Why did/do the Kennedys remain silent?

[Christopher Hall]

Who determines if a candidate is "qualified" or not? Let's be honest, except for a handful of notable exceptions, the vast majority of our elected leaders come from, and have always come from, the same kinds of backgrounds. Disproportionately Ivy League grads. Virtually all lawyers. Most of them with a claim to have been "successful" in the corporate world.

Oddly, most of the exceptions to this rule are ex-athletes, like Jim Bunning, J.C. Watts, Steve Largent, etc. or ex-actors, such as Fred Grandy and the guy from "Dukes of Hazard." So, I guess you have to be a lawyer to be "qualified," unless you played professional sports (or, in the case of Watts, high profile college football) or played a character on a television show. Frankly, it's ridiculous that average, working class citizens aren't considered "qualified" for public office. Until Congress gets some true working class people as representatives, who have experienced the kind of real problems the vast majority of the public faces, then public policy will never change. Our representatives are all wealthy, and they will continue to look after their interests.

My point about Caroline was that the media stressed her lack of articulation, which probably was the result of plain nervousness, in an interview. We all know that lots of less articulate candidates have given interviews just as awkward, or more awkward, than this, but the media doesn't usually see fit to publish a transcript with all those ugly errors intact, for all the world to notice. The same thing happened to Ted Kennedy, when Roger Mudd's interview was used as a real hatchet piece by CBS, in what turned out to be a successful effort to undermine his campaign.

The powers that be fear any Kennedy who runs for public office. I don't think it's an accident that when Joe Kennedy III was rumored to be running for Governor of Mass. some years ago, the story of his marriage annulment, which had happened years before, became a big issue. Robert Kennedy, Jr. was rumored to be running for Lt. Governor a few years back, and the day after the story about him running broke, another one appeared that he'd decided not to. The mainstream media (except Fox News) normally has a bias in favor of "liberal" Democrats, unless they're truly progressive, like a Cynthia McKinney or a Dennis Kucinich, or....unless they're a member of the Kennedy family.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Don.

But I also think that dealing with the media is part of running for office.

A case in point is the consideration that Harold Ford, Jr., also a second generation beneficiary of a strong family political name, gave to running against Kirsten Gillibrand a few months ago.

And he was fairly well respected in Tn when he came close to beating Bob Corker for the US Senate in Tn in 2006.

But the NY press absolutely brutalized him earlier this year.

Ironically, Newsweek (RIP) had run a campaign freebie with him on the cover 10 days before the 2006 election with the title "Not Your Daddy's Democrat".

And issues like marital infidelity more often than not come back to haunt politicians.

Word on the street is that John Boehner has a paramour (a lobbyist, of course) and that the NYT is sitting on the story until closer to the November 2 elections.

Time will tell.

[John Dolva]

The pen is mightier than the sword or at least not as messy

[Len Colby]

The word is "ulterior" not "alterior".

I fail to see how saying how I think something is humorous, and suspecting you did not click all the way through the three parts is ascribing "ulterior " motives to anyone.

As Emily Litella would say "Never, mind!" I misunderstood what you wrote, my appologies. I do take a lot of $#!t here though.

The reason I brought up Ned Lamont was simple, it was because I though Hamsher was displaying a double standard. You can qualify that all you want but it does not erase the fact that she chose that ground to criticize Caroline on when she had just backed Lamont to the hilt.

Lamont was not analogous for reasons that I spelled out, the point was there were better choices

BTW, there are other examples of senators who had little or no experience and did a fine job, eg. Ted Kennedy.

What exactly did Ted Kennedy do during his 1st couple of years? But as above to point was that there were better options.

So in my view this was chicken xxxx. IMO, I beleive the true reason that Hamsher did what she did was because Caroline would not have needed the blogosphere to run. And let us not forget, it was Hamsher who originally got the blogosphere behind Gilibrand in the first place when she ran for congress.

Since the district had been Republican since 1979, that was probably a good thing. Did she defeat a more progressive Democrat in the 2006 primary who had a reasonable chance of defeating a 4 term incumbent?

Secondly, my point with Gilibrand was this: If the blogosphere had not done what it did--united with the NY TImes to make this whole appointment process radioactive, and if Paterson had not chosen to take advantage of that (as the Smith piece shows he did) then I have little doubt that he would have appointed Caroline.

That's quite speculative if wanted a down state liberal he had plenty of other options. But I doubt Hamsher and Markos suspected he'd nominate Gilibrand.

