You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Baby Kennedy warns health-care debate could turn violent
2009-09-30
Drawing on his family's violent past, the Democratic congressman told roughly 75 people gathered at a private health-care forum Saturday morning that opponents of Democrat-backed health-care legislation had gone too far. He cited, as an example, 10,000 signs distributed at a recent Washington protest that read, "Bury ObamaCare with Kennedy."
Teddy's dead. The mawk pushers demanded that the healthcare fiasco be named after him. The healthcare fiasco is now dead. I see nothing wrong with the slogan.
Patrick Kennedy is the last member of his storied family to hold federal office.
We're almost rid of the lot of them...
His father, U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, died one month ago after battling a brain tumor. His uncles, former President John F. Kennedy and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, were assassinated. "My family's seen it up close too much with assassinations and violence in political life.
... he said, waving the bloody shirt...
" It's a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally," Kennedy told the nurses, union officials and AARP members finishing their breakfasts at the invitation-only event in the Providence Marriott hotel.
That sorta name calling never happened before Chimpy McBushitler...
"It's fine for people to debate the issue and attack the issue, but when they go and stoop to the level of the vitriolic rhetoric that we've seen this debate turn up, it's very, I think, dangerous to the fabric of our country."
Somehow the country seems to muddle through. The vitriol poured upon Jefferson, Andy Jackson, and Lincoln was even more rancid than anything being dished up by the Dems today...
In a subsequent interview, Kennedy went further in warning that angry opposition could create physical danger for elected leaders.
Young ladies of good breeding used to come down with the vapors, too. Then they stopped wearing their corsets too tight. Perhaps Baby Kennedy should give that a try?
"I will note that there were a number of prominent security people in this country who spoke very openly this past week that ... that there are consequences in terms of trying to protect public officials. There are consequences to violent rhetoric," he said. "Some people can see through TV ratings and right-wing talk show hosts that just try to create some theater, but unfortunately, there are some that can't see through it.
"You know how simple-minded the populace is..."
"And that's the danger in it. There is definitely freedom of speech, but freedom of speech does not allow yelling 'fire' in the middle of a crowded movie theater."
Apparently it doesn't allow hollering "No, thankew!" at a crowded political rally.
Posted by:Fred

#26  The Brit is correct. This greatly effect the most basic need of every person. Their health. It would seem to me that on an issue this personal and critical, violence would not be unexpected.

If the left can state that religious terrorism is a response to the wests actions and should be addressed by the west not taking action, surely they must also think that not taking action on healthcare reform would stop any violence taken in opposition to it.
Posted by: Mike N.   2009-09-30 18:24  

#25  OK, LH. Patty can say whatever he wants but I can tell him to keep his frickin' grimy paws off of me and my doctor. How's that?

Oh, and I can make fun of him for being a worthless drunk and a bum just like his dad too.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2009-09-30 16:29  

#24  Violence IS a rational response to this. After all health is 99.5% personal, rather than collective.

The government is going to fund this by increasing the level of violence (taxation is after all extorted).

Why not reciprocate? After all the alternative is to allow the state claim ownership of your body.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2009-09-30 16:26  

#23  "LH, I think Fred knows his history."

I know, thats whats so weird.

"Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln were indeed vilified, during and after office, in ways that people today just wouldn't tolerate. I think that was his point. We managed to 'muddle through', though (as you point out) there was no guarantee that we would."

We had a civil war in 1860, we almost had secession during the war of 1812. I think our goal is better than muddling through. This sites focus is, you know, the WOT. We could lose 100,000 to an AQ nuke (far less than the losses during the Civil war) and we could "muddle through".

"What Patrick and the hard left want to do is to close off debate. They've tried several ways to get that done lately. Recently those who disagreed with them were 'racists'. Now they are encouraging violence (the Left loves that one; Limbaugh has been encouraging violence all his life apparently). The whole point is to make whole areas of debate off limits so as to freeze the political position in their favor."

On the contrary, they are just engaging in free speech themselves. They are no more cutting off speech than when folks here call out idiocies on the real hard left. I mean ANSWER and so on.

As for Orwell, he didnt mean what you seem to think he means. Indeed, Orwell was very negative about just the kind of ideological rigidity, code words substituting for thought, etc that passes for argument among many of you.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-30 15:02  

#22  The only violence I've heard about in connection with the health care debate has been instigated by union goons. We've seen videos of goony donk enforcers pushing non-violent citizens out of town hall meetings for having the temerity to disagree. That's been about the size of it. That massive demonstration they had in DC against ObamaCare was strictly non-violent and well mannered. Some of the signs were indicative of a robust debate but, hey, that's democracy.

Don't like it? Try China or Russia. Try Iran.

I suspect the Nancy Pelosis and Patrick Kennedys of the world would love it if there really was some good, old fashioned rioting so they could play the victim and then crack down in police state fashion. It's a comfortable, familiar role for them and they play it so very well. Always with the compassion, they are. Always the sob story. But it isn't gonna work this time. If they want violence they're gonna have to start it themselves and they may not like the result.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2009-09-30 14:26  

#21  "And who killed the Kennedys?"

