What's with all the Kennedy worship around here?

I find it just as disturbing as freeper worship of bushco. No, I'm not comparing bushco and the Kennedy's, I'm comparing the blind worship of political dynasties.

I admire Ted Kennedy's political stances, but not his personal life. I loved RFK. President Kennedy had moments of greatness, but also made some grave errors, and held some beliefs that aren't particularly admirable.. Camelot it really wasn't. There was nothing admirable about old Joe.

RFK Jr. has way too much in his background to be a viable candidate. He was a junkie, and that's not the only scandal waiting to be dug up. He spent 10 years of his life seriously fucked up. While I'm not judging him on that and think he's done a good job speaking out on environmental issues, I believe he should stick with his environmental work. I'll gladly skip the circus that comes with his running for elective office.

let's not forget FDR and Lucy Mercer and RFK,SR. was no innocent either--but he evolved. Are we supposed to discard someone because at one time he may have been a "junkie"?? what about W--his cocaine and alcohol habits are well known.

I know personally that a lot of the stuff about Bobby is true. bushco's cocaine use can't be corroborated. Bobby got busted for heroin possession on a plane. This stuff is just going to get dug up again and the MSM is going to be merciless about trumpeting all the dirt day in and day out if he runs.

and we'll see how he handles it. I'm all for giving him that chance.

;)

that you are able to communicate any issue vitally important to our "common good," write and/or speak about it eloquently using the public platform you've been given, is the day I will give your po$t$ any credence.

"bushco's cocaine use can't be corroborated." except by those who were THERE and fear for their own and their families' lives should they come forward. Surely you jest. :puke:

Then, of course, there ARE the hordes scrambling for their 15 minutes of fame, who will testify to the *dauphin's completing his military service .

by someone like _{George W. Bush} whose dad headed the CIA, and whose dad's connections got him slipped into the Champagne Brigade, and all records purged. His biographer who suddenly decided life was not worth living and simply killed himself? Etc., etc.

_Bush brings with him an automatic threat anyone could recognize. Why hasn't anyone, ANYONE come forward to stand up for him, to verify his honorable service ANYWHERE?

Those who know where he really was are afraid to breath a word to anyone about it. He's totally protected, and anyone who would rock the boat would have to live with a deadly threat.

The old "can't be corroborated" claim doesn't bear much significance, and thanks for pointing it out.

Perhaps someone who has conquered a drug addiction would know something about which programs are most beneficial in helping others do the same. It would be interesting to hear what he would do regarding this issue as A.G. of New York. As to worshipping the Kennedy name, it would appear that the bar would have to be set higher than a mere legacy vote. The question is, what has RFK Jr. done in his own right regarding issues effecting the voters he would be serving? I think he brings a bredth and depth to his understanding of the most important issues of today. He knows how to work at the grassroots level to effect change. His past is in the open and if there are no attempts to hide it, then I believe what he has done since will supercede the past.

Vote now:

A.)No
B.)Hell No
C.)Can't even score with himself

I don't see why we should be worshiping any politician. I find it odd that so many DU members still identify themselves according to whom they supported in the 2004 primary--as though these are immutable political identities fixed in time. Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Kerry, Kennedy--I don't get any of it. We will have a new slate of candidates in 2008 anyway. I support one candidate when the time comes to choose, other than that I'm more concerned about issues and strategy.
On the other end of the spectrum, when a Democrat disappoints someone, as Hillary Clinton and Kerry seem to have done, people despise them with an intensity I similarly find odd. I think a more measured and realistic view of all of these individuals is called for.

It's horrible and shameful.

"when a Democrat disappoints someone, as Hillary Clinton and Kerry seem to have done, people despise them with an intensity I similarly find odd."


I admit to your first point to an extent, though it's not about the primaries anymore. It's about leadership, not hero worship, and I found a leader for myself who works for what I believe in. It's important what a leader does in between election years, as in those years themselves. Clark is working on foreign policy and national security issues as well as funding Democrats through his PAC. He still speaks out for Dems and against the Bush administration a few times a week on TV. His supporters aren't with him only for election campaigns, should he choose to run for any office, but for many of the things that concern all of us.

I don't say you or anybody else need do the same, but please understand we don't see ourselves or the man as trivial, and "hero worship" trivializes us and him. He's earned our respect and loyalty even in a "measured and realistic view."

And if he doesn't? Is the point really him as an individual or the changes he hopes to bring about?
As I said, for me it is about policies, not individuals.

