Healthcare, History and Kennedy

I was writing this column when I heard of Senator Kennedy's death.

I am heartbroken.

For more than five decades, my father William vanden Heuvel was a close friend and political ally of Kennedy's. When I called him this morning he had been weeping. He'd just seen the footage on CNN of Kennedy's extraordinarily emotional visit to Ireland, one year after his brother John's assassination. My father traveled with Kennedy on that trip, as he would on many others in the years to follow. He also shared memories of sailing trips on the coast of Maine, and the good times, and tough times, and the campaigns waged and won.

My father told me he was supposed to be on the small plane that crashed and nearly killed Kennedy in 1964; but what with Bobby running for the New York Senate that year, my father went to campaign for Teddy's older brother. He spent the next year shuttling to the Massachusetts hospital to visit Teddy, who was strapped down on a gurney to avoid paralysis.

My father wrote many speeches for Kennedy, and informed many others, including the eloquent and impassioned statements Kennedy made opposing the war in Iraq. Vietnam was never far from Kennedy's mind or the memories of those -- like my father -- who had served in President Kennedy's administration and watched Lyndon Johnson's Great Society destroyed.

When Kennedy was deciding whether to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president, he took counsel with friends and advisers, including my father.

Senator Kennedy was a fighting liberal; a passionate and exuberant lion to the very end -- often among timid cubs. He will be remembered as the best and most effective Senator of the last century. Kennedy helped shape every major piece of legislation, with his powerful commitment to civil rights, labor rights, and women's rights -- always fighting for equality, always standing with the underdog, the poor, the most vulnerable, who he believed deserved lives of dignity.

Kennedy's final fight was for quality, affordable healthcare for all. As recently as July, he called that fight "the cause of my life." In the coming months, President Obama and a Democratic Congress will determine whether that cause is realized.

Whatever one thinks of President Obama's presidency so far, he is one of the few reform presidents in modern history -- a potential Senator Kennedy recognized when he endorsed his candidacy. A reform President takes on the status quo in order to improve the lives of the majority and ensure that America lives up to it's potential and promise. Franklin Roosevelt was the very model of a reform President. Lyndon Johnson, in a sense, was pushed to become a reformer by the turbulence of the times.

When a reform President takes on the status quo he confronts a ferocious, well-organized, reactionary opposition. What we're seeing today -- with rightwing groups comparing Obama to Hitler and healthcare reform to socialism--Roosevelt faced with the American Liberty League calling him a socialist or a fascist (ironic, since it was Roosevelt who led the US into war against fascism). Like Obama, Roosevelt also confronted well-funded business lobbies. And in the Catholic demagogue Father Coughlin, Roosevelt had his Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck in a Roman collar.

As Congressman Keith Ellison -- Vice Chair of the Progressive Caucus -- notes in a recent post, "The special interests and protectors of the status quo acted worse when America was on the brink of passing Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation. They spread lies and fear when America was contemplating women's suffrage too."

The rabid protestors opposing Obama are representatives of a long national tradition: an irrational fear of a strong central government. Obama has found it more difficult to turn away from the contemporary edition of the fanatical right than his reform predecessors, partly because conservative ideology has been in the saddle for three decades and the recession began too late in the Bush administration to sufficiently discredit its free-market fundamentalism and those who still speak on its behalf.

Obama himself acknowledged parallels between now and previous battles for reform when speaking to a coalition of religious leaders on August 20. He said, "These struggles always boil down to a contest between hope and fear. That was true in the debate over social security, when FDR was accused of being a socialist. That was true when LBJ tried to pass Medicare. And it's true in this debate today."

Indeed those words might be a valuable frame for a presidential speech after Labor Day, as Obama returns to presenting and--one hopes-- truly fighting for his healthcare agenda. Obama would be wise to place his agenda in the tradition of reform in US history -- especially the two most popular programs in modern history, Social Security and Medicare -- which were staunchly opposed by the GOP.

The President, his congressional allies, and millions of Americans should also be inspired to honor and fight for the cause of Senator Kennedy's life. Surely the President recognizes that the Senate's fighting liberal would not place the fate of affordable health insurance back in the hands of the private sector without a viable public alternative that isn't driven by profit or greed.

This country now has the best opportunity since 1912 -- when Theodore Roosevelt included universal healthcare in his progressive party platform -- to pass real healthcare reform and fulfill a moral imperative. A bill with a strong public option would be a victory not only for progressives but for all those who seek a healthier, more humane country where healthcare is a right not a commodity.

One has to question the value of bipartisanship at this moment. This is not a Republican Party out to criticize or modify healthcare reform. This is a party out to cripple or kill reform, and with it the future of Obama's presidency. It's high time to part ways with the Party of No-- which once opposed Medicare and Social Security and is now committed to fearmongering about government takeovers and socialism coming to America.

Democrats must pass a strong reform bill by any means necessary (and Congressman Ellison makes a strong case here for using reconciliation to avoid a GOP filibuster). If the Republicans defeat it, let them explain themselves in the 2010 midterm elections to voters who remain at the mercy of insurance companies. If, on the other hand, Dems choose to enact a bipartisan sham reform bill instead of seizing this moment when they are in charge, they will shoulder the blame and see ugly results come 2010.

Every President, no matter how popular at the outset, has only so much political capital and must use it wisely and strategically. And if one looks at American political history--as Mike Lux explains in his valuable book The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be -- every so often a window to change opens and the combination of crisis, leadership, and political movement makes big, positive reforms possible.

"That window is open right now," Lux writes, "and President Obama, to his credit, is trying to keep it open" to make changes that will make our nation immeasurably stronger. But if he gives up this fight and caves to lobbyists -- or either the Congressional Democrats or the grassroots fails to deliver the support he needs -- then that window will slam shut, and the next opportunity for reform might not come for another generation.

That would be a real tragedy -- and also no way to honor the Lion of the Senate. Today President Obama said, "The Kennedy name is synonymous with the Democratic Party." Now, for this fight, the Democratic Party must become synonymous with Kennedy.

Comments (244)

1. Sen. Kennedy's struggled mightily to achieve quality, affordable healthcare for all. In the coming months, President Obama and a Democratic Congress will determine whether that cause is realized. *************************************************************

   No, they won't. Ultimately public opinion and public support with determine what, if any, reforms will be implemented.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 5:24pm

2. Without Senator Kennedy, that chamber will increasingly shelter the hidebound prevaricators who serve the lobbyists & the status quo.

   Who will step up? Who will try to emulate a great man? Who will labor for the common citizen?

   Posted by Sorelish at 08/26/2009 @ 5:35pm

3. Read this. It's about the public. (I thought about this when KVH launched into another diatribe about "the party of no".)

   http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/health-care-debate- democrats-opinions-columnists-dan-gerstein.html

   Democrats are grieving through grievance. They're lashing out at friends and foes alike, blaming everyone from Sarah Palin to the nutty Nazi lady from Barney Frank's town hall to President Obama for sabotaging the best opportunity in a generation to realize the liberal dream of universal health care. Everyone, that is, except themselves, the people who controlled Congress, set the agenda, wrote the legislation and developed the strategy for pushing it.

   Consider it a case of admittance avoidance. Our party and the liberal activists who drive it can't stomach the fact that we are blowing this debate. So they have manufactured a convenient, simplistic narrative of villains and victims, where right-wing extremists and special interests are conspiring to stop progress through a cynical fear-mongering misinformation campaign...

   But much as the Republicans have gamed the issue, the reality is that the first and worst deception was the Democrats' own. Step back for a second, listen to what the non-screaming skeptics are saying, and it's clear the party severely overestimated its mandate and underestimated the public's growing unease with the government's massive growth over the last year. What would have been a hard sell in any environment has turned into an epic challenge. Yet the Democrats have been charging ahead as if it's still November 2008, oblivious to the dramatic change in the electorate's mood.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 5:36pm

4. The majority of voters dont want the type of health care reform that the liberals are proposing . If congress ignores the voters which it seems that Katrina is pleading with them to do , then she will get a first hand view of democracy in action when the liberals will be voted out of office , just as the Framers intended .

   Posted by limoman at 08/26/2009 @ 5:42pm

5. <When a reform President takes on the status quo he confronts a ferocious, well-organized, reactionary opposition.

   The rabid protestors opposing Obama are representatives of a long national tradition: an irrational fear of a strong central government.>

   I've come to expect the usual demagoguery from you Katrina when it comes to those of us who believe in constitutional government.

   Even in Senator Kennedy's death, you cannot resist labelling those who believe in maintaining a govt that abides by the constitution as reactionaries and irrational.

   Was Madison a reactionary and irrational. Was Jefferson a reactionary and irrational?

   Was Paine a reactionary and irrational?

   Were their warnings about a large central govt that would grow beyond the limits placed upon it irrational? Were their warnings about a govt that could seize the fruit of another man's labor reactionary?

   You may cotinue to demagogue, but we will continue to voice our inalienable right to protest the power grab that you and others wish to impose upon the citizenry of this grand republic.

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:50pm

6. What is sobering to consider is that we're just getting started on the progressive agenda. All of the drama around health care is just the beginning of years just like 2009. Whatever the outcome on HCR, we have CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) just ahead. Cap-and-Trade will rise from the dead in the Senate. Next year, the jobless recovery will require an expansion of the safety net, requiring a massive overhaul of the tax structure. Look for the House to push for Comprehensive Retirement Reform based on that idea from the Professor-from-somewhere to confiscate 401k's and IRA's and use this to supplement social security. Redistricting in 2011 based on the 2010 census which will count illegal immigrants based on statistical sampling. The new version of the Fairness Doctrine will emerge. And that's just the beginning!

   Posted by sntauri at 08/26/2009 @ 5:55pm

7. Posted by sntauri at 08/26/2009 @ 5:55pm

   For anyone who believes in the constitution and liberty, it is a frightening agenda that the left envisions in dismantling the 222 yr old republic.

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 6:08pm

8. Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   You are so full of bull it is ridiculous.

   Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 6:23pm

9. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET, AND WIPE OUT THE NATIONAL DEBT IN ABOUT 20 YEARS? * Let's see now if you do indeed want a positive money flow in our City, County, State, and Federal Government Coffers. *HEALTH CARE FOR ALL, FULLY PAID FOR BY SIN-TAX, WOULD INDEED DO THAT! 1. Eliminate Insurance Company provided Health Care ASAP! 2. Establish a Single Payer Universal Health Care modeled after the Israel System! All medical disciplines, including Eye and Dental must be fully covered including Pharmaceuticals, and Administered as HMO's through each of all Hospitals in the U.S.A... 3. Remove all Government Health Care, including the HHS Dept. Budget from the Federal Budget. * 4. Move all Government Health Care to the HHS Department. Fund the HHS Dept. Only with Sin Tax (Various Controlled Goods and Services). * 5. Legalize Cannabis Hemp (Marijuana) Production and sale. * 6. All taxes collected on controlled goods and services, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Hemp, & etc., sent directly to the HHS Dept. for Health Care coverage for all. Only Federal Tax on Sin Tax Items, No State Tax on these Items! 7. There would be huge savings in Health Care, Police, Legal, and Incarceration cost in every City, County, State, and the Federal Government of the U.S.A.! These savings would more than offset the loss of Tax of these Items!

   Posted by Oneparsec at 08/26/2009 @ 6:26pm

10. Posted by sntauri at 08/26/2009 @ 5:55pm

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 6:08pm

    This is rather long, but I think you two will rather enjoy it as a description of what went wrong. **************************************************************

    http://city-journal.org/2009/19_3_work-ethic.html

    Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic?

    The financial bust reminds us that free markets require a constellation of moral virtues. **************************************************************

    If you don't have time to read it here are the Cliff's notes:

    It was those hippies in the 1960s.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 6:35pm

11. You may cotinue to demagogue, but we will continue to voice our inalienable right to protest the power grab that you and others wish to impose upon the citizenry of this grand republic.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yeah, right....Bush and Cheney cared nothing about power. You are ignored!!

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/26/2009 @ 6:35pm

12. Posted by jarshadow at 08/26/2009 @ 6:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    That guy is so full of bullshit it is spectacular. Truly an amazing person.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 7:09pm

13. Bush certainly was!

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/26/2009 @ 7:22pm

14. Ultimately public opinion and public support with determine what, if any, reforms will be implemented.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 5:24pm

    wow.

    what planet do you live on?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 7:27pm

15. Early victim of the Kennedy (one man) death panel:

    Mary Jo Kopechne

    Posted by bleedingheart at 08/26/2009 @ 7:40pm

16. And the Obama admin keeps digging us deeper into a hole.

    <As the White House released its budget update, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a similar report Tuesday, confirming the administration's projection that this year's deficit will soar to nearly $1.6 trillion, about 11.2 percent of the overall economy and more than triple last year's deficit of $459 billion>

    And what was Obama and the left saying about Bush giving them a 1.3 trillion deficit. Now they admit it was 459 billion.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:51pm

17. AARP Poll: 8 in 10 Back Public Option

    A new survey commissioned by the AARP asks respondents to what degree they support or oppose "[s]tarting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them" -- a public option, in other words. The results are interesting, though not necessarily surprising to those who have been closely following the debate.

    All: 79 percent favor/18 percent oppose

    Democrats: 89 percent favor/8 percent oppose

    Republicans: 61 percent favor/33 percent oppose

    Independents: 80 percent favor/16 percent oppose

    Not only does a public option enjoy strong support (AARP finds 37 percent strongly supporting such a choice), it enjoys broad support -- a finding based not only in this new survey but also in SurveyUSA polling released last week. Indeed, a supermajority of even Republicans supports a federal program to provide individuals with a choice for their health insurance coverage, with just a third of the party membership opposing such a plan.

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/8/26/131840/361

    Consistent with several recent polls: all in the hgih 70s percent in favor of the public option.

    Despiet wingnut claims to the oppostite

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/26/2009 @ 7:57pm

18. Posted by judybrowni at 08/26/2009 @ 7:57pm

    That is a good cut&paste Judy. Now, what do YOU think that the people who answered "favor" would do if the next question was, "Now, explain your understanding of what is in the federal plan"?

    Posted by sntauri at 08/26/2009 @ 8:02pm

19. What's interesting is that, in the end, Ted accomplished more in his life, than his better known deified brothers (and screw you, trolls):

    "Ted Kennedy, however, gets labeled a drunken philanderer, despite having spent the past forty years pushing through every piece of progressive legislation that really mattered.

    The 1965 immigration reforms, the post-watergate campaign finance reforms, COBRA, ADA, Family and Medical Leave, SCHIP: you name it, he helped pass it.

    He almost single-handedly saved us from Associate Justice Robert Bork, was perhaps the first major national Democrat to support marriage equality, and had the balls to call for a nuclear freeze and oppose the invasion of Iraq when few others did. But, you know, there was that Chappaquiddick thing, so screw him.

    ...But damned if he didn't do more to improve the lives of America's poor than anyone else in government. And damned if most of the too-few positive aspects of our nation's health care system can't be laid squarely at his feet."

    http://tinyurl.com/lmhhhd

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/26/2009 @ 8:02pm

20. And what was Obama and the left saying about Bush giving them a 1.3 trillion deficit. Now they admit it was 459 billion.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:51pm

    don't you see it's more of the same?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 8:15pm

21. well, not exactly more of the same:

    http://www.gregpalast.com/expert-fired-who-warned-levees-would-burst/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 8:31pm

22. "I believe that this Administration is indeed leading this country to a perilous place. It has broken faith with the American people, aided and abetted by a Congressional majority willing to pursue ideology at any price, even the price of distorting the truth. On issue after issue, they have moved brazenly to impose their agenda on America and on the world. They have pursued their goals at the expense of urgent national and human needs and at the expense of the truth. America deserves better.

    The Administration and the majority in Congress have put the state of our union at risk, and they do not deserve another term in the White House or in control of Congress."

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5530.htm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 8:35pm

23. Ms. KvH, I am sorry you are heartbroken with the passing of Teddy and given the depth of relationship between the vHs and TK, I can empathize....the parents of Boomers are now passing on with accelerating frequency now.

    I will bite my tongue somewhat and make just one factual comment on Teddy......

    His move just days ago, proposing the reversion of having the MA governor, now a Democrat, appoint a Senator in the event of his stepping down (or dying as it turns out), is the appropriate final memory for those of us NOT enthralled with hypocrisy in high places!

    As Rush said today, agreeing with some caller, that Teddy was in fact a "lion" who preyed on tax-paying Americans....and his liberalism gave him a license to do whatever he wanted and to do harm to whomever he chose including Robert Bork and a long-deceased young woman.

    Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 8:42pm

24. Happy-Neither you nor Rush care about the dead woman and Rush got lucky he did not kill anyone under the influence of narcotics.Rush is a rich guy who could and would use that to get out of trouble as would you.I have no doubt that you have driven drunk as has Rush.It is Rush and you who are hypocrites.Ask Rush to give you your brain back.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 8:53pm

25. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 6:35pm |

    More like it was "those Wall St assholes"...

    <The corporate restructurings of the 1980s, prompted by a new generation of risk-taking entrepreneurs and takeover artists who used aggressive financial instruments with provocative names like "junk bonds" to buy and then make over big companies that failed to remake themselves, reordered corporate America, shaking it out of its 1970s complacency. But the plant closings, downsizings, and restructurings of the 1980s also stoked anxiety among workers, as the old ideal of lifetime employment at one paternalistic company gave way to a job-hopping career in a constantly changing business landscape. While the results were often salutary--innovation for companies and income gains for the most talented players--the "get it while you can" mentality that developed among some workers and investors found its ultimate expression in the "day traders" of the technology stock boom, speculators with a "right now" time horizon rather than long-term investors.>

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/26/2009 @ 9:00pm

26. Posted by snowball777 at 08/26/2009 @ 9:00pm

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/158286-analyzing- strange-volume-on-the-nyse

    and the band played on.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 9:03pm

27. We are diminished.

    However, 77 is a wonderfully long life, for anyone.

