Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Before my time....What was "Putrid" about the 70's Dem. Party to Theresa?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Ronin1 Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 06:56 AM
Original message
Before my time....What was "Putrid" about the 70's Dem. Party to Theresa?
Edited on Tue Jul-27-04 07:03 AM by Ronin1
The "can't trust " Ted Kennedy quote is not flattering either.

Don't get me wrong....I like her....I just hope the staff can rein her in a bit.


http://news.bostonherald.com/dncConvention/view.bg?articleid=37308
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. She doesn't need reined in.
Nothing frightens a conservative more than a strong, outspoken, intelligent, articulate woman......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. She was married to a Repuglican senator at the time
don't forget. A political wife has the duty to back up whatever her husband says. John Heinz wasn't bad, as Repuglicans go, but he still had to fight Democrats tooth and nail on a lot of issues.

The Democrats in the 70s were a little closer to the working class base in policy, but had attracted enough young, socially progressive college kids that the stodgy establishment types (in both parties, actually) were alarmed. The War on Poverty had actually made a big difference, but conservatives were alarmed at its cost.

Perhaps seeing things through her husband's eyes (and he was the politician, the "expert")caused those remarks.

I don't know about many people on these boards, but I would hate to have somebody repeating back to me the things that came out of my mouth 28 years ago. It would be like confronting a young, annoying and disreputable relative. I'm willing to cut the poor woman a little slack over her statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. different times

A lot more of the Democratic Party then was based in the ethnic divisions- in ethnic political power/'machines'. A lot of Northern Democratic politicians represented industrial cities, which meant that they were completely dependent on less-than-clean unions controlling tepid blue collar support, and that meant government contracts and such. A good amount of what fellows like Dan Rostenkowski did was fairly reasonable for their rough-and-tumble times (e.g Sixties and early Seventies), but they outlived them and didn't realize it.

Southern Democrats...basically, they were on the whole a bunch more what we would classify as Republican, by today's standards, than e.g. the current batch of Republican Senators from New England is or Arlen Spector. The hypocrisies and doubletalk the latter bunch put on the national stage were pretty unbearable- anybody remember Mr Military, Sam Nunn? Most of them retired or lost elections between 1988 and 1994.

Don't forget that THK was still just getting the picture on what really went on on and behind the American political stage. And in a book like that, take the excessive criticism of one side as disgust with the whole arena- with the things on the Republican side she couldn't get into a book of the kind. That Party was just purging itself (it imagined) of Nixon and the President-As-King Style but just starting to lard up to the gills on racism-based and Christian Right-based and New York CEO money-based power and politicians at that time.

In short, the Democratic response to this 1970's race-to-the-moral-bottom (which was to compete at it) was pretty disgusting and served the Democratic politician class better than their constituents, THK is perfectly right. But it was the only way to keep some serious measure of power out of the Right's hands, to restrain the abuses and manias and lowest common denominator behavior somewhat.

The shot at Ted Kennedy has to do with the Chappaquiddick affair being just a short time ago in 1972. Joan Kennedy started getting arrested for a continuous slew of DUIs in the late '70s and early '80s, and I think the story is that they divorced and she vanished into rehab and life outside the public eye. (Ted found what was considered an amazingly good new match in Victoria Reggie, though, fairly quickly.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. Not sure, but didn't we control the House and Senate?
Probably had heavy-handed Congressional leadership at that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh, and don't overlook the fact that local Pennsylvainia
politics may have had a sordid underbelly.

With the steel mills there, who knows what things were like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wishlist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Ted Kennedy avoided or refused to shake hands with Jimmy Carter
in 1976- there was some resentment of Carter winning the nomination. One of the networks last night showed a retrospective of problems during past conventions and included an incident where Kennedy snubbed Carter by not shaking his hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC