Patrick Kennedy Brings An End To A Dynasty

Next January will mark the first time in 64 years that there has not been a Kennedy in federal office. With Patrick Kennedy’s departure from Congress, a political dynasty comes to an end. But at 42, Patrick Kennedy will have his first chance to discover who he is beyond that famous name. “This is the first step toward personal liberation for him,” says Darrell West, the director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution and the author of a 2001 biography of the Rhode Island Congressman.

In retrospect, I think I should have figured out that something like this was in the works when I ran into Patrick Kennedy a few months back at a Capitol Hill restaurant. We talked a bit about Ted Kennedy’s funeral, and then he began to describe how he was struggling with the loss. It wasn’t getting easier, he said. He felt lonely in Washington in the absence of his father and mentor. He had tried hard to convince his cousin Joe to run for the Massachusetts Senate seat that had been held for so long by Kennedys. The weight of that political legacy was a burden he hadn’t expected–or wanted–to bear alone. As Patrick told Rhode Island magazine: “It’s pretty simple in this respect: I went through something that caused me a great deal of soul searching and self-reflection. Right now, a personal life is of greater value. Emotional connections that are real and loving and personal just trump everything else.”

He was a college sophomore the first time he ran for office; only 26 the first time an television interviewer asked him whether he would like to run for President. (He answered yes.) His father made no secret of his hope that someday Patrick would serve beside him in the Senate, as his brother Bobby once had. And yet, even though the Kennedy name had propelled Patrick, he never seemed to wear it with the ease of the earlier generation. Speechmaking still terrified him when he came to Congress in 1995. House colleagues recall they could see his hands shaking across the chamber. And he had to wage his struggles with mental illness and substance abuse in public, where they only seemed to confirm his family’s darker storylines.

This would not have been an easy re-election for him. A recent poll had showed him with 62% disapproval among Rhode Island voters, and only 35% saying they would vote for him again. But West notes that Patrick had already raised more than three-quarters of a million for his campaign coffers, and says, “I think he would have won.”

But what would he have lost? Perhaps his last chance to discover who Patrick Kennedy really is.

Related Topics: kennedy dynasty, patrick kennedy, ted kennedy, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • http://fourlegsrgood.wordpress.com fourlegsgood

    It can’t be easy to live with a famous name and the expectations that go with it.

    I wish him well in private life.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks, KT. This is reading tea leaves, of course, but in ’12 or ’16 do you see a second wave of Kennedy’s with Patrick’s return, Joe, Caroline, and younger ones? Or is the whole family simply burned out for awhile? Beyond personal loss of Ted, did Ted carry so much of the political / media burden on his shoulders that his passing really hit the entire family hard?

  • afguy

    Beyond personal loss of Ted, did Ted carry so much of the political / media burden on his shoulders that his passing really hit the entire family hard?
    .
    Last of the sons, three of the four died violent deaths? I can see that happening…
    .
    There are a lot of Kennedy haters where I go to church (and here too, obviously). But John was the last President to appeal directly to our sense of service to country. I think Bobby would have too, but…
    .
    With the discontinuance of the draft, and continuing with Reagan’s election campaign, everyone and everything politically has pretty well appealed to the “what’s in it for ME” side of our psychology.
    .
    We’re paying for that now as a nation…

  • doug2178

    I’m a RIer. Honestly, Patrick never seemed to enjoy serving. I never understood why he kept getting elected. Maybe because Rhode Islanders could say that he was “our Kennedy”. He certainly came across as a good dude, but I don’t think many in his constituency knew much about him except for the accident and the depression. I wish him well.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Patrick never seemed to enjoy serving”
    .
    That’s an interesting observation. From a distance I had that sense too.

