Ted Kennedy has passed

[PilotMan]

I guess we all knew it was just a matter of time. RIP

[JediKooter]

I'm having a drink right now. RIP Ted, stay away from those bridges.

[RainMaker]

Sad, not just for the loss of Ted Kennedy, but the end of essentially all the Kennedys now. An important and influential part of our country's history.

[Swaggs]

RIP.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm having a drink right now. RIP Ted, stay away from those bridges.

Wow. Didn't even let the thread get into the flow of things. Just banged it out right in the first response. It was going to happen sooner or later.

[DaddyTorgo]

RIP



"Because of Ted Kennedy, more young children could afford to become healthy. More young adults could afford to become students. More of our oldest citizens and our poorest citizens could get the care they need to live longer, fuller lives. More minorities, women and immigrants could realize the rights our founding documents promised them. And more Americans could be proud of their country. Ted Kennedy's dream was the one for which the founding fathers fought and for which his brothers sought to realize. The liberal lion's mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die."



"Today America lost a great elder statesman, a committed public servant, and leader of the Senate. And today I lost a treasured friend. "Ted Kennedy was an iconic, larger than life United States senator whose influence cannot be overstated. Many have come before, and many will come after, but Ted Kennedy's name will always be remembered as someone who lived and breathed the United States Senate and the work completed within its chamber."

Just two of the reactions (I went bipartisan on purpose) that I found most...stirring.

We all have known it was coming, but truly a sad day.

[SirFozzie]

Here's something that I found funny, and poignant, from the CNN.com obit:

"He was probably best known for the ability to work with Republicans," said Adam Clymer, Kennedy's biographer. "The Republican Party raised hundreds of millions of dollars with direct appeal to protect the country from Ted Kennedy, but there was never a piece of legislation that he ever got passed without a major Republican ally."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's something that I found funny, and poignant, from the CNN.com obit:

"He was probably best known for the ability to work with Republicans," said Adam Clymer, Kennedy's biographer. "The Republican Party raised hundreds of millions of dollars with direct appeal to protect the country from Ted Kennedy, but there was never a piece of legislation that he ever got passed without a major Republican ally."

That could be said for most legislation passed by most senators, not just Ted. As we're seeing even in the current session, without some level of bipartisan support, very few bills would be passed. The money was raised to indirectly help kill many of the bills that he didn't pass.

[Greyroofoo]

He's now in that big bar in the sky.

[ISiddiqui]

RIP :(

[DaddyTorgo]

and one more



"For five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts.

I valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've profited as President from his encouragement and wisdom.

An important chapter in our history has come to an end. Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time."

[Noop]

:(

[sterlingice]

He's now in that big bar in the sky.

If there's a congressional bar in heaven, he's being welcomed home by the ones who went before him.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

i'm waiting for more details...i'm not a huge fan of like...sentimental public gatherings or anything, but if there's going to be some sort of public-something, or if they're going to lay his coffin in state in the hall of the State House or something I think I might make an exception.

[flere-imsaho]

FMLA, WIC, Americorps, etc....

RIP

[chesapeake]

That could be said for most legislation passed by most senators, not just Ted. As we're seeing even in the current session, without some level of bipartisan support, very few bills would be passed. The money was raised to indirectly help kill many of the bills that he didn't pass.

Collegiality is certainly a hallmark of the Senate. But Kennedy was genuinely popular with the Republican Senators because he would always bend over backwards to try to accomodate them. And he would be up front with you if he simply couldn't. This is becoming less and less the way things are done in Congress, which is a shame.

[JPhillips]

Kennedy also wasn't a great politician. He had policies he wanted to see enacted and he worked his tail off to get deals done. He would rarely put partisan gain ahead of his policy preferences.

[Galaxy]

i'm waiting for more details...i'm not a huge fan of like...sentimental public gatherings or anything, but if there's going to be some sort of public-something, or if they're going to lay his coffin in state in the hall of the State House or something I think I might make an exception.

Not a fan at all of his. I'm interesting to see what they do as well.

[molson]

Wow. Didn't even let the thread get into the flow of things. Just banged it out right in the first response. It was going to happen sooner or later.

Maybe a little early in the thread for it - but its a tough thing to give someone a pass for. It's part of the man. There would have been decades in prison if it were later time, and if he had a different last name.

But maybe he was inspired after that to be a better man and to give back.

[gstelmack]

Not a fan at all of his.

Me either.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Not a fan at all of his. I'm interesting to see what they do as well.

Whatever they do, I'm sure that an extended happy hour will be part of the proceedings.

[stevew]

Not a fan.

[fantom1979]

I have always wondered how his life would have been different if a couple of moments in time had changed for him. What if one or more of his brothers had not been assassinated? What if that car had not gone off that bridge? Would he have been president? Imagine if no one knew who Jimmy Carter or even Ronald Reagan was.

[Kodos]

"Teddy Kennedy. Good Senator. Lousy date." - Denis Leary

[path12]

RIP

[DaddyTorgo]

He was "not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy," President Obama said, speaking to reporters during his vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts.

"His extraordinary life on this earth has come to an end. The extraordinary good that he did lives on. For his family, he was a guardian. For America, he was the defender of a dream."






Vice President Joe Biden said today he was a "witness to history" in the 36 years he spent in the Senate with Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
"Teddy spent a lifetime working for a fair and more just America," Biden said in Washington.

"I sat with him on the Senate floor in the same aisle. I sat with him on the Judiciary Committee physically next to him. And I sat with him in the caucuses. And it was in that process -- every day I was with him -- and this is going to sound strange, but he restored my sense of idealism and my faith in possibilities of what this country could do."



powerful words

[JediKooter]

Wow. Didn't even let the thread get into the flow of things. Just banged it out right in the first response. It was going to happen sooner or later.

Couldn't resist, sorry. Plus, for whatever reason, I always associate drinking when I hear his name. Kind of like W.C. Fields.

[lungs]

His eulogy at Bobby's funeral is a tear jerker whenever I see it, RIP, Ted.

[RendeR]

Yes he had his faults (don't we all) but we could sure as hell use a LOT more politicians who had the work ethic and foresight to move this country the way he has over the decades.

He will be sorely missed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yes he had his faults (don't we all) but we could sure as hell use a LOT more politicians who had the work ethic and foresight to move this country the way he has over the decades.

He will be sorely missed.

So being an alcoholic and leaving a girl for dead is a regular thing in this country? Who knew? Learn something new every day.

Maybe I'm an idealist, but that doesn't fly real well with me.

[SirFozzie]

Story on CNN about a family, and specifically a little russian girl, that Kennedy saved in Russia.

'Littlest refusenik' on Kennedy: 'He saved my life' - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/26/littlest.refusenik.kennedy/index.html)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Story on CNN about a family, and specifically a little russian girl, that Kennedy saved in Russia.

'Littlest refusenik' on Kennedy: 'He saved my life' - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/26/littlest.refusenik.kennedy/index.html)

Would have been nice had he extended the same courtesy to Mary Jo.

[SirFozzie]

Would have been nice had he extended the same courtesy to Mary Jo.

Quit threadcrapping, MBBF.

[DaddyTorgo]

Quit threadcrapping, MBBF.

seriously

[Radii]

Quit threadcrapping, MBBF.

just to make sure i remembered correctly, I went and re-read the "Jesse Helms Died This Morning" thread.

I'm pretty sure FOFC precedent allows it! Plus, its MBBF, he isn't capable of saying that 2+2=4 without coming across like an arrogant douchebag, no reason to expect anything different here. But as far as the basic idea, it seems like fair game to me.

[SirFozzie]

It's MBBF's usual one-trick-ponyism. Was Ted Kennedy perfect? Hell no. He will have to answer for the events of Chappaquiddick. Just like Dante Stallworth will have to answer for his issues. But to constantly reply to everything with the one liner about this IS threadcrapping, and he needs to be called on it.

[Dr. Sak]

But as far as the basic idea, it seems like fair game to me.

I agree. Just because one person wants to post the rosy side and another wants to post the dark side, doesn't make one any more right than the other.

[SirFozzie]

I agree. Just because one person wants to post the rosy side and another wants to post the dark side, doesn't make one any more right than the other.

Sorry, ,but I have to call Bullshit, Sak.

To reply to every post with the same thing IS threadcrapping. I guess it was too much to think that folks wouldn't turn this into yet another political, but this is FOFC after all.

[cuervo72]

I guess it was too much to think that folks wouldn't turn this into yet another political, but this is FOFC after all.

Kennedy was a politician!

[SirFozzie]

Kennedy was a politician!

political flamewar, sorry.

Have a pedant point :P

[Dr. Sak]

Sorry, ,but I have to call Bullshit, Sak.

To reply to every post with the same thing IS threadcrapping. I guess it was too much to think that folks wouldn't turn this into yet another political, but this is FOFC after all.

Hey Foz...Ignore him. A lot of people on here same the same shit over and over in a thread. Ignore it.

[cuervo72]

political flamewar, sorry.

Have a pedant point :P

A politician dies, and you expect a thread discussing his life and career isn't going to be political? Really?

[Radii]

Hey Foz...Ignore him. A lot of people on here same the same shit over and over in a thread. Ignore it.

*golf clap*

:popcorn:

[Izulde]

Let's all get drunk and post in the Ping: Drunk Guy thread instead.

[DanGarion]

Sorry, ,but I have to call Bullshit, Sak.

To reply to every post with the same thing IS threadcrapping. I guess it was too much to think that folks wouldn't turn this into yet another political, but this is FOFC after all.

Gotta agree with Foz here, it's as bad as the UCLA fan that keeps yelling 13-9 at me, when USC is winning 8 straight Pac-10 titles and the Rose Bowl year after year....

[molson]

just to make sure i remembered correctly, I went and re-read the "Jesse Helms Died This Morning" thread.

I'm pretty sure FOFC precedent allows it!

I think this came up with Kirby Puckett too. So it's not JUST politics.

Ted was extremely fortunate to get off as easily as he did, but then again - it did probably cost him the presidency. That's a pretty big penalty. Coming out of Vietnam and Watergate he should have been a slam dunk in '76. Imagine Kennedy v. Regan in '80. It really is a facinating "what if".

[stevew]

Would have been nice had he extended the same courtesy to Mary Jo.

Well, he saved the russian girl to make up for the one he lost. So does that make him even now?

Did he make it across the River Styx, or did he wreck again?

[Abe Sargent]

Wow. Didn't even let the thread get into the flow of things. Just banged it out right in the first response. It was going to happen sooner or later.

With all due respect, the guy was responsible for the death of another person due to whatever reason you beleive, but that fact cannot be dissacciated with him. Imagine what pople would say if today Leonard Little had died. In his thread, someone would mention the cloud over his life, even in passing.

[Chief Rum]

Gotta agree with Foz here, it's as bad as the UCLA fan that keeps yelling 13-9 at me, when USC is winning 8 straight Pac-10 titles and the Rose Bowl year after year....

13-9 BABY!!!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'm not sure why, when someone dies, it is considered poor form to remember anything bad about him. People who do bad things deserve to have people remember bad things about them.

[Autumn]

I'm not sure why, when someone dies, it is considered poor form to remember anything bad about him. People who do bad things deserve to have people remember bad things about them.

I think the question is about the distinction between remembering the bad thing about them, versus responding to every post in the thread with another reminder about that bad thing. That's not a discussion, that's just trolling.

[Malificent]

I think the question is about the distinction between remembering the bad thing about them, versus responding to every post in the thread with another reminder about that bad thing. That's not a discussion, that's just trolling.

+1.

Say your piece - you don't need to repeat it. The rest of the people in the thread can read.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think the question is about the distinction between remembering the bad thing about them, versus responding to every post in the thread with another reminder about that bad thing. That's not a discussion, that's just trolling.

Trolling is discussing a life-changing event for this woman? Someone in this thread said Kennedy paid a big penalty when he lost the presidency. That's an insane assertion. It's not even remotely similar to someone paying with their life.

[SirFozzie]

Right. I know you say you're completely different outside of FOFC, MBBF, but quite frankly, right now, my FOFC experience is about 100% better with you on my ignore list.

