Kennedys Revisited

Don't get me wrong, I love the Kennedys, I surely do. But the Lord Almighty made no harder rock than the stone he gave conservatives to toss at the Kennedys. In the end their personal foibles, liberal arrogance and political pride might have done more harm than good to the progressive cause. Case in point: Was it a good thing to make Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 that much easier by challenging the Democratic Party's president, Jimmy Carter, and then humiliating him at his own convention?

More on Craig's blog: The Kennedy Magic / Carter: Ted 'Staunch, Honest, Open' / The Best Kennedy Legacy

Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford

Comments

[Winning09]

12:19 PM on 08/27/2009

Jeez, 97 whole words, what a piece.

Of nonsense.

[Craig Crawford]

01:36 PM on 08/27/2009

Really? I counted 99

[GTFOOH]

10:44 AM on 08/27/2009

There are times when I really don't know what to make of Crawfords comments. From his defense of Don Imus, to his infatuation with Hillary's run for President, he sometimes lets his personal preference get in the way of obivious facts. Not a good trait in someone who is suppose to be a professional reporter!

[Craig Crawford]

11:11 AM on 08/27/2009

Oh c'mon I didn't check out of the human race when I became a journalist. And I've been a commentator for a few years now, not a reporter.

[Allocator2008]

08:49 AM on 08/27/2009

Uh, yeah, it was a good thing, because the country was in shambles under Carter - unemployment, inflation, etc. It was Carter's failures that led to Reagan not the primary challenge Carter faced in 1980.

Besides it was the Kennedy delegates by and large that went for President Obama in 2008. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on whether you think Senator Clinton should have been nominated or not. But the point is, I'll bet if you did a study you'd find a lot of the Kennedy delegates in 80 were probably Obama delegates in 08, and even down into the level of the primary voters too. What do I mean by that? Labor and minorities were Kennedy voters in 80, and the same groups went for Obama in 08.

Kennedy's race in 80 was important because it established a dialectic in the Democratic primary process: the "establishment" candiate (Carter) versus the populist/upstart candidate (Kennedy). In 08 this dialectic was played out between the "establishment" candidate (Senator Clinton) and the "upstart" candidate (Senator Obama). In 80, the "establishment" candidate won narrowly, in 08 the "upstart" candidate won narrowly, Whether that is a "good thing" is just an issue of your opinion, but the 80 race was important due to dialectic precedent it set in the primary process.

[realpolitic]

08:18 AM on 08/27/2009

Who cares that conservatives caricatured Teddy Kennedy? They would caricature anyone at all that thinks beyond self-interest alone!

[Freesia2]

01:45 AM on 08/27/2009

All due respect Mr. Crawford - and you of course are totally free to write what you want - but is today the best day for this? The man's been gone for 26 hours and 11 minutes as I write this.

[Rescisco]

11:11 PM on 08/26/2009

For all of their "personal foibles, liberal arrogance and political pride" they will be remembered for the good they did and the hope they stirred long after the right wing exhausts its supply of hot air and primitive notions.

[MerhabaAbi]

10:59 AM on 08/27/2009

Sen. IKennedy always stood strong against the corporate machine. He understood that you cannot bargain with a thief, so he fought with gusto and courage. I think Mr. Crawford is wrong in his assessment that a strong leader like Senator Kennedy is bad for progress. It's much worse to compromise, then return to the table and give up more concessions time and time again in the interest of apperaing fair.

[guajiro]

10:52 PM on 08/26/2009

Couldn't disagree with you more Crawford. Franklin Delano Roosvelt (FDR) was President for four terms from 1933, inheriting the Great Depression until 1945 just a few weeks before victory was declared in World War 2. The liberal movement and many of FDR's appointees to the federal bench, which by the way were very Kennedy-esque in their outlook, made America the bedrock that it was all during the 50's until about the early 70's when these people began to die out. Without these liberal, Kennedy type politicians and federal appointees and judges who were the ones that created social security, created the 40 hour work week, created the weekend, created public education up from the 6th grade to the 12th grade, etc, the conservative/corporate movement started to take over and succeeded when Reagan became president. THAT, more than anything else, is what caused the conservative movement we have today where a person's vote is diluted by the money wealthy corporate owners throw at politicians and not by your stunted reasoning that the Kennedy aura led to the conservative movement.

[JerseyGirl4Obama]

11:03 PM on 08/26/2009

Great, great post.

[Dem02020]

09:20 PM on 08/26/2009

Not really the time place or context for truth.

That's sort of a wisdom appreciated by Undertakers, and by those who unfortunately do business with them.

[calluna]

08:01 PM on 08/26/2009

Kennedy did make himself a big, wide target for the opposition. I'm not sure you can lay the outcome of the 1980 elections too much on Kennedy. Stagflation, Iran, gas shortages....Carter's approval ratings were in the upper 20s well before the primaries. In some ways, Kennedy's performance on the primary trail was so lackluster, he made Carter look exciting by comparison.