"But let me add here: If Paterson would have appointed Cuomo, that would have been Ok with me also. Since it would have made sense from both an ideological standpoint and a practical standpoint. And I talked about that in part 2."

Cuomo and Maloney were my picks, the rest of you essay made it sound as if the choice was limited to Kennedy and Gillibrand and the bloggers should have know that by opposing one they were making the other inevitable. You mentioned some polls but didn't provide citations do have links to those polls.

"In my view, Paterson ultimately chose Gilibrand for the same reason he elongated the Caroline affair: for political advantage. She is from upstate where someone like Paterson does not run well. And he was planning on running for reelection."

Agreed, this undermines your speculation that but for the bloggers he would have chosen Kennedy

"That is until this all backfired on him and began an endless downward spiral."

Frank Murkowski's "endless downward spiral" from the biggest general election win for governor in his state's history, 55%, to a dismal third place in the primary 4 years later, 19%, began by selecting his own daughter to replace him in the Senate. Though not completely analogous (Kennedy wasn't his daughter) he might have feared a similar backlash for choosing a woman whose principle qualification was who her dad was.

"PS. Although I appreciate your regard for Forum rules, I must ask: Where were you when DVP was calling me an "idiot", "paranoid", and then insulting the memory of my deceased mother."

I'm not a mod, normally I only complain about such things when I'm at the receiving end (or falsely think I am)

[Len Colby]

I slipped in an obnoxious attack? Isnt that exactly what you did or am I to believe it was an honest inquiry? I guess you're bored with your open letter to Eric Margolis thread? Now that's a real nail biter.

The book Dope Inc. went through three printings and 600,000 copies distributed. Read it yourself.

You could say your dad ended his career when he took off with sensitive documents and stored them at the office of Jacob, Medinger and Finnegan law firm. This was established beyond doubt in a court of law. His answer to this question was he really didnt steal anything because there were copies of the document on microfiche. Classic.

I won't get into a mudslinging match with you, you are much better at such things.

If you have it supply evidence that Joe. Sr. was a bootlegger etc and that my dad "stole" documents from RJR and gave them to RJR's law firm.

The number of copies and printings of Dope Inc in no way establishes it is reliable. I assume Case Closed sold more and unlike LaDouche's "tome" it wasn't self published and people isn't given away at street corners around the world.

[Terry Mauro]

I slipped in an obnoxious attack? Isnt that exactly what you did or am I to believe it was an honest inquiry? I guess you're bored with your open letter to Eric Margolis thread? Now that's a real nail biter.

The book Dope Inc. went through three printings and 600,000 copies distributed. Read it yourself.

You could say your dad ended his career when he took off with sensitive documents and stored them at the office of Jacob, Medinger and Finnegan law firm. This was established beyond doubt in a court of law. His answer to this question was he really didnt steal anything because there were copies of the document on microfiche. Classic.

I won't get into a mudslinging match with you, you are much better at such things.

If you have it supply evidence that Joe. Sr. was a bootlegger etc and that my dad "stole" documents from RJR and gave them to RJR's law firm.

The number of copies and printings of Dope Inc in no way establishes it is reliable. I assume Case Closed sold more and unlike LaDouche's "tome" it wasn't self published and people isn't given away at street corners around the world.

Never stated any such thing. I encouraged you to read it yourself. You assume Case Close sold more copies? Why is that, prejudice perhaps? Dope Inc enjoyed huge sales since the first edition was released in 1978 .And unlike Case Closed or anything from the Colby family, it is truthful, reliable and insightful. It shows the reader how the illegal narcotics trade is organized and who organized it. Your family tree is even mentioned.

As far as your father I suggest you study the tobacco documents along with transcripts from the trials. You may see yourself in many of the Frank Colby memo's. The old boy even had his own intelligence networks. And he liked to purchase his "experts". You know like picking up a "professional" on a street corner.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

I slipped in an obnoxious attack? Isnt that exactly what you did or am I to believe it was an honest inquiry? I guess you're bored with your open letter to Eric Margolis thread? Now that's a real nail biter.

The book Dope Inc. went through three printings and 600,000 copies distributed. Read it yourself.

You could say your dad ended his career when he took off with sensitive documents and stored them at the office of Jacob, Medinger and Finnegan law firm. This was established beyond doubt in a court of law. His answer to this question was he really didnt steal anything because there were copies of the document on microfiche. Classic.

I won't get into a mudslinging match with you, you are much better at such things.

