« Friday Morning Fluff | Main | answering questions before they are asked »

Kerry: Vulgarity and Hate Equals Heart and Soul!

Edwards said it was "a great honor" to be there and insisted, "This campaign will be a celebration of real American values." Kerry thanked all the performers for "an extraordinary evening," hailed the "great producers" - Harvey Weinstein of Miramax and Jann Wenner - and said "every performer tonight ... conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."
They're talking about a star-studded fundraiser in which celebrities took turns making jokes about Bush, some using vulgar sexual innuendos and most mocking the president. So that's the heart and soul of our country? Priveleged celebrities telling dirty jokes about the president? Real American values, guys. Judging from the several reports I read about this gala, it appeared to be a hate filled rally against Bush, rather than a rally for Kerry/Edwards. Postive message, my ass. When Howard Dean faced the same situation (a fundraiser in which hate-filled celebrities got out of hand), he quickly denounced the vitriol at his party. Kerry and Edwards embraced it. It was also pretty revealing that Kerry had time to attend to this fiesta of farce yesterday, considering he had no time for real senatorial business:
"It is a great example of John Kerry's priorities that on the day he said he did not have time to receive his intelligence briefing on threats to America, he found time to attend a Hollywood fund-raiser, filled with enough hate and vitriol to make Michael Moore blush," Schmidt said. Schmidt was referring to Kerry's interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" earlier Thursday in which Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he had been offered a briefing from the Bush administration about new terror warnings, but told King, "I just haven't had time." Kerry then told King he would be briefed later this week.
Forget terror threats. Kerry had to go get his hate on.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kerry: Vulgarity and Hate Equals Heart and Soul!:

» Kerry vs. Dean from Inoperable Terran
Apparently Dean is the classier of the two. Who would've guessed?... [Read More]

» One Event, Multiple Perspectives, One of them Complete Crap from The Young Curmudgeon
Wonkettes's correspondent from that Kerry fundraiser with all the B-listers last night tries to be, what's that word that's totally overused nowadays?, oh yeah, snarky in his report, but fails miserably, due to his geeky enthusiasm for the Democratic t... [Read More]

» Tart and soul from sisu
"Our republic works best when political parties are challenged by a principled opposition with integrity and seriousness," writes Charles Johnson with reference to an utterly unserious Kerry/Edwards all-star Bush-bashing fundraiser in NYC last night. A... [Read More]

» Tart and soul from sisu
John and John yuk it up at celeb fund-raiser as Whoopi advises keeping "Bush where it belongs." "Our republic works best when political parties are challenged by a principled opposition with integrity and seriousness," writes Charles Johnson with refe... [Read More]

No amount of stereotyping is too much for Racist Democrats. I'm a Hispanic Republican. Does that mean I'm never capable of learning English and must depend on Democrat politicians for my livelihood? [Read More]

» Around The Sphere from Mind of Mog
Glenn found these spiffy movie posters at MooreWatch sure to decorate many a college dorm room. Michele brings us the heart and soul of Democratic fundraisers. At least someone is reforming his ways according to the King of Fools. Some haven'... [Read More]

» LOATHSOME from trying to grok
Ugh. Is it November yet?... [Read More]

» Kerry's House of Ketchup #18 from The American Mind
Kerry speaks. Ladies and gentleman, boys, girls, and political spinners of all ages, I present you the 18th edition... [Read More]


Oh Michele, I'm so sorry they offended your virgin ears. I'm sure that during the eight years of Clinton, you never heard any sexual innuendos or hate-filled jokes about the president. It must be so hard for you to try to survive in a world filled with F-bomb-dropping lefties corrupting your children. Now just think: if it's so hard for you to handle F-bombs, imagine what it's like for people in our "threat of the week" country that have to try to deal with smart bombs being dropped on their children.

Hard to beleive what you indicated dosn't take place at fundraisers for the GOP.

Bottomline is these people paid to attend last night and they got what they came for.

I don't see any harm there.

You missed the point, Mike.

It was a Kerry/Edwards fundraiser, which they were proud to be a part of, which they claimed showed the heart and soul of America.

It has nothing to fucking do with people saying the word fuck around my children. It's about the fucking integrity of the fucking team of Kerry Edward claiming that a curse/sex filled party was representitive of American values. Fucking get it?

Hey Drew, thanks for the being the first to drop the "they do it to" defense in. And so early in the game!

I'm sure that during the eight years of Clinton, you never heard any sexual innuendos or hate-filled jokes about the president.

At a presidential fundraiser? With the candidate sitting right there? Uh, no.

My favorite quote from the article was Leguizamo's roach remark. For a guy who supposedly hates Latinos, Bush sure does seem to like having them around.

"Also on the Bush-bashing team was comedian Chevy Chase, who claimed the president is dumb as "an egg-timer" and said Edwards will make Vice President Dick Cheney look "as bright as a bundt cake" when they debate next fall."

