[Inappropriate comment deleted. Not today, guys. -editor.]

What I will always remember about Senator Kennedy is perhaps a small thing in the scope of his life.

In 2001 at Harvard students took over the administration building and built an encampment in the yard outside of that building to try and get a living wage for campus janitors, food workers, etc. Cambridge had passed a living wage ordinance but Harvard had chosen not to comply.

Initially, the media coverage was bad - look at the students, it's like the sixties, don't they know the economic realities of life, etc. The Crimson especially (the Harvard daily newspaper) decided to come out on the side of the administration day after day. The president of the university said that, if the university capitulated to the students, he would resign.

Then Senator Kennedy not only came out for the workers, but held a press conference and (if my memory is correct) crossed police lines to pass pizza through the windows of the administration building to the students inside.

That turned things around. Coverage began to change. There were a couple of influential columns in the NY Times in our favor, one I remember by Bob Herbert. More people came to the rallies in the yard, lots of chanting, lots of singing, lots of noise. More labor leaders came out of solidarity.

Eventually Harvard, they of the $18 billion endowment (at that time), caved in out of embarrassment.

Senator Kennedy had little to gain and lots to lose by coming to the aid of those workers and students. He was bucking solid public opinion and the university administration.

When it made a difference to be there, Senator Kennedy showed up.

Ted was truly a class act. He was called the "liberal lion" but respected by Republicans. He was a master of working with all sides to get the job done, the legislation passed. Although this was not unexpected, for someone who remembers the sudden moments when his brothers Jack and Bobby were killed, this is the end of an era.

All those of you who think you understand politics, remember how he did things. He was the master of the procedure, the detail, the people skills to get things done without being in-your-face about ideology.

If more people remembered that the smile, the negotiating skills, as well as soaring oratory did more over the years to gain political success than all the yelling, getting angry at someone you disagree with, etc, then the world would be a better place.

Something not remembered now is that there were people in 1980 who were Carter delegates but willing to vote with Kennedy on procedural issues because they thought he had a point. Who has such power of persuasion in these polarized times?

One of the pictures shown on the news coverage was of Ted Kennedy, John Warner, and John McCain together at some event. Men of similar age and experiences socializing together although of different political parties. What a concept!

Ted Kennedy did not worry about "pleasing the base" but about solving problems.

There have been a number of books written about the 2008 election. It would be a fitting tribute for folks who care about how high level politics works to read the sections in those books about how Ted Kennedy came to endorse the young man from Illinois who some had compared to his late brothers.

[Inappropriate comment deleted. Not today, guys. -editor.]<!--I have posted many things here and I try to be polite considering I'm treading on ememy turf, but all I can say is "good riddance."

I apologize for the insensitivity, but not for the sentiment. Marg bar kennedy family, go bohkor, boro gomsho americani jomhori.-->

Thanks, Joe. "Senator Kennedy had little to gain and lots to lose by coming to the aid of those workers and students. He was bucking solid public opinion and the university administration.

When it made a difference to be there, Senator Kennedy showed up."

I think that is something some current activists (esp. those too young to remember the Kennedy brothers) don't understand.

Much of life is showing up, which is why the slogan "he cared enough to come" used to be an important part of politics.

People long remember seemingly small gestures like that--same phenomenon as Oregonians repeating the entire conversation they once had with Tom McCall which went on for maybe a minute or 2, decades after McCall died.

Who are today's giants?

Old Ducker, is there anyone you DO like?

Great story, Kari. A friend of mine was in the hospital with McCall during that last illness. She recovered and lived until 2007, he did not. But they had known each other through broadcasting and they sometimes talked while hospitalized.

She was an active Democrat, but would not allow anyone (esp. a young person who couldn't have known him) to say a bad word about McCall around her.

And I wanted to thank you for the headline. To me, the phrase "the dream shall never die" is always in my mind as being said in Teddy's voice.

[Inappropriate comment deleted. Not today, guys. -editor.]

Very sorry to hear of his passing.

