Making fun of music, one song at a time. Since the year 2000.
Check out the two amIright misheard lyrics books including one book devoted to misheard lyrics of the 1980s.
(Toggle Right Side Navigation)

Song Parodies -> "No JFK"

Original Song Title:


Original Performer:

The Village People

Parody Song Title:

"No JFK"

Parody Written by:

Michael Pacholek

The Lyrics

After three years of watching George W. Bush's stupidities and sanctimony, I'm beginning to think America owes Dan Quayle an apology. Because, after 40 years, everyone in "no Jack Kennedy." The closest we've come to JFK is Bill Clinton. Except the press was nicer to JFK. Then, the reporters really were liberal, even if the editorial pages weren't.
Dubya, you run this country down, I say
Dubya, run it into to the ground, I say
Dubya, there's a chink in your crown
and the U... S... is... un...happy!

Dubya, a guy that we used to know, I say
Dubya, he knew how to watch dough, I say
Dubya, and he kept peace in mind
and I'd like... to... go... back... in time!

Because, Georgie, you are no JFK!
That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
He had everything we need in our President!
He was a brilliant, peace-loving gent!

That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
He had a civil-rights bill, he stood up to big steel!
With him, this land had a better feel!

Dubya, are you listening to me? I say
Dubya, here in two thousand three, I say
Dubya, you have shattered the dream
and next year... you... ought... to... get creamed!

No land, should do things all by itself! I say
Dubya, put your war-hawks on the shelf, and just
read up, on John F. Kennedy!
That's what you can... do... for... your... country!

That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
He had everything we need in our President!
He was a brilliant, peace-loving gent!

That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
He started us to the Moon! He knew how to save jobs!
And Jeb ain't as good as Bob!

Dubya, I look down at your shoes, they're from
Texas, and they give me the blues, I think
Lyndon, if Johnson were still alive
he'd say, "Stop... with... fake... Tex... as jive!"
That's when, we'd all take to the street
and say, Dubya, we'll vote for John Kerry, because
he has, initials spell "JFK"!
Not the same... but... we'll... go... his way!

Because, Georgie, you are no JFK!
That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
He had everything we need in our President!
He was a brilliant, peace-loving gent!

That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
Dubya, Dubya, your campaign's going down!
Dubya, Dubya, our Party's coming around!

That's right, Georgie, you are no JFK!
Dubya, Dubya, are you listening to me?
Dubya, where were you that day in sixty-three?

And let's not forget: Every time there's some ridiculous movie about the Kennedys, nobody says a word about bias or inaccuracy. But make one movie about the Reagans, and it's the eighth sign of the Apocalypse.

Your Vote & Comment Counts

The parody authors spend a lot of time writing parodies for the website and they appreciate feedback in the form of votes and comments. Please take some time to leave a comment below about this parody.

Place Your Vote

Matches Pace of
Original Song: 
How Funny: 
Overall Score: 

In order for your vote to count, you need to hit the 'Place Your Vote' button.

Voting Results

Pacing: 3.3
How Funny: 3.0
Overall Rating: 3.3

Total Votes: 3

Voting Breakdown

The following represent how many people voted for each category.

    Pacing How Funny Overall Rating
 1   1
 2   0
 3   0
 4   1
 5   1

User Comments

Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason.