Hasn't Chase been doing this since, oh, the Ford administration (literally)? Guess all the real geniuses are writing jokes for Chevy Chase.

I see harm when I hear that Kerry, the presidential candidate, has no time to read reports on terrorism.

Maybe Kerry is busy helping France and TotalFInaElf block any attempts to stop the genocide committed by Muslim Arabs against infidels in Darfur.

I'm no bush supporter, I tend to look at both platforms very equally. The big deal here ain't that they were laughing at profanity, or thought dirty jokes were funny. It's that they thought a fund raiser that made fun of the president in a pretty vulgar manner was honorable and true to american values. honorable my ass, the pres may not be the greatest guy in the world, but i don't think he's done anything undeserving of a little decorum. sheesh.

At least we'll never hear that "Kerry knew."

It bothers me that Kerry did not have time to listen to a terror report. Someday, he may need the information from that terror report. You know like Bill Clinton let Osama go, when he could have had hime in the Sudan. I can read the headlines now. President Kerry partied in 2004, while briefing on terror was given to the senate. The information proved to be crucial, in lite of todays bombing. A little fictional hindsight here.
Do we really want a president who finds humor in seeing how many times the f-word can be used? Must be his Vietnam War flash backs.


Maybe the "values" they were referring to included things like "freedom of expression". No one has the right to not be offended/insulted, not even the president. Sorry Michele, you're really just not gonna win this one, especially after the way the right treated Clinton.


I hear what you're saying, but I think you have to consider Bush's record not just on terrorism, but on the environment, education, and, I just heard today, reducing federal funding for low-income housing assistance. I also think the thousands upon thousands of people for whose deaths he is responsible might also have something to say about whether he deserves any "decorum".

Oh, and speaking of disrespect, how about the way the right treats Kerry's record as a veteran? I have never seen such total disregard for a person's service to this country... and from people routinely who use "support the troops" mantras as a political cudgel. Gimme a [expletive deleted] break.

Address the issue Mike: Kerry held a fundraiser where the night was spent issueing vulgar jokes and insults and then he claimed that the night represented the heart and soul of America and its values.



You still miss the point. Of course, people can make vulger comments and jokes about the President. The key is whether the LEADERS of either sides of the political parties endorse these comments. Show me where a promenent leader has disparaged Kerry's war record.

"I just heard today, reducing federal funding for low-income housing assistance." Oh, bullshit! sources please

Mike: The difference is the sexual jokes about Clinton were true, weren't they?

Imperial Keeper

No problem Michele. Anytime I can point out the similarities between the GOP and the Democrats only help to add balance to the conversation


If you can cite one example of similar behavior at a GOP fundraiser, I'll be glad to denounce it.

Self-indulgent, wealthy, good looking people.

Yep, truly the people Kerry would represent. These are the "celebrate diversity, but not in my back yard" folks.

"celebration of real American values?" Puh-leeze!

What else did you expect from Baby Boomers? :)

in reference to bush's environmental (and at times other) policy making; yes it sucks. sometimes it sucks bigtime. but the fact is he's the big cheese, and even if we tell jokes about him, the folks who would be our leaders should practice a little more tact. As funny as it would be to see Kerry/Edwards at the 2005 Summit on Why the French are Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys, it would be somewhat unbecoming.


Please point out where Bush 41 or Bob Dole held and attended fundraisers where similar comments were made about Bill Clinton. If you can't, then you have no arguement, and you have missed Michele's point completely.


I'm not surprised that, yet again, you ignore the point. It's a regular part of your schtick. Don't think I didn't notice your running away from my comment.

Vulgarity, even directed against a President is the stuff of latenight TV and Vegas routines. It doesn't belong in a candidate fundraiser billed as a showcase of "real" American values (which they never get around to enumerating or showing how these "real" values are different from the values of the other guy). If any one can point to a Dole fundraiser where Dole was present, where the fundraiser was ostensibly about what a Dole administration would bring to the White House and featured "comedians" ripping into Billy Jeff in the most perfidious, salacious manner possible, I'll certainly criticize that, too.

John Kerry last night moved himself into the Michael Moore democrat category...when asked by Larry King if he had seen F911, Kerry's reply was
"I've been watching it for four years."

Yessirree, that's a man with a clear grasp on reality.

The fundraiser is exposing the Kerry/Edwards class warfare ticket as representives of the "Party of Hate"

Hey, someone pointed out that even Howard 'The Scream' Dean chastised some of his fund raising speakers for gutter remarks...

John and John on the other hand, applaud them. Then call it 'American Values'.

And they don't have time to be briefed on a gathering threat to the country...

Good thing they've got better hair.

Mike didn't miss the point, he dodged it. Cause he can't speak to the point.

Drew either.

They're still in that place that Michele was a few years before 9/11...only, it doesn't bother them.

