Political attacks knock wind out of Kennedy's sails

[Shogun]

Once upon a time, Ted Kennedy could count on his daily dose of veneration. The right wing hated the Massachusetts Democrat, but progressives honored him as a defender of old-school liberalism.

In a remarkable turnaround, liberals are now heaping scorn on the 73-year-old senator. Young audiences boo at his name, and the leftish "Daily Show" on Comedy Central makes fun of him.

The source of unhappiness is Kennedy's efforts to kill an offshore wind farm on Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind was to be the first such project in the United States and a source of pride to environmentally-minded New Englanders. Polls show 84 percent of Massachusetts residents in favor. But now it appears that America's first offshore wind farm will be near Galveston, Texas.

Proposed a month before Sept. 11, 2001, Cape Wind remains in limbo. It's been frustrated at every turn by a handful of yachtsmen, Kennedy included, who don't want to see windmills from their verandas. Many millions have been spent spreading disinformation and smearing the wind farm's supporters.

The towers would be at least five miles out and barely visible from shore on the clearest day, but the summer plutocrats resent any intrusion on their waterfront vistas — and, equally, any challenge to the notion that they control everything.

"But don't you realize — that's where I sail!" may stand as Kennedy's most self-incriminating quote.

The sordid affair is documented in a funny and depressing book titled "Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound." In it, authors Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb (full disclosure: Whitcomb is my editor at The Providence Journal) describe the bipartisan endeavor to betray America's environmental and energy interests — and ignore the welfare of the year-round locals.

Kennedy did much of the dirty work in Washington, but he had considerable help. In 2004, Sen. John Warner, the Virginia Republican, added a last-minute rider to an urgent Iraq war-funding bill that forbade the Army Corps of Engineers to spend money permitting offshore wind projects.

"Warner was dragging American troops into the Cape Wind war," Williams and Whitcomb noted. The outcry forced him to back down.

Why did Warner care so deeply about a wind-energy project in Massachusetts? Some of his wealthy relatives own choice waterfront property on Cape Cod. That's why.

Anchorage is 4,600 miles from Boston. And so what was this project to Rep. Don Young, the Alaska Republican? It was apparently an opportunity to exercise an old grudge against Theodore Roosevelt IV, the 26th president's great-grandson and a wind-farm supporter.

Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander also took an unusual interest in a venture far from his home state of Tennessee. Complaining that wind farms threaten "the wholesale destruction of the American landscape," Alexander introduced legislation that would have banned virtually all offshore wind projects in America. It turns out that he owns real estate on Nantucket Island.

Kennedy, however, remains the central focus of ire. Greenpeace has just launched an anti-Kennedy, pro-Cape Wind television ad campaign.

John Bullard, the former mayor of New Bedford and a Democratic stalwart, is loudly condemning the senator. His working-class city is downwind from one of the nation's dirtiest power plants. Cape Wind could help replace it.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers built a wind turbine along an expressway going into Boston and, next to it, a billboard promoting Cape Wind. The project would mean jobs for the Boston local, which runs a training center for wind technology.

After 45 years in the Senate, Kennedy should be polishing his liberal legacy. But his manipulative attacks on this wind farm have so sickened supporters that his long career may be headed for a sorry end.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003863049_harrop041.html?syndication=rss






Looks like the Kennedy fam is becoming the Strom Thurman of the dems and have become a liability. It's time to ole Teddy to retire. Also, I find it ironic how personal behaviour doesn't seem to mimick the teams talking points. Is this what they call Hypocricy? I mean, there is no gay sex involved but...

I'm tired of Chappaquiddick jokes. I'm tired of a family having an arm around politics based on a famous waspy last name that hasnt been relevant in 30 years. This kind of story proves how maleable are political platforms beyond wearing the team jersey.

 

[hjmick]

Nice to see they're putting it in Galveston. That was a town ahead of it's time right up until the hurricane of 1900 and now it looks as if they will get the chance to set the standard for forward thinking.

Just one more reason to visit Galveston the next time I'm in Texas.

As for Ted, well, what can you say? Once you've gotten away with murder, how hard can it be to put the kibbosh on a wind farm that may, on a clear day, from your back porch, look like miniature pinwheels?

 

[Shogun]

I personally invite any self-edentified lefties who had three shades of fun over a potential gay republican to remind me about how shitty is hypocricy...

 

[jillian]

Once upon a time, Ted Kennedy could count on his daily dose of veneration. The right wing hated the Massachusetts Democrat, but progressives honored him as a defender of old-school liberalism.