    Be glad for him. He would despise you being sad.

    Posted by Benchrest at 08/26/2009 @ 9:10pm

28. The Dead Kennedys. Goodbye Ted. Too bad you didn't get to say one last goodbye to Mary Jo Koepeckne on your way to hell.

    Posted by apoorspic at 08/26/2009 @ 9:19pm

29. Awesome*-Cartoon-Explains-Public-Plan

    For the wingnuts:

    http://tinyurl.com/l5eoya

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/26/2009 @ 9:28pm

30. Okay, enough yammering away, time to take some action on healthcare.

    If you don't want to do it for yourself, or your family, do it for Teddy Kennedy:

    http://tinyurl.com/mupx6o

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/26/2009 @ 9:33pm

31. Awesome*-Cartoon-Explains-Public-Plan

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/26/2009 @ 9:28pm

    Gosh Judy, like cool! The stick figures are really neat!

    Maybe you can get them to do a follow up, kind of like, "Now boys and girls, here's how HR3200 does all the nice stuff we told you about in our previous cartoon"! Wouldn't that be special?

    Posted by sntauri at 08/26/2009 @ 9:43pm

32. lets hope we pass a healthcare bill with a public option for the liberal lion and for the country. time for people to stand up and bitch about obstructionist insurance industry stooges in the house and senate.

    the sooner we institute a good public option the sooner we will purge ourselves forever of the parasitical for profit health scam.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 9:52pm

33. It is Rush and you who are hypocrites.Ask Rush to give you your brain back.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 8:53pm

    We have all been hypocrites at one time or another and I have no problem admitting such. One almost has to if one has been a child or, later as parents.

    That said, neither I or Rush, have (yet) directly caused the death of some stranger much less someone who worked for us.

    Your taking wild swings at Rush and I, in defense of TK, shows us that in fact, you're pretty blue.

    It isn't PC to say it, but since I am the least PC of the bunch here, I'll say it: I am NOT sorry to see TK leave the `scene'.....in fact, I am borderline HAPPY. He should have retired some time ago instead of `clinging' to high office until death.

    Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 9:57pm

34. Happy-Actually,nothing I said shows that I'm pretty blue and that part of your response showed a lack of that brilliance you claim to have.Ones political views are not determined by whether or not one defends Kennedy, anyway.Ones place in the political spectrum is determined by the totality of ones views and not just on one thing.A person as brilliant as yourself should not have needed my dummy C student self to tell you that.I was not defending Kennedy and even if I was that would not make me blue because I would say the same thing about any drunk driver who caused harm.There,but for the grace of God go I considering my over thirty year history of pill and alcohol abuse.The fact that neither you nor Rush harmed anyone when he popped pills or you got drunk,like you said you used to do,is because of luck and not because you are better than Kennedy.You are the same.You,like me,risked others lives when drinking or popping oxycotin,like Rush and myself.Every person who has ever driven intoxicated is no better than or different from Kennedy because no drunk driver knows what they would have done in that situation and all have risked others lives..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 10:13pm

35. Happy-By the way.I'm not a Kennedy fan or the fan of any of the wealthy and powerful families.Existing to make that kind of money and to get that much power is not something I'm into.I very much like being Nobody who has few material goods..I married into one of those families with my fourth regular wife and dumped her and the money for a poor girl who lived in a single wide.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 10:26pm

36. First of all, I wish great condolences on the Kennedy family. Though I'm not sure what to think about the Chappaquidick incident (i.e., what state he was in, whether he repented privately for it, etc.), I've been told that I should not judge lest I also be judged. I also think he deserves a great deal of credit for being one of a few Senators willing to reach across the aisle and make both friendships and compromises with Senators of the opposite party. Though I am still displeased about the multiple outright lies he spread about Judge Bork, I still admire the conviction and courage with which he approached legislative efforts.

    RIP, good sir.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 10:28pm

37. The fact that neither you nor Rush harmed anyone....is because of luck and not because you are better than Kennedy.You are the same.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 10:13pm

    You can't be serious! Had I or Rush killed somebody (we may have fucked but not married to) doing whatever `substance', you think we can get away with calling the incident in some 10 hours later?

    "the same"? You, sir, is out of your mind! On the other hand, if you hold that each of us is allowed one deadly indiscretion, with no major repercussions other than giving up any POTUS ambitions, then maybe you're not (out of your mind).

    Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 10:48pm

38. I also think he deserves a great deal of credit for being one of a few Senators willing to reach across the aisle and make both friendships and compromises with Senators of the opposite party.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 10:28pm

    For that, yes, on the job he was elected to do, he deserves certain credit.

    But, given his tenure in the Senate, longer than most bloggers here have been alive and longer than my adulthood, that has to be expected, just as is the case w/McCain....they are expected to be the elder statesman who can chill the hotheads and actually get things done.

    Fact is, few Senators that last just one or two terms, amounted to much. Look at Magic, not a f*&king thing of note except trying to spread other Senator's `wealth' to himself.

    Any person of some competence, ought to be able to chalk up some successes in 40+ years doing the same f*&king thing and knew damn near every career Gubbers in DC.

    There is way too much hero-worship in the US.

    It's like Magic....hell, give me a month of coaching and some damn good speechwriter, I can Hopey and Changey my way into turning most of you into fevered Capitalists!

    Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 10:57pm

39. Happy-In what way is drinking and driving different from drinking and driving?Would the person be less dead if you or Rush killed them?Of course you are the same since you risked others lives.You mean that no poorer drunk driver has ever fled the scene and gotten away with it?I know for a fact that poorer drunks have killed,fled the scene,got caught, and got no time in jail.Drunk driving vehicular manslaughter is a crime that many get away with or get very little punishment.While money certainly helps in such situations it is not required because the judge,prosecutor,cops,etc probably have driven drunk,too.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 11:05pm

40. Kennedy dies and now arrogant elitist like KVH, the Obamanation and the Demoncrats expect the American citizens whom THEY despise, disrespect, and arrogantly belittle are supposed to rollover and approve of the Demoncrat healthcare POWERGRAB!

    Some fools might go along, but they are fewer than they think!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/26/2009 @ 11:08pm

41. bigpasture-Since both sides despise American citizens,according to each side, I guess us fence sitters are the only ones left who like anyone.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 11:11pm

42. GREAT LETTER:

    Metteyya -- Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts. His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education's promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me. In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy. I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom. His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history...

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/26/2009 @ 11:12pm

43. touched so many lives. For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today -- to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family. Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still.

    Sincerely,

    President Barack Obama

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/26/2009 @ 11:12pm

44. 40 years and a couple of months after Mary Jo died she finally recieves justice! Funny how none of the national liberal media would report or remember that in July of 1969? Not a WORD was spoken by them all month????

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/26/2009 @ 11:41pm

45. bigpasture-Funny how you guys never mention all the other victims of drunk drivers who get away with it and only care about Mary Jo because of partisan politics.Had she died at the hands of an unknown drunk driver you guys would not have given her a moments thought.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 11:46pm

46. Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

    Posted by Incoming at 08/27/2009 @ 12:04am

47. How is it that getting drunk and driving off a bridge and leaving a young woman to drown and not reporting it for 9 hours while you try to get a cousin to take the fall while you sober up is considered resume enhancement?

    Posted by Incoming at 08/27/2009 @ 12:11am

48. Ted Kennedy's passing closes an era of romantic politicians that did not trade their ideals with under the table deals. An extraordinary man behind several of the conquers of the workers, the sick, women and minorities. A Catholic that followed his conscience and Christ's phrase: "Whatever good you did to any of these my little, you did it to Me". A tribune of the disenfranchised, a distinguished member of that glorious 'old liberal fraction' of the Dem party that will not trade the left for being elected...Honor to him! I salute him as one of the best politicians I have ever known.

    In a word, his best legacy to all of us is his example of personal compromise so unwavering and tenacious. His permanent fight for all of our citizenship and for the common good. As his speeches told us, his remembering us that "our dreams are still alive..."

    Ted Kennedy passed the torch to President Obama by depositing in him those dreams and aspirations of the American people in his endorsement of him last year. It is now on Obama to look at himself in the mirror as if all the Americans that supported him were staring at him....am I up to the job as Ted would want me to be? Look at your conscience Mr Obama and seal the alliance with the people that elected you and not with those elusive hypocrites.

    As for those idiots that have tried to poisoned this day of reflection and sadness with invectives and even "happiness", I can only say they have shown themselves nude, as they really are so limited that they put their 'politics' over human understanding and compassion, people that cannot understand anything but only money. I pity them.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/27/2009 @ 01:01am

49. Was Social Security a "bi-partisan" program? No. Was Medicare? No. It is time to end the Baucus sham of reaching across the aisle to fists. Is Baucus with us or against us? If against, it is time to strip him of his chair.

    I part with the estimable KVH on one point: That "political capital" argument is misguided. If you win, if you get your programs in place and working, your popularity increases - and there is no limit to how much you can accrue. It is only when you work toward unpopular or unwise ends, or work to good ends but do so half-heartedly or ineffectively, that your popularity declines.

    I believe it was George W. that advanced that mistaken notion about limited "political capital" - and we know what a political genius he was, don't we?

    Lead, and lead well, and your stature gains. It is as simple, and as difficult, as that.

    My sympathies are with the Kennedy family - again, sadly - and my prayers are with the Obama family. Their guardian lion is gone.

    Posted by sjduskin at 08/27/2009 @ 01:52am

50. Senator Kennedy had his failings. There can be no disputing that. He was also the face we all saw whenever there was yet another public tragedy in a family that knows no privacy. He endured more misery for everybody to see than any of us can imagine. Who wouldn't turn to the bottle?

    He could have sponged off his family's wealth and had everything handed to him, like our most recent ex-president, without mentioning any names.

    Instead, he worked - really worked - to help those who needed it most. It's a shame he didn't live long enough to see a real single-payer health care program enacted.

    He will be missed.

    Posted by kennyboy at 08/27/2009 @ 04:07am

51. All these encomiums are political. Had Ten Kennedy practiced more conservative politics he would have now be remembered as an alcoholic, an Irish boyo who diddled blonds, a cheat and a bully, who would not have been so much as a good bartender or bricklayer, without that silver spoon. It would be noted that his entry into the Senate was the closest we have come to the way the nephews of popes once secured cardinal hats. He got into the Senate on the basis of no merit, whereas he merited years in jail for causing the death of a young woman and leaving the site of the accident while he spent all night looking for a way to escape responsibility.

    He had a terrific speaking voice and good lungs and was smart enough and had the money, to hire lots of people smarter than him.

    He was also good natured, and compassionate, but so is my postman.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 06:27am

52. More like it was "those Wall St assholes"...

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/26/2009 @ 9:00pm

    The part about the hippies in the '60s came before the part about Wallstreet in the '80s. I took it to mean that if those damn hippies hadn't ruined everything the Wallstreet excesses of the '80s wouldn't have happend.

    Maybe I read too much into it.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 06:50am

53. Katrina, One thing I notice here at the Nation is a lot of right wing conservatives post here. As long as they post here, that means they are afraid that the people of this country may eventually take it back from the great powers that they represent.

    On the one hand, I'm pretty upset with the lack of progress from the democrats, but I'd still rather see them at the helm than watch another 8 years of Bush/Reagan policies run this country into the ground.

    One has to wonder how different this country would be had JFK been able to continue his presidency or Bobby wasn't cut down before he would become president....or if Ted had defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980.

    I wish the Kennedy family all the best and hope that they continue the fight for the common working person.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2009 @ 06:53am

54. KVH wrote, "there was that Chappaquidick thing, so screw him." Hmm...yes, he killed someone, and self centered as he was, ran away, leaving the scene of an accident, a crime. A married man with an unmarried 20 something. Delightful.

    And regarding Keith Ellison's comment,

    'As Congressman Keith Ellison -- Vice Chair of the Progressive Caucus -- notes in a recent post, "The special interests and protectors of the status quo acted worse when America was on the brink of passing Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation. They spread lies and fear when America was contemplating women's suffrage too." '

    ...does everyone know that more Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Republicans, including former KKK member Robert Byrd? So, was it Democrats spreading lies in 1964? It's obvious Ellison knows nothing, but he's a Muslim, so be careful what you say...and no cartoons!

    Posted by ckid at 08/27/2009 @ 08:11am

55. judibrowni - YOU are the true wingnut, with your links to the Daily Kos (the rant chamber of the angry left who live in their parents basements and play Dungeons and Dragons for 12 - 15 hours a day while sipping Red Bull). Here's the problem - the left is screeching so loudly on this issue because even THEY know it's a loser. What do you think is going to happen if the government takes over our healthcare system? Check out the state of the government run healthcare models judibrowni and all of her/his/its lefty buddies hold up as models of healthcare nirvana, the British and French systems:

    Headline: "Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed - One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today. " Click on link:

    http://tiny.cc/8VqeB

    Vive Le French Care?

    Headline: "Health Systems: Health care in France is often held up as a model the U.S. might follow. Yet the French have their own problems that show there's no such thing as a free lunch -- or a free doctor's visit." Click on link:

    http://tiny.cc/8ieTv

    Posted by lucydaisy at 08/27/2009 @ 08:32am

56. Wolfgang1 - your real concern is that you'd like to not have your ideas challenged by anyone who disagrees with you. If you can't defend your ideas, then go to a Web site that doesn't allow dissenting opinions. Leftists are absolutely wrong on ALL substantive issues of our time, and you know it deep in your heart. Whenever I see Katrina "debate" anyone face-to-face, she loses both on substance and form.

    Posted by lucydaisy at 08/27/2009 @ 08:36am

57. It's obvious a lot of the commenter's here can't seem to get past the Chappaquidick thing. But, Laura Bush killed a young man with a automobile also and every one of them seem to have the ability to conveniently forget it. She didn't serve a day in jail either.

    Posted by ganddw42 at 08/27/2009 @ 08:54am

58. It's telling that those who knew Ted Kennedy well loved him--including his most conservative opponents. His liberal allies like Katrina Vanden Heuvel are certainly entitled to their grief, but her candid remembrance reveals more than she intended about Northeastern elite culture. From shuttling between liberal salons in New York and Boston, to sailing in yachts off the coast of Maine, I'm afraid Katrina and her comrades wouldn't know a common man if he slapped them in the face.

    Posted by billireland at 08/27/2009 @ 09:00am

59. "Progressives" should consider this: If an opportunity to implement your"positive reforms" comes along only once in a generation, and one of the prerequisites is some kind of national crisis, then maybe, just maybe, those reforms and the ideology from which they proceed is both flawed and not particularly popular. One of the notable characteristics of a crisis is that a lot of people panic; and the most rational decisions are seldom made in that state of mind. Also, attempting to make political hay out of the death of a person that you claim to greatly admire is more than a little unseemly. It reveals one of the abiding flaws of liberals, which is that they fail to see that much in life is beyond the scope of politics.

    Posted by TheSceptic at 08/27/2009 @ 09:29am

60. Katrina, the WASHINGTON KNOWS BEST philoslphy is so old school. You should try progressing outside the Big Box of Bureaucracy... try to be really creative and not drone that BIG GOV'T = BETTER GOV'T. Give Americans more hope than leaning & relying on a bloated old, uncle Sam... analyze the poll numbers carefully.. watch the upcoming VA & NJ gov elections... the country is, indeed, heading in the right direction.. similar to the EU, no?

    Posted by heffpa at 08/27/2009 @ 09:32am

61. Typical liberal appeal here ALL EMOTION, NO FACTS.

    Just because Kennedy died, the SAME BILL is now wonderful and peachy? The trillion dollar price tag will disappear? The public option? the rationed care? The bureaucratic panels making decisions?

    IT'S THE SAME FLAWED BILL... NO THANKS

    Oh and by the way, NO ONE MEANINGFUL COMPARED OBAMA TO HITLER, just a crazy WOMAN at Barney Frank's Town Hall who happened to be a LAROUCHE DEMOCRAT

    Posted by TonyV at 08/27/2009 @ 09:39am

62. I see we have a lot of Kennedy Derangement Syndrome newbies to the "TN" blog.

    Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 10:11am

63. History is a funny thing. At this time all we hear about Sen. Kennedy is how wonderful he was and how much he accomplished. I am sure Mary Jo's family has a different take and wonders how much she may have accomplished in her life. Health care to honor Sen. Kennedy? Why? If the proposed health care reform was objectionable to the majority of Americans before he passed, why would it be less so today? The current versions of health care reform are all a disaster waiting to happen and need to be scraped. If the Demcrats really want to honor Sen. Kennedy than dump these current bills and start new with a truly bi-partisian spirit and do it right. The Democrats have never tried to do this and have only provided lip service to trying be bi-partisian thinking the American public would buy in. The problem is that America is now wise to the bait and switch techniques of this Administration and Congress.

    Posted by GeeVee at 08/27/2009 @ 10:17am

64. Neither fear or greed, or the far right or the far left should be controlling the policy direction in Washington.

    That process should begin with a factual analysis of the situation, starting with:

    1) the budget deficits and forecasts; 2) the state of the health care industry, including why there is so little price competition, who is uninsured, etc. 3) the state of the banking and lending industries. 4) the state of the wars we are fighting.

    To pass legislation for moral reasons is dangerous at best. Certainly the author would not like that justification if Sarah Palin were in the White House.

    Rather, the Administration needs to set priorities and focus on 2 or 3 of the most pressing issues for the country given the current situation.

    Posted by SteveZecola at 08/27/2009 @ 10:26am

65. What a repulsive column. Filled with lies and distortions. A perfect example of my party at any cost.

    Can you imagine her saying the same things about a man who was an adulterer, cheat, and guilty of manslaughter amongst other things, if he was a republican?

