Political attacks knock wind out of Kennedy's sails

[Shogun]

I bet you are wrong. I have always known that politics is a team sport, and in America there are two teams. When you are in the majority, you are on offense...when you are in the minority, you are playing defense. WHen republicans were threatening to remove the filibuster, I still knew that politics was a team sport. By the phrase, team sport, I am not suggesting that we are all on ONE team.... you really did miss civics, for whatever reason...obviously

indeed, you seem to have the balls to make such a statement this side of the TINY majority the Dems gathered in 06. I'm willing to bet your tantrums conveyed a different, desperate tone in the 6 years prior. But hey, if you are OK with blind team partisanship then so be it. At least you can admit your own hypocricy instead of waiting for a liberal with a vendetta to drag you out of the closet. I assure you, you are not better than those you rant about daily. Hell, you and Michelle Malkin would probably have a charming conversation conisdering your many common opinions on partisanship.





and I have to say that you are sort of weird to spend all that time digging up my quotes. I would certainly have stipulated to all of them and saved you the trouble. As it is, your obsessive behavior in this regard is, I gotta say it, kinda creepy.


wow, I should probably run crying to the teacher because you think bitchslapping you with your own quotes is creepy! I-I just don't know if I c-c-can make it through recess knowing that you don't aprove of having your own words remind you of how important busitng hypocrits was last week (when the hypocrite was a conservative, of course).. Gee, it's almost as if you don't want to debate the topic anymore, mainman! SAY IT AINT SO! ad hominems and NOW your opinion of what you think is creepy? I tellya.. you sure are a master of navigating a debate!

What can I say, proving my point beyond pussy partisan cheerleading is my thing.




I fully agree that Kennedy's stance against wind energy is hypocritical and self serving. I think I said that way earlier in this thread. And of COURSE there is correlation, but it is not like he has been trying to hide his hypocrisy by only being against wind farms during those moments when he was seated on commodes in airport bathrooms... and it is not like Teddy pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for opposing wind energy, is it?
Once again for the apparently terminally thick: POLITICS IS A TEAM SPORT. I am on the team called "democrats". I point out the hypocrisy of the guys on the other team. The guys on the other team point out the hypocrisy on my team. that is how the sport is played. If the guys on the other team want to continue to nominate hypocrites to run for office, I would expect that the guys on the other team would also continue to vote for those same hypocrites in the general election - because a hypocrite from one's own team is better than a hypocrite from the other guy's team....remember? the old offense/defense thing? Like I said much earlier:"If someone mounted a primary campaign against Kennedy, would that candidate get my vote? that depends on their positions on a whole lot more issues beyond wind energy, that is for sure. In a primary, I would always vote for the candidate that most shared my positions. In a general election, I would always vote for the democrat until such time as the republican party's platform encapsulates more of my core beliefs than the democratic party platform currently does."

a MISDEMEANOR, eh? NOW it's about Craigs CRIME?

say, it looks like, above, you were more interested in his HYPOCRICY.. what happend with that? Indeed, why rake your own side through the same bullshit you apply to the right? HYPOCRICY isnt as important as the TEAM, eh?

What ever happened to the whole "collegiality and friendship used to be possible between democrats and republicans. when do you think that all started to really change", eh Teamboy? Did THEY also miss civics class while sniffing glue? I garenfucingtee you've bitched about the nature of the 04 elections polarization and Ill rely on the local conservatives to post a link if you suggest otherwise. But NOW all of a sudden, when an environmentalist DEM shucks his standard party line, you don't feel like applying the same criticism because "it's a team sport"

HAHAHAHAHA!

whatevr you say, hypocrite. You know, the righties on this board aren't lying when they talk about the local left's inability to be consistant. It's pretty fucking obvious how far you'll go to insist that your own shit is 24k gold.




now, go run along and find yourself a gay republican to pounce on. hypocricy, crminal misdomeanor.. whatever get's your fluttering attention, teamboy.

 

[maineman]

you really do seem to miss the point:

I would love to return to the days of political collegiality. I just don't see it happening, and the guys that unilaterally beat their swords into plowshares won't even have time to begin plowing the fields before the other side slices them with their swords.

and that is how it goes. I have believed in the rightness and goodness and appropriateness of the democratic party platform since long before the current climate of acrimony descended upon the land. I still believe in it.