In a remarkable turnaround, liberals are now heaping scorn on the 73-year-old senator. Young audiences boo at his name, and the leftish "Daily Show" on Comedy Central makes fun of him.

The source of unhappiness is Kennedy's efforts to kill an offshore wind farm on Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind was to be the first such project in the United States and a source of pride to environmentally-minded New Englanders. Polls show 84 percent of Massachusetts residents in favor. But now it appears that America's first offshore wind farm will be near Galveston, Texas.

Proposed a month before Sept. 11, 2001, Cape Wind remains in limbo. It's been frustrated at every turn by a handful of yachtsmen, Kennedy included, who don't want to see windmills from their verandas. Many millions have been spent spreading disinformation and smearing the wind farm's supporters.

The towers would be at least five miles out and barely visible from shore on the clearest day, but the summer plutocrats resent any intrusion on their waterfront vistas — and, equally, any challenge to the notion that they control everything.

"But don't you realize — that's where I sail!" may stand as Kennedy's most self-incriminating quote.

The sordid affair is documented in a funny and depressing book titled "Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound." In it, authors Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb (full disclosure: Whitcomb is my editor at The Providence Journal) describe the bipartisan endeavor to betray America's environmental and energy interests — and ignore the welfare of the year-round locals.

Kennedy did much of the dirty work in Washington, but he had considerable help. In 2004, Sen. John Warner, the Virginia Republican, added a last-minute rider to an urgent Iraq war-funding bill that forbade the Army Corps of Engineers to spend money permitting offshore wind projects.

"Warner was dragging American troops into the Cape Wind war," Williams and Whitcomb noted. The outcry forced him to back down.

Why did Warner care so deeply about a wind-energy project in Massachusetts? Some of his wealthy relatives own choice waterfront property on Cape Cod. That's why.

Anchorage is 4,600 miles from Boston. And so what was this project to Rep. Don Young, the Alaska Republican? It was apparently an opportunity to exercise an old grudge against Theodore Roosevelt IV, the 26th president's great-grandson and a wind-farm supporter.

Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander also took an unusual interest in a venture far from his home state of Tennessee. Complaining that wind farms threaten "the wholesale destruction of the American landscape," Alexander introduced legislation that would have banned virtually all offshore wind projects in America. It turns out that he owns real estate on Nantucket Island.

Kennedy, however, remains the central focus of ire. Greenpeace has just launched an anti-Kennedy, pro-Cape Wind television ad campaign.

John Bullard, the former mayor of New Bedford and a Democratic stalwart, is loudly condemning the senator. His working-class city is downwind from one of the nation's dirtiest power plants. Cape Wind could help replace it.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers built a wind turbine along an expressway going into Boston and, next to it, a billboard promoting Cape Wind. The project would mean jobs for the Boston local, which runs a training center for wind technology.

After 45 years in the Senate, Kennedy should be polishing his liberal legacy. But his manipulative attacks on this wind farm have so sickened supporters that his long career may be headed for a sorry end.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003863049_harrop041.html?syndication=rss






Looks like the Kennedy fam is becoming the Strom Thurman of the dems and have become a liability. It's time to ole Teddy to retire. Also, I find it ironic how personal behaviour doesn't seem to mimick the teams talking points. Is this what they call Hypocricy? I mean, there is no gay sex involved but...

I'm tired of Chappaquiddick jokes. I'm tired of a family having an arm around politics based on a famous waspy last name that hasnt been relevant in 30 years. This kind of story proves how maleable are political platforms beyond wearing the team jersey.

Didn't think Froma Harrop was your kind of writer... Or is it just you can't miss a chance to bash a kennedy?

Or have you signed on to Froma Harrop's politics and are now environmentally conscious?

More from Froma....

http://www.creators.com/opinion/froma-harrop/big-coal-s-unregulated-plunder.html

 

[Shogun]

strawman.

do you dispute the motivation behind Ted Kennedy desire to preserve his sailing spot? Is this not as hypocritical for an otherwise environmentalist liberal democrat as what you reminded me of regarding potentially gay republicans?

Shall we sidetrack the topic of the thread with grammer or attack the source now?

Certainly, you didn't bitch about sources when a gay republcian was the target, eh?

do you presume to know me well enough to know who is my kind of writer?

 

[Shogun]

here then... if you want to act silly about sources rather than apply the same concern over a dems hypocrisy...

feel free to prove the point I made in the last thread in this thread.



Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2995334

Kennedy faces fight on Cape Wind
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/

Storm Over Mass. Windmill Plan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/26/sunday/main560595.shtml

http://www.capewind.org/

 

[Shogun]

well SHIT!


