The Patrick Kennedy story is a sad one and – even with the obvious prevarications – my reaction is just to shake my head for all of us, particularly for my generation. We have been living with the strange saga of the Kennedys all our lives. In a sense we have been enablers of it in the all-too-human need for celebrity/royalty. (And of course book publishers have thrived on it – and will again). I remember one commenter on here took me to task just a couple of months ago for raising the spectre of Mary Jo Kopechne in reaction to Teddy’s over-the -top interrogations during the Judiciary Committee Hearings. The commenter is a younger person, so I excuse him, but you must understand what a morally complicated event that was for people my age. People like me who wanted to support the Kennedys and what they stood for in those times had to suspend our own values then in a way it is impossible to forget. It haunts our lives in a small way and is brought back larger when incidents like this occur with other members of our low rent House of Atreus.
Roger,
You wrote, referring to Teddy Kennedy’s accident at Chappaquiddick:
[One has to understand] what a morally complicated event that was for people my age. People like me who wanted to support the Kennedys and what they stood for in those times had to suspend our own values then in a way it is impossible to forget…
In the summer of 1969, just after graduating from Yale and just before starting medical school, I had a strange job as a sort of child care person, water ski instructor, lifeguard and all-purpose factotum for a wealthy New Hampshire family who owned a summer home on Chappaquiddick. They were fervent Kennedy mavens, and had been at JFK’s inaugural. One morning that July we were awakened to the news that “something terrible had happened to Teddy Kennedy down at the Dike Bridge.” My employer had two (!) Land Rovers with winches on the front, and we were dispatched to help pull the senator’s car from the drink. By the time we arrived, however, a local towing company’s truck was already accomplsihing that task.
Now it had been my practice to go out to the beach by those two tidal ponds (Pocha Pond) to surf cast for bluefish when I had time off and I knew the area quite well. That knowledge made it immediately obvious to me that Kennedy was lying in his account of what had happened. So there was no sense of any loss of innocence with respect to the Kennedy family in my case; I began to reexamine all my beliefs about “Camelot,” and I grew up a bit.
Jamie Irons
While in college, I acted in a similar vein as Jamie to a family who knew the Kennedys well and had spent many summers in the compound at Hyannis Port. My employer would regale me with tales of the “boys” and I was especially impressed with the story of how Teddy would take the shoes that house guests had left out to be shined overnight and fill them with dog poop.
Seems the apple, truly, doesn’t fall far from the tree.
The House of Atreus starts with Tantalus. Somebody ought to write a book :>).
You put your finger on it, Roger. The genesis of “Wanting to support what they stood for” at the price of “Suspend(ing) our own values” became the road to perdition. You ended up living with, and living for, lies and liars. Some of you have become, too few and too late, neo-cons.
Over at Power Line there is a brief reflection on what may be a larger question we ought to ask ourselves, as we reflect on Patrick Kennedy’s accident.
Jamie Irons
Roger:
I am wondering if the fact that Patrick saw the inner workings of the Kennedy clan and saw the difference between the myth and the truth had any influence on the wreckless behaviour. If you constantly see what others in the clan get away with it may just encourage one to test the boundries oneself.
I have several younger distant family members who overcame drug and alcohol abuse and seeing their parents and uncles take a casual approach towards drunkeness and driving after drinking helped grease the skids to their own problems. They don’t blame their elders for their problems, they realize that they made the choices to take it to another, more destructive level but they do say it made it appear glamerous when they were young. If you see your family members reach the pinnacle of power and respect in this country while acting irresponsibley it can’t help but give anyone a feeling of being bullitproof. Rehab Patrick, it works, you will be a better person and a better politician.
In a way I am very fortunate. Starting with Joe Jr, whom I admired (historically speaking) I liked each Kennedy male successively less, so when Teddy got in trouble Camalot ended that day for me. I find the whole male side of the clan very pathetic and sad sack.
Roger when our generation dies I think historians will find that Camalot never really existed.
Well, after 39 years of living inside a cocoon of hypocrisy, I venture that Patrick Kennedy has lost, a long time ago, his ability to suspend his belief. Ted Kennedy is about as despicable as you can get, and reality probably began to assert itself in his teenage years.