    I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but, Ted Kennedy was far from a great man. This is probably a columnist who demonized and spewed hatred at Bush who didn't even do anything remotely close to what this man did throughout his life.

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 10:31am

66. Posted by lucydaisy at 08/27/2009 @ 08:32am |

    Thanks for reposting the same links that your con friends already have; you and Judi are two-sides of the same retarded cut 'n' paste coin.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 10:34am

67. ganddw said:

    "It's obvious a lot of the commenter's here can't seem to get past the Chappaquidick thing. But, Laura Bush killed a young man with a automobile also and every one of them seem to have the ability to conveniently forget it. She didn't serve a day in jail either."

    Your comparison is dishonest, sick, and hateful.

    Was Ted Kennedy a teenager when he did it? Did Laura Bush run away afterward and deny it? Was Laura Bush drunk at the time? Was she cheating on her husband? Is she a compulsive adulterer? Did she get thrown out of Harvard for cheating, etc. etc.?

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 10:45am

68. I believe Edward Kennedy was a man of principle. I always agreed with his goals, but rarely with the implemenation because the implementation in many cases created the opposite result than the principle. In relation to health care, I agree with the principle of universal care. However, the current plans in congress have "poison pills" that will create the effect of lower health care quality for all rather than just extension for those who don't have it. It seems to me that the writers of the current plan are more interested in Government control than Universal Coverage, higher quality, and lower cost. Katrina, like everyone else supporting the "public health option" or "single payer options" blame "special interests, lobbyist, etc" for the opposition. That is just not the case and it certainly doesn't apply to me. In terms of the opposition telling lies to kill reform, most of the "lies" are actually inconvenient truthes and there are some big whoppers being told by the supporters of the current reform bills. I can't believe anyone who has ever created a job or been responsible for the livelihood of employees and there families would be in support of the current health care bills. This not because we are against reform but rather because the reforms being proposed will have the oppositive effect from the stated goals.

    Posted by bsmllc at 08/27/2009 @ 10:51am

69. Whenever I see Katrina "debate" anyone face-to-face, she loses both on substance and form.

    Posted by lucydaisy at 08/27/2009 @ 08:36am

    Two things loose lipped Lucy. I don't recall seeing you here before, and haven't read anything you had to say yet that had anything other than your opinion with no facts to back them up. So, would you deny that JKF, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated?

    Now I ask you, who would benefit from killing those men? It sure as hell wasn't democrats. So, my question still stands. What would this country be like if JFK were able to finish his presidency, Bobby wasn't shot before he would have become president, and if Teddy had defeated Jimmy Carter in 80.

    As I stated earlier, people like you wouldn't be here ranting if you weren't in fear of things changing for the working people. I don't go to conservative sites simply because the crowd posting there would be useless to talk to (the 30% W fans). You are evidently are one of them.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:09am

70. Was Ted Kennedy a teenager when he did it? Did Laura Bush run away afterward and deny it? Was Laura Bush drunk at the time? Was she cheating on her husband? Is she a compulsive adulterer? Did she get thrown out of Harvard for cheating, etc. etc.?

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 10:45am

    Kennedy was charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The worst case scenario is that he was drunk and drove off the bridge and left the scene of the crime.

    Now, let me ask you a question since you are so worried about justice. Prisoners died in U.S. care and some of them were tortured to death. The people who ordered the torturing of these individuals were none other than the Bush White House. Do you think they should take the blame in this crime? They were directly in the chain of command and contrary to the beliefs of the right, torture is illegal via U.S. laws and international law. Do the Nuremberg trials mean anything to you?

    Also, did you know that the Nixon White House wanted to assign "inside guys" to protect Ted Kennedy via the secret service to try to get anything to implicate Kennedy. They were also recorded on tape saying that they would make up a story in effect linking man who shot George Wallace as a Ted Kennedy supporter. Sounds like it's straight out of Karl Rove's GOP playbook doesn't it?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:21am

71. Wolfgang1 :

    Why don't you keep your hate to yourself?

    You're a joke! After lecturing lucydaisy on posting without facts you just posted a bunch of garbage that was not substantiated by a single fact. You're an ignorant moron who only cares about his beloved political party and has no interest in the truth whatsoever unless it supports your cause.

    You said: "Kennedy was charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The worst case scenario is that he was drunk and drove off the bridge and left the scene of the crime."

    Are you kidding?! I'm sure you wouldn't be so unconcerned and flippant if he had left your mother or sister in the car to drown. Your worst case scenario doesn't mention he left a woman he was cheating on his wife with in a car to drown? Lowlife.

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:36am

72. Wolfgang1 :

    Why don't you keep your hate to yourself?

    You're a joke! After lecturing lucydaisy on posting without facts you just posted a bunch of garbage that was not substantiated by a single fact. You're an ignorant moron who only cares about his beloved political party and has no interest in the truth whatsoever unless it supports your cause.

    You said: "Kennedy was charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The worst case scenario is that he was drunk and drove off the bridge and left the scene of the crime."

    Are you kidding?! I'm sure you wouldn't be so unconcerned and flippant if he had left your mother or sister in the car to drown. Your worst case scenario doesn't mention he left a woman he was cheating on his wife with in a car to drown?

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:36am

73. re you kidding?! I'm sure you wouldn't be so unconcerned and flippant if he had left your mother or sister in the car to drown. Your worst case scenario doesn't mention he left a woman he was cheating on his wife with in a car to drown?

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:36am

    No, I stated the facts from what actually happened in 1969. Kennedy plead guilty for leaving the scene of an accident. FACT

    Your worst case scenario doesn't mention he left a woman he was cheating on his wife with in a car to drown?

    So, were you there? Do you have any proof whatsoever of your statement? Of course you don't. If there was any such proof of this Kennedy would have stood trial for murder, not leaving the scene of an accident. You just want to believe that he was a murderer. Who's the one posting garbage here?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:42am

74. Main things that are not reported is that the healthcare industry has been bought off by the democrats, drug companies, hospitals. So there is not a large group after health care as she claims. They have caved in due to comprimises with the democratic party that could make there life more miserable if they wanted. Social security and medicare are running deficits and will need more money to shore themselves up while Obama is going to cut waste to use for new plan. This will not happen. Congress has never saved money on anything. Mostly it will be less money paid to hospitals and doctors. We have a hard enough time finding doctors to treat my mother in law who will take them, most will not take on new patients. She has medicare advantage which is better, but will be stopped and she will go back to regular medicare. She spends alot of money on doctors because medicare does not cover all. Why are they advertising gap insurance all the time to seniors. It will just get even worse when the majority of baby boomers retire. I think it has gotten out of hand on both sides during this debate. If Obama wants a plan, come up with his own not the multiple plans that are on the board now and say this is what it is what is covered how much it costs but he can not do that because he has no plan. He is not leading anything. He says I would like for it to have this and that and lets congress come up with the bill. So much for change......

    Posted by coastal89 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:45am

75. Katrina is revolting. Exactly the kind of clueless over-intellectualized liberal that's sure she knows better than us simple common folk. The government is so far wiser, let's just do what's right for these poor people; they're not even smart enough to govern their own opinions. Oh gee thanks Katrina, I'm so fortunate that you and your coterie of ivory tower liberals are here to save me from myself. I just don't know what I'd do without your guidance, and that of Dear Leader Barack. The country can do without you, Katrina. Go crawl back under the rock your came out of.....

    Posted by sub at 08/27/2009 @ 11:59am

76. Now I ask you, who would benefit from killing those men? It sure as hell wasn't democrats. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:09am |

    You might want to look into who would stand to not benefit from not killing those men...in a Generally Dynamical way, for example.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/ 20080218/cockburn

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:12pm

77. My son was born with a severe birth defect. He can't walk, talk, or swallow, and is cortically blind. We have two types of insurance, private and Medicaid, so I deal with private insurance and government health insurance on a daily basis. We need a better system, and 24-36 hour waits in emergency rooms isn't acceptable, and yes, that currently happens today. Big health insurance companies our not our friends. But neither are incompetent government beaurocrats devoid of any shred of common sense. They are employed in abundance by Medicaid funded agencies and suppliers.

    Ideological-based positions, including Sean Hannity-types, don't work for those of us who live in the real world. But a government run system isn't going to be very good either, for sure. For all of their faults, the private insurance systems do have their advantages. True "Progressives" like KVH will bitterly disagree, but this is a fact in my life. Have you ever tried to get a genetic diagnosis through Medicaid? I have. How about through Humana, a private insurance company? I have. Private insurance is MUCH BETTER, to the point that a genetic diagnosis using Medicaid is pretty much worthless.

    Posted by MOlsen6 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:21pm

78. Wolfgang1 :

    So your facts are you stating something then printing in capital letters after it the word fact? Well, I can't argue such overwhelming proof! I'm guessing you think O.J. was innocent too. There are mountains of proof on the Kennedys being compulsive adulterers. All of them. Peter Lawford even admitted he brought women to JFK for him to use them. I suppose you believe that a bunch of married men went without their wives to have a "cookout" on Chappaquiddick Island with a bunch of single campaign workers?

    Where's your proof of torture, sleaze? Changing the definition of words because you can't come up with anything legitimate does not mean someone was tortured. Reporters and soldiers don't volunteer for torture. I find your posts to be torture. Can I prosecute you? Torture is what they did to John McCain and many others. See if you can get someone to volunteer for what they had done to them.

    Your telling someone that they want to believe that someone is a murderer is garbage.

    You are a HUGE part of what's wrong with our country. For you to answer a question about whether something is wrong or not, or whether something is torture, you need to know if the people involved are Democrats or a Republicans.

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:41pm

79. MOlsen6:

    It's nice to see a sensible post on the health care system. Although I am curious about what you were referring to when you said:

    "Ideological-based positions, including Sean Hannity-types, don't work for those of us who live in the real world."

    I'm not sure I get that. Doesn't everyone have an ideology? Don't you have an ideology?

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:54pm

80. One thing is a fact...On Medicare...

    Ronald Reagan made a film opposing it in 1961.

    Ted Kennedy in his first bid for the Senate, ran on supporting it.

    It passed and 45 years later???

    REPUBLICANS are out there vowing to "shore up Medicare and protect it from 'Democratic cuts'."

    Ted won....Ronnie lost.

    Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 1:05pm

81. Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:50pm

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:51pm

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 6:08pm

    Fear, fear and more fear.

    So sad.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:12pm

82. Mask:

    One thing is a fact...On Ted Kennedy

    Ted Kennedy was not a good person or a good politician.

    He was wrong on nearly everything he stood for, and if you want to talk about Reagan you must be crazy because that is a good example of when he was wrong about a lot of things. If it were up to Ted Kennedy there would not have been an end to the nuclear threat or a breakup of the Soviet Union and there would not have been one of the biggest economic expansions of our time, to name just a couple. Also, let's not forget that Kennedy made laws for his own personal gain. He was a massive hypocrite and remained that way right up until his death as he tried to change a law that he got passed because it no longer benefited him personally. There's just no defending Ted Kennedy.

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:17pm

83. Ted won....Ronnie lost.

    Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --you mean the same Ted that was never President and the same Ronnie that was...twice?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 1:21pm

84. Kennedy was a bum .. the absolute worst of the 4 Kennedy brothers.

    Posted by usr105 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:23pm

85. Also, did you know that the Nixon White House wanted to assign "inside guys" to protect Ted Kennedy via the secret service to try to get anything to implicate Kennedy. They were also recorded on tape saying that they would make up a story in effect linking man who shot George Wallace as a Ted Kennedy supporter. Sounds like it's straight out of Karl Rove's GOP playbook doesn't it?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:21am

    Nixon's presidency and associated dirty tricks are actually Chapters 1-4 of Karl Rove's Playbook. Cheney and Rumsfeld were instrumental in getting those hard to find chapters to Rove as he started his book.

    Chapters 5 and 6 are Reagan's "How to do Illegal Things all Over the World and not get Caught at it."

    Chapter 7 is "How to Make an Idiot President."

    Listed as a source in the Index is "Mein Kamph." The author of that book is strangely missing from the Index. Inquiring minds want to know....

    Unfortunately, because W. screwed everything up for the Republican's 40 year permanent majority (what a laugh!), Mr. Rove's book isn't selling too well anymore.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:25pm

86. So sad.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:12pm

    What an inane post. Not one of those posts was about fear.

    Three dealt with opposition to a massive increase in the size of govt

    One dealt with the demagoguery of Katrina in labelling anyone who disagrees with her as reactionary and irrational. Or do you also think that Madison, Jefferson, and Paine to name 3 were reactionary and irrational in warning against a large central govt?

    And one dealt with the news reporting that a) Obama has been lying about "inheriting" the amount of deficit we have, and b) that the deficit will be far worse than he has been saying.

    If you call those things "fear", you need a new dictionary.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:25pm

87. Your interesting article seems to put the onus of action on President Obama's shoulders especially at an eulogy. If I had not seen the political timidity in our president who should know better, I would say that is the way to go. However, as the pressure on the left of center democrats is increasing regarding proper health care plans as well as removing our troops from Afghanistan as well as more completely from Iraq, it is at leastmaking the major media sit up and take notice. Nothing less than an overall surge by the public with pressure on our Congress as well as our president will change these issues for the better. It is a pity that Senator Kennedy became ill this past year, not only because of the suffering involved, but because he was not able to be waging a fight that would hopefully ignite Obama. I hope all those who read the Nation will sign the various petitions by different organizations to honor Senator Kennedy by supporting the issues he spent his life fighting for.

    Posted by pvolkov at 08/27/2009 @ 1:34pm

88. Hey happy, quoting limbaugh says it all, thats all I had to see for me to realize you are indeed a wingnut and should be ignored.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:42pm

89. Around my house we call him Limburger.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:44pm

90. Around my house we call him Limburger.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --around your house I'm sure chapaquiddick is completely ignored.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 1:50pm

91. Listed as a source in the Index is "Mein Kamph." The author of that book is strangely missing from the Index. Inquiring minds want to know....

    Unfortunately, because W. screwed everything up for the Republican's 40 year permanent majority (what a laugh!), Mr. Rove's book isn't selling too well anymore.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:25pm

    Straight out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and other marxist techniques.

    Lie about the opposition.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:51pm

92. Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:25pm

    Larry,

    Everything you post is based on fear of America turning into a "socialist" state. Everything. Even your screen name is based on fear.

    You fear big government control, yet the largest expansion in the size of government and its control on the People was under George W. Bush...your hero.

    Because of what George W. Bush and his Republican "Yes Men" in Congress (who are now all magically becoming "No Men") did, the government now has more access, more information, more ability to control individual lives than at any other time in the history of our country! So if you're truly concerned about not becoming a "socialist" state, then you evidently have no problem with the US becoming a "fascist" nation in which big business and government walk hand in hand and control people's lives. That's EXACTLY what Mussolini and Hitler did in Italy and Germany, respectively, and based on your love of W., seems to be what you think should happen here.

    We reject your fear. We reject the Republican fear tactics in this heath care battle. We reject the Party of Fear, Fear and More Fear. We reject your un-Constitutional arguments as merely the opinion of a rightwing activist. You're certainly allowed to have those opinions; I would be the first to fight for your right, even if what you believe was personally damaging to me. However, you are no more a Constitutional scholar than I am.

    Private industry is a good thing. I applaud capitalism when it's not out of control, like it recently has been. The health care industry has gotten in the way of moving our country forward, so it should be eliminated (single payer), or de-fanged at the very least, with a strong public option. Gotten too big fer its britches; time fer a spankin.'

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:57pm

93. Denise29 :

    Very nice posts. It's nice to see you are keeping up with the proud Democratic Party tradition of demonizing people so you don't have to listen to what they say. Some people like to hold conversations or have discussions and listen to what is being said and consider it on it's own merits, but I realize that when you lie constantly and are wrong about almost everything, demonizing is the way to go.

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:57pm

94. Ms Vanden Heuvel would be a LOT more credible if she, and all of congress, would simply agree to use the Healthcare system that they wish on the rest of us. NO exceptions.

    Simple, Ms Vanden Heuvel.

    Posted by BillSanford at 08/27/2009 @ 2:15pm

95. What a beautiful, poignant and powerful piece, Katrina Vanden Heuvel.

    I listened, like many did yesterday, to replays of the moving speeches Ted Kennedy delivered over the years. He exemplified through action exactly what you wrote in here.

    This paragraph made me sob again: "Kennedy helped shape every major piece of legislation, with his powerful commitment to civil rights, labor rights, and women's rights -- always fighting for equality, always standing with the underdog, the poor, the most vulnerable, who he believed deserved lives of dignity."

    God, imagine if we all tried living this way?

    Please remember to call your Senators, Congressmen and the White House in support of a strong public option; a Medicare for all, or better yet, the bill Senator Kennedy drafted himself several years ago encouraging Medicare for all. President Obama needs our support. And for those concerned about how to pay for this? I'm sure our Defense Department can spare a few billion dollars for the welfare of all in this country.

    With no intention of exploiting Senator Kennedy's death, and it really wouldn't be when you remember for what he stood, and in his own words; this was his life long mission. I hope they name a strong, solid healthcare-for-all bill after dear Senator Ted Kennedy.

    I feel so sad for his family and our country.

    (for the people in here who choose to be obnoxious and cruel; please leave this site alone and go enjoy a conversation with yourself.)

    Elizabeth Tjader

    Posted by eatjader at 08/27/2009 @ 2:22pm

96. Stephen_Carver1:

    Fear? Isn't that what Obama has been installing in the American people ever since he got elected by claiming to be for hope and against fear? I would hardly call telling the American people disaster will ensue unless I get what I want right now, hope. It's fear. What a liar and a hypocrite.