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

 

[Shogun]

NO ONE wants to step up and criticize a Dem for hypocrisy, eh?



thats too bad. it seems that you are every bit for the left what you bitch about on the right. and I vote democrat! pathetic.

 

[jillian]

NO ONE wants to step up and criticize a Dem for hypocrisy, eh?



thats too bad. it seems that you are every bit for the left what you bitch about on the right. and I vote democrat! pathetic.

Oh... I know the issues. And I certainly don't agree with his position. Hypocrisy.. well, I don't know.. NIMBY is nothing unusual from either dems or republicans... Dick Cheney, to the best of my recollection, put the kibosh on certain land use in his area because he didn't want it effecting his property values.

Can you really, with a straight face, liken that to Craig actively campaigning to divest a group of people of their rights while carrying on in like manner? I don't think so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh... I know the issues. And I certainly don't agree with his position. Hypocrisy.. well, I don't know.. NIMBY is nothing unusual from either dems or republicans... Dick Cheney, to the best of my recollection, put the kibosh on certain land use in his area because he didn't want it effecting his property values.

Can you really, with a straight face, liken that to Craig actively campaigning to divest a group of people of their rights while carrying on in like manner? I don't think so.

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.

 

[maineman]

Am I highly critical of Kennedy's stance on wind energy? absolutely.

Is "wind energy" the only issue that I send senators to washington to take care of? no.

Is there any democrat in washington that shares all of my positions and philosophies and views? no.

If I were a resident of Massachusetts, would Kennedy's stance on wind energy be enough to cause me to vote for his republican opponent in the next general election? not only no, but hell no.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Am I highly critical of Kennedy's stance on wind energy? absolutely.

Is "wind energy" the only issue that I send senators to washington to take care of? no.

Is there any democrat in washington that shares all of my positions and philosophies and views? no.

If I were a resident of Massachusetts, would Kennedy's stance on wind energy be enough to cause me to vote for his republican opponent in the next general election? not only no, but hell no.

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.

Now this sentiment I can agree with. You are clear that while you disagree with him on this point, it is not a deciding factor on who and why you vote. WE all make those decisions every day. Or we make no decisions and live in a rut.

There are no perfect candidates , no perfect politicians. I despise Kennedy, BUT your being honest and that I can understand.

 

[Shogun]

Oh... I know the issues. And I certainly don't agree with his position. Hypocrisy.. well, I don't know.. NIMBY is nothing unusual from either dems or republicans... Dick Cheney, to the best of my recollection, put the kibosh on certain land use in his area because he didn't want it effecting his property values.

Can you really, with a straight face, liken that to Craig actively campaigning to divest a group of people of their rights while carrying on in like manner? I don't think so.

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.

 

[Shogun]

Is "wind energy" the only issue that I send senators to washington to take care of? no.
Is there any democrat in washington that shares all of my positions and philosophies and views? no.
If I were a resident of Massachusetts, would Kennedy's stance on wind energy be enough to cause me to vote for his republican opponent in the next general election? not only no, but hell no.
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.

Hey, thank the loward that YOU get to keep such discretion about what issues are more personally important to than, say, a gay republican, eh? All of a sudden the environment fell off the priority list! If you are that stuck in partisan ideology then you have no room to bitch or cry about the right when they refuse to budge on their pet issues. You are the flip side of the same coin. If I saw a republican candidate whose potistions I agreed with I would not hesitate to vote for that person DESPITE MY PARTY AFFILIATION. YOu expect the right to change and come your direction while having no remote fucking intention of moving your ass off of your own comfortable location. Rationalizing your monkey dance about craigs MISDOMEANOR while polishing your own turd in this thread is about as profound as the latest Micheal Savage rant praising karl rove and demonizing the liberal of the day. Indeed, remember that the next time you get all holier than thou on some conservative wearing the team jersey here.. and don't forget to let America's homosexual population kow that they face a scourge of being dragged out of the closet if they dare vote against how you think they should vote.. since they don't have the same perogative that you seem to demand.

Again, Thanks for proving my point.


looks like RSR wasnt the only blind partisan around here.

 

[maineman]

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.

If I saw a republican candidate whose potistions I agreed with I would not hesitate to vote for that person DESPITE MY PARTY AFFILIATION.

it would seem you missed the bolded sentence.

why am I not surprised?

 

[Shogun]

you would ignore the voice of one republican interested in change because you require a shift of the entire republican party?

why am I not suprised?

indeed, lecture us about the partisan hypocrisy of the right. it isn't ironic or anything.