If you have it supply evidence that Joe. Sr. was a bootlegger etc and that my dad "stole" documents from RJR and gave them to RJR's law firm.

The number of copies and printings of Dope Inc in no way establishes it is reliable. I assume Case Closed sold more and unlike LaDouche's "tome" it wasn't self published and people isn't given away at street corners around the world.

Never stated any such thing. I encouraged you to read it yourself.

That's oviously what you were driving at, well else mention how many copies it sold? Since it is self-published well all just have to take your guru's word for it how many copies were "distibuted". Since it was frequently offered for free to whoever would take it (some times in exchange for a donation" it circulation proves nothing

You assume Case Close sold more copies? Why is that, prejudice perhaps? Dope Inc enjoyed huge sales since the first edition was released in 1978 .And unlike Case Closed or anything from the Colby family, it is truthful, reliable and insightful.

It's available online it does document most of its claims. So one again we're left taking LaDouche's sayso. I agree Case Closed is not reliable that was my whole point. According to the LA Times as of September 09, 1993 "orders total around 100,000 copies"

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-09/news/vw-33318_1_supreme-court/2

Your family tree is even mentioned.

Then you'll be so kind as to provide the quote?!

As far as your father I suggest you study the tobacco documents along with transcripts from the trials. You may see yourself in many of the Frank Colby memo's. The old boy even had his own intelligence networks. And he liked to purchase his "experts". You know like picking up a "professional" on a street corner.

You made the claim you need to do the leg work.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Len Colby

[Terry Mauro]

I slipped in an obnoxious attack? Isnt that exactly what you did or am I to believe it was an honest inquiry? I guess you're bored with your open letter to Eric Margolis thread? Now that's a real nail biter.

The book Dope Inc. went through three printings and 600,000 copies distributed. Read it yourself.

You could say your dad ended his career when he took off with sensitive documents and stored them at the office of Jacob, Medinger and Finnegan law firm. This was established beyond doubt in a court of law. His answer to this question was he really didnt steal anything because there were copies of the document on microfiche. Classic.

I won't get into a mudslinging match with you, you are much better at such things.

If you have it supply evidence that Joe. Sr. was a bootlegger etc and that my dad "stole" documents from RJR and gave them to RJR's law firm.

The number of copies and printings of Dope Inc in no way establishes it is reliable. I assume Case Closed sold more and unlike LaDouche's "tome" it wasn't self published and people isn't given away at street corners around the world.

Never stated any such thing. I encouraged you to read it yourself.

That's oviously what you were driving at, well else mention how many copies it sold? Since it is self-published well all just have to take your guru's word for it how many copies were "distibuted". Since it was frequently offered for free to whoever would take it (some times in exchange for a donation" it circulation proves nothing

You assume Case Close sold more copies? Why is that, prejudice perhaps? Dope Inc enjoyed huge sales since the first edition was released in 1978 .And unlike Case Closed or anything from the Colby family, it is truthful, reliable and insightful.

It's available online it does document most of its claims. So one again we're left taking LaDouche's sayso. I agree Case Closed is not reliable that was my whole point. According to the LA Times as of September 09, 1993 "orders total around 100,000 copies"

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-09/news/vw-33318_1_supreme-court/2

Your family tree is even mentioned.

Then you'll be so kind as to provide the quote?!

As far as your father I suggest you study the tobacco documents along with transcripts from the trials. You may see yourself in many of the Frank Colby memo's. The old boy even had his own intelligence networks. And he liked to purchase his "experts". You know like picking up a "professional" on a street corner.

You made the claim you need to do the leg work.

Dope Inc was given away sometimes in exchange for a donation? Frank, is that you?

[Len Colby]

Dope Inc was given away sometimes in exchange for a donation? Frank, is that you?

The LaRouchebots at the lit tables give stuff away but press for a donation if you take stuff. I thought I remembered them offering Dope Inc in the 70s and 80s but I could be mistaken it was a long time ago.

But enough of this tangent, can you cite any evidence Joe Kennedy Sr. was a bootlegger?

[Terry Mauro]

Dope Inc was given away sometimes in exchange for a donation? Frank, is that you?

The LaRouchebots at the lit tables give stuff away but press for a donation if you take stuff. I thought I remembered them offering Dope Inc in the 70s and 80s but I could be mistaken it was a long time ago.

But enough of this tangent, can you cite any evidence Joe Kennedy Sr. was a bootlegger?

