Why is TKennedy given primetime speaking spot at DNC Convention?

[digno dave]

uhh, aren't we supposed to be moving towards the center right about now? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Doosh]

1. hasn't he been doing this every presidential election cycle?

He's a beloved Dem, great speaker, from Mass.

how can we leave him off?

[movonne]

2. No I think at the convention we go left some what. I love Ted....

3. Because He's The Senior Senator From The State

That is both hosting the convention and producing the nominee?

Maybe? :)

[PATRICK]

14. Bingo, and so is Kerry

Those factors give the distinguished senior Senator, a gifted orator and reminder of a real legacy, a great platform for
recalling the party to its true center, because there is no such thing as a massive far left contingent in the party. No socialists demanding nationalization of industries, no communism, no purist liberalism, no extremism of any sort.

[LimpingLib]

4. LOL I thought you were refering to Arnold.

Kennedy has siad nothing but positive things about him. He even sounded like he was in a celebratory mood as his eyes glistened bragging about the then Governor-elect in his family a year back (well 8 months or something).


Kennedy is a genuine fighter though he is surrounded by a bunch of elites (his family).

[NWHarkness]

5. Should we disrespect this great Democrat?

It would be an unconscionable insult to not give him a prominent place at a convention in his hometown.

And to hell with the right wing whiners who don't like it.

[lovedems]

6. I welcome what Ted has to say.

For the last 3 years while other democrats were sitting on their hands, Ted was saying what needed to be said. The republicans hate him and I hope he shows his gratitute by slamming the shit out of them.

[Mike L]

38. Have to agree (although I don't like it).

Kennedy has been proven right about everything he said before the Iraq War. His appearance will hurt with Independents, but what can we do?

[never_get_over_it]

61. His appearance WILL NOT hurt with independents

for God's sake this is a freaking Democratic Convention. Ted Kennedy has been a leader in the Dem party for decades, he is the brother of two assasinated Dem leaders - he is a strong Kerry supporter from Kerry's state and the state where the convention is being held - he is a fabulous speaker - he is a true Democrat - left leaning Dems would be more upset by dising him then the independents would be by having him there - the independents - repunks and everybody expect him to be there. There would be more media attention if he didn't speak - frankly I can't believe anyone would bring this up as an issue....of course Ted Kennedy would speak at a Dem convention - jeeeez

[Guaranteed]

64. Leadership never hurts.

Our worst times have been our most cowardly times.

[H2O Man]

7. Because Ted Kennedy is a great senator

who ranks with the past greats from the "Golden Age" of the Senate. The republicans will settle for someone who ranks with those of the "Gilded Age."

[iamjoy]

8. Isn't Kennedy a Drunk?

and many see him as a murderer over Chappaquidick.

Not the face I'd think we want in prime time, too much fodder for the Right Wingnuts.

Now, the Senator's niece, Caroline, yes. What a lady! And well spoken, too.

I want Gore! He isn't wooden, he's fiery! And Howard Dean! And Jennifer Granholm. And Arianna Huffington (yes, we what a coup to get her)!

[asjr]

11. If Kennedy is a drunk, he is my

kind of drunk. Drunk with patriotism. I could listen to him all day.

[Ironpost]

37. could listen telll the cows come home

[H2O Man]

13. You are confusing him

with Pickles Bush. And what might you mean by "Chappaqua"?

[NWHarkness]

15. How about we stop letting the right wingers dictate what we do?

The Democrats problem in attracting the center isn't that we are too liberal, it is that they think we don't stand for anything.

Let's be proud of our heritage, which absolutely includes Ted Kennedy.

[iamjoy]

20. That's A Good Point

Kennedy is a great Senator, but I question his character.
I question the character of many Conservatives too.

I don't want it to seem like we're letting them dictate what we do, but you know how the media twists things. Senator Kennedy speaks and it will be all about Kennedy. It will be all about Northeastern Liberals out of touch with mainstream America, you know how the press will spin it.