Here’s some more info on the story:
More on Patrick Kennedy
Here is an interesting clip from it. I bolded a key phrase:
“Despite the wreck, Kennedy took part in normal business at the Capitol yesterday and appeared unshaken by the incident as he chatted with other members. But one Rhode Island political insider said there has been talk of Kennedy?s bizarre behavior of late.
?He has looked terrible lately,? the source said. ?He?s been acting goofy, kind of zany.?
In addition to seeking substance abuse treatment as a teen, Kennedy has acknowledged being diagnosed with bipolar disorder.“
Not too sure what happened to the link. Here it is again.
Patrick Kennedy
Expose the names of the two “superiors” and ask them why being paid by the citizens, they felt it is their duty to cover up for the kennedys?
Good for the son not to ask for special treatment, but facts are bare. You and I won’t get escorted home by the police with a “nothing to see here” note.
What is “morally complicated” about a rich brat getting away with murder? Having him still in office demonstrates the moral vacuum in the state of Massachusetts. War criminal Kerry is exhibit B of the same syndrome.
I grew up in a Pennsylvania family with Republican roots back to Lincoln’s day. As a twenty year old political science student with an internship in Washington, I volunteered for the JFK campaign in the fall of 1960 at the beginning of Camelot. I celebrated the election results at the Mayflower Hotel DNC party, and watched the famous “Ask not” speech with fellow JFK volunteers in DC. A true believer, seized by the Sorensonian rhetoric and idealism so well delivered by JFK.
Seven years later, I served in Vietnam, and lost much of that idealism. Still, I was a “Kennedy Democrat” until the mid 1980s, when I became a “Reagan Republican”.
But I had no respect for the what was left of the Kennedy Family after Chappaquidick.
Now you’ve left me humming Tom Lehrer’s House of Atreus. Does anyone with better googling skills than I know where to find the lyrics?
…Now Atreus had two sons,
Agamemnon and Menaleus
(bet you never thought I could find something to rhyme with Menaleus!)
And so continued
the ruin ‘n’ chaos…
cathy
Hurry, check the trunk of his car for a Mary Jo clone! Or at least the sides of the roads he traveled….
At this point I’m about to declare the Kennedy men “Weapons of Male Destruction”!
I never have understood the facination with the Kennedy family. I have heard people call JFK, our greatest president, yet… other than some flashy speeches and his handling of the Cuban Missle Crisis, I am unable to see how someone would come to this conclusion. I have no idea why Ted Kennedy is still in office… he looks, sounds and acts like a crackpot.
However, I do find some interest in something the Roger stated: “People like me who wanted to support the Kennedys and what they stood for in those times had to suspend our own values”
Should an American ever do this? Should we ever sacrifice our own moral fiber, in order to support the party? Many here rightly (in my opinion) decry realpolitick, is this sort of action (suspending ones own views to make some gain elsewhere) any different?
Now, anyone who’s read my comments knows that I’m no fan of the current politcs in the US. And, perhaps, Roger has nailed the exact reason. I know that my fellow Americans, for the most part are sane (in some sense). I know that they have some morals, that they want our nation to be a good place to live, and to be a shinning star for other nations to follow. But, in reality, it appears that far too many Americans suspend their own views in order to support some political figure or party. Ten years ago, I know that I could have polled this great nation and been beaten ’round the ears for daring to even ask if torture was acceptable. I would have been run out of town for asking if we might want to consider holding American citizens without charges or trial for three years. Cities would have tarred and feathered me if I would have asked them to support warrentless wiretapping with minimal oversight. Yet, today I see people, consciously or not, suspending these moral positions, in order to support a political one.
Of course, the Democrats are not free of blame either. They equally suspend moral beliefs to support political agendas. Peace activists are not usually friends with Pali bombers. However, when one needs bodies for political capital, a body in a suicide vest will work just as well as one in tie-dye.
Our personal ethics, morals and positions.. our unique view of life is what makes our contribution to the political process valuable. In oligarchies, dictatorships and monarchies the people are expected to repeat the lines handed down from on high. In a democracy, the people should be writing the lines. Sadly though, I don’t see the People writing anything that doesn’t follow the latest talking points from their Party of choice. Today on the local news, there was a discussion with a member of the Democratic party about the nomination of Ken Blackwell (R-OH) for governor. His response repeated the same line at least 4 times, which had to do with the fact that Blackwell had supported the current Governors tax increases (of course, now Blackwell is against those increases). At any rate, he sounded nothing like a reasonable debator and more like a robotic response program (not even AI) or an insane person. Blackwell’s spokespeople aren’t any better. Look at the public faces that are attached to the administration, or the minority. Listen to them, entire phrases stated again and again and again in interviews. Then, suddenly they’re posted in blog entries, then blog comments and by pundits and by radio talk show hosts.
