posted by Republican Dan @ 3:44 PM
I am going to respond to this politically, only because your post is so blatantly political.So, why is Ted Kennedy a particularly interesting person to do an expose on for his political dealings? Surely dozens of politicians of both side of the aisle have done very stupid things in order to boost their cache. Why not write about Reagan and his arms deals with Iran to get hostages released on the day of his inauguration? Surely that was only for political gain? If not why else? Why not write about how Jimmy Carter refused to do things of that nature? Or you could talk about how Nixon had to have military power ripped from his hands because of the well based fear that he would do something crazy with his impending impeachment looming over him. Or perhaps you should discuss how Jesse Helms, as chairman of the Senate committee on foreign relations saw the dismantling of our intelligence services for the sake of a slimmer budget and a happier constituency.My point is merely, who cares, tons of politicians have made very stupid foreign policy moves (whether dealing with the wrong people or starting wars for votes--which McKinley did so well). I personally don't see Reagan as a horrible president because of his dealings with Iran (although many rightfully could) and nor do I think you see Ted Kennedy as a horrible senator for whatever he has allegedly done. Discuss your real issues with these men, and in a fair manner. Because you leave yourself far too open for fair minded people to undercut what you say.-Mr. Alec
Ted Kennedy and the KGB? Doesn't suprise me all that much. After you've gotten away with a fairly open-and-shut case of manslaughter you've got to see yourself as invulnerable and awfully clever. I can see Kennedy thinking he can use the KGB for his own purposes.
^^And there is my point.^^(for those who are unaware this ^^ means that I am pointing up).-Mr. Alec
Mr. Alec criticizes Republican Dan's desire to openly discuss Ted Kennedy's political activities, and cites several other people whom he believes are just as deserving of an open discussion of their activities.The difference, Mr. Alec, is that those whom you cited have already been discussed ad absurdum, while Kennedy has been able to escape scrutiny from a compliant media. His escape from the law at Dike Bridge is pretty good evidence of that, and he has been fairly outrageous recently without attracting any attention from the media, except of course its normal approval of liberals.
Alright, that is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Liberals don't even like Kennedy. He is a spent quantity. Just because he escaped charges from a scandal (which by the way is what all politicians do) does not mean the media has not covered it. The first thing I learned about Ted Kennedy was he is a drunk and he was too much of a pussy to save someone he was cheating on his wife with from a river. Either that or too drunk to know to save her. All Ted Kennedy is, is the strawman of the right. He is an easy target for Republicans to cast the Democratic party as all like this raving has-been. So if Dan has a problem with the Democrat's foreign policy, say it, don't repeat Karl Rove's talking points.But my point is that not once do we see a mention of Reagan and his dealings with Iran in Dan's blog, in fact we do not see any mention of any of similar Republican exploits. And of course politics does not happen in a vacuum, it is all relative, Ted Kennedy may steal money, but I don't think that makes him the devil if the other half of the world are killing babies and eating their brains. Which is of course not whats occuring, but I'm using an extreme to make my point. So Dan can profess that Kennedy is a traitor of America, but if every politician is then I don't think I care, and furthermore I think Dan should explain Kennedy's actions in the context of what all politicians are doing.But then the objective thing may be too much to ask for...-Mr. Alec
Alright, that is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.Odd hobby you've got there but if you want to keep track of the comparitive ridiculousness, in your view, of various comments, that's your business. Liberals don't even like Kennedy.Took a poll, did you?He is a spent quantity.Evidently, being a "spent quantity" and promiscuously exercising that critical protection of the minority, the filibuster, are not mutually exclusive. Just because he escaped charges from a scandal...Oh, is that what it is? A scandal? See, I was operating under the naive assumption that manslaughter was a little more consequential then getting caught screwing around on your wife but, hey, what do I know? ^^And there is my point.^^Something you learned from your study of Plato and Thucydides I suppose. But then the objective thing may be too much to ask for...Oh, if only the rest of humanity were as morally elevated and wise as you, Mr. Alec. Alas, we aren't.I believe I'll pull a few ticks out of my scalp, wash 'em down with a couple of Buds, sit down in front of my big screen TV in my double-wide to watch reruns of Wrestlemania while filling out the application for the Jerry Springer show. It's still in production, isn't it?
Well it is good to finally see someone attempt to respond to the content of my arguements, nothing like an actual challenge.Now my responses: 1. On the issue of Kennedy being unpopular: Well lets see, every four years this man floats the idea of running for president, ever four years, the Democratic party (one now under the leadership of Howard Dean mind you) has said god no. Furthermore, when is the last time you heard a liberal laud any of Ted Kennedy's accomplishments. I would say feelings for Ted Kennedy amongst Democrats range from embaressment to ignorance. Nonetheless, I think making an arguement that Ted Kennedy is not a popular leader amongst liberals nationwide is a tenable arguement, but certainly tenable if you include all Democrats in such a poll (alas I attempted to find such a poll but was unsuccesful).2. On the issue of whether Kennedy is a spent quanitity: Now first of all, Ted Kennedy can not achieve anything attempting to filibuster alone, re-read your civics textbook if you think Kennedy has any power in this, infact the Republican party has more power in preventing ANY filibuster than Ted Kennedy does. See there is this thing called cloture that requries 60 votes to stop a filibuster, last time I checked Democrats have no where near 60 seats. 3. Now in terms of actual power Kennedy has: Well he is a very senior senator, which because of the seniority system in the senate, grants him alot of power. But I was not refering to that kind of power when I dismissed him, I was refering to the fact that just because his last name is Kennedy (which was, lets face it, the only credentials he ever had for public office).4. The manslaughter issue: Now whether it was manslaughter or not, I don't give a shit, and nor do you, you would still hate the guy.5. MY ACTUAL POINT: Was that actions of politicians do not happen in a vacuum. I gave you a laundry list of prominent Republicans who have done just as stupid, shady, and immoral things as Ted Kennedy has done. Now as someone who actually is objective in his views and writing, I feel it is a huge lapse to not put Kennedy's actions in the context that they have occured. So you can attempt to avoid the actual weight of my arguement by pretending to be a hill-billy, which in actual circles of debate would be an ommision of my arguement altogther. But I'll give you another chance to respond and perhaps be...constructive.-Mr. Alec
Ted Kennedy is not a spent force as long as he has a vote in the Senate. I am discussing him because he has sworn to defend this country against all enemies, and cooperating with the murderous instrument of a communist government makes him unworthy to hold his seat. If you can find similar cases of Republicans selling their political influence to an "evil empire" I would say that they do not deserve to remain in public office either. So go ahead and dig up all the instances you can find.By the way, if you don't like my website, you don't have to read it -- spend your time on the Objective Dan Blog instead.