Leah Lockhart - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
I like... Not to be too political, but doesn't anyone else have a problem with the fact that someone who pronounces it "Dubya" is representing the entire country? Just a thought...
Sasquatch - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
Let's see, JFK cut taxes, so did W, Mr. Bill raised them. JFK stood up to our enemies then, W went after our enemies, Mr. Bill launched a few cruise missiles and only emboldened our enemies (well, he did go after Milosevic, who was not our enemy, although certainly evil.) So how is Bill more like JFK than W is? Oh yeah, both JFK and Bill have similar libidos. You're right about the press, they left that kind of stuff alone back in JFK's time.
Michael Pacholek - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
Leah, Dubya does NOT represent the entire country. He doesn't even represent a majority. Of course, JFK got just 49.5 percent of the vote, but at least he finished first.
Michael Pacholek - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
Squatch: You talk about taxes first? Typical Republican, it's all about the money, well before it's about "national security." JFK didn't have a $200 billion deficit when he cut taxes, and with a top rate of 91 percent, there was whole lot more room for it. Clinton raised taxes, and only on the rich, because he had to balance the budget, and he did, keeping Ronald Reagan's promise 14 years late and Newt Gingrich's promise 4 years early. W went after Saddam and bin Laden, guys his father and Reagan called our friends. Clinton kept Saddam from killing Americans, and actually found bin Laden's camp and bombed it, just missing him. Bush has had two years to get him, and nothing. Clearly, Clinton has the better record there. Milosevic was in power 10 years, and every year killed more people than Saddam did in 25. Clinton beat him. Twice. And directly led to his ultimate loss. Bush cannot be said to have truly beaten Saddam while our soldiers are still dying in droves. Clearly, it's better to have a President who fools around with actresses and interns than a President who screws entire countries, including his own.
Static - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
MP, you're right about us electing Bush. Great mistakes usually take quite an amount of skill to achieve, and Dubya's election is one of them. And plus, if Dubya was a JFK, (pardon my horrible joke), he'd be dead by now. Sorry for that, and a triple five for your time.
Guy - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
Mike - Why you wanna dis JFK by comparing him that closely to Clinton? I liked JFK but he did scare the sh** out of me when I was about 10 with that Cuban missle crisis. I remember it well and was convinced at the time that I would never reach the age of 11. Clinton could not even come near to the guts that JFK had. And yes that was back in the day when democrats were just democrats and liberals were the way some people liked their steaks --- rare.
Adam Zen B. - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
Well all Mike said is that Clinton was the closest we've had to JFK, which is true. That however doesn't mean he's like JFK, which he isn't. In some ways he was more of a JFK wanna be (he met JFK as a teen). But as far as substance goes no president since has come close. Anyway good tribute for the 40th anniversary. Hope you check mine out from yesterday.
Guy - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
Adam - Do you remember where you were and what you were doing when JFK was assassinated? Anyone who was old enough to know what was going on at the time can tell you exactly where they were and what they were doing when the news was delivered. I was in 6th period history class when the announcement came over the schools PA system. It was a Friday and Thanksgiving was the following Thursday. TIme was approximately 2:20 PM EST. I was looking forward to a school skating party that was going to happen that very evening but did not due to the assassination.
Rick D - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
Guy--almost the same for me except west coast time.
Guy - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
Rick - were you in history class too? What grade? I forgot to mention that I was in 7th. I even remember the teacher's name and how he reacted to the news.

Part of the point to my comment is that anyone who cannot remember the assassination could not possibly know how JFK was as a president as well as someone who was aware of events during this time and gets the history from memory and not history books. With this said I will reiterate that there was no comparison of JFK to Clinton except for the libido character flaw. This parody makes this statement:

He had everything we need in our President!
He was a brilliant, peace-loving gent!

Most of it was true except for the peace loving part. JFK, with good reason though, very nearly went to war with the Soviets in 1962 during the Cuban Missle Crisis. This would have been WW III and a nuclear holocaust. For a solid week during October 1962 every kid I knew thought the world was about to end. Also America's part in the Vietnam war which cost over 57,000 American lives started on his watch. Peace you say? Yes JFK was a great president, except for that Vietnam thing he got us into. Clinton was not. I really believe that if JFK were running for president today he would run on the Republican ticket. As I said he was a democrat not a liberal.
Rick D - November 21, 2003 - Report this comment
Actually, I misspoke. I was in 5th grade, (as Mari reminds me how old I am), and it was around 11:00. I remember my teacher threw that "no prayer in school" thing out the window and some of the kids went for it. When Bobby was shot, I was sitting in detention on my birthday. And you make a good point. Even if people don't realize it, the man that occupies the big chair is like an absentee father. And only a generation that felt that loss can really relate to it. The only death that compared to it for me was when another man named John was killed by a loon.
Claude Prez - November 22, 2003 - Report this comment
Well done Michael. Reading these comments makes me feel young; I don't think my parents had even met yet.
Mari D - November 22, 2003 - Report this comment
This is definitely a nostalgic time, on this site and other places. In 1963, my 5th grade class had to hear the news about JFK from Mrs. Gray, the teacher from hell. And Dubya may be reelected, while still looking for the missing NUCULAR (hi Leah) weapons!
Michael Pacholek - November 22, 2003 - Report this comment
Thanks, Static. There are some Bostonians I admire. Besides, Bush is dead now -- from the neck up, that is, and he always has been.
Michael Pacholek - November 22, 2003 - Report this comment
Let me get this straight, Guy: It was JFK, not Khrushchev, who scared you in '62, but it's Osama and Saddam, not GWB, who concern you now? Who put the missiles in Cuba? Not JFK. In fact, GWB went to war because of weapons of mass destruction, and hasn't found them; JFK found WMDs he didn't know he would find, and got 'em removed without even going to war. Clinton didn't have JFK's guts? Milosevic would disagree. And JFK never had to face a maniac in the U.S. government like Gingrich. Hell, he and Goldwater were very civil to each other. Liberals weren't rare back then, they were dominant, although now it's rare when they're well done. (Old joke: Fred Allen used it to describe the "medium" of TV.) The first President to send troops to Vietnam was Eisenhower, and JFK had already pulled a few thousand troops back. JFK a Republican? Please. But don't take my word for it, take his: According to his speechwriter Ted Sorensen, he said, "The word 'conservative' has connotations with which I do not want to be identified. I know too many conservatives in politics with whom I have nothing in common."
Guy - November 23, 2003 - Report this comment
So Mike, you never said where you were when the news was released about JFK.'s assassination. The Vietnam war escallated out of control starting on JFK's administration and ran rampant in LBJ's. Where is your reference to JFK bringing troops home? I'd like to check the source and read about it. The draw-down didn't begin until LBJ was out of office. And the current war on terror has been taken to them. Maybe you'd like a home game and have all of our troops around the world here on US soil and we could have more attacks like we experienced on 9/11.