Have we all had to suspend our own values in order to support a political system? If so, is that political system of any real value?
dclydew:
Thank you for reading my mind and ascribing my support of the wiretaps strictly for party reasons. If we could live in a vacumn and pretend that 9-11 did not happen and that Islamo fascism is not a problem and that we are not in a middle of a war your argument would on point. I am a ex-democrat who used to vote party line. I am now a Independent and although I recognize the reality of political parties I will never register with one party or the other as long as I am alloweed by California Laws to vote in the primaries on one party slate or the other.
You, of course, come to your conclusions by strictly noble reasons. You never repeat any of the talking points of the left and never consider the fact that one party or the other wins every election and a choice between the two, as frustrating as that might be, has to be made every election. Our gracious host, who except for National defense reasons would more then likely never vote for President Bush is still a tool of the Republican Party because he agrees with him on some issues and decides that even though many of the positions that Bush takes on other issues make him ill he has decided that the Democratic Party, at this moment in time, can’t be trusted with protecting his wife and child. Yet of course he has no principles and is strictly a party hack.
When you find the perfect Political Party don’t join it, you will ruin it. When Roger voted for Bush he wasn’t chucking his values. He came to the grown up conclusion that he had two choices and he had to pick one. What political system are you proposing that won’t include having to make compromises and choices that hurt. Please tell me about the system that allows you to never have to make choices about which of your values you may have to ignore or prioritize. What political party follows your thinking 100%
I voted for President Bush and I have many complaints and I detest some of his policies. My complaints are probably different from Roger’s. The grown up reality is that politics is not religion, one party or the other gets power, and democracy and purity don’t mix.It never has. There has never been a major political figure that I have voted for that did not promote issues that were completly oppossed to some of the principles that I hold dear. My choice was purity or opting out. I could opt out and rail at those who have “abadoned their principles” and feel smug. Or I could make a hard, grown up, choice.
dclydew;
History will judge Bush’s action regarding the response to 9-11. And it has already shown that mistakes were made. But I think you should take into consideration that some presidents who are still considered great made mistakes, and some took action that if you judged them apart from the context of the time could be considered, well, horrid. I am not cpmparing President Bush to these men, I am just making a point about narrow judgement.
President Roosevelt realized ahead of most of the country that there was no way we could avoid getting into WWII. Unfortunetly the country was way behind him and that he had many political restrictions that prevented him from doing what he had to do. He had to give support to Great britain or Hitler would conquer it. But the anti-intervention crowd blocked him. So he created the idea of Lend lease. And he presented it to the American people as having nothing to do with any intention to bring America into the war. He lied.He lied outright and completely. His intentions were exactly the opposite. He was going to do everything he could to bring America into the conflict.And thank God he did.
And then there was the internment of the Japanese. And he blew this one, he blew it badly. He violated an entire people on racist grounds, their property was taken and they were treated like dogs. How could anyone consider Roosevelt great when he allowed this outrage to happen. And this doesn’t even take into account the Democratic parties support of Jim Crow supporting Southern democratic Senators that kept civil rights away from deserving African American citizens. These three actions alone should put Roosevelt in the hall of shame, yet most Historians put him in the top 5 of the all time great Presidents. Why, because they look at his actions in context, they look at his entire record and they look at what the other political options were at the time and they shudder at the thought that the other party may have won.
President Lincoln suspended habius corpus. Why, because he was a power hungry tyrant who wanted to be King? No, because he was in the midst of a terrible civil war and the capitol was just miles from the border with the South, and it was filled with spies who could turn the tide of the war. Do most Historians applaud this action? No. Yet these very same historians usually include him in the list of our greatest Presidents. How could they, they are leaving their principles in the gutter and they are party robots who spout the propaganda that they have been fed.