 

[maineman]

you would ignore the voice of one republican interested in change because you require a shift of the entire republican party?

why am I not suprised?

indeed, lecture us about the partisan hypocrisy of the right. it isn't ironic or anything.

I realize you probably were snorting glue when your classmates were taking civics class, but here is a newsflash for you: politics is a team sport.

If I believe in the positions contained in a party platform, the idea is to get those positions enacted into law. and the way to do that is to elect a majority from that party so that they can actually enact those positions and make those changes.

and what the hell does that have to do with publicly denouncing gays and voting against expanding human rights to include equal rights for gays on one hand while trolling for anonymous gay buttsex in airport restrooms on the other hand?

 

[Shogun]

ahh yes.. the ole ad hominem!

say, you sure do let that shit slide in a debate when it's a local conservative doling em out.. say, it's SHOCKING that you'd run right to name calling! SHOCKING, i tellya. Good god.. I just wasnt convinced but now that you've suggested that I was snorting glue in civics class I can see your point so much CLEARER!

HAHAHA! you just don't see how easy it is to lead you along do you?


funny.. NOW it's a team sport. i bet you didnt make such comments while the reps were threatening to remove the fillibuster.. or, say, appointing SCOTUS judges.. it's funny how you and Brit Hume dance the same dance and sing the same song. Indeed, you should probably cry about conservative partisans unwilling to consider your opinions sore often. It's a team sport, right?


and what the hell does that have to do with publicly denouncing gays and voting against expanding human rights to include equal rights for gays on one hand while trolling for anonymous gay buttsex in airport restrooms on the other hand?

Hypocrisy, bitch. not just a label for your political antithesis anymore:


self-loathing is, apparently, a turn on for closeted gay republicans.

exactly. republicans only kick out their hypocrites who are also gay. The straight ones need to be convicted of a felony before they get any scrutiny!

what a silly thing to say! I look at the democrats that I vote for in Maine on a regular basis.... and they are all perfectly decent moral folks.

I simply disagree with the socio-political philosophy of the religious right and I think that many members of the religious right are hypocrites.


we don't need too damn many more of those fucking republican perverts in the senate to be "exposed" and 60 votes after 08 will be a cakewalk!

what?
how can I possibly respond? to the guy who claims that all liberals, by their very nature, are emotional and all conservatives are coldly objective?

Do any of them really expect democrats not to jump on stories like this after thy have been harping about morality as if their shit didn't stink for years?
give me a break.

but if you are going to throw morality stones from your glass house, and then people peek in and catch you trolling for gay sex in the restroom, you really ought to expect to have a few windows broken, don't you agree?

you know.... if you guys didn't want to politics to sink this low, you should have thought of that when you forced the entire country to stand still while you impeached a president.
what goes around comes around and trying to stand on the moral high ground given the track record of the right on this issue is really pretty fucking disingenuous.

My party has never run a campaign on bringing morality back to washington either. my party has never held the country hostage for months on end while it impeached a president for lying about a blowjob.

Quite honestly, I do not recall any democrat who ever claimed that, becuase of his or her superior morality, that the voters should chose them over an immoral republican...whereas, republicans HAVE made morality a centerpiece of their national campaign

I can recall a time, not too long ago when the democratic and republican senators from the state of maine were best of friends and co-authored a novel together. collegiality and friendship used to be possible between democrats and republicans. when do you think that all started to really change?

Ooops! the party of moral superiority's red garter belt is showing.... their miniskirt has raised up and is exposing their crotchless panties.
I wonder - after Foley, and this guy, not to mention their top tier spiritual advisor Haggerty (to name but three) all falling from grace - will they have the balls to still work that "we are the party of family values" line? Just how brazenly hypocritical can they be?

and I would LOVE to go back to a time when there was respect and collegiality in politics. But I see no reason to drop unilaterally beat any swords into plowshares....


I have always had a problem with politicians who castigate gays and rail against them, and campaign on promises to maintain their second class status and deny them the rights that other citizens have, and go after that strong religious right holier than thou voter....and then turn up cruising for anonymous gay buttsex in an airport restroom.
the fact that Craig is gay is not the issue at all. the fact that he is an incredibl hypocrite IS.


you don't get it that it is not Craig's "gayness" that is at issue, it is his hypocrisy.

do you understand that Senator Craig was an outspoken critic of homosexuals?


but when he goes AFTER gays for political gain and turns around and trolls for buttsex in the airport rest room...that is not only hypocritical...it is funny and it is newsworthy...AND IT HAS NATIONAL ELECTION YEAR IMPLICATIONS!

what? this guy claims he is NOT gay. this guy has routinely castigated gays throughout his political career. you cannot be so fucking obtuse that you fail to see the incredible hypocrisy of that.

