact the horror story in due time as we move closer and closer to the Democratic convention.

There exists an incongruity to the sequences of action within the Democrat operation. Series of events and rationales don’t add up to their logical and expected conclusions, yet they never seem to come under media scrutiny.

It’s as if the Democrats have reinvented truth. Two plus two no longer equals four, it equals whatever the Democrats tell the media to parrot back to the public. The Democrats have perfected the art of the “shuck and jive with a straight-faced delivery” and the media seem to be captivated and in love with the hypnotic farce.

Case in point: The Democrats still contend that Al Gore won the 2000 election. Yet, strangely enough, no substantial party donors, no Democratic power brokers and no significant number of delegates got behind Gore in the early weeks of the campaign. Doesn’t that seem a little odd?

If Gore really did win in 2000, wouldn’t Democrats be itching for the opportunity to prove to the world what they claimed was true? If the number of votes for victory were still there, why didn’t the Democrats provide the arena for the proof?

I mean, come on. If Gore and the Democratic machine had succeeded in stealing the election from President Bush, Republican voters would have counted down the dwindling days on the calendar till the next election and marked them with their own blood. They would have walked through brick walls to carry President Bush, and only President George W. Bush, on their shoulders to the next election campaign to rub their honest victory in the face of the lying liars who lied to them.

The fact that no Democrat insider backed Gore is proof positive that they KNOW Gore lost the election. Even with illegal aliens and Democrat felons voting, Milwaukee derelicts bribed with cigarettes by New York limousine liberals, Philadelphia inner city precincts producing an unbelievable 100 percent turnout, a St. Louis Democrat judge keeping inner city districts open and voting until midnight, and the dead voting in almost every Democrat district--they still lost.

They didn’t run Gore again, because they couldn’t run Gore. He lost in 2000, they knew it, and he would lose again in 2004 and we know it. As Dick Cheney might say, he would lose again ''Big Time.''

Yet even more amazing is the fact that no media personality asked the Democrat kingmakers why, if Gore had already won, wasn’t he again their nominee. There were no cries of ''Where’s Al?'' Seems like a simple, straightforward and obvious question to me.

Now, again, the Democrats stretch credulity with their candidate, Sen. John Kerry. The Democrats have a white-hot hatred of President Bush, yet we are expected to believe that the candidate they have chosen to send Bush back to Texas is Kerry?

Kerry is an arrogant Massachusetts elitist, educated beyond his intelligence, with a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. He is a pathologically indecisive, opportunistic, United Nations bureaucrat-loving, Jane Fonda war veteran surrender monkey who sells his Renoir paintings for campaign cash.

This is ''their guy''? The guy who is going to relate to the common man and make the nation feel all warm and cozy and safe? This is the guy who is going to beat Bush in the South and Midwest?

I don’t think so! Gore didn’t even win his own state of Tennessee or Clinton’s Arkansas in 2000, but the Democrats think Kerry will? Please!

We, the public, are expected to believe this? And once again the good-for-nothing media don't find this strange at all. In fact, they are pumping the hype. Is he the real candidate or is he just another stalking horse until the Democratic convention? Don’t expect the media to shed any light on that subject.

The Democrats seem to have found the perfect dupe in Kerry, as they did in Gore and Torricelli. Even when Gen. Wesley Clark slipped and prematurely told the media that ''Kerry will implode over an intern issue,'' who did Kerry blame for spreading lies? Why, President Bush, of course. Two hours later, Clark’s campaign rushed to say that Clark would endorse Kerry for president.

Just a little hint of what Kerry can expect from his party.

The horror story that Kerry will unwittingly be re-enacting in a replay is the 1979 cult classic ''When a Stranger Calls.'' What a babysitter at first thinks is a joke turns scary when the caller asks about the children and seems to know a lot more than a stranger would know.

After the babysitter makes several calls to the police, they call back with the classic warning, '''We’ve traced the calls ... they’re coming from inside the house!'' So, Sen. Kerry, when the intern issue that Gen. Clark first mentioned starts to get some more press just before the Democratic convention, and when the Vietnam veterans who hate your guts for your infamous war-bashing testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee start to get some valuable prime-time air on the national network news shows around the same time, remember: ''The calls, Sen. Kerry, the calls ... they’re coming from inside your [political] house.''

Joan Marie Nagy is political writer, humorist, and dental technician in Pennsylvania. She receives e-mail at JoanMarieNagy@aol.com

[Lando Lincoln]

Lando

[CasearianDaoist]

I am unclear as to what he means to say. Is he saying that this is a bait and switch operation, or is he saying that the Rats know they cannot win and are looking to make a scapegoat out of Kerry?

[jocon307]

Wow, from the tone of this piece Kerry will be lucky to get out alive!

