Whether you agreed with his politics or not, one cannot deny that he had a unique ability to work across party lines to get things done to make this country better. He was an American first and a D/R second, something that not longer exists in DC.

No doubt about his ability to work across party lines. He had clout and knew how to use it.

Whether his actions made the country better or not is another issue.

However, to imply that he was somehow above party politics 'something that no longer exists in DC' is laughable.

Jack Roberts wrote:

"I never heard one say a bad thing about him as a person."

Please. Let's not paint him as a saint.

Acknowledge his political skill and keep the commentary honest.

Its so sad that he had to die..

Its so sad that he had to die..

Jack Roberts wrote:

"But what I'm talking about is more than just political skill. "

If you say so.

I really see no difference between being "gracious, personable and considerate" to "several Oregon Republicans who met with Senator Kennedy over the years to lobby him on certain issues" ----

---- and "political skill".

It's not a putdown to say he was politically skillful. He was. No doubt about it, and that's not a bad thing.

However, to imply that he was somehow above party politics

Enjoy the laugh b/c I never said that either implicitly or explicitly.

What I stated was that if the D's came up with a massive tax reform that lowered everyones taxes, every R would vote NO and if the R's came up with a single payer health care package, every D would vote NO because neither party can allow the other to steal their agenda.

Jack gets it!

"There are a lot of people a lot less important than Ted Kennedy who don't take the time to treat people with courtesy and respect. And its true that I have never heard from anyone a direct, personal experience with Senator Kennedy that was negative."

When Republicans begin to understand that, they will be more likely to win elections. This is why people who don't agree with his voting record are still likely to give Frank Morse the benefit of the doubt, why people who never voted for Jackie Winters appreciated her legislative skill this past session, why many of us differentiate between reasonable Republicans and the party establishment (they couldn't find a better state chair than Tiernan?).

The last old style liberal is dead. Can we please bury the 20th century ideological labels and start working on solving problems?

Or are some people in politics too shallow to do the hard work? This happened in the Democratic Party in the late 1980s--volunteers who gave their spare time only to be told if they were REAL Democrats they would agree on certain policies started saying things like "you'll have to find someone else to fill my slot at the State Fair that I have worked for so many years" or otherwise no longer were willing to spend their spare time as political volunteers. Amazing how many of the "Real Democrats agree with us" crowd were never around to do the basic volunteer work.

I went to a town hall meeting earlier this year with Sen. Winters and 2 Republican state reps. It was clear the Senator was more hard working and had more knowledge and understanding of the legislative process than the 2 state reps combined. They were all Republicans, but only one of them really seemed to care what all the members of the audience said.

There are those of us who appreciate hard work and politicians who can explain the workings of government. We will not vote for a shallow attack dog just because someone spends a fortune on TV ads.

It would be a great tribute to Ted and his family if we could take this moment to rethink what we really want out of politics. Do we want solutions? Or do we want "YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO AGREE WITH ME 100% OR I WILL CALL YOU NAMES "?

Jack, sometimes you sound very reasonable, and sometimes you sound like an attack dog. Perhaps you could sit around with some of your friends and discuss the future of the state GOP. Turning a party in a different direction can be hard work and time consuming, but Oregon party politics is more open than many people realize--the old saying that 80% of life is showing up. Those of us who were not Mondale Democrats can attest to how worthwhile it is to turn around a state party in the 2nd half of the 1980s.

Think about this: 1988 (thanks partly to Oregonians and partly to the national campaign sending good staff people), Oregon went "blue" and has stayed that way ever since. The party which once elected Hatfield, Packwood, Paulus as Sec. of State, Clay Myers as St. Treasurer, McCall and Atiyeh as Gov. now has no statewide elected officials.

How did that happen? Mostly a lot of solution-oriented people and a lot of hard work by volunteers.

What people in both parties (incl. you, Joe) need to realize is this: "The disconnect between the ideological passions he evoked and the great personal affection he inspired should be a lesson to all of us."

In 1980, the Reagan Republicans said to people who had campaigned for those like McCall, "we don't like your kind". Much of that was a goal of ideological purity. There was a plank in the GOP national platform regarding women's rights that was first put into the 1940 platform that Charles McNary (long time US Senator from the area which is now Keizer but was then seen as north of Salem) ran on when he was nominated VP.

Reagan decided he didn't like that plank and had it removed--might be why there were so many Republican women on the successful campaign to put John Anderson on the Oregon ballot in 1980 as a 3rd party candidate. We had a great time on that campaign.

