You know what the problem is? You hear "young voters" and you think of the 60s. People singularly devoted to peace and who want to transform government into something it is not. You are wrong. The differences between the young generation of today and previous generations is well-noted by just about everybody whose business it is to know.
We do not want a Kucinich. We do not want a Nader. We do not want a Gravel. We want a Kennedy. We want somebody in office who will bring a great number of Americans together and just run a better government. We ARE hopeful, we ARE devoted, but we are, above all, practical.
And what did you get from Kennedy, again?
It was LBJ who moved the legislation that we take for granted today.
Point taken, but still.
Obama stoked these idealistic fans with his talk. Remember his acceptance speech? Oceans will rise indeed.
Now people are pretending that he didn't have anything to do with his messianic image. It wasn't his fault.
I'm not buying it.
He didn't say HE would make the oceans rise. He said, "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ...". Tell me your interpretation of that. Because I see that as simply a very powerful way to say that he was going to work on trying to slow global warming.
You want a Kennedy?
The man, in office for less than three years, accomplished exactly nothing (yes, there was one exciting moment when we faced down the Soviets but that came about because of Kennedy's lack of experience and misunderstanding of world politics).
I used to think he was a great man, a great president. But as I grew up and started reading, I realized that he was none of those things.
He was just a politician who actually accomplished very little in his short time in office. (And people criticize Bill Clinton for his personal behavior? Kennedy was a one man sex machine and not very shy about it.)
Kennedy hardly won the Presidency (if it weren't for Daley stealing some votes, he would not have won. And I say that a a dedicated Democrat but also as an historian and researcher).
What was remarkable was the times -- the sexual liberation movements, the women's liberation movement, the civil rights movement. The end of two wars and great prosperity allowed the nation to begin to free itself of some of the old notions. The times and the great people who made them are what changed the nation. Kennedy had little or nothing to do with any of that. He just happened to be the youngest elected President (Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest) and that was a novelty. But a novelty that had no lasting effect. He, in fact, was on the slightly conservative side of things.
It was the liberating times that made Kennedy not the other way around.
So, when you say you want a Kennedy, it's a little bewildering.
Well, what I intended to say was a charismatic speaker that actually led, I suppose Kennedy ain't that. I was actually going to say I wanted a Democratic Reagan, but felt it would be taken the wrong way.
yes, that would have been taken the wrong way and rightly so.
What did Reagan do except tear down the moderate Republican party?
and install a bunch of freaks instead?
Presumably the "Democratic Reagan" I mentioned would not be advancing conservative ideals. It is merely unfortunate that the Republican agenda is almost entirely destructive. But Reagan remade the Republican brand into something that lasted for a full generation. You do not want that?
the republican brand was re-branded by Reagan. Ask republicans (moderates) if they liked what happened to their party.
I don't want the democratic party to be re-branded. And the democratic party has been around a lot longer than the republican party and for more than one generation at that.
Probably more accurate and can't believe it didn't come to mind. Hell, with the economy the way it is, it might be all too much like FDR.
When I was entering high school, John Kennedy was elected. I was enamored of him, his family, the feelings we all had then. I always will respect John Kennedy. Now, heres the qualification: The reality is that the Kennedy group was a political machine, of course, beginning with the father. The reality is that Kennedy had some warts, not the least of which was the Bay of Pigs. The style and the mood was fantastic; and, being cut down in his prime, he became much much bigger than life. I can love John Kenney the President and, especially, the memory. But, I do know the difference between style and the trial of a long political career and the works that produces. Where does Obama stand? I don't know. He wants us to think that he is JFK reincarnated in posture & speech. Frankly, I would prefer if he "found" his own style and stated his own beliefs in the fabric of modern politics. As I was told in the late 60s (circa 68 convention), the issue really is generational. I believe that now. Both sides of the generation gap have something to offer; my older bunch does bring some useful experience.