Also sad is that Kari and other Democrats will use someone's death to push their political agenda.

That's extremely inappropriate.

If the issue is good enough to pass on the merits, then it should.

Despicable tactics like capitalizing on someone's death (who had great health insurance) show just how bankrupt the arguments from the left are.

[Inappropriate comment deleted. Not today, guys. -editor.]

Well that didn't take long.

[Inappropriate comment deleted. Not today, guys. -editor.]

My enduring memory of Sen. K is him taking the podium at the Dem Convention the year he challenged Carter for re-election. There he was, strutting about with his hands waving in the air as Carter desperately chased after him trying to get some recognition and the customary handraising with the recently vanquished challenger. Which he never got.

As Carter said later, there was no way the Dems were going to nominate Kennedy but he challenged Carter anyway and helped pave the way for a Regan landslide in the general election.

Ted Kennedy will be remembered for his story of redemption, from the disgrace of Chappaquidick and his alcoholism, to becoming a "lion of the Senate" a master legislator who fought the good fight for social justice, and as one commentator put it succinctly, to complete the work of the New Deal of the Dem. party. Robert Byrd has proposed that his name be on the new Health Care bill that will be passed.

It is notable that Dr. Tim Johnson of ABC news predicted this morning on GMA in speaking of the legacy of Kennedy that in the not too distant future the U.S. will turn to Medicare for all driven by the necessity of exorbitant health care costs.

Ted Kennedy did great things in the Senate for all those he represented. No doubt he was seeking redemption for past sins in the way that he knew best. When drowning his guilt failed he turned to work, and then excelled. He never completely owned up to his terrible crime in 1969, but he did own it for all the years that followed. Forgiveness from others matter little. Here's to hoping he was at peace in his final days, and that he was able to forgive himself.

Nick Wirth wrote:

"What is more appropriately called despicable is that conservatives such as yourself will try to use this as an opportunity to further delay health reform "out of respect" for a man that many of them never respected in life."

Respect is earned, not given.

I don't pretend to respect Ted Kennedy.

But I have expressed my sincere message of sorrow at his passing. Any family or friend deserves that on the passing of one they love, whether I cared for him or not.

Health care should be discussed on a factual basis, but I'm not surprised that Democrats want us to blind ourselves to the facts and vote it in on emotion.

T. Kennedy did alright. He screwed up big time early in his career, but devoted the balance in efforts to make up for those errors. A lot of people around us wouldn't begin to make such an effort.

"Health care should be discussed on a factual basis, but I'm not surprised that Democrats want us to blind ourselves to the facts and vote it in on emotion." joe white

Emotion? With an issue like universal health care, a certain amount of emotion is inescapable. Many people that presently have solid health care seem to blithely encourage legislators to not do anything that would threaten the status quo of that health care, while millions of americans (and for the foreseeable future lacking a universal health care plan) nada... have nothing. I think that's something to be at least a bit emotional about.

Joe White, what a great comment.

This is the way Republicans and Democrats treated each other decades ago when I was young. Regardless of politics, all people deserve to be treated with common courtesy.

If Republicans have any hope of winning major office again, at least in Oregon, they should start acting like that again.

You have brought up something more people in politics need to be conscious of, wisdom as old as the Bible.

Proverbs 15 1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

We've lost someone who has affected all of our lives in so many ways. Even his detractors have gained by his presence in the Senate. One of the Greats is gone...and I mourn his passing.

ws wrote:

"With an issue like universal health care, a certain amount of emotion is inescapable. Many people that presently have solid health care seem to blithely encourage legislators to not do anything that would threaten the status quo of that health care"

You are correct. I want government to leave my health care alone.

I don't want to government to have my health records(I thought liberals believed this too, but I guess I was wrong.).

I don't want the government in between me and my doctor (I thought liberals believed this too, but I guess I was wrong.)

There are lots of ways to help those without health insurance to obtain coverage, without screwing up the good coverage that many people have and want to keep.

