I woke up this morning with anticipation of coming to the local coffee shop (where I now sit) and being all piss happy about churning out a post either on getting the most out of government school or a dive into how my mind (or mindlessness, if you prefer) works.
Instead, one of the first things I heard after turning on the radio was that Senator Edward Kennedy had died from cancer at age 77. As I spoke about him specifically when he was diagnosed, I'll decline on doing so now.
*note: I do no allow pissing on the dead; comments than are not toned down will be summarily deleted.
Instead, I want to look back at the impact the name Kennedy has had on the politics of the 20th century. From family patriarch, Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, to the brothers, President John Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy (both assassinated), and ending with Teddy (the youngest of the family), much of the political landscape of the century belongs to a single family.
To a large degree, they were political royalty, the closest possible thing that could occur in this country, outshining other political families in the mixture of elation, majesty, sadness, loss, and derision they elicited in their friends, allies, opponents and enemies. With tumultuous relationships, scandals, the assassinations, and the public and legal trials, as well as the legislative and political successes they enjoyed, the loss of the last of this family reminds us both of what we have seen and what may never come again.
With a society that finds its royalty more among those that emote other's words on film now than among actual leaders, and has become increasingly jaded toward anyone who succeeds, today is the end of an era in which all of us were born and in which we may not see again in our lives. Whatever your feelings about the late Senator, the depth of this should not escape you.
And in related politics....
I got out of the house before any of the talk radio shows came on, so I can say this first, rather than being beaten out by people whose reach exceeds my wisdom by millions of readers/listeners/viewers. The only things I've heard are the short news on the radio, and a perusal of a couple of news stories, all of which looked back at the past.
First, the death of Senator Kennedy will be used later today to reinvigorate the push for government-run health care in some form, primarily as a legacy to his years of service to liberal causes. This will begin late today.
Updates:
11:52 - SEIU thugs are first out of the gate.
11:58 - Sen. Byrd is the first Dem legislator to do it.
Second, Rush and company (Rush already having stated this) will be warning of said strategy as of the moment they hit the air.
Updates:
10:35 - Got home, turned on Boortz. I think he said it somewhere in this half hour (after covering Chappaquiddick).
12:06 - It took Rush 105 seconds (from his first word) to get to his prediction that they'd do it, mainly because he's long-winded.
Third, the media will be giving Kennedy the Michael Jackson coverage until the weekend, when most people will zone out.
I'll update as I get proven right.
20 comments:
Toad: If you had any substance to your comment, i wouldn't have to delete it. If I'm going to boot righties for teddy-bashing, I'm certainly not going to listen to your blather.
I have no doubt that those pushing to destroy healthcare (with a government-run plan) will cynically use Sen. Kennedy's death to help boost a plan that is rapidly failing with the American public.
Third, the media will be giving Kennedy the Michael Jackson coverage until the weekend, when most people will zone out.
Um, no. The media will cover Senator Kennedy's death as it should be: an important American story.
He is the first of the Kennedy men to die of natural causes, and he is recognized by both sides of the aisle as a great American.
So, instead of likening the media coverage to the Michael Jackson debacle, it is more appropriate to liken it to how the media covered Ronald Reagan's death.
Love or hate the Kennedys and their politics, but they were a influencial force in this country for many years.
Some good - some bad, which could probably be said about most of our lives, no?
So, rest in peace, Old Mariner, tomorrow you will be a footnote as life goes on...
Dmarks: That's why I'm updating. And they're already doing it, quicker than i said thy would (SEIU actually had their support for it up while I was writing the post)
Shaw: Fair point. Jacko just jumped to mind because of the sheer amount of coverage (vs anyone else who has died over the past year). But you notice that I say they'll stop over the weekend, unlike the continuing stories about the dead mutant. That says something about our country's ass-backwardness on priorities.
No doubt SEIU's campaign, like much of what they do in the political realm, is funded by money taken from workers against their will.
I didn't particularly care for the man and his politics, but he was a strong senator. He fought for what he believed in and I hope other representatives can look at his work ethic and follow in his lead. (Conservatives of course!!) :-)
That some will use his death as political gain, is just so telling about what we as a country have become!
He was a politician, and of course his death will be used by others for political gain. He wouldn't have it any other way.
Please delete this after Dmarks has seen it if possible Patrick. This has nothing to do with the Kennedys.
Union political activity is funded through donations to union pacs Dmarks. Not dues because that is illegal. I had numerous training sessions on this while a union officer.
(cough cough) Ack. Just curious, Truth101: who and what funds the Union PACs?
Sheesh.
(Not so, Truth. I've seen entirely political union newsletters, entirely funded with union dues. And don't forget the "special assessments" made against workers' wishes. As for the PAC money, workers are bullied into making these donations, and have to make great efforts to avoid the money being automatically taken out. Why do you think there is a push for "paycheck protection"? Because the money is routinely swiped for political purposes, and if we passed "paycheck protection" which ensures worker choice, far fewer of them would choose to spend money on union-chosen political causes).
Back to Sen. Kennedy. There are some causes that he fought for that I supported. Causes that are commonly considered to be liberal ones.
And as someone commented on Shaw's blog, he had a tough row to hoe, through no fault of his own. I certainly do not envy him having to witness the tragic and public deaths of his brothers.
Concientious men and women that want to see working Americans get a fair shake fund the pacs through their donations Gordon.
I don't know what special assessments you're talking about Dmarks. Spending is voted on by union members.
Sorry to hijack your post with this Patrick.
Back to Patrick's original line. Why wouldn't we Democrats want to honor the legacy of Senator Kennedy by working for health insurance for all? Would the other side have us abandon Senator Kennedy's dream? To attack us for continuing the fight for what Senator Kennedy believed in is a lame attempt at best to slow down the progress of health insurance reform. At worst, it's despicable that the other side would use this in a sleazy and disrespectful to Senator Kennedy's legacy way. The right never fails to invoke Ronald Reagan's name when calling for less government.
I think that the health care plan should be debated purely on the benefits of the bill, myself.
101: No problem with the branch. Since i did broach the subject of the SEIU, and Dmarks' comment required a response, it's worth latitude.
I bend the rules if it's not ridiculous.
"Concientious men and women that want to see working Americans get a fair shake fund the pacs through their donations Gordon."
Come on, admit it, T101. You had to stop for a fit of uncontrollable laughter after you wrote that line.
Your spin on talk radio gave me a good laugh just now, nice going! It's not that Rush is wrong but his show has gotten so predictable over the years. I didn't hear what you heard because I didn't listen (I go with the music mainly today) but I bet he said it breathlessly.
Z: I had to listen to time it (although I have it on in the background often anyway). If he didn't have his usual spiel at the beginning, it would have come sooner
Gordon said : "Come on, admit it, T101. You had to stop for a fit of uncontrollable laughter after you wrote that line."
How dare you impugn my belief in my Union Brothers and Sisters!
Well, a giggle perhaps. But I still think it was a good retort to your bitter, anti working family meme.
No, no, T101. I'm much too busy clinging to my guns and religion to be anti-working family. There's no double-overtime or holiday pay involved, after all.
Post a Comment