Maybe the "values" they were referring to included things like "freedom of expression".

Values that were sorely missing in the aftermath of the Oklahoma city bombing, where people who attacked the government were castigated as responsible for the climate that created the terrorist act. Where people who dissented were not lauded as Patriots but as extremist haters.

Oh, and Mike, as a veteran, I'll treat Kerry's claims with all the derision they deserve.

Highlighting his lack of control of the men under his command, his abandonnment of that command to execute a wounded opponent withdrawing from the field, then bolting the theater as quickly as possible because he got three scratches as examples of heroism is absolutely repugnant.

Returning to smear the character of his comrades in arms, based upon material he knew to be untrue, in sworn Congressional testimony, pretty much sealed the deal.

And if you were wondering, yes, I will come right out and say it - yes, I question John Kerry's patriotism. Or what he peddles as such, which in toto amounts to not much more than rationalization and spin on a life long quest of self promotion and agrandizment.

Oh, and speaking of disrespect, how about the way the right treats Kerry's record as a veteran? I have never seen such total disregard for a person's service to this country... and from people routinely who use "support the troops" mantras as a political cudgel. Gimme a [expletive deleted] break.

You're wrong. The disrespect isn't about his war record, but how he has tried to use his war record in his favor. He's an admitted war criminal, he sat back while atrocities were committed (or committed them himself), reported them to noone in his command, and testified as such in front of congress afterwards. He doesn't deserve those awards.

Say what you will, with hundreds of dead American soldiers, I thought Bush joking about "where are the WMD? Under here? Over there?" to the joyous laughter of those in attendance was a lot more sickening.

You know, Michele, whe you talked about how polarized the parties have become, and how there are no winners in this, you were exactly right. Am I taking this recent post to mean you are satisfied with that? Let's just keep flinging the crap until the last bitter moment? Let's dissect everything the opposition does and criticize until we're blue? And let them do the same? Rinse and repeat as necessary?

This is all terribly ugly.

Thank God this time around I am working on state-level campaigns...Atleast on lower levels it's not quite so nasty. And we agree when knocking on doors, making phone calls, and meeting voters at open houses, we'll talk only about our candidate's strength, not our opponent's weaknesses.

Seems like the only thing a lot of folks are saying to credit Bush is "look at what a piece of **** Kerry is!" And the same with Kerry supporters, just vice versa.

I guess that's just the status quo, eh? I'd like to think we could all do better than that.

A few thoughts:

1. This just gives me another reason to vote for Bush in the fall. If the best the other side can manage is a bunch of vulgar jokes (rather than a point-by-point 'this is what we're going to do, this is how we're different'), I don't have a lot of faith in their leadership capacity.

2. Whoever it was (Darleen?) made the comment that such behavior was unbecoming to a potential leader was spot-on. I'd not have so much trouble with it if it were rank-and-file Kerry supporters, or even campaign interns, but to have him giving essentially his approval to mock the commander-in-chief- that leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

3. Now I won't ever be able to see a Chevy Chase movie again without thinking badly of him. I don't necessarily boycott actors/comedians/musicians who display poor taste in experessing their political views, but my enjoyment of their product is largely ruined. It's entirely possible for a celeb to be a Kerry supporter without being nasty about it. But, I guess the opinions of folks in red-state land don't count, because "we all know" all we consume in the way of entertainment is hyuk country music.

I'll take vulgarity over discrimination any day:

"Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for freedom to choice religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women."

-Patrick J. Buchanan
1992 Republican National Convention Speech

Wind: I got the point of Michele post.
I was trying to point out how both sides of the fence act in the same manner from time to time.

Sorry if you didnt get that I got it.


Getting back to the article... John Mellencamp and Chevy Chase? And what is the combined relevance of these two has-beens to American politics today? Heck, that goes for any of the celebs mentioned. I think I'll go re-read Shut Up & Sing.

Read the transcript - http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/08/lkl.00.html - and you'll see that Kerry has his briefing when all the intelligence has been compiled:

KING: When do you -- when do you get your briefing?

KERRY: We're arranging it. It's at the end of the week I'll get it.

KING: Should be pretty soon.

KERRY: I think it's tomorrow or the next day.

I am convinced that liberals / leftists have been born without the gene that allows for the ability to make logical comparisons.

Uhh, folks, the potty mouth problem is nothing new for celebrities supporting Democratic presidential candidates performing in front of the party's nominee.The exact same thing happened in Washington, D.C. in 2000, and that was before any Bush election and any Florida recount that supposedly has stirred up the ire of Democrats so much against Bush.

Oh, and did I mention that not only Al Gore, but Bill Clinton also was in the audience? (Favorite line from Robin Williams: "Hello. There’s a child in the front row. We’ve learned some new words haven’t we?")

It's just their style. In 2008, when there's a new Republican running for president, the same thing will happen at whatever celebrity fundraiser takes place for the Democratic nominee.

at least they're consistent?