  • tharwatfawzi

    As someone who has been most fortunate and grateful to have had the crucial support of
    Senator Ted Kennedy for many many years – against crimes against humanity and violation of human rights – we all pray for the continued success of
    Rep Patrick Kennedy – and we are all confident that he will continue the fight for the same noble human values that Sen Kennedy championed and with the same determination.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Me too. Or rather, I never got the sense he enjoyed politics. BTW, here’s what I wrote about his first race, in a 2001 cover story I did on the next generation kennedys:
    .
    For a decade, Patrick Kennedy’s career was set on fast forward. He had lived in Rhode Island just a year and was only a college sophomore when he decided to take on a 10-year incumbent for the state legislature in 1988. “Who’s Patrick Kennedy?” Jack Skeffington asked when he heard about his upstart primary opponent. “Is it a big deal?”
    .
    A very big deal, as it turned out. Ted detailed a top staff member to the campaign and called nearly every day to urge his son to work harder. Patrick knocked on 3,000 doors and spent an unheard-of $93,000–$73 for every vote he got–to win a $300-a-year job. On Election Day, Ted, Joan and John Jr. stationed themselves at polling places with hired photographers and Polaroid cameras, posing for souvenir snapshots with voters. Even Skeffington’s campaign manager had one taken. Patrick won in a landslide, and on election night Ted phoned Jackie and Rose to announce that it had been his “happiest election.”

    .
    Here’s a link to the story:
    .
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000507-1,00.html

  • tharwatfawzi

    As someone who has been most fortunate and grateful to have had the crucial support of
    Senator Ted Kennedy for many many years – against crimes against humanity and violation of human rights – I, with all in the world caring about human dignity and human values , pray for the continued success of
    Rep Patrick Kennedy in whatever he chooses to pursue – and we are all confident that he will continue the fight for the same noble human values that
    Sen Kennedy championed and with the same determination.

  • michaelfury

    “What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children – not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women – not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”

    - John F. Kennedy

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/he-who-controls-the-past/

  • nflfoghorn

    Who’s going to be the Kennedy of the United States now? (my take on an old Pfieffer cartoon with Kissinger :) )

  • http://fourlegsrgood.wordpress.com fourlegsgood

    Family expectations can be terrible. I can’t imagine what it would be like to live under the expectations of the Kennedy name. And who’d want to disappoint a loving, supportive father like Teddy Kennedy? It has to be a relief for Patrick to lay down that burden.

  • afguy

    Nah, randomkirk has already declared this “Camelot” stuff to be passe’ in a previous thread.
    .
    This “idealism” stuff had its time but that’s gone now…
    .
    Better to get down to what’s important these days, namely looking out for No. 1 and gouging or killing your fellow human beings.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    That “Camelot stuff” produced the Bay of Pigs (I know, planned under Eisenhower, but approved under Kennedy, a new, inexperienced President elected duringhis first term as a U.S. Senator…hmmm, sounds familiar) and an escalation of the presence of our troops, involving us deeper into the Vietnam conflict .
    .
    I get that high-flying rhetoric inspired people, again…sounds familiar, but if the judgment and actions don’t measure up, it wasn’t a particularly accomplished Presidency. To me, what we are living through today is deja vu all over again.

  • apollyon07

    randomkirk, I agree with that assertion to an extent but I think it’s unfair to say that about JFK since he didn’t get much of a chance to serve as president. Some things he did I agree with, like cutting the top tax rate down from a ridiculous 90% rate (yeah liberals, he was the first modern supply-sider). The Bay of Pigs was obviously a disaster and much of it was his fault (no air cover despite it being promised for one thing). It’s a mixed bag for me.

  • apr2563

    A few of the Kennedy family philanthropies:
    Citizens’ for Energy
    Kennedy Center
    Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservatory
    Physicians Against Land Mines
    Special Olympics
    Reaching Up
    River Rescue
    Best Buddies
    RFK Center for Human Rights
    No family as large as the Kennedys can avoid some bad behavior. However, many family members have spent their time trying to do good. They could have sat back on their inheiritance and enjoyed the good life with no effort. Many chose to do some form of public service.
    This does not account for all of the legislation Ted Kennedy fostered that has assisted millions.

  • formerlyjames

    The contrast between the Kennedy myth and the Kennedy reality isn’t glaring, it is blinding to all but the devotees, which is pretty much everybody left of the right wing. The Kennedys eat their young. Go down the line and check out the “Kennedy Curse”, which is actually mindless self-destructive behavior. If John Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs from Eisenhower (doubtful that Eisenhower would have followed through, and if so, that it would have been such a disaster), it was nothing compared to LBJ inheritance of the Kennedy “Best and Brightest”, and Viet Nam.
    .
    I wish Patrick Kennedy the best and hope for a long productive life. It’s tough being a Kennedy, and the money don’t help much.