Is Senator Craig a hypocrite for trolling for gay sex after crusading against gays? of course he is. and his opponents have every right to criticize his hypocrisy. AND HIS TEAMMATES have every right to throw him under the bus if he starts becoming a political liability. And they apparently have, because apparently he has.

Is Ted Kennedy a hypocrite for opposing a windfarm after previously taking so many green stances? of COURSE he is. And his opponents have every right to criticize his hypocrisy (which would be a refreshing change, actually...the whole chappaquiddick thing was really getting shopworn). AND HIS TEAMMATES have every right to throw HIM under the bus if HE starts becoming a political liability. They haven't yet, because he hasn't yet.

 

[Shogun]

oh I know..

it's always someone else that misses the point.

just like it is always someone else who is the hypocrite.

just like it is someone else who should be politically consistant.

*yawn*

Like I said, if you are comfy with your partisanship while you have the tiniest iota of an upper hend then so be it. Enjoy your dinner date with Michelle Malkin. I'm sure she will laugh at your joke about how a liberal democrat cornerstone hasn't become a political liability because of his glaring hypocricy like a gay republican whose hypocricy, apparently, holds more political utility.



ps, making an excuse for shitty behaviour because "they do it" is still merely a shitty excuse. Take a lesson from Ben franklin instead of lounging back in the placental warmth of "but, THEY do it too!". It doesn't make your arguement any more relevant when rationalizing your version of the same behaviour. In fact, you perpetuate a cycle that, i'm betting, you'll be bitching about come the full on partisan machine of the 08 election.

 

[maineman]

oh I know..

it's always someone else that misses the point.

just like it is always someone else who is the hypocrite.

just like it is someone else who should be politically consistant.

*yawn*

Like I said, if you are comfy with your partisanship while you have the tiniest iota of an upper hend then so be it. Enjoy your dinner date with Michelle Malkin. I'm sure she will laugh at your joke about how a liberal democrat cornerstone hasn't become a political liability because of his glaring hypocricy like a gay republican whose hypocricy, apparently, holds more political utility.



ps, making an excuse for shitty behaviour because "they do it" is still merely a shitty excuse. Take a lesson from Ben franklin instead of lounging back in the placental warmth of "but, THEY do it too!". It doesn't make your arguement any more relevant when rationalizing your version of the same behaviour. In fact, you perpetuate a cycle that, i'm betting, you'll be bitching about come the full on partisan machine of the 08 election.

first. I do sometimes miss the point...but that does not change the fact that you are missing this one.

second. I have never suggested that Kennedy's stance on wind energy was anything BUT hypocritical.

third. I have been politically consistent.

fourth. I am comfy with my status as a partisan democrat who deeply and fervently believes in the ideals of the platform of my party. Kennedy only becomes a political liability when he actually becomes a liability.... not when some internet political site poster says he becomes one. If you want to suggest that the national uproar about Teddy's wind farm position matches the uproar of Craig's bathroom antics, you are seriously deluded. If, and when the "winds" of public opinion start to blow Teddy out to sea, rest assured that the democratic leaders will ask him to feign fatigue and then retire with much fanfare and cheers. Until then, he is, from my perspective, not much of a liability at all. A hypocrite? certainly, but as of right now, not much of a liability. Shit...if Chappaquiddick didn't make him a liability, then a silly wind farm certainly won't.

Like I said, the guy who unilaterally beats jhis sword into a plowshare gets cut to ribbons by the other guy's sword.

 

[jillian]

well SHIT!


why did it get so fucking quiet all of a sudden??

It got quiet because I left work for home. Some of us have other things to do with our time. And, if you'll note, I answered you later.

 

[jillian]

Well except for the simple fact NO ONE has passed any laws taking rights away from Gays, you might have had a point. No one has suggested any laws to take away rights from Gays either.

Unless of course you believe gays have the right to marry the people they love. And I'd say clamoring for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is far more than a suggestion, so you're being disingenuous.

And if the laws haven't been passed, it wasn't for lack of effort..they've also managed to be successful pursing the issue in the courts.

 

[jillian]

YOU were the one saying that it was craigs HYPOCRISY and not his homosexuality that made you dance around like a monkey discovering fire. All of a sudden a Democrat, the proverbial fucking cornerstone of baby boomer liberal politics, shows how party rhetoric is less important than his personal situation and you come back wih a dick cheney tangent? HA! you might as well just has been a conservative whipping out the good ole trusty "CLINTON GOT DID IT" line. In fact, by your very refusal to take your own to task about HYPOCRISY you prove that HYPOCRICY was not the issue that gave you a chubby in regards to craig. You don't have to admit that you don't think gays should be republican any more than blacks. It's quite clearwhen you display your double standard and willingness to play the role of the lefts sean hannity.. or, in your case, ann coulter.