I notice that the article you cite is from the New York Post. They've been so accurate and responsible in the past that they much be showing good balanced restraint in their reporting here.

Musician Jon Bon Jovi opened Thursday's event, saying: "The beginning of the future starts right here tonight." Then he launched into the Beatles 1969 optimistic melody "Here Comes The Sun." Actress Meryl Streep welcomed the new team with "President Kerry. Vice President Edwards ... Oops! I got ahead of myself." And, singer Wyclef Jean told the crowd jokingly that he wanted to play his new single. "If I was president," he sang, "I'd be elected on Friday, hire Edwards on Saturday, have a big party on Sunday, start work on Monday. Kerry is the president, yah, yah." - NYNewsday

Such an unrelenting tirade of hate! I can't see how Kerry and Edwards didn't storm out on the spot! It sounds like all those guys were just there to attack President Bush. Of course, they didn't exactly hold back from it either. Whoopi Goldberg definitely set a new low with her "Bush" anatomical double-entendre.

The 54-year-old Goldberg was unapologetic to the crowd of about 6200 people who paid up to $25000 a ticket for the gala.

"This is what I try to explain to people," she said. "Why are you asking me to come if you don't want me to be me?"

The comic said concert organisers had asked to see her material beforehand but she sent them a photocopied image of her behind with a kissmark on it. "I wasn't sure I was going to get the phone call," she said.

Other stars were more orthodox in their Bush-bashing. - IOL

Trying to cast the whole event as "Priveleged celebrities telling dirty jokes about the president" is Michael Moore style dishonestly, Michele. I'm disappointed. There appears to be some conduct which merits criticism, but it's nothing like you describe. Also, the 'Kerry didn't drop everything to fly back to Washington for an intelligence briefing' is a laugh. Has anyone even bothered to consider the merits of that, or are you just doing a copy-and-paste of the RNC response?


In your blog, you said, "No one has the right to not be offended/insulted, not even the president." In that sentence you employed a double-negative. So what do you mean? Does George Bush have a right to be offended, or does he not have a right to be offended?

If he does not have a right to be offended, then do any of us have a right to having our own individual feelings about abuse directed at us unjustly? Or is that right reserved for minorities only?

Also, to Shank in the next paragraph you blasted the President on education. Bush has pushed through a program called "No Child Left Behind", which relies heavily on studies conducted at the University of Oregon. U of O is one of the most liberal Universities in the country. And they get 3 times more grant money to study education than Harvard. Why would the Left be opposed to this program?

The statement about Edwards posted on the RNC's website is a lot more hateful than this event you site. Be honest and admit it.

D-man says:

"I am convinced that liberals / leftists have been born without the gene that allows for the ability to make logical comparisons."

Then Roxanne says:

"The statement about Edwards posted on the RNC's website is a lot more hateful than this event you site. Be honest and admit it."

Let's see:

From the RNC site:

"A Disingenuous, Unaccomplished Liberal And Friend To Personal Injury Trial Lawyers"

Not only is that not hateful, but it's absolutely true.

Compared to:

"Whoopi Goldberg delivered an X-rated rant full of sexual innuendoes against President Bush last night at a Radio City gala ..."

D-man, you're right. There's no other way to explain it.

TV (Harry)

"The statement about Edwards posted on the RNC's website is a lot more hateful than this event you site. Be honest and admit it."

from here




Kerry And Family Question Edwards’ Experience

Wow. I guess Kerry said some hateful things about Edwards. Or is it only hateful when he's quoted by the RNC and his name is left off the actual comments in question?

I was planning on supporting Bush this election (seeing as how we're, y'know, at war and all), but now that I've found out the John Mellencamp, Chevy Chase and Whoopi Goldberg all support John Kerry, I might have to vote for him. I mean, if you can't trust a bunch of washed-up has-been entertainers, who can you trust?

In the end, the determination for me will be which candidate Steve Gutenberg throws his support behind.

I'm surprised I'm the first to bring this up, but Dick Cheney telling Patrick Leahy to "fuck himself" on the floor of the U.S. Senate is representative of American values...how?

Or is he innoculated against your charges because he didn't formally announce that everything he did that day was going to be representative of American values?

I won't defend Whoopie Goldberg--ever--but I don't much care about swearing, and I thought anyone who made too much of Cheney's macho moment looked like a ninny. Which you're doing a good job of today.

Refer back to the recent discussions about civility in public discourse on this blog and others. There's rampant incivility on both sides. However, the un-civil behavior only seems to work one's craw when it comes from the other side.

As far as what's true and what isn't true, we're talking about judgements that are completely subjective.

PK: You and many others are missing the entire point.

Read again. Kerry is the one who claimed the night was representative of the heart and soul of America.

No Kerry supporter here has responded to that yet. Instead, you all just pull out the "they do it too" line.