Also JFK never had to face maniacs in the US like Bin Laden. Liberals became unrare during the height of the war and that was after JFK's administration when it became popular to oppose the war which I will tell you that I also opposed it. There were sweeping social changes during the 60s. The decade began with the status quo being ultra conserative and ended with a 180 turn in the status quo brought on by the unpopularity of the war. If you can't check your memory on this, I would suggest that you find better history sources.

So stop defending JFK already to me. I already told you that I loved and admired the man.
Michael Pacholek - November 24, 2003 - Report this comment
I wasn't born until '69, so I'm out as a suspect. Most Americans had never even heard of Vietnam on 11/22/63. The reference to "a few thousand troops" being pulled out was on the History Channel special "JFK: A Presidency Revealed." Maybe I heard them wrong, but if I have the facts wrong, so do they. If what's been going on in Iraq and Turkey is "the war being taken to the terrorists," I'd hate to see what leaving them alone would look like. As for the maniacs JFK faced, I'd say he faced one. And that's if you believe Oswald was the only one. There were a lot more people Texas, especially in Dallas, who wanted him dead, impeached or at least defeated in '64. "The height of the war" was not in JFK's time, when liberals were common even in the Republican Party. A long time ago. One thing for sure: I wouldn't cry if Bush were killed, but I want him alive at all costs. For all he has done to this and other countries, I want him to face his deserving defeat next November 2.
Guy - November 24, 2003 - Report this comment
Mike - We will probably never know the truth about what actually happened in Dallas that day and what conspiracies were involved in JFK's assassination. The Warren commission saw fit to seal their findings for about 100 years. This should tell us that there was a deeply rooted conspiracy that is better off buried due to the ramifications it would have likely produce. The Vietnam war was an American tragedy and it doesn't make a hill of beans who escallated it or started it. Bottom line is that we lost 57,000 lives in that war. Laying blame for it will not bring them back.