I did like this description of him as "educated beyond his intelligence", that is so true of many people, and such a deleterious thing when it happens. It is certainly true of Kerry, and no doubt contributes to his indecisiveness and double-think on almost all issues. For example, he seems to want to be elected our head-of-state in order to turn over control of this country to the leaders of other nations (who probably don't want the task) and the UN (who almost certainly do).

Do you think W could run ads stating: "Unlike myself, Sen. Kerry has been educated beyond his intelligence"?

[YourtaxCutMan]

That the 'rats hate themselves mroe than they hate Bush? Or, deep in their hearts they know that Bush is right so they don't want to win but are too scard to admit it?

[Batrachian]

What he's saying is that the Clintons are running the show and they are going to torpedo Kerry's campaign. Why this should be so isn't stated, but it's pretty obvious that Hillary Clinton doesn't want to wait 8 or 12 years, or even longer, to be president. So either she runs in '08 or Kerry comes apart and she runs this year. I think she runs in '08. That's the most rational course of action for her and the one most likely to succeed.

However, Kerry must lose this year for that to happen.

[Betaille]

"Two plus two no longer equals four, it equals whatever the Democrats tell the media to parrot back to the public."
Perfectly said.

[Cboldt]

Kerry is an arrogant Massachusetts elitist, educated beyond his intelligence, with a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. He is a pathologically indecisive, opportunistic, United Nations bureaucrat-loving, Jane Fonda war veteran surrender monkey who sells his Renoir paintings for campaign cash.

*bump* to that!

[tet68]

You can just picture the door to John F'n's luxurious
bathroom being splinted open and that hideous face sticking
through, " Heeeeeeres Hillery!!!".

[Kenny Bunk]

The fact that no Democrat insider backed Gore is proof positive that they KNOW Gore lost the election. Even with illegal aliens and Democrat felons voting, Milwaukee derelicts bribed with cigarettes by New York limousine liberals, Philadelphia inner city precincts producing an unbelievable 100 percent turnout, a St. Louis Democrat judge keeping inner city districts open and voting until midnight, and the dead voting in almost every Democrat district--they still lost.

Jeez, in three lines Joan says what it has taken me a thousand posts to evidently not get across. How'd she do that?

And wadda great way to shut down this argument: "Hey guys, if Gore really won, how come you ain't runnin' him again? Oughta be a shoo-in, right?"

[KJacob]

Does this mean if Bush wins it is because the Clintons made it happen? I do not buy it. Sometimes I think we give them way too much credit. Bush can beat Kerry without the help of the Clintons. I would hate to see it spun this way the day after the election.

[catpuppy]

I think the author correctly sees the Clintons lurking in the background, awaiting the perfect moment to sabotage Kerry (assuming that he does not spare them the effort by self-destructing). Clark's comments got ahead of the plan.

[rightazrain]

You asked:

"I am unclear as to what he means to say. Is he saying that this is a bait and switch operation . . ."

I think the answer is in this statement:

"Is he the real candidate or is he just another stalking horse until the Democratic convention?"

Perhaps Kerry will be dumped and Hillary will be nominated instead?

This is my greatest fear.

[Thom Pain]

"I’m afraid the leading Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, is unknowingly and unwittingly trapped in a classic real-life horror story."

There, that's better.

[COBOL2Java]

Bush can win regardless of whether the Clintonistas deep-six Kerry's campaign, but it's nevertheless interesting to see how truly self-centered Bill & Hillary are, that they would try it.

[Batrachian]

Bush came within a hair of losing in 2000. He can lose this year. I don't mind Democrats damaging each other and helping to elect Bush. That means that evil has been used to do good. I'll take it. Besides, a lot of more prominent political thinkers that myself have put forward this same theory. It makes a lot of sense.

[NonValueAdded]

She is strongly implying the former; bait and switch. Or in this election year, bait and b*tch.

[Lady Jag]

Kerry is an arrogant Massachusetts elitist, educated beyond his intelligence, with a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. He is a pathologically indecisive, opportunistic, United Nations bureaucrat-loving, Jane Fonda war veteran surrender monkey who sells his Renoir paintings for campaign cash.

Ripping! And it's the truth, too!

[Condor51]

"I am unclear as to what he¹ means to say². Is he saying that this is a bait and switch operation, or is he saying that the Rats know they cannot win and are looking to make a scapegoat³ out of Kerry?

---

With all due respect;
1) "He" is a SHE - "Joan Marie Nagy"
2) Joan Marie Nagy is ... humorist
3) Not a scapegoat, more like a sacrificial lamb.

[ex-Texan]

BIG *BUMP* !!

[KJacob]

Don't get me wrong I will take whatever help we can get. I know Rush has been saying this for a while. I am not saying the Clintons will not try to stop Kerry I just sometimes think we give them too much credit.