    The rest of your post is just tired old hate and lies.

    "We're not big government, you are!"

    "We're not socialist, you're already socialist."

    "Everyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi or racist!"

    "You're not real people, you're fake!"

    Get some new material.

    What kind of idiot says:

    "We have a huge problem we need to fix. Let's get the government to fix it by taking it over. They have shown themselves to be irredeemably corrupt and totally incompetent in everything that they have ever done. They are proposing a system that is a proven failure around the world. What more could we ask for? They screwed up the post office, social security, medicare, medicaid, and pretty much everything they have ever touched. They will bring prices down by bringing us cost efficiencies such as $600 hammers and $200 toilet seats. Our confidence in them is sky high because their estimates on deficits and all financial matters is always dead on! They are the perfect choice.!"

    Even liberals can't be that stupid. This isn't about health insurance or health reform. It's about power.

    Liberalism really is a disease. It's the only possible explanation. Will your government health plan cover that?

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:24pm

97. @judybrowni mydd may have a poll up that says 8 in 10 AARP members favor the public option, but then explain why, recently, an AARP spokesperson contradicted an Obama claim that AARP has endorsed the health care legislation that's before congress?

    That spokesperson did so because a plurality (if not majority) of AARP members oppose the legislation, and AARP remembers what happened last time (during Clinton's administration) they endorsed healthcare legislation against the will of their membership. It was a HUGE blow to their organization.

    Similarly, a plurality of the American electorate in general currently oppose said legislation, with support falling further the more that is revealed about it.

    It's no wonder why there's opposition, when a little research reveals that both Medicare and Medicaid exceeded their 10-year from inception costs by a factor of 10. Is there any GOOD reason to believe that the so-called 'reform' before us now will be any different? When the CBO predicts the percentage of GDP devoted to health care will rise from 5% to 10% in 10 years, and to 17% within 50, one cannot avoid the question "Can we really afford this?". . .the question is doubly important to an electorate in which close to 80% rate their existing health care as either "Good" or "Excellent".

    Fundamentally, there's little real reform in this legislation, only extending the government's control over the industry, and over our lives. That's a recipe for legislative failure.

    Posted by Yashmak at 08/27/2009 @ 2:25pm

98. Aristotle61, your no aristotle, go to a sight that will agree with you, take lucy with you, we already deal with tighty rightys here. But at least they are our tighty rights.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:25pm

99. eatjader:

    Why don't YOU take your lies and go somewhere else?

    Your compassion for Mary Jo Kopechne is touching.

    When you say why can't we all live our lives this way do you mean by being thrown out of college for cheating, being a hypocrite and an adulterer, driving women into lakes and letting them drown? Which?

    I don't want any part of your vision! Fruitcake!

    Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:31pm

100. You just have to shake your head and laugh at the hypocracy of Katrina Vanden Heuval! Its not enough to call the old and handicapped showing up at these town halls UNAMERICAN and EVIL MONGERS, but now they are RABID protestors? RABID? The arrogance and contempt for the old, the handicapped, and average everyday working Americans displayed by the political and media elites is just astounding! And "Democrats must pass a strong reform bill by any means necessary"? No limits Katrina. Any means means it could be unethical, illegal, and unconstitutional? You almost get the feeling that Ms Vanden Heuval would have no problems with those old and handicapped RABID protestors being strung up by their legs and beaten, burned or have their eyes gouged out if it furthered her desire for Obamacare by any means necessary. Let's hope Obama isn't willing to go as far as Ms Vanden Heuval, but if I were a blue dog Democrat it might be time to add security, although at this point its hard for me to see them getting a visit from the CIA on Obama's behalf, but maybe moveon.org?

     Posted by valwayne at 08/27/2009 @ 2:33pm

101. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:57pm

     Stephen, this is such petty argument from you, straight out of a radical leftist manual.

     Are all US citizens who do not want socialism, fearful?

     Is it fearful to believe in what you fought for as a member of the US military?

     You call the writings of Madison, Jefferson and other Founders, merely my personal opinion?

     There is NO possibility of the US ever becoming a fascist nation. That is pure demagoguery and leftist BS.

     The largest expansion of the US govt occurred under FDR, not Bush. To even suggest that demonstrates either ignorance or bigotry.

     Just to name a few

     The New Deal, Works Progress Administration (WPA), National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA),Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Social Security, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

     In 1937 FDR also attempted to change the Supreme Court and add 5 more justices when they overturned the New Deal initially.

     And how would you respond if Bush had done this.

     <In a controversial move, Roosevelt gave Executive Order 6102 which made all privately held gold of American citizens property of the US Treasury. This gold confiscation by executive order was argued to be unconstitutional, but Roosevelt's executive order asserts authority to do so based on the "War Time Powers Act" of 1917. Gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until President Ford rescinded the order in 1974.>

     He cut veterans benefits by 40%

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 2:33pm

102. Yashmak...

     My wife and I just mailed in our AARP termination requests this morning. We got a renewal notice last night, and this morning after watching the Ambulance commercial by AARP that plugs 'reform', decided that enough was enough.

     There has to be something better for seniors out there.

     Posted by BillSanford at 08/27/2009 @ 2:35pm

103. Denise29:

     You said:

     "Aristotle61, your no aristotle, go to a sight that will agree with you, take lucy with you, we already deal with tighty rightys here. But at least they are our tighty rights."

     It's really easy to see why you want the government to control everything. You actually think you own the site and the comments section? You think people should only go to sites where people will agree with them? Do you mean the sites you are trying to shut down? Since this is America and it has been for 233 years, why don't you go to China or Russia where you can get all of the government control you want and leave us Americans alone? They'll even help you with your anti-Americanism.

     Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:40pm

104. Hey aristotle61, is 61 your IQ? Bite me.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:49pm

105. Yashmak...

     My wife and I just mailed in our AARP termination requests this morning. We got a renewal notice last night, and this morning after watching the Ambulance commercial by AARP that plugs 'reform', decided that enough was enough.

     There has to be something better for seniors out there.

     Posted by BillSanford at 08/27/2009 @ 2:35pm

     Good for you. I have refused for a decade to join that leftwing group.

     There is an alternative.

     www.americanseniors.org

     Actor Peter Marshall is one of the founders

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 2:50pm

106. Denise29:

     You said: "Hey aristotle61, is 61 your IQ? Bite me."

     I thought for sure I was your intellectual better, but I'm afraid you have proven yourself the better person with that last response. How can I even hope to beat: "is 61 your IQ? Bite me." Congratulations on your victory in our debate.

     Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:57pm

107. ya know aristotle61, your the fruit cake here, you and all the rest of the wingnuts are only USING Maryjo for your own political purposes, so either get a real reason that we can agree or disagree on and quit USING maryjo for your own demented purposes.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 3:04pm

108. Denise29:

     REALLY weak Denise.

     I don't need Mary Jo Kopechne at all. You are being dishonest. Why do you ignore all of Ted Kennedy's other transgressions? Adulterer many times over, massive hypocrite, thrown out of college for being a cheat, etc. etc. Does that really sound a lot better without Mary Jo Kopechne? Give it up.

     You are like a petulant teenager being told her idol is no good. Are you putting your hands over your ears and making really loud noises to drown it out?

     You're a Left wingnut, aren't you?

     Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 3:16pm

109. "Lie about the opposition."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:51pm

     "Since most liberals are mealy mouthed, they think that is a good trait. they resent strong authority figures. Pyschologists would say it's because they had no strong father figure when they were growing up."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:09

     "however leftist bigots tend to stereotype Republicans by those kind of images so as to reinforce their own bigotry"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:41am

     "So, it appears that a consistent hallmark of leftist thought is the denigration of everyone that holds an opposing view."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/05/2009 @ 2:50pm

     Saul would be proud of you, Larry.

     Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 3:17pm

110. Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 3:17pm

     Show me the lie Mask.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:47pm

111. After the eight years of rule by the Bush Administration the Democrats and even the Nation appear to have Stockholm syndrome, taking on the attributes of their former captors. In spite of the very Democratic Platform calling for universal coverage that Senator Kennedy referred to when he uncategorically called health care for every single American a right, not a privilege, the Democrats and the Nation have taken it off the table and then proposed and supported legislation that leaves millions uncovered. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw Ms. Vanden Heuvel on the Ed show chastising Mr. Shultz for his courageous support of HR676, single payer, as a pipe dream. This is the only legislation filed which would provide every American with the coverage afforded to citizens of every industrialized country on planet earth except the United States. We have a uniquely American system. Yes, it is uniquely expensive, costing Americans twice as much, significantly inefficient by comparison and of poor quality overall by significant measure. In a Town Hall meeting held by Jim Moran broadcast on C-Span the Tennessee Congressman revealed that under HR3200, the "public option" bill supported by Ms. Vanden Heuvel, patients are charged up to $5,000 per year and a total of $10,000 for some medical procedures. Does the public know that this is what "If you like your current health care policy, you can keep it." means? We have not been told the consequences of prohibiting the insurance companies from cutting off coverage when we actually need health care. The Nation needs to stop pandering to the Democrats and President Obama to their detriment. If they pass a public relations health care reform bill in name only, the voters will register their dissatisfaction in future elections.

     Posted by tomslockett at 08/27/2009 @ 3:48pm

112. Katrina. Who will pay for national health care? The uncertainty and opposition can be overcome once progressives persuade the wealthy in America to pay for the program. This means to increase taxes of those earning over a certain income and for the government to appropriate wealth in excess of a certain level. To win those living in the upper east and west side need to be soaked with taxes.

     Posted by pacerdhs at 08/27/2009 @ 4:02pm

113. aristotle61, there but for the grace of god walk I, Kennedy did do things in his life that I disapproved of, but he more than made up for it in later years, he was a good man who stood up for many of us when no one else would, he fought for us, so when I see you bringing up stuff that happened 40 years ago, itbegs the question why?. Maybe because of your political bias? Hmmmm?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 4:02pm

114. Wow, the trolls must be mighty frightened of you, Ms. vanden Heuvel, since they're out in force -- not just on this article, but all over The Nation.

     Thank you for your wise & moving words. I hope you've sufficiently expanded your "ignore" settings.

     Posted by Mauimom at 08/27/2009 @ 4:09pm

115. aristotle61, there but for the grace of god walk I, Kennedy did do things in his life that I disapproved of, but he more than made up for it in later years, he was a good man who stood up for many of us when no one else would, he fought for us, so when I see you bringing up stuff that happened 40 years ago, itbegs the question why?. Maybe because of your political bias? Hmmmm?

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --if kennedy was a conservative politician and you disagreed with his policies would he still have done enough for covering up and lying about the death of another human being to escape culpability?

     he's a lawmaker who placed himself above the law by lying to avoid justice. you're clearly ok with that.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 4:12pm

116. Umy, fer gods sake, enough already, you've gotten answers, what do you want me to say? I'm sorry you are so upset about this but it was a long time ago and I think he tried to atone for his sins. Maybe I'm wrong I don't really know, but that is the way I feel OK. OK.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 4:27pm

117. Umy, fer gods sake, enough already, you've gotten answers, what do you want me to say? I'm sorry you are so upset about this but it was a long time ago and I think he tried to atone for his sins. Maybe I'm wrong I don't really know, but that is the way I feel OK. OK.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     i'm not upset, i'm pointing out the hypocrisy of hte nation and many on the left for not admitting the bad kennedy did. no blogger has even touched on chapaquiddick. if it was a conservative politician with kennedy's exact past that just died you can bet your last penny that the nation's bloggers would be mentioning his dark past in every blog.

     and by the same tone of your post--enough already with your opinion. we already know how you feel. right? stop posting 'casue you've already stated it, right? oh, you don't like being told to stop posting, no, you don't, do you?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 4:38pm

118. urmy, no I wouldn't like being told to stop posting, but you have brought it up on every thread yesterday and today. You have gotten answers, just not the answers you want to hear. Boy, if your not upset I sure as heck don't want to read you when you are.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 4:44pm

119. Senator Kennedy was a towering figure, a true lion; he will be sorely missed. Few men or women have had the power and the passion the late Senator had for Health Care Reform. Passing Health Care Reform will go far beyond honoring the Senator, it will honor all Americans, showing that we can and will, as a nation, take on and conquer the problems we face.

     May the Senator rest now, the horrors of cancer of the brain behind him. His shadow now stands with his brothers, we all stand beneath that shadow, let his cause be ours, let's pass Health Care Reform!

     For the few that don't comprehend how important this is, may you never get ill or face death w/o a chance for definitive care. May you realize that you are condeming others to cruel deaths...would you really stand up for that? Are you truly so determined that you will allow others to die, just so you can say, "I helped stop Health Care Reform"?

     Posted by rasputin195 at 08/27/2009 @ 4:59pm

120. When Cindy Sheehan was protesting the President in Texes, she received breathless coverage everytime she took a dump here at The Nation. But when she protests the President in Martha's Vinard, not a peep?

     I wonder why?

     http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG. 6e2dd44ecce699b290fad3cf2353a6ce.01&show_article=1

     After spending weeks dogging George W. Bush's presidential vacations, anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan is now trying to make life uncomfortable for President Barack Obama.

     Sheehan used to pitch a peace camp near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, becoming a symbol of the anti-war movement after her son Casey died in action in Iraq.

     On Thursday, she and a band of anti-war protesters turned up outside the media center used by journalists covering Obama's vacation on the well-heeled east coast resort island of Martha's Vineyard.

     "The reason I am here is because ... even though the facade has changed in Washington DC, the policies are still the same," Sheehan told a handful of journalists, against a backdrop of her "Camp Casey" banner.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 5:13pm

121. I hear people on here all the time say they are not afraid to die, I am, I'm afraid to die, I've watched my father and aunt die at home because we didn't know about hospice, they died at home because they had to lose everything before we could find long term care for them. It was not pretty, it was scary. Maybe if we had known about definitive care it could have helped. It was truly cruel, I still have nightmares about it, may they rest in peace.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 5:20pm

122. An absolutely superb essay. In the tradition of the gredaline journalists. Morton Bogdonoff

     Posted by mbogdonoff at 08/27/2009 @ 5:32pm

123. I'm a member of the regular working class. Ted Kennedy was my champion and like it or not, unless you are a member of the elite and the rich, he was your champion too. I, for one, appreciate him and his efforts.

     Posted by vickernation at 08/27/2009 @ 6:12pm

124. I see we have a lot of Kennedy Derangement Syndrome newbies to the "TN" blog.

     Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 10:11am

     I don't think Blue Cross covers that.

     DENIED CLAIM!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 6:18pm

125. The Nation (Unconventional Wisdom since whenever) must be able to do better than Daily Kos! Just think of the service you could provide to America by simply explaining how the bills in Congress or the Senate achieve president Obama's vision of healthcare reform. Mask knows the answer, but wants to leave it as an exercise for the student. You certainly can't find anything close to a rational explanation from the Kossacks. So step up to the challenge. I'll bet Nichols would be the perfect policy wonk. Dispel all the fear and myth.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2009 @ 6:18pm

126. Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:51pm

     Sorry Larry. I've never read Saul Alinsky. Try again.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 6:20pm

127. For all the criticism leveled at Ted Kennedy by the Right they made almost no effort to defeat him. Mitt Romney's run in 1994 was the only serious challenge to Kennedy in all his years in the Senate.

     Posted by doughcrop at 08/27/2009 @ 6:28pm

128. Posted by aristotle61 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:24pm

     OK. I don't know who you are, but here goes:

     "Fear? Isn't that what Obama has been installing in the American people ever since he got elected by claiming to be for hope and against fear? I would hardly call telling the American people disaster will ensue unless I get what I want right now, hope."

     Ummm...when has Obama said any of this? And I am not sure how offering hope can be translated as fear unless your mind is REALLY warped, ari.

     "We're not big government, you are!"

     Ummm....I've never said this.

     "We're not socialist, you're already socialist."

     Ummm....I've never said this.

     "Everyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi or racist!"

     Ummm....I've never said this.

     "You're not real people, you're fake!"

     Ummm...I've never said this, HOWEVER, I have said (on numerous occaisions, how hypocritical the typical neoconservative posters on this site are regarding government ("we hate big government except under Republicans"), religion ("we are compassionate conservatives, except when it comes to Muslims, or the poor, or gays...we really HATE the gays because the Bible says it's OK in two places"), the Constitution ("we are for limiting government, except when it comes to war"), etc.

     "Get some new material."

     I'll work on that. Would being funny be good for you? 'Cause I'm a giver, you know.

     "Liberalism really is a disease. It's the only possible explanation. Will your government health plan cover that?"

     Liberalism is a disease I would be happy to see spread around the entire world. It's already happening which is why I think you far right wingnuts are out in even more force than normal, which usually happens when a Dem is elected President. The fact that this one isn't white, has brought ALL the crazies out.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 6:35pm

129. While I morn for his immortal soul, I rejice in his death. The country, the world is now a better place.

     Posted by RabidElephant at 08/27/2009 @ 6:42pm

130. Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 2:33pm

     "Are all US citizens who do not want socialism, fearful?"

     No. Why? Because I don't want pure socialism, either. I want a democracy in which capitalism is strongly regulated to stop greed (one of those 7 deadly sins, you know). I believe health care is Constitutional. You don't. Move on.

     "Is it fearful to believe in what you fought for as a member of the US military?"

     No. And while I have not personally served, I believe that what we have now is not what my father served for - over 30 years from WWII to Vietnam. I would also argue that the typical military mindset is one of following orders, not demanding specific rights. So, who is the totalitarianist here?

     "You call the writings of Madison, Jefferson and other Founders, merely my personal opinion?"

     No. I call your interpretation of those documents your opinion. And the main document that matters most, as I believe you would agree, is the Constitution. All those other documents are merely the opinions of very learned men. I respect their opinions. I respect some of yours. That doesn't make them anything more than opinions.