Great, great man. He had his skeletons, but he also had his incredible triumphs and literally saved countless lives with many legislative efforts he championed over the years. I did have the great fortune to meet him, and he was nothing short of inviting; never once making me aware of my overwhelming lack of 'importance' compared to him.

We should all pay respect to the man, all politics aside, and at a very minimum leave the disrespectful comments for another forum on another day.

Ben D wrote:

"If the one between me and my doctor is Ted Kennedy's memory, then let us strive in that direction."

Incredible.

When the subject is abortion, the left is all 'this is a private matter between the woman and the doctor, the government should not be involved'

But in any other medical procedure or decision, now the left is all 'the government should be between you and your doctor, dictating cost, availability and appropriateness of treatment'.

Liberals allow a mythical benevolent figure to completely overrule their common sense. This is nothing short of religious veneration of the Kennedy name.

DF wrote:

"literally saved countless lives "

A statement without factual foundation.

There is only instance of which I am aware where a life was at stake and he was materially involved. (The life in question was not saved.)

Please present documentation of 'lives saved' thru his actions.

Jeff,

I 'hate' no one, including the blue team.

A leader who has passed on can best be honored by recognizing what he was, not by pretending that he was something that he was not.

You want to raise up a thousand new Ted Kennedys for the Ds? (if I were a Democrat, that would be one of my goals)

Then don't make him into something that no one could ever be.

Maybe I shouldn't be giving you practical advice, but I'm feeling charitable today. Make use of it. :)

Nick Wirth wrote:

"God knows the party of Reagan would never do that"

Reagan had plenty of faults and I'm not blind to that.

Fortunately for the country, his faults were fewer than his opponent's.

You may disagree, but 49 out of 50 states voted for his re-election after seeing him in action for 4 years.

I think it's usually a bit of jealousy that causes Ds to trash Reagan to this day.

After all, he was originally a Democrat.

But as he said, "I didn't leave the Democrats. They left me."

I think Nick was being sarcastic.

It has been said there are Democrats who forget that Ted Kennedy was more of a coalition builder than some would like to remember, and that current Republicans are a mere shadow of Reagan.

Don't forget how much got done when 2 old Irish guys got together for drinks. Their names were Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil. There are too many shallow people in politics today (across the spectrum) who would see that sort of effort as heresy.

But as someone who has worked on some very worthwhile and successful bipartisan efforts, I believe the polarization (how dare you say anything nice about someone who is not one of us?!) of recent years does no one any good.

The dream dies only if too many people put enemy-oriented politics over solution oriented politics.

And track the rise of polarized nastiness (can't be any good people in the other party) and the rise of NAV and 3rd party registration. I'm guessing the 2 are related.

Ben D wrote:

"his legacy of trying to ensure every American could have reasonable, affordable healthcare"

If the Democrats get their way and destroy private insurance, replacing it with a single payer monopoly, the system we will get will be neither affordable nor reasonable.

As I've previously pointed out, with competition gone you will have no incentive to efficiency or cost savings, and you will have a system that is as efficient as the DMV and as compassionate as the IRS.

Most Americans like the coverage they have now.

There is no reason to destroy that in order to help others obtain coverage.

But Democrats aren't after cost savings, efficiency or good care.

They are after power.

Joe White...If your going to use a statement of mine to make a point of your own, either use the entire statement, or clearly indicate that you're using only part of it.

You cut and pasted: Many people that presently have solid health care seem to blithely encourage legislators to not do anything that would threaten the status quo of that health care"

My original statement: Many people that presently have solid health care seem to blithely encourage legislators to not do anything that would threaten the status quo of that health care, while millions of americans (and for the foreseeable future lacking a universal health care plan) nada... have nothing.

If you want to make a stand for a universal health plan that protects your medical records privacy from the government...fine...sounds good to me. Perhaps there's a realistic possibility of making that personal issue a condition of supporting a plan that would make at least some health care available to all americans. Bottom line though seems to be that the longer the country makes many of its citizens go without health care, the closer and faster we get to serious national trouble.

ws wrote:

"that would make at least some health care available to all americans"

Health care, like food and clothing, is available NOW to those who are willing to pay for it. (If they are completely unable, they already qualify for Medicaid, right?)

