Kerry Thinks Midwesterners Are Idiots,
"Can I Get Me a Hunting License Here?" |
|
October 22, 2004 |
|
Listen to Rush…
(...roll Kerry's absurd attempt to sound like the hick he thinks midwesterners are)
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
 We have learned a couple things that happened yesterday. Number one, we have learned that Jean-François borrowed the hunting outfit from a couple that own the property on which he hunted. Cheney was not accurately guessing when he said that Kerry went out there and bought something. He borrowed it. He's so chintzy! I guess Teresa didn't give him enough money to go hunting because he had to go borrow a used hunting jacket. He had to borrow a gun, probably had to borrow the ammo. I don't know how he's going to pay all this back, but he borrowed this stuff. By the way, you know he's out there in this quest to be a real guy. If you want to see the real guy in this family, go to Drudge. There are some pictures of Teresa Heinz. I'm not even going to describe them, don't want to describe them, just want you to see these pictures of Teresa Heinz Kerry. There are two of them there at the Drudge home page and it's obvious who the real guy is in this family. There's no question about it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Now back to this "hunting trip." Folks... We're going to start with audio sound bite #4 here, Mike. Kerry had to go get a hunting license yesterday. It is just... I mean, if you want to know what the elites think of you in Ohio, if you want to know what the Boston Brahman-types think of real people in this country, here is John Kerry -- he of the erudite and refined and sophisticated Cambridge and Harvard and Boston/Washington accents, he of the European socialist bent -- John Kerry. This is John Kerry, the sophisticated, the smartest man -- maybe too smart to be president. Yes, there's a column on that. They're already writing the -- What would you call it? -- the obituaries for the campaign. In the L.A. Times today, there's a pre-obituary. |
 |
|
They're writing the pre-obits, but there's a piece. I have it here. Some guy... Where's he from? This guy is not even American. This is so typical. Hang on here. It's from Chile. Chile. Ariel Dorfman has written a piece that John Kerry is just too smart to be president of the United States. It's because you people, all of us, the American people, are a bunch of dolts. We're a bunch of dunces. We are too stupid to understand him. We are so stupid we fall for this Protestant/Catholic/Christian evangelism. Oh, it's just perfect. So sit tight. But this is Kerry, going in for a hunting license yesterday in Ohio. He's going into a sporting goods store. This is what he said.
KERRY: Can I little me a hunting license here?
RUSH: Did you hear that? "Can I get me a huntin' license heyah?" Can I get me a hunting license here? Now, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that John Kerry doesn't speak that way. We know it. But that's what he thinks the people in Ohio will judge him as a real guy, if he walks in there and says: "Hey, can I get me a hunting license here?" But he blew it because it's not, "Can I get me a hunting license?" If he really wanted to carry this off, he should have said, "Hey, can I get me a huntin' license in here, dude?" or some such thing as that. So, I mean, if there's any doubt, folks. The whole thing was a put on photo op. The Democrats today are even admitting that's what it was. But Kerry has to go in and say, "Can I get me a hunting license here?"
They've abandoned the South. They have now totally shifted ad resources to the southwest, like out in Nevada and I guess New Mexico, wherever else. But they've totally abandoned the South. For the first time in recent memory the Democratic Party has totally abandoned the South as a region. Now, this might have been part of Kerry's original plan out there during the debates, but it also says that John Edwards has been absolutely worthless to Kerry in this campaign. Not one state in the South, and probably very few, if any, along the Mississippi River all the way up to the northern -- maybe Illinois will go his way, but -- We'll go through the polling data here in due course because it's starting to see some trends here, and Kerry's doing some things that do not...
I mean, he's making a pitch today. We're 12 days away from the election; he's out there making a pitch for women in Wisconsin, the traditional Democrat voting block and he's not strong in women. But I don't want to leave this "Can I get me a hunting license?" bit here because Jay Leno picked up on this and it happened last night on the Tonight Show. Ta-da, ta-da, ta-da, and here's Leno. We're going to go to sound bite 2 and 3 here, Mike. Leno's question to James Carville, who was a guest. Leno says, "Kerry went hunting today, and then when he went to get his license, he said, 'Is this where I get me a huntin' license.' [sic] Now, this is a very educated man, Mr. Carville. He knows how to say 'get a hunting license.' Why did he talk that way?" |
|
|
CARVILLE: Let me explain it to you. Where -- in a place like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, the Democrats sent these blue-collar guys to us and sez, "If you vote for the Republicans, you'll lose your job." Then the Republicans send these guys a letter saying, "If you vote for the Democrat, you'll lose your gun, " and it's kind of 50/50: My job or my gun? You know what I mean? I don't know. (Laughter) So the Kerry campaign actually had a brilliant idea. It says, "How about you vote for me and you get to keep your job and your gun?" and that was actually kind of a smart thing to do.