Annie Coultergeist is a liar and a psychopath...

That aside, as MM said, there's more than one issue that we concern ourselves with. I've already stated my disagreement with his position on this one.

But again, no different from any other pol using his position to benefit himself... like Cheney did, whether you like it or not.

 

[Shogun]

funny.. I don't recall that you let an elected gay republican use the excuse that there are more than one issue that is important.

Bottom line, if you can't be critical of your own side just because of a common jersey then you are no better than those you bitch about on the right who pummel the shit out of your side on talk radio and fox news. THis would have been a great opportunity to show that you, in fact, were not as blindly partisan as you seemed to be with Larry Craig. I assure you that your self righteous highground impresses no one and fools even fewer.

 

[dilloduck]

Unless of course you believe gays have the right to marry the people they love. And I'd say clamoring for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is far more than a suggestion, so you're being disingenuous.

And if the laws haven't been passed, it wasn't for lack of effort..they've also managed to be successful pursing the issue in the courts.

It's not a case of what you believe. It is a fact--gays have never had the right to marry so nothing was taken away from them except for some wild fantasy they have about being the same as a hetro couple.

 

[jillian]

It's not a case of what you believe. It is a fact--gays have never had the right to marry so nothing was taken away from them except for some wild fantasy they have about being the same as a hetro couple.

That may well be the most absurd reasoning I have ever heard. By that logic, when blacks were enslaved, continuing to enslave them or passing Jim Crow laws took nothing away from them because they never had freedom or equal rights anyway.

Ridiculous... truly ridiculous.

 

[Dr Grump]

That may well be the most absurd reasoning I have ever heard. By that logic, when blacks were enslaved, continuing to enslave them or passing Jim Crow laws took nothing away from them because they never had freedom or equal rights anyway.

Ridiculous... truly ridiculous.

But it gives them unreasonable reasoning for their hatred....

 

[maineman]

funny.. I don't recall that you let an elected gay republican use the excuse that there are more than one issue that is important.

Bottom line, if you can't be critical of your own side just because of a common jersey then you are no better than those you bitch about on the right who pummel the shit out of your side on talk radio and fox news. THis would have been a great opportunity to show that you, in fact, were not as blindly partisan as you seemed to be with Larry Craig. I assure you that your self righteous highground impresses no one and fools even fewer.

Look...pal...I live in Maine. I will never ever have the opportunity to vote for or against Craig or Kennedy. Kennedy is an icon. An uber-liberal from a democratic dynasty in a democratic state. He has been elected and reelected to the senate by the folks in the Bay State for a long long time with a lot worse things hanging around his neck than a bit of hypocrisy about being green but not wanting windmills mucking up his day under sail. Ted Kennedy never worked to develop a green image to entice otherwise reticent massachusetts voters.

Craig, on the other hand, has made gay bashing one of his cause celebre... he has worked hard to promote the gay bashing image in a transparent attempt to curry favor with the homophobic Idaho bible beaters.

I AM critical of Ted Kennedy..and I AM critical of Larry Craig. Both of them are hypocrites....one of them has only recently revealed his hypocrisy against his will... I think it is funny. But again...I will never have the opportunity to vote for either of them. The folks of Idaho and Massachusetts are perfectly capable of determining whether or not they want to return a hypocrite to office... and I have no interest in trying to convince either group one way or the other.

 

[dilloduck]

That may well be the most absurd reasoning I have ever heard. By that logic, when blacks were enslaved, continuing to enslave them or passing Jim Crow laws took nothing away from them because they never had freedom or equal rights anyway.

Ridiculous... truly ridiculous.

You wanna talk legal rights or not ? Blacks had none and laws were enacted to make it "legal". Not moral--legal.

 

[Shogun]

Look...pal...I live in Maine. I will never ever have the opportunity to vote for or against Craig or Kennedy. Kennedy is an icon. An uber-liberal from a democratic dynasty in a democratic state. He has been elected and reelected to the senate by the folks in the Bay State for a long long time with a lot worse things hanging around his neck than a bit of hypocrisy about being green but not wanting windmills mucking up his day under sail. Ted Kennedy never worked to develop a green image to entice otherwise reticent massachusetts voters.