  • afguy

    random, (and formerlyjames)
    .
    The Bay of Pigs was unquestionably a fiasco, the result of his listening too well to those ex-patriat -Cubans who wanted to take Cuba back from Castro. (Aren’t those the same types who are rabidly pro-GOP, pro-war today?)
    .
    I DO wonder what the dynamic would have been between LeMay and Ike, two WWII vets. Would Ike have taken LeMay’s advice and attacked with a limited strike to take out the missiles? Interviews since have proven that the Soviets were prepared to go to war if that happened. LeMay was a GREAT SAC commander but peacemaking wasn’t in his nature.
    .
    I know about JFK’s womanizing but, back then, we didn’t tear down the opponents as we do today. He WAS protected by the press and even his political opponents liked him. Also, the pressers were fun to watch. Helen Thomas was part of the press corps then.
    .
    Oh, and lest we forget, the Kennedys let a great mark on the architecture of Washington DC. They standardized the general design for new buildings in the city, so they would have the same theme and fit together visually.
    .
    Maybe, for some, Obama evokes the same inspiration – not for me.
    .
    The Kennedy’s came from a different time when people of prominence tried to find ways to serve, NOT try get out of same. Ted Williams, Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, Eddie Albert and a number of others served in WWII and the Korean War. You can call it reckless and self-destructive or a sincere dedication to the nation.
    .
    But you can’t say they hid from the danger or took the easy way out.

  • afguy

    I had another thought.
    .
    We always seem to need an enemy or adversary to motivate us.
    .
    Lacking the statement of a clear national technological goal, as JFK did with the space program, maybe the best thing wfor us is for the Chinese to overtake us as the leaders in space technology.
    .
    Then we might get off the dime, stop waiting on SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE to develop the next generation technologies so we can be the venture capitalists for the project, and do the work needed to do it ourselves.
    .
    We were at our best when we had the Soviet Union to “push” us. Since then, it’s fairly obvious, we’ve tended to live down (or up) to the technological level of our enemies.
    .
    A bunch of desert dwellers doesn’t stir the blood very much.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    My main point in entering this discussion was to get some critical thinking on the table about the Kennedy legacy. Yes, the Kennedy family has done many nice things, but so have others, and many without the fanfare and adulation that always seems to attend the Kennedys.
    .
    JFK didn’t live long enough, to be sure. That is unfortunate, but the fact remains his presidency wasn’t nearly as accomplished as his worshipers would have us believe. Unrealized potential is unrealized potential.
    .
    Truth be told, I believe Bobby could have become one of our greatest Presidents, had he lived. I’m sorry to say, regardless of the many good things Teddy may have accomplished, for me his legacy will always remain at the Chappaquidich bridge.
    .
    That we may finally have gotten past the “royal family” treatment afforded this clan should be celebrated, especially by the grandchildren who have inherited this media-driven “legacy”.

  • apr2563

    former, I have never been a great fan of JFK. As a Catholic at the time he was elected, I was thrilled we were able to put that prejudice aside. As a college student too young to vote at the time, I did take to heart and was inspired by his youth and call to service.
    He was a hawk and made the terrible mistake of increasing the number advisors to Vietnam and getting us too involved. I admired that he took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs. I was thrilled by his call to journey to the moon.
    I am not sure he would have accomplished much legislatively. LBJ is the one who put through Civil Rights acts and the legislation for the War on Poverty.
    He did wonderful things for the oppressed and poor.
    But, Vietnam was an abomination.
    As for the Kennedy failings, they were plentiful. I recently finished Ted Kennedy’s memoir. He left out many of the least noble of his families actions. I am from the left but never was blinded by the Kennedy myth as you suggest. But, I don’t see how we can look
    at any Party as the arbitor of morality.
    I try to the whole of a career or a life, balance the good and the bad. My opinion is that the Kennedy legacy balances to the good.

  • formerlyjames

    afguy and randomkirk, I embrace the discourse, and appreciate your views, especially randomkirk, who for all I know may be an anti-liberal tea bag. But my agreement, as a liberal (very leftist liberal) is that the Kennedy myth is just that. A myth. In my opinion, Joe Kennedy was a despicable person. His wife was a nut case as was Bobby Kennedy’s. John’s presidency caused more harm than good. Civil rights? Not a concern until much later when the racists in the south went ballistic. LBJ had to sit on his hands and be ignored, after having been the main man in Congress and having fought for civil rights since the ’40s.
    .
    The Kennedy myth is a myth. I believed it until I became an adult and found the shallowness of it all. I remember distinctly the assassination and the effect on the country. Camelot blasted off after that. Now we know better. It was all a fraud.
    .
    I still wish Patrick and all of the Kennedys well. They can’t help and are the victims of their psychopath Joe and Rose.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    formerlyjames- At the risk of revealing too much about myself, I am a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, athiest, Republican…conflicted about abortion rights AND gun rights. Not sure if that makes me anti-liberal, or not. I’ve never been to a Tea Party, but have been interested in the phenomenon.
    .
    Your feelings toward the Kennedys are probably even more harsh than my own, but certainly are founded in clear-eyed perception.

