I'd like to know who thought it was a good idea to pose a Kennedy in front of a car in a place called Fall River?
I know it's a vocational high school where the students work on cars, but the hood up on a car is a roadside signal of distress, and the words "fall" and "river" had us thinking about Mary Jo Kopechne.
As for the "drool," I think it's obvious that Kennedy overlubricated his mouth, perhaps out of fear that he'd make the devastating Rubio mistake and experience an overwhelming need for water as he gave the response to the SOTU. To me the "drool" is a symbol for what's bad about partisan politics. One party has its problem — too dry!! — and then the other party comes in and instead of correcting to a moderate position goes too far the other way — too wet!!!
And speaking of too wet... if you drive your car badly in Fall River and fall in the river, you'll get too wet and you might drown. And no matter how much the Democratic Party thinks we might love another Kennedy — another Clinton not good enough for you? we got another Kennedy! — the Kennedy brand is badly tainted by Chappaquiddick. And Chappaquiddick is due for further examination in this time of #MeToo and The Reckoning. Let's go through all of the story of the Kennedy dynasty from the point of view of enlightened women today.
Democratic Party, you need to process your Kennedy material into the present day, where we do not accept the subordination of women anymore. And when you're done with all that, you can roll out your new Kennedy. The Kennedy brand, right now, is a broken down car with its hood open, signaling distress.
ADDED: The first time the NYT ever noticed this blog was on October 13, 2004, when I was liveblogging the presidential debate:
"Just after 10 p.m., the Democratic Web blogger Ann Althouse wrote . . . : 'A glob of foam forms on the right side of [George Bush's] mouth! Yikes! That's really going to lose the women's vote.' "I was all:
Oh, I'm blogging as a Democrat? Well, I read it in the New York Times, so it's probably true. Did Rutenberg read enough of my blog to see that I'm voting for Bush, or is he just concluding from the fact that I don't mind saying that I observed spittle in the corner of Bush's mouth that I must be opposed to him? Maybe Rutenberg is assuming that these bloggers are all so partisan that if they say one thing against a candidate, they must say everything against that candidate.
Posts
222 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 222 of 222I missed the irony of the car in the background when JK3 spoke last night. Once it was pointed out, I agree it was a remarkably dumb move: so dumb that it confirms that a different generation is making these decisions on positioning and promoting. As usual, Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
What intrigued about JK3's speech was the logical defect at its center. When he set up the multiple sad cases of people in trouble, with not enough State help; and then declared "We choose both!" Which makes for great theater but in fact avoids the question. Politics is about choice. If he refuses to choose, he is being childish, like a toddler asked to pick his dessert and demanding BOTH. Once the emotion blows off these fine declarations, there is nothing there except the same old Will to Power. It must be nice to be a Kennedy with trust funds left and right, humbly consecrating one's life to public service and the very wise spending of other people's money.
The biggest thing in Trump's favor is that he is not a politician nor does he come from a political family.
No matter how much liberals and the celebrity media try to make the Kennedys into some kind of noble family of an American Camelot, they're still just a bunch of drunken, potato-blighting Harps and Donkeys, although highly wealthy and privileged ones.
There's a guy who comes into the bar nearly every day. He's quiet enough at first, but after a drink or two he starts in on Trump. You know the type. It doesn't matter what the regulars are talking about, he either rants about Trump, or starts in about how Trump is so much worse than whatever the regulars are discussing. At first some tried to debate him, but most quickly just ignored him and nursed their drinks wishing he was elsewhere. There are a few who can't resist playing him and mocking him for his obsession. And that just makes it worse. Nearly every day he demands the bouncer throw them out because he's a regular and has been for years. Is he? Maybe yes maybe no. Maybe he's got no place else to go. I don't know. I'm just a temp filling in for James. But I can see that not everyone coming in likes what they see.
So, CWJ, Chuck frequents your bar, does he?
Didn't his uncle start a war in South East Asia or something? Wasn't Uncle also schtupping every cutie he could behind his wife's back which set an example for Democrats for generations to come? Those amnesty lovin drug addict Kennedys?
Drool on bro...
BTW Jaime Roberto @ 2:50 NAILS IT!