Howard Dean speaking shows how the party is united. Of course, he's a Northeastern Liberal too. Al Gore is a subtle reminder that we should be trying to keep the White House, not take it back. We also need Liberals from the Mid-West (Kucinich?) and South to not be so regional. I don't think we should be hiding our liberal side. Our presumed nominee is already from Massachusetts, the convention is in Boston, how about some balance?

What positive aspects does Senator Kennedy bring to the table that no one else can?

[NWHarkness]

23. Kennedy speaks for the base

And the base deserves representation at their own party's convention, don't they.

The core constituencies, liberals, blacks, labor, see Kennedy as a spokesman for their views.

[iamjoy]

29. And Maybe, Just Maybe

It is time for a new spokesman.

or, spokeswoman.

I'll tell you, when the chips are down, I'd speak out with praise for Senator Kennedy, for his record on all the causes in which I believe.

But amongst "family" I have some criticism for him.

[JI7]

30. Kennedy is the best since he knows Kerry the best

they have worked together from the same state for decades. kennedy will do a good job in giving a speech in support of Kerry.

[iamjoy]

48. Yes, And...

Kennedy knows Kerry best, so that does mean he will do a good job introducing him.

On the other hand, Kennedy's support for Kerry is well known. How much more electrifying it would be for the crowd to hear support from unexpected quarters.

[incapsulated]

18. Excuse me???

If the Honorable Senator and liberal icon Ted Kennedy is some sort of an embarrassment to you, then I fear for the future of this Party. If you are more afraid of Rush and company than you are proud of someone who not only has enormous respect within the Party, but who also has the balls to speak the truth, unlike the weak-kneed, pink tutu wearing sellouts that are Democrats in name only, then I don't know what to say.

:puke:

[Leilani]

9. Agree about moving to the center!

The Repubs have announced their speakers...moderates like Guiliani & Schwartzeneger.

The convention is a time to reach out to the country in general. If you want to sing to the choir, that s fine. But the Dems are already motivated....we need swing voters, & Ted Kennedy does not get them.

[freetobegay]

10. He is an Icon! N/T

[Forkboy]

12. Screw that

Sorry the actual liberals in the party bother you so much :puke:

[Bill Wade]

17. But but...

Fox might say something negative about us.. :eyes:

[PVnRT]

66. Who said they bothered him?

You can either compete for the moderates by altering your message (not necessarily your positions) or you can use the same liberal rhetoric you hear around here, which I'm sure would play so very well with everyone.

[Joe Fields]

16. Top ranking Democrats are always assured of a prime

speaking slot at the convention. I have no problem with it.

[serryjw]

19. How did you know this?

Any news about when Kucinich will speak...or Sharpton?

[dogman]

21. It seems fitting to me.

Without Kennedy I think it is safe to say Kerry would not be our nominee. When Kerry was down coming into Iowa Kennedy came out and led the charge to get him back in the race. It's obviously New Englands turn to go for the gold and he is New England's elder statesman at this point. I did not choose this for the Party, but this is the Party's choice and I wholeheartedly support all efforts to unseat B$$$ and his cronies. As far as drinking and driving, these things cost Kennedy a chance to lead this country. Whether that is enough price to pay, I will not judge. Kennedy has a good solid Democratic message and it should be heard.

[JI7]

22. of top Democrats in the country he is one that knows Kerry the best

being from the same state and working together for decades.

[no name no slogan]

24. Because he's the only Senator from Mass. who has balls? (n/t)

[JI7]

25. and yet the other senator still has an overall more liberal voting record

and both senators had the balls to always vote in support of abortion rights unlike some others. and it was kerry himself who asked Ted Kennedy speak during that time when there will be most viewership.

[no name no slogan]

41. Sorry, not a single-issue voter here

And neither is Teddy. Teddy, like most Democratic congressmen, knew Dubya was out to get his war on, and did what he could to stand up to them, REGARDLESS if his stance was "winnable" or not.