  • afguy

    True enough, random. Nixon was the one that spoke to the astronauts as they walked on the moon… but he didn’t start the process and he wasn’t the driving spirit behind it. Watch any documentary on Apollo and listen to the mission managers. It was personal to them after JFK died. The engineers I knew would, I’m sure, have worked for meal money just to be a part of that adventure.
    .
    LBJ signed Civil Rights legislation into law but I think it was probably Bobby that started the inspirational ball rolling. The speech he gave after the assassination of MLK avoided a LOT of bloodshed and turmoil, IMHO, and it was totally off-the-cuff but heartfelt. LBJ used the memories others had to get the legislation though.
    .
    I do not have the opinion of Teddy as others, either for or against. I do believe that Jacqueline was a class act who brought up a couple of pretty normal kids, considering the fishbowl they had to grow up in.
    .
    I had this conversation with someone where I go to church about JFK and he fairly spat at the mention of the name, bringing up his womanizing. But he did get the point about the ability to motivate the country as a whole.
    .
    I do not have a monument to the Kennedys anywhere in or around my house. My point has always been that the country was moved to work together a whole lot more during that time than it has at any time since.
    .
    I doubt that we could do another Moon Landing program right now. We glorify the individual and the entrepeneur too much to develop a cohesive team like that. Everyone would want to be in charge – no one would be willling to play second fiddle for the greater good.

  • formerlyjames

    apr2563, I have no problem with what you say. It is all true. JFK was a movie star figure, his beautiful, cultured wife a diamond. The Catholic religion question was maybe not so unreasonable considering that W was elected largely on religious devotion of the fundamentalist variety. In fact, we know now that JFK was pretty much an immoral creature and religion was the last thing on his mind. W on the other hand at least in practice was truly devout and it caused nothing but harm and divisiveness in our country.
    .
    I guess the bottom line is that JFK was a fraud, and W was authentic. And they both were bad news for our country. Go figure.

  • formerlyjames

    random, you have revealed just enough of yourself for me to say that you are a man, or woman, as the case may be, after my own heart.
    .
    afguy, I have no problem with what you say with the exception of civil rights legislation. Check out LBJ’s history in civil rights legislation. To say that he only signed the bills and it was all Robert Kennedy is just not even in the ball park. The Kennedy contribution to civil rights is nothing, pales in comparison to LBJ. Please look it up. It is all over the place.

  • afguy

    formerlyjames,
    .
    Agree that Joseph Kennedy was rather unsavory – a number of those from that period were (Prescott Bush comes to mind too). But there were also a LOT of public figures who did put their careers on hold to serve the country.
    .
    Ted Williams, Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, and a host of other Hollywood and sports stars served, not just in a support role, but in harm’s way.
    .
    Ted Williams flew fighters in the Korean War with John Glenn. Clark Gable was too old to be drafted but enlisted as a door gunner on B-24s. A lot of the Yankees infield was in the Navy. Jimmy Stewart flew as a wing commander in bombing raids over Germany. JFK served in PTs. Eddie Albert drove landing craft. The Gipper made motivational movies for the country.
    .
    Does ANYONE see any possibility of a Wall Street fund manager putting his career (and 8-figure salary) on hold to go to Iraq to serve in a rifle platoon? I can’t.
    .
    But the Kennedy kids did accomplish a lot. Special Olympics was NOT a myth, formerlyjames, nor the Peace Corps. The kids were taught that they were to do something worthwhile with their lives. Right now, I would say that the over-riding challenge many of us are given is to make a fortune as quickly as possible.
    .
    Name me another politician after Kennedy who has even made the attempt to get us as a country to live up to our “better angels”.
    .
    I do feel like we’re a better nation than we are showing right now, but we do need someone like FDR to tell us that we need to stop being afraid of being afraid.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    afguy-You really like the space program, don’t you? I agree the moon landing was one of our finest hours. I also agree that not enough people in our country today put enough emphasis on personal service. That being said, I believe the Obama movement and the Tea Party movement actually share that emphasis and with their ability to mobilize a significant number of people, that feeling might be reborn.
    .
    Don’t forget, too, the aftermath of 9/11 and the swelling of patriotic feeling and volunteerism (including military service) that swept over the country. We can disagree on what followed, (and I do think it was not handled as well as it could have been) but I was reminded of the stories I heard about the mood of the country after Pearl Harbor and thinking to myself that perhaps we were seeing a rebirth of the “Greatest Generation”.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    To be fair, the Kennedy children could do their good because Joe Sr. did the equivalent of what those rapacious Wall Street insiders are doing today. Now, whether today’s Joe Kennedys will “urge” their progeny to service is an open question.

