Which Kennedy would have been best?

Most unfortunate for Jeb. Not that I would have voted for him, but like Reagan, he could have been a very solid president. Now he probably never gets the chance.

The family's next best chance might be his son (unless that's the one who wound up in rehab, then my money's on Barbara).

 

JFk got a lot of bipartisan support from Irish Republican Catholics willing to vote religion/heritage over party affiliation.

History does not serve JFK well. Besides Bay of Pigs and Cuban missile Crisis there is pretty strong evidence that Kennedy was behind the assignation of Diem - president of South Viet Nam in 1963.

 

Given up upon by Whitey Herzog.

The end.

 

Shit happens, but we look to avoid such assholes as possible, as we go along.

(AKA: "DON'T BLAME ME FOR THE LAST 7 1/2 YEARS!")

 

That's a little harsh, isn't it?

I interned for Joe for awhile, around the time of Michael and the babysitter, not long before he quit Congress and didn't run for governor. It's too bad, because he did a lot of good for a lot of people. Still does. He'd be a reasonable candidate for Ted's seat.

As for the original question: I'd say Bobby, but, then, they always look great when they die young.

 

Fascinating question. I am going EMK, JFK, RFK.

I've read up on RFK and I think he either would have been destined for greatness or his administration would have been a complete mess. Either he pulls off what his supporters believed he could do -- end the war in Nam, take on poverty, etc. -- or he is dragged down by events. When you became Bobby's enemy, you were his enemy for life (ask LBJ). The same fighter aspects that made him so inspiring could have also hoisted him on his own petard. That does not bode well for working with Congress or pulling off acts of diplomacy. He was the most inspiring speaker of the three -- JFK and EMK could have never pulled off the Indianapolis speech in 68 -- but might have been the one who was least temperamentally suited to be president.

EMK could have been great. His greatest skill has always been in shepherding legislation and with the right Congress, he could have had a run like LBJ in 1964-66. And unlike LBJ, he would have been secure enough in himself and his accomplishments that he wouldn't have gotten bogged down in settling minor scores or fallen prey to having a credibility gap.

 

Consider, as one example, Teddy's relationship with Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and how he has worked closely with one of the pillars of the Republican party. How about Ted's work with Sen. Kassenbuam (R-Kan) on pre-existing conditions and health insurance? It's a joke to compare RFK and Ted Kennedy as bipartisan--- "union-builders" may be a better word---leaders.

 

Shit maybe that's why LBJ teammed up with the mob in Dallas. Damn.

 

You call it harsh, I call it truth.

But again, I was always a fan of Joe, and still am to a point. I think he should run for the seat. I am just dissapointed in his oil deal. I understand times are tough, but . . .

 

I think we should ask the Americans he helped from going without heat whether or not Joe's deal was a disappointment. "Times are tough, but..."? Dude, that's a cavalier thing to say if it's not your ass freezing.

 

First off, I'm not a fan of LeBron James and the Cavs.

Second, I know plenty of people who have needed assistance. I didn't say it is an easy decision. But the right ones are sometimes a lot harder to deal with.

The War in Iraq for example. Short term - friggin' moronic idea. Long term - makes the world a better and safer place.

It's easy to see how much our nation has changed, and it is due to my generation, I understand that. I am part of a generation that expects everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. I am living paycheck to paycheck like the rest of them. I don't want the handouts. I bitch along the way, but I will bust my ass until the day I die to provide for myself and my family. If everyone did the same, this nation would be doing much better financially and psychologically.

I know, I know - the republicans have me brainwashed.

 

First off, the discussion on the War in Iraq has to be shelved for another day. I won't get into that, but your short-term/long-term statement says a lot.

Great. You work hard for your family and you bust your ass. That is to be commended. I like to think that I do and will do the same. But we have to think about some people who can't. What of the individual with a severe and chronic illness that makes employment a virtual impossibility, meaning that they are forced to depend upon a combination of disability benefits, welfare or any other assistance? There are some people out there who can't help themselves and they have to rely on what you call "handouts" to live. That's why I'm a Democrat. To help people who are in worse shape than I am---and through forces outside of their control.

Sure, Joe Kennedy is earning wages from this venture, but he is also doing a good thing. The people enrolled in his program still paid something for their oil---it was reduced price---and not a "hand-out."

Seventy-five years ago, people were calling Social Security and the WPA "hand-outs" and simply saying that "times were tough" and we all needed to buckle our belts and work real hard! But now, in 2008, Social Security is so beloved that our country shut the president up real quick when he started talking about privitization.

Now go wax on about the American Dream and how it's the land of opportunity for anyone who wants to work hard, without taking into account that there's some people who can't actually work hard.