January 24, 2007

AND WITH THAT HE'S NOT EVEN ONE OF THE FIVE MOST DELUSIONAL SENATORS ANYMORE:

Kerry won't run for president in '08 (Rick Klein, January 24, 2007, Boston Globe)

An emotional Senator John F. Kerry today said he will not run in the 2008 presidential race and vowed to use his Senate perch to hasten an end to the war in Iraq, saying he would work with lawmakers from both parties to reverse President Bush's troop "surge" and force him to withdraw virtually all troops from Iraq by early next year.

Teresa has to be shopping for fresh blood if this shlub has topped out at junior senator from MA.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 24, 2007 5:12 PM
Comments

The foot rubs were great while they lasted though.

Posted by: jeff at January 24, 2007 5:50 PM

Are you saying that the only reason Teresa Heinz Kerry married Senator Kerry was because she hoped he would someday become president? If that is the case, please provide either evidence to support your claim, or an apology for a baseless accusation.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 6:51 PM

Are you saying that the only reason Teresa Heinz Kerry married Senator Kerry was because she hoped he would someday become president? If that is the case, please provide either evidence to support your claim, or an apology for a baseless accusation.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 6:53 PM

No, I'm saying she only married him because he's a Senator. There are better senators available.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 7:07 PM

Please provide either documentation for your assertion of her motivations in marrying Senator Kerry or an apology.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 7:09 PM

It's hardly secret that she married him because she thought she could make him president:

www.slate.com/id/2092399/

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39691-2002May31?language=printer

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 7:12 PM

Well, there's Senator John Heinz. So we know she likes Senators. I can't think of any other reason anyone would marry Senator John Kerry, especially an indpendently wealthy woman like Heinz.

I am also wondering what would count as documentation — an interrogation report after spending time in Guantanamo?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at January 24, 2007 7:15 PM

The Slate story you cite, oddly, contains nothing that says she married Kerry because he is a senator. Unless you can actually back up your allegation, you now owe your readers two apologies, one for the original false allegation and the second for presenting as supporting evidence something that does not, in fact, support your original allegation.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 7:54 PM

The Slate story you cite, oddly, contains nothing that says she married Kerry because she "thought she could make him president." Unless you can actually back up your allegation, you now owe your readers two apologies, one for the original false allegation and the second for presenting as supporting evidence something that does not, in fact, support your original allegation.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 7:55 PM

He's a man with no friends yet you think someone loves him? He was merely a convenient vehicle for her ambitions.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 8:07 PM

Are you saying that Senator Kerry's wife does not love him? Do you have anything to support that statement?

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 8:15 PM

Yes, he's unlovable. She's the only one who even pretends to like him.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 8:48 PM

I take it that if you actually had anything to support your allegations, you'd have brought it out by now.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 8:59 PM

Allegations? They're called jokes. But, all humor being conservative, you take them seriously even as we're making fun of you as well as the Heinzs. Further proof that today's Left exists only to amuse the rest of us.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 9:16 PM

Jack Harkness = John Kerry. No one else would be so strident.

Posted by: Bob at January 24, 2007 9:42 PM

To the contrary, they're all that way. After all, to the conservative life is a comedy, to the liberal a tragedy.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 9:47 PM

Oj. here's a reader who doesn't need an apology. I'm surprised mommy stuck around this long.

I understand she originally thought to marry Prince Charles and become the Queen, but when that didn't pan out, she settled for Kerry who's a beautiful rainbow of multi-cults in one dorky package.

Posted by: erp at January 24, 2007 10:38 PM

I suppose the City of Boston can replace that fire hydrant it moved a few years ago.

Hey Jack - did you catch the photo of Kerry languishing in the background while the new Senate leadership (Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Murray) walked forward to meet the press a few weeks ago? Even Teddy has given up on 'Live Shot' - why haven't you?

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 24, 2007 10:41 PM

Interesting that you now claim to be joking only after you've been caught lying.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 11:43 PM

Oh dear.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at January 24, 2007 11:55 PM

Oh dear.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at January 24, 2007 11:57 PM

So, after not announcing that he's running for president he announces he's not running for president...ok.

Posted by: Dave W at January 25, 2007 1:04 AM

ok

Posted by: Dave W at January 25, 2007 1:05 AM

Lying? No one thinks she loves Kerry. No one even likes him.

He was a convenient vehicle for her ambition. When your car breaks down you get a new one.

Posted by: oj at January 25, 2007 8:48 AM

And the lies go on. Apparently that's all you have left.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 25, 2007 10:02 AM

I wonder if Tereza has been phoning Julia Thorne?

If they are still married in 4 years, I will be surprised. Why is Jack so upset about a D.C. soap opera?

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 25, 2007 10:19 AM

Not upset, just standing up for the truth. You see, there are people in this world who care about truth. Then there are the people like the ones who write this blog. These people need to be exposed, from time to time, for what they are.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 25, 2007 10:21 AM

Jack - even you have to admit that Tereza and John both fit their stereotypes very well.

The burden of proof is on you in this argument. For example, how many nights have the couple spent together since the 2004 election? With 5 homes, my guess is less than 1/4 (if that).

If Laura Bush were in the White House just one or two nights a week, it would be national news. Would you approve of such reporting?

Posted by: ratbert at January 25, 2007 10:51 AM

The burden of proof, quite obviously, does not fall upon the one asking for proof -- proof which the proprietor of this blog has failed to provide, thus exposing him as a liar. This is particularly clear after his attempt to misrepresent a Slate article as supporting his false accusations about the Kerrys' marriage. I'm sorry your standards of truth and decency are so low you fail to understand this.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 25, 2007 11:06 AM

When a Lefty starts tossing around the "lying" accusation, you know you've won the argument.