  • formerlyjames

    afguy and random, I have more to say but won’t. You are good people. Thanks.

  • afguy

    To say that he only signed the bills and it was all Robert Kennedy is just not even in the ball park. The Kennedy contribution to civil rights is nothing, pales in comparison to LBJ.
    .
    No, formerlyjames, you misunderstood what I said. LBJ signed the legislation but Bobby Kennedy did have a special attraction to minorities.
    .
    When the train carrying his body was en-route, there are photos of blacks lining the route to pay tribute. LBJ, consumate pol that he was, used the emotions of the time to get the legislation through. Earlier, it would not have happened. And LBJ was a world-class arm-twister too. Wish we had him around today.
    .
    I’m not trying to give the Kennedys any more credit than they are due. But they did (or were instrumental in) accomplish quite a bit.
    .
    They’re not angels by any stretch, but they’re not the scum of the earth either.

  • apr2563

    afguy: I’m not sure how we got so invested in a discussion of the Kennedy legacy. My point was they were not or are not saints, and as a liberal I did not buy the myth. That myth did inspire some good.
    I disagree about how liberal the Kennedys were.
    JFK was a cold warrior, as were many WWII vets, including many in my family. If you remember, Bobby was a compadre of McCarthy and a big commie and union fighter. And of course, everone knows Joe Kennedy was a dispicable man. FDR had no regard for him.
    When Bobby ran for President, I was angry believing he came late to the game after Eugene McCarthy drove Johnson out of running for reelection.
    LBJ is the person who got through the legislation that brought us the Civil Right acts and war on poverty. Someone here mentioned that he did that by following Bobby’s leadership. LBJ, a southerner had been fighting for those issues long before Bobby. Remember, JFK had to be forced to call King at the Birmingham jail. He knew Hoover was taping MLK.
    As you can see, unlike many on the right who see Reagan as infallible, I think I have a reliable view of the Kennedys.
    Nevertheless, I think RFK did have some epiphany after JFK was assasinated. His speech after MLK was killed was beautiful. I think he and Teddy began to believe the myth. All to the better. Teddy brought us some of the most progressive legislation for 40 years.
    What the myth did was to inspire a generation. It sent many off to the Peace Corps and many off to march for Civil Rights. It allowed us to support a crazy space program. It made us take a look at intolerance and poverty. Nixon or Reagan did not inspire what you might call idealism. I am glad we had the inspiration.

  • afguy

    random and formerlyjames,
    .
    The conversation has been a pleasure. Every once in a great while, I get involved in one of these. Wish the rest of the political landscape could communicate as well or as civilly.
    .
    Have a great evening, both of you.

  • afguy

    Exactly why the Founding Fathers thought that it was probably a good idea to keep religious philosophy out of the official workings of government.
    .
    Doesn’t matter whether or not the intentions are good or not, the result is often bad. We can live the principles and treat others as we should and have a perfectly functional government.

  • apr2563

    W was authentic???? I am speechless!!!

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    formerlyjames & afguy- Likewise. ‘Til we meet again.

  • afguy

    Religious wars in Ireland and the Inquisition in Spain were recent memories when this country was formed, as was the persecution of the Quakers in Europe.
    .
    Think the Founding fathers didn’t have events like that in mind when they wrote the Constitution and created this little democracy?