The other day, I had another poster accuse me of being "negative" because I had not declared Kerry to be my favorite candidate for 2008 and I experessed concerns based on my work with the 2004 campaign.
My fundamental point to her was that it is far too early to limit ourselves to any particular candidate.

I think it is important for we as Democrats to work on remaking the party: Organization, formulating our key principles, and deciding how to best articulate those ideas. Fierce divisions like I see demonstrated on these boards, interfere with that. Who the presidential candidate might be in 2008 is the least of our problems, and if we concern ourselves with that to the exclusion of party building, we will lose again.

I understand your point perfectly and, yes, it's about the changes he hopes to bring about. If Clark runs in '08 I will support him, because I think he would make a great president, but he doesn't have to run at all anywhere ever for me to support him and his policies and beliefs. He represents what I believe in and therefore is the kind of leader I want in public life. It wouldn't and doesn't stop me from considering other people in public life. For example, I support Dean for DNC chair. They were bitter opponents in the primary race, as you know, one of the other candidates for chair endorsed Clark and another worked for him. If it were "hero worship" simply, we might choose one of them to support for DNC chair, thinking, hey, he'd be good for Clark in '08. Yet many, in fact most, Clarkies are supporting Howard Dean this time around, just as strongly as we supported Kerry once Wes dropped out, because we do believe the party has to be shaken up and Dean's the best one to do it. But if what we value in Clark were truly hero worship, we would be unwilling or unable to get past the wounds inflicted in the primaries, I would think.

I agree with what you added 100% about organizing, formulating, articulating, and building. Some people can't give up the fierce divisions and others simply hate somebody for reasons of agenda. I wish it were different, but it doesn't seem to be changing at all. For myself, I respond to attack with defense and always will, but initiating these battles is fruitless and harmful. The Dem bashing I see day in and day out makes me sick. I'm not talking about criticism, because that is healthy and makes us better, but so much of it is just thoughtless smearing.

Anyway, except for my terminal Clarkness, we're not so far apart :hi:

particularly in national elections but also in motivating people to get involved. I certainly have nothing against Clark as a leader or a candidate.

-- It would be less than honest for me to claim I lived a spotlessly perfect life and so casting aspersions upon RFK, Jr. would be just as unacceptable and crass as upon anyone else, famous or not, dynastic or not.

I like Mozart despite the orneriness, Da Vinci despite the morals charge, Ben Franklin despite the illegitimate child, and RFK Sr. despite the white-knuckled power games.

I'm always in the market for a deeply felt passion for public life, and RFK, Jr. seems to have it. Faults? I bet I could match him or anyone in that category.

and political affiliation.

While you may excuse his faults, you may not excuse someone else's, and someone else may not excuse his.

What I should've said was: although you excuse RFK jr's personal shortcomings, it is probable that you would not excuse some other political figure who has similiar shortcomings, and it is probable that someone else would not excuse RFK jr.

My point is that when someone excuses a political figure by using the "everyone has flaws" defense it really means that they excuse that person because they support that person. For example, a Bush supporter may say "everyone has flaws" when confronted with stories about his alleged cocain use, because to them his positives outweigh his negatives.

ps. I don't have a position regarding RFK jr's personal shortcomings.

-- like Ken Mehlman, who is himself gay and spent most of the last two or three years trying to rile up the far right to vote for Bush/Cheney, playing on their prejudices and fears.

But RFK, Jr.'s flaws are not in that category and not of that temperament. Mehlman (just one example, granted) is a case of public disservice where RFK, Jr.'s transgressions suggest private, personal pain.

I didn't do a very good job making that distinction. Apologies.

make the world a better place.

-- to rise over past difficulties and dedicate himself to good causes.

To me, that's what public service is, at its best.

"deeply felt passion for public life"

It always means a lot to me, too, when people sacrifice their own comfort for public service.

People will eat that up. It will be like Dubya's alcoholism/cokehead thing times ten.

I don't know a whole lot about RFK Jr., but I like what he has to say, based on his recent Salon interview.

He can only help the Democratic Party, as he obviously sees the Bush nonsense for what it is. That puts him ahead of 90% of Dem officials.

and IMO he is brave for running. He will be the one to take the heat.
I suspect he is running because he actually cares about this country.
He is passionate and intelligent.
For me, it has nothing to with his family name.

DUI's and led the attack which has resulted in the death of 100,000 innocent Iraqis, and in their own country. I admire Robt. Jr. for his devotion to the environment and for his dedication to opposing Bush policies.

The real important people are rarely remembered. They're regular people.

