John F'ing Kerry

[[AK]Palooka]

Here's more evidence that the liberal establishment is sorry to have supported Kerry thus far (The Village Voice is liberal) and desperate to find another candidate: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo1.php

More Kerry (funny and shocking): http://drudgereport.com/rcig.htm

If he gets elected, I don't want to hear any liberals complaining about rich, greedy Republicans. Kerry is the richest and greediest of all the nation's politicians, and he's no Republican. How does he expect regular folks to relate to him? For most regular folks, $15 is too much for a haircut (it is for me, at least). Kerry flies his hairdresser from DC to PA on his wife's jet (more on this to come), then pays her $1000 for a trim. I am reminded of Slick Willy stalling air traffic at LAX for hours while getting a similarly priced haircut. These people live in a different world, and regular folks know it.

And now, here's a little investigative journalism from yours truly. As you may know, Kerry is a crusader against SUVs due to their high fuel consumption, and he has been, over the years, the champion for raising American fleet average fuel efficiency standards from 27 to 36 MPG by 2015 (making him the arch enemy of the American auto industry, incidentally). However, like Arianna Huffington, who scolds SUV drivers for funding terrorism in her notorious TV advertisements (more: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2402), Kerry flies around in a private plane (his wife's Gulfstream V, to be precise). I did some research on the Gulfstream V (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=182681). This ultra-modern, highly fuel-efficient, $32 million dollar jet aircraft carries a maximum fuel load of 41,300 pounds (6,164 gallons). With a full tank, the Gulfstream V will fly up to 7,485 miles without refueling. That means it gets a grand total of 1.2 miles per gallon. At its normal cruise speed of 904 MPH, the Gulfstream V burns 753 gallons per hour and 12.5 gallons per minute.

In contrast, a turbodiesel Hummer, probably the most hated SUV of them all, gets about 15 miles per gallon on average. The fuel tanks (Hummers have primary and auxiliary fuel tanks) together have a maximum fuel capacity of 42 gallons. That means a Hummer can go roughly 630 miles on one tank of fuel. The average driver puts 15,000 miles per year on his vehicle. Thus, the total annual fuel usage for an average Hummer driver (provided that the average Hummer driver only drives 15,000 miles per year, which I am assuming) is approximately 1000 gallons. The distance from LA to NYC is about 2700 miles. Kerry's Gulfstream V would burn about 2220 gallons of fuel flying that distance (as opposed to 180 gallons for a Hummer). Therefore, Kerry has undoubtedly used more fossil fuel in one flight than an environment destroying, natural resource raping Hummer driver uses in more than two years. In fact, if you recall that the Gulfstream V burns 753 gallons per hour at cruising speed, Kerry uses 75% of the average Hummer driver's annual fuel usage in one hour. His hypocrisy is absolutely bewildering, and there's more.

Much to his chagrin, reporters recently photographed a Suburban sitting in John Kerry's driveway (more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...009850,00.html). Taking a page from Bill I-didn't-inhale Clinton's Guide to Deflection, Kerry stated that the SUV wasn't his, claiming that it instead belongs to his family (of which he is a part, no?). What a bizarre and impotent failure to accept responsibility. Does he really want us to think that he, as a presidential candidate, is not the decision-maker in his own household? If he can't even overrule his wife's decision to purchase a vehicle that he passionately opposes (which, of course, he didn't even try to do; in his diseased mind, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander), how can he run the country and fight terrorism with any authority? Now, not only do we have further proof that Kerry is a waffling hypocrite, but my suspicion that Teresa Heinz Kerry (John Kerry's meal ticket) is really running the show seem to be well-founded; she obviously wears the pants in that relationship, and we know for certain that she holds the purse strings. Could she be Hillary II? God help us if we are made to find out.

[[AK]Abaddon]

Amen to all of that. I have seen all those news stories. The SUV in his driveway cracked me up, as did his attempt to blame it on his wife.

[[AK]Squidly]

I liked this article:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/23296.htm

[[AK]Clay]

You know, the mantra during the primaries for the Democrats was to pick a candidate, ANY candidate who can beat Bush. They had three serious contenders to elect. One of whom rapidly self destructed, quickly narrowing it down to two candidates. Of all the Democratic candidates - the ONE that I might have considered voting for (Because I'm not all hugs for Bush, truth to tell), was Edwards. A Southern Democrat who really had appeal to fence sitters and non-diehard Republican's disgusted by Bush's spending habits - not to mention appeal to voters preoccupied with Bush's ineffective but symbolic uterus regulations. Edwards had a chance of actually beating Bush and was the ONE candidate that the GOP quietly said they actually feared in this election. So what did the brilliant Anybody-but-Bush crowd do - why they nominated Kerry of course.