Young people don't know that history, but there are older people who do.

Let this be a landmark. Are activists for someone who is good on policy and also has excellent people skills, or only looking for ideological purity? Those who dislike Wyden should find a candidate to run against him, or else just shut up and quit yelling at people who admire him.

Republicans have a choice. They can call those who are still Republicans and admired Nancy Ryles, Mary Alice Ford, Vic Atiyeh, McCall, Clay Myers, etc. RINO.

OR, they can start talking about how to win over young people who may never have heard of those folks and don't understand the concept of moderate problem solving Republicans, and start trying to figure out how to win back the McCall et al Republicans who left the GOP in the early 1980s.

Jack hit the nail on the head when he said, "There are a lot of people a lot less important than Ted Kennedy who don't take the time to treat people with courtesy and respect."

That is one of the filters I use to determine which candidates to support. Call me any name you want, but I don't vote for attack dogs and enemy-oriented campaigns.

mp97303 wrote:

"Enjoy the laugh b/c I never said that either implicitly or explicitly"

Really you did. You said Kennedy was 'an American first' ----

--- and that no one else in Washington was.

In your view, everyone else is first and foremost a creature of their party, but Uncle Ted was not. He (supposedly) had a loyalty to country that no one else has.

I consider that to be nonsense.

If you wish to clarify or alter, please do. But the upshot of your first statement is what it is.

Geez, Joe. A man dies and all you can do is malign him and try to correct people's perspectives and notions of Kennedy?

Your snarky remarks bring to mind two words: disingenuous, and prideful.

Jason,

I've said he was politically skillful, that we disagreed on policy, that he was not the only person that put America first, and that he was not a saint.

Which part of that do you find objectionable?

Carla,

Since the Constitution leaves authority for regulating education and health care with the state and local governments, and not with the feds, I hope you'll forgive those of us who differ with the 'superb legislator' part.

I'm just another Republican who, although strongly disagreed with much of his politics, had profound respect for his ability to reach across the aisle to advance public policy and find common ground in his effort to make our country a better place. There have been many Americans born into lives of privilege but few who made of it what Ted Kennedy did. I had the honor and privilege of meeting him once, and am very grateful that I had that opportunity. From the left, the right and the middle, he will be missed. May he rest in peace.

Don't mourn. Organize! It's time that progressives get off our butts and work as hard to deliver policy achievements as we did to deliver a Obama presidency. We are losing the health care fight, frankly, because we are being out worked and out organized. The other side (angry Republicans who are mad that they lost...not industry supported puppets) is winning because they are fighting harder. If Sen. Kennedy's unfortunate passing has to be the motivation we need to win this, so be it. While it might be presumptuous on my part, our most fitting memorial would be to deliver health care reform.

The Rude Pundit says it better than I could:

Do you like your state and not the federal government controlling the curriculum of your kids' schools? Thank Ted Kennedy.

Do you like being able to vote starting at age 18? Thank Ted Kennedy.

Do you think low-income people should get help with heating their homes in the winter? Thank the man.

Do you think the federal government should fund cancer research? Yep.

Do you believe that Meals on Wheels is a good thing? Ditto.

Does your daughter (or you, if you're female) like playing soccer or basketball or softball at school? That'd be because of Ted Kennedy.

Do you think that disabled people should be able to go to school? Have access to buildings? Not be discriminated against for housing and loads of other things? Kennedy, big time.

You like your cheap airfares? You know the answer.

You think people on welfare oughta get jobs? So did Kennedy.

You think mental institutions should treat people humanely? Yeah, so did your new friend, Ted Kennedy.

You believe that the Defense Department should provide child care for the kids of soldiers? Kennedy did.

You think a woman shouldn't lose her job if she gets pregnant? You think 100,000 more cops on the street's a good idea? You think poor kids should have health care? You think soldiers in Iraq should have the proper armor? Just tick those things off the list. Some of them would have been accomplished without him; many would not have been.

I wonder when we reached the point in our toxic political culture where it was necessary to malign and diminish the personhood of the other, who may be an opponent on matters of public policy. I am old enough to remember a time when that didn't happen. Ted Kennedy comes from that era and lived it.

There was a time in the well of the Senate, and on main street when there was a political culture that allowed for respect for the person while a contest of ideas and persuasion was conducted. There was a time when parties were led by statesman like Mike Mansfield (Dem.) and Everett Dirksen (GOP)and intellect, public interest, and principle mattered much more than scoring points for the 24 hour news cycle. Politics was statecraft and a function of democratic civilization. Today we live in a world where phantom special interests feed off of money given in the night to manipulate public opinion on issues and attack candidates without civility, without intellectual debate or discourse, and without accountability. I wish for a better time.