If Clinton had decided to stage this Iraq adventure, I can guarantee that the members here would not be falling at his feet the way the Bush cultists are.

They don't have the same disdain for war that leftists do. Conversely, most of us couldn't care less about Clinton's sex life, yet that obsesses Republicans. Now how they support The Arnold is a real study in hypocrisy.

Clinton put through NAFTA and Welfare Reform. The guy would have to turn outright fascist like Bush before you'd criticize him?

Are you saying you've never seen any of the "Big Dog" bullshit around here? Clinton was a pro-corporate politician in every way. He was right of center, and I've never understood all the fawning people do over him- especially here.

Which is exactly what the cult of Bush does with their leader.

There are people here who idolize the Kennedy's and the Clintons. If you're saying that isn't true- then fine. I've got to disagree.

I find it almost as repulsive as idolizing Bush.

If that's your observation, more power to you. I'm just saying I haven't observed it. Peace.

I think I would rather have a human leader than an absolutely perfect leader. No one is absolutely perfect. Anyone who pretends to be perfect is either seriously delusional or a pathological liar. If we look for leaders who have absolutely no skeletons in their closets...we will die long before that ever happens.

I don't worship the Kennedys. I admire that they have been able to admit virtually all of their mistakes. They still believe that they can make a difference and do something, anything, even if they made a mistake that any human being can make. To stand on the shoulders of your mistakes and make yourself and your world better is a seriously lacking and seriously admirable quality in politics.

And who's to say that he wouldn't have kept us out of the bloodbath Vietnam turned into? He certainly hinted as much in the weeks before his murder by the MIC.

I admire Ted Kennedy's political stances, but not his personal life.

I'm sorry, but what business is Kennedy's, or Clinton's, or even the Giggling Murderer's personal life of yours? NONE!

I loved RFK. President Kennedy had moments of greatness, but also made some grave errors, and held some beliefs that aren't particularly admirable.. Camelot it really wasn't.

RFK and JFK were both brilliant, and both could be somewhat ruthless as well. I'm not sure of which "beliefs" you're talking about. My only gripe with JFK was his exaggerated hawkishness and extreme anti-communism, but that was par for the course in the post-McCarthyism days, especially in light of the missile crisis.

As for old Joe, he instilled a firm belief in his kids in public service for one's country. Is that not admirable? He had a dark side, surely, but he didn't openly trade with the nazis like some other patriarchs of US political dynasties.

As for RFK Jr, is there a lot of buzz about him running for national office? If so, I'm not aware of it.

The Kennedy brothers, Ted included, have left this world a better place than they found it. For that, they have endured more bashing than I care to think about. Thanks for piling on even more. At least you saved me the click to FreeRepublic to read that.

He spoke pretty unabashedly in that recent Commondreams.org article, calling the current government fascist (and using the proper definition of fascism to do so) and just speaking the truth a lot of us see. If only a majority of other Democrats would do the same...Gosh, we might even have a viable opposition party then.

PS: This is in response to the original post, not the one previous to this.

running for AG. My concern is that his entry into elective politics would turn that race into a media circus, particularly as his ex-brother in law is also considering running.

I don't know where the line is regarding a politician's private life, but yes I do believe it can be an indicator of character. There certainly seems to be a double standard on the part of some DUers who are more than eager to attack repubs on issues re their private lives but feel outrage about attacks on dems.

As for bashing, I was hardly doing that.

-- a respect for individuals whose public service stands as a solitary example of effective citizenship.

That would be in keeping with New York State voters' concerns about who might best serve as their chief justice officer.

I say RFK, Jr. has the chops and the heart to do the job.

have nailed it straight. Your thoughtfulness, integrity, and perspicacity have reawakened my fondest hope that there may yet be a few thinkers in a land of parrots.

People have expressed joy at some of the things some of the Kennedys have done, but that's far from worship.

-- I admired the guy for running booze when people wanted booze to drink.

The prohibitive impulse in American life runs through its puritan disdain for bodily pleasures and I don't begrudge a Boston patriarch or my grandfather and great uncles for running booze.

If you make a list of the groups who OPPOSED booze in those days, you might warm up to "Old Joe" just a tad.

and call a pig, a pig. Whatever his trials and tribulations, he came through in the end, has he not? We'll skip the circus as well, but, god bless this man for standing up.

is one of the most decent people on the national scene. For many years, he has helped people (like myself) on a variety of grass roots environmental cases free of charge. He helped a neighborhood group I worked with access the best environmental consultants in the country, free of charge.

