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 -> "Another John Kerry Done Somebody Wrong Song"

Original Song Title:

"Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song"

Original Performer:

B.J. Thomas

Parody Song Title:

"Another John Kerry Done Somebody Wrong Song"

Parody Written by:

Michael McVey

The Lyrics

Sing of a tragedy,
For the Peterson family lost Laci and her baby,
A John Kerry done somebody wrong song.

Hey, won't you play, another John Kerry done somebody wrong song,
For Laci Peterson, 'cause he dissed her baby, 'cause he dissed her baby.

So please pray for me, I can't let it be,
I'm mad that Kerry wants babies to die.
He must be lighting bongs, not to see that is wrong,
'Cause Laci wasn't murdered all alone.

Hey, won't you play, another John Kerry done somebody wrong song,
For Laci Peterson, 'cause he dissed her baby, 'cause he dissed her baby.

So please pray for me, I can't let it be,
I'm mad that Kerry wants babies to die.
He must be lightin' bongs, not to see that is wrong,
'Cause Laci wasn't murdered all alone.

Hey, won't you play, another John Kerry done somebody wrong song,
For Laci Peterson, 'cause he dissed her baby, 'cause he dissed her baby.
Hey, won't you play, another John Kerry done somebody wrong song,
For Laci Peterson, 'cause he dissed her baby, 'cause he dissed her baby.
Hey, won't you play, another John Kerry done somebody wrong song,
For Laci Peterson, 'cause he dissed her baby, 'cause he dissed her baby.
2004 Michael W. McVey

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: 5.0
How Funny: 3.3
Overall Rating: 4.7

Total Votes: 3

Voting Breakdown

The following represent how many people voted for each category.

