Ted Kennedy, RIP
Yes, he was a liberal’s liberal, both good and bad, but any senator who said the vote they were most proud of was their vote against the Iraq War deserves a hearty “Well done, thou good and faithful servant!”
What must not go unmentioned therefore is the history behind this. Ted always seemed to have more of his father in him than any of his brothers – and undoubtedly he was haunted to no end by seeing in Dubya’s zeal to avenge his father’s wimpiness an echo of how nearly Jack brought about nuclear armageddon with his eagerness to destroy the legacy of their father, the architect of Munich.
So in the midst of the coming avalanche of Chris Matthews’ barely disguised homoerotic asphyxiation on the Kennedys, let us pause and pay homage to the Kennedys who dared say no to war.
Ted Kennedy has gone, as we will all go eventually. Requiescat in pace. Jesu mercy, Mary pray.
Meanwhile, in filling his seat, the Democratic Party has an opportunity. They have to send to the Senate a uncompromising supporter of the Kennedy Bill (as the healthcare bill could reasonably now be renamed), and of Kennedy’s economic views generally. How could they not? They have a base to please.
But the new Senator should also a figure capable of reaching out to those who, on the same day as they elected both President Obama and a Democratic Congress, made it clear at those same polls that, in Florida and California, they wanted back the country where marriage only ever meant one man and one woman. That, in Colorado, they wanted back the country that did not permit legal discrimination against working-class white men. That, in Missouri and Ohio, they wanted to preserve the country where gambling was not deregulated. And that, from coast to coast, they wanted that country as stalwarts of, especially, the black and Catholic churches.
That opportunity was missed in black and Catholic Illinois and New York, and in Catholic Delaware. Let it not also be missed in Catholic Massachusetts. Not that the new Senator actually has to be either black or a Catholic. But he or she does need to be, in addition to a fully-signed up supporter of Kennedy’s economic views in general and of the Kennedy Bill in particular, a fully-signed up believer (as is President Obama) that marriage is only ever the union of one man and one woman, opponent of discrimination against working-class white men, opponent of deregulated gambling, believer in the public role of the churches, and supporter of Bob Casey’s Pregnant Women Support Act (effectively endorsed by the President at Notre Dame).
And anti-war, of course.
David, There are more atheists in Delaware (17%) than Catholics (9%), yet you speak of “Catholic Delaware.” Admit it, you know precious little of America.
That’s a preposterous statistic – no more than 2% of the country is avowedly atheist, even if the number goes up dramatically for agnostics.
Jack, the USA is now at least 40% atheist and growing.
An agnostic IS an atheist. There are only theists and
a-theists, if your not a theist you’re an atheist.
Your tribute to Comrade Kennedy is beyond absurb.
He was dumb in contrast to RFK and JFK and a total
supporter of every bad cause from socialized medicine
to civil wrongs legislation to gun confiscation to every
Marxist regime that ever existed to Israel, ad nauseum.
One good vote does not cancel out a lifetime of evil.
Joe Kennedy was not the architect of Munich, which
was a very good thing, see A.J.P. Taylor’s The Origins
Of The Second World War. Joe was the only decent one in
the whole rotten family.
David, your incoherence is difficult to take. Casey needs
to keep his statist mitts off womens’ bodies.
Jack, this my source (American Religious Identification Survey, City University of New York). The 17% responded “No Religion.” You can argue if you want, but as the identification “Atheist” was not a checkable item, the no religion selection covers them nicely.
But this is a diversion. A state in which only 9% self identify as Catholic cannot be a Catholic Delaware.
“No Religion” does nothing to designate whether someone is an atheist (there is no God, all can be explained rationally), agnostic (not presuming to know either way, even an agnostic can appreciate Chesterton’s dictum about the utter randomness and purposelessness of creation being a greater leap of faith than belief in God), or even definitively believing in God but not adhering to any organized religion. I suspect of that 17% barely one in ten are in the first category and the bulk evenly split between the other two.
You suspicion is not a statistic. Five percent chose “Other” and nine percent “Refused.” Twenty percent claim Methodism. So now matter how much you quibble, David’s Catholic Delaware is no such thing.
The left-wing case against him:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/52795,news,alexander-cockburn-ted-kennedy-was-a-hollow-champion-us-politics-chappaquiddick-senator-president
It could almost be the paleocon case against him – NAFTA, No Child Left Behind, Wall Street instead of Main Street. Think on.
Thomas, I suppose that there is still a sort of Catholic feel to the Democratic Party there, although perhaps the departure of a cultural Catholic for the Vice-Presidency really does mark the end. Lots of local Labour Parties that used to have a sort of Catholic feel have gone the same way, both in Britain and in Australia.
The failure to appoint someone in tune with, if by no means necessarily belonging to, the black and Catholic churches (among other things) in either Illinois or New York really was very disappointing, although the New York appointment could have been worse. But the GOP is no position to capitalize. What do they have to offer the people thus overlooked, by no means all black, by no means all Catholic?
