Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to admit. I was rather touched by their endorsement for Barack Obama and it got me to wondering about the state. Do the Kennedys reflect the state, ideologically and politically?
This one is soooo tempting that I can't resist. Having lived in MA for 15 years, I'll take a stab at answering.
Yes, in my opinion, the Kennedys are reflective of the mindset of many in MA. The proof is in the fact that Ted Kennedy has been re-elected so many times. Politics in MA are rife with the belief that government is what makes our country great. The state legislature and the state's Congressional delegation, including Kennedy and Kerry, believe that they know better how to use your money than you do. To them, tax money is money that the government deserves to use as it pleases, and the mission of government is to redistribute wealth from "rich" people who "don't need" the money to those who Kennedy feels are more deserving.
Kennedy also propogates the feelings of many in MA, that the military is bad, and that American soldiers are "like Nazis" (direct quote). To Kennedy, the terrorists do what they do because we've done something to bring it all about ourselves.
The ironic thing to me is that I feel that John Kennedy would be appalled at many of his younger brother's beliefs. John Kennedy was a champion of tax cuts and standing tall against foreign enemies.
I have to admit. I was rather touched by their endorsement for Barack Obama and it got me to wondering about the state. Do the Kennedys reflect the state, ideologically and politically?
Yes and no. MA is certainly more politically liberal (at the national level) than many other states. In that way, I think most of the individual votes that Ten Kennedy casts in the Senate are probably consistent with public opinion. But like every other state, opinion here is not monolithic. There are conservatives and Republicans (roughly 25-30% of the population) who disagree strongly with Kennedy and the Democrats.
The dominant political paradigm in Mass. is, of course, Democratic. This partisan domination comes in two basic strains: 1) old school, blue collar Democrats, often aligned with ethnic groups (Irish/Italian/Portuguese/Black/Latino); and 2) new school, upscale "Latte Liberals" who are overwhelmingly white. The former tend to be more liberal on economic issues; thus, more supportive of labor unions, gov't employees, and social welfare spending. The Volvo Democrats, OTOH, are more liberal on social issues (gay rights, gun control, etc.) and environmentalism. The two are sometimes at loggerheads (see below) but can agree on most issues most of the time. Kennedy is himself technically neither, but he represents both well in the sense that, overall, his policy positions are not far out of line with opinion in either camp.
One final note: at the state level, the Democratic party exhibits much more ideological diversity than the Congressional delegation. The state legislature has Democrats who are quite liberal and others who are quite conservative, and they often disagree on issues. For example, there is currently a raging debate about allowing casino gambling in the state. There are some Democrats, who tend to be aligned with labor, who are supporters because they like the idea of the jobs and economic development the casinos would bring. There are other Democrats, the more upscale types, who tend to oppose casinos out of fear of gambling addiction, harm to the community, etc.
(you'll note that I have tried to answer this question accurately without engaging in partisan or policy sniping)
Last edited by professorsenator; 01-27-2008 at 08:34 PM..
This one is soooo tempting that I can't resist. Having lived in MA for 15 years, I'll take a stab at answering.
Yes, in my opinion, the Kennedys are reflective of the mindset of many in MA. The proof is in the fact that Ted Kennedy has been re-elected so many times. Politics in MA are rife with the belief that government is what makes our country great. The state legislature and the state's Congressional delegation, including Kennedy and Kerry, believe that they know better how to use your money than you do. To them, tax money is money that the government deserves to use as it pleases, and the mission of government is to redistribute wealth from "rich" people who "don't need" the money to those who Kennedy feels are more deserving.
Kennedy also propogates the feelings of many in MA, that the military is bad, and that American soldiers are "like Nazis" (direct quote). To Kennedy, the terrorists do what they do because we've done something to bring it all about ourselves.
The ironic thing to me is that I feel that John Kennedy would be appalled at many of his younger brother's beliefs. John Kennedy was a champion of tax cuts and standing tall against foreign enemies.
I'd agree with that. The other ironic thing about Kennedy and Kerry is that both are very rich. Kerry more by way of marriage.
The other ironic thing about Kennedy and Kerry is that both are very rich.
I'm not sure that money has much to do with it -- Kennedy, at least was brought up with the idea of helping the poor. That's how the Kennedys have been and they have tended to side with the underdog for as long as I can remember.
That's a good one -- the Volvo liberals! Never heard that term before and it suits them very well. Latte liberals -- another good one! I guess I'm somewhere in the middle, like most people here in Massachusetts, somewhere in the middle of the Democrats.
"Leaving MA" believes that Sen. Kennedy said "the military is bad and that American soldiers are "like Nazis" (direct quote)"
but without any evidence to back this up, I assume it is false, based on rumors.
In fact, Sen Kennedy supports our troops and always has. In a recent speech, Mr. Kennedy praised the “pride and valor” of American troops and said he and other war critics would always support them.
In a published letter to the President, Kennedy said:
December 18, 2007 --
It is wrong to provide yet another blank check to President Bush for his failed Iraq policy.
I support our troops, but I oppose this war. Our military has served nobly in Iraq and done everything we have asked them to do. But they’re caught in a continuing quagmire, and the long hoped—political solution is still as elusive as ever.
The toll in Iraq is devastating.