  • afguy

    I didn’t mean to forget you, apr2563.
    .
    You got my point. We need someone to inspire more than an little idealsm in this country right now. John Kennedy, with ALL of his faults and the family “baggage”, did just that, as did Bobby (and I do know of his faults, too).
    .
    We need someone to remind us that we are more than just a collection of money-grubbing SOBs. It’s been too long since that’s happened. If anything, we have too many people and cable shows that do little except reinforce that position.

  • http://www.xanga.com/Amythist_Malaise sheila0405

    There should be no dynasties in American politics. Here’s hoping for a clean sweep & a return to citizens who serve in Congress for a time & then go back home again. Term limits is an idea which should be re-explored.

  • http://www.xanga.com/Amythist_Malaise sheila0405

    I hope Patrick Kennedy finds some happiness, too. “Our Kennedy”? Isn’t that really an amazing concept, that any family would have a lock on Congress simply because of their last name?

  • formerlyjames

    apr2563, yes authentic. W was what he said he was and we have no evidence to the contrary. He said that he believed that the greatest philosopher was Jesus Christ. JFK was not what he presented himself to be. The fact that the right wingers on the Supreme Court prostituted themselves and installed W doesn’t have anything to do with him, other than as beneficiary of whores. His alignment with the neocons is fully in keeping with the religious dogma he professed. Yes, he was authentic as far as is known. What is known now about JFK is not suitable for family consumption. I am not a fan of W, nor of the Kennedys as is apparent. But I see both for what they are.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    Nooooo…term limits are a HORRENDOUS idea! When you have term limits, just about the time an elected gets the place figured out, they’re gone! California has term limits and it has been an unmitigated disaster. The revolving door in the legislature has ensured that the only people who have continuity and institutional memory are the (unelected) staffers who stay on to serve the next elected in the chair. Guess who is really running the show?
    .
    How about this for a radical idea: Congress (both houses) conducts its business with the electeds actually living and working in their home districts/states. Sessions where all must meet in chambers are confined to one week per quarter. In this age of teleconferences, internet communications, etc., that shouldn’t be that difficult. Makes it kind of difficult for special interests to buttonhole everyone when they’re scattered all over the country. At the same time, the electeds get to spend more “quality time” with the constituents they’re supposed to represent, rather than breathing in the unhealthy Washington political air.

  • apr2563

    former: W came from a patrician family with ties going back decades to dictators, the mose recently being those in Saudi Arabia. He was a product of preppy schools and the Ivy League, New England born and bred. While daddy was in Congress, head of the CIA, and VP, W spent his time taking advantage of his connections. Daddy kept him safe from Vietnam. Like all of the other sons (his brothers make Billy Carter and Clinton’s brother look like saints) in the family, Daddy used his middle eastern friends to help W in business. When daddy moved to Texas, W suddenly became a cowboy and gained a Texas drawl.He ran for Congress and lost. He ran his oil business provided by “friends” into the ditch. His baseball ownership was a gift he shortly dumped to make a hefty profit. Rove than decided Junior would make a great Governor. Well, he wasn’t but he was set up to run for President.
    Now tell me, other than declaring himself a born again, what church did he regularly attend. I have no doubt he was sincere in his religious beliefs, that was what made him scary.
    That ranch that he obtained for the photops. Did you ever see a cow, a steer, a horse, a chicken? The President of Mexico said Bush was uncomfortable around horses. All he did was go to the ranch and chain saw the same bushes to show how manly he was. At least Reagan used an ax and chopped some wood. Did you notice how quickly he dumped the ranch after leaving the Presidency?
    Even his picture on the flight deck was phony.
    Please read his and his families history before you decide he is authentic.

  • apr2563

    shiela: If you remember term limits were part of the Republican proposals in their takeover in 94. When they actually got power, not so much.
    And random is right, CA has term limits and they are a disaster. All pols do after being termed is run for another position: St Senator>Assemblyman>Mayor>Lt Governor, etc. There are plenty of state offices to fill.
    What they leave behind is there staffs who circulate in and out of lobby positions and who have the real power in the legislature. The pols are still raising money from special interests and there is no new blood.
    If a elected official is bad, he/she should not be reelected. The voters have that choice.
    Look what we got by impeaching Davis. Arnold is as in hock to Special Interests as the rest. Our state is in a financial mess.
    Nothing will get better until we have real campaign finance reform and get people elected who are not beholden to special interests of any kind, even the ones I might support. The polilticians need to be voting based on what is best for their constituents and the country.

blog comments powered by Disqus