[molson]

Trolling is discussing a life-changing event for this woman? Someone in this thread said Kennedy paid a big penalty when he lost the presidency. That's an insane assertion. It's not even remotely similar to someone paying with their life.

I didn't compare the two. It's just more of penalty than the fine or whatever he got 40 years ago. You seem to have a problem both reading other posts in this thread, and your own, in that you're saying shit over and over and over again. LOL at your assertion that you're "dicussing a life-changing event for this woman". That's what you think you're doing, seriously? You'd be easier to take if you were more genuine.

I kind of feel dirty to have defended you in the past....

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Incidentally I was not really talking about MBBF, just the idea that it's not cool to bring up someone's negatives after they've died. I really cannot think of a context where I'd try to defend MBBF even if I agreed with him.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Right. I know you say you're completely different outside of FOFC, MBBF, but quite frankly, right now, my FOFC experience is about 100% better with you on my ignore list.

That's not what I said to you specifically, but you're welcome to assert whatever you'd like. I'm not posting on this board to attack your character in any way.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Incidentally I was not really talking about MBBF, just the idea that it's not cool to bring up someone's negatives after they've died. I really cannot think of a context where I'd try to defend MBBF even if I agreed with him.

Misread your original post. Apologies.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think you should reread a little.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A politician dies, and you expect a thread discussing his life and career isn't going to be political? Really?

+1

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think you should reread a little.

You're right. I should.

[stevew]

Oh god. I was just thinking about OJ too.

[molson]

Incidentally I was not really talking about MBBF, just the idea that it's not cool to bring up someone's negatives after they've died. I really cannot think of a context where I'd try to defend MBBF even if I agreed with him.

There's definitely a difference between bringing up the negatives, bringing up a man's faults, looking at the damage he caused, reflecting on someone's overall impact positive v. negative, and just yelling "HE'S A DRUNK!" 10 times in a thread with no apparent substance or thought behind the posts.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There's definitely a difference between bringing up the negatives, bringing up a man's faults, looking at the damage he caused, reflecting on someone's overall impact positive v. negative, and just yelling "HE'S A DRUNK!" 10 times in a thread with no apparent substance or thought behind the posts.

Yeah, that's what I did. :rolleyes:

[JonInMiddleGA]

There's definitely a difference between bringing up the negatives, bringing up a man's faults, looking at the damage he caused, reflecting on someone's overall impact positive v. negative, and just yelling "HE'S A DRUNK!" 10 times in a thread with no apparent substance or thought behind the posts.

Then again, it's a lot simpler shorthand than recapping what a p.o.s. Teddy was in great detail repeatedly. I think that would get considerably more tedious pretty quickly.

Up the thread someone (and I don't recall who it was atm & the post isn't visible while I'm typing) referenced W.C. Fields and that's a pretty good point. I mean, the bloated red faced caricature of Teddy is probably the most lasting image of him, not his youthful James McArthur phase. He's pretty much the quintessential drunken politician so shorthanding him down to "he's a drunk" is at the very least equally valid with anyone who tries to heap praise upon the guy afaic.

FTR I guess, even I wouldn't have wished the nature of his demise on him. That seems like a particularly brutal way to die & I don't feel like he did enough actual damage to the nation (not for lack of trying perhaps) for me to not be somewhat sympathetic about what he endured in the past few months. That said, I'm certainly not shedding any tears of his removal from government either.

[molson]

Yeah, that's what I did. :rolleyes:

You're right, that's not what you did, that was an exaggeration on my part.

That's called, "admitting I was wrong"

Now you try it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You're right, that's not what you did, that was an exaggeration on my part.

That's called, "admitting I was wrong"

Now you try it.

See post 58. Already admitted an error once in this thread, even before you did.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

FTR I guess, even I wouldn't have wished the nature of his demise on him. That seems like a particularly brutal way to die & I don't feel like he did enough actual damage to the nation (not for lack of trying perhaps) for me to not be somewhat sympathetic about what he endured in the past few months. That said, I'm certainly not shedding any tears of his removal from government either.

Sure, no one wishes him any unfortunate or painful death.

His removal from government doesn't change much overall. As a local commentator noted tonight on the radio, this does little more than allow the residents of Massachusetts to elect a young senator who is likely just as liberal as Ted Kennedy to serve another long series of terms.

[stevew]

Just for future clarification

When Robert Byrd dies is it ok to talk about him being an Exhaulted Cyclops
When Carter dies is it okay to talk about how he practically destroyed the economy and brought about stagflation(used for butter)
When Gingrich dies can we bring up the affairs and divorces?
When OJ dies can we talk about the Naked Gun movies.
When GHWB dies can we mention how his son wrecked the economy and started an unjust war.

Anyways we aren't talking about someone related to a member of the board here. His numerous faults are fair game.

We did have one thing in common I suppose. He enjoyed spending my money as much as I did.

[RainMaker]

Then again, it's a lot simpler shorthand than recapping what a p.o.s. Teddy was in great detail repeatedly. I think that would get considerably more tedious pretty quickly.

Up the thread someone (and I don't recall who it was atm & the post isn't visible while I'm typing) referenced W.C. Fields and that's a pretty good point. I mean, the bloated red faced caricature of Teddy is probably the most lasting image of him, not his youthful James McArthur phase. He's pretty much the quintessential drunken politician so shorthanding him down to "he's a drunk" is at the very least equally valid with anyone who tries to heap praise upon the guy afaic.

FTR I guess, even I wouldn't have wished the nature of his demise on him. That seems like a particularly brutal way to die & I don't feel like he did enough actual damage to the nation (not for lack of trying perhaps) for me to not be somewhat sympathetic about what he endured in the past few months. That said, I'm certainly not shedding any tears of his removal from government either.

What do you feel he did that was so horrible besides Chappaquiddick? Or is all over that incident?

[SirFozzie]

I think it has to deal with his politics and beliefs, not his personal failings (but again, his personal failings were quite enough for folks)

[MrBug708]

What do you feel he did that was so horrible besides Chappaquiddick? Or is all over that incident?

That's like me saying "How do you feel about OJ, besides the double murders?"

This thread has gone exactly like it should have. As soon as I saw that he died, which is sad nonetheless, I remembered how much crap there was in the Helms thread rather then much respect.

Fair game

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think it has to deal with his politics and beliefs, not his personal failings (but again, his personal failings were quite enough for folks)

Rereading this thread, I don't see much of any complaints about his policies. It's almost all problems with his personal failings.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What do you feel he did that was so horrible besides Chappaquiddick? Or is all over that incident?

Ever see the guy's voting record?

Truth is, afaic Chpqdck is an unfortunate bit of rich/famous/powerful guy getting away with something a regular joe likely wouldn't have but that's far from unique or even unusual.

[larrymcg421]

That's like me saying "How do you feel about OJ, besides the double murders?"

This thread has gone exactly like it should have. As soon as I saw that he died, which is sad nonetheless, I remembered how much crap there was in the Helms thread rather then much respect.

Fair game

What exactly is there to respect about Helms? Chappaquiddick was certainly horrible, but Kennedy did things other than that that were honorable.

This isn't to say that mentioning Chappaquiddick isn't fair game, I just don't think the two two scenarios are quite the same.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What exactly is there to respect about Helms?

Eye of the beholder I guess.

There are few politicians whose efforts & intentions I hold in higher regard than those of Sen. Helms. We certainly part company on a few issues (abortion being the most glaringly obvious) but on the whole he was one of the all-time greats.

[EagleFan]

Passed a breathalizer? Now that would have been BIG news!!! :eek:

[DaddyTorgo]

Eye of the beholder I guess.

There are few politicians whose efforts & intentions I hold in higher regard than those of Sen. Helms. We certainly part company on a few issues (abortion being the most glaringly obvious) but on the whole he was one of the all-time greats.
:lol:

oh wait...you were serious.

i suppose that's to be expected. What's the old saying about being judged by the company you keep?

And the one about "do unto others..."

yeahhhh that's not gonna work out so well in that case.

[JonInMiddleGA]

i suppose that's to be expected. What's the old saying about being judged by the company you keep?

I'm good with that.

It's probably a toss-up whether I shared more personality traits or socio-political positions with Helms. I lean toward the former based on the "Senator No" quote combined with the ease with which I could come up with an issue where we disagreed completely, but I'd be comfortable enough with a comparison in either direction.

Like Popeye, I yam what I yam, and make no apology for that nor does it cost me a wink of sleep.

[sterlingice]

Just for future clarification

When Robert Byrd dies is it ok to talk about him being an Exhaulted Cyclops
When Carter dies is it okay to talk about how he practically destroyed the economy and brought about stagflation(used for butter)
When Gingrich dies can we bring up the affairs and divorces?
When OJ dies can we talk about the Naked Gun movies.
When GHWB dies can we mention how his son wrecked the economy and started an unjust war.

Anyways we aren't talking about someone related to a member of the board here. His numerous faults are fair game.

We did have one thing in common I suppose. He enjoyed spending my money as much as I did.

I LOL'd :D

SI

[BishopMVP]

Incidentally I was not really talking about MBBF, just the idea that it's not cool to bring up someone's negatives after they've died. I really cannot think of a context where I'd try to defend MBBF even if I agreed with him.Anytime you have a national figure, they're inherently flawed - parts good, parts bad, some people love them, some hate them. I think MBBF did it in a crude way, but when people/the media are lionizing a person, praising him and whitewashing over his faults there's going to be an inevitable backlash - this just shortened the cycle. Look at Michael Jackson's death and how long it took coverage to segue from praise to demonizing instead of just presenting a balanced picture from the beginning.His removal from government doesn't change much overall. As a local commentator noted tonight on the radio, this does little more than allow the residents of Massachusetts to elect a young senator who is likely just as liberal as Ted Kennedy to serve another long series of terms.Don't come from across the country and think you have any idea what's going to happen in Massachusetts politics. 95% of insiders don't and some are even trying to change the succession laws right now using Kennedy's death as a shield from public backlash. It's been 25 years since there was a open US Senate seat and there are 25+ politicians who have been jockeying for position since. Yes, the timing is off for a strong Republican run from a Weld or Romney, but there is a wide range of differences in the Democratic field, and certainly no one who will replace Ted Kennedy as an iconic liberal institution. Particularly if they can't get the laws changed and Kennedy's wife or someone installed until January this really hampers health care legislation (as well as almost any other large attempted bill). Kennedy might be a lightning rod for conservative voters, but he did have some pretty good personal friendships with Senators like Orrin Hatch that could have helped win the bipartisan support necessary to pass some sort of bill.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm good with that.

It's probably a toss-up whether I shared more personality traits or socio-political positions with Helms. I lean toward the former based on the "Senator No" quote combined with the ease with which I could come up with an issue where we disagreed completely, but I'd be comfortable enough with a comparison in either direction.

Like Popeye, I yam what I yam, and make no apology for that nor does it cost me a wink of sleep.

based on the fact he was an unrepentant segregationist in his political and personal life i'm not sure which of personality traits or socio-political positions you'd like to share. I suppose you could consider those positions and not personality traits, but i have to think they weren't necessarily easily separated.

[JediKooter]

My comments were definitely in jest about Kennedy. A pretty crappy way to die for sure, no arguments from me. However, being in the public eye, I think you lose certain 'things' that you can't complain about if people bring up or joke about. In politics, for every good thing you can associate with someone, you can count on someone bringing up something bad. It's just the way it is.

There's really no strong noticable attachment to the Kennedy family here in California that I've noticed like there is back east and in New England. Yeah, our governor is married to one, but, it never seems to be brought up much from what I have read or seen on tv.

So, Kennedys, meh... <shoulder shrug>

Now Kennedy from MTV...different story.

[miked]

I'm good with that.

It's probably a toss-up whether I shared more personality traits or socio-political positions with Helms. I lean toward the former based on the "Senator No" quote combined with the ease with which I could come up with an issue where we disagreed completely, but I'd be comfortable enough with a comparison in either direction.

Like Popeye, I yam what I yam, and make no apology for that nor does it cost me a wink of sleep.

