Translating John Kerry

Senator John Kerry weighed in today on the Brown-Coakley Senate race in his home state. It might be difficult for many to understand, as he was speaking Democratese. Fortunately, having gotten my Masters in that language (I also had to prove fluency in several Negro dialects to get my degree, but that is an aside) with a minor in lip reading, I can assist with helpful translations of what Sen. Kerry actually said and meant. This from Sen. Kerry:

I'm no stranger to hard fought campaigns, but what we've seen in the past few days is way over the line and reminiscent of the dangerous atmosphere of Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign rallies.

Translation: My God, these right wing yahoos are demanding fiscal discipline and less government - these are precisely the type of people with terrorist predilections that Napolitano warned us about. Can't anyone connect the dots?!?!? For God's sake, someone check their underwear!!

This is not how democracy works in Massachusetts,"

Translation: Who told the peasants that they could start thinking for themselves? What in the nine hells is going on here? [Update: Have to add this in. A quote from a Talking Points Memo post this morning wherein the left wing author gives his perception of the average Bostonian voter: ". . . [T]hey have a certain humility and expect famous people and experts to tell them what to think." Tell them what to think? That is breathtaking in its arrogance and condescension. My satire is trumped by reality.]

"Scott Brown needs to speak up and get his out of state tea party supporters under control.

Translation: I am so screwed if someone doesn't put a lid on these people before I'm up for reelection. Maybe I can impress my states voters by talking about how anti-American the tea party protesters ---

At this point in his speech, Sen. Kerry was interrupted by a phone call from a staffer apparently warning him that the "tea party" as anti-American might not play so well in Boston. Using lip reading, we were able to document his side of the conversation: John Kerry Ready For Duty. Whose speaking? Uh-huh. . . .Yes. . . . Sorry, what's that again? . . . Really? . . . In Boston Harbor you say? . . . 1773? I never knew. . . . So they really were dangerous terrorists even back - - - . . . . . What? Are you sure? Note to self - talk to Bill Ayers about updating the history part of our social justice curriculum.

At this point, he resumed his short statement.

In Massachusetts, we fight hard and win elections on the issues and on our differences, not with bullying and threats.

Translation: Ahem . . . . I sure hope the voters are looking at my words and not Youtube. When a smearmongering rightwing newsie gets thugged by party enforcers and it doesn't get played on the local news, well, no harm no foul.



And there ends John Kerry's helpful - and educational - intercession into the Brown Coakley campaign.

Read More...

Summary only...

Wailing & Lamentations

Shhhhhh!

Listen closely. Make no noise . . .

Do you hear it yet? . . .

No? . . .

Do this. Whisper softly the words "Scott Brown." Whisper the words just once . .

Now wait . . .

Let your whisper take flight . . .

Let your whisper ride high on the winds until, falling gently back to earth, it should chance upon the ears of a Democrat far, far away.

Do you hear it now? The dim but unmistakable sound of wailing. A distant primal scream fading to tear soaked sobs . . .



Heh.

The left has, on a purely intellectual level, long been aware of the falling poll numbers of Obama and his radical agenda. But it has only been with polls showing the revolt of voters in their heartland, bluest of blue Massachusetts, that the full, raw reality of their widespread unpopularity, their preacrious position, and the threat to their radical agenda has gone crashing into their consciousness with all the shock and horror of a tsunami washing over them. The far left is now going through the stages of grief, from denial to negotiation to anger and then back again. Only a very few, such as Evan Bayh, have moved on to acceptance. Those in full blown denial are still trying to trot out the "its all Bush's fault" excuse. The latest comes from the far left site Hotline, a place where biased reporting normally finds acceptance among its commenters:

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush. . . .

I won't bother to quote from the rest of this farcial piece. You can follow the link. But I will quote a few of the comments. There are 881 of them. Here are just the first few:

This is so funny!!!! They are still blaming Bush a year after he left office and four years of a Democratic controlled Congress...unbelievable! Sorry, but at this point the Democrats are responsible for the situation in this country.

HB January 17, 2010 6:59 PM

OMG! Bush tried and tried and tried to get Congress to address the problems with the housing market. It is on record and nobody seems to care.