RUSH: Uhhh, didn't answer the question. The question is not about why did he go to Ohio, but in the process of the answer, Carville reveals the strategy behind the photo op, and once again, the strategy relies on the stupidity of people in Ohio to fall for this. But question was: Doesn't he know how to speak? He doesn't say, "Can I get me a huntin' license here?" He knows not to speak that way, and Leno says, "But these little tricks like hunting or, you know, President Bush loading something on a truck, does that stuff work?"
CARVILLE: It's to send a signal: "I care." It's to send a signal. Kerry sent a signal, "I'm not really a waffly, weak Massachusetts liberal; I'm a guy that can knock a goose, you know, out the air," or whatever it is. (Laughter) So, I mean, "Look at me," and they kind of -- carrying the goose by the neck and --
LENO: Well, no, but see, he wasn't carrying it. They have somebody else carry the goose so the animal rights people don't see you carrying a dead animal. (Laughter) I mean it's all --
CARVILLE: Okay. Well, okay.
LENO: It's all kind of --
CARVILLE: You know what? It's all political.
 RUSH: There you have it. So even Carville doesn't try to really defend this as John Kerry being who he was. Not trying to defend John Kerry's as being a real guy. "It's all political," doesn't dispute the fact that Kerry didn't carry the goose, and you know this is the case. Kerry wasn't carrying it. They asked him why he didn't carry the goose. He said, "Oh, I'm lazy. I was up late watching the Red Sox." He wasn't carrying the goose because he didn't want to offend people who might be appalled at the sight of a bunch of guys in camouflage gear happily walking out of a farm or of a cornfield, whatever, smiling, carrying dead geese bodies around. So it just keeps adding up, here. "Can I get me a huntin' license here?" Listen to this a couple more times. Just give me three or four of these right in a row here, Mike, if you can.
KERRY: Can I get me a hunting license here? Can I get me a hunting license here? Can I get me a hunting license here? Can I get me a hunting license here? Can I get me a hunting license here? Can I get me a hunting license here?
RUSH: You realize his friends in the salons of Manhattan on the Upper West Side and in Boston at Harvard and at Cambridge and in Washington, D.C. hear this, can you imagine how embarrassed...? Maybe they'll think it's brilliant because maybe that's what they think of those people. (Effete liberal snob impression) "Well, we know that's what they think of you in flyover country, but it's got to be embarrassing to hear one of their very own, do we have to defend these hard depths to actually appeal to these, these plebes out there whose votes we must have? Good God, after that, can we wash our hands of them? I don't believe we actually live in a country where people talk that way."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'm not going to let go of this can-I-get-me-a-hunting-license thing just yet. I want to do a side-by-side comparison. We have -- what is this? Let's go back to 1971, shall we? 1971. This is audio from Jean-François testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We'll let you hear what he says there, and then we'll back it up, with when he went into a sporting goods store yesterday in Ohio, and asked for a hunting license.
KERRY 1971: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Viet'naaam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
KERRY 2004: Can I get me a hunting license here?
RUSH: Okay. Let's do it again because I want these back to back, bam, bam, bam, bam, so you can hear the contrast. This is Kerry in 1971 -- again it's the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- testifying about the Vietnam atrocities followed with his trip to the sporting goods store to get a hunting license in Ohio this week.
KERRY 1971: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Viet'naaam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
KERRY 2004: Can I get me a hunting license here?
RUSH: There you have it. The new Jean-François Kerry, ladies and gentlemen, as he attempts to appeal to all of you Midwestern hicks. You Midwestern hicks that got gun racks in the back window of your pickup truck out there. It's just amazing. They cannot... You know, once they are identified as liberals -- and that's happened in this campaign -- once they're identified as liberals and they have to start proving to you that they're not liberals or trying to establish to you that they're not liberals. They think they have to show you that they're conservatives. They then tell us what they think of conservatives. Kerry has just told us what he thinks of the people whose votes he needs: "Can I get me a hunting license here?"
END TRANSCRIPT |
|
|
Read the Articles... |
|
Headline: Cheney Mocks Kerry's ''October Disguise''
Source: NewsMax
Date: Friday, Oct. 22, 2004
Vice President Dick Cheney poked fun at Sen. John Kerry's goose hunting Thursday, arguing that the image of the gun-toting, camouflaged Democrat was an "October disguise" that masked his voting record against gun rights.
