Originally posted by FMFthe life of a senator is often called public service ... but not public servitude.
I have never heard anyone credibly defend Edward Kennedy's tawdry behaviour in that incident. But did he not redeem himself - at least some degree that ought to be acknowledged by supporters and opponents alike - with the subsequent 40 years of public service?
i hadn't heard about the chappaquiddick jokes .... that makes it worse ...
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotSpeaking of jokes, had you heard the one about Ted Kennedy being in the middle of the ocean with Obama, Hillary, and Nancy Pelosi in a life raft? If it sprang a leak, who would be saved? The answer is the country.....of course only before they drowned the three of them strangled Nancy Pelosi to death.
the life of a senator is often called public service ... but not public servitude.
i hadn't heard about the chappaquiddick jokes .... that makes it worse ...
Originally posted by whodeyIt was a serious question. And you are presumably satirizing yourself with the 'humour'. Does his public service redeem him, speaking in a non partisan way?
Yes, in fact, we could start a whole new rehabilitation program for inmates currently serving time by placing them in the Senate. After all, they are all a bunch of crooks anyway.
Originally posted by FMFAre we speaking of redemption in terms of his service making up for a persons death? How is that measurable?
It was a serious question. And you are presumably satirizing yourself with the 'humour'. Does his public service redeem him, speaking in a non partisan way?
I suppose you could say that any one who is repsonsible for a death or deaths and then does not do any more harm to anyone again and lives their lives in a productive way would be comparable to Senator Kennedy. So the question begs, should they do time even though they may not cause harm again?
1 edit
Originally posted by badmoonChecks and balances. Share the power. Go back to our federalist roots. Stop being ruled by an elitist oligarchy in Washington. State rights should be restored!!
If you believe that all politicians are corrupt, then do you have another option? Anarchy? Dictatorship? What?
ENOUGH!!
Originally posted by whodeyYour equivocal, obfuscating response makes it seem like you fear being set upon by the yelping haters who have posted to this thread already.
Are we speaking of redemption in terms of his service making up for a persons death? How is that measurable?
I suppose you could say that any one who is repsonsible for a death or deaths and then does not do any more harm to anyone again and lives their lives in a productive way would be comparable to Senator Kennedy. So the question begs, should they do time even though they may not cause harm again?
I'll ask you straight out, again - a yes-no question - did Edward Kennedy's 40 years of public service - including extenseive, often bi-partisan work on immigration, cancer research, disability discrimination, AIDS care, mental health benefits, children's health insurance, general health insurance, apartheid, civil rights, education and volunteering - did all this dedicated public service redeem him to some degree in your eyes, yes or no?
Originally posted by scacchipazzoYes I know, and I strongly oppose these double-standards.
Just think about it generalissimo. Had he been Republican he would have been toast. Different standards apply depending on party. Here's the likely charges: intoxication manslaughter, a felony; failure to stop an render aid, a fleony; leaving the scene of an accident, a misdemeanor. Combined ocnvictions should have resulted in prison for the common man. ...[text shortened]... us to wiggle out of the ordeal. How he became reelected time and again will forever mystify me.
but even if he had been a republican my opinion would have remained the same, sure he was felon, but still, his work as a senator wasn't all that bad, he was loyal to his convictions and (apparently) was genuinily concerned about the welfare of the people he represented.
Originally posted by FMFI'm not sure I buy the "give him credit for public service" thing we hear a lot of these days.
I have never heard anyone credibly defend Edward Kennedy's tawdry behaviour in that incident. But did he not redeem himself - at least some degree that ought to be acknowledged by supporters and opponents alike - with the subsequent 40 years of public service?
By and large, people don't become Senators to serve the public. They do so because it's an easy job with a nice salary and, most of all, because you become powerful. You develop connections that allow you to generate contacts that help your self, family and friends. People respect you because you can help or hurt them. You get fame, and if you like, you can parlay it into fortune.
I don't see too many liberals thanking George W. Bush for his many years of "public service." If you don't like a politician's policies, you are not going to be much comfort in that he nominally "works for you."
Politicians are called public servants because it's become fashionable and politically correct to do so, but it's not really true. When politicians call themselves public servants it often comes off as little more than self-deprecating humor.
If you really want to go into public service, you can set up homeless shelters, food banks, medical clinics or work for a minimal salary for the Salvation Army. If you're a lawyer, for example, you can get a job for $30k with an organization that provides free legal services for the indigent (which, by the way, all these "idealistic and liberal" law schools officially encourage, while at the same time setting up interviews for you with NYC law firms that are offering $175k out of law school).
The term "public service" should be defined a bit more narrowly than it is, IMHO.
-Removed-I was angry when that trgedy happned. At the time I was a huge Humphrey fan being a Minnesota boy.
The questions are obvious or at least to me.
1) Did he have an affair?
2.) Was he drunk?
the gap in time in reporting it causes the questions to asked, although there are no facts that I'm aware of to absolutely say yes to either.
Over time I came to admire Kennedy. I guess sometime in the mid 80s.
Without knowing the truth what happened is between Kennedy, the woman's family, and his God. I don't warrent the right to pass judgment and I don't think that you do either.