I've mentioned this before on DU, and I'll mention it any time people question Robert's character. I had a nephew attacked by a racist hate group in 1998; he had led his high school basketball team to a state title, and this group resented a brown-skinned person getting positive media attention.

A gang of 16 men attacked my nephew and left him for dead on a dark, dirt road. Kennedy heard about it, and came to my family's aid. He contacted the NYS Att Gen, and requested that he take over the case, as the county DA had only charged the thugs with minor crimes.

The republican AG didn't do shit, of course. And the gang leader, who kicked and struck my unconscious nephew at least a dozen times, ended up with a $50 fine -- for having an open beer at the time of the attack.

(The gang continued to attack people; there was a drive-by shooting, followed by the attacks against Asian-american students at SUNY-Binghamton ... and the leader continued to skate without legal consequence.)

Try sitting on the edge of a bed, watching your unconscious nephew, listening to doctors reports on how close to death he was, how he will be deaf in one ear from injuries, and realizing the physical damages make his college scholarships for sports wasted. It was really nice to hear from the son of the US Attorney general who took the strongest stance against this type of racially-motivated hate crime.

And that's what type of man Robert is. You won't read this in any of the main stream media. But it's something our family will never forget.

to do. Again I'm not attacking Bobby. My concern is the zoo that will inevitably occur should he run.

I don't think you are attacking him. I understand your concerns.

But I think that anyone from Robert's generation that didn't go through a drug use/abuse phase should be far more suspect. And I'm only mildly tongue-in-cheek in saying that.

Robert handles questions about that all the time. An older friend who was familiar with Robert used to tell me the "drug history" would keep him out of politics. (My friend's daughter worked with him in the DA's office.) Baloney. I told him that Pat Moynihan was an active drug addict, and his generation didn't hold it against him. People knew that if you had anything important for Moynihan, they needed to approach him with it before noon.

Malcolm X used to say that there is no shame in saying, "I used to be an addict," but that there is in saying, "I'm an addict but I refuse to do anything about it."

A lot of voters have someone in their family who has dealt with addiction. It's part of the fabric of our culture. New York will elect Robert if he runs. And the republicans will damage themselves if they try to play this issue too much.

The decision to seek this office has been in the works for some time.

I also agree with you that New York voters wiill elect this man.

So sorry about that event. It should have never happened, anywhere. Hope your nephew will transcend the ugliness of it, eventually, as if it had never happened, even tho' it seems impossible from here, no doubt. He will have gained character and strength, whereas the monsters who did it will simply get worse.

Not surprised to hear Robert Kennedy, Jr. came forward after hearing about it. He seemed very decent during any times I have listened to him on C-Span. Great guy.

Thanks for taking the time to tell DU'ers about it.

I appreciate you saying that.

He had his opportunity to play professional sports taken from him. But when one door closes in life, another opens.

When part of his schoolwork brought him to the mental health clinic where I was employed, my co-workers all wanted him to consider working there after he got out of school. He has since graduated and works with kids. I am urging him to go for two more years, and get the master's degree.

After Vacco was sent to pasture, I was in contact with one of the regional offices, in regard to the continued attacks. Vacco's people had not bothered to even open a file on a racist gang that committed numerous savage attacks in central NYS. There was no record on file of Robert's letter. Of course, I had copies!

who are trying preserve their regional monopolies on selling alcohol.

He's a lobbyist. I highly doubt he had any legal input into the case the the S.Ct just heard.

But, in any event, that's what he thinks is more important than protecting people from random violent attacks which prevent people from getting the best education possible and lower their lifetime earnings and, therefore, their ability to contribute to the wealth of society.

He thinks keeping liquor prices up and protecting the profits of companies that provide no economic or social benefits (corps that are basically the "appendix" of the economic corpus) is more important.

Like a glove.

Let's deconstruct democratic leaders. Let's bash the big dog. Let's just give ourselves a big kick in the ass, because we deserve it.
Who the fuck are you people?

A strange tone comes over the place from time to time, with the strangest people saying "we," while they attempt to attack almost everything and anything about Democratic leaders or Democratic positions.

Makes you feel they'd be a lot more comfortable somewhere else, harboring such rancor or disrespect for great Democrats.

I can't think of anybody I'd rather see take a highly visible political role than Bobby. He totally gets it and has the framing exactly right as well. This has got to be the sickest post on DU in a long time.

“...a devil masters each of us it is not having been in the Dark House, but having left it that counts.”

--Theodore Roosevelt

RFK, Jr. has left the dark house and spent a good number more hours than many of us in public service. That is, public service in the manner of his father.