I doubt that President Bush will be included in these great presidents company but we won’t know for decades. When Truman left office he was considered one of our worse presidents. He was also considered a stupid party hack who was a moron. Lincoln, Reagan were regarded as the ‘original ape’ and ‘the dumb cowboy” respectivly. History sometimes trumps conventional wisdom and beltway arrogance.
Kevin:
History usually trumps conventional wisdom and beltway arrogance.
“Ten years ago, I know that I could have polled this great nation and been beaten ’round the ears for daring to even ask if torture was acceptable. I would have been run out of town for asking if we might want to consider holding American citizens without charges or trial for three years. Cities would have tarred and feathered me if I would have asked them to support warrentless wiretapping with minimal oversight. Yet, today I see people, consciously or not, suspending these moral positions, in order to support a political one.”
Yeah, you can always get people riled up if you are willing to spin like crazy to produce the reaction you want. If I were you, I’d refrain from casting those particular stones in your house.
Even when I was a young man with a hard left tilt
I deplored Ted. His actions that night speak Brittanic-esque volumes as to his character and
empathy for others.
Driving wasted- stupid, dangerous, but forgivable.
Running with young women he shouldn’t– hardly uncommon, not so smart(but so much fun), and forgivable.
Leaving said young woman behind to die, avoiding the police and trying to pin responsibility on the corpse– absolutely unforgivable. this man should live in humbling shame his entire life.
Had he a conscience it would be self-inflicted.
He should be reminded daily.
I am wondering if the fact that Patrick saw the inner workings of the Kennedy clan and saw the difference between the myth and the truth had any influence on the wreckless behaviour
Uh, if his behavior had been wreckless we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Sincerely,
Pedants ‘R’ Us
dclydew–
you say “holding American citizens for without charges or trial for three years” like you think there are jack-booted thugs roaming the streets grabbing people willy-nilly. Provide the public with an example of a completely innocent person yanked off the street and you will get the moral outrage you are looking for.
Certainly these falsely detained people have family/friends, perhaps they should speak out.
you say “warrantless wiretaps with minimal oversight” as if thay are listening in on Joe Schmoe and John Q. Public swapping recipes.
Show us a victim. Introduce us to this poor american who has wrongfully had his life ruined by snoopy Uncle Sam and you will get the anger you are looking for.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are innocent people making the list and getting snooped on, no doubt. As long as they remain unharmed and unbothered, that is the price paid. If they would like to be bored, they are welcome to listen to the hour-a-month I spend on the phone, but I suspect they have their hands full trying to track down people who would like to kill us(you).
Hey, Kevin Peters, you do know that they interned Europeans during WWII as well?
Roger:
Pleeeease !!!
We are not the enablers.
The liberal voters of Massachusetts and Little Rhodie and the big media New York are the enablers. Those Catholic Americans who decorated the altars of their houses in the ’60s with photos of Jesus and JFK were the enablers. The Irish in Southie/Dorchester who still have the photos up along with dried flowers … they are the enablers.
They are the ones who return Fat Ted, who voted for vacant minded Joe, the philanderer who gets an phony annulment from the Cardinal and who now return this poor kid to office time and time again on some silly dream of Camelot.
Roger -
No posts on Kobe today? Saw that game late last night. Kobe was awesome, and I don’t buy the Barkley analysis (nonsense) that they lost bcs Kobe scored too much. Odom and Kwame had plenty of easy scoring in the 4th quarter and then Kobe hit every big shot they needed at the end – especially the 3 with 1:32 left putting them up 2. Then the driving layup putting them up 3 with 20 seconds or so left.
Chuck like most people obviously does not like Kobe…. I don’t either. It is amazing that he gets paid for his rambling incoherent post game analysis.
Finally someone hit a last second shot (not even lucky like some of the past Laker ones) against the Lakers and stole a game.
Glad to see Kobe and Phil (and Jack) lose. Next game Rajah Bell comes back. Hopefully the Suns put the Lakers away and Jack can come watch the Clippers.
Mike Nargizian
Yep, the Euro-trash got interned in WW2 as well.
Anyone who thinks WE were the worst at that should check out the Canadian internments.
Someone should save the discussion between Kevin and dclydew and use it for a political science graduate seminar.
Practical politics vs. the politics of idealism.
Civil, but pointed. Well done.