Mock,
Not my bar. I'm just filling in for James. But now that you mention it, yeah, I think some call him Chuck.
Kennedy is a trust-funder who hasn't worked a day in his life. He's worth 40+ million.
But... CEO pay!
Is Laslo back? I hope so!
Rob said...
Joe Kennedy wishes that was drool. My money's on jizz.
1/31/18, 9:50 AM
Well he was in a garage with the hood up. Maybe he blew a seal.
No! It's just ice cream!
WWII changed the world, and ushered in the American Century. Europe and Japan were destroyed. Millions of people were killed in the Holocaust. How is the significance of WWII and the Holocaust equivalent to Chappaquidick?
I like Chapstickaquiddick.
World War II, sort of like Mort Sahl's comment about Korea, was World War I.5 He said Korea was WW 2.3.
The Great European Civil War began in 1914 and ended in 1945. Europe has not recovered. The "30 Years War" was about as bad, killing 1/3 of Europe, but the Great European Civil War lasted 31. You could go back to 1870 and make an argument that it was begun by Napoleon III.
"So, CWJ, Chuck frequents your bar, does he?"
Late in the thread but the incontestable winner.
Trust Fund Howdy Doody
Now there's a reference that is even more dated than Camelot
Or should it be Trust Fund Howdy Drooly?
Chuck,
I reached out to you with an olive branch and you bit my finger.
Inga will always be stupid, so I expect nothing else from her.
You show glimmerings of intelligence, but seem to get caught up in anger and contradictions.
I am very close to saying, "Fredo, you are dead to me."
Think about it, before you have a few cocktails. (not that there is anything wrong with that).
Francisco D said...
Chuck,
I reached out to you with an olive branch and you bit my finger.
Inga will always be stupid, so I expect nothing else from her.
You show glimmerings of intelligence, but seem to get caught up in anger and contradictions.
I am very close to saying, "Fredo, you are dead to me."
Think about it, before you have a few cocktails. (not that there is anything wrong with that).
You're a guy who routinely responds to posts of mine by speculating that I have had too much to drink, and that in fact I am a drunk of some kind. You speculate about people whom you do not know and whom you've never met, of having mental diseases and disorders.
I just don't want to know you, or know anything about you, and I'd just be a lot happier if you stopped writing about me.
Fall River? Maybe when he becomes President he'll take an axe and give the Constitution forty whacks.
I just don't want to know you, or know anything about you, and I'd just be a lot happier if you stopped writing about me.
What is the incentive, though, for anyone here to care about your happiness? Quite the reverse, I should think. You show zero concern for the happiness or any thoughts or feelings of anyone else here. Would you modify your postings accordingly to serve those ends? I beg leave to doubt it.
I suppose as usual you will cowardly refuse to engage. Get it through your head, you are not in charge here. This blog is a social construct, and ignoring or defying your peers here, not to mention the sponsor, is not free of consequence.
Whoever posed Kennedy like that obviously knows what a disaster this particular Kennedy would be should he ever gain any kind of political power (the only kind he actually has is his name, making him nothing but a hood ornament for the Democrats).
RE: "I'd like to know who thought it was a good idea to pose a Kennedy in front of a car in a place called Fall River?"
I'll drive off that bridge when we come to it.
A friend of mine owned a piece of property next to the Kennedy compound. The Kennedy family had to drive down their driveway through a small easement, past a long stretch of empty ground. So my friend's family used to line their property with republican political signs. Did the Kennedy clan see them? Probably: they made repeated offers to buy the place.
One day we asked him if his family could build a small pond close to the Kennedy driveway. They could build a small small bridge leading up to the pond and bury the rear half of an Oldsmobile in it, sticking up into the air. Maybe add a blond blow-up doll floating face down in the pond.
steve uhr said...
"So we are supposed to judge Joseph kennedy III based on the conduct of his uncle 50 years ago and 11 years before III was born? Sounds fair."
The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. That being said. The Kennedys have had enough of our power and treasure. They can't seem to control themselves sexually. As evidenced by the cum on Joe3s mouth. Either swallow or spit Joe, but don't wear it.
Post a Comment