Someone address the issue at hand. Kerry and Edwards both were honored to be at a party where their values were represented by people making vulgar sexual jokes.

I have no problem with sex jokes. I don't even have a problem with people talking out against Bush. But the fact that the two men running for president and vice president of this country claim that what went on at that fundraiser is what they are all about - that sits well with you?

> That sits well with you?

Not entirely, no. But I can live with it. Just as you can apparently live with Dick Cheney's sense of Senate-floor decorum.

I think you're being painfully uptight in insisting that what John Kerry literally said and literally meant is that the heart and soul of America is represented by vulgarity and profanity. It isn't what he said and it isn't what he meant, but if you want to cling to your rhetorical point, you win:

Yes, unfortunately, there was cursing in the program. Equally unfortunate, in my opinion, is Jon Bon Jovi's arrival as a Democratic icon.

But I'm not nearly bothered enough by this to support George Bush, and it isn't why you're not voting Kerry, so what's your point? With everything else going on, do you actually think this is important enough that it should affect how someone votes?

Of course, if you're just being snarky, knock yourself out. But why don't you try being funny, instead of just preachy? Being preachy is what brings out the "they do it too line."

PK, thank you for telling me how and what to write on my own site. I'll be sure from now on to only write about things that will decide the vote for people. Please tell me what else you consider important enough for me to write on this personal site. I'll get right on it.

As for Kerry, I see it's all about the nuance, eh?

Michele, with all due respect, you often complain about this, so why DO you have a Comments section if you don't want people to, you know, COMMENT?

Yeah, it's all about being able to tell whether a stiff like John Kerry digs Whoopie Goldberg's schtick and literally announced that it represents the heart and soul of America.

As for Cheney, what's that all about? What's the difference, and why is it not valid to bring it up in a discussion about political candidates, language, and values?

Either one's right and one's wrong, or they cancel each other out. I'll buy the latter, but if you want to argue one over the other, I'd be interested to read it. Not that I'm telling you what to write.


Maybe you didn't get news, and it was in all the papers, Pat Buchannan was tossed out of the GOP a few years ago. But good try in reaching back 12 years to try and demonstrate "discrimination."

Personnally, I find the anti-voucher arguments advanced by the Left as very discriminatory. Certainly, many (not all) "liberals" are decidely hostile to religion in America, particularly Christianity, though there is some creepy anti-Semitism going on, too, in the left fringies figleafed as "anti-Zionism" or "solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine."

And, psssst, clue..even if one supports same-sex marriage..you HAVE to understand that marriage is not a "right", so even restricting it to heterosexual/adult/non-related couples is no more discriminatory against gays then it is against polygamous groups, or sister/brother couples, or underage couples.

PK: You and many others are missing the entire point.

Read again. Kerry is the one who claimed the night was representative of the heart and soul of America.

It's called hyperbole. How is it that any different or more offensive than all the analyses of the 2000 election that boiled down to Elitist Atheistic Brie-Eating Blue States vs. God-Fearing Mom & Apple Pie Red States?

I guess I'd prefer a more high-minded discussion for this campaign along the lines of Lincoln v. Douglas, but those are not the times we live in. And one look at Bush's current TV ad strategy should disabuse anyone of the notion that the negativity in this campaign is a one-way street. Three and a half years in office, and all they have to sell is "Massachusetts liberal" and the spectre of gay marriage.

PK asks "what's the difference?" (between Cheney privately telling off a person who personnally slandered him, and a person performing for public consumption maligning a third, non-attendant person.)

And that, in a nutshell, is one of the major problems of contemporary American Left (which has taken over the liberal movement) .. the inability to see the difference between private and public behavior. Its the same sort of moral cowardice (the refusal to make moral judgements) that drives zero tolerance insanity in schools.


Is an ad that features the nasty things your opposition says about you a "negative" ad?

Is an ad that features your oppositions own recorded statements a "negative" ad?

Is the standard for GW not to have "negative" ads one in which he cannot mention Kerry/Edwards at all? And does that standard also apply to K/E?

Fox news said today that they tried to get video of Kerry's gala from Radio City Music Hall, and Kerry's people but they both refused to give it up. Could it be, that Kerry's people are ashamed to have the public see this hate fest?

Someone address the issue at hand. Kerry and Edwards both were honored to be at a party where their values were represented by people making vulgar sexual jokes. I have no problem with sex jokes. I don't even have a problem with people talking out against Bush. But the fact that the two men running for president and vice president of this country claim that what went on at that fundraiser is what they are all about - that sits well with you? - michele

I have not played the "they do it too" card, but I'm not exactly a Kerry supporter, so I'll give you a pass on that. If, in fact, "Kerry and Edwards both were honored to be at a party where their values were represented by people making vulgar sexual jokes," then I would find that in very poor taste, and I would criticize Kerry and Edwards for not walking out. That did not happen.