It should be pointed out that the Kennedy clan started with Joe–and Joe was a major defeatest when it came to Britain’s chances for surviving the German onslaught.
I can’t find the source, but somebody (probably a Brit) said: “I thought *daffodils* were yellow until I met Joe Kennedy.”
Not only have I never thought of the old scotchrunner’s family as royalty, they aren’t anything close. “Edward Kennedy” means “Duke” only when followed by “Ellington”.
Roger,
“People like me who wanted to support the Kennedys and what they stood for in those times had to suspend our own values then in a way it is impossible to forget.”
I applaud your honesty.
But really, have you never read Albert Speer’s memoirs? Or put yourself in the position of Iraqis lving under Saddam? (That was rhetorical‚ÄîI know you have.) How do you suppose these people managed it?
Considering the potential consequences, “suspending your values” because you “wanted to support” sounds to me like the standard recipe for disaster.
dclydew,
Putting panties on somebody’s head does not constitute “torture”. Telling a lie over and over does not make it a truth. Far from being on a moral high horse as you wish to believe you are in fact a moral reprobate.
Mike:
I love Kobe, he is the best player in the league. But Barkley is talking about game tempo. If you look at the games that the Lakers won Kobe still took the greatest numbers of shots on the team overall, which is smart, he is their best player. Phoenix thrives on a full court, fast tempo, high scoring game. The Laker victories were slow, deliberate, half court games that the Lakers dominated. They would have won the first game except for some incredible easy shots that were missed. It’s not that the Lakers can’t play a high tempo game, Kobe can play any style, it’s just that Phoenix sucks at a slow, half court game. They have no size in the middle. They feed off missed long shots that start their fast break, they have no size so in a half court game rebounding and size are more important then speed and quickness.
Have no fear, the Lakers will run their triangle, bleed the shot clock, slow the tempo down and win in Phoenix. Before game 6 Barkley guaranteed a Laker victory unless it became a high scoring game. Their were 67 points scored in the fist quarter and even though the Lakers had the lead the tempo was more suited to the Sun’s strength. The Lakers will lose in the second round but Jackson and Kobe will get them past the Sun’s.
JFK was very smart to gather a group of writers who together greated the myth of Camelot, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. comes to mind but there were others–reminds me of Irish Kings and the bards who they kept to sing their praises.
If you examine JFK’s presidency carefully you’ll see lots of flash, but no substance and some great mistakes like the Bay of Pigs and his vast increase in U.S. military advisors in Vietnam from 700 to 18,000: he was a great womanizer though. JFK once astounded the visiting British PM by saying that, “if he didn’t have sex at least once a day he got a headache.” To remedy this problem he had two “secretaries” on call 24/7 who were nicknamed Fiddle and Faddle. The Camelot myth has served this dynasty very well. That any of them serves in any public office says much about our corruption.
During the Age of Kennedy, the intelligensia glorified JFK. All flash and sizzle. Schlesinger, installed in the White House as the resident historian, became the apologist for the clan for years and years losing his objectivity as he scribbled away getting his tomes published by Random House or Little Brown.
Once the main media blows your way, the headwinds last for years. Forget objectivity, it is all the most convincing propaganda.
Note: how the media plays this. “Acknowledged with regret and sadness;” old images of John John saluting on the steps of St. Matthew’s cathedral, the 1963 funeral, the eternal flame burning on in Arlington. The old ladies on Southie are tearing up . . . the family curse continues. Well, of course it all a bunch of crap but we, Americans, have to endure it.
If this was Bush, the media would be beside itself with glee.
Roger mentions suspending our values and David mentioned in particular the entire male side of the Kennedy clan. I cannot disagree at all, but it’s worst than that, as any former lefty feminist can tell you.
In 1998, feminists basically repudiated their values to support Bill Clinton’s grotesque, self-gratifying mysogynism. That is when I, as a lefty feminist, left both the feminists (or rather, what they had become) and the Democrat Party for good. The entire house of cards collapsed for me. Furthermore, for decades upon decades, the entire female side of the Kennedy clan has been enablers and supporters of the sick compulsions, congenital immaturity and terminal arrogance of the male side. The Kennedy women are just as guilty as feminists of condoning and supporting sociopathological, mysogynistic and destructive behavior on the part of idiotic party-boy loser politicians. Some of us have washed our hands of all of them.