But BEYOND that, we have the fact that he has publicly RAILED against homosexual behavior (and anonymous male on male buttsex does indeed qualify as homosexual behavior).... his sexual proclivities are not the issue. His overwhelming hypocrisy is.


I speak for no one but myself. His "gayness" is of ZERO consequence to me.
His hypocrisy is.
As Jillian so eloquently said:
"The difference is that Clinton wasn't running around trying to get laws passed outlawing oral sex.
Had he done so, then he would have been acting hypocritically and would have been rightfully accused of same."
This guy has made denying gays any rights at all one of his focal points. If he does that, and then gets caught trolling for man on man buttsex in the airport restroom.... he gets called a hypocrite.


as I said, we are not talking about they hypocrisy of Clinton, but the hypocrisy of Senator Craig.
And again...I could give a fuck if he is gay, but I give a fuck that he IS a hypocrite.

8. I AM saying, that when a gay republican legislator is IN THE CLOSET and repeatedly votes WITH his party's leadership AGAINST gay rights issues - AND THEN GETS CAUGHT TROLLING FOR MAN ON MAN ASS SEX IN AN AIRPORT RESTROOM, he rightfully deserves all the public condemnation that we can heap on him - not because he is gay, BUT BECAUSE HE IS A FUCKING HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


be serious. a gay man in the closet who condemns gays...denies being gay... votes against the interests of gays....and then gets caught trolling for sex in a restroom....and you want to suggest that is not hypocrisy?


hypocrisy abounds in politics. to try and deny that Craig is guilty of it is really just silliness.


that's it...that's it.
and watching the conservatives try to spin their way out of this incredible embarrassment is equally funny!

Again...NOBODY is saying that homosexuality is RARE. We ARE saying that a gay man who stays in the closet and spends his career castigating gays in order to garner votes from his constituency and favor from his caucus is a FUCKING HYPOCRITE.



Craig is also, but not only did he hide it, he voted against gays for the sole reason of gaining votes from his constituents and curry favor from the republican caucus.
As I have said over and over again here...I have no problems with Craig's sexuality....ONLY his profound hypocrisy.




You know, mainman, for being such a windbag when you found a gay republican to point at you sure are quick to ease your hatred of hypocrites when the rock of liberal environmentalism all of a sudden says fuck you to an environmental benefit because of his waspy sailing jonez. If you cannot see the correlation between your rant against a gay republican's hypocricy and an environmental democrat then, by all means, call me a name or soemthing.. It's waht all the pointless bitches do when they get similarly frustrated with their own inconsistant, maleable standards.

 

[maineman]

"funny.. NOW it's a team sport. i bet you didnt make such comments while the reps were threatening to remove the fillibuster.. or, say, appointing SCOTUS judges.. it's funny how you and Brit Hume dance the same dance and sing the same song. Indeed, you should probably cry about conservative partisans unwilling to consider your opinions sore often. It's a team sport, right?"

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

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.

"You know, mainman, for being such a windbag when you found a gay republican to point at you sure are quick to ease your hatred of hypocrites when the rock of liberal environmentalism all of a sudden says fuck you to an environmental benefit because of his waspy sailing jonez. If you cannot see the correlation between your rant against a gay republican's hypocricy and an environmental democrat then, by all means, call me a name or soemthing.. It's waht all the pointless bitches do when they get similarly frustrated with their own inconsistant, maleable standards."

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."

 

[dilloduck]

"funny.. NOW it's a team sport. i bet you didnt make such comments while the reps were threatening to remove the fillibuster.. or, say, appointing SCOTUS judges.. it's funny how you and Brit Hume dance the same dance and sing the same song. Indeed, you should probably cry about conservative partisans unwilling to consider your opinions sore often. It's a team sport, right?"

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

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.

"You know, mainman, for being such a windbag when you found a gay republican to point at you sure are quick to ease your hatred of hypocrites when the rock of liberal environmentalism all of a sudden says fuck you to an environmental benefit because of his waspy sailing jonez. If you cannot see the correlation between your rant against a gay republican's hypocricy and an environmental democrat then, by all means, call me a name or soemthing.. It's waht all the pointless bitches do when they get similarly frustrated with their own inconsistant, maleable standards."

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."

Exposing the hypocrisy has become incredibly boring and accomplishes nothing. An plan can be a great one even if the one proposing it is not perfect at it.