Kerry's overall record is very liberal, especially when you consider he's been in the Senate for 24 years. Unfortunately, most of the "liberal" record was accumulated in the 80s. Kerry's a nice, digestable moderate who doesn't intimidate the corporatocracy who rule this country. He'll make a decent lapdog for the powers that truly run this country. I'm sure the stock market will soar like an eagle when he's elected.

The rest of us will keep getting screwed, but with a Kerry administration, at least we'll get the reach-around, too.

[JI7]

54. he was senator for only 5 years in the 80's .

and it's a LIFETIME record which means most of it is measured in the 90's to present. and yet he still comes out on top.

[no name no slogan]

57. "only" five years in the 80s? That's half the decade

he's been on a steady decline on the liberal scale since his second term, just like the Democratic party. His positions this year are more akin to those of a Rockefeller Republican than a supposed "liberal Democrat", which hampers him two ways: he'll be labeled a "northeastern liberal", but since he's not that liberal in this race, he won't ever own up to the word, and will come across as a wishy washy waffler-- just like one of his mentors Mike Dukakis.

I worked hard for Dukakis in 1987 & 1988. I even organized a couple precincts for him at the caucuses, and went to the state convention as a result. Unfortunately, Kerry is behaving exactly like Dukakis did: he's not differentiating himself from Shrub in any substantive ways. Sure, he's different on the nitpicky details, but the overall vision is NOT THERE-- at least in a way that voters can tell the difference.

Being "not Bush" gets him 45% of the vote by default, but that won't be enough to win this year. Unless he gives people a reason to vote FOR him (instead of against Bush), he's screwed.

[JI7]

59. he did give reasons to vote for him which is why he won in the primary

but those who back loser candidates still insist their candidate is the one people truly want, never mind the fact that even though they were in every debate they still didn't do well and kerry did very well. maybe if supporters of certian loser candidates could get over themselves thinking everyone really wants their candidate even though that candidate lost they might be able to see that people do like others and they should have made an attempt to appeal to others rather than putting down the person most people voted for. and kerry is giving reasons to vote for him and differentiating himself from bush.

[no name no slogan]

69. Kerry won Iowa, the rest of the states piled in by default

Even in my state, where he was the "winner", there was not any sort of movement around him. There were a bunch of campaign co-chairs, and some big-money contributors, but there was nothing on the ground-- not even a lawn sign.

Even his support at our March 2 caucuses was lukewarm, at best. Most of it was along the lines of "well, it looks like he's ahead, so I guess I'll support him". I did not see ONE enthusiastic Kerry supporter-- NOT A ONE-- until I got the Congressional District Convention. And that one just happened to be one of the dozen or so party insider/hack "campaign co-chairs" who will probably get a nice cushy gubmint job out of a Kerry victory. To tell the truth, it reminded me a whole lot of the 1988 Dukakis campaign: NOT a good thing by any definition.

Kerry was always the nominee, at least if you talked to the party heirarchy. He was the annointed one after Gore dropped out. It was really his nomination to lose. So of course it's no suprise that he got it, seeing as he was the presumed "safe" choice to run against GeeDubya.

[JI7]

72. keep putting down others to make yourself feel better about your loser

candidate. it's amazing how much supporters of loser candidates go out of their way to talk about how much the winner sucks yet their own candidate can't seem to get much support considering the opponent doesn't even have strong support.

and he was fucking elected. the voters voted for him. and yet you dismiss the work others do to help their candidate by saying the candidate was annointed.

i was a big supporter of kerry as many others were. including those in minnesota. i talked to people there who met kerry and attended some of his events and they were enthusiastic.

[WI_DEM]

26. yes, hide all the liberals and people of principle so we can

move to the right.

[digno dave]

58. Uh, if TKennedy is your standard bearer for "people of principles"

then we're in bad shape.

