The Difference

Glenn asks,

The question is, will the Democrats be willing to do to Ted Kennedy, for his remarks on the war, what Republicans did to Trent Lott, for his remarks on Strom Thurmond and the 1948 election?

The answer: absolutely not, because unlike in Lott’s case, the majority of the party, and the overwhelming majority of the activists and donors agree with Kennedy completely. They also have the added benefit of knowing the MSM will never call Kennedy to account for anything he says.

Advertisements

15 Responses to “The Difference”

  1. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    You might want to link folks over to Iowahawk, who skewers Teddy nicely.

    On a serious note, it is hard to know what to say in the face of Kennedy’s remarks, not coincidentally just before the Iraqi election and unrelated to any legislation before the Senate. We don’t want to use words like “sedition” lightly — especially as we will be accused of doing so whenever we make the accusation.

    The loyal opposition should always have the right to criticise, and we put up with a great deal of nonsense in this country to make that so. And to undermine a policy so one can later claim “I told you so” has a long, if dishonorable history in this country. But the current pretense is that there is no cost to such remarks, only benefit.

    It is not a ridiculous prediction that the elections in Iraq, the war in Iraq, the general war on terror, and the attempt to spread democracy will succeed in a general way, with high cost. In that eventuality, those who have undermined the president’s strategy now should be accountable for the extra lives they cost by gumming it up. They calculate only the “what if we didn’t go” numbers with the rosiest of imagined outcomes for that nonaction.

    It is dangerous fantasy, not merely hardball politics, that makes such a dishonest calculation. Those who would legitimately question the president’s policies should scream their dissociation from their irresponsible brethren. If they cannot, I conclude that they are not honorable, and find no obligation to treat their comments seriously.

  2. bspolitix Says:

    Vote Iraq Vote ! ! ! !

    Ted Kennedy called for our hasty retreat from battle Iraq. Here we are at the tipping point in this battle, and he wants to cut and run.

    Good.

    That should warm Zarqawis heart. Surely he and the other Islamo-thugs over there factor this into the…

  3. Francis W. Porretto Says:

    It’s not so much that the rest of the Democratic Party agrees with Ted Kennedy. Its party discipline is so tight that no Democrat would ever dream of criticizing him.

    The Democrats have had extremely strict party discipline for many years. In contrast, Republicans frequently quarrel among themselves in public, take a range of positions inconsistent with one another, and are not averse to the occasional personal jibe or outright attack. Remember that Ronald Reagan had to tell Republicans not to speak ill of one another — and was only partly successful in suppressing the practice.

    Of course, party discipline protects persons such as Kennedy, a very senior Senator with immense influence derived from Senatorial rules, even though in a better world, he would inhabit a rubber room that locks from the outside, at least until the dancing pink elephants had cleared from his vision. But it does conduce to a united front that has allowed Democratic minorities to thwart many a worthy Republican initiative. That asset has persistently eluded the GOP.

  4. Rod Stanton Says:

    No it is that the Party agrees with Teddy. Check out Nancy Pelosi the Party leader in the House. Or Babs Boxer in the Senate. The Democrats think free elections are bad; visit Wisc. for details. Or check out -“accidentally” late – military ballots in Wash. for more.

  5. utron Says:

    The party isn’t going to do a thing to discipline Kennedy for his remarks, which are yet another sign that he’s driving off the… Never mind, that’s just too obvious.

    On the bright side, Ted’s increasingly irresponsible behavior makes it possible for Republicans to mount a credible challenge. (When is he up for re-election, anyway?) It would be nice to see the voters of Massachusetts call this schmuck home, instead of waiting for God or his abused liver to do the job.

  6. Sandy P Says:

    Ryan Lizza was on CNN(?)

    Of course we all want democracy.

    The spin begins.

    Am I glad I didn’t watch commie Kerry the AM.

    W gave the Iraqis what his stance never gave the South Vietnamese – hope and life.

    Another nail in the 60s coffin.

  7. SpinDaddy Says:

    I just livebloggged Sen Heinz-Kerrys appearance on Meet The Press. Absolutely amazing, after the fanny whipping he took last fall; he still doesn’t get it.
    -Spin

  8. American Patrol Says:

    Is it not so painfully obvious why Americans no longer vote by majority for democrats?

  9. Pursuit Says:

    American Patriot hits the nail on the head. Conservatives want this bloated waste of a politician around for a looooooong time. He reminds voters of the folly of trusting Democrats with the future safety of this country.

  10. Zac Says:

    It’s the purple fingers of freedom day in Iraq!

    They did what some say couldn’t be done. Those same people now will yawn and say whas next?

    Like, john kerry on msnbc, his “thats nice, but… ” crud.

    ugh

    P.S. Those pics of the iced up plants are neat! Do more close ups!

  11. Dishman Says:

    “Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.”

  12. The Parson Says:

    The danger about this sort of crap from Ancient Age Kennedy is that things have a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you undermine a policy enough, it suffers and fails because of the lack of support, not because it couldn’t originally succeed. The Asses are superb at this sort of thing. Thank God it didn’t work this time.

  13. Keith Behrens Says:

    I hate to say it, but nothing will happen to old Teddy. Here’s why…
    If we look at what happened to Hilary when she stood on the floor and held up the paper and yelled, “He Knew, The President knew!” I’m sorry to say nothing happened. When Barbra Boxer can call our National Security Adviser a liar, maybe some one needs to explain to Boxer just what lieing is, nothing happens. So I hate to say it, but good old Teddy is going to live to down another fifth and hunt for those darn little beer nuts.

    By the way, didn’t Kerry and Kennedy vote to allow the President to use what force was need in Saddam’s back yard. They saw the same intel that the President saw. If so, aren’t they liars too. Oh waite we knew that! Where’s Boxer when you need her!

  14. wrapper Says:

    Now that Iraq has surprised the world with an election with higher than expected turnout and lower than expected violence, it seems like a good idea to try to keep the momentum with a token withdrawal of U.S. forces inna show of confidence of the new newly elected Iraqi assembly.

    Say about 10 or 12k.

  15. Sandy P Says:

    I agree a token withdrawal is necessary.

    From Germany and SorK. We’ve been there longer than I’ve been alive.

    Time to bring them home.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: