And Those Pesky Media Questions For John Kerry:
Yesterday, the Rude Pundit offered John Kerry and, indeed, the American Left a way to excite people about its policies. A roundtable discussion in Harper's magazine this month features Eric Foner, Ralph Nader, Kevin Phillips and others practically begging for a way to communicate progressive goals to a larger portion of the electorate. Since the Kerry campaign took the Rude Pundit's advice and chose Edwards as VP, maybe Kerry will look at using the tough-guy stance of "homeland security" to get across his domestic agenda.

But that said, you still have to deal with the media. And they are motherfuckers. They are trying to define you as a flip-floppy liberal from Massachusetts, which, if one understands one's Massachusetts history, one might think that executing witches back in the day would automatically exempt one from the "liberal" label.

However, once again, the path to enlightenment is often simple: You want an answer to the questions about the "liberal" population that elected you? Let's check the numbers: In 2002, Kerry was re-elected to the Senate in a landslide; without a Republican opponent, Kerry got 81% of the vote, about 1.6 million votes of 2 million cast. That same year, the liberal populace of Massachusetts also elected, by a nose, a Republican, Mitt Romney. He got about 1.1 million votes of 2.2 million cast. Now, the Rude Pundit is no statistician, but even simple math would seem to indicate a large number of clam-eaters who voted for both Kerry and Romney. Oooh, complicated. That doesn't fit into the easy talking points, does it? In fact, Bill O'Reilly's head would explode, leaving viscous goo, but surprisingly little brain matter, around the Fox "News" studio if he tried to comprehend the grey world we live in.

Hey, that's the big picture of Massachusetts. Get all microcosmic and shit, and go county by county, and you'll see that every county in Massachusetts that went for Romney also went for Kerry by huge margins. Again, no Republican running, but you didn't have to vote if you didn't want to for Senate. So all these people chose to vote for both. Fuckin' complicated, right? Even moreso? Rush Limbaugh would have a stroke on the air, drooling burger-greased slime on the mike, trying to explain this.

In fact, the Rude Pundit is right now on a brief trip to Massachusetts (really). And, even though the Rude Pundit is not a journalist, he has interviewed people who live in the middle of the state, and the first three people who he interviewed voted, proudly, they say, for both Romney and Kerry. And out of ten people, eight had done the same. Oh, and none of those ten people are going to vote for Bush.

Goddamn liberals. Pollutin' the fine statehouse in Boston with their tree-huggin', sushi-eatin' ilk like Mitt "Queers Are Not Folk" Romney.

Now, unless the media and the Bush campaign want to say that the hundreds of thousands of people who crossed party lines and voted for Mitt and Johnny K are all "liberals," then either shut the fuck up or admit that "liberal" is not the same thing as "soul sucking demon."

Tomorrow: How to answer the "How would you vote now on the war" question