Was it his support of segregation, his opposition to the voting rights act, the civil rights act, desegregation, and a holiday for MLK? There's being senator no, then there's being an ignorant racist redneck.

[RainMaker]

Ever see the guy's voting record?

Truth is, afaic Chpqdck is an unfortunate bit of rich/famous/powerful guy getting away with something a regular joe likely wouldn't have but that's far from unique or even unusual.
I'm asking what specifically about his voting record would make you have joy to see his demise.

[sterlingice]

What is it with people lately? This is like the third or fourth time in the past month that people have kindof forgotten who JIMGA is.

SI

[cuervo72]

Don't come from across the country and think you have any idea what's going to happen in Massachusetts politics. 95% of insiders don't and some are even trying to change the succession laws right now using Kennedy's death as a shield from public backlash. It's been 25 years since there was a open US Senate seat and there are 25+ politicians who have been jockeying for position since.

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but my money would be on someone else from the Kennedy clan winding up with that seat, assuming there's one that wants it. Fair or not, that's my general view on MA politics (well, and the Kennedy machine/mistique - still mildly shocked Kennedy Townsend lost the MD gubernatorial election).

[JonInMiddleGA]

based on the fact he was an unrepentant segregationist in his political and personal life i'm not sure which of personality traits or socio-political positions you'd like to share. I suppose you could consider those positions and not personality traits, but i have to think they weren't necessarily easily separated.

Oh I'd definitely put those under positions on issues, as far as personality I was strictly thinking of broad traits such as his noted obstinate nature.

As an aside, I'm not sure "unrepentant segregationist" can be applied with complete accuracy to the man who not only hired James Meredith but also praised Harvey Gantt (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jessehelmscenter.org%2Fjessehelms%2Fdocuments%2FGanttViewPointexcerpt.pdf&ei=9NyVSvzPDqbFmQejiYmACw&usg=AFQjCNGjQSmU8507qL-fVtC5cpOVOQuZSQ&sig2=-DBAKktDEMCCv30MoWMhAg) to the skies when he became the first black student admitted to Clemson University in 1963.

[larrymcg421]

I know. I'm always amused when someone acts shocked by something JimGA said and asks him a question designed to make it look like he's supporting something horrible - "so you agree with...?" The answer is yes. It's always yes.

[Schmidty]

Regardless of political junk, I only have one thing to say: Fuck cancer.

[Abe Sargent]

Just for future clarification

When Robert Byrd dies is it ok to talk about him being an Exhaulted Cyclops
When Carter dies is it okay to talk about how he practically destroyed the economy and brought about stagflation(used for butter)
When Gingrich dies can we bring up the affairs and divorces?
When OJ dies can we talk about the Naked Gun movies.
When GHWB dies can we mention how his son wrecked the economy and started an unjust war.

Anyways we aren't talking about someone related to a member of the board here. His numerous faults are fair game.

We did have one thing in common I suppose. He enjoyed spending my money as much as I did.


I'd say yes on the first four, but the last one isn;t about George Edler at all, so I'd say its poor form and just bashing.

[Abe Sargent]

I think Sen Kennedy could have been a lot more if he were just a better man. He was in a position to influence the world due to luck (who he was born) and if he had been better, he would have been great. All of us could have "Could Have Been Better" on our tombstone though.

[BishopMVP]

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but my money would be on someone else from the Kennedy clan winding up with that seat, assuming there's one that wants it. Fair or not, that's my general view on MA politics (well, and the Kennedy machine/mistique - still mildly shocked Kennedy Townsend lost the MD gubernatorial election).Who's left? His wife may get appointed as the placeholder (we've already got Tsongas' wife as my congressional rep), but I can't see her lasting long. I don't think anyone here could name a surviving male Kennedy other than the Skakel's, but they're probably not gonna be picked. It seems like the clan below John F./Bobby/Ted dispersed away from Massachusetts, at least to Greenwich-area CT.

(I may be biased because I hate political royalty family's, but I really do think the mystique is of a past generation. Most people under 30 would probably have a hard time even knowing who JFK Jr. was outside of Seinfeld.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Was it his support of segregation, his opposition to the voting rights act, the civil rights act, desegregation, and a holiday for MLK?

I wholeheartedly agree with his opposition to both the federal civil rights act & the MLK holiday, as well as with the notion of social engineering at gunpoint most particularly when the latter violates the one of most fundamental liberties of all: determining the right of association.

Clearly my interpretation & several SCOTUS rulings are in considerable disagreement on the right of association, one of the few areas where I seem to find myself in agreement with Libertarians such as Richard Epstein. Guess they're all racist rednecks too, although darned if I imagine you'll find too many New York born and Columbia/Oxford/Yale graduates that run into that particular description

[JPhillips]

I think Sen Kennedy could have been a lot more if he were just a better man. He was in a position to influence the world due to luck (who he was born) and if he had been better, he would have been great. All of us could have "Could Have Been Better" on our tombstone though.

I don't want to excuse his personal flaws, but it's a wonder he made much out of himself after all three of his brothers were tragically killed.

[lungs]

I wholeheartedly agree with his opposition to both the federal civil rights act & the MLK holiday, as well as with the notion of social engineering at gunpoint most particularly when the latter violates the one of most fundamental liberties of all: determining the right of association.


Any Johnny Rebel in your music collection? :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Any Johnny Rebel in your music collection? :)

Closest thing would probably be Johnny Horton's Greatest Hits which has Johnny Reb among the tracks alongside Sink The Bismarck and Battle of New Orleans.

edit to add: There's probably something bordering on ironic that you knew who the guy was while I had zero name recognition & had to Google him ;)

[DanGarion]

OMG I'm sure those talking about Kennedy's faults are completely virtuous and perfect and have never done anything wrong that people will continue to bring up over and over after you are dead...

[lungs]

Closest thing would probably be Johnny Horton's Greatest Hits which has Johnny Reb among the tracks alongside Sink The Bismarck and Battle of New Orleans.

edit to add: There's probably something bordering on ironic that you knew who the guy was while I had zero name recognition & had to Google him ;)

Not only do I know who he is, I've got some of his stuff on my computer. Morbid curiosity with historical significance I guess :)

Definitely not something I play when I have guests.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not only do I know who he is, I've got some of his stuff on my computer. Morbid curiosity with historical significance I guess :)
Definitely not something I play when I have guests.

I'm vaguely familiar with the genre but in my area at least it had to be pretty much an underground sort thing by the time I'm old enough to remember music.(remember, even I wasn't born until '67)

What passed for "risque" or "off-color" in my family was Johnny Bond's Ten Little Bottles (and no, I'm not kidding about that)

[sterlingice]

Regardless of political junk, I only have one thing to say: Fuck cancer.

I think that's something we can all agree on

SI

[BishopMVP]

I don't want to excuse his personal flaws, but it's a wonder he made much out of himself after all three of his brothers were tragically killed.Who was the 3rd one?Who's left? His wife may get appointed as the placeholder (we've already got Tsongas' wife as my congressional rep), but I can't see her lasting long. I don't think anyone here could name a surviving male Kennedy other than the Skakel's, but they're probably not gonna be picked. It seems like the clan below John F./Bobby/Ted dispersed away from Massachusetts, at least to Greenwich-area CT.

(I may be biased because I hate political royalty family's, but I really do think the mystique is of a past generation. Most people under 30 would probably have a hard time even knowing who JFK Jr. was outside of Seinfeld.)CNN is speculating one of his two sons may run for it, but one represents Rhode Island and the other has pretty much been in Connecticut for 30+ years. It does look to be shaping up like an interesting primary, and I guess the more names in the better chances of getting in on the Kennedy name alone, despite being a (reverse)-carpetbagger.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Who was the 3rd one?

Naval aviator Joe, Jr, killed in 1944 while taking part in an experimental flight as part of a program known as Operation:Aphrodite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite)

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

OMG I'm sure those talking about Kennedy's faults are completely virtuous and perfect and have never done anything wrong that people will continue to bring up over and over after you are dead...

Isn't the retort to this so obvious that it doesn't need to be said?

Well, I'll say it. If my recklessness kills somebody, then I would expect people to remember that fact once I've gone.

[Chief Rum]

OMG I'm sure those talking about Kennedy's faults are completely virtuous and perfect and have never done anything wrong that people will continue to bring up over and over after you are dead...

This is a chickenshit card. People always play this card whenever they run out of a rational way to argue against someone criticizing another person, whether right or not. Dangarion won't be the first nor the last to play it.

Welcome to the Internet. Free speech is in the Constitution, and that includes opinions you don't agree with.

[DanGarion]

This is a chickenshit card. People always play this card whenever they run out of a rational way to argue against someone criticizing another person, whether right or not. Dangarion won't be the first nor the last to play it.

Welcome to the Internet. Free speech is in the Constitution, and that includes opinions you don't agree with.

Well I'm not playing a card, as you can see I've never claimed a side. Just point out what I was seeing. Sure the guy did something really stupid and someone ended up dying, but how many times can this one incident be brought up? I mean sure the roads are safer, but if the only card you can play is this one it's time to play a new game.

[Chief Rum]

Well I'm not playing a card, as you can see I've never claimed a side. Just point out what I was seeing. Sure the guy did something really stupid and someone ended up dying, but how many times can this one incident be brought up? I mean sure the roads are safer, but if the only card you can play is this one it's time to play a new game.

The quote I responded to you played exactly the card I am talking about. You made a "glass houses" argument. It's the same crap we always see from people when these situations come up, and I am calling it out. I think people need to stop "lionizing" others, and accept a little truth and reality into their lives. People proposing the argument you did look like they want to hide their heads in the sand and pretend everything about the guy was hunky dory.

And even if people are playing the same card, well, it's one heck of a card. Kennedy was no saint, and people have the right to point that out, however many times they like. If you think they're repetitive, than put them on ignore, skip past their posts, don't go into the thread, whatever. But don't tell them what they can and can't post.

[larrymcg421]

This is a chickenshit card. People always play this card whenever they run out of a rational way to argue against someone criticizing another person, whether right or not. Dangarion won't be the first nor the last to play it.

Welcome to the Internet. Free speech is in the Constitution, and that includes opinions you don't agree with.

While I don't necessarily disagree with the first paragraph, your second is one of my biggest pet peeves. Unless Dangarion threatened to have you arrested for your opinion, then bringing up the First Amendment is pretty fucking stupid. Just as it protects everyone's rights to bash Kennedy, it also protects Dangarion's right to call people out for that.

[Galaril]

Trolling is discussing a life-changing event for this woman? Someone in this thread said Kennedy paid a big penalty when he lost the presidency. That's an insane assertion. It's not even remotely similar to someone paying with their life.

Geez.........to bad you Republicans (Neo-Cons) don't have the same sympathy for all the innocent woman, and children in Iraqi that have been blown apart, turned into a refugees etc for the benefit of growing Dick Cheney's retirement fund:( ..........This also reminds me of the huge outcry mostly on Fox News and that hack Nancy Grace's show back when Natalee Holloway disappeared in the Carribbean. A young, pretty, white girl from a wealthy family goes missing and there is this huge uproar as opposed to when 100s of non-white girls disappear ever week in this country and not a peep from you guys? Anyways, MBBF don't fuck with dead Irish Catholics from Boston I have a great uncle that most of my family says still hunts a summer home our family has out on The Cape:)

[Chief Rum]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the first paragraph, your second is one of my biggest pet peeves. Unless Dangarion threatened to have you arrested for your opinion, then bringing up the First Amendment is pretty fucking stupid. Just as it protects everyone's rights to bash Kennedy, it also protects Dangarion's right to call people out for that.

You must be reading something in there I don't see, because nowhere do I say Dangarion can't say what he wants to.

[Chief Rum]

Geez.........to bad you Republicans (Neo-Cons) don't have the same sympathy for all the innocent woman, and children in Iraqi that have been blown apart, turned into a refugees etc for the benefit of growing Dick Cheney's retirement fund:( ..........This also reminds me of the huge outcry mostly on Fox News and that hack Nancy Grace's show back when Natalee Holloway disappeared in the Carribbean. A young, pretty, white girl from a wealthy family goes missing and there is this huge uproar as opposed to when 100s of non-white girls disappear ever week in this country and not a peep from you guys? Anyways, MBBF don't fuck with dead Irish Catholics from Boston I have a great uncle that most of my family says still hunts a summer home our family has out on The Cape:)

Got it. Repubs == evil, ergo Teddy gets a free pass.