Peg. C.
Wow! I thought I was hard on the Kennedy males!
/;-)
Jamie Irons
Well said Peg C
Posted by the incomperable Clarice at Just One Minute.
“MADD Supports Inquiry Into Lawmakerís Crash
Contacts: Heidi Castle at 469-420-4545 or heidi.castle@madd.org
Statement for attribution to Glynn R. Birch, National President,Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD):
On May 4, 2006 , U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy was involved in a traffic crash outside the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington , DC . Fortunately, neither Congressman Kennedy, police officers nor others were hurt in the crash.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) supports the United States Capitol Police Departmentís decision to thoroughly review this incident and examine the Departmentís current procedures concerning crashes where impairment due to alcohol or drug use is suspected. We have great faith that the investigation will clarify the facts and determine appropriate outcomes of this situation. http://www.madd.org/news/10842
For the children!
http://www.nndb.com/people/623/000023554/
Now this is a good read about the Tedster. Actually, it was so funny I almost spit up my margarita….what a sad maroon.
Wahoo, Peg C!!!!!!!
Poor Patrick Kennedy! I’m sure he will be relentlessly pursued by his local law enforcement officials, the media and all the other Forces For Good in Society for a number of years, just as the scofflaw Limbaugh was, as described here. Of course there are a few differences, such as the fact that Limbaugh never wrecked a car under the influence of said drugs (as far as I know). His drug habit was discovered, if memory serves, by one of his former employees informing on him. This, while a personal tragedy for those involved, is a golden opportunity for the rest of us to observe the treatment Kennedy receives from all the above compared to Limbaugh. We’ve already seen one example re.: The actions of the police officers on the scene.
Yes, well said Peg C.
But this;
“enablers and supporters of the sick compulsions, congenital immaturity and terminal arrogance of the male side. The Kennedy women are just as guilty as feminists of condoning and supporting sociopathological, mysogynistic and destructive behavior on the part of idiotic party-boy loser politicians”
with just a few changes of wording, could perhaps be applicable to the entire left’s political response re their lack of seriousness re their approach to the war we are engaged in.
Hope that makes sense.
Luther, you’re right and in fact I equated the two in comments on other blogs. I didn’t think it as appropriate here but it is absolutely true. The enabling of dysfunction that we see in the Kennedy family directly applies to the entire Democrat party. (The Republicans have their own problems, but rewarding their leaders for acting like terminal spoiled brats is not among them.)
So does anyone know if the old story, about how the Kennedys still get a commission on every bottle of Scotch that is imported to the US, is true ?
Kevin Peters: ” Thank you for reading my mind and ascribing my support of the wiretaps strictly for party reasons.”
I neither read your mind nor ascribed your support of anything to anything. I stated that it appeared to me, that many people may be doing such a thing… if you actively wish to support whatever, more power to you.
“If we could live in a vacumn and pretend that 9-11 did not happen and that Islamo fascism is not a problem and that we are not in a middle of a war your argument would on point.”
So then, do you consider your moral position as relative?
You, of course, come to your conclusions by strictly noble reasons.
Nope, I come to my conclusions, based on my observations and the information that I’ve processed in my neurological system. I could be completely incorrect about the entire thing.
You never repeat any of the talking points of the left and never consider the fact that one party or the other wins every election and a choice between the two, as frustrating as that might be, has to be made every election.
Well, I’m sure I repeat some talking points of the left occasionally (probably not word-for-word). Sometimes a talking point has some sense to it. I’m sure I probably repeat the talking points of the right sometimes too… Sometimes a talking point has some sense to it. As for voting for one party or the other, I don’t disagree that sometimes we must hold our nose and make a choice. However, that choice at the polls doesn’t mean we must condone every, most or some of the actions of the people we elected, or the party we belong to. Hell, if the Republicans had been a bit more critical of their own leadership, perhaps there would be more cohesion and less problems as we approack mid-term elections.
is still a tool of the Republican Party because he agrees with him on some issues and decides that even though many of the positions that Bush takes on other issues make him ill he has decided that the Democratic Party, at this moment in time, can’t be trusted with protecting his wife and child. Yet of course he has no principles and is strictly a party hack.