[Eccho]

27. Did I miss the memo?

We aren't the party that waits for Rove to tell us what to think everyday. Someone should trot out the photos and quotes of Bush kissing Kennedy's butt when he was trying to get No Child Left Behind.

I don't let the Republican attack machine determine my opinon of our great leaders, nor should you.

[bklyncowgirl]

28. Can't have a Dem Convention without Teddy and Jesse too!

I guess once Kerry settles on a veep they'll announce the rest.

[tritsofme]

31. I hate Ted Kennedy

ever since 1980 when he betrayed Jimmy Carter and tipped the election Reagan.

I'll never forget when they used a speech Ted gave in Reagan commercial saying "We need a change we need to get Carter out" or something like that, and the GOP ran it under the banner of "Democrats for Reagan" or other such garbage.

What a total scumbag. This is one prime-time address I won't be watching.

[incapsulated]

32. Uh, Hello?

Kennedy ran against Carter in that election so of course he said Carter needed to get out. He was pressured to run because the Party, who did stab Carter in the back, I'll admit, thought Carter was in big trouble because his numbers were horrible. Kennedy imploded, he didn't "tip" the election to Reagan at all.

[tritsofme]

33. It sure as hell didn't help.

If he had a shred of honor he wouldn't have challenged a sitting Democratic President.

[never_get_over_it]

62. Do some research will you

Kennedy didn't tip the election to Reagan - GHW Bush tipped it to Reagan when he made a deal with Iran to hold the hostages until after the election. Remeber the hostage release about 5 minutes after Reagan innauguration - please put your anger about Reagan where it belongs - Ted Kennedy has been a great Dem leader

[spooky3]

34. He did a lot to help Kerry and I am sure Kerry is grateful.

[TexasSissy]

35. He's the reason that Kerry is the nominee, for one thing.

Kerry regards him as the titular head of the Dem. Party, is the second thing.

Kennedy is very popular right now. I'm just a little left of center, myself, and I regard Ted Kennedy highly. I'm probably not the only "moderate" who feels this way.

He's a great orator. He's enthusiastic and passionate.

It makes sense to me.

[Ironpost]

36. I'll not read this

Just listen to him speak.Excuse me

[sleipnir]

39. NOTE: One of Gore's major reasons for losing was his "centrist" attitude

He lost many of the left-wing, activist-base and was one of the three major reasons he lost the election and couldn't pull off a major win in Florida, enough to not need a re-count.

Hopefully Kerry reads his history and stays away from the Center. Right now there is more power in the Leftist approach, he just needs to tap into that base, win the Northern/Midwest states and he's the next Pres.

[Mike L]

40. Gore lost because he acted like a geek in the debates.

If Kerry moves more to the left now, he will lose more Independents than he will gain ultra left-wingers. Everyone but the very few on the extreme left will vote for Kerry after 4 years of the Bush regime. A Democrat can't win the Presidency without moving closer to the center. We've seen that. This year is no different.

[no name no slogan]

42. You honestly believe that? Seriously?

Kerry's barely "moderate" right now. He's pro-corporate, in favor of the Iraq occupation, for increased military spending, supports Sharon in Israel, supports NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements. Hardly a flaming liberal so many make him out to be.

He's already got the moderate vote wrapped up, since it's highly unlikely that anybody who voted for Gore last time will vote for Shrub. The so-called "swing vote", who make up about 5% of the eligible electorate, have gone through the ringer over the last four years-- even those who voted for Dubya. It's doubtful they'd trust him again with another four years after what they've been through. All Kerry has to do is not fuck up in a major way and those votes are HIS.

There's even REPUBLICANS who are now openly stating that they're voting for Kerry. Dubya has messed up so bad that he'll have trouble even getting his BASE out to vote for him this year, no matter how much money he raises.