     I make no argument with the fact that FDR greatly increased the size of gov't. OK, W is #2.

     FDR created the Works program (and others) to get this country started again because the government was the single largest entity capable of pulling this country out of Depression. If it had been left solely to private enterprise, we would have been in Depression until the 50's, had WWII not intervened. It was Republican economic policies (and unregulated capitalism) of the 20's (mirrored in W's years and to a certain extent, Clinton's), that brought our great nation to its knees.

     Why do you think socialism became so popular?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:01pm

131. "The reason I am here is because ... even though the facade has changed in Washington DC, the policies are still the same," Sheehan told a handful of journalists, against a backdrop of her "Camp Casey" banner.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 5:13pm

     I continue to support Cindy Sheehan. I disagree with her message about Obama, but her goal remains admirable and worthy.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:04pm

132. Its rejoice numnuts, rabid is right, and so are you, boy the rightys really are out tonight aren't they, I need to eat dinner and if I keep reading what they write it my spoil meal, so gotta go, bye.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:13pm

133. Posted by RabidElephant at 08/27/2009 @ 6:42pm |

     Won't someone please put ole yeller' down?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:13pm

134. I'll work on that. Would being funny be good for you? 'Cause I'm a giver, you know. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 6:35pm |

     I see we have a lot of Kennedy Derangement Syndrome newbies to the "TN" blog. Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 10:11am

     I don't think Blue Cross covers that. DENIED CLAIM!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 6:18pm |

     On topic AND funny.

     Good show, SC!

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:16pm

135. It may spoil my meal, bye.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:17pm

136. Obama is a "reform" president? What planet are you on Katrina? Obama has continued the worst of bush's bailouts and is set to bury healthcare reform for a generation.

     STOP DRINKING THE KOOL AID NOW!

     Posted by JohnSmart at 08/27/2009 @ 7:39pm

137. Obama is a "reform" president? What planet are you on Katrina? Obama has continued the worst of bush's bailouts and is set to bury healthcare reform for a generation.

     STOP DRINKING THE KOOL AID NOW!

     Posted by JohnSmart at 08/27/2009 @ 7:40pm

138. I respect their opinions. I respect some of yours. That doesn't make them anything more than opinions.

     I make no argument with the fact that FDR greatly increased the size of gov't. OK, W is #2.

     FDR created the Works program (and others) to get this country started again because the government was the single largest entity capable of pulling this country out of Depression. If it had been left solely to private enterprise, we would have been in Depression until the 50's, had WWII not intervened. It was Republican economic policies (and unregulated capitalism) of the 20's (mirrored in W's years and to a certain extent, Clinton's), that brought our great nation to its knees.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:01pm

     I'm sorry, but I cannot put the writings of those who authored the constitution as mere opinions at the same level of importance as mine or yours. They tell us what they were thinking when they put those words to paper. It brings clarity when there is supposed ambiguity.

     I disagree that FDR's massive govt brought us out of depression. In fact, great wealth was generated during the depression through the foresight of those who used their capital and intellect to buy and invest when the rest were selling.

     My grandfather (dad's dad) pulled up his family and moved from NY to California in 1934. He took the little money he had and started a nursery in Montebello. His land was one of those where they found oil. He used then his good fortune and became a commercial real estate developer and built a very comfortable upper middle class life. All without Govt aid.

     I'm not aware that we have had "unregulated capitalism" in this country.

     Socialism was made popular through a combination of the intellectuals and the unions.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:40pm

139. It goes back to the question that Bill Buckley asked years ago: "Why are liberals so stupid?" Victor Davis Hanson has a nice article in National Review about what Obama and his minions are really up to; liberals, read it if you dare, it just might raise your IQ.

     Posted by davelnaf at 08/27/2009 @ 7:59pm

140. In honor of judybrowni cut&paste:

     "Section 164 of the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 provides that the government pay 80 cents on the dollar to corporate and union insurance plans for claims between $15,000 and $90,000 for retirees age 55 to 64. Union health insurance funds only have about 30 cents available to cover each dollar of anticipated claims, according to the Lewin Group and other research outfits. If this provision were to be passed as part of the overhaul package favored by the Obama Administration, the $10 billion figure would probably expand overtime as union plans continue to come under financial pressure, Packer said."

     Hey Mask,why is this in HR3200?

     Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2009 @ 8:21pm

141. Hey Mask,why is this in HR3200?

     Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2009 @ 8:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --don't you know you it's called "bird-dogging" when Mask is presented with a fair question.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 8:28pm

142. I believe in free speech. Mask is completely free to answer our questions. None of us are trying to silence him. I completely support and defend his right to answer our questions.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2009 @ 8:37pm

143. Santi- Finally figured out how you could work part time and be a conservative. Why didn't you use the word luck. That is what happened to Grand dad. Roosevelt was someone who came from money and did not believe that was the sole criteria for having power. The term he used was economic "royalists". That Is what you are . I am happy that Grandpa used his luck to help you to become a critic of the" working"class. I can see you cheering the Pinkertons when they beat on auto workers. What you seem to have forgotten is the period of great success in America matches up with strong labor unions and a vibrant manufacturing sector. Your pal Ron started the slide in America when he a stand against unions . What I am trying to figure out when reading what you speak about is how are things better now than before. We have an economy based on consumer spending Your conservative ideology is based on savings and living on a certain amount of money. The unfortunate thing is that people don't make enough to live as you espouse. If the government was paying for peoples health insurance perhaps the people could spend again and build a new economy.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/27/2009 @ 9:21pm

144. There is a typo in my comment. It should read :"in the tradition of the great deadline journalists." M. Bogdonoff

     Posted by mbogdonoff at 08/27/2009 @ 10:11pm

145. I'm not aware that we have had "unregulated capitalism" in this country. Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:40pm |

     Were all those bailed out S&Ls really dumb, or were they just...unregulated?

     Did Bernie Madoff get caught within days of being outed to the SEC? Or did Chris Cox's SEC leave him...unregulated?

     Were CD swaps regulated? Or did AIG take advantage of the fact that they weren't?

     Was anti-predatory lending law enforced? Or did the Bush OCC prefer to leave that...unregulated?

     There's one fundamental problem...cons refuse to acknowledge their roles in the messes they create.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 10:38pm

146. Why does United Health's Lewin Group get quoted 13 times daily? Every time I turn around an insurance company releases a statement or an e-mail using some type of "front"group. It is like reading commercials. When are non-partisan groups going to do a real study to show "we", the American people what costs are now and what they will be with reform. Develop a real list of questions and answers that are understandable. If I could have one one hundreth of a percent of what is being spent on the health care debate in this country I could buy a house next to Santi and live happily ever after.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/27/2009 @ 11:12pm

147. The next few days should be very interesting and revealing . Are the liberals going to defy the majority of us americans , who for various reasons dont want the type of health care that is now before congress. ?

     Will they decide to exploit Sen Kennedys death to rally the troops in his name and not work with the right on making a better plan?

     Or will they be smart enough to realize that while Sen Kennedy was a strong believer in liberal ideas he got things done over his carreer by working WITH the right .

     The next few days should be very telling indeed

     Posted by limoman at 08/28/2009 @ 12:34am

148. Did you cry when Mary Jo Kopechne died It's OK. She was the necessary sacrifice so that this slimeball of a human being, who never had a real job in his life could pontificate. It's very simple. If you don't care about the individual, your caring for the masses is only lip service.

     Posted by chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 01:00am

149. Wolfgang- do you know what role J. Edgar Hoover played on behalf of the Kennedy's? Wire tapping their political enemies, including Martin Luther King Jr. Do you know that after JFK's death, many members of your party believed that JFK was offed by LBJ? Are you aware that it was the Democrats in the south and not the Republicans that prevented civil Rights legislation from being passed? JFK could not have done it. Only a man with LBJ's political acumen could have steered legislation through. Did you know that the Kennedy's loathed LBJ ? Why do you think JFK went to Dallas? Because he was loathed. The best thing that Kennedy ever did ( if not the only thing was to stand up against Khruschev and there he made concessions to remove missles from Turkey, so it's not as though he won). You forget that unlike JFK, Obama would not stand up against anybody but Israel and Honduras. He adores folk like Chaves of Venezuala. Is afraid to stand up for human rights in Iran. Has told Mrs. Clinton to cool it on the human rights talk with China b/c of fear of China and the need for someone to pay the deficit. You forgot that the Kennedy's screwed up the Bay of Pigs. Were responsible for the escalation of the Viet Nam War. Believed in low taxes and a strong defensive posture. Other than martyrdom, what do you like about JFK and RFK, both philanderers. RFK opposed Eugene MaCarthy's position against the war in Viet Nam and only began to speak out after it was safe to do so, letting MaCarthy do the heavy lifting. Learn your history and stop with the emotional histrionics.

     Posted by chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 01:30am

150. Posted by chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 01:30am

     Yeah, and George Washington owned slaved, just like every other politician of his day.

     Social standards change. It seems a little hard to fault someone for not adopting the social standards of the 21rst century in the middle of the 20th century.

     Obviously, I'm not a fan of Ted Kennedy's politics, but I can admire the fact that he managed to stay relevant over 5 decades in the Senate.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/28/2009 @ 08:04am

151. So good of you to give us your skewed picture of U.S. history. Come now Ariel are you saying Ted was not a part of the pro Israeli lobby? I will say his family was made up of pragmatic liberals. It looks to me that the Southern racists have not changed their stripes in 50 years. It just looks like a social caste system now. Yesterday like today revolved around money. The South needed Northern investors. They would not get them with a segregated society. L.B.J. could get that point across being from Texas. You act as though you do not understand that politics is a dance of compromise. Kennedy was not popular in Texas because he was not a racist. Enough on Obama and Chaves. This stand is laughable,quit reading neo con trash. Should we really get China mad at us? Let's see ,they make our goods and borrow us money to fight our "phony" war. You are right we should have China call in our debt. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley could give them $3 trillion of toxic assets as collateral. That would help our banks out because you know we must help them. If we are real lucky these banks would invest in American manufacturing.Of course that would be for future tax breaks and the ability to out source jobs. Now that is heavy lifting.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/28/2009 @ 08:13am

152. There are times when I am actually amazed at how some in the RW sphere of influence go out of their way to come to a Liberal/Progressive site and somehow expect to be accepted with a warm embrace. Amusing and amazing to see some of the most incoherent posts from those who think that for whatever reason, the Right side of the aisle has any answers to anything; all I see are sordid posts about some of the most ridiculous and dated "complaints". The Kopechne situation was a tragedy, one that was avoidable; so is the bush/cheney war, and at a far higher cost. The former is a non-issue, the latter a serious issue, yet some people insist on bringing up some of the most absurd points...just to be spiteful. I'd like to bring up bush's lack of service defending the skies of Texas against the forces of evil...but I don't have much to go by, his records are sealed and he went AWOL.

     Those defend the worst president of all time come here to degrade a Senator that worked for all people, ensuring we all get an even break in this country. One might disagree with particulars, but to come here and "gravedance" is pretty pathetic and shows me how shallow some people truly are.

     Posted by rasputin195 at 08/28/2009 @ 08:26am

153. -This is a parody-

     August 25 (AP) South Carolina Governor Mark Sandford is recovering in a Columbia hospital after an automobile accident. The Governor appears to have lost control of his Oldsmobile Delmont 8 late last night on the Chinook bridge over the Broad River. The Governor called police from a motel two miles from the crash site. It was not immediately disclosed why he had gone there; he had a cell phone, but it may have been damaged by submersion in water, although the Governor's clothes did not appear to be wet. It is unknown at this time if anybody was in the car with the governor. Local authorities are sending divers to try to recover the wreck. From his hospital bed he gave his wife a thumbs up and said, "I'm a fighter, I'll be on my feet in no time. I won't let this be a setback, I'll be the Governor again, I'll be in politics for another 40 years!" Visitors said the Governor appeared unusually cheerful.

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/28/2009 @ 08:44am

154. Again, some basic history of health care and Ted Kennedy...

     in 1961, RONALD REAGAN made a film opposing "socialized medicine" in the form of the discussed plans for Medicare...

     in 1962, TED KENNEDY ran for Senate, with a primary focus on supporting Medicare and hoping to get it passed.

     in 1965, Medicare passed....Kennedy won, Reagan lost.

     NOW, today, 2009, we have REPUBLICANS who are out there saying they will "shore up" and "protect" Medicare from "cuts that Obama and the Dems want to make in it".

     Kennedy won.....Reagan lost.

     Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 08:57am

155. 'Born on third base, thought he'd hit a triple! -- Ann Richards

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/28/2009 @ 09:16am

156. by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 06:27am...

     Most of your rantings are predominantly the adamantine expressions generated by the sanctioned and insinuated 'state violence' of fascism a-la grande... and you often have the arrogance of a SS officer ...the 'sequestered' compassion of an executioner... and the politics of a self satisfied bully with no social conscience whatsoever.

     But for this post... ...you will rot in hell.

     Clearly.

     Posted by ttr at 08/28/2009 @ 09:59am

157. While we all want to see universal health care coverage there are two problems with the present proposals being pushed by the Democrats at the Federal level:

     - Constitutional validity. It is very unclear as to whether the present proposals fall within the powers set out under article 1, section 8.

     - Cost. The Federal Government is broke and the proposals put forward by the Democrats will cost at least a trillion dollars over 10 years. With projected deficits in excess of 9 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, we simply cannot afford another welfare program.

     Given these constraints, Congress needs to work in a bi-partisan fashion to come forward with proposals which are clearly valid under the Constitution and will help to reduce the Federal deficit.

     Posted by John.Frank at 08/28/2009 @ 10:20am

158. Posted by ttr at 08/28/2009 @ 09:59am

     Why are you complaining about Hugo's post? It's clear that Kennedy got special treatment, maybe not for being a liberal, but certainly for being a Kennedy. Look at the scandals that killed the careers of Jack Ryan, Jim McGreevy, Mark Sandford, Eliot Spitzer, that guy who got caught in the men's room, and so forth. There really is only one person in the 20th century who wore the Teflon.

     Posted by Mistral at 08/28/2009 @ 10:24am

159. Hugo_Pirvano If you are not a Believer, then there is no Hell. If you are a Christian, then according to the doctrine's of your faith, all of us non-Christians are consigned to hell, regardless of our political beliefs. If you are a Christian, should you be judging people ? Did not your lord say " Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ? And if you are not a person of faith, then you must be a moral relativist and all truths are equally valid, since there are no absolute values. If you are a Muslim, then all non-Muslims are consigned to Eternal Hellfire, so the political belief is irrelevent. If you are a Jew, what is your Judais touchstone that justifies your progressive perspective. Is it merely a coincidence that those Jews with the greatest knowledge of classical Judaism and those most commited to living a Jewish life are not politically progressive. Hindus, Buddhists and eastern religions do not have Hell and Heavan. You are wrong to argue that the object of your rage has " no social conscience whatsoever. " Hitler, Stalin, Obama, Pelosi, Bush et al. all had social conciences. The only issue is how do define what ios best for mankind. It is clear that foisting the state upon individuals diminishes social comscious as the state removes individual responsibility from the individual. The population of the USA is the most charitable nation in the world, with people of committed faith ( regardless of faith) giving substantially more charity, volunteering more for secular and religious institutions. This is statistically validated. Read Who Really Cares by Arthur Brooks and cut out the emotional fulminations. They serve no value other than demagoguery. Emotions are real; they are not true.

     Posted by chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 10:58am

160. Do you know that after JFK's death, many members of your party believed that JFK was offed by LBJ?

     Yes, I do. There's also a lot of people who think that Kennedy was going to pull the plug in Vietnam and on the CIA. Not good enemies to make. By the way, I'm not a big LBJ fan. I don't blindly back or follow democrats just because they are democrats.

     What you don't seem to do is use your head. What would the Kennedy's have to gain by their political positions? That's the question I ask myself. So, what if they are involved in Unions, protecting trade of sorts to benefit themselves etc. I could see not liking them, but the fact is that they have represented working class people no matter how you slice it. They are filthy wealthy, but don't represent 1) the health care industry, 2) the pharmaceutical industry, 3) the energy industry...named specifically big oil, nuclear energy etc. and finanlly the military industrial compelx. The republican party does nothing but support the above mentioned at the cost of the rest of the country.

     So, what is it that you fear so much about people like JFK, RFK and Teddy? I could give a rats ass if they screwed around on their wives. As you've seen in the news, it's a bipartisan undertaking in D.C.

     Unless you love constantly being at war, helping big corporations get bigger and more powerful, and place the burden of paying for that on the middle and poor people, I'd think you would want to side with those who stand against the powers that be. Evidently either you have missed what has been going on in real life, or you are brainwashed and can't see what is going on in real life.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/28/2009 @ 11:26am

161. hey serve no value other than demagoguery. Emotions are real; they are not true.

     Posted by chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 10:58am

     You ought to try reading your own advice. Seems you have plenty of emotion with your opinions.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/28/2009 @ 11:30am

162. Those defend the worst president of all time come here to degrade a Senator that worked for all people, ensuring we all get an even break in this country. One might disagree with particulars, but to come here and "gravedance" is pretty pathetic and shows me how shallow some people truly are.

     Posted by rasputin195 at 08/28/2009 @ 08:26am

     I used to not use the ignore function, but as of late, it's become quite handy at getting rid of having to read the moronic right wing idiots posting here with nothing but drivel and slop to add to the conversations at hand.