-Ed, I thought it was you & me? (hat tip Mick & Keith)
Posted by: Broadhead6   2009-09-30 14:22  

#20  And who killed the Kennedys?
Lee Harvey Oswald: A communist defector to the Soviet Union
Sirhan Sirhan: A racist, anti-Jewish Arab inculcated as a child in the kill the Jews and their supporters ideology.

Guess what,? None of those groups are protesting Obama's and Dems cronyzation of 15% of the US economy. Matter of fact, at least one of those groups, and maybe both, are violently in support of Patrick Kennedy's position.
Posted by: ed   2009-09-30 13:37  

#19  LH, I think Fred knows his history.

Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln were indeed vilified, during and after office, in ways that people today just wouldn't tolerate. I think that was his point. We managed to 'muddle through', though (as you point out) there was no guarantee that we would.

What Patrick and the hard left want to do is to close off debate. They've tried several ways to get that done lately. Recently those who disagreed with them were 'racists'. Now they are encouraging violence (the Left loves that one; Limbaugh has been encouraging violence all his life apparently). The whole point is to make whole areas of debate off limits so as to freeze the political position in their favor.

Orwell understood this better than anyone.
Posted by: Steve White   2009-09-30 13:17  

#18  "Jefferson, Andy Jackson, and Lincoln was even more rancid than anything being dished up by the Dems today... "

What.The. Fuck.

You ARE aware that Lincoln was killed by an assasin's bullet, arent you?

This site sometimes follows Israeli affairs.

In Israel there was wild demonization of a PM in the early 90s. His name was Yitzah Rabin. You might recall what happened to him.

One can muddle through. One can have horrid demonization without assasinations. one can have it with assasinations, and the polity can be largely unaffected. You can have assasinations, and the polity is poisoned in subtle ways. Or, you can have democracy fall. Theres NO guarantees which way it will go, once you head down that road.


Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-30 13:12  

#17  "That sorta name calling never happened before Chimpy McBushitler..."

That sort of thing from the michael moore set was disgusting. I said so repeatedly. That many mainstream Dems refused to distance themselves from it was a shame on them. And, I think, it hurt Kerry in 2004.

You can choose to be different, to be the GOP equivalent of the Leiberman Dems. Or you can choose to be the GOP equivalent of Michael Moore. Your choice. But be warned, it doesnt win votes from the center.

And yes, it harms the country we all claim to love.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-30 13:07  

#16  My family's seen it up close too much with assassinations and violence in political life.
... he said, waving the bloody shirt...

excepts its 100% true. They HAVE seen it up close.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-30 13:05  

#15  "Teddy's dead."

Yup. Thats the point. imagine "Bury X policy with Reagan" in the days after Reagans death. Rudeness either way.

" The mawk pushers demanded that the healthcare fiasco be named after him."

The propagandistic naming of bills has been going on for years, by both parties, and is a bad idea. Really, as if anyone who disagrees with a particular set of post 9/11 security policies isnt a patriot? Id say thats worse than mawkish.

"The healthcare fiasco is now dead. "

The fiasco whatever you mean by that may be dead, but its still a pretty good bet that a bill including payorplay, individual mandates, close to universal coverage, etc will become law. Probably without a public option, but possibly with a trigger for a public option.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-30 13:04  

#14  I'm way behind on the news. I didn't realize Patches had been released from his latest stint with rehab (stress due to father's illness, etc.)
Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007   2009-09-30 12:39  

#13  "It's a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally"

When you start listening, people will back off because they will only go as far as they deem necessary to get their point across. The fact that they go as far as they do reflects more about you than it does about human nature.
Posted by: gorb   2009-09-30 12:17  

#12   " It's a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally,"

What a clever way to kill the First Amendment.
Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091   2009-09-30 12:11  

#11  It's almost as if some people are...Bitter.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2009-09-30 10:35  

#10  well based off of historical trends, if anyone needs quick direct access to healthcare it's certainly the kennedy clan...
Posted by: Broadhead6   2009-09-30 10:01  

#9  Can we pass a law to keep the kennedys from ever speaking or reproducing ever again? Once waste of skin after another stealing my oxygen.
Posted by: DarthVader   2009-09-30 09:21  

#8  " It's a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally,"

Unless of course we happen to have empirical proof that you're just a worthless, drunken, drug-sodden s#1tbag...
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)   2009-09-30 09:16  

#7  "It's a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally"

However, union goons beating up people is okay.
Posted by: Pappy   2009-09-30 08:43  

#6  You guys just make my morning.

heh
Posted by: newc   2009-09-30 05:59  

#5  "Bury ObamaCare with Kennedy.

I suppose it would have been more palatable for the Kennedy Klan if the protesters had slogans that said, "Bury ObamaCare with Mary J. Kopechne".
Posted by: Jumbo Slinerong5015   2009-09-30 04:49  

#4  Last I checked, we are still allowed to say 'fire' in a theater that is on fire.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2009-09-30 01:29  

#3  Plan on assaulting someone Patrick?
Posted by: ed   2009-09-30 01:19  

#2  The best protection for public officials is to be responsive to their constituents.
Posted by: DoDo   2009-09-30 00:42  

#1  Chinese Proverb:

"Wealth does not pass three generations."

Not violent and your family is living proof.
Posted by: badanov   2009-09-30 00:28  

00:00