I know a really good taxidermist. Couldn't we put him on permanent public display like Lenin? This way, the people could worship the Kennedys for all eternity.

p.s. And I say this as a businessman.

Classic Kennedy clip taking the Republicans to task for not allowing a vote on increasing the minimum wage you probably won't see on the news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SicFn8rqPPE&feature=PlayList&p=13DBE5EE61538192&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8

Carla, yes all of that is true and reasonable, but believe me, you are citing facts . . . and facts make no difference in the face of willful ignorance.

You aren't even using all the facts you might. After all, these arguments were settled long, long ago in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Dartmouth v. Woodward. Also, there is the preamble: "to promote the general welfare" and the elastic clause and the supremacy clause etc. etc. etc.

It won't matter. It never matters, It's just food for trolls, who cling with messianic fervor and relentless ferocity to their own fact-free hermeneutics.

That's why I think a policy of either blocking the trolls or not feeding them or having a personally selectable ignore policy would be a good thing. Because, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, against invincible ignorance, no argument can be made.

Carla Axtman:

Congress has the authority to provide for what it deems in the general welfare of the United States--including education and health care.

Bob T:

Yeah, I hear that one often. But if that's an accurate interpretation, then why were a number of tasks specifically listed in Article I, Section 8, and what can't the central government do in the name of "providing for the general welfare"? Can it confiscate all agricultural land and the entire food industry from farm/ranch to grocery stores (the Uncle Sam Supermarket)? If not, what forbids this?

Bob Tiernan Portland

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Bob, you are making the 10th Amendment argument. There was a time when Republicans carried the text of the 10th Amendment with them and quoted from it frequently.

Then came NCLB, and the attempt to overturn state laws on various topics, and a number of other federal actions earlier this decade. And all of a sudden Republicans weren't quoting the 10th Amendment anymore.

Carla Axtman wrote:

"Congress has the authority to provide for what it deems in the general welfare of the United States--including education and health care."

If the framers intended for the federal government to be able to do whatever in the world they wished, then why did they bother to enumerate powers delegated to it, or make any reference to powers 'reserved for the states and for the people'?

Read the Federalist papers and the correspondence of the Framers on the subject of the General Welfare.

It was not a blank check. The Framers set up a system of limited federal government and separation of powers.

Do you really think that the Framers intended the feds to collect taxes to fund (and hence control) police departments, local roads and bridges, local schools and other functions of city, county and state governments?

now its up to us..

…like we’ve all been saying, it’s not a good proposition. Look at Canada and all other countries that have this type of health reform…it’s not beneficial to folks who truly need good and quick health attention.

LT:

Bob, you are making the 10th Amendment argument. There was a time when Republicans carried the text of the 10th Amendment with them and quoted from it frequently.

Then came NCLB, and the attempt to overturn state laws on various topics, and a number of other federal actions earlier this decade. And all of a sudden Republicans weren't quoting the 10th Amendment anymore.

Bob T:

Oh, I agree. And while they were doing that, others began to discover the 10th, finally. But I'm not expecting long-term consistency from either side. One thing is clear: before states can try many things w/o USSC squashings or US Gov't blackmailing by withholding funds that originated in the states to begin with, numerous Federal laws need to be repealed. So long as many of these still exist the Federal Courts will most likely side with the feds, particularly on the issue of Federal control of various drugs.

Bob Tiernan Portland

:

What I stated was that if the D's came up with a massive tax reform that lowered everyones taxes...

Bob T:

....The Kennedys would still pay a tiny fraction of their income in taxes compared to any working stiff you can name. So much for their belief in "paying their fair share" -- they, Teddy among them, did everything they could to pay as close to zero as they could. Teddy even got a law changed to exempt the small Kennedy Family oil drilling companies from paying much in taxes (Kenoil, Arctic Oil, Mokeen Oil). I've never made much money, but I can guarantee you that I paid a much higher percentage of my income in taxes than that fraud did. The only reason people think he was a great man was because he promised free stuff. That's easy to do. But thanks, Teddy, for airline and trucking deregulation.

Bob Tiernan Portland

<h2>Bob T: Senator Kennedy promised to free up stuff essential to life that parsimonious, mean-spirited ethical dwarfs such as yourself arrogated for themselves alone.</h2>