     It's actually quite liberating!! LOL

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/28/2009 @ 11:57am

163. whatizz I thought that morality was a liberal perogative. All the libs were screaming at Bush when he went to war in Iraq but not against Iran and North Korea. Why was that not pragmatic, like Obam and the Chicoms? Ted Kennedy and his brothers were supporters of the war in Viet Nam until it became expedient not to. RFK worked for Roy Coen and Joe MaCarthy. How many political transformations do you get to go through in a lifetime. The Kennedys werre about power. Whatever it took. They destroyed hyman beings on an individual level Ted Kennedy was against legacy admisions to Harvard. Did he not have a legacy admission and even worse after he cheated in university. Ted Kennedy favored very high succession taxes, yet kept the family money in Europe. Ted Kennedy ( and Kerry) favor environmentalism, but not if it spoils their vacation views. Obam screams at Bush for the Perscription Law for Seniors. Who crafted the bill with him? Ted Kennedy. The liberals oppose No Child Left Behind. What role did Kennedy have in its passage. Liberal ideas are based on being good people. The devil is in the details. I live in Canada, single payer. Why don't you come to rural Canada where there are no doctors. ? 24 weeks for an MRI, unless you are a MP, a hockey player or veternarian who can use machines in off hours , so the hospitals can make a little bit off money because the govt. can't fund them appropriately. Sure, health care is rationed. It has to be. So why is Obama denying it, when the bill calls for healhcare rationing. Look, all human ideologies are useless. All Utopias are totalitarian. Less government; more personal responsibility is the only solution.

     Posted by chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 12:04pm

164. wolfgang They did not earn the wealth. It was inherited. Everyone has a need to validate themselves. Power is an aphrodisiac. You get access to all kinds of stuff; can screw the hell out of women you are not married to and harm your wives and chidren in the process. How many kings were prepared to do anything to gain power? Both Hitler and Stali were abstemious types. They were not in it for the money. Also, there is a didfference between being passionate about your positions and using your emotions to determine your beliefs. That is why Clemencau understaood that "he who is not a socialist at 18 has no heart; he who is still a socialist has no mind. Look, why don't you go and read Bruce Bawr's While Eurpoe Slept to see what life in Europe is really like once you get past the posturings and wet dreams of American libwerals. Bawr is a gay, liberal who left the USA in protest of right wing homophobia. He married his lover. After 10 years, he returned to the USA. Check it out.

     Posted by chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 12:13pm

165. Wolfgand Why don't you understand that Democrats and Republicans are as Ralph Nader said, not different. They both represent powerful interest groups and each one takes huge money from those evil corporations. Some represent Unions and the educational establishment ( good job they're doing) tort lawyers ( in Ontario the govt. pays the malpractice premiums for doctors ensuring that malpractice suits are not insane as they are in the USA. Chris Dodd and Liberman both get money from insurance companies and Ghetty Oil. Obama, Dodd and other Democrats ( along with MaCain) were very large recipients of AIG money. Where did Bob Rubin and the guy who was Treasurey Secretary under Bush come from? Goldman Sachs. They are all whores. The only question is which pimp controls them. Why are Senate Democrats who are on the aggregate richer than Republicans interested in Reform? It doesn't affect them. They have loophp=oles, exclusions etc. See who pays more taxes as a proportion of their income- John Edwards and Theresa Heinz Kerry or the dumb schmuck that has faith in the political system. We are all being gamed. The political system needs a complete transformation. You are just another foot soldier fighting a war which will not benefit you. Come to Canada and ask yourself why the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the govt. cannot prevent private insurance from being available,. Nurses in our hospital try to get patients out before they get sick from infection caused by lack of staff to properly clean them. The ruling class does not go to those hospitals. Just like OBam will be exempt from the same healthcare you will get.

     Posted by chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 12:34pm

166. Posted by limoman at 08/28/2009 @ 12:34am |

     There is no more working WITH the right; their decision.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/28/2009 @ 12:43pm

167. Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:40pm

     "I'm sorry, but I cannot put the writings of those who authored the constitution as mere opinions at the same level of importance as mine or yours...."

     While I would agree with you that their writing are far more developed and intellectual than anything you or I could come up with (I have a day job), I disagree with your statement that they are not opinions. OF COURSE they're opinions....of very learned men, which is what I said. That's why there was so much disagreement amongst them.

     "I disagree that FDR's massive govt brought us out of depression. In fact, great wealth was generated during the depression through the foresight of those who used their capital and intellect to buy and invest when the rest were selling."

     So, why didn't any of that private buying start between 1929 and 1932 under Hoover? And while you're at it, please explain why the Depression AND the Great Recession took place under Republican Administrations?

     "My grandfather (dad's dad) pulled up his family and moved from NY to California in 1934..."

     I am happy that your family found oil. What would have happened if they had NOT found oil? Different story, eh?

     MY dad helped his mother raise his younger brothers and sisters during the Depression in Kansas and Ohio because my grandfather was an alcoholic WWI Vet who couldn't keep a job (I suspect he was "shell shocked," which today is known as Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome). All without government assistance (I think). But my Dad's family never found oil...

     "I'm not aware that we have had "unregulated capitalism" in this country."

     Evidently the name Phil Gramm means nothing to you. He was , unfortunately, Senator from my home state before he went on to committing fraud in Switzerland.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:08pm

168. Socialism was made popular through a combination of the intellectuals and the unions.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:40pm

     Last time I looked, union membership stood at about 14% or so of the workforce. Union such as the UAW have lost more than half their membership since the 1979 peak, for example. What magical powers do unions retain to convey such vast influence in the present day over our entire system, so as to make "socialism" possible.

     In the alternative, if it's not about the union, who , specifically, are these intellectuals then, that are wielding such power over the populace philosophically?

     I don't get it.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/28/2009 @ 2:42pm

169. Let's see ,they make our goods and borrow us money to fight our "phony" war.

     it is we who borrow and they who LEND us money.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 3:34pm

170. "The best thing that Kennedy ever did ( if not the only thing was to stand up against Khruschev and there he made concessions to remove missles from Turkey, so it's not as though he won)."

     actually Kennedy had decided previously to remove the Turkey missiles. so strictly speaking, he "won"

     . "Learn your history." Posted by chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 01:30am | ignore this person |

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 3:39pm

171. Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 8:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     in those days, everybody drove drunk.

     no seat belts either.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 3:42pm

172. Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/28/2009 @ 2:42pm

     "Larry's World" schnell....kind of like "Elmo's World"...

     without the reality.

     Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 3:46pm

173. It reveals one of the abiding flaws of liberals, which is that they fail to see that much in life is beyond the scope of politics. Posted by TheSeptic at 08/27/2009 @ 09:29am | ignore this person | warn this person

     don't forget to flush.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 3:47pm

174. I will crawl back under the rock I came out of..... Posted by sub at 08/27/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 3:53pm

175. Health Care Reform will pass. The public option, or Medicare for all, will become a real option for Americans. We will save money on health care and we will not be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.

     It's going to be awesome and fun! And in ten years, Americans will defend their Health Care as much as they defend Social Security and Medicare.

     Now, you want real revolution? How about legislation that caps the annual salaries (including bonuses) of CEOs?

     Posted by babyrobot at 08/28/2009 @ 5:13pm

176. Socialism was made popular through a combination of the intellectuals and the unions.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:40pm

     Oh, I forgot to respond to that...

     Larry, we know you hate unions and would get rid of them if possible.

     I'm curious, would you also get rid of intellectuals? The reason I ask is because communists and fascists alike blame everything on the intellectuals, which is why they are always among the first to go when a totalitarian government comes into power, whether it's Hitler's Nazis, Stalin's Communists, or Mussolini's Fascists.

     Socialism, as a theory, became popular with a lot of people (intellectuals and some not so intellectual) who saw it as the natural economic endpoint of a democracy. How better to make everyone truly equal than by making everyone in the society economically equal, too? Why do you think it was called "socialism?" If everyone is equal socially AND politically, then perhaps a true classless and egalitarian society would emerge.

     The problem, as with every economic "ism," is not in the theory, but in the practice. In practice, human beings tend to prove themselves to be power-hungry or money-hungry fools. Either one will magnify the flaws in any "theory" so the best bet, in my mind anyway, is a combination, in which the forces of capitalist greed are balanced (through strong regulation against the socialist needs of the People. For social issues such as health care, I believe social solutions are the answer; private enterprise had its opportunity, and failed miserably, to provide for a social need.

     Ultimately, because of FDRs "socialist" reforms (your long list of government agencies) combined with the capitalist yearnings of entrepreneurs, we enjoyed balance until Reagan came along and upset the applecart.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/28/2009 @ 5:22pm

177. "How better to make everyone truly equal than by making everyone in the society economically equal, too?"

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/28/2009 @ 5:22pm

     Not your words, I know. However, does this reflect the progressive vision?

     Posted by sntauri at 08/28/2009 @ 6:03pm

178. I will point out:

     1. Senator Ted Kennedy worked hard for what he believed in.

     2. Although history will probably rate him as the least consequential of the Kennedy brothers, Ted Kennedy did have a far more accomplished Senate career than either Robert or JFK. He did make his mark in that arena that eclipsed what his brothers did there.

     3. From what I understand, and I have seen reference to this more than once, Ted Kennedy did help people who needed assistance behind the scenes in ways that have never become public, thus he personally did things on his own for no purpose other than he wanted to and that gained him no extra credit or fame - that were compatible with what he advocated publicly.

     These comments are from a Conservative (me) who opposes the things that the Senator promoted, from an ideological standpoint - but I will admit that Senator Kennedy worked hard at doing what he thought was right.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/28/2009 @ 7:41pm

179. August 28, 2009 12:00 AM

     Remembering the Darker Side of Teddy Kennedy I cannot join those who uphold him as a model public servant.

     By Mona Charen

     .....Well, since ancient Rome we've been exhorted not to speak ill of the dead. But neither should we completely disfigure the truth.

     Before I offer some less-than-hagiographic reflections on the late senator Edward Kennedy (may he rest in peace), one pleasant memory....

     ....Kennedy...could trample on conservatives with, it seems, hardly a pang of conscience...some of us cannot forget that his tactics were often low and dishonorable.

     Former president George W. Bush was characteristically gracious about Kennedy ("a great man") in his comments since his death, but Kennedy went after Bush utterly without scruple. Consider Kennedy's shrill attacks on President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. In 2002, Senator Kennedy himself had said, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." But just a year later Kennedy was saying, "This was made up in Texas,....This whole thing was a fraud." In 2004, Kennedy said "Before the war, week after week after week we were told lie after lie after lie after lie. . . . The president's war is revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, reckless."

     Kennedy did not -- perhaps could not -- accept that the Bush administration had made a good-faith decision to use military force (as his brother did in the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam)...Echoing the most inflamed leftist websites, Kennedy alleged that the "the president and his senior aides began the march to war in Iraq...long before the terrorists struck this nation on 9/11."

     Posted by Happy at 08/28/2009 @ 10:21pm

180. Mona Charen (continued)

     When the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison came to light,...Kennedy, unable to resist a cheap political shot, actually compared the U.S. to Saddam Hussein, saying, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management -- U.S. management."

     Senator Kennedy's rhetorical ruthlessness was perhaps most famously displayed within minutes of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. The world now knows that Bob Bork is one of the most intelligent, witty, reasonable, and civilized men in America. But at the time, few knew anything about him. Kennedy rushed to the Senate floor to introduce a grotesque bogeyman: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."

     Judge Bork recounted later that when he met privately with the senator, Kennedy mumbled, "Nothing personal." When you have calumniated a man before the entire world, you cannot claim that it isn't personal.

     One hopes that the Kennedy family will find comfort in the days ahead. But I cannot join those who uphold Teddy Kennedy as a model public servant, far less as an exemplar of any sort of bipartisanship.

     -- Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

     Posted by Happy at 08/28/2009 @ 10:24pm

181. Right from Wikipedia:

     "A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued, partly fueled by strong opposition by civil and women's rights groups concerned with what they claimed was Bork's desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork is one of only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the ACLU, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito.[15] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy,"[8] as allegedly demonstrated by his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.

     Bork also advocates a modification to the Constitution that would allow Congressional super-majorities to override Supreme Court decisions, similar to the Canadian notwithstanding clause. Though Bork has many moderate critics, some of his arguments have earned criticism from conservatives as well."

     One of his most significant opinions[original research?] while on the D.C. Circuit was Dronenburg v. Zech, 741 F.2d 1388, decided in 1984. This case involved James L. Dronenburg, a sailor who had been administratively discharged from the Navy for engaging in homosexual conduct. Dronenburg argued that his discharge violated his right to privacy. This argument was rejected in an opinion by Bork, in which he criticized the cases in which the Supreme Court had enunciated a right to privacy.

     A super conservative that did not believe in civil rights, nor in power balances and wanted to over turn Roe-Wade. Wanted to diminish the SC to the lowest expression while empowering the Presidency. And no right to privacy, he. Look what happened in the Bush era.

     He got what he deserved.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/28/2009 @ 11:13pm

182. -- Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

     Posted by Happy at 08/28/2009 @ 10:24pm

     But I cannot join those who uphold... *insert any Republican here* ... as a model public servant, far less as an exemplar of any sort of bipartisanship.

     Posted by ttr at 08/29/2009 @ 02:42am

183. chaim klein at 08/28/2009 @ 10:58am said:

     >> If you are not a Believer… <<

     The one thing you make clear with your interminable: if you are and if you are not, is that you did not get enough oxygen at birth.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/29/2009 @ 04:48am

184. ttr at 08/28/2009 @ 09:59am said: >> But for this post... ...you will rot in hell. <<

     If Heaven is the place where frauds and jerks like you wind up, I pray by the holy beard of Susa that I get to go to Hell.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/29/2009 @ 04:54am

185. for a different look at bipartisanship see Giovanni Guareschi's "Don Camillo and Beppone" novels.

     priceless. as are the movies made from them, starring the great Fernandel.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/29/2009 @ 09:32am

186. Today's his funeral mass....and let's hope some attending, will give a thought to MJK!

     August 29, 2009 7:00 AM

     Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne Only a Kennedy could get away with it.

     By Mark Steyn

     We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation -- or, at any rate, its "mainstream" media culture -- declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's passing, America's TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household where there's a baby buried in the backyard but everyone agreed years ago never to mention it....

     Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 11:19am

187. Something for the female Libs to chew over, from that female site, from Mark Steyn's above column at the NRO:

     "At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo "would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it." What true-believing liberal lass wouldn't be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?"

     Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 11:22am

188. Ariel- I feel that guys like Ted did a lot of good in this world. Sure he was a rich guy but I feel he stood up for the common man. You want to talk about the poor health care in Canada. I ask you is the dispensation of health care for the public good or for doctor profit. It seems like there is a provider shortage in Canada. Does that mean that people don't think they are going to make enough money as a doctor. Is that why so many people from other countries are physicians in the U.S. and Canada today.You are saying there is rationing because of a lack of personnel. I have not heard a complaint about payment from you. Come back to the U.S. and spend the money in a seemingly unending upward spiral for common health care. Why you ask, would I not want to spend that money? That is the question liberals are answering with a resounding NO. We do not want to support the greed of the insurance companies,pharmaceuticals,and big hospital chains. We were stupid to "re-enter" Iraq. We are now training soldiers to be policemen and to become targets. We took the principal stabilizing force against Iran out of the picture. I know you are concerned about Israel and its precarious position geographically. Korea is a non entity. Don't for one minute think that No Child Left Behind was a great program and on top of that it was not funded correctly by the Republicans. Is 1 in10 unemployed Americans ,1 in 9 American homes in foreclosure , and 1 in 6 Americans not something that needs changing? I say the liberals are trying to seize the moral perogative in changing health care for the betterment of all individuals in the country. To say we should stay the course with a corrupt system that is beneficial for only a few is simply wrong. Your pro Israeli view has tempered your thinking.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/29/2009 @ 11:41am

189. Socialism was made popular through a combination of the intellectuals and the unions.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:40pm

     Last time I looked, union membership stood at about 14% or so of the workforce. Union such as the UAW have lost more than half their membership since the 1979 peak, for example. What magical powers do unions retain to convey such vast influence in the present day over our entire system, so as to make "socialism" possible.

     In the alternative, if it's not about the union, who , specifically, are these intellectuals then, that are wielding such power over the populace philosophically?

     I don't get it.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/28/2009 @ 2:42pm

     Study your history. the combination of the unions with a large marxist/socialist union leadership had it strength back in the 1920s and 1930's.

     As to the intellectuals, that is happening in the education system throughout the country.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 1:26pm

190. Your father needs to come out of retirement! Teddy Kennedy, Jr. looks pretty good! The rule is we never quit!

     Posted by pjcasey at 08/29/2009 @ 2:04pm

191. I am pissed.. Read this idiots rant here that is a lie and his bullshit distortion, just as all republicans do so well.

     "The majority of voters dont want the type of health care reform that the liberals are proposing . If congress ignores the voters which it seems that Katrina is pleading with them to do , then she will get a first hand view of democracy in action when the liberals will be voted out of office , just as the Framers intended .

     Posted by limoman at 08/26/2009 @ 5:42pm "

     limoman:

     You are an idiot! American wants AFFORDABLE PRICES!!! They want a PUBLIC OPTION SO THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES GREED WILL FORCE THEM TO LOWER PRICES!!!!

     All intelligent Americans DEMAND THAT!!! You must be so stupid, so full of lies and insanity, that you believe the lies that come out of your mouth!!!!

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/29/2009 @ 3:06pm

192. limoman:

     Lets educate you before you make a bigger fool out of yourself than you already have..

     The corporate owned media has shown screaming, crazy republican nuts who do not want any sort of reform. They are most likely obama birthers, as they don't believe he was born in America. They are a tiny slice of America. They DO NOT represent a majority and are so tiny and insignificant they noone listens to them, except FAUX news..

     What these traitors in the town hall meetings REALLY are saying is: "we don't like the mixed race president in the White House!!!"

