Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Senator Ted Kennedy, R.I.P.

dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 6:50:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Greatest U. S. Senator?

On the day after Senator Kennedy's death, I heard a pundit say on TV that "he was perhaps the greatest senator of our time." I took note. I was skeptical.

Comes now Eugene Robinson, a Washington Post columnist:

"The hardest task for an eternal prince is to construct an original identity of which he can be proud -- an identity that allows him to live a life of purpose, meaning and impact. Ted Kennedy accomplished this feat by becoming the greatest senator of our age and serving as the liberal conscience of the nation." Washington Post, 8/28/2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Now Kennedy " is the greatest senator of our age..." I definitely dissent.

Being from Minnesota, I must suggest that Senator Hubert H. Humphrey certainly was a greater senator than was Kennedy. http://en.wikipedia.org... Kennedy had serious moral flaws. Humphrey did not.

Let "our time" mean from 1900 to date. I wish to put these two questions to you:

1. What criteria, in addition to moral character, should be used in evaluating a senator's life and career?

2. Who should be on a list of "great U. S. Senators"?
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 2:48:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If we're measuring it by their work as legislators, clearly. An astonishing amount of bills authored by Kennedy were passed.
I fail to see how Humphrey did not have moral flaws, considering his stance on the Vietnam War in Johnon's administration. I also fail to see how anyone could not have moral flaws.
2. Robert C. Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Everett Dirksen, Robert La Follette, Sr., George McGovern, and Robert Wagner
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 2:49:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 3:16:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 3:07:05 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/29/2009 2:49:12 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks, douche. Neither of us have even knew what that was before you posted the link.

Hello, self-centered retarded bigot, perhaps you should consider that you're not the only one I can talk to.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 5:34:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Regardless of what has occurred in the past, and I think we can all agree that some disturbing things did occur, Ted Kennedy was a model statesman. The rest of the Senate and Congress should take a lesson from a man that committed himself that much to his constituents and his country.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 5:37:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 5:34:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
Regardless of what has occurred in the past, and I think we can all agree that some disturbing things did occur, Ted Kennedy was a model statesman. The rest of the Senate and Congress should take a lesson from a man that committed himself that much to his constituents and his country.

Lolzzz.

He was born into one of the richest families in Massachusetts and didn't have do anything his entire life. He got into Harvard via legacy. He payed another kid to help him cheat... but somehow Teddy didn't get expelled, the other kid did. He then spent the next 46 years in the Senate. He has no idea what normal everyday people go through. He is portrayed as the crusader of the poor and the middle class, yet he has no idea how most of the upper class got there. Most of them are entrepreneurs and businessmen, who Teddy taxed and taxed and taxed. Ted was one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate, also one of the worst.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 5:48:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 5:37:59 PM, Nags wrote:
Lolzzz.

He was born into one of the richest families in Massachusetts and didn't have do anything his entire life. He got into Harvard via legacy. He payed another kid to help him cheat... but somehow Teddy didn't get expelled, the other kid did. He then spent the next 46 years in the Senate. He has no idea what normal everyday people go through. He is portrayed as the crusader of the poor and the middle class, yet he has no idea how most of the upper class got there. Most of them are entrepreneurs and businessmen, who Teddy taxed and taxed and taxed. Ted was one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate, also one of the worst.

Teddy pushed for minimum wage, has fought for public health care access for children, seniors and all citizens, fought for civil rights for homosexuals, blacks, women, handicapped Americans, was an architect of the No Child Left Behind Act, almost all with the help of both parties in the House - the man is a legend, and one that deserves the title, Lion of the Senate.

You're assuming based on his upbringing that he had no real connection with the poor and the working class, his constituency - but the fact is, you have no idea how he connected, why he fought, and for what reason he made these goals a priority in his life. Your partisan rhetoric is against his ideals; my rhetoric is based on the commitment he had to his constituency, his consistency and his belief in the United States, something that all US legislators should have, yet so little do, from either party.

Ted Kennedy was a great man, and he will be remembered as such.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 7:00:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 5:48:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 5:37:59 PM, Nags wrote:
Lolzzz.

He was born into one of the richest families in Massachusetts and didn't have do anything his entire life. He got into Harvard via legacy. He payed another kid to help him cheat... but somehow Teddy didn't get expelled, the other kid did. He then spent the next 46 years in the Senate. He has no idea what normal everyday people go through. He is portrayed as the crusader of the poor and the middle class, yet he has no idea how most of the upper class got there. Most of them are entrepreneurs and businessmen, who Teddy taxed and taxed and taxed. Ted was one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate, also one of the worst.