[JPhillips]

Kennedy fascinates me for many of the same reasons that Nixon does. He was a terribly flawed man who spent much of his life trying to live up to his family name. Cal Thomas had a nice column on Kennedy today:

Over the years, I came to see Mr. Kennedy not as a symbol, but as a fellow human being who did not get up each morning seeking ways to harm the country. I know of things he did for the poor and homeless on his own time and in his own way without a press release or a desire for public approval. I know of other hurts and concerns he shared with the very few he could trust about which I would never speak.

Because he came from wealth, he felt a responsibility to give back. We can argue whether government or individuals do that best, but we can't say Ted Kennedy was inconsistent. He would compromise to advance his beliefs, not dilute them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Geez.........to bad you Republicans (Neo-Cons) don't have the same sympathy for all the innocent woman, and children in Iraqi that have been blown apart, turned into a refugees etc for the benefit of growing Dick Cheney's retirement fund:( ..........This also reminds me of the huge outcry mostly on Fox News and that hack Nancy Grace's show back when Natalee Holloway disappeared in the Carribbean. A young, pretty, white girl from a wealthy family goes missing and there is this huge uproar as opposed to when 100s of non-white girls disappear ever week in this country and not a peep from you guys? Anyways, MBBF don't fuck with dead Irish Catholics from Boston I have a great uncle that most of my family says still hunts a summer home our family has out on The Cape:)

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.

[DaddyTorgo]

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.

:popcorn:

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

:popcorn:

:popcorn: :popcorn: .

[flere-imsaho]

What is it with people lately? This is like the third or fourth time in the past month that people have kindof forgotten who JIMGA is.

:+1:

[Subby]

With all due respect, the guy was responsible for the death of another person due to whatever reason you beleive, but that fact cannot be dissacciated with him. Imagine what pople would say if today Leonard Little had died. In his thread, someone would mention the cloud over his life, even in passing.
wot?

[DanGarion]

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.

Blue Dog Democrat? Is that what the dems are calling Libertarians now?

[Dr. Sak]

Blue Dog Democrat? Is that what the dems are calling Libertarians now?

No that's what Eagles fans call Vick.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Blue Dog Democrat? Is that what the dems are calling Libertarians now?

I guess. It's a person who carries liberal social views but takes a conservative stance towards spending. Otherwise known as a very confused person if you ask the far left or far right.

[Galaril]

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.

Ok point taken.

[Galaril]

:popcorn:

:popcorn: :popcorn: .

Not today boyz:)

[DanGarion]

:party: :party: :party:

[larrymcg421]

Since when are the Blue Dogs socially liberal? I think you're more thinking of "New Democrats".

[RainMaker]

I do think it's sad to lose a part of American history. Not necessarily just Ted, but the concept of Camelot. The Kennedys will always have a chapter in American history and with Ted's death it has finally closed. Not unlike Nixon who many people disliked. In the end, it's not just the death of a man but of someone who has been a part of American history.

His personal sin decades ago surely shouldn't be forgotten. I do think in the minds of many he has made efforts to atone for it with his work in Congress. I guess I find the constant bashing of him for it a bit hypocritical when Bush and Cheney both had DUIs on their record. Laura Bush actually killed someone out of negligience. I would hope if they died, we wouldn't be discussing their DUIs and other transgressions from decades ago and instead discussing their overall impact on our country.

[RainMaker]

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.
The thing is that your views don't translate into equal actions to both sides. You are fiscally conservative, but never made daily posts about Bush's spending policy. You didn't post about the gigantic Medicare expansion he pushed through.

Perhaps your views are moderate, but your criticisms are not.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I guess I find the constant bashing of him for it a bit hypocritical when Bush and Cheney both had DUIs on their record.

I was highly critical of both for those events. I'll assume you're talking about another poster since you didn't specifically quote a poster.

The thing is that your views don't translate into equal actions to both sides. You are fiscally conservative, but never made daily posts about Bush's spending policy. You didn't post about the gigantic Medicare expansion he pushed through.

I've been very critical of the increase in spending under Bush, especially late in his presidency. It only makes sense that I'm even more upset over the 4x increase of the deficit under the current administration.

I don't post any about the issues where I support Obama because it's not the topic at hand. The day that Obama preaches things like more stem cell research or legalizing marijuana or poker, I'll be right there behind him waiving the banner. I've already done that once when he rolled back the stem cell ban. Just because no one raised a fuss when I made a critical comment about a Republican or a positive comment about a Democrat doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that the board generally leans left and only raises a fuss when my comment goes against that grain.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I've been very critical of the increase in spending under Bush, especially late in his presidency. It only makes sense that I'm even more upset over the 4x increase of the deficit under the current administration.

I don't post any about the issues where I support Obama because it's not the topic at hand. The day that Obama preaches things like more stem cell research or legalizing marijuana or poker, I'll be right there behind him waiving the banner. I've already done that once when he rolled back the stem cell ban. Just because no one raised a fuss when I made a critical comment about a Republican or a positive comment about a Democrat doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that the board generally leans left and only raises a fuss when my comment goes against that grain.

I don't think anyone is buying the shit you're shoveling here. A quick search of your posts with "Bush" in them sees no criticism.

I generally vote Republican only because I agree with more of the stances that the Republicans have than the Democrats.


I'm generally speaking a conservative and was a bit leary initially when I saw that he nominated an internal candidate, but after further reading concerning some democrats also suggesting her nomination and some of her qualifications related to her law and government careers, I'm at least open to hearing what she has to say in the hearings. I have no clue what kind of harassment this post will draw, but I thought I'd at least take a shot and finally make a post in a political topic. Who knows, it may be my last. :)

IF ONLY.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't think anyone is buying the shit you're shoveling here. A quick search of your posts with "Bush" in them sees no criticism.

I don't disagree with the first post you cited from me. I generally vote Republican because I value fiscal responsibility more than anything else. That even comes into play regarding my support of legalized marijuana and online poker. I see it as another revenue stream despite never smoking pot in my entire life. I'm not sure what the second post was about, so tough to comment on that.

I'd also note that my views have moderated considerably since 2004-2005. I'm a different voter than I was 5 years ago. There was a post someone dug up in another thread where I was surprised at how much I disagreed with my own post from a few years back. I must be getting old.

Enough about me. Back to your regularly scheduled Kennedy fluffing.

[RainMaker]

I was highly critical of both for those events. I'll assume you're talking about another poster since you didn't specifically quote a poster.
As I've said before, where are the daily posts about him? You've been a member of the board a long time and I don't see much that is critical of his spending. It appears like selective criticism.

[RainMaker]

I don't disagree with the first post you cited from me. I generally vote Republican because I value fiscal responsibility more than anything else.
Wouldn't that make you a Democrat though? Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in well over 30 years. The last 3 Republican Presidents ran up the debt to where it is today. The lone Democrat President we had up till Obama actually created a surplus.

[DaddyTorgo]

Wouldn't that make you a Democrat though? Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in well over 30 years. The last 3 Republican Presidents ran up the debt to where it is today. The lone Democrat President we had up till Obama actually created a surplus.

ssssh...that's a dirty little secret the Republican party doesn't like to have brought up.

the myth of Republicans as fiscal conservatives is so overplayed it's almost comical. both parties are for increased spending. it's just one believes in increasing taxes (primarily on the rich and corporations) to fund it while the other believes in funding it by slashing social programs.

[RainMaker]

ssssh...that's a dirty little secret the Republican party doesn't like to have brought up.

the myth of Republicans as fiscal conservatives is so overplayed it's almost comical. both parties are for increased spending. it's just one believes in increasing taxes (primarily on the rich and corporations) to fund it while the other believes in funding it by slashing social programs.
I wouldn't say Republicans are for slashing social programs. They did massively increase Medicare and some educational programs a few years back. I would say the Dems are tax and spend while the Republicans are borrow and spend.

[DaddyTorgo]

I wouldn't say Republicans are for slashing social programs. They did massively increase Medicare and some educational programs a few years back. I would say the Dems are tax and spend while the Republicans are borrow and spend.

fair enough.

so i guess it's a question of how responsible do you feel continued deficit spending is, versus trying to pay for the spending

[molson]

Wouldn't that make you a Democrat though? Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in well over 30 years. The last 3 Republican Presidents ran up the debt to where it is today. The lone Democrat President we had up till Obama actually created a surplus.

There's more fiscal conservatives in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. It doesn't always appear that way because the federal government is a disaster no matter who's in power, but the differences are more apparent at the state level.

My conservative western state, and its neighbors, are run very well from a fiscal responsibility standpoint.

You can't judge an entire party by its federally elected representives. Fiscal conservatives DO exist.

[RainMaker]

There's more fiscal conservatives in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. It doesn't always appear that way because the federal government is a disaster no matter who's in power, but the differences are more apparent at the state level.

My conservative western state, and its neighbors, are run very well from a fiscal responsibility standpoint.

You can't judge an entire party by its federally elected representives. Fiscal conservatives DO exist.

I'm sure they do. But if you go through the states with the biggest deficits, it's a solid mix of Democrats and Republicans running them. California which has gotten the biggest of the attention has had a Republican Governor for awhile.

You also have to factor in that many of the conservative (Red) states are nanny states. They take in more from the federal government than what they put in. California would have a balanced budget if they didn't have to support so many other states.

[JPhillips]

I wouldn't say Republicans are for slashing social programs. They did massively increase Medicare and some educational programs a few years back. I would say the Dems are tax and spend while the Republicans are borrow and spend.

Many Republicans have been quite open about the need to "starve the beast". The theory is that running huge deficits will eventually lead to the ability to convince the public that the government has to be drastically cut back. They don't mind spending, provided they get the credit, because a bunch of them are actually rooting for a crisis.

[molson]

My only point is that the fiscal conservatives sure ain't in the Democrat party. If they're not in public service, they're in neither party (and irrelevant), and if they are, they have to join the Repubilcans. The fact that they they don't have any power in the party at the moment doesn't mean that they don't exisit.

[DaddyTorgo]

Many Republicans have been quite open about the need to "starve the beast". The theory is that running huge deficits will eventually lead to the ability to convince the public that the government has to be drastically cut back. They don't mind spending, provided they get the credit, because a bunch of them are actually rooting for a crisis.

that's the most inane, illogical line of reasoning. it's almost comical actually. because we're not going to be able to declare bankruptcy as a country, we're still going to have to pay off all the borrowing we do in order to deficit-spend at the level that we are.

people that espouse that line of thinking shouldn't be let anywhere near positions of authority.

[DaddyTorgo]

My only point is that the fiscal conservatives sure ain't in the Democrat party. If they're not in public service, they're in neither party (and irrelevant), and if they are, they have to join the Repubilcans. The fact that they they don't have any power in the party at the moment doesn't mean that they don't exisit.

didn't clinton balance the budget? weren't we running a surplus?

[molson]

didn't clinton balance the budget? weren't we running a surplus?

I wouldn't consider Clinton a fiscal conservative. Better president than Obama though. And Bush. And the other Bush. Good president with the glaring flaw of not appreciating the threat of terrorism.

And I wouldn't give him credit for the tech boom. That would be a bit of a stretch.

[RainMaker]

My only point is that the fiscal conservatives sure ain't in the Democrat party. If they're not in public service, they're in neither party (and irrelevant), and if they are, they have to join the Repubilcans. The fact that they they don't have any power in the party at the moment doesn't mean that they don't exisit.
And my belief is that they aren't even in the Republican Party right now. That it's all just lip service. I mean even the great Ron Paul of fiscal conservatism had a shitload of crazy earmarks for his district.

The system is fucked because I don't see how we can ever get fiscal conservatism. Many people want it, but at the same time we want our representatives to bring home as much fucking bacon as they can.

[RainMaker]

didn't clinton balance the budget? weren't we running a surplus?
He's been the most fiscally conservative President we've had in 30 years.