I would ask that a more charitable response to public service be rendered in the matter of his possible candidacy for New York's Attorney General.

I think most DUers can make the distinction between dynastic worship and bedrock respect for dedicated public service.
-----
edit: sp.

Although I have not slightly disagree about ol' Joe Kennedy - he merited the term "magnificent bastard!" if anyone ever did...

The deterioration of our system of elections into the mere checkboxing of people whose surnames sounds familiar *should* depress you. It's a sad state of affairs.

I think I can count on one hand all of the, non-LBN, Kennedy threads I have ever seen here.

Jay

And this thread is pure flamebait.

What Kennedy worship.

Now Kerry worship, that's a horse of a different color...

...Kerrykrishna ...Kerrykrishna ...krishnakrishna ...Kerrykerry ...

But not Kennedy worship. Maybe I'm just too new?

You'll see all stripes. DU is big and crowded with all sorts of types and beliefs.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

THE BEST!!!

The others are okay, I agree with many stances, but they're nothing spectacular in my eyes.

But I have a shameless crush on Bobby. I cry whenever I watch documentaries/TV specials about his death.

and allowing people to have a second chance in life. Jesus believed in that. Most conservative Christians do not.

I have rarely met anyone who "got it" the way RFK Jr does and is willing to say things so honestly in public. His writings about the environmental movement in Riverkeepers was dead on. His comments about the corrupting influence of corporate money in the Democratic Party are exactly what I wish so many more Democrats would say. I agree with him completely and if it seems like hero worship perhaps that is because there are so few people who say and do what he does.

someone, who against the current behavior of most of our Democratic politicians is willing to speak plainly and bluntly to the point. If I am worshipping anything, that would be it.

I think RFK, Jr. would be man enough to say, "Yes, I did it." if and when confronted with his past behavior. Once something is admitted, it loses a lot of it's power and sting.

I admired RFK, Sr. because he was able to bring together people of all races and ethnicities to fight for their rights as PEOPLE, not individual groups. He helped those people that we see today, voting AGAINST their own best interests, to see that it was not a racial ting but more of a class thing. I was there...as an adult...and I remember that for the first time, it seemed that we might REALLY have an America, for the people and by the people. Of course, his power in mobilizing the masses was too much for the corporate masters and he was assassinated.

Anyone who can mobilize the masses, regardless of race, is more dangerous to our corporate masters than the so-called terrorists they are fighting.

I have the feeling that RFK, Jr. can mobilize the masses...so what does that say about his future?

I support him wholeheartedly and without hero worship.

RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Huey Long, Paul Wellstone. This never happens to major leaders on the right.

I'm too young to have met RFK but he is one of the people I most admire and take the most inspiration from. Maybe some people are trying to go back in history and bring back the kind of spirit RFK had about him. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that considering what I've heard from Jr. We need people like that.

Politicians are a great example. On one extreme, we let others make the decisions and hope they do so in our best interests, and on the other extreme, we directly participate in the formulation of policies that affect our lives and the rest of the world.

We lie somewhere between these two sides; however, I personally feel we're closer to the previous extreme than the latter. I believe we are too close and that we should make an effort to reform the way we run government and move away from this point.

This is why I support IRV (instant run-off voting), the ability to recall a sitting president (a la Venezuela), the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of direct popular vote, converting the House to a parliamentary style system based on proportional representation (a la German federalism), taxpayer subsidized federal elections with a complete ban on corporate/special interest money, etc.

We should not have to rely so heavily on knights in shining armor to deliver us from evil. We should be able to rally ourselves not around a charismatic figure but a worthy idea. A single person is far more easily killed than an idea.

Kennedy is one of few remaining true Democrats.

Which is exactly why certain people would like to see him go.

In the three months that I've been here. Doesn't even seem mildly excessive to me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Let the people of New York decide.

And let the people of DU decide what we want to discuss.

what they should or shouln't be discussing, so toss that one right out. And it looks like Kennedy's not running, so the people of New York won't have the opportunity to decide.

It's probably best anyway. He's done good work with Riverkeeper, and I hate to say it, but Kennedys have a bad habit of turning up dead whenever they try and push the envelope.

hands itchy?

Townsend was Lieutenant Governor running for Governor, and Shriver running for congress. Both lost. Maryland has the first Republican govenor in many years in a predominately Democratic state.

The Kennedy name doesn't mean what it used to.

Sy Hersh's The Dark Side of Camelot and Noam Chomsky's Rethinking Camelot.