Nearly 4000 American troops have died, including 81 brave men and women from Massachusetts.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured, and over four million more have been forced to flee their homes.
Nearly half a trillion dollars have been spent fighting this war that America never should have fought.
It’s wrong for Congress to write still another blank check to the President for the war. It’s obvious that President Bush wants to drag this process out month after month, so he can hand off his Iraqi policy to the next President.
Each month, American taxpayers are spending $10 billion on the war in Iraq. That’s real money and it could be used bring better lives and opportunities to American families:
* For the cost of only one month in Iraq, we could hire 230,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes so that teachers can spend more time with each student. Or we could provide needed professional development to improve the skills of two-thirds of the teachers in the country.
* For the cost of less than one week in Iraq, we could more than triple the number of children served by high-quality after-school programs. Measures to improve students’ academic achievement and social and emotional development help for hard-working parents and new ways to keep students and communities safe by decreasing drug use and violence.
* For the cost of three weeks in Iraq, we could fully serve all the needy 3- and 4-year-olds eligible for Head Start. These are children who need extra help and assistance to make them ready to learn when they enter school. Right now, we’re serving only half of all those who are eligible for such services. Last week, the President signed a Head Start bill to strengthen that program and make it even better, and help build a basic foundation for learning that will help low-income and minority children for the rest of their lives.
The war is also draining essential resources needed to protect our hard-working men and women.
* For the cost of one day in Iraq, we could hire over 2,700 new safety and health inspectors at OSHA—nearly quadrupling the inspections that help keep millions of American workers safe on the job.
* For the cost of one day in Iraq, we could double enforcement of the nation’s wage and hour laws to guarantee that workers are treated fairly. This help would go to protect hardworking families who rely on overtime pay, prevent violations of our child labor laws, and ensure that parents who need to care for sick children can meet their family needs and still return to their jobs.
* For the cost of one week in Iraq, we could train over 160,000 additional men and women for better jobs in the new global economy.
We all know how important access to high quality primary care is to the health of our nation especially. Yet nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured today, including 9 million children.
* For the cost of one month in Iraq, 20,000 new grants could be made to local health centers, and 19 million patients could be served for a year by these centers.
* For the cost of three and a half months in Iraq, we could pay for all of the uncompensated health care in the United States for one year.
* For one day in Iraq, which costs us 343 million dollars, 283,000 more children could be covered by the Children’s Health Insurance Plan.
* For one week in Iraq, at a cost of 2.4 billion dollars, nearly 2 million more children could receive that insurance.
* For one month in Iraq, at a cost of $10 billion dollars, eight and a half million more children could be covered by such insurance.
Mr. President, It’s wrong to neglect priorities like these at home and pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the black hole the Iraq war has become. It’s wrong to give the President yet another huge blank check for the war in Iraq. Enough is enough is enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to take a strong stand, and vote against this gigantic blank check for more war.
If, as everyone constantly repeats, MA is so "Democrat-liberal," how is it that pretty much every governor since 1990 or so (except the current one) has been a Republican? (Weld, Cellucci, Swift, Romney)? Seems to fly in the face of the monolithic Democratic image, no?
If, as everyone constantly repeats, MA is so "Democrat-liberal," how is it that pretty much every governor since 1990 or so (except the current one) has been a Republican? (Weld, Cellucci, Swift, Romney)? Seems to fly in the face of the monolithic Democratic image, no?
As anyone who knows MA politics can attest -- and if you'll read my post above you'll notice I observed -- politics in Massachusetts (nor any other state, for that matter) is certainly NOT "monolithic." Dems dominate in Mass., but they do not have a monopoly on political power in the state (as the GOP success in electing governors attests)
Republicans were able to elect a string of governors by effectively building a coalition of Republican support along with moderate Democrats unhappy with the Dem. candidate and state Dems in general. The GOP govs who won ran as moderates--they distanced themselves from many of the hard-right positions of the national GOP, and they ran against Dem. candidates who were, overall, uninspired and ran pedestrian races. Finally, the GOP won in MA during a period of relative Republican Party strength which helped bolster support for Republican candidates throughout the U.S.
....how is it that pretty much every governor since 1990 or so (except the current one) has been a Republican? (Weld, Cellucci, Swift, Romney)? Seems to fly in the face of the monolithic Democratic image, no?
Thank goodness that was the case. Something was needed to keep things balanced. But not now. This Gov. Patrick is a no-nonsense spend-a-holic who just wants to get into your pants. I suppose the in-fighting between DaMasi and Patrick can only be a good thing.
How Republican governors every made it into office is beyond me. I suppose you had to be a bit on the moderate side, or just pander to the left when necessary. Good question.
The GOP govs who won ran as moderates--they distanced themselves from many of the hard-right positions of the national GOP, and they ran against Dem. candidates who were, overall, uninspired and ran pedestrian races.
True. As when Joe Lieberman first beat Lowell Weicker in Conn., Weld was to the left of John Silber on some issues and was, frankly, more likable. Harshbarger ran a very close race in '98 and Shannon O'Brien was slightly ahead until tanking late in the debates in a strong GOP year in 2002. The 1994 race was the only real landslide in there and that was the biggest GOP year of all nationally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sen. Kennedy Supports & Praises US troops
