John Kerry: Scalia, Alito, and Roberts All “Idiots”
A guy named “Hollywood Liberal” has a lot of detail about an “off the record” meeting he and other liberal L.A. bloggers had with John Kerry. In the meeting, he called three of our smartest Supreme Court justices “idiots”:
The meeting was off the record so no one took any notes or recorded what was said. . .
[Kerry] talked about some of the mistakes that were made on his campaign such as having the convention five weeks before the Republicans and about how, with a 13 week campaign schedule instead the eight week schedule of the Republicans, he was unable to spend money in August because they needed it for the stretch run. It was during that time that he got attacked by the swift boaters. He said that they tried to attack him twice before, and he was able to rebut them with the truth immediately and slap them down, but the third time they got a $5 million check from T. Boone Pickens, and another $3 million from someone else, and they were able to get their message across by spending the $8 million.
Kerry agreed completely with someone’s assessment that everything that Bush does is solely for the purpose of looting the country. He basically said that Bush and his cohorts are criminals and that history will judge them so. He said that he believes that the pendulum will swing back and that is why after 35 years in politics he is still involved, otherwise he wouldn’t waste his time. He also said that he never stopped fighting after the election, and that he still hasn’t, but I didn’t get to ask why he conceded the next morning, though I wish I had. At some other point he referred to Supreme Court Justices Alito, Scalia, and Roberts as “Idiots”
In case you missed it, that was John Kerry calling Alito, Scalia, and Roberts “idiots.” This despite the fact that each of their individual IQs is more than Kerry’s IQ squared. This from a guy who earned so many D’s in college that he told his dad “D stands for distinction.”
Memo to Kerry: it also stands for “doofus.”
P.S. I love the bit about how the meeting was “off the record.” Imagine the kind of detail you would have if the meeting had been on the record! Moral: when you have an “off the record” discussion with a liberal blogger, you know it’s gonna stay off the record! Because they are men of honor!
(Link via Kevin Roderick, who has many other links to posts detailing the “off the record” meeting.)
UPDATE: It’s catching on. In an unrelated story that I just made up ran across moments ago, I see that Boston-area bloggers are reporting that Sen. Ted Kennedy, in an off-the-record discussion, has called Clarence Thomas a “bloated, silver-spoon, womanizing drunkard.”
Yeah so whats the problem. They are idiots. So there is something wrong with telling the truth now. If this is all you have to write about, you need to find a new hobby. Because what Kerry said is so much worse then anything Bush, or Cheney has ever said (Now What was that he said, to a democrat…Oh yeah, go F**k yourself. Man talk about making a big deal out of nothing.
Bob (b7d51e) — 6/4/2006 @ 7:02 amBob,
What makes it despicable is that the dirt is dished in a way that cannot be attributed to Kerry (or can be plausibly be denied by him) in an “off the record” conversation, without recording or notes, with friendly bloggers who nonetheless will leak it.
nk (57e995) — 6/4/2006 @ 7:16 amJohn Kerry is an upper class twit wannabe. He’s better entertainment than Monty Python–I’m so happy to see his long face back on the scene.
Run John run! I’m confident you’ll earn a fifth PH courtesy of the Swifties, even without fulfilling your age-old promise to release all your military records to the public.
martin (fb2430) — 6/4/2006 @ 8:16 amBob, let’s see your first in the class at Harvard Law School diploma before you start calling them idiots.
The Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 6/4/2006 @ 8:38 amBob,
Trying to deflect criticism of Kerry’s obviously slandurours statement by referring to Cheney’s rhetorical suggestion is rather naive, don’t you think?
I’m not sure Cheney believed that the recipient of his remake would actual perform the suggested action, but I AM sure that Kerry meant exactly what he said, just like when he responded to Bush’s victory by exclaiming; “I can’t believe that I’m losing to that idiot.”
Ray (be81f9) — 6/4/2006 @ 9:43 amJohn Kerry – The gift that just keeps on giving.
RLS (0516f0) — 6/4/2006 @ 10:57 amNow, now: In Cheney’s defense, he WAS talking to Pat Leahy.