Take a look at Nader, who should be nothing but an asterisk in the history books right now. Many polls show him at 5%+, mostly taking away potential Kerry votes.

These votes could be SOLID for Kerry, if he were to grow some brass ones and STAND UP to the Bush Cabal. But instead, he's playing the Gore 2000 "me too, but" game. He's done little to differentiate himself from Bush on most of the major issues: Iraq, the "war on terra", the economy (tax breaks for companies who don't leave America! Why not sanctions on those who deliberately ship jobs overseas?), the bloated Pentagon budget.

This election has been Kerry's to LOSE for a year now. All he needs to do is DEFINE himself as the Anti-Bush. Dubya's numbers are going down faster than Monica Lewinsky on the Clenis™, but Kerry's aren't going up. So far, he's performed in a very Dukakis-esque manner, which will only lead us to defeat-- even if we "win" the presidential election.

[sleipnir]

44. Exactly!! If Kerry doesn't get his act together...

At least he's shown so far that he'll be a graceful loser after the election. He certainly won't raise a fuss if a few numbers aren't right with the ballots, and he won't battle Bush. That's all I've seen out of him, so far. He privately criticizes Bush, but that's all. He really has become the low-carb version of Bush...which frightens me to no end.

I mean, it's no wonder Kerry's languishing in the polls, he's not offering much of a change.

Once again, the shift to the center will screw the Dems...

I don't care about the the past records, we're in a new territory here folks, I could give a damn about methods pre-2000, they got thrown out and there's no disputing the facts. No Dem under our current situation has won the Presidency by becoming a Centrist and none will. Until the old regime of the DLC and their ilk with their 1980's/1990's approaches are gone, we're stuck with losing elections.

Not to be negative, but I'm really frustrated with this "centrist" attitude that cost us 2000 and will cost us 2004. _No name no slogan_ hit the nail on the head, why aren't the 5+% of Nader voters going for Kerry?? It's not Nader's fault, it's this damn centrist view. We've already got the centrists that are going to be for us, now it's time to get the far left, which is what we're drastically losing. I'm not advocating a socialist regime for Kerry, but couldn't Kerry at least have a plurality of progressive attitudes on the issues?

[Mike L]

47. no name no slogan, please give me a break.

Swing-voters make up 20% of the population, not 5%.

"He's pro-corporate, in favor of the Iraq occupation, for increased military spending, supports Sharon in Israel, supports NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements. Hardly a flaming liberal so many make him out to be."

Pro-corporate? Not half as much as Bush. Bush would give corps free reign if he could. Middle America isn't totally anti-corporation. In fact, it's mostly pro-corporation considering the fact that its members now hold stocks in the form of 401ks and/or pension plans.

Iraq occupation: Did you ever consider what would happen if we withdrew from Iraq in 6 months like your buddy wants? Civil war would break out between the Sunnis and Shiites; Kurdistan would declare its independence; Turkey would invade Kurdistan for its oil and because the ethnic Kurds in Turkish regions would want to break away and join Kurdistan; Iran would invade the rest of Iraq; and Iran would set up a fundamentalist Islamic puppet government which would support al-Qaeda. Of course, Iran would then support a fundamentalist revolution in Saudi Arabia. We would then end up with 2 additional governments that support al-Qaeda. And yes, Bush screwed up royally by invading Iraq. However, we're there now. The whole thing is a major F-up.

Increased military spending: Hey, do you remember what Bush's first attack ads were about? Middle American swing-voters support increased military spending in the "War on tera".

Israel: What else can he say? Do you want him to lose a 6% voting block?

NAFTA and WTO: See what I said above about middle Americans liking their 401ks. We're too far into free trade to isolate now. The economy would collaspe. However, Kerry will take some steps in the right direction to save American jobs. He has talked about using the tax code.

Believe me, Nader isn't the answer to winning Presidential elections. If Kerry took all of Nader's positions, 2004 would be worse than 1972.