Trying to organize the population is not quite the same as staging a GG Allin concert where the audience gets to watch GG eat a hotdog out of another mans arse. The latter is behavior protected by the ACLU

I provided you evidence, if you don't like it then you'll have to do your own homework. Dope, Inc. covers the Kennedy's starting on page 441 "The Kennedy's Organized Crime in Government". The footnotes are all there.

If you wish a copy there is one available (1992 edition) on Ebay for $43.95.

http://cgi.ebay.com/DOPE-INC-The-Book-Drove-Kissinger-Crazy-3-/390243120530?pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item5adc4d7592

[Len Colby]

Dope Inc was given away sometimes in exchange for a donation? Frank, is that you?

The LaRouchebots at the lit tables give stuff away but press for a donation if you take stuff. I thought I remembered them offering Dope Inc in the 70s and 80s but I could be mistaken it was a long time ago.

But enough of this tangent, can you cite any evidence Joe Kennedy Sr. was a bootlegger?

Trying to organize the population is not quite the same as staging a GG Allin concert where the audience gets to watch GG eat a hotdog out of another mans arse. The latter is behavior protected by the ACLU

I provided you evidence, if you don't like it then you'll have to do your own homework. Dope, Inc. covers the Kennedy's starting on page 441 "The Kennedy's Organized Crime in Government". The footnotes are all there.

If you wish a copy there is one available (1992 edition) on Ebay for $43.95.

http://cgi.ebay.com/DOPE-INC-The-Book-Drove-Kissinger-Crazy-3-/390243120530?pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item5adc4d7592

I'm calling you on your lame bluff. Obviously you know I'm not going to buy that POS. It's online and you know it because you've provided links a few times. The book in its entirety can be found at the link below. Please quote any passages where Kennedy's involvement with bootlegging is spelled out and DOCUMENTED (I.E. supported by citations. Odd that a book you think is so important has been out of print for so long.

http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=266

[John Dolva]

Sorry for interupting, but I just have to say, you guys just crack me up. Thank you. Please don't stop.

[Terry Mauro]

Dope Inc was given away sometimes in exchange for a donation? Frank, is that you?

The LaRouchebots at the lit tables give stuff away but press for a donation if you take stuff. I thought I remembered them offering Dope Inc in the 70s and 80s but I could be mistaken it was a long time ago.

But enough of this tangent, can you cite any evidence Joe Kennedy Sr. was a bootlegger?

Trying to organize the population is not quite the same as staging a GG Allin concert where the audience gets to watch GG eat a hotdog out of another mans arse. The latter is behavior protected by the ACLU

I provided you evidence, if you don't like it then you'll have to do your own homework. Dope, Inc. covers the Kennedy's starting on page 441 "The Kennedy's Organized Crime in Government". The footnotes are all there.

If you wish a copy there is one available (1992 edition) on Ebay for $43.95.

http://cgi.ebay.com/DOPE-INC-The-Book-Drove-Kissinger-Crazy-3-/390243120530?pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item5adc4d7592

I'm calling you on your lame bluff. Obviously you know I'm not going to buy that POS. It's online and you know it because you've provided links a few times. The book in its entirety can be found at the link below. Please quote any passages where Kennedy's involvement with bootlegging is spelled out and DOCUMENTED (I.E. supported by citations. Odd that a book you think is so important has been out of print for so long.

http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=266

Dumb cracks that only you seem to get don't interest me.

[Len Colby]

I'm calling you on your lame bluff. Obviously you know I'm not going to buy that POS. It's online and you know it because you've provided links a few times. The book in its entirety can be found at the link below. Please quote any passages where Kennedy's involvement with bootlegging is spelled out and DOCUMENTED (I.E. supported by citations. Odd that a book you think is so important has been out of print for so long.

http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=266

Dumb cracks that only you seem to get don't interest me.

So are you ever going to provide evidence Joe Sr. was a bootlegger? Your claim that this was documented in Dope Inc. was false and you know it. Yes it was alleged but no evidence was provided.

[Len Colby]

Sorry for interupting, but I just have to say, you guys just crack me up. Thank you. Please don't stop.

Glad to serve as enter or infotainment

[Terry Mauro]

Sorry for interupting, but I just have to say, you guys just crack me up. Thank you. Please don't stop.

Glad to serve as enter or infotainment

Don't stop there, why don't you show him your musical hot dog eating act? Now that's entertainment. The fact that it's classified as "art" by the ACLU and protected under the first amendment ought to impress John that much more.