Comments on: Gillespie on Kennedy (and on Others on Kennedy)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:45:00 +0000

The remorse is really touching. We really ought to sympathize with Kennedy: he really wanted to feel terrible about it, but his political ambitions kept those feelings bottled up.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:42:00 +0000

I don’t share your concern, because I think any Congressman who would vote for it because of the Dead Lion, would have voted for it anyway.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:31:00 +0000

It seems to me “ignorant of human nature” treats Kennedy more generously than he deserves. Every human being with anything approaching his length of experience knows human nature. He simply chose to impose his set of beliefs on reality, and to ignore the mountains of evidence to the contrary. In doing so, because of the great power he enjoyed, he has done more damage to the political, economic and cultural fabric of this country arguably than anyone besides FDR and LBJ. He was a crook with a plausible-sounding excuse, that being the cause of the less-advantaged. The result: he robbed Americans at every level of advantaged-ness. And while I admit I cannot truly know his motivations, I suspect self-aggrandizement was much higher up the scale than compassion.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:24:00 +0000

If that is not a Mencken quote, it could be.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:35:00 +0000

Remove the letter “i” from that second “d” word, and I’m with you. You can leave it in the first “d” word.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:26:00 +0000

Let’s not forget Teddy’s clarification of Chappaquiddick events to CBS correspondent, Roger Mudd, in 1980.

And I’ll bet it illustrates another instance of liberal media bias. I’m sure Roger let it pass; while the proper response should have been a double-take, and then, “… WHAT?”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:16:00 +0000

… extremely well-intentioned but ignorant

You’re willing to give him more benefit of the doubt than I am.

I think Kennedy knew full well what he was doing. Empowering the State and enriching himself. His little drive off the bridge shows me all I ever needed to know about his compassion for people.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:24:00 +0000

It should be a great shame to be remembered as a politician.

By: Seth

Seth — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:04:00 +0000

Now that would be ironic. With all the legislation he greased through to push the government into health care, he (or his family name) may have a fair amount of responsibility for the Rube Goldberg medical and health insurance mess we have. To take it further in his honor might convince me of the need for a strict estate tax to prevent the passing down of vast family fortunes. He may have made different contributions if he had to earn his keep.

By: Seth

Seth — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:21:00 +0000

I agree with your first part. I disagree with your second part. The best strategy to get liberals against big government is to get W to support it.

They want big government when their people are running the show. They forget that might not be permanent.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:12:00 +0000

awww, you guys – you didn’t find that exchange with sandre to be a whimsical afternoon diversion?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:08:00 +0000

RE: “I encourage you to talk to more Liberals about it. I was called a racist once, when talking about NCLB,…liberal tolerance! ”

Oh that doesn’t surprise me. I’m not saying liberals love it by any means. And no party has a monopoly on dumbass comments. But even Obama is embracing the concept behind it. And Kennedy backed it too. I’m just saying it isn’t something there is universal liberal opposition to, that’s all.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:54:00 +0000

What’s funny about this comment is that it points out that MOST politicians actually feel the same way; it’s just that liberal Dems can get the federal government to move huge mountains (while dropping them on many) while non-liberal democrats try to move the mountain piece by piece which is never accompanied by a huge signing ceremony.

By: Justin P

Justin P — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:08:00 +0000

=) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =)

By: Methinks

Methinks — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:51:00 +0000

Surely, you misunderstand him. We all do.

Do you think if I put a bunch of smiley faces in this post he won’t take it seriously enough to launch into a multi-paragraph defense?

By: Justin P

Justin P — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:47:00 +0000

I’m a born again Libertarian so I feel for him a little bit.

By: sandre

sandre — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:12:00 +0000

Daniel Kuehn is a born again progressive.

By: Justin P

Justin P — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:10:00 +0000

RIP Kopechne http://politicalzombie.blogspot.com/2009/08/rip-kopechneand-kennedy.html

By: Justin P

Justin P — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:08:00 +0000

I actually agree with you for once. The Medicare part is pure politics, if Obama would have done the exact same thing, they would all be in ecstasy over it.

As for NCLB, I encourage you to talk to more Liberals about it. I was called a racist once, when talking about NCLB,…liberal tolerance! Sigh…and to think not too long ago I though of my self as a good liberal…now I know I am one…it’s just that the Democrats aren’t liberal at all, just quasi-socialists and stateists.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:56:00 +0000

“and runs under budget”

Under budget, but still added to the deficit – that was the source of some concern. I think a lot of the liberal opposition to Part D was pure politics. It has nothing to with the fact that “government didn’t get enough control”. If Obama passed the exact same act, liberals would have supported it and conservatives opposed it. I think it’s more party power plays than anything else.

I wouldn’t be so sure about NCLB. There’s a lot of support for it in all quarters, even if liberals have specific problems with it.