Has Teddy started drinking again? - Kennedy endorses Kerry
I just read that Teddy Kennedy has just endorsed John Kerry for 2008.
Which leads me to the title of this posting
He called Kerry an "able, gifted and talented political leader". While I disagree w/ Ted Kennedy, I think that desribed himself more than Kerry.
Remember, this is a Senator who has never introduced legislation in the national interest - at least the day of the election. Like my grade-school soccer career. I never got a goal, but several assists - but they do not count as goals anyway.
As I have reiterated before, Hillary is the best choice for Democrats in 2008. Not only does she stick with Democrats on almost all issues, but she has the best choice of beating Mr (or Ms) anonymous Republican. And she has introduced far more in the "national interest" than Senator Gigilo has - which resulted in the Republican landslide of 1994. But at least she has a better ability to introduce legislation as this clown, who, looks like a caricature of a president - according to my Democrat sister in law, circa September 2003.
How do I know she has a good shot of winning? Because Republicans sound just like Democrats did in 1980 when discussing Reagan. At least in tone. And if she gets the nomination, Republicans will sound like right-wing Deaniacs but without a Dean. With Kerry, they can focus on his positions, his issues, his accomplishments - whatever they are.
Kerry's argument is that he got the second-most-amount of votes in a presidential election ever. Those are not for votes - those are anti votes. The war was the big issue. And some of those anti-votes may (and probably will) pick a Republican next time if he gets it, since there is no war. With Hillary, I think she has a better chance of getting these votes.
So what else leads me to think Teddy is drinking again? He is introducing a split in the Democrat party, between the Kennedy wing - whatever is left of it - and the Clinton wing. And there are hints that Gore will run in 2008 (which he has no chance of winning, because of his conduct the day after the election. It really shows something when an individual makes Richard Nixon honorable). And who knows? The Deaniacs may throw someone in. A three-way race will lead to a big, ugly fight. And if no candidate gets a majority by the convention, that will look really bad on TV - as the convention is now pretty much a party for party workers. Maybe someone will reintroduce the 2/3 rule, to be really insane. This rule lead to some really big ugly fights between the various factions, and some interesting candidates coming out of the convention. There has been no real convention contest since 1948, and that was with the Republicans. The last big fight in a Democrat convention was in 1932 - I don't think even Teddy was born yet. If things get really bad, with neither Hillary or Kerry getting the votes, they may turn to a compromise (as they did in 1924) and pick a "conservative" Democrat - like Gary Condit.
So why am I writing as such, especially when I am a Republican? Of course I will vote for neither - I will vote for Republican X over these two, unless Republican X is a Islamofascistic Stalinist, which is extremely unlikely. I am writing this because I like to comment on politics, show my insight, and I know I have absolutely no influence anyway, since I am a guy who pecks away on a blog that almost no one reads.
Which leads me to the title of this posting
He called Kerry an "able, gifted and talented political leader". While I disagree w/ Ted Kennedy, I think that desribed himself more than Kerry.
Remember, this is a Senator who has never introduced legislation in the national interest - at least the day of the election. Like my grade-school soccer career. I never got a goal, but several assists - but they do not count as goals anyway.
As I have reiterated before, Hillary is the best choice for Democrats in 2008. Not only does she stick with Democrats on almost all issues, but she has the best choice of beating Mr (or Ms) anonymous Republican. And she has introduced far more in the "national interest" than Senator Gigilo has - which resulted in the Republican landslide of 1994. But at least she has a better ability to introduce legislation as this clown, who, looks like a caricature of a president - according to my Democrat sister in law, circa September 2003.
How do I know she has a good shot of winning? Because Republicans sound just like Democrats did in 1980 when discussing Reagan. At least in tone. And if she gets the nomination, Republicans will sound like right-wing Deaniacs but without a Dean. With Kerry, they can focus on his positions, his issues, his accomplishments - whatever they are.
Kerry's argument is that he got the second-most-amount of votes in a presidential election ever. Those are not for votes - those are anti votes. The war was the big issue. And some of those anti-votes may (and probably will) pick a Republican next time if he gets it, since there is no war. With Hillary, I think she has a better chance of getting these votes.
So what else leads me to think Teddy is drinking again? He is introducing a split in the Democrat party, between the Kennedy wing - whatever is left of it - and the Clinton wing. And there are hints that Gore will run in 2008 (which he has no chance of winning, because of his conduct the day after the election. It really shows something when an individual makes Richard Nixon honorable). And who knows? The Deaniacs may throw someone in. A three-way race will lead to a big, ugly fight. And if no candidate gets a majority by the convention, that will look really bad on TV - as the convention is now pretty much a party for party workers. Maybe someone will reintroduce the 2/3 rule, to be really insane. This rule lead to some really big ugly fights between the various factions, and some interesting candidates coming out of the convention. There has been no real convention contest since 1948, and that was with the Republicans. The last big fight in a Democrat convention was in 1932 - I don't think even Teddy was born yet. If things get really bad, with neither Hillary or Kerry getting the votes, they may turn to a compromise (as they did in 1924) and pick a "conservative" Democrat - like Gary Condit.
So why am I writing as such, especially when I am a Republican? Of course I will vote for neither - I will vote for Republican X over these two, unless Republican X is a Islamofascistic Stalinist, which is extremely unlikely. I am writing this because I like to comment on politics, show my insight, and I know I have absolutely no influence anyway, since I am a guy who pecks away on a blog that almost no one reads.
posted by EricMatthew at 10:22 PM
<< Home