Federal Dog (49ba76) — 6/4/2006 @ 12:31 pmY’all don’t seem to understand: to our dear friends on the left, disagreeing with them means you are an idiot. No thought that perhaps intelligent people can disagree, no notion that perhaps their opponents have looked at something from a different perspective, nope, none of that. It’s simple: if you disagree with them, you’re an idiot.
That accomplishes three things for them. First, since you’re obviously an idiot, they don’t have to go through the intellectually challenging exercise of defending their position. Second, since you are an idiot for disagreeing with them, their own estimation of their obvious brilliance is confirmed. And third, it employs the debating tactic of having the argument be about the intelligence of conservatives rather than the validity of liberal positions.
Naturally, there are a lot of libs who don’t fall into such a mindset; Psyberian and actus who comment here are willing to enter the field of battle based on their ideas, and here (and Protein Wisdom, where actus takes far more heat than here) they face a hostile battlefield! But go to The Lost Kos or circulate amongst the Democratic political elite, what I described is present far too often.
Dana (a90377) — 6/4/2006 @ 2:08 pm[…] UPDATE: Earlier this week, John Kerry called several Supreme Court justices “idiots.” Patterico has details about this idiocy. 20 responses to ‘Sunday Open Thread’. RSS feed for comments and Trackback URI for ‘Sunday Open Thread’. […]
Confirm Them » Sunday Open Thread (b78190) — 6/4/2006 @ 2:21 pmTo a liberal, it’s paramount that political opponents be stupid, not merely wrongheaded. Thus the liberal can maintain his posture of intellectual superiority. Only in this case, Kerry is not only an idiot himself, he is a liar as well.
He had plenty of money to spend to combat the Swifties. His problem was he had no arguments to combat them with. Kerry was nailed then, he’s nailed now. He’s a pathetic excuse for a presidential candidate, and, frankly, a pathetic, narcissistic excuse for a human being. Every Democrat with a shred of brainpower should running away from this jerk.
Fresh Air (6a0777) — 6/4/2006 @ 11:01 pmBob: “Shut up, he explained.”
(of course, I always preferred “D means diploma”)
Army Lawyer (0de2e7) — 6/5/2006 @ 7:29 amWow, don’t know whether to root for Kerry to run again, or Gore or Hillary. The potential for stupid candidates is so tremondous in 08. Looks like Kerry is trying to negate the Swifties now before 08, and did anyone else see the “I voted for the wall but I want it torn down ASAP” thing from Kerry?
LoganNphilly (6ef2cd) — 6/5/2006 @ 7:58 amSome patience, please, for our Lefty friends as they are preparing (whether they know it or not) to swallow the unswallowable on Kerry. Why? Simply because Kerry is a fantasist and fantasy just cannot coexist perpetually with reality. It can be isolated and nurtured but put them both in the same skull and BOOM! So what’s changed? Can’t they just continue declaring that a combat veteran would never lie while accusing combat veterans of being liars? Again, simplicity itself. The top-level Dems who will be scrabbling with Kerry for the Milkbone that is the ’08 nom WILL DESTROY HIM. At this point, any club will do as Kerry is an existential threat to the Democrats. If they can not get him to shut up and drop out (and they can’t) they will become Swifty supporters, though sotto voce. Watch and wait, then laugh and laugh!
megapotamus (17c12e) — 6/5/2006 @ 8:27 amBingo, but perhaps a bit too subtle for our friends on the left.
Remember, only white men can be racist, and only right wingnuts can be hypocrites.
V the K (48b4d1) — 6/5/2006 @ 8:36 amWhen did Michael Hiltzik change his name to Bob?
The Ugly American (2067d7) — 6/5/2006 @ 11:25 amI went and read the whole thing. You know, the funniest part of all this is that ‘Hollywood Liberal’ is obviously one of those True Believers who just can’t comprehend that Kerry is a politician. He’ll say any damn thing to win.
HL all but slobbers all over Kerry while projecting all the beliefs that he (HL) just *KNOWS* are true.