I realize I don't have to read your blog, but I know you Dan, and you have probably heard of me (and if not you would not have to ask around for too long to find out), and this blog is my pet project this quarter. We'll see how long I last...-Mr. Alec
I dunno, Dan. I would bring up a few instances of connections bewteen the Bush family and the Saudi royal family becoming apparent, but I know you will throw at me a few Weekly Standard articles about how people like me are "stupid," so I won't bother. You're too "far gone," as your brother once told me.
1. He's a sitting U.S. senator. He could smell like a goat and he'd still be wildly popular among people who prefer some likelihood of accomplishment to the moral purity of the unelected, and uncompromising, idealogue.2. No incumbent is a "spent quatity". They still wield the power of the office which in the case of a U.S. senator is considerable. He represent no less then one percent of the votes of the most powerful representative body on earth. His tenure ensures he has influence over other votes in the Senate.3. The Kennedy franchise may not be what it once was but it still carries considerable weight among older voters. Casually dismissing that legacy is a measure of ignorance of the political scene not of insight.4. Speak for yourself. If you don't give a shit that a public servant, or anyone, may be responsible for a homicide then you'd damned well better assume you're awfully clever because the evidence is sorely lacking.5. Ah, finally. And what is that "actual point"? A fairly ineptly worded attempt at moral relativism.Let me clue you in Mr. Objective.The reason Ted Kennedy has to resort to the filibuster, the reason he can't rubberstamp the judicial appointments of a left-wing Democratic president, is because there's no one alive today who hasn't grown up with the evidence of the failure of the ideaology Senator Kennedy represents. He may have destroyed his chance to become president when he drove off that bridge but he didn't cause the loss of the Democratic majority in the House and Senate. His ideas, or rather, the ideas that he represents, did that.And I wasn't attempting to evade the weight of your arguments. I was mocking your pretentiousness and assumption of intellectual superiority. Would it be safe to assume that the irony of having to explain that is entirely lost on you?
Finally!But first, I just want to comment on this manslaughter issue, because first you claim it was manslaughter, then you claim it was homicide. Now the only reason I dismissed this claim was not because of the weight of his actions which I view as weak and morally wrong, but because I did not want this discussion to become about Chappaquidic (or however the hell you spell that word). So lets see what happened. He was driving a girl home, he was probably drunk, he drove the car off a bridge, he got out of the car, she didn't. He did not rescue her. Now regardless of how "brave" he comes off that is not manslaughter, that is why he was not charged with manslaughter. Read anything on this topic and you'll find out that the "Kennedy Machine" had a number of terrible gaffes in dealing with this issue but still did not get charged. Regardless, driving drunk in the 1970s was not something that was taken seriously (just look at our fine President) and considering no testing could be done to find out whether he had been drunk or not, it is fair to see that issue as one that was not homicide.But I do think the one interesting arguement I made on this issue of his past actions, is that you and Dan as people would still hate Kennedy regardless and I think you prove this point with your last couple of paragraphs, which were very interesting.But first I have to say that I was not attempting to give you an arguement for moral relativism. You can attempt to skew it that way, but my arguement was that I feel Dan should put Ted Kennedy's action into the context of political actions as a whole, so as to prevent a skewing of his readers opinions or thinking that only Democratic senators do stupid shit, because that is not true.But, I think you have one really good arguement:"The reason Ted Kennedy has to resort to the filibuster, the reason he can't rubberstamp the judicial appointments of a left-wing Democratic president, is because there's no one alive today who hasn't grown up with the evidence of the failure of the ideaology Senator Kennedy represents. He may have destroyed his chance to become president when he drove off that bridge but he didn't cause the loss of the Democratic majority in the House and Senate. His ideas, or rather, the ideas that he represents, did that."Now this is exactly my point, and I fear we may agree Allen, because I would be very interested in a well done article on that topic. I may not agree with everything, but it would certainly be something very interesting, but alas, does Dan's post have anything to do with that at all. Does it have to do with any failed ideology or the reasons for the recent demise of the Democratic party? No. It just continues to utilize Kennedy as the Republican's strawman, which certainly does nothing to further the level of discourse.So Allen, lets hope we still have arguements left for when this article on Ted Kennedy is posted.Amicably,Mr. AlecPS I knew you were mocking my arguements for a reason, and I hope you know that I know that I responded like an intellectual jackass for the same reason.
Post a Comment
View my complete profile