If I had to pick the biggest mistake Edwards made (in my opinion), it was when he and Kerry both stopped campaigning to go back to D.C. and cast votes on a high-profile political bill in the Senate that has been the bane of the Democratic party for about 10 years now. How did they BOTH vote - both the party line of course - it was Edwards final coffin nail since he dropped the ball to set himself apart. And it'll hurt Kerry in the general election too – like I said, this issue has been as hurtful to Democrats as the abortion issue has been to Republicans. (if you don't know what the topic was, don't sweat it).

In politics and war it's not how great you are - it's how idiotic your opponent is that paves your road to success. The Democrats could have easily walked into the White House this election - Bush has lots of baggage - but they dropped the ball. And God help us all if Bush manages to step on his privates and hand it to Kerry - which he just might - his speech giving has gotten so condescending now that I have to turn him off when he's aired.

[[AK]Squidly]

I disagree with the first two sentences of your last paragraph.

At best for the Dems this was always going to be a very tough and close fight right to the finish.

Despite the shrill rhetoric, Bush doesn't have a ton of "baggage" to be exposed. The economy's booming, jobs are being created, and he's taken a tough stance on terrorism that the vast majority of Americans agree with.

The fringe issues like gay rights, the environment, and abortion do not win you elections. Certainly not with the world as it is today.

[[AK]Bribo]

Say what you want about Bush but at least you know where he stands on the issues. You might not agree with him but he takes a stand and sticks to it.

Kerry seems to bend like a flower in the wind.

[[AK]Devil_Dog]

Perhaps I'm too much the pesimist, but I have a feeling that the election is going to be one of the closest ever.....

[[AK]Squidly]

You're a pessimist. I don't think it'll be close at all.

[[AK]Hylander]

I thought the election was going to be a nail biter... but seeing how things are going in PA, I'm starting to think Bush is going to win by a fair margin. If he carries Pennsylvania (Gore carried in last election), I think it is a strong indication that he is going to win the election with a strong showing. Watching the Specter-Toomey race was very interesting. Bush's 'poll' numbers are widening against Kerry in the state. Although I voted for Toomey (Who I've spoken to personally when he was our representative and personally, I don't like him that much as he is very much 'for sale' to his business buddies (Verizon in particular).), I think Specter will help deliver the state to Bush more so than Toomey would have even though Specter is truly a RINO (Republican in Name Only).

[[AK]Palooka]

Specter's victory is tragic. Maybe you have information that I don't, Hy, but Pat Toomey is highly acclaimed by many conservative organizations and publications which, on the other hand, universally revile Specter. The American Conservative Union gives Toomey a rating of 97, while Specter is rated at a paltry 42 (more). Unfortunately, Specter benefits from the same advantage that Ted Kennedy has relied on for decades: name recognition. His name is well known, and more often than not, name recognition is all a candidate needs for a majority of the largely uninformed electorate to support him.

[[AK]Squidly]

Interestingly, Bush supported Spector. The internal loyalty to encumbants is pretty strong and mostly unspoken. It's the politics within the politics.

[[AK]Palooka]

While it's unfortunate, I don't really fault Bush for supporting Specter. He almost has to. It's just the way the game is played.

[[AK]Hylander]

Palooka.. don't get me wrong, Specter is pretty liberal for a Republican. BUT, he definitely can help win PA for Bush which is why Bush supported him. Specter is viewed as a 'moderate' and not only will most Republicans vote for him, but many Democrats and Independents in the state will also. This is why Bush supported him to help deliver the state in the national election. Specter has name recognition and isn't reveled or hated by Democrats and Liberals.

I vote for Toomey as stated, but I'm no fan of his. When they were working on broadband roll out, legislation favoring Verizon over competition, etc. I went and talked to him first hand. First off, he didn't know that much about the issue. Secondly, he voted for the measure that gave Verizon what amounts to billions of tax payer dollars and they never lived up to their commitments the last time this was done but were given a free ride at the expense of the taxpayers. Come to find out, Toomey has alot of buddies and a past history of business inside Bell Atlantic / Verizon. There has been other issues I've had with his positions, but taking the overall picture into consideration, Toomey was the better candidate for Republicans based on his positions on governments role, taxes, and social issues (which I don't like the government being involved in to begin with).

Personally, for me it was choosing the lesser of two bad candidates, but the silver lining is Specter can help Bush carry the state I believe.