Which Kennedy would have been best?

[PopeDirkBenedict]

So what your saying is that you have to be a Democrat to care about the starving children, elderly and disabled?

No, but it seems you have to be a Democrat to be willing to do anything about it. Please point to modern legislation passed by Republicans which has helped starving children, the elderly or the disabled (I'm opening myself up for you to counter with something veterans-related, so I'll grant you that one).

The Americans With Disabilities Act was signed by President George H.W. Bush and had strong Republican support in both the House and the Senate.

The Medicare Drug Benefit was enacted by President George W. Bush and was passed by a Republican House and Senate.

 

[Chi City 81]

So what your saying is that you have to be a Democrat to care about the starving children, elderly and disabled?

No, but it seems you have to be a Democrat to be willing to do anything about it. Please point to modern legislation passed by Republicans which has helped starving children, the elderly or the disabled (I'm opening myself up for you to counter with something veterans-related, so I'll grant you that one).

The Americans With Disabilities Act was signed by President George H.W. Bush and had strong Republican support in both the House and the Senate.

Democratic House and Senate. Sponsored by Democrat Tom Harkin.

EDIT: Nice trick you pulled with the late edit. And McCain plans to scale back the plan if elected.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

So what your saying is that you have to be a Democrat to care about the starving children, elderly and disabled?

No, but it seems you have to be a Democrat to be willing to do anything about it. Please point to modern legislation passed by Republicans which has helped starving children, the elderly or the disabled (I'm opening myself up for you to counter with something veterans-related, so I'll grant you that one).

The Americans With Disabilities Act was signed by President George H.W. Bush and had strong Republican support in both the House and the Senate.

Democratic House and Senate. Sponsored by Democrat Tom Harkin.

EDIT: Nice trick you pulled with the late edit. And McCain plans to scale back the plan if elected.

The late edit wasn't a trick. It was me remembering it after I remembered the ADA.

And McCain has said he plans to scale it back for people making more than $160,000 a year by making them pay higher premiums. Not exactly ripping drugs out of the hands of the poor.

 

[Chi City 81]

So what your saying is that you have to be a Democrat to care about the starving children, elderly and disabled?

No, but it seems you have to be a Democrat to be willing to do anything about it. Please point to modern legislation passed by Republicans which has helped starving children, the elderly or the disabled (I'm opening myself up for you to counter with something veterans-related, so I'll grant you that one).

The Americans With Disabilities Act was signed by President George H.W. Bush and had strong Republican support in both the House and the Senate.

Democratic House and Senate. Sponsored by Democrat Tom Harkin.

EDIT: Nice trick you pulled with the late edit. And McCain plans to scale back the plan if elected.

The late edit wasn't a trick. It was me remembering it after I remembered the ADA.

And McCain has said he plans to scale it back for people making more than $160,000 a year by making them pay higher premiums. Not exactly ripping drugs out of the hands of the poor.

Google is a wonderful thing.

McCain voted against the ****ing bill.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

So what your saying is that you have to be a Democrat to care about the starving children, elderly and disabled?

No, but it seems you have to be a Democrat to be willing to do anything about it. Please point to modern legislation passed by Republicans which has helped starving children, the elderly or the disabled (I'm opening myself up for you to counter with something veterans-related, so I'll grant you that one).

The Americans With Disabilities Act was signed by President George H.W. Bush and had strong Republican support in both the House and the Senate.

Democratic House and Senate. Sponsored by Democrat Tom Harkin.

EDIT: Nice trick you pulled with the late edit. And McCain plans to scale back the plan if elected.

The late edit wasn't a trick. It was me remembering it after I remembered the ADA.

And McCain has said he plans to scale it back for people making more than $160,000 a year by making them pay higher premiums. Not exactly ripping drugs out of the hands of the poor.

Google is a wonderful thing.

McCain voted against the ****ing bill.

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.

 

[Chi City 81]

So what your saying is that you have to be a Democrat to care about the starving children, elderly and disabled?

No, but it seems you have to be a Democrat to be willing to do anything about it. Please point to modern legislation passed by Republicans which has helped starving children, the elderly or the disabled (I'm opening myself up for you to counter with something veterans-related, so I'll grant you that one).

The Americans With Disabilities Act was signed by President George H.W. Bush and had strong Republican support in both the House and the Senate.

Democratic House and Senate. Sponsored by Democrat Tom Harkin.

EDIT: Nice trick you pulled with the late edit. And McCain plans to scale back the plan if elected.

The late edit wasn't a trick. It was me remembering it after I remembered the ADA.

And McCain has said he plans to scale it back for people making more than $160,000 a year by making them pay higher premiums. Not exactly ripping drugs out of the hands of the poor.

Google is a wonderful thing.

McCain voted against the ****ing bill.

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.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

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.

 

[Chi City 81]

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

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

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?

 

[Chi City 81]

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!

 

[Killick]

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.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

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.

 

[RedSmithClone]

So what your saying is that you have to be a Democrat to care about the starving children, elderly and disabled?

No, but it seems you have to be a Democrat to be willing to do anything about it. Please point to modern legislation passed by Republicans which has helped starving children, the elderly or the disabled (I'm opening myself up for you to counter with something veterans-related, so I'll grant you that one).

No Doc, what I'm trying to say is you believe it all should be the government's responsibility. Where as I believe a good portion of this should be handled through charitable givings and community involvement. Not by a nanny state.

My beef is that most democrats claim the only way to take care of others is through big-government programs. Thus it makes it appear as though republicans don't give a ****, because they don't believe in big government - well at least until this administration.

Big government programs? Dude, I believe that Joe Kennedy's venture is a non-profit. And I do believe that there are issues---i.e., health care, the price of oil, education---that government has to be strictly responsible for. And Republicans like John McCain don't mind having a nanny state, with the price tags that come with it, if the money is being spent on defense and the military, along with big, electric fences to keep the brown people out. Republicans don't care about big government programs or saving spending. You think that having no-bid contracts is saving us any money over there in Iraq? I could tell you countless stories about defense contractors coming in with cheaper but equally proficient products, but being driven into bankruptcy because they can never got a contract, because the good 'ol boys at the Pentagon give them all to their friends. Enjoy that ****ty stimulus check, though, and preach to us how the Republicans want to cut waste.

And community involvement? How about we each make some baked goods and then have a community bake sale---and the money (minus the cost of said goods, given how expensive milk and eggs are nowadays) can be donated to the Smiths, so that they can have heat this winter! Yay!

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 bull**** 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.