I don’t know that the excuse could be in Massachusetts. Are they seriously going to claim that they couldn’t find a Democrat there who opposed abortion and supported the defense of traditional marriage while sharing Kennedy’s (i.e., Obama’s) views on healthcare and the war? They’ll be lucky if they get nothing more than riotous laughter. But, again, what would the GOP be in any position to do about it?
And when did a Republican last make a recess appointment of a paleocon to the Senate? Or, indeded, to anything else, at least at federal level? Just wondering.
You either believe or you don’t in a supernatural figure.
Agnostics don’t, ergo they are a-theists. There is no way
that agnostics can evade the fact that they don’t believe
and are thus atheists. No religion usually means no belief
in “God.” In our day to day lives we are all operational atheists. Existence exists and consciousness is identification. Existence has to come before consciousness
for the only purpose of consciousness is to identify the facts
of reality, i.e., existence. The idea that consciousness creates existence is absurd, there would be no such thing
as epistemology if that were true. See Atheism:The Case Against God by George H. Smith.
As far as cheering Catholic statist Dems on that’s a bad idea, they want the state everywhere including the bedroom. This is the antithesis of the modern libertarian conservative movement.
“I don’t know that the excuse could be in Massachusetts. Are they seriously going to claim that they couldn’t find a Democrat there who opposed abortion and supported the defense of traditional marriage while sharing Kennedy”
Because people in Massachusetts are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, regardless of whether they are nominally Catholic.
“See Atheism:The Case Against God by George H. Smith”
Oh brother. What is it with atheists now? Atheists are often far more zealous than the most fervent fundamentalist evangelicals. You people are going to win in the long run. Sit back, have some manners and allow it to happen – we will have a godless world stripped of all spirit, wonder and solace soon enough.
What is so terrible about the idea that existence exists and has always existed ? How could a consciousness from outside existence (nature) create existence ? You people
act like atheists are all Communists when you can find more
Communist-Socialist propaganda in the Bible than anyplace else ?
An agnostic, Mike, is a person who doesn’t know for certain if there is a Supreme Being or not. That describes everyone of us….and Joe Kennedy Sr. was the “most decent one of the bunch.”? The man was an obvious b******….mobbed- up economic predator in JP Morgan’s class who would bang 18 year olds while his wife and kids were in the house. Swell decent Christian gent Ol Joe was. Just like the John Birch Society was an excellent political forecaster. LOL.
“people in Massachusetts are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage”
They can’t all be. Quite a lot of them aren’t, I bet.
They managed to find an NRA Democrat in New York. How hard can it be to find an anti-war, pro traditional marriage, more-or-less pro-life Democrat in Massachusetts? Two of those are Obama’s own views, and rumor has it that Boston is even more Irish than he is, if you can believe such a thing.
The JBS was and is an excellent political forecaster. See The
Politician by Robert Welch on Ike, The Actor by Alan Stang on Dulles, The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin on the UN
And It’s Very Simple by Alan Stang on “civil rights.”
An agnostic, all their evasions aside, is an atheist. Anyone
who is not a theist is an a-theist. Joe Kennedy was an honest businessman who made the mistake of supporting
the New Deal. The way he handled his kids, particularly Rosemary, left much to be desired. Politically he broke with
FDR after Joe, Jr., was killed and courageously tried to keep
the USA out of the Second World War For World Communism and Zionism. That he fooled around with Gloria Swanson is irrelevant politically.
I was pleasantly surprised by his funeral. I’d expected the Mission Church to be something like the Paulist Center attended by John Kerry. But it wasn’t at all.
While I disagreed with Ted Kennedy on most issues,he nonetheless was very passionate about his beliefs and never wavered,,much like conservative stalwart Jesse Helms on the right. Like the saying goes,if you stand for nothing,you’ll fall for anything. I respect people with strong convictions and passionate beliefs,left and right. Also,not all Kennedys are created alike. JFK advocated a strong national defense,tax cuts to stimulate economic growth,abolition of the Federal Reserve, and,was staunchly anti-communist. He and Robert were friends with Joe McCarthy.. While they have their flaws and I have my differences with them on most issues, the Kennedys have served this nation well for the most part. RIP,Senator.
When did JFK call for abolishing the Fed ?
He and RFK were anti-Communist but both
went sharply leftward after 1956 to obtain
the 1960 nomination. JFK was certainly not
anti-Communist at all as President. The US
backed UN invasion of Katanga, the Test Ban
Treaty, shutting down Cuban exiles from attacking
Castro, the list goes on. RFK became even much
more leftist when he ran for President in 1968.
In 1959 JFK favorably reviewed Richard Rovere’s
savage hatchet job on Joe McCarthy in the
Washington Post but refused to allow the Boston Globe
to reprint it for fear of antagonizing his Irish
constituents. Some profile in courage !
RFK went to bat for one of the convicted Communist
Party leaders in the 1950 Smith Act trial so that this
traitor could be buried in Arlington because he was a WW2
vet ! He did this in 1965 as Senator.
JFK ‘s “national defense” was another socialist scaqm to enlarge FedGov and get them into education. There was never
any Soviet military threat to the US or western Europe,
the danger was always internal. Fabian Socialists like
the Kennedys were and are the threat. Who cares if
EMK was consistent when he was consistently wrong.
