Wow! Too bad, but it seemed imminent at this point.
I don't know about his early years, but it is my understanding that he has been a dedicated and honorable public servant for decades. While I used to think poorly of him, over the years he has gained my respect as a champion of the people - the average person.
Tsu [my other half] once rode in a car with him when she was a child.
At least he lived long enough to see a president come to power who can finally finish what he worked so hard to start. He was truly a liberal icon and a good man. President Kennedy started a new era working for civil rights, and if this is an end of an era, it should be ended properly by finishing his personal mission.
Just wish he could've lived another year.
I have to say that, although he was working against me, he was definitely working hard at it, and so at least had the respect of those of us that disagreed with him on most issues. May he rest in peace.
Kind of a Moses thing.
In spite of family, wealth, and privilege, it always seemed he had an extra burden to carry. I don't think it was easy. I admire his dedication and resolve.
Just to clarify the reference: After his epic journey, Moses wasn't allowed to enter the promised land because he had cursed God, IIRC. It was his sin as a young man that denied him entry. Kennedy was famous for his sin as a young man, and he died just short of his life's work - he was denied entry to his promised land of health care reform. The Kennedy's are also known for their strong religious beliefs. JFK was the first Catholic elected to the office of President. It was a big deal back then.
Just a joke.
While I do respect Kennedy's many efforts in the battle for civil rights, but consider calling him a champion of the people over the top, as like most any politician he voted in favor of special interests on countless occasions. Also, I've long been particularly disappointed by the utter lack of regard for the rights of Palestinians he demonstrated throughout his career, though as a US senator he was hardly unique in that regard either.
The term "special interests" is too broad to have any meaning. Are you talking about the NAACP, or the ACLU, for example? Do you mean unions? Do you mean programs designed to end poverty? What you saw as "special interests" may have been in other people's primary interest.
The term "special interest groups" has assumed a somewhat negative connotation. These groups often represent the disadvantaged, or groups fightings for particular rights. In many ways, the little guy - the average person - is represented by special interest groups.
I don't know about that one; may be true. But he was a US Senator, and he fought for the rights and well-being of US citizens, which was his primary job.
I was using it as a euphemism for the corporations and such which flooded his campaigns with money, http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00000308&newMem=N&cycle=2008".
I certainly don't see how anyone could reasonably argue otherwise.
As I said, I do respect Kennedy's many efforts in the battle for civil rights, I simply doubt he was motivated by altruism to the extent your comments suggest.
That says nothing about his voting record. That is a list of donors. Many of those probably donated to many other campaigns.
I don't. In fact I find your comment absurd; as would many Americans including some of his most dedicated opponents over the decades.
Right, because I was responding to your question about my use of the phrase "special interests". As for examples from his legislative record, http://www.slate.com/id/2222743".
There is no "probably" about it. I am curious as to how you figured it would need mentioning though, as I had previously mentioned that I'm not suggesting Kennedy was unique in his ways.
An email from my buddy, Barack.
You're 3/4 of the way there, but you didn't get quite all the way there. Yes, someone's "special interest" might be someone else's "primary interest". So connect those two ideas and what do you get? You get a politician who puts a high fraction of their effort into the interests of a small and vocal (and typically wealthy) minority instead of the majority.
That's what people are talking about when they say "special interest group".
While I disagreed with his politics on virtually every level possible and spent a lot of time angry with him and people like him, you've got to respect resolve and a dedication to what matters to you. The man was a politician and politicians will be politicians. It really doesn't matter what side you're on... the system is pretty ugly (it has been since 1776) and you've gotta work within the system to get anything done. Americans opposed to money and using it to get things done? Come on now.
Yes, the elevation of the deceased to sainthood is irritating; but that's just another part of life in our society. Anyway... rest in peace, Mr. Senator. Thanks for giving a damn.
I think ted kennedy was a drunkard and horrible person and became only senator easily because of the recognizable Kennedy name; Ted's political career should have ended when he showed he did not want to take responsibility for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne by leaving the scene of the incident he created; This wasn't a frightened teenager , this was a 35 year old man; Leaving the scene of a car accident with a dead person and pretending nothing happened is akin to dumping the body of a dead person in a river;
Kennedy and Northern Ireland
Ted Kennedy was unpopular in Britain for a long time, because of his apparent condoning of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#1970s …
And from English historian Andrew Roberts, writing recently in The Daily Mail newspaper (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/peopl...hood-for-browns-old-friend-ted-kennedy,76181") …
I don't think anyone is trying to elevate him to sainthood. But his dedication and significance to the US political process is undeniable. He was the definitive liberal, so he and I were often at odds.
Frankly, I could care less about his foreign policy. He is best known and will be remembered for his stand on domestic issues. That I and others would disagree with his foreign policies is a given. It is also important to remember that he was from the old school. Some of his views would surely seem archaic today.
I gathered, but Kennedy's foreign policy undermines the claim of altruism regardless.
Doesn't affect my day at all. Kennedy was a cheat, drunk, murderer and traitor. No sympathy.
Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit
Peter Robinson, 08.28.09, 12:01 AM EDT
Considering the late senator's complete record requires digging into the USSR's archives.
You may think so, but there are two sides to every story. Just because he didn't side with your particular cause, it doesn't mean that he wasn't altruistic. His first job was to serve the American people, not the Palinstinians.
That is a first for me. One has to wonder why, if true, and if he did anything wrong, this sat on the back burner for 18 years. Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me; that or it wasn't as bad as it sounds. The Republicans would have given just about anything to have something illegal or unethical on Kennedy.
As for the rest, I didn't know about cheating on an exam. It seems that he then joined the service, served, and went back to to Harvard and graduated. Chappaquiddick was his greatest liability and the reason that I always had a low opinion of him. But it was never shown that he bore any responsibility, and he has worked hard for the American people for over 40 years. I for one am willing to consider the totality of his life.
How exactly do you hold Kennedy accountable for a crime for which his nephew was acquitted. Using that only tells me that you are grasping at straws.
I have watched one Republican Senator after another praise Kennedy's life and work. They didn't have to do that. No one would even know that they opted not to appear on television and talk about Kennedy, but instead the do appear and show the highest regard and respect for the man. You, as a young man, should try to learn from that, imo.
Except maybe that he admitted responsibility (later).
Or worked hard against, depending on your perspective. But he definitely worked hard, that's for sure.
There's no telling why no action was taken by the Republicans. No one could have even considered it possibly being true. The author mentioned that it was brought up in both 1992 and 2006 but no action was taken.
As Al68 pointed out, Kennedy took responsibility for what happened. You could say the exact same thing for GW. Sure he made some screwups during his time in office, but didn't he also do a lot of good that, more often than not, goes unnoticed due to people just preferring to just look at the bad sides?
If I was grasping for straws I would have called him a rapist, which I didn't. Crazy things happen when you're partying with the Kennedy's. At least so i've heard.
He did just what every other politician does; stuck his neck out to attain what 'the people' want so that he could get attention to push his own agendas.
Generally more than two, and some have a firmer basis in reality than others.
I never suggested he should serve Palestinians, but rather simply pointing out that his service to the conquest of their homeland in violation of international law undermines the claim of altruism. I have yet to see a reasonable argument that he did so for the interests of us Americans either, at least aside from for the few who have built an industry around this conquest. If you are suggesting otherwise, I am interested in seeing how you substantiate your perspective.
Separate names with a comma.