Teddy pushed for minimum wage,
And that is good how?

has fought for public health care access for children, seniors and all citizens,
And that is good how?

fought for civil rights for homosexuals, blacks, women, handicapped Americans,
What does this mean, this "civil rights" thing?

was an architect of the No Child Left Behind Act, almost all with the help of both parties in the House - the man is a legend, and one that deserves the title, Lion of the Senate.
HAHAHA well doesn't that just fit in nicely? Architect of the NCLB.


You're assuming based on his upbringing that he had no real connection with the poor and the working class, his constituency - but the fact is, you have no idea how he connected, why he fought, and for what reason he made these goals a priority in his life.
That's something I don't particularly understand about some people. Why and when has it ever mattered what the stated purpose of an action is? Does it make someone special? I mean like, people say "I want to help the poor", as if there's actually someone out there in the world that says "Hmm, how should I screw over the poor today?" - and there are no such people (and we're not counting the schizophrenics), IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU SPECIAL. No, what matters is what the actions actually do.

Minimum wage, UHC, NCLB - each of those screw over "the poor". And of course, "the middle class" too. But then again, everything screws over "the middle class".

Your partisan rhetoric is against his ideals;
F his ideals. Not that they're bad, but they're not unique, and I hate it when common items are put up on a pedastal like they're something special. It's like a cult.

my rhetoric is based on the commitment he had to his constituency,
and also to those whom he didn't represent.

his consistency
When the gap between stated intent and actual effect is that big, I'd say he's pretty inconsistent.

and his belief in the United States,
Which is completely worthless, unless you're some kind of patrio- ahem, cult member.

something that all US legislators should have, yet so little do, from either party.
Hmm, well that's interesting. Every single legislator will tell you that they believe in the USA, they have ideals and they are committed to their constituency, and they all can cite their voting record and how it shows it, but you only believe Ted Kennedy. There's probably a fallacy named after this.... but I'm not going to look it up, because I already talked about it. Putting up common shìt on a pedastal.


Ted Kennedy was a great man, and he will be remembered as such.
He was probably full of crap like every other politician, and by definition even more so since he stayed in Congress for so long, but yeah, he's going to be remembered as a great man. The power of propaganda.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 7:09:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 7:00:54 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
That's something I don't particularly understand about some people. Why and when has it ever mattered what the stated purpose of an action is? Does it make someone special? I mean like, people say "I want to help the poor", as if there's actually someone out there in the world that says "Hmm, how should I screw over the poor today?" - and there are no such people (and we're not counting the schizophrenics), IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU SPECIAL. No, what matters is what the actions actually do.

He did the actions that proved the substance behind his words. Whether you agree with the actions he took is irrelevant; he did it the way he believed would be the best way to help these people.

Minimum wage, UHC, NCLB - each of those screw over "the poor". And of course, "the middle class" too. But then again, everything screws over "the middle class".

Opinion.

F his ideals. Not that they're bad, but they're not unique, and I hate it when common items are put up on a pedastal like they're something special. It's like a cult.

You missed the point; the idea is not to attack someone based on the ideals they had, but the look at the actions we can agree on he shared; his commitment to the poor, to the US and to the legislative system shows what has made him stand out among other individuals.

and also to those whom he didn't represent.

Thats true, good point; he fought for everyone. Thanks Rezz.

When the gap between stated intent and actual effect is that big, I'd say he's pretty inconsistent.

Again, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant; I disagree with some of your thoughts and your ideals, I disagree a lot actually, but if you have made a difference in any way, I would respect you and recognize the importance you've made in society, history and for individuals.

Which is completely worthless, unless you're some kind of patrio- ahem, cult member.

Well at least I don't believe blindly in the power of Go- I mean the free market.

Hmm, well that's interesting. Every single legislator will tell you that they believe in the USA, they have ideals and they are committed to their constituency, and they all can cite their voting record and how it shows it, but you only believe Ted Kennedy. There's probably a fallacy named after this.... but I'm not going to look it up, because I already talked about it. Putting up common shìt on a pedastal.

I don't "only believe" Ted Kennedy. I believe in the power of a lot of politicians, and I've noted it by not just their ideals, which are all well and fine, but the actions they take to make those ideals a reality.