[DaddyTorgo]

He's been the most fiscally conservative President we've had in 30 years.

and yet he was hmm...a Democrat?

:eek:

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

And I wouldn't give him credit for the tech boom. That would be a bit of a stretch.

And yet, even with higher taxes, innovation and business boomed. People weren't afraid to make more money even if the taxes were higher.

[molson]

Funny to see Democrats bragging about other Democrats being fiscally conservative. Isn't that something you DON'T want to be?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Just as you constantly point out that just because some Republicans are x, y, or z not all of them are, not all people who vote Democrat are tax and spend liberals.

[molson]

And yet, even with higher taxes, innovation and business boomed. People weren't afraid to make more money even if the taxes were higher.

The economy goes in cycles. It's beyond silly to credit/blame every recession and boom time to whoever happens to be in power at the time.

Taxes weren't that much higher than they are now. And the best argument for lower taxes is NOT motvation of business and workers. I don't know why people make that argument. But it definitely creates a convenientstraw man.

A dollar in the hand of a company can become more dollars, which can create even more taxes. A dollar in the hand of the government just kind of dies there. So it's just a balance. Too high, and you're actually hurting your tax revenue. Too low, and you're not maximizing it either. It's not how Democrats try to frame the debate. (which is mostly just "its sad that people are poor, the rich don't need so money, so let's help out the poor people).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The economy goes in cycles. It's beyond silly to credit/blame every recession and boom time to whoever happens to be in power at the time.

Taxes weren't that much higher than they are now. And the best argument for lower taxes is NOT motvation of business and workers. I don't know why people make that argument. But it definitely creates a convienient straw man.

A dollar in the hand of a company can become more dollars, which can create even more taxes. A dollar in the hand of the government just kind of dies there. So it's just a balance. Too high, and you're hurting your tax revenue. Too low, and you're not maximizing it either. It's not how Democrats try to frame the debate.

I certainly understand your point. I only brought up the "straw man" because we heard it fucking all the time last October.

edit: I'm gonna stop mucking up this thread. My apologies.

[Flasch186]

Funny to see Democrats bragging about other Democrats being fiscally conservative. Isn't that something you DON'T want to be?

not during the worst recession ever.

[Dutch]

So wait a second, did this thread just turn into Democrats are better Republicans than Republicans and Republicans are better Democrats than Democrats?

:)

[molson]

So wait a second, did this thread just turn into Democrats are better Republicans than Republicans and Republicans are better Democrats than Democrats?

:)

I think so.

I'm waiting to hear the Democrats claim that THEY are the true party of religious values.

[Flasch186]

islam

[larrymcg421]

I think so.

I'm waiting to hear the Democrats claim that THEY are the true party of religious values.

I would say this with a straight face.

[molson]

Sure, if religious values are about more than gay marriage and abortion.

Your view of anyone different than yourself is quite narrow.

This "Democrat party" sounds awesome though. It has the same name of a party in the U.S.

[Dutch]

Wasn't Ted Kennedy a devote Roman Catholic? AKA - REPUBLICAN.

Holy shit, I think we are on to something here.

[molson]

It's totally confusing.

Let's just say:

-Awesomecrats
-Evilcans

There's the default, or "correct" way of thinking (Awesomecrats), and everyone who dissents from that we'll call an "evilcan" (and we'll highlight the worst characterstics of that group, and assume everyone but us has those characteristics).

And if an awesomecrat makes a mistake or is somehow flawed - we'll just think of an evilcan who did something similar and make it all about them. Flaws of the awesomecrats must not be acknowledged!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Let's just say:
-Awesomecrats
-Evilcans ...


In a rather confusing sort of way that explanation almost kinda worked reasonably well.

[lungs]

It's totally confusing.

Let's just say:

-Awesomecrats
-Evilcans

There's the default, or "correct" way of thinking (Awesomecrats), and everyone who dissents from that we'll call an "evilcan" (and we'll highlight the worst characterstics of that group, and assume everyone but us has those characteristics).

And if an awesomecrat makes a mistake or is somehow flawed - we'll just think of an evilcan who did something similar and make it all about them. Flaws of the awesomecrats must not be acknowledged!

Aren't you doing the same exact thing right now?

[Big Fo]

As long as you profess neutrality it's okay to troll one side exclusively.

[DaddyTorgo]

Funny to see Democrats bragging about other Democrats being fiscally conservative. Isn't that something you DON'T want to be?

that's just incorrect.

shit, i'm a liberal from Massachusetts and i'd campaign for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

being a lock-step partisan when it comes to politics and policies is just intellectually lazy.

[JPhillips]

I have no interest in being a fiscal conservative as it is currently defined, but I'm very much in favor of fiscal responsibility. IMO that was the essence of Clinton's economic policies.

[Crapshoot]

I guess. It's a person who carries liberal social views but takes a conservative stance towards spending. Otherwise known as a very confused person if you ask the far left or far right.

You're an idiot. A Blue Dog Democrat is if anything, more likely to be socially conservative and fiscally "liberal" in some sense.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

i'm a liberal from Massachusetts and i'd campaign for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

I feel like I've just walked into the beginning of an AA meeting.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You're an idiot. A Blue Dog Democrat is if anything, more likely to be socially conservative and fiscally "liberal" in some sense.

You'll have to talk to Dennis Moore and several of the other BDD's then, because they claim the exact opposite and claim to be one. That's their whole beef about not fully supporting the bill right now. They want the universal health care, but they want it done in a more fiscally responsible way.

[RainMaker]

Sure, if religious values are about more than gay marriage and abortion.
Take health care and welfare, two issues that Democrats push for and are prominently discussed in the Bible. Heck, the gays get little space and abortion isn't mentioned at all. You could make a case that the Democrats are the ones adhering to what the Bible says.

[Flasch186]

It's totally confusing.

Let's just say:

-Awesomecrats
-Evilcans

There's the default, or "correct" way of thinking (Awesomecrats), and everyone who dissents from that we'll call an "evilcan" (and we'll highlight the worst characterstics of that group, and assume everyone but us has those characteristics).

And if an awesomecrat makes a mistake or is somehow flawed - we'll just think of an evilcan who did something similar and make it all about them. Flaws of the awesomecrats must not be acknowledged!

yup, we love the continuation of rendition.

[duckman]

SMUG ALERT!

[DaddyTorgo]

just heard on tv that the line at the Kennedy library right now is a 3.5 hour wait. makes me glad i didn't go down there...maybe i will take tomorrow afternoon off to do it...

[JPhillips]

just heard on tv that the line at the Kennedy library right now is a 3.5 hour wait. makes me glad i didn't go down there...maybe i will take tomorrow afternoon off to do it...

I've never had any interest in standing in long lines to see dead people I've never met. I thought the people who stood through the awful thunderstorm to see Reagan were crazy too.

[Subby]

It's kind of hard to ignore MBBF when you people keep quoting him.

[DaddyTorgo]

I've never had any interest in standing in long lines to see dead people I've never met. I thought the people who stood through the awful thunderstorm to see Reagan were crazy too.

me neither typically...but idk...in this case...it just feels right in some sense?

[Bad-example]

It's kind of hard to ignore MBBF when you people keep quoting him.

Quoted for truth.

And for those that have Subby on ignore.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Quoted for truth.

And for those that have Subby on ignore.

I'm always amazed when a grown adult lacks the self control to ignore a post they don't agree with and had to rely on a message board function to achieve that purpose. Seriously?

[Schmidty]

I'm always amazed when a grown adult lacks the self control to ignore a post they don't agree with and had to rely on a message board function to achieve that purpose. Seriously?

I don't agree with you much, but I agree with that. The "ignore" function is for sissies (or sissys).

[KWhit]

I think so.

I'm waiting to hear the Democrats claim that THEY are the true party of religious values.

Actually, the dems are MUCH more about looking after your fellow man and loving thy neighbor than republicans are. Jesus's teaching is more in line with the democrats views than republicans, IMO.

[JPhillips]

I'm always amazed when a grown adult lacks the self control to ignore a post they don't agree with and had to rely on a message board function to achieve that purpose. Seriously?

I feel the same way about search functions. A real man would just read every post in every thread until he found what he wanted.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I feel the same way about search functions. A real man would just read every post in every thread until he found what he wanted.

I hear Ted Kennedy did it that way.

[ISiddiqui]

that's just incorrect.

shit, i'm a liberal from Massachusetts and i'd campaign for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

being a lock-step partisan when it comes to politics and policies is just intellectually lazy.

Well, you do realize that the balanced budget amendment is absolutely batshit nuts, right? ;)

[molson]

Aren't you doing the same exact thing right now?

Well I'm not perfect, which is why I can't be an awesomecrat.

But sure, I make that mistake sometimes. There though, I was just playfully ranting about an viewpoint that drives me crazy.

Sometimes generalizations are fun and can express things in a clear way, as long as one can understand that they're making an obnoxious generalization. Like this.

Republicans are like the drunk uncle that says offensive things but doesn't know any better. Deep down though, he means well. He was just raised in a different way. Democrats are like the kid that goes to college for a semester and thinks he knows how the world works, and believes that everyone is stupid/heartless if they have a different idea then them.

The thing that sets me off the most though, is when Democrats try to frame themselves as the party that cares about people, just because their solutions are more direct. One can HONESTLY, GENUINELY believe that America, including poor people, will all be better off if we followed one economic approach rather than another. It's not rich v. poor, or corporations v. people, and its obnoxiously disingenuous to frame it that way. Most of us want the same things. A lot of Republicans think this way too. Jon McCain tried to shut 'em up in that youtube video someone posted. Don't tell me you're some fucking great person just because you're a Democrat. You're not a better person than any non-Democrat just because you have a particular economic theory of the world.

[molson]

As long as you profess neutrality it's okay to troll one side exclusively.

You must have missed where I said Bill Clinton was the best president in decades.

But you're kind of making my point.

[molson]

Actually, the dems are MUCH more about looking after your fellow man and loving thy neighbor than republicans are. Jesus's teaching is more in line with the democrats views than republicans, IMO.

I think Jesus would be about charity rather than government.

Giving something to someone else is a wonderful thing. Taking something from someone and giving it to another person might still be pretty good, but it's not as good as real charity. You're not some kind of super-Christian saint if you want to tax corporations and rich people more. That's not some kind of great deed. You're not "giving" anything just by mouthing off that rich people should give up their money. The Democrats have somehow framed themselves as the "party of compassion", just by telling other people what they have to do with their money. That's not compassion. Compassion is buying a homeless person food or donating money to a charity. I wonder how many people in favor of universal healthcare have donated money to a hospital, or to a healthcare charity. I'm sure some if not many have, but those that haven't are hypocrites. Well, maybe not hypocrites, but it's not a compassionate act, it doesn't show you really give a shit about poor people if you're just saying what others should do to contribute, when they're no monetary loss whatsoever to yourself.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think Jesus would be about charity rather than government.

Giving something to someone else is a wonderful thing. Taking something from someone and giving it to another person might still be pretty good, but it's not as good as real charity.

the problem is that charity too often comes with ideological strings attached.

[lungs]

I guess to get back on the track of Ted Kennedy, and please forgive me if none of this makes sense as I'm posting this after my last softball game of the season therefore I've got plenty of Schlitz's going through my system...

What I respected about Ted Kennedy is that he could be one of the most boisterous Senators out there when it came to being on the floor of the Senate or in committee or whatever. He would rail on his opponents like nobody knows. But when the day was over he had no problem approaching his opponents and sharing a good time or a drink or two. Business was business but at the end of the day he could be a friend to his fiercest of opponents.

We need more of that in politics, but I'm certainly not holding my breath. At least we've moved beyond having duels a la Hamilton and Burr but the personal animosity on both sides is still sickening. We're all people with different motivations but at the end of the day why is there so much hate?

I guess being a liberal with tons of conservative friends, I've learned to move beyond that in the spirit on Teddy. I can argue politics with the closest of my friends but in the end we can still share a few beers together without wringing each other's neck. Hell, even of people on here, I would willingly sit down with JIMGA and burn down a whole carton of smokes even though we couldn't be further off in terms of political views.