     This is about racism, nothing else. No intelligent American is happy with their health care now. NOONE!!! IT is the republican party who has done everything it can to stop reform, so that corporations make more money and Americans lose money and suffer!!! That FACT should be spoken each day, everywhere so that each and every American knows that republicans are simply put; monsters who don't care about people..

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/29/2009 @ 3:15pm

193. I have taken the time to read each one of the preceding messages from fellow citizens of all persuasions, opinions and extremes. Thank you, Katrina, for sharing your personal reflections on Senator Kennedy.

     Of course he was no saint. Like the rest of us, Ted was a deeply flawed human being, filled with moral contradictions, immoral human failings - even at times in his earlier life, amoral behavoirs. However, unlike many of us, perhaps even most of us, much of the remainder of his life was spent working through his personal demons while giving himself tirelessly to public service on behalf of the voiceless, the powerless, and the weakest in our society. These are only my personal observations made admittedly from a considerable remove. But as is often the case, the totality of a man's life frequently does exceed the sum of its individual parts.

     I believe his life will remain an enduring legacy to the efficacy of a strangely gracious, healing redemption at work in those mysterious spaces inhabited by each human soul: the spaces between human frailty and heroic feats, damnable failings and dogged perserverance, pathetic self-absorption and profound self abnegation, tragedy and triumph, despair and hope, the darkest of nights and the brightest of dawns, the nagging nightmare of fear and the daring vision of hope for a more compassionate and just America.

     Not a bad way, all in all, to be remembered.

     Posted by lewinthecove at 08/29/2009 @ 3:19pm

194. Here is another article showing that The Nation is no longer a voice of the people but just an adjunct of the foreign oligarchy and CIA foundations controlling the phony Liberal left. Ever since Kartina used CIA foundation money and her families decades old involvement with Dutch intelligence & then the CIA to buy up The Nation and subvert the so-called left into being just a wing of the foundations that now control most left wing institutions. Pimping for Liberal oligarchs like the Kennedy's has become her hallmark. A rich woman from a Dutch oligarchical family, her opposition to the right is tactical only. JFK and RFK may have moved in some ways against their oligarchical background (for which they ended up assassinated) but Teddy Kennedy only did what he did to maintain control by the wealthiest levels of society. He was not assassinated. You see the phony left, the Anglo/Dutch Liberals, have their political positions not because they really oppose the right but because they think the right is crude and ineffective in maintaining the free trade empire. Today, you will see The Nation supporting the Kennedy's but you won't see this rotten publication actually oppose empire and oligarchy in any meaningful way. In the final analysis, there is NO difference between TMK and KVH and Bush or Cheney. Please, please rebut this KVH and I and others will only expose more of your duplicity. Unless of course you start censoring these blogs.

     Posted by shadowknows at 08/29/2009 @ 3:21pm

195. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/29/2009 @ 04:54am...

     Oh... sure... I may indeed be a fraud... only time will tell...;^)

     But you... are definitely evil... like... the little devil that whispered into Cheney's ear.

     Those days are over. Get over it.

     Posted by ttr at 08/29/2009 @ 3:47pm

196. priceless. as are the movies made from them, starring the great Fernandel.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/29/2009 @ 09:32am

     Probably the best post of the entire thread...

     Posted by sntauri at 08/29/2009 @ 4:54pm

197. Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 11:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --No Happy, it was 40 years ago, Mary Jo's irrelevant now, so is the fact that a lawmaker broke the law and lied about it repeatedly to save his own ass...there's honor in that!

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/29/2009 @ 5:35pm

198. Something for the female Libs to chew over, from that female site, from Mark Steyn's above column at the NRO:

     "At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo "would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it." What true-believing liberal lass wouldn't be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?"

     Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I wonder if Melissa, since she wants to ponder hypotheticals, would agree to go back in time and sacrifice herself, mother, best friend, or if she has one, her daughter, to drown (or asphyxiate) in order to hamper Ted Kennedy from becoming President back in the 70s.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/29/2009 @ 5:43pm

199. Something for the female Libs to chew over, from that female site, from Mark Steyn's above column at the NRO:

     "At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo "would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it." What true-believing liberal lass wouldn't be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?"

     Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --and sicne Melissa wants to ponder hypotheticals, maybe Mary Jo blames herself for robbing Ted Kennedy from having the chance to be President in the 70s. That's the flip side of her question. Of course, Melissa would say that question is distasteful and downright disgusting; but she thinks it's fine to ask the other question.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/29/2009 @ 5:45pm

200. Ted Kennedy had a career of working with the Republicans to come up with policies that would appease the public (at least temporarily) while keeping the establishment in power. Using his memory now, as the Democrats are doing, to help promote their fake health care reform (a British-style public option which maintains the insurance companies rather than single payer which would eliminate the insurance companies) is something no doubt Ted Kennedy would approve of. Katrina vanden Heuvel's memories of Ted Kennedy only reveal her support for establishment fakery, i.e. bipartisanship or rule by a phony Liberal/Conservative split. Bush & Cheney prefered to rule with the iron fist. Kennedy and vanden Heuvel prefer rule by the iron fist inside a velvet glove. Don't anyone be fooled into thinking they were "actually" in opposition to Bush and Cheney on who should rule America. The Kennedy's, the Bush's, the vanden Heuvels are all the same, rich oligarchical families who believe they have a right to rule over the rest of us. And, of course, they do. But the American people are waking up. We Americans have hated the Bushs for some time. We now hate the Obamas and Kennedys and, again now doubt, in time, we will hate the vanden Heuvels also. Katrina, the nefarious history of your father and your family will become known, just as people will eventually realize what Ted Kennedy's bipartisanship was really all about.

     Posted by shadowknows at 08/29/2009 @ 6:37pm

201. "The Kennedy's, the Bush's, the vanden Heuvels are all the same, rich oligarchical families who believe they have a right to rule over the rest of us. And, of course, they do. But the American people are waking up. We Americans have hated the Bushs for some time. We now hate the Obamas and Kennedys and, again now doubt, in time, we will hate the vanden Heuvels"

     Shadow...

     Being rich in America is not a sin, being rich and NOT sharing its wealth with the lesser, certainly is. Being a politician is not a sin, being a politician and NOT to serve the people's dreams and necessities is. Being powerful is not a sin, the use of power in ways contrary to the common good, surely is.

     We don't need to hate people or destroy the system to change it. But surely we need to change our society into a humanized and dignified society where everyone of us can earn enough to live with dignity and where nobody should be allowed to enrich himself out of the people's basic needs.

     Apart from calling the rich to their moral responsibilities, let them be. They surely can't even buy paradise in Earth.

     From all the people you have mentioned, the only one that provokes revulsion in me is Cheney because of his cynicism. Still I try to change my mental framework and not focus on him whenever he is mentioned.

     I honestly think 'The Nation' serves the best interests of the country by promoting a liberal agenda in service of the person. Whether they have or not a fortune, I really don't care, they are doing the right thing in this country where truth is always wearing the thick makeup that Republicans put over it....and by the way, the "Establishment" is not Obama but the financial power of those opposing to Health Care reform.

     Not just oppose, but propose solutions. Who don't you hate??

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/29/2009 @ 7:31pm

202. "At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo "would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . (mis)Hap

     As always the mediocre and insidious mishap.

     That was an accident. Crime requires a willingness that goes beyond this mishap. Whether he had none, one, two or 10 drinks, and probably she too, we don't know. She agreed on taking the ride, and that was a great error from both of them... Perhaps the people of Massachusetts pardoned him because they knew him at heart, and perhaps people like you from Texas did not because he was liberal only, but if it had been the drunk Bush of the 'good ol days' and in Tx, maybe then it had only been an error.

     "Being a catalyst to his career"....that is an insult. His merits and the laws that he backed speak volumes about an entire life of personal service to the people....And the hatred that people like you feel about him is the best proof.

     Let's take Bush ...his "conversion" (the only thing he did actually is leave booze, but he never adopted the idea of service instead of servicing himself) 'catalyzed' his image as "compassionate conservative"....give us a break.... another Cheney, he nearly killed a friend while shooting at game but....this 'catalyzed' a closer relationship between him and the NRA. At least Teddy was not a Budweiser advocate.

     Don't make us loose time with garbage. The Weekly Standard is up to your mental level.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/29/2009 @ 8:08pm

203. ....your mental level.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/29/2009 @ 8:08pm

     Of all the sop Libs here, I pity you the most...

     As I see you as fairly old and not having had much success....and you sulk!

     It is libs like you and Denise and a few others, that have made me truly realize that there are a lot of you down-and-trodden that aren't worth my charity. By the way, since your Messiah became POTUS aided by ACORN which all of you rave, in honor all of you sops, I have shut off most of my donations to a range of organizations that (supposedly) help the poor...let Magic do it now. I've stopped my `trickle down' except to veterans organizations, the church, my universities and the Scouts.

     For you to single out Cheney, who is the most generous of all those named by shadow, even if his wealth came from businesses you despise, speaks volume about how little appreciation you sops have for CONSERVATIVE money. Thanks to you and your type, I am now wised up...I've gone Galt!

     Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 9:04pm

204. Here's something to chew over...from that money rag, the WSJ:

     REVIEW & OUTLOOK

     AUGUST 28, 2009, 6:08 A.M. ET

     The Absent-Minded Chairman Charlie Rangel wins the personal lottery.

     When normal people happen to "find" their own money, it might mean a twenty left in a winter coat, or discovering change beneath the sofa cushions. But if you're Charlie Rangel, it means doubling your net worth.

     Earlier this month the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee "amended" his 2007 financial disclosure form....This voyage of personal financial discovery brings Mr. Rangel's net worth for 2007 to somewhere between $1.028 million and $2.495 million, while his previous statement came in at $516,015 and $1.316 million.

     When you're a powerful Congressman and working diligently to increase tax rates...we suppose it's easy to lose track of one of your checking accounts. That would be the one at the federal credit union with a balance somewhere between $250,001 and maybe as high as $500,000. And when you're crunched for time and pulling together bills to pass in a rush, we guess, too, that you might overlook several other investment accounts, even if some of them are sizable, such as the ones Mr. Rangel missed at JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer and BlackRock.

     Oh, and those vacant properties in Glassboro, in southern Jersey? Everybody in Manhattan tries not to think much about New Jersey, so those lots...must also have slipped down the memory hole. (The New York Post reported yesterday that Mr. Rangel failed to pay property taxes for two of the lots, according to the county clerk's office.)

     Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 9:28pm

205. The `funny' Rangel roars on:

     The Chairman probably isn't doing a lot of dining at KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell or Long John Silver's, either, which may explain why he didn't disclose the $1,001 to $15,000 in stock he owns in Yum Brands, the conglomerate that runs those chain restaurants. Compared to his undisclosed portfolio stake in PepsiCo--$15,001 to $50,000--that's practically a rounding error.

     All lawmakers amend their financial reports from time to time, though rarely are the errors this extensive. Via email, a Rangel spokesman declined to offer details about how the errors occurred....

     Among other issues, Mr. Rangel is currently under investigation regarding his use of four rent-stabilized apartments at New York City's tony Lenox Terrace and soliciting donations with his official letterhead for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, which was itself built with a $1.9 million earmark. Yet another part of the probe is his failure to report $75,000 in income from a rental villa at the beachfront Punta Cana Yacht Club, in the Dominican Republic.

     Mr. Rangel blamed that last one on the language barrier because he doesn't speak Spanish. We can only imagine what language he speaks with his accountants and tax attorneys.

     ==============================

     With Timmy Geithner as my model, I `saved' on my 2008 taxes....Mr. Rangel will be my model when I file for 2009!

     Let's admit the hard facts, the Left worships hypocrisy in high place and prefer the Conservatives to sucker up & pay the taxes! It's time more of us join Libs like Rangel, Geithner, Daschle and Go Galt on taxes as well. Can't beat them at writing tax codes, might as well join them in not paying them!

     Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 9:37pm

206. From Rasmussen....hard to believe:

     62% Like Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending

     Friday, August 28, 2009

     Sixty-two percent (62%) of Americans say it's always better to cut taxes than increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their own money.

     A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 20% of adults disagree, and 18% are not sure.

     The new findings mark a nine-point increase in support for taxpayers as the best judges of spending since January.....

     Women are more likely than men to prefer government spending over tax cuts. Investors favor cutting taxes more than non-investors.

     Republicans are almost twice as likely as Democrats to think that taxpayers are the best judges of how to spend their own money. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of adults not affiliated with either party agree.

     While two-thirds (67%) of Republicans and the plurality (49%) of unaffiliateds say a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending, Democrats are evenly divided on the question....

     Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 10:00pm

207. I honestly think 'The Nation' serves the best interests of the country by promoting a liberal agenda in service of the person. Whether they have or not a fortune, I really don't care, they are doing the right thing in this country where truth is always wearing the thick makeup that Republicans put over it....and by the way, the "Establishment" is not Obama but the financial power of those opposing to Health Care reform.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/29/2009 @ 7:31pm

     I don't hate Liberals because they are rich. You are correct, there have been rich people who in history who have worked in the interest of all the people, but they are few and far between. I hate Liberals because they are Liberal. Liberalism was formed as a political philosophy to maintain the Anglo/Dutch empire and extend its maritime power over the whole earth. John Locke, an early exponent of emerging Liberalism was opposed by Ben Franklin and the founding fathers, who were neither Liberal or Conservative (the other British philosophy imported in the late 19th century while Liberals were forming the oligarchical "Establishment" to subvert truth, justice & the American way). Liberals do not oppose conservatives (except in rhetoric) they protect conservatives when conservatives go to far. Just look at the way Obama is continuing Bush's policies in just about every policy area and is protecting Cheney & Bush from prosecution for CIA torture. Just look at the way Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi protected them from any impeachment movement why they were in the White House. A liberal agenda is only in the interest the American oligarchy and its European relatives. The Nation as a voice of Anglo/Dutch liberalism is just another voice of the Liberal Establishment, another voice of Empire.

     Posted by shadowknows at 08/30/2009 @ 01:02am

208. As I see you as fairly old and not having had much success....and you sulk!

     It is libs like you and Denise and a few others, that have made me truly realize that there are a lot of you down-and-trodden that aren't worth my charity. "

     All you want is to tell you my story, but I just don't want to give you that benefit. This I do share my things . The fact of the matter is that I have an engineering advanced degree and that if you measure success by financial level, I am fair enough.

     Why do you post here? This is lib territory, you just think that will convert just one of us? Stupid or terribly dumb? Narcissist that only wants to tell he has" Dutch Shell property and "they aren't worth my charity" He, he! Who would care for your charity, you are proving day by day it is not from the heart, so get out. Probably your Dad kicked you and you want to show how good (and Happy!!) and succesful you are with us....as if we cared. But you are not more than filthy pig trying to eat money.

     Here we discuss how to make the Lib agenda much better, not about personal things, nor to distract with Rep follies, or maybe people payed by LIBERTY WORKS to create chaos out of the liberal arena. And we truly despise Republicans trying to show us they "are a whole better" without any sense of humility, when in reality they ARE exactly what is wrong in this country. SELFISH!!

     Go with our prejudices to maybe Texas and stay there. The two coasts here know much better than you! I will only be satisfied when you tell just why do you post here? Money, narcissism, conversion, or...dumbness?

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/30/2009 @ 03:09am

209. OK Shadow I respect you and we can argue here in much better manners than with others.

     The social and economic concept of 'liberal' has changed through history. Even today, a liberal here in the US is another thing than in Britain for example. A liberal in Britain is more in the liberal tradition, a centrist leaning strong to conservative in financial policies but 'liberal' in "individual rights" issues. More of what here is the Libertarian Party.

     Truth is that a Liberal here is more of a Labour Party in Britain and what is called in Germany a "social democracy". So the definition certainly overlaps for each country you consider. However, it is not true that Libs and Cons do agree here in the US. They don't. While they agree in keeping a basic capitalist social structure, they disagree basically on everything else: taxing, Keynesian or Chicago School economics, monetary policies, foreign policies, but foremost it is on social investments and policies.

     Obama has also deceived me a little bit. I understand however he is walking a fine line and that is what keeps me believing in him. The fine line is he does not want to alienate the centrist coalition that elected him. Not for reelection, but for the support of the policies he wants to implement. The alienation is coming anyway from the several lies of the Reps regarding health care. We must acknowledge that a sizable fraction of population is naive when worked upon with marketing strategies and blatant lies.

     So for me there is a lot of differences. However we, the Obama base, want bolder action now because if not we will hardly make it anyway. I still trust him and by about the end of the year will be able to tell. Conclusion? don't ever trust the other side anyway.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/30/2009 @ 03:39am

210. Frank42

     I understand your continued hope that Obama and the American liberal establishment will do good as a change from all the bad done by the conservatives. And I too like Obama and his family as people (much more real than Bush and his plastic family). But that is the mistake we all make when supporting liberalism. We buy into the "lessor of two evils" argument. The problem with this approach is that the empire continues. Militarism continues. Oligarchy and repression continue. Liberals never achieve the changes their base want because of the fundamental flaw in liberalism; the argument that liberals can make the situation better when the situation does not need to be made better, the situation needs to be changed. Take the health care argument. The liberal base that supported Obama wants single payer which will be fundamental change because the insurance companies will not be involved and the pharmaceutical giants can be opposed. But Obama, Kennedy and Katrina vanden Heuvel and most of the writers for this magazine want the British-style public option which will continue involvement by the insurance industry in health care. Furthermore, Obama has made a deal with big Pharma which gives them great influence over his & Kennedy's public option. Change, to be meaningful, can not be partial. And the agents of change can not "walk the line". They must be on one side or the other. Kennedy supported and vanden Heuvel continues to support the other side of the line - the side ultimately acceptable to the insurance companies and big Pharma. And so it is with the issues of war and the issues of the economy. Accepting partial change or change in the wrong direction is no change.