Bush was shot down by democrats (and a few republicans) each time he tried to get congress to regulate Freddie and Fannie!

Don't get me wrong, I was NOT a Bush fan for his second term. I think he was not a good president in his second term. BUT, the economic situation is square at the feet of Democrats.

How long is the president and his party going to blame Bush rather than getting off their backsides and actually fixing things?

ChrisS January 17, 2010 7:20 PM

Let's be very specific about blame. And let's be specific on what the blame is for:

Behind closed doors, everyone who has a Nebraska zip code is given a break on Medicare, while 49 other states pay for the right of Nebraska's free ride. All for a vote. And how does that rise above the level of bribery?

The Senator from Louisianna is handed $300M for her yes vote. And how does that rise above the level of bribery?

And for union support, all union members are waived of a tax that other non-union members must pay. How does that rise above the level of bribery?

President Bush was not here for this one, folks.

President Obama, don't be surprised with Massachusetts when you have established an environment of corrupt behavior. Yoda said it best, sir. "That is why you fail."

DBC January 17, 2010 7:41 PM

Unbelievable! I was going to use this as a gag line ("Coakley loses; Obama Blames Bush") but I see that reality is TRULY stranger than fiction.

Scott W. Somerville January 17, 2010 8:25 PM


People of Earth:

Just pray your children don't grow up to be Democrats. What a pitiful example for our youth.

FAIRTV January 17, 2010 9:54 PM

LOL, this is hysterical. Satire, right? Blaming Bush?

ROFLMAO, the Dems are officially delusional now. Time to invest in straight-jackets!

Jim Tower January 17, 2010 9:55 PM

MISS ME YET?

George W Bush January 17, 2010 9:55 PM

That is some decent anecdotal evidence that a good portion of America has moved on from the "you can fool me some of the time" stage to the "can't fool me all of the time" stage. When that happens, attempts at fooling start to become offensive. Thus it is safe to say that the continued use of the "it's all Bush's fault" excuse is now counterproductive for the left. Not that the far left won't keep trotting it out. But at some point, likely in the not too distant future, that excuse is going to go from "counterproductive" to "toxic." We will know when we have reached that point. It will be the day Obama opts to man up and treat us to another pro forma "the buck stops here" speech - this time on the economy - and displaying all the false sincerity he can muster.

That said, Obama hasn't yet fully given up on the "it's all Bush's fault" excuse and all its variants. In stumping in Beantown for Coakley, the most ridiculous part of Obama's speech came when he decried how Republican obstructionism was keeping him from dealing effectively with all of the problems he had "inherited." It seemed to pass right over the head of the assembled faithful that Democrats hold [Update: held] a Congressional supermajority - meaning that Republicans have not been able to obstruct a single thing that the Democrats wanted to pass for nearly a year. Perhaps Obama can get away with that in Beantown, but if he trots that one out in, say, his next State of the Union speech, even the left wing media might choke on it. Regardless, it is clear the voting public will. [Update: Even Firedoglake agrees on that point.]

Well, some of the left wing media might choke. Others would, it seems fair to forecast, adopt a pose of blissful ignorance. Newsbusters is reporting that, as of yesterday, CBS news had yet to broadcast a single report on the Senate race in Massachusetts. That is amazing. It is denial with a capital "D." It is the stuff of fairy dust and unicorns.

This 'new' reality will work a sea change in our government. How Obama and the far left will react in the near and long term to this new reality is very much an open question. Will they try to force through health care and whatever else they can using end runs around our deliberative democracy? At least as to Obama and Pelosi, I rather expect that from them because they are true left wing ideologues. Such people are fanatics, not pragmatists. One of the hallmarks of such people - besides a fundamental disrespect for democracy - is that they do not learn from their mistakes nor the mistakes of others - else why continue to push for socialism when it has ultimately been a failure whereever it has been tried? Their anwers to all the ills of society are legislation and government control. And when, surprise, that fails, then the fix is to add more legislation. Repeat ad infinitum. [Update: That was quick. Within the last few hours, we have Pelosi saying that, irrespective of the Mass. election results, "we will have health-care." And from Obama:

President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.