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

User Comments

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

Guy - March 28, 2004 - Report this comment
I totally agree with your parody, Michael. It is as true as the sky is blue. Wonder what the political left's take will be on this one. I'm posting a 5 vote. Well done.
Adagio - March 28, 2004 - Report this comment
Very profound and a good question, Michael. 5's
John Jenkins - March 28, 2004 - Report this comment
Yes, on Friday, the Senate approved the Unborn Victims of Crime Act by a 61-38 vote and John Kerry was one of the 38 "no" votes. Of course, Kerry doesn't "want" babies to die, but I don't see why he would oppose this legislation. Very good parody, Michael.
Paul Robinson - March 28, 2004 - Report this comment
Guy, that's easy. Many States already deal with this anyway, shouldn't be a Federal issue (State's Rights used to be a favorite for "conservatives", remember? Sometimes still is depending on "When" and "What" the 'sometimes' is about). On top of that this seems to be a back-door effort in the move to outlaw ALL abortions. Now look, I wish there were no need for abortions. But that's not how things are. I don't want to see things go back to the "back-alley" abortion days, and don't think it can't happen. On top of all that we are talking about regulating someone else's body here, Hello? Yes, you can take the most outrageous case (Yes, the woman the other day who refused the Caesarean, leading to her baby's death. Yes, may they lock her unfeeling butt up and throw away the key, and they likely will.) but short of that the Government should not be intruding in Medical decisons and that is what we are talking about. I read but I'm not gonna vote, Michael. I think it's rather unfair to accuse Kerry of "wanting babies to die". That's a bit demogogic for you and I'm a bit surprised you would do that. You seem more fair-minded a person to me. I'm trying to steer away from these issues, not always successfully it appears. Well, peace all...
Matt - March 28, 2004 - Report this comment
I think its ironic how all the people who are pro-abortion have already been born.....
Paul Robinson - March 28, 2004 - Report this comment
Gee, Matt, not to be sarcastic, but isn't that sort of a stupid statement? What does it have to do with anything? Yes, the living decide the fate of the unborn. The world they enter is one they have not been able to influence from the womb. Not just in matters of Reproductive Rights. WE decide (or abdicate through apathy) matters of War & Peace, Environment, Equality, name it, it's up to us. You're welcome to your opinions, but you ought to apply your intelligence to more than pointless "ironic" remarks. Thanks...
Michael McVey - March 28, 2004 - Report this comment
Well, Paul, I would agree that, besides making abortion illegal, we as a society need to work to make it less necessary by making it less difficult for mothers to have and rasie their babies, and by removing the racism and bureaucracy from the adoption industry. If we don't, we'll be a lot like the Latin American countries where abortion is illegal, but there's so much poverty and such a victorian view of sexuality that the illegal abortion rate is quite high. But I also think what will happen here isn't "coat-hanger" abortions so much as women going into Canada to have abortions. What I disagree with (obviously) is your claim that a baby is part of a woman's body, and does not have its own body prior to birth. -- MM
Paul Robinson - March 28, 2004 - Report this comment
Mike - And you're certainly entitled to hold that view. So do you agree this vote had more to do posturing and/or attempting to criminalize all abortions in the United States? Yes, both parties do this (when they can, anyway) but it's dishonest to talk to about the Laci Peterson MURDER and support a law that is being proposed with another objective in mind. That's a very slippery slope, my friend and it can turn on you as quickly as I can say "November, 2004". Also, do we as a society really want to force women to go to Canada, isn't that a little disingenuous? And it's rather cavalier to assume that going to Canada is an affordable option for a poor women, isn't it? Unless we are going to provide a train or something - I don't think anyone is seriously going to suggest that (nor should they). You also make an assumption that the pregnant women involved will have any idea of what options are available and what to do. Many of them will be young and not too well educated in addition to being poor. Of course the well-to-do can always take off on "Oh, a little trip to the 'spa' in Europe" and no one will blink an eye. I do see a little inconsistency with your other libertarian views here, but I don't always pass my own consistency tests either. It seems to be a rather common human trait. But thanks for the straight-forward & honest answer, I get a little tired of some folks who just put a label on me and assume my thoughts and positions on everything based on that. I guess if we have more to say on this we should go to that new area in the Messageboard area, although at this point I really don't. Later...
Michael McVey - March 28, 2004 - Report this comment
Well, there is one difference, which could mean a lot to the Federal courts. Abortion is the mother choosing to end her own pregnancy, imo by having her own baby killed. What the UVVA bans is an assailant making that choice for her, against her will. In other words, a forced abortion. I think that is a very significant point, legally. Anyway, you probably know this about me already, but I am kind of a black sheep among pro-lifers. My heroes are not Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed, they are people like columnist Nat Hentoff and the late Mohandas Gandhi. My "ideal" organization isn't the Christian Coalition or National Right to Life, it's the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGL). Finally, it wouldn't surprise me, if abortion were banned, if feminist activists did give poor women rides to Canada to have abortions there. Plus, pro-choice sentiment is far stronger in the northern states that border Canada, than anywhere in the South (except Hawaii). Look at the 1988 election map, which states voted for Dukakis, or even the 2000 map, which states undisputedly voted for Gore, and I think you'll see a pattern. -- MM
Paul Robinsonq - March 29, 2004 - Report this comment
Mike - Even if I accept all your points (which I don't necessarily, but for now let's say I do) it still should not be a Federal Courts issue. I suppose if a State failed to act on an egregious incident the Federal Prosecutor could conceivably bring charges. Again we're talking about pre-empting the judgment of State and Local Authorities here to impose Federal Laws, a rather extrodinary move I find hard to justify except for some of the Civil Rights prosecutions of the 1960's, when Southern authorities would not charge white men with crimes against black people, up to and including murder. Federal pre-emption; Is that really a snowball you want to start rolling down the hill? Otherwise all we're really talking about here with regard to the Peterson case or one like it in practical terms is Posturing & Grandstanding - not a good reason to make Federal Laws in my book. If the reason for this bill is as I suspect really to move towards outlawing abortion altogether than we're back to my original point: passing laws SUPPOSEDLY about one type situation (murdering a pregnant mother) when the real reason is to further restrict abortion in my opinion is just plain shoddy and disingenuous. Thanks.
Michael McVey - March 29, 2004 - Report this comment
Well, now, that's a whole 'nother issue, and basically I agree with crimes being prosecuted by the states. The UVVA only applies to violent Federal crimes, though. It does not apply to state charges. If it did, you would have a good point. In fact, one argument against Roe is it took away from the states the right to decide 1)at what stage of pregnancy the baby begins to have legal rights, and 2)what to do about it if the mother chooses to violate those rights. As a libertarian, I also believe the minimum wage should be set by the states. -- MM
John Jenkins - March 29, 2004 - Report this comment
Michael, of course it would be better if minimum wages were set at the state level instead of the federal level; but, as a libertarian, don't you believe that there should be no minimum wage?
Paul Robinson - March 30, 2004 - Report this comment
Michael & John J. - hmmm...Interesting, I was just going to come over and comment Michael's Minimum Wage position and I saw John's comment. John's got a point on consistency there. Of course the States can currently set it HIGHER than the FED, but not LOWER. I think that's appropriate. There's absolutely no point in trying to undercut all the other States these days, you''ll still not beat China or Malaysia or some of the other poorer countries in the world. But if you like the idea of peonization it's a fine idea. I think we already have enough of an underclass as it is without attempting to expand on it.
Your Worst Nightmare - June 12, 2004 - Report this comment
DKTOS, so can't vote. I think anyone who is going to take the risk of having sex has to deal with the consequences. What bothers me is that pro-choicers out there say that the baby could grow up in a bad environment and end up a delinquent. Delinquents don't get killed when they do something wrong, and an unborn baby hasn't done anything wrong at all. That kind of logic is faulty. Liberals can call it pro-choice, but I call it pro-death.
KY Rose - September 29, 2004 - Report this comment

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 # 1269