He was probably full of crap like every other politician, and by definition even more so since he stayed in Congress for so long, but yeah, he's going to be remembered as a great man. The power of propaganda.

Lol.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 7:25:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 7:09:19 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 7:00:54 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
That's something I don't particularly understand about some people. Why and when has it ever mattered what the stated purpose of an action is? Does it make someone special? I mean like, people say "I want to help the poor", as if there's actually someone out there in the world that says "Hmm, how should I screw over the poor today?" - and there are no such people (and we're not counting the schizophrenics), IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU SPECIAL. No, what matters is what the actions actually do.

He did the actions that proved the substance behind his words. Whether you agree with the actions he took is irrelevant; he did it the way he believed would be the best way to help these people.
Which in the end, does not refute what I said at all.


Minimum wage, UHC, NCLB - each of those screw over "the poor". And of course, "the middle class" too. But then again, everything screws over "the middle class".

Opinion.
Why yes, it is an opinion. Just as "stealing is bad" or "having more purchasing power is good" is an opinion. But it's a valid opinion backed up by facts and statistics. And that's what counts.

F his ideals. Not that they're bad, but they're not unique, and I hate it when common items are put up on a pedastal like they're something special. It's like a cult.

You missed the point; the idea is not to attack someone based on the ideals they had, but the look at the actions we can agree on he shared; his commitment to the poor, to the US and to the legislative system shows what has made him stand out among other individuals.

The idea is not to attack someone based on the ideals they
Wait a minute. Why are you telling me how to attack what I don't like? Whatever, let's see where this goes.

The idea is not to attack someone based on the ideals they had
okay, that is fine, I agree with that
but [to?] look at the actions we can agree on he shared
Actions aren't a matter of opinion. They either happened or they didn't.
his commitment to the poor, to the US and to the legislative system shows what has made him stand out among other individuals.
If I can't attack his ideals, as in, I can't use them to show why he's bad, then you can't use them to show why he's good. Simple. But you do. So I say what I said earlier: F his ideals.

and also to those whom he didn't represent.

Thats true, good point; he fought for everyone. Thanks Rezz.
No problem, anytime.

When the gap between stated intent and actual effect is that big, I'd say he's pretty inconsistent.

Again, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant; I disagree with some of your thoughts and your ideals, I disagree a lot actually, but if you have made a difference in any way, I would respect you and recognize the importance you've made in society, history and for individuals.
That's weird. I don't understand how that works. This is kind of connected to the first part of what you quoted. You say that attacking peoples' ideals are not the way to go, and the effects of actions are opinions, but when you put those together, what you're saying is: as long as X is well intentioned, as long as X gives a good effort and does take actions towards their ideals, then X is a great person.

I don't understand how that works.

Which is completely worthless, unless you're some kind of patrio- ahem, cult member.

Well at least I don't believe blindly in the power of Go- I mean the free market.
Kind of like saying "At least I don't believe in the theory of evolution".

Hmm, well that's interesting. Every single legislator will tell you that they believe in the USA, they have ideals and they are committed to their constituency, and they all can cite their voting record and how it shows it, but you only believe Ted Kennedy. There's probably a fallacy named after this.... but I'm not going to look it up, because I already talked about it. Putting up common shìt on a pedastal.

I don't "only believe" Ted Kennedy. I believe in the power of a lot of politicians, and I've noted it by not just their ideals, which are all well and fine, but the actions they take to make those ideals a reality.
I'm pretty sure if you asked, each and every legislator could tell you how he or she took actions to make those ideals a reality.

He was probably full of crap like every other politician, and by definition even more so since he stayed in Congress for so long, but yeah, he's going to be remembered as a great man. The power of propaganda.

Lol.
"It would be funny if it weren't so fùcking tragic." - TheAmazingAtheist
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 7:40:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 7:25:01 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Which in the end, does not refute what I said at all.

Nothing there to refute.

Why yes, it is an opinion. Just as "stealing is bad" or "having more purchasing power is good" is an opinion. But it's a valid opinion backed up by facts and statistics. And that's what counts.

Which is great; I'm very happy for you. Crank out those facts and statistics. But this isn't about his policies, it isn't about what you think of the actions he took; the fact he took them, brought it upon himself to take on the cause of these people - right or wrong - is what is important in this.

Wait a minute. Why are you telling me how to attack what I don't like? Whatever, let's see where this goes.

The point I'm trying to make is that this man showed commitment to his ideals, backed up by actions to prove it. I know you don't like the state, but you have to admire the commitment, the substance and the passion for which this man had.