There is ammunition behind the Cheney charge: Kerry has voted with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 100 percent the time, and he has earned a grade of “F” from the powerful National Rifle Association – as well as a 0 percent rating with Gun Owners of America. He opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits arising wrongful use of weapons, supports renewing the ban on assault-type weapons, and would require the same background checks at gun shows that are mandatory for other gun sales.
Just hours after Kerry shot a goose during an early-morning hunt in Boardman, Ohio, near Youngstown, the vice president told supporters in another part of the state that the outing was nothing more than a photo opportunity to hide the four-term Massachusetts senator's record.
Kerry supports the right to bear arms but has backed the assault-weapons ban and background checks at gun shows. He denies the Republicans' contention that he wants to take away guns from owners.
Cheney said Kerry's camouflage jacket was "an October disguise — an effort he's making to hide the fact that he votes against gun owner rights at every turn."
"My fellow sportsmen, this cover-up isn't going to work," Cheney said, speaking to supporters in an upscale Toledo suburb that borders the Ohio-Michigan state line. "The Second Amendment is more than just a photo opportunity."
The National Rifle Association has endorsed the Bush-Cheney ticket.
Kerry has a camouflage jacket but bought a new one for the outing because he was on the campaign trail. Cheney seized on the fact that the jacket was new.
"Which did make me wonder how regularly he does go goose hunting," the vice president said.
Kerry adviser Mike McCurry said it's important in the final days of the campaign that voters "get a better sense of John Kerry, the guy." That means the Democratic senator is spending some of the dwindling time before Election Day hunting, talking about his faith and watching his beloved Boston Red Sox.
That comment prompted Cheney to poke fun at a few of Kerry's sports gaffes, including his comments about Ohio State football in Michigan. "Of course, he does need a little image repair along those lines."
Kerry on the record re guns:
Kerry voted for the assault weapons ban contained in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, restricting the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. On November 17, 1993, the amendment passed 56-43.
Kerry voted for the Brady Bill in November 1993. The legislation required a 5-day waiting period on handgun purchases, to allow local officials to conduct a background check. The bill passed the House on November 10 and on November 20, 1993, the bill passed the Senate 63-36.
Kerry voted against the motion to table (defeat) the Boxer/Kohl Amendment, requiring that all handguns sold in the United States be sold with a child safety lock. On July 21, 1998, a motion was made to table the amendment. The motion to table passed 61-39.
Kerry voted against the Craig Amendmentthat would have required that gun stores have trigger locks in stock and available for sale. The vote on the Craig amendment was immediately prior to a vote on the stronger Boxer/Kohl amendment to require all handguns sold in the United States be sold with a child safety lock. The Craig Amendment was an effort to undercut support for the stronger Boxer/Kohl amendment. On July 21, 1998, the amendment passed 72-28.
Kerry voted against the Large Ammunition Magazine Ban Amendment to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. On July 21, 1998, a motion was made to table the amendment. The motion to table passed 54-44.
Kerry voted against the motion to table (defeat) the Child Access Prevention Amendment to increase penalties for individuals who permit juvenile access to firearms. On July 21, 1998, a motion was made to table the amendment. The motion to table passed 69-31.
Kerry voted for the Lautenberg Gun Show Amendmentto the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 to close the loophole allowing individuals to sell guns from their private collections at gun shows without completing background checks for purchasers. On May 20, 1999, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote, the amendment passed 51-50.
Kerry voted against the motion to table (defeat) the Ban on Unlicensed Sale of Guns on Internet, an amendment to the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 banning the unlicensed sale of guns on the Internet by requiring websites clearly designed to sell guns to be federally licensed firearms dealers and to comply with all such federal laws. A motion was offered to table the amendment. On May 14, 1999, the motion to table passed 50-43.
Kerry voted against the motion to table (defeat) Large-Capacity Clips, an amendment to the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, to ban the importation of large-capacity magazines (ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than ten rounds). A motion was offered to table the amendment. On May 13, 1999, the motion to table failed 39-59.
In 2000, Kerry signed the Democrat manifesto, “A New Agenda for the New Decade,” which, among a host of other things, calls for the development and use of “smart gun” technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons.