The article you linked (by the New York Post, naturally) is the most phony BS I've ever seen you suckered by. Read that article 5 times and even see if you can even tell it's describing about a concert! During the concert or the reception for said concert (I'm not even sure which), Whoopi Goldberg was allowed to do an uncensored standup routine which was in poor taste. That makes one person made a vulgar sexual joke (a play on the name "Bush"). She also bashed John Edwards for being too young.

I think, in context, it might be safe to say that the statements Kerry/Edwards made were refering to the bands at the concert which the New York Post didn't even bother to mention. Even if they are meaning including the stand-up acts in their praise, it's hardly honest to comment on a stand-up act as if it's a stump speech. If you say something outrageous about the president and people laugh, that's not the same thing as seriously spewing hate and bile.


Maybe this Washington Post story will help. They attended "the biggest presidential fundraiser in Democratic Party history". Seems like a party, not a concert, to me. So, should John and John be criticized for not walking out or for not distancing themselves from the people on stage who spewed forth hate and intolerance? I think so.


Read your own articles (all from your LA Times link):

"The Bush campaign condemned Thursday's concert fundraiser, which was produced by Rolling Stone magazine founder Jann Wenner and movie mogul Harvey Weinstein."

"Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Committee will share the proceeds raised Thursday night. A similar concert in Los Angeles two weeks ago raised $5 million."

"At the end of the concert, when the two candidates took the stage with their wives, neither made reference to the more inflammatory remarks."

Yep, it's a concert. It had some people there who played bash Bush. It's even possible that some of them were actually bashing Bush and not just doing comedy, but that wasn't the point. You know as well as I do, the reason the New York Post didn't say a word about it being a concert is because they want to nit-pick the sideshows. If you include the main event, it's not a story.

When it happened at a Dean fundraiser, he denounced it. Right then.

Dave in Texas,

Howard Dean had a concert with Whoopi Goldberg as a sideshow standup performance and he walked out when she made an inappropriate joke? Uh ... no.

Howard Dean came out and condemned some jackasses who were dropping racially charged terms for Blacks and Asians, making fun of adoption of Asian children, comparing the National Security Advisor to a child molester, and calling President Bush "a piece of living, breathing shit." Now, maybe you can't tell the difference between that and a concert where someone talking during intermission happened to drop a bad pun about the anatomical meaning of the word "bush," but I think most of us find can find a little difference in these two events.

Of course, the New York Post condemned Dean for not doing enough at the time, just like they are condemning Kerry here, so I guess there is at least one parallel.

John Kerry doesn't need a national security briefing.

His plan has already been formed.

All terrorists will be offered an amnesty deal, under which, in return for giving up hostilities, they will receive a "Queer Eye" makeover and be required to attend diversity training.

With an empty suit like Kerry, all the Dems are left with is hate for the opposition.

Come on Soli, you're arguing semantics. So what if a concert took place, it was a fundraiser for Kerry. Kerry's campaign called it the biggest presidential fundraiser in Democratic Party history. Are you saying they are lying? Again, it doesn't matter that a concert took place, there were also other entertainers and speakers present who regaled the audience with the wit and wisdom. Chevy Chase, Jessica Lang, Whoopi Goldberg and Paul Newman gave testimonials to the audience. Yes there were bands and singers, but they weren't the only ones on stage.

This was a fundraiser for Kerry and he condoned the tone and the content of the messages given, wether in song or on in spoken voice. It doesn't matter. And I find it odd that you call out only the concert part of the fundraiser, when the WaPo article cleary stays "Kerry said every performer conveyed the "heart and soul" of America" and also "At the fundraiser, Kerry praised speakers and performers, some of whom lambasted Bush as a liar, "thug" and killer". The tone of the evening was cleary spiteful, hateful, and at least in Goldbergs routine, vulgar. Kerry should have said something, but he didn't. This kind of stuff certainly does not belong at a presidential fundraiser, whether it be a concert or not. And everthing that went on that night is supposed to reflect the real American values? I think not. To me, that means decorum, respect and class. Very little of this was on display. And Kerry and Edwards were honored to be there. Tacit approval of the tone and message at the very least.

It's the sex, isn't it?

...some using vulgar sexual innuendos and most mocking the president.

Wow! You people really are uptight about sex.

Mike: The difference is the sexual jokes about Clinton were true, weren't they?

OMG! He really did have illicit sex in the oval office!

Well, we won't have to worry about that with the current "administration", will we? I mean, if our "president" can't even handle eating a pretzel I don't think he would be very good at doing you know what.

And the "they did it too" argument is still lame. As is the "if I liked it you can't criticize it!" argument.

But what I really want to know is: who does Judd Nelson support??? I have to know!!!

Wow! You people really are uptight about sex.

You're new here, aren't you?

And the rest of you still haven't done anything but try on your moral equivalency suits.

They don't fit.