Also, Kerry is, no surprise, still just as lame as he was in 2004. And pretty obviously not awfully bright. I am looking forward to a Gore-Kerry-Clinton Grudge Match, but I think Kerry is bringing only a spitball and Mama T’s hundred of millions to a political gunfight.
JorgXMckie (b2cefb) — 6/5/2006 @ 11:34 amIt is funny how leftists insist that Bush voters are ‘dumb’, yet the higher the income of the voter, the more likely the vote for Bush.
Twok (4f1539) — 6/5/2006 @ 11:43 amHmm…no wonder leftists hate the American free-market meritocracy.
It’s been said before by others, but it’s appropos here: from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln to Kerry, Gore, and Hillary. What more proof could you ask for the proposition that Darwin got it backwards?
Tex the Pontificator (ad70a3) — 6/5/2006 @ 11:59 amCan you imagine being in a foxhole with sKerry during a firefight?
quark2 (fd5376) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:03 pmYou know, the funny thing about the Cheney “GFY” is that it was so, so deserved: the recipient had just trashed his integrity, then asked him if he wanted to get lunch!
TallDave4 (719fa5) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:05 pmNote the following:
The Democratic party peaked in power about 35 years ago.
John Kerry has been involved in politics about 35 years.
So John Kerry has caused the downfall of the Democrats.
QED 🙂
J (7f1e35) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:06 pmObviously… if Scalia, Alito, and Roberts had any brains… they would have married money.
DANEgerus (2d78bd) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:15 pm“It is funny how leftists insist that Bush voters are ‘dumb’, yet the higher the income of the voter, the more likely the vote for Bush.
Hmm…no wonder leftists hate the American free-market meritocracy.”
I would qualify this comment to observe that voting Republican correlates with earned income, not inherited. Kerry is a sterling example. HE got his money the old fashioned way. He married it.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:15 pmI’m waiting for someone to notice the blooger hanging off Kerry’s nose.
Papertiger (d8da01) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:22 pm[…] First I read this post at Patterico where his off the record meeting with LA lefty blogs is all over the net. HT/ Hugh Hewitt. Do they not understand what off the record means or was this supposed to be a “wink wink” type of off the record meeting? […]
The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » What is John Kerry Thinking? (4e8dcb) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:23 pmMike K – I imagine that many leftists would argue that there is no correlation between intelligence and earned income.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:35 pmYeah, Kerry is turning out to be a centerless loser, and maybe he always was, but I find it depressing that both he and GWB are such doofuses, each in his own way.
GWB grabbed ahold of 9/11, a one trick pony, if there ever was one and played that card into a mess in Iraq
and a huge deficit, with a lot of money going down some hole over there. When you compare their war
records, there seems to be no winner, only losers. Can’t we do any better than this?
Dwight
Dwight (8fb4c9) — 6/5/2006 @ 1:06 pmI have often thought that the reason Kerry so eagerly threw himself into the Winter Soldier smear of American soldiers (which, revisionist history aside, was the real heart and soul of what the SVFT were bringing up) is because way back then, the conventional wisdom was that American democracy was dying, and we were bound to become a socialist state under the rule of sixties Maoist radicals. At the time Kerry went to Congress and accused American soldiers of war crimes, he was merely positioning himself to be one of the politburo when the Revolution came.
Might have happened, to, if not for Ronald Reagan. That’s why those sixties radicals, who fancied themselves the Vanguard of the socialist revolution in Amerika, passionately hate Reagan and his heirs, Bush 41 and Bush 43.
V the K (48b4d1) — 6/5/2006 @ 1:53 pmJohn Kerry is no liar. He is a fabulist.
*
M. Simon (bdfc2f) — 6/5/2006 @ 2:29 pmJust Remember,
Kerry has the HAT, You don’t have the Hat! Nobody has the HAT but Sen. Ketchup Brains.
Mike in NY. (496906) — 6/5/2006 @ 2:50 pmCase closed. Move along now nothing to see here.
This is a great non-issue for some right-wingers to get puffy about. But this is particularly wingnutty:
cody (c17e25) — 6/5/2006 @ 2:53 pm“I would qualify this comment to observe that voting Republican correlates with earned income, not inherited.”