I mean, if your movement had someone that committed, who knows what could be achieved.

That's weird. I don't understand how that works. This is kind of connected to the first part of what you quoted. You say that attacking peoples' ideals are not the way to go, and the effects of actions are opinions, but when you put those together, what you're saying is: as long as X is well intentioned, as long as X gives a good effort and does take actions towards their ideals, then X is a great person.

I don't understand how that works.

It isn't the ideals that are important; it is the commitment to them that is important. The substance this man put behind his ideals through his actions is admirable and important to follow, because it is that kind of commitment to substance that lets anyone with any kind of ideals move them forward.

It is basically; if X has substance behind their commitment, regardless of X's ideals, X is a great person.

I'm pretty sure if you asked, each and every legislator could tell you how he or she took actions to make those ideals a reality.

I know several politicians, and I know the crap they can spout; I don't take it at face value. I look at the commitment they have to those ideals, and whether or not they'll actually do what they say.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 8:00:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 7:40:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 7:25:01 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
That's weird. I don't understand how that works. This is kind of connected to the first part of what you quoted. You say that attacking peoples' ideals are not the way to go, and the effects of actions are opinions, but when you put those together, what you're saying is: as long as X is well intentioned, as long as X gives a good effort and does take actions towards their ideals, then X is a great person.

I don't understand how that works.

It isn't the ideals that are important; it is the commitment to them that is important. The substance this man put behind his ideals through his actions is admirable and important to follow, because it is that kind of commitment to substance that lets anyone with any kind of ideals move them forward.

It is basically; if X has substance behind their commitment, regardless of X's ideals, X is a great person.

So I did get it right.

And yes, I agree to some extent - though I wouldn't use the word "great" to describe such a person. Respectable, sure. But not politicians. If it's just random people off the street or the common person that spends time and devotes their energy to a cause, yeah, I'd respect them too, regardless of the ideal.

Except if that ideal affects me in a negative way. Or if they use horrible means.

I mean like - hmm. Yes, Hitler was a great man, yes, Stalin was a great man, yes, the Popes are great men, yes, the presidents are great men, but like, I have this separate category after the commitment to ideals thing. I'm not sure how to describe it.

It's like, I don't necessarily respect a high school liberal that just sits around complaining and not doing anything, more than I respect Hitler.

There's the layer of categories of people who are committed and not committed, and then there's the layer of categories of the committed whose actions are consistent with their stated intent.

Does that make sense?

By your definition of great, yes, I agree, Ted Kennedy was a great man.

But by my definition, which I think is what most people use, Ted Kennedy was not a great man. People don't call Hitler a great man, they call him Hitler - hell, he has his own logical fallacy based on the negative connotations his name has accrued. Hitler's a great man, sure. But he's not great in the common usage sense of the word.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 8:03:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 8:00:47 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
By your definition of great, yes, I agree, Ted Kennedy was a great man.

Well that makes sense, and that is what I mean. Personally I think Teddy was great both for his ideals and his commitment, but I wanted to keep the former out of it if I could.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 8:12:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 8:03:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 8:00:47 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
By your definition of great, yes, I agree, Ted Kennedy was a great man.

Well that makes sense, and that is what I mean. Personally I think Teddy was great both for his ideals and his commitment, but I wanted to keep the former out of it if I could.

Teddy was a great [extemely liberal] Democratic Senator... if you are a liberal Democrat. But, if you're not, than Teddy was not good at all.

I wouldn't call him a good politician or legislator either, which I think is your other point.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 8:13:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 8:12:12 PM, Nags wrote:
I wouldn't call him a good politician or legislator either, which I think is your other point.

Why not? I'm just curious as to why you don't think he was a good politician; he was bipartisan, committed and actually got things done. I wish I had that kind of quality in a PM.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 8:34:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 8:13:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 8:12:12 PM, Nags wrote:
I wouldn't call him a good politician or legislator either, which I think is your other point.

Why not? I'm just curious as to why you don't think he was a good politician; he was bipartisan, committed and actually got things done. I wish I had that kind of quality in a PM.

This article: (http://newsbusters.org...) does a decent job at explaining my position.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 8:49:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 8:34:54 PM, Nags wrote:
This article: (http://newsbusters.org...) does a decent job at explaining my position.

"Senator Kennedy was smart enough and pragmatic enough to reach across the aisle to get deals done - but only to the degree that they advanced his agenda."