Headline: : Kerry Just Doesn’t Appeal to Most Americans
By: Victor Davis Hanson
Date: October 22, 2004
Source: National Review
There is a good chance that no matter what Kerry says or does in the final two weeks of this election — barring some major catastrophe in Iraq, a presidential gaffe, or massive voting irregularity — he will lose. And he may well take much of the Democrats' remaining control of government down with him. After all, Putin wants Bush, while Arafat prefers Kerry — and that is all we need to know. But besides the obvious concerns of national security and Kerry's own failure in any honest fashion to offer a coherent and principled alternative course of action to defeat the terrorists, there are more subtle, insidious factors at play that will, I think, preclude his election.
I thought John Kerry clearly won the first debate, lost the second, and did worse in the third. Most Americans, however, apparently disagreed, since many polls showed that respondents thought Kerry won all three. We hear of mayhem daily in Iraq; news on the economic front is mixed; and an entire host of surrogates has defamed George Bush in a manner not seen in decades during a political campaign. Why, then, does Kerry gain little traction, trail in most polls, and perhaps even start to slip further? After all, he is a hard campaigner, has a razor-sharp memory, speaks well, looks statesmanlike at times, raises lots of money, and has a mobilized base working hard for his election.
At least six reasons come to mind that have little to do with issues or substance, but everything to do with style, character, and judgment. First, he comes across, perhaps unfairly so, as an unfriendly sort. He seems to confirm to flyover America that the Ivy League East Coast is a cold place of holier-than-thou privileged reformers who live one life but advocate another. Kerry is a pleasant man, but he nevertheless presents himself as a ponderous aristocrat. His oratory, for all his undeniable mastery of facts and classical rhetorical tropes, is too often humorless, condescending, and pedantic. His photo opportunities that showcase hunting vests or windsurfing look forced, and they lack the natural ease of George Bush on the stump, twanging with his sleeves rolled up. Thus while Kerry does well in debates, he in some sense does not do well, since Americans feel he is either their smug professor or cranky grandfather, peeved that he had to descend from Olympus to impart knowledge to the less gifted. Somehow most would rather be wrong with Bush than right with Kerry.
Second, Democrats should have learned after the Dukakis implosion not to nominate a Massachusetts ultra-liberal. Past voting records, affinity with a wildly unpopular Ted Kennedy, and blinkered assumptions that the Harvard-Boston nexus is synonymous with America marginalize such candidates — as we are now seeing with Kerry, who ineptly fights off the liberal tag, tries to adopt populist mannerisms, and only with difficulty curbs his references to the world of New England high culture. JFK barely pulled it off, but then he was a widely celebrated and nearly disabled war hero, had a stylishly coy wife, and projected a certain vigor that captivated friend and foe alike.
Third, most of us don't like lawyers all that much, at least in the abstract when we are not in need of wills or defense counsel, or being sued. Yet the Democrats nominated two to lead their ticket. Lawyers' capital is their verbiage, but in wartime talk pales before action; and when a John Edwards hits the campaign trail, his glibness sounds mellifluous for the first minute, aggravating by the second, and unctuous, if not nauseating, the third. A friend remarked to me that he normally loves to listen to Carolina accents, but that Edwards has nearly cured him of that taste. The senator knows very little about medicine other than how to sue doctors, so when he promises mobility to quadriplegics we sense it is yet another of his canned courtroom performances designed to fool gullible juries. Next time nominate a businesswoman, general, or actor — anybody but two multimillionaire barristers. Quite simply, the Democrats forgot that their candidates must convince voters, not juries, and that good vocabularies and speaking cadences don't equate to consistent, commonsense toughness in the face of terrorists.
Fourth, Kerry's hypocrisy is finally catching up to him. He talks of raising taxes on those who make over $200,000, but he should start with Teresa, who paid a rate far lower than most blue-collar families. A "man of the people" — and Kerry has cultivated such an unlikely image — simply doesn't windsurf off Nantucket during a war, or snarl at federal bodyguards while skiing at Sun Valley, or peddle around on fancy racing bikes clad in Spandex. Few believe his calls for sacrifice and frugality when he owns a $500,000 powerboat, and could have saved thousands of gallons of precious fuel by symbolically shutting down one of his many estates or parking the Gulf Stream in the hangar and flying first-class. The suspicions about the new Democratic party of multimillionaires such as Terry McAuliffe, George Soros, and Ted Kennedy are only enhanced when it nominates a billionaire to head the ticket.