     Posted by shadowknows at 08/30/2009 @ 04:17am

211. But Obama, Kennedy and Katrina vanden Heuvel and most of the writers for this magazine want the British-style public option which will continue involvement by the insurance industry in health care.

     you are misinformed. the public option is nothing like the british system, where the gov't owns the hospitals and doctors are employed by the gov't.

     you can do us all a favor by being better informed.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/30/2009 @ 08:47am

212. ...The two coasts here know much better than you! I will only be satisfied when you tell just why do you post here? Money, narcissism, conversion, or...dumbness?

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/30/2009 @ 03:09am

     Of the "two coasts" that know better, which one (or both) is/are at the trough needing bailouts? Even FL, my home state, is losing people for the first time since WWII....pretty shocking to me.

     I read TN for insight into the Far Left & post here for pleasure and to be honest, to tick off you loonies....all of which make me HAPPY! There is some "dumbness", of course....but doing dumb things for fun is part of what make the human experience so special...I just don't do them as much as in my youth. Here, doing some dumb things hurt no one but possibly sops like you.....LOL!

     If you didn't care about my $ success, and it's been a great year so far (with the tax-dollars proping up AIG & Citigroup, both of which I'm now in-the-money and took some gains last week on AIG when it hit $55), then why you feel compelled to mention. If I don't care about something (I read) you or SRJ or MASK wrote, I ignore them. Now, am I the rational & logical one, as an ex-engineer myself, or is it you with your "advanced" engineering degree that only made you "fair"?

     The Left is in trouble....where is your swagger, sop?

     Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 10:19am

213. Hey Happy I don't want or need your charity, you are such a conceited man, but somebody somewhere will bring you down to size, and I'm sad I won't be there to see it. See that's how life works. Prepare.

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/30/2009 @ 11:01am

214. Hey Happy I don't want or need your charity....

     Posted by Denise29 at 08/30/2009 @ 11:01am

     Really? Then why all the whining for Big Gov't to collect taxes from the likes of me who produce more than my own family needs? Typical hypocrite!

     When you next read or see your local ACORN-type charities suffering, you can think to yourself, it's folks just like yourself that's turned off formerly-generous Givers like me! You better squeeze more taxes out of me since I won't voluntarily give to the likes of you and yours.....nothing ticks me off more than ungrateful Takers!

     Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 11:54am

215. you are misinformed. the public option is nothing like the british system, where the gov't owns the hospitals and doctors are employed by the gov't.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/30/2009 @ 08:47am | ignore this person | warn this person

     You are correct on these two points, but the salient comparison is that the British system is rationed care with the rationing policies (not specific cases) determined by technocratic committees and all the proposals thus far proposed (other than the let's do nothing approach of the Republicans) calls for rationed care with policies determined by technocratic committees. No matter how many times Democrats and their media flaks say it does not, nearly everyone in the country, Republican, Democrat, independent, knows that it will be rationed care because there is no other way to pay for the public option than to ration care. Even Obama advisor on health care Tom Daschle admitted this on Meet the Press. This is what has led to the argument over the term "death panels". Republicans say they are death panels because a committee determines policies based on comparative effectiveness. Democrats are saying this is outrageous because the committees won't determine individual cases. Same say potato, some say potahto. The committee of 6 now determining the "bipartensen" outcome for health care may not include these committees, but we will have to wait and see. Thus far the Democrats proposals, written by Obama activists, have been very much on the order of the British model. Note that the Town Hall argument has spilled over into Britain and many there for the first time are questioning their system.

     Posted by shadowknows at 08/30/2009 @ 12:30pm

216. Many sophisticated observers are frustrated about the inappropriate (ignorant?) characterizations and incoherent yelling used by reform opponents to get their point across. But they are sadly mistaken if they do not understand that these are simply metaphors for their frustration at a government that is not listening to them and, where many key figures even seem contemptuous of them. To some extent this is the inevitable outcome of the administration vigorously campaigning for a plan that they have not specified and the fear of the law that will likely be crafted in back room deals and voted in the middle of the night by a Congress that doesn't even know what is in it. The public is being asked to buy a "pig in a poke." As a result, all the passion is with the opposition. Only "true believers" will rally to "win one for Teddy" or can rationalize that opposition is all the product of evil "vested interests." You can strike a match but you will have no fire without ample tinder.

     With all due respect to a sensible progressive, Camille Paglia, who has called for Pelosi's head, the senior people from safe districts who run Congress can thumb their noses at the opposition and attempt to divert attention to the manner it is expressed. That will work just fine for their constituents. But the so-called "blue dogs" will be decimated if things continue as they are now about health, cap-n-trade and other issues. Even the 42% of the people who support "reform" are, by and large, NOT in their districts.

     This debacle is a product of wilfulness and hubris on the part of an immature President who has yet to grasp the limitations of his ostensible greatness. A basic change such as this requires consensus. The AMA and the drug companies may may have been co-opted onto the reform

     Posted by CincinnatiRick at 08/30/2009 @ 12:49pm

217. rationed care with policies determined by technocratic committees.

     this what we have now with the insurance companies supplying the committees.

     imagine a business model that requires you to give the customer less and less, with a squadron of employees hired to look for every possible loophole, where they can get out of paying the customer.

     in fact they deny payment even when they haven't a leg to stand on, pun intended, and when called on this, they reluctantly pay.

     that is the health insurance industry.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/30/2009 @ 12:50pm

218. "Risky times indeed, and those in the best position to know what is happening behind the scenes are hitting the exits in record numbers right now, running to cash, and hard assets and currencies.

     As TrimTabs reports in the attached news release, insider selling is reaching record levels, even as more speculators borrow to go long stocks. There are some obvious bubbles already formed in certain insolvent financial stocks like AIG, with disinformation rampant in the Wall Street demimonde."

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/30/2009 @ 2:08pm

219. take THAT, montgomery burns:

     http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanpaulkelley/3870328493/

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/30/2009 @ 3:14pm

220. People- We all want to think we are right and want to be heard. As liberals we know about programs, problems,and people. Then we have guys like Happy who thinks he's witty but is just an ass. I don't mind that he is happy to be in the party of "me". It seems to fdit his personality. I don't have anything to do so I thought I would respond to the headcase. Give to charity and feel proud, I thought that was how to live your life. I guess his bullet point index was turned to "A". I am happy for Droopy". He has no compassion for others, but probably got his back slapped by all of the other "good" folks when he came out of church. Now he is watching his favorite Fox News programming. They are telling him how good he should feel because his health care costs "only" rose 12% this year. Droopy can stick out his chest and say,"I can afford it, take that libs". I wonder if Droopy has hurricane insurance through the state of Florida since the pillars of the community(State Farm etc.) pulled out. Perhaps he will have to sell some of his AIG stock to pay for a new house tghisa season.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/30/2009 @ 3:35pm

221. He has no compassion for others,.....he is watching his favorite Fox News programming....I wonder if Droopy has hurricane insurance through the state of Florida since the pillars of the community(State Farm etc.) pulled out. Perhaps he will have to sell some of his AIG stock to pay for a new house tghisa season.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/30/2009 @ 3:35pm

     Hey, newbie.....get the facts on me right!

     Ever heard of Rational Self-Interest as a guiding philosophy? Look it up and see who is my hero.

     Second, I don't have cable or dish TV so I don't have access to Fox News.

     Third, I live in Houston now.

     Fourth, I have already bought a "new house" thanks to your Messiah's First-Time Buyer bag of goodies; it just isn't in my name.

     Fifth, I want to thank you & Obama for rescuing my AIG stocks......until I picked up a couple of thousand shares at ~$1 (pre-reverse split), I was under water by thousands!

     Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 5:26pm

222. I see that Happy at least admits that he is a believer and practitioner of "Rational Self-Interest" the absurd fascist philosophy promoted by Ayn Rand for mentally constipated little boys like Happy. I just wish that some of the liberals blogging here would be just as honest as Happy and admit that their philosophy is equally, ultimately, anti-human. You can't support Obama's war in Afghanistan, Obama's continuing of rendition and torture (under new organization), Obama's & Kennedy's health care ideas and, most importantly, Obama's and Bernake's continued looting of the American economy (which will crash again within a few weeks) and Bernake's ponzi scheme support of the U.S. budget -- and call yourself on the side of the human race. America is currently on the fast track to ruin when the only choices we have are between honest fascism (where the conservatives & those with rational self interest (selfishness) are leading us) and dishonest fascism (where the liberals like Katrina vanden Heuvel and The Nation are leading us). It is more than past time for another approach, one more in keeping with democracy, truth, justice and the American Way. True Americans, true progressives must now consider alternatives to the debased and unworkable two party system. And Obama must be empeached. In a few short weeks, when the late September, early October financial reports come out and all of you realize that the Federal Government is as bankrupt as most of the States, I hope that some of you who are honest progressives (not liberals) will wake up and come to agree with me. What is needed is a grass-roots MOVEMENT, not a political party at this point, and not enslavement to a false messiah.

     Posted by shadowknows at 08/30/2009 @ 11:25pm

223. Well Droopy ,I had a fantasy football draft that was much more important than you. Since we are on the subject of delusion it is good that you read things that actually don't use rational thought. The next thing you will say is that you are a disciple of Rich Devoss, the Amway king. Hey but I am glad you bought a home with the help of some thieves you knew in a different metro area. You know Phil Gramm did not know crooks were laundering money in Switzerland. So ,I hope you feel better because you can read something that is B.S. That's O.K. because I believe in the people who live in this country. They don't believe your conservative ideology but you get to spew it out every day on channels you can't watch or hear. Just think you can read your friend Glenn's drivel and rub your hands together. This newbie is nopt a p[unk like you ,bring it on.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/30/2009 @ 11:50pm

224. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:21am

     "Kennedy was charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The worst case scenario is that he was drunk and drove off the bridge and left the scene of the crime."

     No, Wolfie, actually the worse case scenario was that Mary Jo Kopechne suffocated in an air bubble in that car, perhaps as long as HOURS after Teddy drunkenly drove it off the Chappaquiddick bridge. Teddy left the scene of the accident and didn't report it for nine hours, after trying to make a friend take the fall for the accident, all for the purpose of further his own worthless political career. Arguably, Teddy murdered that woman in order to further his own political career.

     It is often said that famous people become famous due to some insecurity from their background that causes them to take risks and champion positions as compensation for their own personal failings. I would argue that Teddy Kennedy's moral posturings, moral grandstanding, and such were nothing more than compensation for his own execrable character traits with which he was utterly too familiar. Kind of a poster child for the guilt-ridden American liberal, one might say.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/31/2009 @ 01:09am

225. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:21am

     "Kennedy was charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The worst case scenario is that he was drunk and drove off the bridge and left the scene of the crime."

     Some of us know, at least those of us who WANT to know, that Mary Jo Kopechne was alive for some time after Ted Kennedy's drinking placed her at the bottom of a tidal pool. We know this because of the scratch marks on the bottom of the seat where her fingernails clawed as she gasped for her last breaths of air. How long was she there, in pitch black darkness, slowly drowning, waiting in vain for help, while Teddy formulated his alibi? No-one really knows for sure. Some say hours.

     But it's all good, of course. Teddy expiated his sins by clamoring for liberal causes and lecturing his opponents regarding his superior moral sensibilities. Thus, he is a liberal hero.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/31/2009 @ 01:20am

226. Posted by pontificus at 08/31/2009 @ 01:09am |

     I always wondered why W behaved that way. Thanks for clearing things up!

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/31/2009 @ 08:02am

227. Second, I don't have cable or dish TV so I don't have access to Fox News. ----Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 5:26pm

     THE "best investor" on this blog?...Mr. Dow?..."The Wolf of Wall Street"?....

     doesn't have CNBC or Bloomberg TV or Fox Business Network?!?!?!?!?!?!?

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2009 @ 08:16am

228. Posted by snowball777 at 08/31/2009 @ 08:02am

     PONTI stepped into that one, huh?

     Only would have been better if he had accused Kennedy of being a "drunk silver spooner from a New England brahmin family trying to live upto his daddy's expectations."

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2009 @ 08:18am

229. I would argue that my moral posturings, moral grandstanding, and such are nothing more than compensation for my own execrable character traits with which I am utterly too familiar. Posted by pontificus at 08/31/2009 @ 01:09am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 08:37am

230. Second, I don't have cable or dish TV so I don't have access to Fox News. ----Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 5:26pm

     THE "best investor" on this blog?...Mr. Dow?..."The Wolf of Wall Street"?....

     doesn't have CNBC or Bloomberg TV or Fox Business Network?!?!?!?!?!?!?

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2009 @ 08:16am

     I know you know that I am unconventional and thus, am a decently successful stock investor (beat broad market going on 12 of the past 14 years). Does it ever occur to you, that perhaps it's precisely because I don't "have CNBC or Bloomberg TV or Fox Business Network"?

     Those mainstream financial sites are for those less able to think for themselves or don't have the time and will power to learn on their own and are being literally led to the table to be dined on by the likes of me.

     Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 10:14am

231. Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 10:14am

     Just find it strange, HAPP.....almost as strange as an ADMITTED ditto-head, who doesn't watch Fox News...given how often El Rushbo references it.

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2009 @ 11:25am

232. For you to single out Cheney, ......

     Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 9:04pm | ignore this person | warn

     Ah, the price of being a CHICKENHAWK.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/31/2009 @ 12:22pm

233. Posted by i'm nobody at 08/26/2009 @ 8:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     in those days, everybody drove drunk. no seat belts either.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 3:42pm | ignore this person |

     The good old days, when men were men.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/31/2009 @ 12:24pm

234. Arguably, Teddy murdered that woman in order to further his own political career.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/31/2009 @ 01:09a

     well, reagan murdered hundreds of grenadians,

     and bush1 murdered hundreds of panamanians

     and bush2 murdered thousands of iraqis,

     all in order to further their political careers.

     the one sided coin has two sides.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2009 @ 12:26pm

235. we can thank the swedish car maker Volvo for that life saving gadget. among other things.

     we're number one.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 12:31pm

236. Study your history. the combination of the unions with a large marxist/socialist union leadership had it strength back in the 1920s and 1930's. As to the intellectuals, that is happening in the education system throughout the country. Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 1:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     So, then, the "socialist" days are over now?

     As I showed, the unions are just about done. Union membership is now at the kind of all time lows that SHOULD be making neocons like yourself ecstatic. Why is it not? Your previous post implied a magical synergy between "unions" and "intellectuals" which produced "socialism" as a phenomenon. This is not the "20s and 30s". That is ancient history. One leg of this magical duo, the unions, that you have set up is basically GONE as a political force,

     and,

     you still haven't identified who these "intellectuals" are with these retained socialism-producing powers.

     If it's these"intellectuals", whomever they be, who still hold this tremendous sway over the body politic, then somebody sure isn't getting the opposing message out very effectively.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/31/2009 @ 12:36pm

237. Was it only 8 years ago that the USA was looking at budget surplusses as "far as the eye could see"? Isn't is incredable how the special interests of that year managed to solve that problem? Especially since we were told that paying of the national debt would be a bad step for our government to take.

     Posted by GlenWhitener at 08/31/2009 @ 12:51pm

238. Posted by GlenWhitener at 08/31/2009 @ 12:51pm

     Naturally, you were "ALWAYS a vocal opponent of the Bush tax cuts"....uh......right???

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2009 @ 1:19pm

239. Union membership is now at the kind of all time low

     many of those jobs are now in China etc.

     management, or rather mismanagement, have killed the golden goose

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 1:30pm

240. intellectuals? egad.

     we prefer dopes.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 1:31pm

241. Posted by GlenWhitener at 08/31/2009 @ 12:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     whatta difference a few wars and tax cuts and wall street ponzi schemes make.

     free Bernie Madoff.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 1:32pm

242. management, or rather mismanagement, have killed the golden goose

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 1:30pm

     Union membership is down because of (1) the "Southern Strategy" first implemented by Richard Nixon which shifted investment and banking away from the Northeast manufacturing areas to the southern states (which also helped Republicans make these states Red and anti-union Right to Work states) turning the Northeast into a rust belt instead of a productive area - a process which has continued unabated by any President or Congress (Republican or Democrat) sense and (2) the buying up and destgruction of American companies by treasonous transnational corporation directed to do so by the foreign investment banks on Wall St. and (3) a deliberate shifting by the transnational corporations of manufacturing away from the United States towards Asian and Latin American sweatshops and slave labor - again with no attempt by anyone, Democrat, Republican or Independent to stop this process, and, finally, (4) a labor movement leadership that is completely ignorant of what it takes to build working middle class and the union movement. This final factor is because the union leadership does not LEAD the Democratic Party but FOLLOWS the corrupt Wall St. leadership of that party and only lends bodies to election drives. What is needed is the dreaded P word - PROTECTIONISM and leaders who will actually protect American workers and not sell them out to the transnational corporation. And, please, do not say the union leaders have no choice but to follow the path of the corporations and banks. That is baloney and flies in the face of union organizing prior to the Southern Strategy and Right to Work. Labor wake up!

     Posted by shadowknows at 08/31/2009 @ 2:51pm

243. Who is wondering about Ben Nelson and health care reform? Nebraska, the home of the Cornhuskers and being a right to work state.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/31/2009 @ 10:44pm

244. Arguably, Teddy murdered that woman in order to further his own political career.

     this makes absolutely no sense.

     murdering women is a sure way to the senate?

     Kennedy murdered no one.

     there was an accident. he saved himself. he was not able to save her. perhaps he did not try. I was not there.

     there is no law requiring someone to risk his own life to try to save another.

     yes, it would have been great if he had saved her, but in real life wishes often go unfulfilled.

     his life did not end there. he spent his life serving his country and his community.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 11:10pm