If we can learn one thing through Ted Kennedy, through all his faults, is that politics shouldn't necessarily transcend personal relationships. But I'm just on a drunken rant and hold no illusions that any such thing will ever happen.

[Schmidty]

He would rail on his opponents like nobody knows. But when the day was over he had no problem approaching his opponents and sharing a good time or a drink or two. Business was business but at the end of the day he could be a friend to his fiercest of opponents.

We need more of that in politics, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.Although, I guess if a legislature was not my friend it would be different.

Gah!! I didn't want to be in this thing!!!!! Post-padding!!!! Wooh!!!

[RainMaker]

I think Jesus would be about charity rather than government.

Giving something to someone else is a wonderful thing. Taking something from someone and giving it to another person might still be pretty good, but it's not as good as real charity. You're not some kind of super-Christian saint if you want to tax corporations and rich people more. That's not some kind of great deed. You're not "giving" anything just by mouthing off that rich people should give up their money. The Democrats have somehow framed themselves as the "party of compassion", just by telling other people what they have to do with their money. That's not compassion. Compassion is buying a homeless person food or donating money to a charity. I wonder how many people in favor of universal healthcare have donated money to a hospital, or to a healthcare charity. I'm sure some if not many have, but those that haven't are hypocrites. Well, maybe not hypocrites, but it's not a compassionate act, it doesn't show you really give a shit about poor people if you're just saying what others should do to contribute, when they're no monetary loss whatsoever to yourself.

Interesting scenario though. Christianity is about charity and you shouldn't force others to do what you feel is right. I would buy that except for the part about many Christians wanting to ban porn stores, gambling, etc.

Just seems a tad hypocritical to say that we shouldn't force people to part with their money because of some people's beliefs. But it's OK to tell people to part with their pleasures if it doesn't jive with some people's beliefs.

Seems tough to have it both ways there.

[BishopMVP]

His personal sin decades ago surely shouldn't be forgotten. I do think in the minds of many he has made efforts to atone for it with his work in Congress. I guess I find the constant bashing of him for it a bit hypocritical when Bush and Cheney both had DUIs on their record. Laura Bush actually killed someone out of negligience. I would hope if they died, we wouldn't be discussing their DUIs and other transgressions from decades ago and instead discussing their overall impact on our country.DUI's are bad, but it wasn't the DUI that made the incident reprehensible and unforgivable - it was the actions afterwards.

[Dutch]

the problem is that charity too often comes with ideological strings attached.

The problem with government is that it's a big waste of everybody's hard earned money.

[DaddyTorgo]

See, the problem is that you see the government as some scary Otherness to combat against. _We_ are the government and the government is _us._

So, yes, I think it is compassionate we've decided as a nation that all seniors will have a basic standard of living. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation have decided that regardless of how screwed a kid's living situation is, he can get at least two free meals at school. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation have decided through our representatives that if a family is poor or working class, their children can get free or cheap healthcare. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation believe that not only should anybody should go to public school, but that we'll send in the National Guard to enforce that idea.

And all of that above? You don't got to hear a sermon. You don't gotta' be lucky to live somewhere where there's a lot of charity. You don't gotta' go begging for all that to some rich guy taking pity on you. It's you _right_ to have all that if you qualify, simply as an American. That, I believe, is true compassion.

well said

[JPhillips]

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.Although, I guess if a legislature was not my friend it would be different.

Gah!! I didn't want to be in this thing!!!!! Post-padding!!!! Wooh!!!

Why do we have to hate each other just because we have different beliefs about the role of government?

[JPhillips]

Republicans are like the drunk uncle that says offensive things but doesn't know any better. Deep down though, he means well. He was just raised in a different way. Democrats are like the kid that goes to college for a semester and thinks he knows how the world works, and believes that everyone is stupid/heartless if they have a different idea then them.

But remember, generalizations are bad.

[DaddyTorgo]

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.Although, I guess if a legislature was not my friend it would be different.

Gah!! I didn't want to be in this thing!!!!! Post-padding!!!! Wooh!!!

that's sad

[lungs]

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.Although, I guess if a legislature was not my friend it would be different.

Gah!! I didn't want to be in this thing!!!!! Post-padding!!!! Wooh!!!

Why on earth would they have to be fake? I guess some of us can set aside politics at the end of the day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why do we have to hate each other just because we have different beliefs about the role of government?

Because it isn't even close to being entirely about the role of government, that's misplaced almost to the point of being two entirely different things.

The hatred -- which I have by the truckload (or fleet of truck loads) so I feel qualified to speak with at least some measure of authority about -- typically stems from far more specific things. Not whether X is a "role of government" but much more so "you fucking bastards, how dare you do X,Y, and/or Z".

At some philosophical level a number of those decisions could be rooted in beliefs about the appropriate general roles of government but the hatred tends to be much more specific. It just starts to seem general when there are so many occurrences to choose from. The gap I'm trying to describe is something like the difference between a measured reaction and a visceral reaction (although I'm not at all sure I'm finding the right words to explain what I'm trying to say here).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Why on earth would they have to be fake? I guess some of us can set aside politics at the end of the day.

Most of the objections in this thread have had little to do with Kennedy's political beliefs. It was mainly focused on his personal issues. The whole 'negligence leading to someone's death' thing along with his drinking problems was the main issue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.

If I'm reading you correctly, I can relate (which I'm pretty sure makes you feel even worse about saying it;) )

I don't see devoted members of MADD closing down bars with a bunch of drunks. I don't see too many Klansmen hanging out with two black guys to watch football on Sundays. I haven't run into too many devout vegans who had a third-generation cattle farmer as the best man at their wedding & the godparent to their children.

This notion that people who are diametrically opposed in their philosophical (or even practical) points of view suddenly abandon their beliefs and associate regularly with people who are the antithesis of themselves comes from has never made the slightest bit of sense to me. The quote in my signature is about the closest thing I've ever found that would explain it.

[DaddyTorgo]

This notion that people who are diametrically opposed in their philosophical (or even practical) points of view suddenly abandon their beliefs and associate regularly with people who are the antithesis of themselves comes from has never made the slightest bit of sense to me. The quote in my signature is about the closest thing I've ever found that would explain it.

so much i could say about this, but not sure this is really the right thread for it

[molson]

But remember, generalizations are bad.

I actually qualified it as such. I even called it obnoxious. You're quite tricky (and very dishonest) just to pull out that line though. I actually knew you would though.

[molson]

See, the problem is that you see the government as some scary Otherness to combat against. _We_ are the government and the government is _us._

So, yes, I think it is compassionate we've decided as a nation that all seniors will have a basic standard of living. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation have decided that regardless of how screwed a kid's living situation is, he can get at least two free meals at school. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation have decided through our representatives that if a family is poor or working class, their children can get free or cheap healthcare. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation believe that not only should anybody should go to public school, but that we'll send in the National Guard to enforce that idea.

And all of that above? You don't got to hear a sermon. You don't gotta' be lucky to live somewhere where there's a lot of charity. You don't gotta' go begging for all that to some rich guy taking pity on you. It's you _right_ to have all that if you qualify, simply as an American. That, I believe, is true compassion.

That's the shtick that Democrats often use to win elections, but that's all it is, shtick.

It is "compassionate" to express liberal ideas on a message board? Or to vote for Democrat? Why? You're just stating things in conclusions.

Why is it compassionate that "we as a nation" do something? How is it actually compassionate on a individual level? How is it compassionate for a person to have the opinion that an entity (but not themselves personally), should help someone else out? Would it be compassionate for me to say that the Red Cross should help people? Why? Wouldn't compassion be if I myself helped somebody?

Liberal philosophies allow people to believe they're good people without getting off their ass and actually helping anyone.

I'm not saying that there aren't many compassionate Democrats. Ted Kennedy was one. But the ideas themselves - not compassionate, they're just opinions about what others should do. I think everyone should give 10% of their money to charity. Does that make me compassionate? Can I feel like I'm some kind of moral superstar, or should I actually have to give the money myself?

Democrats are not the more "moral" party because they think other people, (not themselves), should help the less fortunate.

If two people have the exact same goal, and one person thinks its best accomplished one way, and the other thinks its best accomplished another way, it's a real douchebag move for one of the people to claim that since his way is "correct", he must be the only one that cares about the goal at all. And that's the mantra of much of the Democratic party. "Our way is correct, and if you think another way might be better - you must hate poor people".

Even rich liberals who want higher taxes - that's a little bit of compassion since they'll actually give something up financially. But on that individual level, their money would absolutely do more good if was given directly to the poor and charitable organizations. At the hart of that opinion - it's still about what other people should do.

And I'm not invalidating liberal economic ideas. Certainly, people much smarter than me subscribe to them, and they could very well be the "correct" ideas in certain situations. But that's all it is - an opinion about how the world work work best. It's not more moral or compassionate than anyone else's opinion.

[DaddyTorgo]

That's the shtick that Democrats often use to win elections, but that's all it is, shtick.

It is "compassionate" to express liberal ideas on a message board? Or to vote for Democrat? Why? You're just stating things in conclusions.

Why is it compassionate that "we as a nation" do something? How is it actually compassionate on a individual level? How is it compassionate for a person to have the opinion that an entity (but not themselves personally), should help someone else out? Would it be compassionate for me to say that the Red Cross should help people? Why? Wouldn't compassion be if I myself helped somebody?

Liberal philosophies allow people to believe they're good people without getting off their ass and actually helping anyone.

I'm not saying that there aren't many compassionate Democrats. Ted Kennedy was one. But the ideas themselves - not compassionate, they're just opinions about what others should do. I think everyone should give 10% of their money to charity. Does that make me compassionate? Can I feel like I'm some kind of moral superstar, or should I actually have to give the money myself?

Democrats are not the more "moral" party because they think other people, (not themselves), should help the less fortunate.

If two people have the exact same goal, and one person thinks its best accomplished one way, and the other thinks its best accomplished another way, it's a real douchebag move for one of the people to claim that since his way is "correct", he must be the only one that cares about the goal at all. And that's the mantra of much of the Democratic party. "Our way is correct, and if you think another way might be better - you must hate poor people".

Even rich liberals who want higher taxes - that's a little bit of compassion since they'll actually give something up financially. But on that individual level, their money would absolutely do more good if was given directly to the poor and charitable organizations. At the hart of that opinion - it's still about what other people should do.

And I'm not invalidating liberal economic ideas. Certainly, people much smarter than me subscribe to them, and they could very well be the "correct" ideas in certain situations. But that's all it is - an opinion about how the world work work best. It's not more moral or compassionate than anyone else's opinion.

I don't think Steve was trying to say that one way was more "compassionate" than the other. Just that they're two different ways of reaching the end goal.

And as far as thinking everyone should donate 10% of their income to charity as a model, and having private charities direct compassionate giving - you then run into problems like "well there isn't a private charity within 200 miles that is willing/able to assume a compassionate role, but there are people in Town X who need help." So should those people just be left without help simply because it's not geographically available? Or because the local charity already did all of their giving for the year to another organization?

The rationale behind government-directed social programs or aid or whatever you want to call it, is that the private sector, the free market, is not always in every case going to be the most efficient allocator of resources in these instances. Maybe somebody lives too far from a charitable organization. Or maybe somebody has a kid with a chronic illness and the only charity available to pay medical bills is Christian Scientist and they refuse to on religious grounds. Or maybe the private charity decides to give all their money to one cause, thus leaving others out to dry. As an organization whose reach and budget is much larger, the government is capable of seeing the "big picture" much better than local charities (although i concur that they do have an important role to play).

[Neon_Chaos]

Be glad you Americans actually have separate political idealogies to choose from.

I live in a country where every candidate runs on the same platform. :D
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Be glad you Americans actually have separate political idealogies to choose from.

I live in a country where every candidate runs on the same platform. :D
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

It could be argued that we're not too far off here, we just magnify our differences.

[molson]

And as far as thinking everyone should donate 10% of their income to charity as a model, and having private charities direct compassionate giving - you then run into problems like "well there isn't a private charity within 200 miles that is willing/able to assume a compassionate role, but there are people in Town X who need help." So should those people just be left without help simply because it's not geographically available? Or because the local charity already did all of their giving for the year to another organization?