Craig, on the other hand, has made gay bashing one of his cause celebre... he has worked hard to promote the gay bashing image in a transparent attempt to curry favor with the homophobic Idaho bible beaters.

I AM critical of Ted Kennedy..and I AM critical of Larry Craig. Both of them are hypocrites....one of them has only recently revealed his hypocrisy against his will... I think it is funny. But again...I will never have the opportunity to vote for either of them. The folks of Idaho and Massachusetts are perfectly capable of determining whether or not they want to return a hypocrite to office... and I have no interest in trying to convince either group one way or the other.

not being able to vote for Craig sure didn't stop you from flailing your arms like a rooster mounting a hen when you thought you could target a gay republican... rationalize what you need to. Like I said, you are in no danger of threatening the board with consistency. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to even get you THIS far critical of ole Teddy. Enjoy stewing in the same partisanship that caused the right to spring a group hardon in 04, buddy! Perhaps this is why that little 06 democrat surge in congress fell flat on it's ass... meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[Shogun]

That may well be the most absurd reasoning I have ever heard. By that logic, when blacks were enslaved, continuing to enslave them or passing Jim Crow laws took nothing away from them because they never had freedom or equal rights anyway.

Ridiculous... truly ridiculous.

uh, thats exactly right. what original rights did women or blacks have in the constitution? pretty hard to answer that when blacks were a fraction of a person and women didnt even count, eh? It took amendments to the constitution to ADD their rights as a status of citizenship. Now, im all for gay rights. Let em get married. let them adopt. I have no problem with that. Lets all pass an amendment that explicitly protects personal privacy and clarify the ninth amendment. but it is silly to ignore the reality of US history just to force together some comparison between blacks and gays.

 

[maineman]

not being able to vote for Craig sure didn't stop you from flailing your arms like a rooster mounting a hen when you thought you could target a gay republican... rationalize what you need to. Like I said, you are in no danger of threatening the board with consistency. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to even get you THIS far critical of ole Teddy. Enjoy stewing in the same partisanship that caused the right to spring a group hardon in 04, buddy! Perhaps this is why that little 06 democrat surge in congress fell flat on it's ass... meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

and again...I NEVER thought I could "target a gay republican"..I thought I could target a hypocritical republican.... which is exactly what you are doing. I have always agreed with you that Kennedy is hypocritical. I just do not think he is a political liability...because, as I said, if Chappaquiddick did not make him a political liability in Massachusetts, then the wind farm issue certainly will not.

And I ALSO said that if and when Teddy DOES become a legitimate political liability, I have no doubt that - strangely enough - he will soon thereafter "decide on his own" that he needs to retire.

and as regards the 06 democratic surge.... all we ever thought we could really do is begin to shed some light on the ineptitude of the bushies by providing some real congressional oversight. No one should really make any judgments until after '08 when we can be judged on how well we run the government, not just how well we provide oversight while someone else runs it.

 

[Shogun]

if you agree that ole Teddy is a Hypocrite, which you say was the midigating factor in giving Craig the court jester treatment, then why did you drag your feet putting as much effort into Kennedy as you did Craig? If you enjoy busting ass on political hypocrits then why couldn't you apply the same regardless of party? THAT, sir, is the point. Take a chance at actually being the better of two choices instead of playing the game just because you don't see them making an effort. At least be consistant.


decades of chappaquiddick jokes make him a liability. His strom thurman-like presence is a liability. His free ride paid for by a surname is a liability. If we don't hold our own to a standard then how can you expect them to do the same? Will it take a tour by Toby Kieth to give Teddy the treatment Pearl Jam gave to strom?

ps.. congressional oversight? dude, please. There really hasn't been much in two years to illicit a dem surge in 08 besides "well, im not the other guy". THAT is nothing to brag about or sweep under the rug until the next presidential election. Ever think that perhaps this type of greenlight gladhanding is why the Dems are not that much different than the Pubs? How can our side bitch about the right falling in line behind blind talking points when we do the same damn thing with our Ted Kennedys?

prune the tree.