Yeah, Riesz, you've outed us: we're all a bunch of Polly Prudes, Uptight Uthers, and Frigid Friedas when it comes to sex. My, I'm so glad to get that out into the open. In fact, I'm feeling sort of... ooh, I don't know, all tingly... Excuse me, I have to turn the a/c down; it's getting so hot in here...

Stop it, Andrea. You're turning me on.


Tell me, if the GOP held a concert to raise money for the GW campaign and during the "sideshows" some celebs get up and start making racial or anti-gay "jokes" about the K/E team, and GW and Cheney sat in their chairs yukking it up, how much of a pass would you give them?


gads, what a dumb statement, even for a troll.


Yes, I'm kind of new here. It's one of the few conservative blogs that allow dissenting comments. I found your blog when one of the liberal blogs had a post about you're Kill. Them. All post.

Love your blog. Of course I usually don't agree with you. Especially about baseball. I always root against the Yankees.

Darleen, did it really sound that dumb? I just meant that it's funny how conservatives often sound so preachy and sanctimonious, especially about sex. And why can't we liberals point out your hypocrisy? I think it's relevant to point out when people preach one thing and do another.


"Tell me, if the GOP held a concert to raise money for the GW campaign and during the "sideshows" some celebs get up and start making racial or anti-gay "jokes" about the K/E team, and GW and Cheney sat in their chairs yukking it up, how much of a pass would you give them?"

And if such an event took place, you would be the first to condemn it, right? Oh, and if you want anti-gay jokes about Kerry and Edwards, try this.

Wait Doreen, let me handle this one:

Mike, Drudge isn't officially part of the Bush-Cheney campaign, so it doesn't count. I'm sure if Bush and Cheney were actually present when someone was telling any homophobic jokes about Kerry and Edwards they would quickly and forcefully put a stop to it. Because they've got family values.

Riesz - "one of the few conservative blogs that allow dissenting comments"

I don't know what bizarro internet world you surf but I don't know a major conservative blog that does not welcome non vulgar dissenting comments.

DMan, I don't go to many conservative blogs. I've seen deleted comments at LGF and FreeRepublic, and I've seen only mildly dissenting posts there.

I like this blog a lot better than them anyway.


To steal a little from earlier comments, I am convinced that you have been born without the gene that allows for the ability to make logical comparisons.

If Kerry/Edwards held a concert to raise money for the KE campaign and during the "sideshows" some celebs get up and start making racial or anti-gay "jokes" about the B/C team, and Kerry and Edwards sat in their chairs yukking it up, I would not give them a pass at all. Of course, they haven't, so your comment is meaningless.

If Bush/Cheney hold any event where a comedian makes a play on any form of 13 year-old humor about "the Johns" in a joke, I will not complain, as this is far, far from making racial or anti-gay jokes. I've already heard the Dick/Bush and the John/John jokes. None of them are funny, but what do you expect from an actress so washed up to be reduced to hosting a bad celeb quiz show? I'm sure if you got Howard Stern up there he could say something just as offensive and much more humorous, and I still wouldn't be offended.

I will also give President Bush credit, his fundraisers don't ever get this randy.

Well, hi there Mikey, nice to see you come out of hiding.

I saw the Drudge montage of pics...now where's the anti-gay jokes in it?

And you know, I would be the first to condemn hatefilled anti-gay "jokes" .. I certainly supported booting Pat Buchannan out of the GOP and I've roundly called Fallwell an ass. BTW, conservatives have a habit of calling on the carpet the idiocies of some of their self-proclaimed "brethren." WF Buckley has a long record of such public spankings.

I still waiting for someone besides Joe Lieberman or Michael Lerner on the left and far left side of the aisle criticizing the soft (and not so soft) bigotry of the Left/liberal members of the Dem party.


Yes it does sound dumb, very dumb. You don't seem to have a grasp of either what hypocrisy entails, and your idea that conservatives talking about things like "context" and "appropriateness" is somehow an indication of hypocrisy makes me wonder how old you are.

I've seen deleted comments at LGF

Wow..variation on the Sixth Sense?


Maybe you missed this line from the K/E fundraiser
Latins for Republicans - it's like roaches for Raid


...and your idea that conservatives talking about things like "context" and "appropriateness" is somehow an indication of hypocrisy makes me wonder how old you are.

I'm 53.

Wow..variation on the Sixth Sense?

Yeah, I'm psychic.

No, I didn't actually see the deleted comments. The comments on LGF are numbered, and they replace the offending comment with the word "deleted".

That was a good one, though.

oops, I meant Darleen.


I'm a regular on the LGF boards and let me tell you..the "deleted" comments are not ones of dissent (many of them are seen before they are removed) but of the ones I have personally seen, some of the most hatefilled, nearly incoherent, many times anti-Jew, spewings of anonymous trolls. Charles has instituted registration for commenting and that has really cut down on the flaming trolls. There is dissenting POV's there, but LGF has no obligation to put up with crap.