Fifth, Teresa Heinz Kerry started off as something of a novelty. Then she was praised as being refreshingly candid. But now? I wager that even handlers are more likely to grimace when she lectures, since she has the apparent ability to lose the election in a single moment. She tosses around slurs such as "shove it" and "scumbag" promiscuously, makes accusations of "un-Americanism," and yet, unlike the spouses of Edwards, Bush, or Cheney, finds it difficult to exude even forced public affection for her second husband. Again, fairly or unfairly, her appearances almost reaffirm, rather than cast aside, the public's doubt that if Kerry was not a U.S. Senator and she not a billionaire, neither would have married each other — all a world away from the preferable American Gothic tandem of George and Laura. So despite her elegance, intelligence, wealth, and verve, Teresa Heinz Kerry throughout the campaign has proven to be a walking time bomb.
Mimicking Marie Antoinette, Ms. Heinz Kerry advises the hurricane refugees to go naked, asks who cares about Arizona, tosses out conspiracy theories about wars for oil and October surprises, and assures us that she counsels her husband on "everything" well outside women's issues — precisely what most of us suspected and thus feared. Add in her advice to "vote often," her praise in wartime for dissidents as the true patriots, and her earlier promises to tap her fortune if the campaign got rough and we are left with the image not of a kindhearted philanthropist (which she probably really is), but a headstrong, do-it-my-way heiress, using a deceased Republican's fortune to subsidize trendy Democratic causes while retaining the lifestyle of the true corporate capitalist. No wonder she will not release her full tax records. And when she sneered that Laura Bush's past librarianship was not really a job, she had not a clue that most Americans would consider toiling in the public schools a far more difficult — and more rewarding — task than being a hostess to a billionaire, with plenty of time to brush-up on boutique causes and gripes. All that might sound harsh and terribly one-sided, but it is the image that she, not the media, created with the American voters, and it too contributes to the public's uneasiness with Kerry.
Sixth, at first it seemed neat to welcome in the billions of George Soros and the hype of a Michael Moore. But not now. MoveOn.org is also beginning to grate. Even its slickest commercials come across as crass, and lacking in the populist themes of the graying and grimacing Swift-boat veterans' testimonies. Soros is an unhappy and often cruel character, and he reminds the voting public that all Kerry's cries about Halliburton and Enron fall flat when he is being subsidized with the millions made from international money speculation, which has caused such mayhem in financial markets. After all, nearly ruining the banks and pensions funds in England to make a billion dollars is not a very populist or even kind thing to do. At least Halliburton, unlike Soros and his gang of speculators, creates something real, and its employees risk their lives to build infrastructure for those desperately in need of it.
Nor was it wise to piggyback on Michael Moore's transient infamy, whose buffoonery is even more tiresome than Soros's machinations. He cannot finish a simple sentence without a barely audible grunt, obscenity, or "ya know" — even while he caricatures George Bush's diction as inelegant. His movies are increasingly discredited as crude propaganda, his books simple big-print screaming, full of factual errors and teenager logic. Moore also talks of populism, but gouges college students for $30,000 a rant — recently offering nothing more than foul language and aimless rambling, before kicking out C-Span cameras in worry that they might have captured his embarrassing nonperformance for millions of viewers. That he has figured prominently in the campaigns of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, was highlighted at the Democratic convention, and jets around for Kerry are all embarrassments — not support that any sane operative would wish. Everyone Michael Moore has ever endorsed has lost, and he should have been avoided like the kiss of political death he is. His supporters find him useful but only mildly amusing, while his detractors are vehement in their dislike and impart guilt by association to any who come within his toxic orbit. That his lecture fees, lifestyle, and gratuitous slurs are at odds with the old Democratic image of a Happy Warrior only accents the mistake of welcoming him into the fold.
So there you have it. Despite uncertain news here and abroad, the perception that Kerry won the debates, a skilled — and extremely vicious — campaign team, and the hefty subsidies of time and money from the arts, universities, media, and Hollywood, Kerry still cannot quite close the stubborn remaining gap of two to three points. How can he, when it was a mistake to nominate him in the first place, and a further mistake to add Edwards to the ticket? A Gephardt/Lieberman combination, or something reflecting such middle-of-the-road practicality and seriousness — scolding the president from the responsible right on tactical lapses in postwar Iraq — would never have gotten though the extremist primary and embarrassing Deanomania, but it might well have won the general election.
When this is all over, and George Bush is reelected — Republicans then controlling all branches of federal government, and most of the state legislatures and governorships — then, and only then, will Democrats grasp the march of folly in 2004, and either return to their roots or perish from increasing irrelevance. Meanwhile, George Bush, oblivious to the hysteria, will finish and win this war.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.
|
|
|
Your Resource for Combating the Partisan Media, Liberals and Bush-Haters... 