The rationale behind government-directed social programs or aid or whatever you want to call it, is that the private sector, the free market, is not always in every case going to be the most efficient allocator of resources in these instances. Maybe somebody lives too far from a charitable organization. Or maybe somebody has a kid with a chronic illness and the only charity available to pay medical bills is Christian Scientist and they refuse to on religious grounds. Or maybe the private charity decides to give all their money to one cause, thus leaving others out to dry. As an organization whose reach and budget is much larger, the government is capable of seeing the "big picture" much better than local charities (although i concur that they do have an important role to play).

Those are well-thought out and reasonable arguments for those economic philosophies. An entirely different approach than preaching that your way is just more moral and compassionate, which happens here all the time, including in the last couple of pages of this thread. That's the only thing I was ranting about.

[Subby]

I'm always amazed when a grown adult lacks the self control to ignore a post they don't agree with and had to rely on a message board function to achieve that purpose. Seriously?
Not really a question of self-control. It's just a convenience factor, really. Instead of having to completely skip your blocks of pointless text, the ignore function makes them completely disappear.

I seriously think there is something wrong with you and I don't want to read what you have to say.

And Schmidty, honestly, you feed food to animals with your mouth so your opinion has no bearing in these matters.

[DaddyTorgo]

Those are well-thought out and reasonable arguments for those economic philosophies. An entirely different approach than preaching that your way is just more moral and compassionate, which happens here all the time, including in the last couple of pages of this thread. That's the only thing I was ranting about.

fair enough

[DaddyTorgo]

i can see where maybe your earlier post that molson might have come off as a little "preachy" though Steve. precisely because it was missing examples and logical discussion.

[RendeR]

That's the shtick that Democrats often use to win elections, but that's all it is, shtick.

Liberal philosophies allow people to believe they're good people without getting off their ass and actually helping anyone.

...Can I feel like I'm some kind of moral superstar, or should I actually have to give the money myself?

Democrats are not the more "moral" party because they think other people, (not themselves), should help the less fortunate.




I've snipped this down to a few points you made here that you're being a bit obtuse about.

You seem to have the opinion that since the "government" is doing these things that no one "personally" is doing it. You seem to forget that the money the government uses for this is ours, its tax money. So every single tax payer is contributing to these compassionate ideas and projects. Its not a matter of "we're not willing to do it ourselves" Because we ARE doing it ourselves through our taxable income.

The general idea behind these policies is that a standardized system for qualifying people for and distributing these charitable benefits is best handled by the government.

Generally the Republicans rant about how Dems are throwing money away on these programs and dems say we need more of these types of social programs. This is where the compassionate view comes from.

[molson]

Generally the Republicans rant about how Dems are throwing money away on these programs and dems say we need more of these types of social programs. This is where the compassionate view comes from.

But I think people can find each other more and respect each other more if they can acknowledge the other side's sincerity.

To a fiscal conservative, paying taxes feels like giving money to a charity that is irresponsible, disorganized, steals a big chunk of the money, handles the money poorly, and doesn't ultimately help people as much as they claim to. I don't like being considered non-compassionate if I don't want to give as much money to that particular charity, and would rather give it to one I have more confidence in.

I understand that for that particular charity, we HAVE to give some money, so there's clearly a difference. But the fact that one person thinks its a great charity, and I think its shady, doesn't make them compassionate and me not.

It's not fair to invalidate the sincerity of people with different opinions, and label oneself as "compassionate". It's like when some Republicans claim that Democrats don't care about national security. Of course they do. They just feel it can be better accomplished in different ways. To claim that the difference of opinion is about who wants America to be safe is insulting, just as I find it insulting when Democrats try to make the debate about compassion v. non-compassion.

[DaddyTorgo]

To a fiscal conservative, paying taxes feels like giving money to a charity that is irresponsible, disorganized, steals a big chunk of the money, handles the money poorly, and doesn't ultimately help people as much as they claim to. I don't like being considered non-compassionate if I don't want to give as much money to that particular charity.


check out some of those charity-tracker websites - you'd be amazed at how most of the charities spend the money you give them - how little actually makes it to the people in need. As always there are exceptions, great charities to donate too, but most of them are shite and are as irresponsible and disorganized as the government, and spend a shit-ton on overhead. think about it too - why replicate thousands of times over redundant organizations. every charity needs a treasurer who gets paid? why? every charity needs an IT guy? every charity needs so many staffers?

why not lump them all together under the auspices of government and have less redundancy, and thus be able to give more help to people who need it?

[molson]

check out some of those charity-tracker websites - you'd be amazed at how most of the charities spend the money you give them - how little actually makes it to the people in need. As always there are exceptions, great charities to donate too, but most of them are shite and are as irresponsible and disorganized as the government, and spend a shit-ton on overhead. think about it too - why replicate thousands of times over redundant organizations. every charity needs a treasurer who gets paid? why? every charity needs an IT guy? every charity needs so many staffers?



You're absolutely right - thank god we have those trackers and a real choice about which charity to donate to. We don't have that kind of choice in government. At best, we have two choices, so neither have to particularly good at what they do. And that's not even an individual choice, it's really more abstract. My one vote doesn't give me very much say about where my money goes once the government gets it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Not really a question of self-control. It's just a convenience factor, really. Instead of having to completely skip your blocks of pointless text, the ignore function makes them completely disappear.

I seriously think there is something wrong with you and I don't want to read what you have to say.

Nearly as amusing is a person who levels personal attacks while refusing to read the response.

[lungs]

I haven't run into too many devout vegans who had a third-generation cattle farmer as the best man at their wedding & the godparent to their children.

Good example, as I'm a third-generation cattle farmer and one of my best friends is absolutely opposed to the way I farm. He's not a vegan, but he definitely leans heavily in that direction. And it's not like we avoid the topic, either. We'll discuss it and mostly disagree before we move on to more important things, like baseball.

On the other hand, while I'm pretty darned liberal in most of my views, I have a friend from South Carolina that makes you look like a liberal, Jon. He's not a Klansman but he may as well be. But he's also one of the kindest hearted men I've ever met as odd as that would seem. And he always says how a crazy Yankee like myself makes a Rebel like him proud.

The point being, politics aren't everything to me. They may be to you, and I'm certainly not trying to change your views on that as it's an exercise in futility. But to me, there is so much more to life than politics and I'd be missing out on some good friendships if I allowed politics to determine who I associated with.

[DaddyTorgo]

You're absolutely right - thank god we have those trackers and a real choice about which charity to donate to. We don't have that kind of choice in government. At best, we have two choices, so neither have to particularly good at what they do. And that's not even an individual choice.

but isn't the fact that we have a choice also a problem? because it can lead to situations where charities in one area are underfunded (either because they're inefficient or because nobody realizes they are there, or because people choose to donate to charities with other purposes)?

believe me, i'm not advocating for getting rid of private charities altogether. i think some of them are great and play hugely important roles. but it has to be balanced with government social programs/aid because otherwise certain classes of people, or people with certain issues, or in certain geographic areas are going to fall through the cracks.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

why not lump them all together under the auspices of government and have less redundancy, and thus be able to give more help to people who need it?

As anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy can tell you, the larger the bureaucracy the easier it is for waste. Even in this economic environment the bureaucracy I work in is terribly inefficient. What you gain in eliminating redundancy I believe you would lose many times over in inefficiencies like these or salaries for people to try to reduce these inefficiencies.

[molson]

but isn't the fact that we have a choice also a problem? because it can lead to situations where charities in one area are underfunded (either because they're inefficient or because nobody realizes they are there, or because people choose to donate to charities with other purposes)?


But if it isn't the people who decide which charities/causes should be funded, who should it be? Why should the few decide the causes the many must fund?

[DaddyTorgo]

Good example, as I'm a third-generation cattle farmer and one of my best friends is absolutely opposed to the way I farm. He's not a vegan, but he definitely leans heavily in that direction. And it's not like we avoid the topic, either. We'll discuss it and mostly disagree before we move on to more important things, like baseball.

On the other hand, while I'm pretty darned liberal in most of my views, I have a friend from South Carolina that makes you look like a liberal, Jon. He's not a Klansman but he may as well be. But he's also one of the kindest hearted men I've ever met as odd as that would seem. And he always says how a crazy Yankee like myself makes a Rebel like him proud.

The point being, politics aren't everything to me. They may be to you, and I'm certainly not trying to change your views on that as it's an exercise in futility. But to me, there is so much more to life than politics and I'd be missing out on some good friendships if I allowed politics to determine who I associated with.

You said it probably better than i could have. Although i think i'd take your last sentence and remove the words "politics" and replace them with "most single issues" (of course leaving wiggle room because i presume most of us would self-select not to associate with say serial killers).

Although I do have a more contentious example maybe. I have a best friend...guy I've known since 3rd grade. He's profoundly religious. Both of his parents are ordained deacons (of what denomination I'm not sure...one that lets them be married for sure). They started their own church, they've preached at other churches, etc.

NB: My parents are also very religious. My father has been a lector at Church as long as I can remember and teaches Sunday school even though he has no kids going anymore due to age. My mother is a Eucharistic Minister and makes sandwiches for a soup kitchen every week and delivers all of the parishes sandwiches.

Now me? I'm maybe one of the biggest athiests around. Dyed-in-the-wool as it were. But I haven't self-selected not to socialize with my good friend (or my family) over that. Hell, we'll even still all discuss it openly. It just involves being respectful of people's differences of opinion and beliefs.

Now me? I'm one of the biggest athiests around.

[DaddyTorgo]

But if it isn't the people who decide which charities/causes should be funded, who should it be? Why should the few decide the causes the many must fund?

because the few don't have the complete picture (okay neither does the government so let's change that - the few do not have enough of the picture to be able to make a fully-informed decision)

[molson]

because the few don't have the complete picture (okay neither does the government so let's change that - the few do not have enough of the picture to be able to make a fully-informed decision)

Well the last administration thought that the "bigger picture" needed to involve spending billions in Iraq. That's where your money went - you had no choice.

Obviously it's a balance. I understand that the government has to exist and you understand they can't control everything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

there is so much more to life than politics

I think that phrase is really the key to the distinction I draw, or it's a heck of a jumping off point for it, or something.

Politics determines very little for me in terms of who I enjoy associating with. That's where it does come back down to philosophies or core values or however you'd like to describe it.

Party affiliation, party platform positions, etc. determines jack shit for me (witness my 180 stance with the GOP & abortion for example). It's my own beliefs that determine my politics, not the other way around (not saying yours is any different, just trying to emphasize my own process here)

I've previously described in some detail the one example I can really think of that provides the exception to the rule, but generally speaking there simply isn't enough common ground between me & someone with a for us to enjoy each other's company for any prolonged period. If we're reaching vastly different conclusions consistently, there's no reason for me to believe that we've got enough common ground anywhere else to be able to go hang out happily, the conflict is simply inevitable at that point unless we both work extremely hard to avoid it, just sharing the need to consume oxygen simply isn't enough to justify each other's company for me.

One example might be how sure I am that there are some Georgia Tech fans who land on the opposite side of me on dozens of topics consistently. In the context of happening to sit next to them cheering the Jackets neither of us has much control over that and we're both likely to be content sharing that same common interest. But that isn't enough basis for me to want to go to dinner with them either.

If we all looked hard enough, I imagine I could find at least one tiny scrap of common ground for me to share with Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid, for the sake of discussion let's just imagine that we're all three in favor of spaying/neutering domestic animals to help manage their population. We could all three end up volunteering two hours together at a free animal clinic somewhere on spay/neuter day, and that'd probably be fine with all three of us with no problems coming up. But it seems like a pretty lousy idea for us to all go to Olive Garden together afterwards unless we're going to strictly focus on planning for the next event and that's really business not pleasure.