[digno dave]

60. Mike l, i like your lingo

word

[TexasSissy]

50. Yes, Gore didn't do well in the debates. He was ill advised.

Orange makeup. Too aggressive. Not presidential enough. He tried to be something he's not. I think he did well in one of the debates, but not at the others (how many were there?).

Gore is pretty liberal, compared to Clinton. That may have cost him.

Also, he didn't use Clinton to campaign for him. That hurt him.

[dolstein]

52. Wrong

First, the activist base of the Democratic Party -- which is NOT as left-wing as you apparently believe, turned out in large numbers for Gore. Gore got overwhelming support among African-Americans, single women, union households and Hispanics. These are the closest thing we have to a base in the Democratic Party, and Gore did very well among these groups, thank you very much. He certainly did a hell of a lot better than Nader did, despite his left-wing agenda.

If Gore was hurt by anything, it was the Clinton scandal, which cost him some support among independents and more conservative voters. It's hard to see how a leftist approach would have attracted more support among these groups.

And what history are YOU reading? The fact is, left-wing candidates haven't done well since the social upheavals of the 1960s. The only Democrats that have gotten elected president since then have been moderates.

[troublemaker]

43. Two reasons:

1) He is a fine speaker

2) He can assuage elements of the base so Kerry doesn't have to

[bleowheels]

45. I was wondering the same thing.

Nobody can deny what Sen. Kennedy has done for this country but the Freepers and O'Reilly and Limbaugh etc will be all over this.

[LabMonkey]

46. Because Ted and Kerry go way back. Thats politics for ya.

[Debralasv]

49. I like Ted Kennedy.

He kicks butt in the Senate and he'll get everyone pumped up. I'm surprised the neo-cons did not include him in the wild-eyed bunch ad.

:kick:

[DaveSZ]

51. The right hates him for telling the truth

We shouldn't be scared of their fear-mongering, though they've gotten quite good at it over the years.

[Cuban_Liberal]

53. Here's why:

1.) GREAT speaker!

2.) A Democratic 'icon'/elder statesman.

3.) Kerry's mentor in politics.

4.) He is a true, old-line liberal, and it sends a powerful messaage.

[JHBowden]

55. They're going to milk the J.F.K.(erry)/Kennedy stuff. nt

eom

[cidliz2004]

56. Convention in his state, One of the Leaders of the Party, He is a Senator

with Kerry for the SAME state, comes from the KENNEDY FAMILY, is a good speaker (to say the least) and saving the best for last.....The Repugs hate him (which must make him GREAT!)

[DinahMoeHum]

63. Because the old lion can still roar.

Same thing for Jesse Jackson. I always look forward to his speeches.

n/t

:kick:

[Guaranteed]

65. Who the hell are these people?

Why are they on this board? Why do they call themselves Democrats?

[TexasSissy]

67. Who are you referring to?

[JI7]

68. the ones complaining about Ted Kennedy speaking at the convention

[Fleshdancer]

70. The convention is in Boston so that may be part of the reason

Plus we can't ignore the Nadar factor. I know the first response of every die hard Dem is "screw Nadar" everytime his name is mentioned, but we really can't afford to ignore him. My guess is that the DNC sees the need for a balancing act right now until Nadar either drops out or self implodes.

Then again, maybe it's because Kennedy really wanted to. He's been around so long I imagine he carries a good amount of political weight when he wants to.

[Pepperbelly]

71. because Teddy gives a GREAT speech! nt

[MessiahRp]

73. Locking

Locking this thread because it has become a bit of an ugly fight over Ted Kennedy who is, by the way still on our side. Please refrain from using RW talking points in assessing your opinion on someone. Like him or not, he is working for JK and Kerry is our nominee. Electing Kerry is a goal of DU and in essence tearing down one of Kerry's strongest supporters and campaigners isn't helping our cause.

Let's try to refrain from the bitter back and forth bickering on here.

Rp