Yeah right, Mike K, I’m sure there’s some evidence to back that up somewhere in your imagination. As Repubs prepare to further shift the task burden from inherited wealth onto my underemployed shoulders, I find your made-up statistic somewhat difficult to believe. To believe that you’d have to be, well, an idiot.
A little reminder of Kerry’s prowess at sports.
SeafoodGumbo (ff7dfe) — 6/5/2006 @ 3:00 pmThe only thing that gives us energy is to be able chuckle at how bad the other guy is. Oops, GWB has just decided to go for the Constitutional Amendment againt gay marriage. Ah, now there’s something we can all admire, eh? 😉
Dwight
Dwight (8fb4c9) — 6/5/2006 @ 3:46 pmIt seems to me the biggest difference between Kerry and Bush is that Bush believes himself and Kerry hasn’t yet convinced Kerry.
Kerry knew it wasn’t off the record, if he thought it really was, he wouldn’t have done it.
Conflict is easy publicity: “idiot” did the trick for Kerry ~ what a coincidence.
DL Peters (960806) — 6/5/2006 @ 4:06 pmAs Repubs prepare to further shift the task burden from inherited wealth onto my
underemployedunemployed shoulders.I’m very sorry Cody. You know how those liberal arts degrees are…
Goodbye Natalie (ae9318) — 6/5/2006 @ 4:12 pmI browsed to the Boston Globe weblink in this post. Both Kerry’s and Bush’s class photos are posted. Ole Dubya musta got all the girls so probably why he was a C student. Upon consideration of Kerry’s mug, there’s little reason Kerry shouldn’t have been all straight-A’s if he’s so damn smart!!!
Col Bat Guano (6eb60a) — 6/5/2006 @ 5:04 pm[…] First I read this post at Patterico where his off the record meeting with LA lefty blogs is all over the net. HT/ Hugh Hewitt. Do they not understand what off the record means or was this supposed to be a “wink wink” type of off the record meeting? You know the kind of “off the record” where the hard core left blogs can tell the minions “Kerry is one of us” but Kerry can deny having ever said it when a MSM talking head asks him about it. […]
third world county » Blog Archive » What Is John Kerry Thinking? (1974f7) — 6/5/2006 @ 7:23 pmCody:
I’m a bit confused by your contention. If you believe that intelligence is uncorrelated with earned income, what do you propose as an alternate explanation? One possibility that comes to mind is that the more successful are harder workers. The other, of course, is that their sucess is due to luck.
It’s probably a bit of all three. But of the three, I’d say that luck has the least to do with it. My experience has been that both successful and unsuccessful peole are presented with many (not all, but many) of the same opportunities. The differences is that succesful people manage to capitalize on these opportunities.
I’ve been fortunate to be associated with a good number of very successful individuals (at least as far as income goes). To a one, they’re extremely smart (at least in the ways their respective fields require), and they all work their asses off. They’ve been in the right place at the right time, but (like I mentioned before) so have many of their peers that didn’t succeed.
It may be self-selection on my part, but none of them are arrogant, self-centered assholes either. And to a person, they’re all the sort of people that most of us would want as a neighbor.
Of course, your experience may differ.
The Unknown Professor (c5e3b6) — 6/5/2006 @ 7:32 pmDwiht-The real reason the President wants a Constitutional Amendment “against gay marriage,” is because he doesn’t want you, Cody, and Bob sharing each others underware, sleeping in the same bed, or holding hands (amongst other things) in public any more.
And we all know why you guys really like John “the Hero of Vietnam” Kerry. You want his underware. HU: Get to his next rally, I hear he’s throwing out a few to the audience, ala Tom Jones. Oh, Yeah! They’re soiled alright.
Wedgies!
Al Pine Crowe (95ef5e) — 6/6/2006 @ 9:18 pmAh, such a lovely post to find as I troll back. I think I will go luxuriate in some Ann Coulter lingerie…to cleanse
myself. 🙂
Dwight
Dwight (8fb4c9) — 6/9/2006 @ 4:06 am