This current war I believe will be called WW III as I feel it too will escallate. It is already on a worldwide scale with no end in sight. And again here I believe that it would not matter who is in office, this war will proceed on it's course regardless. But one day you'll need to remove those rose colored glasses you wear that paint left and right so black and white in their view.
Adagio - November 24, 2003 - Report this comment
Guy, I really like your comment about the Warren Commision, Vietnam and the current war. Echoes what I think.
Absolutely Write - November 25, 2003 - Report this comment
Cute parody Michael, but JFK "peaceloving" - oh, please. Save that line for the Eugene McCarthy crowd. Kennedy tried to off Castro. He stood down the Soviet Union over missles in Cuba. He was no peacenik - and thank God , he wasn't. For the same reason, I shudder to think what we'd be fighting off on our own shores if Mr.Gore had been allowed to succeed in playing a shell game with the 2000 Florida vote. And if you don't think Bill & Hillary are communists in pigs' clothing, you better take a look at who they were studying under at their respective colleges - Hillary at Wellseley, and Bill in - where Michael? - you don't mean Bill studied for a time in Moscow, in the Soviet Union! What a shock.
Michael Pacholek - November 25, 2003 - Report this comment
Wow, a guy who makes Guy look positively enlightened. There's a difference between "peace-loving" and "peacenik." Ask Ramsey Clark. Gore won, and the only one who doesn't know it is the man he beat, George W. Bush. And while Bill studied in Arkansas, Connecticut, D.C. and England, he only visited Moscow. Which, by the way, has never been illegal for an American. To paraphrase another President who was far, far better than Georgie, Harry Truman, you don't know any more about Communism than a pig knows about Sunday. If you did, you'd know that The Last President and the Junior Senator From New York aren't even close to it.
Bubba - November 25, 2003 - Report this comment
Harry Truman? Harry "The Man Who Gave Away Eastern Europe" Truman? Pul-l-lease. To err is Truman. But he and Mr. Bush do have something in common...both had the media report - prematurely - that they lost the election. And both ended up winning. (Keep your popular vote to yourself, 'cause that's not how we elect a President in this country - read the Constitution. You've heard of it...right?)
Guy - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
Mike - Enlightened? How many Packolek's does it take to change a light bulb?
Absolutely Write - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
That depends. First, the Democrats must raise taxes to pay for the changing of the light bulb. Second, a study must be conducted by the Democrats in conjunction with Green Peace, to see if the new light bulb would cause any ill effects to Egyptian moths who are attracted to it. Third, the ACLU cross-examines the old lightbulb's psychiatrist, to determine if the light bulb sincerely wants to change. Then and only then can a committee be formed to ascertain just how many Pacholeks it does take to change a light bulb.
Guy - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
So now the age old light bulb question is stuck in committee in typically reality challenged democratic party bureaucracy. Any old business, new business, motions?
dude - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
yeah, we all know how fiscally conservative the Republicans are. They're about to sign a new budget which creates one of the largest defeceits ever, and does nothing but give big refunds to all their pals who contribute to their election campaigns.
Guy - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
Hey Dude, and your source for this info is? I'm wondering about the source for the part about the big refunds.
Absolutely Write - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
Guy, unfortunately, Dude is correct . It's a political move used to swing votes over from the Democrats camp. While I'm a conservative on many issues, I don't particularly trust those Wascaly Wepublicans, either. I am more on the side of upholding the original intent of our founding fathers with regard to how our Bill of Rights is interpreted. The Republicans come closer to this than the Democrats do, but don't expect that to remain so indefinitely. At the end of the week, they still collect a politician's paycheck.
Guy - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
Hey Abs - Everyone knows this probably happens but it is always under the table and in the shadows where the payoffs take place. I was trying to make a point that there never seems to be any hard evidence that this kind of practice occurs until someone gets burned for it like old 'nolo contendere' Spiro Agnew did in the early 70s. Right now in this case there just isn't any hard evidence, but we all know it's true.
Robert J. Pagliaro - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
Absolutely Write - I've got to disagree with you on the Republicans coming closer to the founding fathers interpretation of the Bill of Rights. John Ashcroft and the Patriot Acts would have everyone except Hamilton turning over in their graves. (I think modern day republicans only believe in the Second Amendment, literally).
dude - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment this latest budget should sicken Republicans and Democrats alike here's only one example of blatant favorism The energy bill that passed the House but stalled in the Senate contains $23.5 billion in tax breaks, most of them for oil and gas producers hope you don't mind treating your kids like a piggy bank to pay for today's gluttony
Michael Pacholek - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
Bubba: Truman didn't give away Eastern Europe. Like the 2000 election, it was stolen. Of course I've heard of the Constitution. On January 20, 2005, it will be back. Guy: Liberals don't change light bulbs. We make conservatives do it for us, and we pay more than minimum wage for it, too. Dude: Don't worry about providing sources. Apparently, Guy doesn't read a variety of sources as much as he says he does, or he'd know.
Michael Pacholek - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
Robert: Alexander Hamilton HAS been turning over in his grave since Bush took over. Especially since his grave is at Trinity Church, which USED to be literally in the shadow of the World Trade Center. (He's buried next to Robert Fulton, the man history says invented the steamboat.) And if the GOP believed in the Second Amendment literally, they'd be in big, big trouble. David Koresh and his cult were not "a well-regulated militia," and neither are a bunch of guys playing dress-up in R. Lee Ermey's hand-me-downs on the weekend.
Robert J. Pagliaro - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
I think a picture exists of Hamilton's grave site after the attacks. Perhaps I don't give him enough credit - I really believe that Reagan and Bush II are what he wanted in a president (or presidency). I could be wrong, but I think Hamilton would be a Dubya supporter. Did you see the story this week about the town in Kentucky(?) where a law was passed requiring the townies to bear arms? (They're fined if they don't).
Guy - November 26, 2003 - Report this comment
Figures - The technically challenged should never attempt to change something so technically complex as a light bulb.

The author of the parody has authorized comments, and wants YOUR feedback.

Link To This Page

The address of this page is: For help, see the examples of how to link to this page.

This is view # 1428