That one line destroyed the entire argument for me. It is almost as if they're missing the point - well no duh, this defines the point of a legislator.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:02:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 8:49:19 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 8:34:54 PM, Nags wrote:
This article: (http://newsbusters.org...) does a decent job at explaining my position.

"Senator Kennedy was smart enough and pragmatic enough to reach across the aisle to get deals done - but only to the degree that they advanced his agenda."

That one line destroyed the entire argument for me. It is almost as if they're missing the point - well no duh, this defines the point of a legislator.

No...

They are saying he only reached across the aisle to advance liberal causes, not conservative.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:04:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 9:02:17 PM, Nags wrote:
No...

They are saying he only reached across the aisle to advance liberal causes, not conservative.

I know, but that is the point of a legislator. He remained committed to his liberal ideals, and he got deals done with conservatives in order to pursue them. He was, by definition, a very good legislator. That is what you do, you know; you pursue your agenda, and if you can get the opposing ideology to co-operate with you on it, you're a damn good legislator.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:06:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 8:58:40 PM, JBlake wrote:
I always come in too late for the good discussions.
Which one are you referring to?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:07:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 9:04:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 9:02:17 PM, Nags wrote:
No...

They are saying he only reached across the aisle to advance liberal causes, not conservative.

I know, but that is the point of a legislator. He remained committed to his liberal ideals, and he got deals done with conservatives in order to pursue them. He was, by definition, a very good legislator. That is what you do, you know; you pursue your agenda, and if you can get the opposing ideology to co-operate with you on it, you're a damn good legislator.

You're missing the point.

He wouldn't reach across aisle to help conservatives. Take, for example, the GOP wanted a tax cut for the top 5%. Instead of Kennedy saying you're only getting 2 or 3% of that. He would just say no.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:08:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 9:02:17 PM, Nags wrote:
They are saying he only reached across the aisle to advance liberal causes, not conservative.

Wouldn't that re0inforce the idea that he was an effective legislator? He stood up for what he believed in, advanced causes that he believed in.

Don't conservatives have a pejorative for peope willing to compromise their ideals for political expediency? (flip-flop). You would denounce him no matter what, just because he was a liberal.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:09:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 9:07:32 PM, Nags wrote:
You're missing the point.

He wouldn't reach across aisle to help conservatives. Take, for example, the GOP wanted a tax cut for the top 5%. Instead of Kennedy saying you're only getting 2 or 3% of that. He would just say no.

Why would he reach across the aisle to help conservatives with their ideas? Because he was very altruistic? That would defeat the point of what he was trying to do. That is really silly.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:09:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 9:07:32 PM, Nags wrote:

He wouldn't reach across aisle to help conservatives. Take, for example, the GOP wanted a tax cut for the top 5%. Instead of Kennedy saying you're only getting 2 or 3% of that. He would just say no.

He isn't missing the point at all. That is exactly what Volkov is saying. Kennedy did not believe in "trickle down economics" and would be unlikely to help conservatives give tax cuts to the top 5%. How is that bad?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:22:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 9:09:40 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/29/2009 9:07:32 PM, Nags wrote:

He wouldn't reach across aisle to help conservatives. Take, for example, the GOP wanted a tax cut for the top 5%. Instead of Kennedy saying you're only getting 2 or 3% of that. He would just say no.

He isn't missing the point at all. That is exactly what Volkov is saying. Kennedy did not believe in "trickle down economics" and would be unlikely to help conservatives give tax cuts to the top 5%. How is that bad?

Because he was only bipartisan when it helped him. If a GOP Senator wanted to reach across the aisle to him, he would strike him down.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:27:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 9:22:31 PM, Nags wrote:
Because he was only bipartisan when it helped him. If a GOP Senator wanted to reach across the aisle to him, he would strike him down.

Lol? What is your point? That is the entire idea behind being a legislator; you do things to advance your agenda for your constituents. You don't help people just because it is the "right thing to do;" you help others when it will suit your goals.

If a GOP senator came to Kennedy with a proposal that seemed reasonable and would benefit Kennedy's own agenda, for example if he agreed to vote on one bill, the GOP senator would vote on a bill of Kennedy's, then Kennedy would have be gung-ho I'm sure.

But just because he was biased doesn't make him a bad legislator; the fact that he got things done, whatever those things may have been, is the point. He was a political strategist, and the most effective one in the Senate - that takes skill, and a f*ck of a lot of patience.

Politics is a competitive game; you co-operate when it will help you, not when it won't.