[lungs]

If we all looked hard enough, I imagine I could find at least one tiny scrap of common ground for me to share with Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid, for the sake of discussion let's just imagine that we're all three in favor of spaying/neutering domestic animals to help manage their population. We could all three end up volunteering two hours together at a free animal clinic somewhere on spay/neuter day, and that'd probably be fine with all three of us with no problems coming up. But it seems like a pretty lousy idea for us to all go to Olive Garden together afterwards unless we're going to strictly focus on planning for the next event and that's really business not pleasure.

The flaw I see in this is the assumption that the only common ground you have is the free animal clinic.

[DaddyTorgo]

If we all looked hard enough, I imagine I could find at least one tiny scrap of common ground for me to share with Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid, for the sake of discussion let's just imagine that we're all three in favor of spaying/neutering domestic animals to help manage their population. We could all three end up volunteering two hours together at a free animal clinic somewhere on spay/neuter day, and that'd probably be fine with all three of us with no problems coming up. But it seems like a pretty lousy idea for us to all go to Olive Garden together afterwards unless we're going to strictly focus on planning for the next event and that's really business not pleasure.

Or talking trash about other volunteers? Or discussing your kids? Or talking about sports or your thoughts on a movie you've all seen, or a tv show you all enjoy, or a vacation that somebody took, or any of a thousand other topics.

Or hell, trying to have a civil conversation to uncover why they so passionately believe the way they do, to see if maybe some of their insights might lead you to change your mind, or even to better understand their positions for the purposes of trying to tear them down (although not tear-them-down to their faces).

Although I do often have my times where I'm like you and I find it hard to sit there and discuss those seemingly inane topics at the expense of doing something I'd rather be doing (at home playing video games or reading a book for example), so I understand where you're coming from.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The flaw I see in this is the assumption that the only common ground you have is the free animal clinic.

And the value of that assumption is that, given the substantial differences already established, the common ground so extremely rarely approaches any reasonable balance as to not be worth the time/energy/angst invested in exploring it. That's based on 42 years of experience & the only change in direction that it's taken is become less & less likely over the past decade+.

Realistically, I'm past the halfway point of my life, I'm not real keen on wasting the time I've got left chasing that sort of miracle, I'm simply not that possessed by the strong urge to add a stray person or two to any circle beyond acquaintance.

edit to add: screw the dola post, I'll just double up here.

from DT Or hell, trying to have a civil conversation to uncover why they so passionately believe the way they do, to see if maybe some of their insights might lead you to change your mind, or even to better understand their positions for the purposes of trying to tear them down

Several problems there really. Probably first & foremost, I've got little interest in being civil to someone I lack reason to respect, nor am I all that interested in figuring out why someone is dead f'n wrong about subject X. The state of being is considerably more important to me than the reason they got that way. Further, how many subjects do you really think I'm hard & fast about (as opposed to simply having a lean) that I haven't already considered in significant detail? Ever noticed the varied timestamps on my posts, it's not as though I sleep a lot ;)

[flere-imsaho]

Realistically, I'm past the halfway point of my life, I'm not real keen on wasting the time I've got left chasing that sort of miracle, I'm simply not that possessed by the strong urge to add a stray person or two to any circle beyond acquaintance.

Ironically, this is where Jon & I have common ground. Except that I don't quite think I'm at the halfway point of my life yet.

[lungs]

Realistically, I'm past the halfway point of my life, I'm not real keen on wasting the time I've got left chasing that sort of miracle, I'm simply not that possessed by the strong urge to add a stray person or two to any circle beyond acquaintance.

But the mistake you may make is closing yourself to the possibility. You don't have to chase it down why close the door completely?

[DanGarion]

The point being, politics aren't everything to me... there is so much more to life than politics and I'd be missing out on some good friendships if I allowed politics to determine who I associated with.

This is why, I try to stay out of the political threads, some people just get too worked up and take things too personal. The way some of the people act about a politician who has died you'd think that the said politician had kidnapped them and their family members, and raped them all repeatedly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But the mistake you may make is closing yourself to the possibility. You don't have to chase it down why close the door completely?

Hey, I'm open to a miracle if it wanders through my door, I'm just not inclined to invest my limited resources in facilitating it.

FWIW, afaic this is a pretty reasonable discussion of something that's I think is quite relevant to the way most socio-political threads here go. I just happen to be a fairly outspoken example of a fairly common way of approaching those things* & so I get to speak as a representative of the subset. Ain't gonna change anything for anybody in particular I don't imagine but I don't see any harm in the conversation just for the sake of stray intellectual curiosity. Hopefully nobody got too torqued by the lengthy sidebar.

* Actually had an interesting real-life example of this yesterday, with the painting contractor who was repairing what Charter Cable screwed up at my mother-in-law's new house. Just chit-chatting with the guy while he was getting set up & figuring out what he was going to do & he threw out three consecutive increasingly loaded comments on various things as he tried to get a read on me.

That's not something I really do, in fact I consciously avoid doing it in order to have an opportunity to remain neutral on someone unless they choose to reveal themselves in that way, but it was so transparent that I couldn't help but think about it during this topic. Once I had answered to his relative satisfaction then the conversation moved on to local restaurants, kids/schools, and other stuff but only after the bigger stuff was covered. And that's not at all uncommon for me to run into, just notable because it was so recent.

[Bad-example]

Not really a question of self-control. It's just a convenience factor, really. Instead of having to completely skip your blocks of pointless text, the ignore function makes them completely disappear.

I seriously think there is something wrong with you and I don't want to read what you have to say.

Agree on all counts. I enjoy my time at FOFC better with certain posters on ignore.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Agree on all counts. I enjoy my time at FOFC better with certain posters on ignore.

I think this comment could easily be applied to the nation as a whole. There's two polarized parties who often put the other people on 'ignore' rather than listening to what they have to say. It's really the exact opposite of what should happen, but it will remain that way as long as that mentality exists.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think this comment could easily be applied to the nation as a whole. There's two polarized parties who often put the other people on 'ignore' rather than listening to what they have to say. It's really the exact opposite of what should happen, but it will remain that way as long as that mentality exists.

I would imagine most of the "ignorings" aren't done because they disagree, but because they think the person is an idiot.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I would imagine most of the "ignorings" aren't done because they disagree, but because they think the person is an idiot.

I think most people feel like it's more important to be right than to listen to others on occasion. Both sides politically are so busy blowing their own horn that they're not even interested in what the other has to say. It's honestly pretty annoying.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Ok, but I'm not sure what that has to do with people not caring to hear what YOU have to say.

[Schmidty]

And Schmidty, honestly, you feed food to animals with your mouth so your opinion has no bearing in these matters.

I only do that after having a little absinthe with my dogs.

I'll let the grown-ups talk now.

[Subby]

I'll let the grown-ups talk now.
Words to live by...:thumbsup:

[OldGiants]

Hmm, I guess the vast bulk of you are too young to remember when the Tedster was on the come back trail and looking to bounce Carter. Then he encountered Roger Mudd of CBS. From Wiki:

Mudd is perhaps best remembered for an interview he conducted with Senator Edward M. Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._Kennedy) for a November 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_4), 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979) CBS special, Teddy, aired three days before Kennedy officially announced his challenge of President Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter) for the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_1980). In addition to questioning Kennedy about the Chappaquiddick incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident), Mudd asked, "Senator, why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's "incoherent and repetitive"<sup id="cite_ref-bg-series-4_15-0" class="reference">[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mudd#cite_note-bg-series-4-15)</sup> or "vague, unprepared"<sup id="cite_ref-gerson_16-0" class="reference">[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mudd#cite_note-gerson-16)</sup> answer raised questions about his motivation in seeking the office, and marked the beginning of the sharp decline in Kennedy's impressive poll numbers.<sup id="cite_ref-bg-series-4_15-1" class="reference">[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mudd#cite_note-bg-series-4-15)</sup> Carter defeated Kennedy 50% to 38% in the Democratic primary vote. Although the Kennedy family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_family) refused any further interviews with Mudd, the interview helped strengthen Mudd's reputation as a leading political reporter. Broadcaster and blogger Hugh Hewitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt) and Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post) columnist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnist) Michael Gerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson) have used the term "Roger Mudd moment" to describe a self-inflicted disastrous encounter with the press by a presidential candidate.<sup id="cite_ref-gerson_16-1" class="reference">[17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mudd#cite_note-gerson-16)

</sup>
I'll let y'all Google the TV interview.

[Flasch186]

I think most people feel like it's more important to be right than to listen to others on occasion. Both sides politically are so busy blowing their own horn that they're not even interested in what the other has to say. It's honestly pretty annoying.

amazingly this is coming from a poster that rarely if ever admits to being wrong.

[molson]

Hmm, I guess the vast bulk of you are too young to remember when the Tedster was on the come back trail and looking to bounce Carter. Then he encountered Roger Mudd of CBS. From Wiki:

Mudd is perhaps best remembered for an interview he conducted with Senator Edward M. Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._Kennedy) for a November 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_4), 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979) CBS special, Teddy, aired three days before Kennedy officially announced his challenge of President Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter) for the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_1980). In addition to questioning Kennedy about the Chappaquiddick incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident), Mudd asked, "Senator, why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's "incoherent and repetitive"<sup id="cite_ref-bg-series-4_15-0" class="reference">[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mudd#cite_note-bg-series-4-15)</sup> or "vague, unprepared"<sup id="cite_ref-gerson_16-0" class="reference">[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mudd#cite_note-gerson-16)</sup> answer raised questions about his motivation in seeking the office, and marked the beginning of the sharp decline in Kennedy's impressive poll numbers.<sup id="cite_ref-bg-series-4_15-1" class="reference">[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mudd#cite_note-bg-series-4-15)</sup> Carter defeated Kennedy 50% to 38% in the Democratic primary vote. Although the Kennedy family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_family) refused any further interviews with Mudd, the interview helped strengthen Mudd's reputation as a leading political reporter. Broadcaster and blogger Hugh Hewitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt) and Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post) columnist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnist) Michael Gerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson) have used the term "Roger Mudd moment" to describe a self-inflicted disastrous encounter with the press by a presidential candidate.<sup id="cite_ref-gerson_16-1" class="reference">[17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mudd#cite_note-gerson-16)

</sup>
I'll let y'all Google the TV interview.

Ya, even in 1980, before youtube, one could harm his candidacy with a Palin-esque moment:

MUDD: Why do you want to be President?

EDWARD KENNEDY: Well, I’m – were I to make the announcement to run, the reasons that I would run is because I have a great belief in this country that it is – has more natural resources than any nation of the world, has the greatest educated population in the world, the greatest technology of any country in the world, the greatest capacity for innovation in the world and the greatest political system in the world. And yet I see at the current time that most of the industrial nations of the world are exceeding us in terms of productivity or doing better than us in terms of meeting the problems of inflation, that they’re dealing with their problems of energy and their problems of unemployment. It just seems to me that this nation can cope and deal with its problems in a way that it has in the past. We’re facing complex issues and problems in this nation at this time, but we have faced similar challenges at other times and the energies and the resourcefulness of this nation, I think, should be focused on these problems in a way that brings a sense of restoration in this country by its people to – in dealing with the problems that we face, primarily the issues on the economy, the problems of inflation and the problems of energy and I would basically feel that it’s imperative for this country either move forward, but it can’t stand still or otherwise it moves backward.
.

I was too young to have a sense of whether this did in him, or if it was chappaquiddick, or if we should just really think of him doing exceptionally well against an incumbent president from the same party. But, he was WAY ahead prior to this interview, so I guess that has to get the credit.

[duckman]

amazingly this is coming from a poster that rarely if ever admits to being wrong.
Pot meet kettle...

[WVUFAN]

This is why, I try to stay out of the political threads, some people just get too worked up and take things too personal. The way some of the people act about a politician who has died you'd think that the said politician had kidnapped them and their family members, and raped them all repeatedly.

I think political discussions are great, but I'm one of those who now try to stay out of them. The raise in my blood pressure just isn't worth it. :)

[Flasch186]

Pot meet kettle...

i was most recently wrong just a few days ago (outside of the multidude of times im wrong in my daily life, many many times) in assuming divorce rates go up during a recession. Not only wrong but found out I was wrong myself when others began pointing out a differing opinion! Im wrong and admit it a lot and have no problem saying so. Pot? Whatever. Duckman cometh.