“This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,” a senior administration official said. . . .

Now why should the revolt of voters in blue Mass. give Obama a reason for doubt? And does it make sense to become combative after the election? I guess this is part of his Chicago way - if the voters punch me I'll punch back twice as hard. It should be interesting to see how that philosophy works out when applied to voters at large. It seems to me he might need some of them some day, but what do I know. Indeed, this sounds more like the tantrum of a child than the measured response of a President. At any rate, could Obama and Pelosi have illustrated my points with any more clarity? There will be no move to the center from these two ideologues unless forced in that direction by their own party, kicking and screaming. Otherwise its damn the icebergs and full speed ahead for the USS Obamatanic.]

Will many of the less ideological left start moving to the center, bucking their party out of pure self preservation? We can count on that with the same degree of certainty we reserve for the rising and setting of the sun. The only questions are how many and how soon. If it is a Brown blow-out, the effect might be immediate. It if is a squeaker, regardless of who wins, we will see the same effect, just less pronounced. [Update - Brown has now won the Senate seat by 5 points. That marks a 31 point swing from when Mass. voted for Obama just a little over a year ago. The ramifications of this are huge, particularly in light of like swings in Va. and N.J. The peeling away from Pelosi and Obama has already begun. Rats, sinking ships, etc.]

That brings me to a final point. How in the nine hells did the far left ever get the moniker, "reality based community?" Was that someone's idea of a joke - sort of like calling the hulking peasant of Robin Hood fame "Littlejohn?" Indeed, reality and the far left seem to be near mutually exclusive. Perhaps "irony based community" would be more apropos.

No matter.

Now quiet please.

I want to listen to some more of this . . .

"Scott Brown" . . . .

Heh . . .

Win or lose, I'm really enjoying this.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hmmmm

Intrade has Brown at 60 to 40 over Coakely . . . . This is all just too good to be true. Indeed, it suggests a win outside the margin of fraud. Update: A poll commisioned by InsideMedford.com puts Brown at a 9.6% lead. Though not from a well known pollster, according to Hot Air, it appears not merely legitimate, but probably more accurate than other polls given that the others oversampled Democrats.

Obama showed up in Mass. today to campaign with Coakley. He pulled in a significantly smaller crowd, about 1500, while on the other side of town, Scott Brown held a competing campaign event that had 3,000 indoors and another 1,000 out on the streets. Instapundit has the report and the pictures. It may well be that, as in NJ, Obama's coattails are short indeed.

The conventional wisdom is that if enough Democrats show up at the polls, Coakley can pull out a win. I wonder how true that is. Yes, Republicans are hyper-energized and independents are breaking strongly against Obama. But Democrats themselves seem none too happy being led by the Obama Pelosi clique. The PPP poll a few days ago showed 17% of Democrats planning to vote for Brown while an ARG poll put the crossover vote at 20%. A poll this evening from InsideMedford.com puts the crossover at 17%. Those are significant numbers anywhere - all the moreso in a state that last voted a Republican to the Senate decades ago. And those are likely voters. How many Dems will show their rancor by simply not showing up to the polls? Suffice it to say, the left is facing an internal revolt on a scale not seen since the fall of the Shah.

Apparently, even the White House is now leaking that they expect Coakley to loose. That makes the President's decision to spend his political capital campaigning for Coakley all the more incomprehensible. Perhaps the stakes were simply too high to keep him from making the attempt, or perhaps this is disinformation by the White House in an attempt to energize more Democrats to come to the polls Tuesday. In either event, after Obama's personal intercesion, if Brown does win by a wide margin, this will seem like Judgment Day for the Democrats. The White House can spin it all they want to - and Coakley did run a horrible campaign - but the facts are that this is true blue Massachussets, Ted Kennedy's seat, its a campaign run on national issues, and the future success of Obama's programs on the line. If Brown wins by a wide margin, there just is not enough spin in the world to stop every elected Democrat in Congress from suddenly suffering immediate onset incontinence.

Read More...

Summary only...