I don't read Free Republic, so I'm unaware of their comment policy. I tried registaring once with DU, and in a conspiracy thread about the "undue" influence of Israel on the USA (read "Jews control the White House!") asked why Israel didn't have a right to exist and defend itself. I was "banned" within three minutes. I timed it. I purposely did not flame just to see if even a mildly pro-Israel poster would survive.

Ok, you're older chronologically than me, so why do you take such a juvenile attitude towards things like context?


I don't know if I'd say juvenile. I'd call it humorous.

Anyway, so you don't think there's anything hypocritical about conservatives sticking with Cheney after what he said on the Senate floor but attacking what liberals said at a campaign fundraiser? I mean, neither Kerry or Edwards made foul jokes themselves, but Cheney personaly used foul language. Now put this in the context of you conservatives always talking about family values.

And by the way, the constant preaching gets really tiresome.

And don't get me started on Newt Gingerich, Helen Chenowith, Dan Burton, Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston.

Riesz. Are you seriously comparing a personal exchange between two people that happened to be on the Senate floor after the Senate had concluded its business to an organized fund raiser attended by the President and Vice President candidates? I also noticed that when trying to tar Cheney for his language in a personal exchange you fail to compare that with Kerry's repeated vulgarity in a prepared interview with a national magazine. Speaking of not getting started , its not the conservatives that have a serial adulterer and disbarred perjurer as their standard bearer. Nor do they have a former KKK member as their senior Senator or their leading Congressman having had a house of prostitution run out of his home or another leading Senator cause the death of a women by leaving the scene of an accident and another who is a plagerizer. These are not just members of the opposition party but their leaders.

Thanks Dman

Riesz, see if you can follow along here ... a particular behavior derives its morality from the context in which it happens. Sexual intercourse, in and of itself, is morally neutral. However, there is a world of moral difference between rape and love-making. Too extreme an example? Ok, there is a moral difference between a couple making mad passionate love in their own bedroom (or livingroom or kitchen), and making love on the lawn of city hall at noon.

It follows there is a moral difference between using a vulgarity in a private exchange by a person A directed at person B who just got done publically slandering A and person C using a vulgarity to denigrate person D in a public forum or for publication.

You know, if you show up to a blacktie affair, say the wedding of your niece, wearing cutoff jeans, sneakers and a Grateful Dead t-shirt that hasn't seen a washing machine since 1997, don't be surprised that they may take umbrage and act a bit "preachy and sanctimonious."

I realize being a Leftist means never saying "I'm sorry", but most people outgrow such narcissism once they leave high school. As Dennis Prager observes:
At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook. ...

"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. ...

The second major source of modern liberalism is narcissism, the unhealthy preoccupation with oneself and one's feelings. We live in the Age of Narcissism. As a result of unprecedented affluence and luxury, preoccupation with one's psychological state, and a hedonistic culture, much of the West, America included, has become almost entirely feelings-directed.

That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality.


Maybe you missed this line from the K/E fundraiser "Latinos for Republicans - it's like roaches for Raid"

No, I didn't miss it. No, it's not a racist or anti-gay remark, more of a sad old discredited canard.

It was the very basis of racism... that a person's melanin content conveys a particular set of values.

Of course, if one is steeped in the mindset that certain people have to follow a particular ideology to be considered "authentic"... be it gender, "race", or ethnicity..then you won't see the utter racism/sexism/groupism that it represents.

I'm sorry you buy into such a mindset. But it does explain things.


It's an insult to Republicans. Being a Republican is not related in any way to melanin. Another way to state it would be: Republicans kill Latinos like Raid kills Roaches and therefore Latinos do not support Republicans. See, it's not racist just stupid propaganda ... a sad old canard some bitter old latino activists like to trot out in convoluted ways because if they actually said it straight, everyone would realize how stupid it is.

I agree with your definition of racism.


That it is an insult to Republicans means it is not a racist statement?? You know, it can be both insulting to Republicans (they "hate" minorities) AND racist by saying no "true" Latino (Latina, Hispanic, Chicano, Chicana) can hold Republican beliefs/values/ideals.

There's Ted Rall's latest excrement calling Condi Rice a "house n****." Colin Powell has been lambasted as an "Uncle Tom" many a time, but none of those slams came from the Republicans.

Kerry himself can't help but play the "race" card
Don’t tell us disenfranchising a million African Americans and stealing their votes is the best we can do.
And he gets away with such baldfaced, self-serving lies because the bigotry of low expectations in regards to the melanin-enriched voters, and complicity with a willing, partisan "press" means he doesn't think he'll be called on it. Kinda like the old slaveowner who thinks his "darkies" won't revolt, after all, they are so "childlike" and "trusting" and he has always treated them well.

As part of my new, improved comment policy, I am going to shut down threads when they become repetitive and/or inane. Like this one.