Which Kennedy would have been best?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/mccain-to-propose-changes-in-medicare-drug-program/

Yes, it is. And McCain did vote against it. What's your point? You asked for a modern piece of Republican legislation that helped the poor, the elderly or the disabled. The Medicare drug benefit was proposed by a Republican president and passed a Republican House and a Republican Senate. The fact that some Republicans voted against it doesn't mean it isn't a Republican piece of legislation. The fact that a future Presidential nominee voted against it doesn't mean it isn't a Republican piece of legislation.

 

And the standard-bearer for your party voted against it, and will scale it back, likely drastically. What an atrociously bad bill it must be.

As for the first bill, it wasn't a piece of Republican legislation. Haven't seen you admit that yet.

 

I will grant that the ADA was a truly bipartisan piece of legislation on all sides. But it takes two parties to be bipartisan.

Promising to alter past legislation does not make the legislation atrocious. It only means that it is imperfect.

The Medicare Drug Bill cannot be described as bipartisan. In the House, 16 Dems voted for it, compared to 189 against. In the Senate, it was 12 for, 35 against. The Republicans were 204-25 in favor in the House, 42-9 in the Senate.

 

If the Dems and a pre-pander John McCain voted against it, that's enough to convince me it was a bad bill.

 

So you are saying that the Medicare drug benefit hasn't helped the elderly?

 

Not nearly as much as it could have. But fine, you got me. In 12 years, the GOP managed to pass one (1) bill to help the elderly. An ineffective bill that the GOP's nominee for President will drastically overhaul, but a bill nonetheless. Excelsior!

 

Getting back on topic, my vote:


On a serious note, folks who move Ted up because of his legislative abilities, remember that much of that acumen has come from a long, long tenure. Had he ascended to the highest office in the 1970's, he wouldn't be nearly as strong in that department. Not even close.

IMHO: JFK, RFK (I like him more, actually, but he would have had far rougher waters to navigate), EMK.

 

EMK has always been someone who got things done. Yes, part of his strength comes from his tenure. But it also comes from his gregarious personality, willingness to work with Republicans to get legislation passed and his willingness to always take half a loaf instead of fighting needlessly and fruitlessly for a full loaf. All of those are talents that would serve him well as president when dealing with Congress.

 

Ahhhh here we go again with the electric fences to keep "brown people" out.

First off George W. Bush and John McCain are clearly on your side of the fence on this one. If you remember correctly both took a pretty big beating on this one over the last couple of years. McCain was cosponsoring legislation that failed because the American people don't want OPEN BORDERS.

I'm glad to see McCain came around and realized fence or no fence that people want the border closed off before any talk of amnesty or guest worker programs are considered. I have no problem with that at all.

So don't throw generalities out there as fact against all republicans, when the president most democrats have a hard-on for and the republican nominee are actually on your side. That is bullshit on your part.

. . .

As for your post on your college friend, I really appreciate that. It's making me think more about my view on the subject.