JFK campaigned on the “missile gap” lie.
Where do you young conservatives get your history ?
From neocon central ? Next we’ll be hearing what
a great guy that Marxist Socialist MLK was !
Two or so years ago there was yet another FDR
hagiography by the convicted criminal Conrad Black,
800 plus pages of solid lies. And who were the endorsers
on the back cover, William F. Buckley, Jr., John Lukacs,
George Will, Tom Wolfe and Herr Kissinger.
As The Other Senator McCarthy (Gene) once put it,
Conservatives are fundamentally stupid people who always
come around to endorsing bad liberal laws, people and ideals.
We ought to be disrupting this disgusting bit of media
hagiography, not mindlessly paying tribute to our worst
Senator of all time.
“scam” has a “Q” in error in line ten.
Let me begin by saying that I am no great defender of the Kennedys.
That said:
“JFK was certainly not anti-Communist at all as President”
They may have disagreed with that in South-East Asia.
“the Test Ban Treaty”
Firmly in the tradition of Republican calls on Europe to make peace by returning to 1914 borders, of America First, of Eisenhower’s ending of the Korean War, of his even-handedness between Israel and the Palestinians, and of his denunciation of the military-industrial complex.
Firmly in the tradition continued by Nixon’s ending of the Vietnam War, by his pursuit of detante with China, by Reagan’s initiation of nuclear arms reduction, and by Republican opposition to Clinton’s military adventures.
“JFK favorably reviewed Richard Rovere’s savage hatchet job on Joe McCarthy”
JFK and RFK were both close to McCarthy.
“Fabian Socialists like the Kennedys”
Not the view of any Fabian Society member that I’ve ever met…
“yet another FDR hagiography by the convicted criminal Conrad Black”
Bad men quite often write good books. Good men quite often write bad books.
“Where do you young conservatives get your history? From neocon central?”
You seem rather more guilty of that yourself.
“William F. Buckley, Jr.”
I think we can safely say that he was simply commending a good book, not commending FDR himself. I might be wrong, But it would have been very, very big news if I were. Wouldn’t it?
I think there is still a genuine bitterness, not conservative but simply Republican, about the 1960 Election. Well, perhaps there deserved to be. But since that bitterness is partisan rather than ideological, didn’t you get your own back forty years later, nine years ago now?
Buckley was recommending a TERRIBLE book, a monstrous
piece of Rooseveltian hagiography which he along with other
stupid, unprincipled “conservatives” like Wolfe, Will, Kissinger
and Lukacs were endorsing ! How you can rationalize that is
beyond belief.
JFK’s commitment to a ground war on the Asian mainland was insane and helped to discredit anti-communism.
One stolen election in 1960 doesn’t justify another stolen election in 2000. I don’t think Nixon would have been all that different anyway, so I’m missing your point, if any, here.
I’ve known lots of Labour Party Fabian Socialists from the UK
and they all liked the Kennedys. Ergo for the ADA Fabian types over here.
If McCarthy had friends like JFK and RFK he didn’t need enemies. RFK joined the anti-McCarthy Democrats on McCarthy’s committee in early 1954 and worked with them
to sabotage McCarthy. JFK’s favorable review of what is still the most vicious anti-McCarthy book hardly testifies to any real friendship with McCarthy.
Your analogy of the Test Ban with other events fails. The
reasons for its defeat were clearly stated by Senator Goldwater at the time in 1963. Nixon’s detente with China
was a disaster. It was only after the overthrow of Mao and Co.
that China changed. Nixon’s toadying to Mao helped reinforce
his control another three years until his death. Ike never even
MENTIONED the Palestinians and from 1958 onward had a
totally one-sided pro-Israel policy similar to Truman’s and
later JFK’s. We ended the Korean War on disastrous terms,
we are still there and it was a forerunner of another disastrous
war in Indochina. Ike was recycling New Left founder C. Wright Mill’s agit-prop on the Pentagon-industrial complex but he in fact supported it throughout his Presidency and overthrew governments from Guatemala to Iran.
Nixon’s ending of the war never took place. When Ford ended
it it was to totally capitulate to the Communists in all of Vietnam, Laos and mass Communist genocide in Cambodia.
Some “honorable” end !
Gorbachev introduced the discussion towards arms controls
and Reagan very reluctantly came around.
Again, you sound like you get your “history” from NPR or
The New York Times.
There’s no way I get mine from neocon central because they
agree with you on all these matters and they are as wrong as
you too.
Is there *anyone*, living or dead, of whom you approve?
What an absurd rhetorical question ! Robert Taft, Joe McCarthy, Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, Ron Paul,
James J. Martin, Harry Elmer Barnes, Robert Welch,
David L. Hoggan, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolph,
Paul Rassinier, Francis Neilson, Isabel Paterson,
H.L. Mencken, Porter Sargent, F.J.P. Veale, David
Gordon, Murray Rothbard, Dr. Thomas S. Szasz,
Carl Snyder, David Irving, Murray Bookchin, Albert
Jay Nock, Dr. Peter Breggin, M. Stanton Evans, Jr.,
Pat Buchanan, Luigi Villari, John T. Flynn are some
of the people I strongly admire.