In Leftspeak, "to lie" is to express an opinion not in the approved liturgy of the Gospel according to Chomsky. They easily toss the accusation around because they assume everyone is just like themselves, and they know just how much they "lie". Which is why another part of the same liturgy is to contantly assert a that they have a monopoly on "the truth." They really do seem to believe that if you repeat a slogan enough times, it'll magically replace reality.


Posted by: Raoul Ortega at January 25, 2007 11:09 AM

Jack, let me ask something here. Accepting, for purposes of argument, your assertion that OJ's commentary here is an affront to truth and should be exposed as such, are you equally offended by any of the following:

1. the attempt, before the '04 election, to disparage President Bush's National Guard service by producing forged documents?

2. the persistent claim, on numerous Left-leaning websites, that Vice President Cheney actually controls the government and President Bush is a mere figurehead?

3. the repeated claim by the "Capitol Hill Blue" website that President Bush is routinely intoxicated or suffering from mental illness related to alcohol and drug use?

4. the claims by Wesley Clark and Jimmy Carter (among others) that wealthy Jews and/or the Israeli government are controlling US foreign policy?

5. the insinuation by Michael Moore, among others, that the Bush administration is somehow in thrall to the Saudis, and that the Saudis direted our response to 9/11?

6. the claims of the "9/11 Truth Movement" that the attacks were faked, or an inside job, Flight 93 was shot down by an F-16, and so on?

7. the persistent claims that TWA 800 was shot down by Iranian missiles, and this "fact" was covered up by the Clinton and Bush administrations?

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 25, 2007 11:12 AM

Mike, what does anything you've written have to do with the lies about the Kerry's marriage contained in the original post and the subsequent attempts to defend it?

Raoul, when a rightist starts tossing around phrases like "the gospel according to Chomsky," you know you've won the argument.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 25, 2007 11:40 AM

Allegations..burden of proof...

Are you under the impression this is a court of law? It's the court of public opinion and no one in it thinks she loves him.

Posted by: oj at January 25, 2007 11:45 AM

So why keep denying the truth. Those profiles reveal that she still loves John Heinz, treats Kerry like a lapdog and married him because she was ambitious.

Posted by: oj at January 25, 2007 12:15 PM

Jack: if you're going to run around proclaiming your commitment to truth, well, hey, I'm all for accuracy as much as the next guy--but if "truth" means "whatever's beneficial for my party" and not "what's actually true," then you're a hypocrite.

For the record: I have a hard time believing that the Kerrys married solely out of love, given John's history of marrying wealthier women and his basic personality, which is opportunistic and full of itself. That's admittedly speculation on my part, and if I'm wrong I'm happy (for their sakes) to be wrong. Let's be honest here, you don't know either; you're just willing to indulge in a more favorable presumption than me, and I have the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that this comes, in part, from you being on the same team, ideologically, as he is. Fair enough; we have a disagreement, it's not resolvable by direct evidence, we can continue to debate the presumptions and circumstantial evidence or we can just agree to disagree and get on with life; your call.

Now, are you just as willing to challenge the assertions made by the other team that have even less basis, or is your commitment to truth selective?

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 25, 2007 12:22 PM

Jack: if you're going to run around proclaiming your commitment to truth, well, hey, I'm all for accuracy as much as the next guy--but if "truth" means "whatever's beneficial for my party" and not "what's actually true," then you're a hypocrite.

For the record: I have a hard time believing that the Kerrys married solely out of love, given John's history of marrying wealthier women and his basic personality, which is opportunistic and full of itself. That's admittedly speculation on my part, and if I'm wrong I'm happy (for their sakes) to be wrong. Let's be honest here, you don't know either; you're just willing to indulge in a more favorable presumption than me, and I have the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that this comes, in part, from you being on the same team, ideologically, as he is. Fair enough; we have a disagreement, it's not resolvable by direct evidence, we can continue to debate the presumptions and circumstantial evidence or we can just agree to disagree and get on with life; your call.

Now, are you just as willing to challenge the assertions made by the other team that have even less basis, or is your commitment to truth selective?

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 25, 2007 12:22 PM

Pardon the double post. I'm emphatic sometimes, but not that emphatic.

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 25, 2007 12:33 PM

Anyone get the feeling that some commentators spend all day in their mom's basement watching Frank Capra movies over and over and over again?

Fight the power! Stand up for the little man, er Kerry.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at January 25, 2007 12:43 PM

Hard to believe that a thread on John Kerry could provoke almost 40 comments.

Perhaps Jack is a chef at an Indian restaraunt (remember the vindaloo!). Or, better yet, a French restaraunt in Georgetown.

Or he could be David Alston.

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 25, 2007 6:57 PM

jim, to be fair, it isn't Kerry, it's the droll we're having fun with.

Posted by: erp at January 25, 2007 7:18 PM

"So why keep denying the truth."

Yes, why DO you keep denying the truth and lying about the content of links that don't actually say the things that you're saying? Is it a fundamentale lack of regard for truth or a deficit of human decency?

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 25, 2007 8:01 PM

Erp, funny how the person asking a liar to tell the truth is considered a "droll" [sic] in these parts.

Posted by: at January 25, 2007 8:03 PM

droll isn't a typo, nor does denying reality make it a lie.

Posted by: oj at January 25, 2007 8:51 PM

oj. thank you. I was about to make the same comment.

Posted by: erp at January 26, 2007 1:11 PM
« THE LAME DUCK DEMOCRATS: | Main | HE HAS TO BE THE ONLY GUY WHO'S HAD FUN AS VP: »