 

[maineman]

if you agree that ole Teddy is a Hypocrite, which you say was the midigating factor in giving Craig the court jester treatment, then why did you drag your feet putting as much effort into Kennedy as you did Craig? If you enjoy busting ass on political hypocrits then why couldn't you apply the same regardless of party? THAT, sir, is the point. Take a chance at actually being the better of two choices instead of playing the game just because you don't see them making an effort. At least be consistant.


decades of chappaquiddick jokes make him a liability. His strom thurman-like presence is a liability. His free ride paid for by a surname is a liability. If we don't hold our own to a standard then how can you expect them to do the same? Will it take a tour by Toby Kieth to give Teddy the treatment Pearl Jam gave to strom?

ps.. congressional oversight? dude, please. There really hasn't been much in two years to illicit a dem surge in 08 besides "well, im not the other guy". THAT is nothing to brag about or sweep under the rug until the next presidential election. Ever think that perhaps this type of greenlight gladhanding is why the Dems are not that much different than the Pubs? How can our side bitch about the right falling in line behind blind talking points when we do the same damn thing with our Ted Kennedys?

prune the tree.

The reason that I do not go after Kennedy is, because he is NOT MY senator and he is not a member of the opposition party. If Kennedy were the senator from Maine, I would be quite amenable to a primary opponent for him. As it is.... I think it is up to the people of Massachusetts to pick their senators, not me. I point out Craig's hypocrisy because I AM a partisan democrat, and am not ashamed of that in any way.

If Kennedy were, in fact, a political liability, he would not keep getting reelected by such lopsided margins every six years. He may be a lightning rod for republican derision, but he remains an effective senator who maintains the trust and admiration of his constituency.

regarding your congressional oversight line.... you really need to do some math. Democrats assumed control of congress by a whisker in January of 2007. that is eight MONTHS ago, not two years.

 

[CSM]

The reason that I do not go after Kennedy is, because he is NOT MY senator and he is not a member of the opposition party. If Kennedy were the senator from Maine, I would be quite amenable to a primary opponent for him. As it is.... I think it is up to the people of Massachusetts to pick their senators, not me. I point out Craig's hypocrisy because I AM a partisan democrat, and am not ashamed of that in any way.

If Kennedy were, in fact, a political liability, he would not keep getting reelected by such lopsided margins every six years. He may be a lightning rod for republican derision, but he remains an effective senator who maintains the trust and admiration of his constituency.

regarding your congressional oversight line.... you really need to do some math. Democrats assumed control of congress by a whisker in January of 2007. that is eight MONTHS ago, not two years.

You are at least honest in your admission that your outrage at displays of hypocrisy is relative. In other words, hypocrisy is ok for those you aligned with but not for those you oppose.

The very fact (at the risk of generalization) that most dems are moral relativists is the single most important reason I am so vehemently anti-democrat (this applies even more so to libs). Note that I am not saying that some Repubs are not hypocritical ... I detest those bastards too!

 

[Shogun]

The reason that I do not go after Kennedy is, because he is NOT MY senator and he is not a member of the opposition party. If Kennedy were the senator from Maine, I would be quite amenable to a primary opponent for him. As it is.... I think it is up to the people of Massachusetts to pick their senators, not me. I point out Craig's hypocrisy because I AM a partisan democrat, and am not ashamed of that in any way.

If Kennedy were, in fact, a political liability, he would not keep getting reelected by such lopsided margins every six years. He may be a lightning rod for republican derision, but he remains an effective senator who maintains the trust and admiration of his constituency.

regarding your congressional oversight line.... you really need to do some math. Democrats assumed control of congress by a whisker in January of 2007. that is eight MONTHS ago, not two years.

WAS CRAIG YOUR SENATOR?

NO?

so you can only be critical of republicans and people you can vote for? hmmm.. thats pretty damn stupid and sounds like an excuse. Should the pubs only criticize dems and their personal state reps? Great, you admit you are a partisan democrat. How does that make you any better than Ann Coulter again?

STROM THURMAN WAS ELECTED TOO! Did you take such a wanton view of his geriatric electioneering? How many excuses can we make to maintain that "Do as I say not as I do" game plan going? EFFECTIVE? Yea, turning your back on an environmental boon, a notoriously constanat democrat plattform, for the sake of his own Nimpy-ness screams effective. Indeed, let's ignore SUV driving global warming doomsayers and private jet owning environmentalists too. After all, as a Dem, it's not YOUR responsibility to be critical unless they come from your state or are a gay republican, eh?

and you can part hairs about how long the dems have had their slight advantage in congress but you sound like rush limbaugh blaming 9/11 on clinton because bush was only in his earliest year out of four elected years. It doesn't take a lesson in math to admit the impotence of a half assed effort.

But, I guess thats what makes it easy to brag about blind partisanship.