I’m sorry, did you read my post or just hallucinate that you read it? Nowhere in the post did I say that someone should or shouldn’t have voted for whomever they voted for. You either have some issues with reading comprehension, cognative dissonance or perhaps blog induced raving.
Beyond this point of your post, I’ll just respond in general. I think you strongly misunderstood, misread or failed to comprehend what I was trying to say. I don’t care if you decided that Bussh was less of a bad choice than Kerry (I think that’s an entirely reasonable position). I do care if post-election people support positions that force them to hold a moral position contrary to their previously held position. In other words, one can say “I voted for Bush, I support Bush’s plan for Iraq” and still say, “We should follow the UN Conventions on Torture, especially since we signed it.” Or, “If the President wants to work outside of FISA, then he should change the laws, instead of breaking them.” One can support parts of the Presidents platform, without trying to morph into someone that supports all of it. I am not saying that everyone who voted for Bush supports everything he does (poll numbers seem to agree). However, there appear a disturbing number who seem to support anything the President does/says/decides, no matter how questionable it might be. Not all, not even most, but a disturbing number nonetheless… and it appears exactly the same on the Left… not all, not most, but a greater and greater number who no longer seem to consider their own moral position, but only the party’s official position.
As for the next post:
But I think you should take into consideration that some presidents who are still considered great made mistakes, and some took action that if you judged them apart from the context of the time could be considered, well, horrid. I am not cpmparing President Bush to these men, I am just making a point about narrow judgement.
I’m not making a judgement on history or how Bush will look in the future. I’m talking about individuals supporting the party position, even when it conflicts with their personal ethics/morals. It’s ok to say “Bush is doing the right thing in general (trying to go after the Islamists)”… the problem seems to come when a questionable action is defended just as dearly as a useful action.
If a president makes a good decision and a bad decision, then we can support the good decision and decry the bad one… unfortunately, many people have become so partisan that they appear unable to distinguish between the two. So, does being in a war mean that morals change? Do you consider morals to be relative?
President Roosevelt realized ahead of most of the country that there was no way we could avoid getting into WWII.
That’s true. And I personally think its great that we got involved and stopped Hitler, Benito et all. However, I don’t think that duplicity should be an approved tool for political use. If lying is not moral, then why should I support any lie?
And then there was the internment of the Japanese. And he blew this one, he blew it badly. He violated an entire people on racist grounds, their property was taken and they were treated like dogs. How could anyone consider Roosevelt great when he allowed this outrage to happen. And this doesn’t even take into account the Democratic parties support of Jim Crow supporting Southern democratic Senators that kept civil rights away from deserving African American citizens. These three actions alone should put Roosevelt in the hall of shame, yet most Historians put him in the top 5 of the all time great Presidents. Why, because they look at his actions in context, they look at his entire record and they look at what the other political options were at the time and they shudder at the thought that the other party may have won.
Imagine how much better his presidency could have looked if his cabinet, his party and his fellow citizens would have said, “Hell No! You cannot round up Americans and put them into camps based on their race… have you lost your mind?” Or, if the sane Democrats had said “What the hell do you fools think that you’re doing, supporting Jim Crow laws? Untill you begin to behave sanely, we’re cutting you off from the party.”
I’m not arguing that Bush has done no Good, or even that Republicans are all crazy or anything else… I’m stating that we should be ready and willing to take our own party, or our elected official to the mat, instead of letting them strong arm us into modifying our own values. To quote Roger again: “People like me who wanted to support the Kennedys and what they stood for in those times had to suspend our own values then in a way it is impossible to forget.”
Kennedy may have had some great ideas and done some great things (though… I’m not particularly sure of that)… but there’s no reason that any of his supporters should have suspended their values because of his drunken, manslaughtering brother. As humans we are capable of saying, “I support these ideas and actions of the President/Party, but not those ideas and actions of the President/Party”.
‘Or, “If the President wants to work outside of FISA, then he should change the laws, instead of breaking them.”‘
You could say that it if you were disingenous enough to imply that the President did break FISA. And that’s the problem with your position. It begs the question, then calls people inconsistent for not agreeing with your sleight of hand.
Somehow, a lecture on moderation, political civility, and morality from someone furiously spinning only the positions he happens to hold–not even acknowledging the common arguments against–somehow it fails to move me.