So who are these mythical people you are referring to who have no health care available to them?

Kari Chisholm wrote:

"have you never heard of "pre-existing conditions"?"

I believe he was referring to the issue of price as a barrier.

But I'll be glad to answer your question.

Yes, I have. They are conditions that may be temporarily excluded from coverage under a group health policy.

Pre-Existing Condition Limitation on Your Health Insurance Policy "Note that this is not an indefinite right on the part of the company. If the medical expenses are incurred more than twelve months after the policy issue date, they cannot be excluded from coverage as pre-existing."

You can't buy auto insurance on the car you just wrecked, and a widow can't buy life insurance on the dearly departed.

Why is that an issue?

If someone does not buy insurance, and gets sick then they will pay for it out of their pocket.

Why should they pay for it out of my pocket?

They will still have access to health care providers (no one tells them they can't go to the doctor), but will pay more for it than if they had maintained coverage.

So the Democratic propaganda 'people don't have health care' really is false and misleading.

And in addition, they can still get coverage for all other health issues not related to the pre-existing condition.

And the condition itself will not be excluded forever.

But Democrats count on the fact that most of the public is not familiar with the way policies are written, and so they trot out political smoke and mirrors to deceive.

Why don't you do some research and tell the whole truth?

The TAs of this world that want to avoid protecting their family and then cry foul when their gamble fails are the main constituency of the Democrats. The Ds tell them 'go ahead and blow your money on movies and cable TV, and we'll provide your family with the necessities of life.'

Kari, Kari, Kari . . . it's your website . . . but enlighten me as to your strategy. What do you hope to accomplish by feeding and nourishing and encouraging the troll?

"Health care, like food and clothing, is available NOW to those who are willing to pay for it. (If they are completely unable, they already qualify for Medicaid, right?)" Joe White

"...willing to pay for it." by itself, doesn't seem to cut it with people in the business of providing any number of things. It's the same situation for health care. They expect that people be able to pay for it as well. Lots of people aren't able to pay for it, so they go without. I won't say I understand well much at all what Medicaid provides for, but a quick overview of the program clearly indicates that poverty alone will not allow a person eligibility for coverage.

I don't want to see anyone's present high quality coverage compromised by whatever health plan might be introduced that would allow health care for all americans. The idea though, of a gradually declining state of health in an growing percentage of the american public, is a daunting prospect. The security of the nation depends upon a healthy public.

ws wrote:

"I don't want to see anyone's present high quality coverage compromised by whatever health plan might be introduced that would allow health care for all americans."

Then we agree that a 'public option' designed to undercut and destroy private insurance is out of the question. Same thing with any discussion of a 'single payer'.

Each state should pass new laws allowing individuals to organize into groups to purchase a group health plan with it being sponsored by an employer.

Why Democrats have vehemently opposed this, I don't understand, except it offers them no control, and no money to spend.

The cost to the taxpayer would be zero.

The bureaucracy needed would be zero.

Joe Hill wrote:

"the troll"

Is name calling still all you have?

Why don't you discuss the issues, instead of throwing around ad homs?

My posts are focused on issues, JH. Try to think of something to say along those lines.

"....designed to undercut and destroy private insurance..." Joe White

Except that it is not designed to do that. It shouldn't be hard to understand this. Some things will have to change in order to create a better, more fair health care system for the country. Rashly implying or concluding that proposals to date have deliberately been "..designed..' to destroy private insurance does not help efforts made towards drafting a health plan proposal that will bring about positive change.

ws,

If the government came to your town and set up shop doing the same thing your employer does, and charging half the price, how long do you think your employer would be in business?

It's not hard to forecast the outcome, and since Obama has said that what he really wants is a single payer system, it's perfectly consistent with his goal.

Why won't liberals admit that this is what they are attempting to do?