Kennedy is Early Favorite in UMass-Herald Poll
Kennedy was favored two to one over Republican Sean Bielat in a UMass Lowell-Boston Herald Poll.
Photos
Although Joseph Kennedy III has not officially announced his candidacy, a UMass Lowell-Boston Herald Poll shows the young politician is an early favorite in the race for the Fourth Congressional District seat.
According to a press release issued Thursday night, Kennedy leads two to one - 60 percent to 28 percent - over Republican Sean Bielat.
As the poll points out, Kennedy's early lead could, in part, come from his name -- roughly three out of four voters in the district said they viewed the Kennedy family "favorably" overall. Twenty-eight percent of those who took the poll said they are more likely to vote for him because of his name.
Comparatively, 15 percent of those voters said the Kennedy name makes them less likely to vote for a candidate and 56 percent said it doesn't make much difference.
Both Kennedy, 31, and Bielat, 36, are vying for the seat that will be vacated by Barney Frank, who announced in November his plans to retire at the end of the term.
Bielat, who ran against Frank in 2010, has returned to Massachusetts and announced his plans on Jan. 17 to once again run for the Fourth District.
Kennedy, who is the son of former Congressman Joseph Kennedy II, announced plans in January to form an exploratory committee to look at a possible run for the seat. He has since left his position as a Middlesex County prosecutor and moved from Cambridge to Brookline.
Along with Kennedy, Attleboro Democrat Paul Heroux, Sharon Democrat Marty Farren and Brookline Democrat Jules Levine have announced plans to run for the seat. Brookline Library Trustee and Patch columnist Michael Burnstein said this week he will form an exploratory committee to look at the seat.
Newton Democrat Herb Robinson made a decision to run early on, after leaving his campaign to run for U.S. Senate.
Brookline School Committee member and Republican Elizabeth Childs has also said she will run on the Republican ticket.
More statistics and information from the UMass Lowell-Boston Herald press release are below:
- While 73 percent of those polled view the Kennedy family favorably, 34 percent said they think the Kennedys have too much influence on Massachusetts politics. Forty-nine percent said the family has “about the right amount of influence” and 8 percent said they do not have enough influence.
- Close to a fifth of those who said Kennedy's family has too much influence would vote for Kennedy anyway.
- By self-described party identification, Democratic-leaning voters outnumbered Republican leaners 55 percent to 31 percent.
- Fifty-three percent of respondents in the poll expressed positive views of Frank, compared to 35 percent who were unfavorable and 6 percent who had no opinion.
- Kennedy’s overall favorability among those surveyed is 51 percent, compared to 17 percent unfavorable. Only 7 percent haven’t heard of him and the rest said they didn’t know enough about him to give an opinion.
- Fifty-five percent of respondents said they haven’t heard of Bielat, 13 percent viewed him favorably and another 13 percent see him unfavorably.
- The Fourth District survey also found extremely low name recognition for Elizabeth Childs, who is running against Bielat for the Republican nomination, and Paul Heroux, an announced Democratic hopeful; in both cases fewer than 10 percent of voters knew enough about those candidates to offer an opinion.
- The poll also tested overall views toward other political figures and found these favorable/unfavorable splits – President Barack Obama, 59 percent favorable/38 percent unfavorable; U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, 53 percent favorable/33 percent unfavorable; Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, 36 percent favorable/19 unfavorable (29 percent said they hadn’t heard of her); and Frank, 53 percent favorable/35 percent unfavorable. Those were within range statistically of results in a UMass Lowell-Boston Herald poll in December 2011 of registered voters across Massachusetts.
- Although Kennedy is 31 years old and has never held elected office, 48 percent of voters in the new congressional district said the former Middlesex County assistant district attorney has the kind of experience to serve effectively in Congress; 22 percent said he does not.
- The survey attempted to measure possible voter confusion between Joseph Kennedy III and his father. When asked their overall opinion of the son, a quarter of respondents made a reference to or asked about the father. Poll interviewers, asked for an assessment at the end of each interview, estimated that 14 percent of respondents were confused about the difference between the younger and older Kennedy. However, the results of the poll indicate that any possible confusion does not hurt Joseph Kennedy III in voter preference.
Buck Farack
12:21 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Amazing, he's never run or held public office, he doesn't live in the area, no one knows a thing about him except his last name and yet he'll likely be our next Congresman. I don't want to hear people complaining about the government when they elect people like this.
Darren Major
7:04 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The guy who ran against Frank is a carpetbagger having left and now returning to run - shouldn't the same criticism apply - otherwise its kinda hypocritical :( to say what you are saying
Rich Kellogg
1:19 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Can you say "CARPETBAGGER"?
pablo
1:28 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Ten-hut...
There's an officer on deck.
And I don't mean Joseph Kennedy.
Dennis Naughton
9:36 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Oh please! Military shmilitary. Broaden your perspective at least a little.
Tisiphone
7:34 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
If your name wasn't Kennedy, you wouldn't even be here.
I have aways been amazed at the vainess of their use of power. The rest of us are restricted to 6 digits on a "vanity plate". If you ever saw Ted Kennedy's car, you might have counted the letters in KENNEDY.
Paul4Congress
8:40 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Let's have someone from the middle class, who knows the challenges of the middle class, knows how it is to stretch a dollar and the struggle of finding a job, represent the middle class.
Sean Bielat went to private school in NY and eventually made $150K a year. JK3 is a fine person but he went to private school (BB&N) at $30K a year for 13 years and will probably never know what it is like to live as middle class. Paul went to public school and then had to earn everything and has had to struggle to get the little he has.
Paul worked as a janitor after high school and then at a community YMCA for 7 years, in a jail and a prison and in Saudi Arabia. He started at community night school, earned good grades and worked his way up in college and took out debt to go to Harvard and the London School of Economics.
Paul never used connections to get a job, and knows what it is like to struggle to find a job and to pay bills. With Paul's education, he could have joined the 1% but he did not - he choose 11 years of public service. Paul is the middle class who wrote about public policy for free in news papers all over the 4th district because he cares about the issues and the district well before this campaign.
www.PaulForCongress2012.com
Gretchen Robinson
12:09 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Paul is the one working class person in this race. Yes, he had advantages, but had to work hard to get the excellent education he has. He made the most of the opportunities he's had. He is the one candidate I could vote for because he is the only one with a demonstrated commitment to evidence-based policy decisions and government that serves all people.
Fact Checker
12:11 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
I have read many of Paul's postings here on Patch and in The Sun Chronicle.
I do not question his level of schooling or his intelligence.
All of that being said, I believe him to have the potential to be one of the most damaging individuals, from a public service perspective, Attleboro, Bristol County, the Commonwealth or our country has ever seen.
Paul looks at numbers and statistics and derives his opinions. There is a great deal more to making informed decisions in the best interest of others than statistics. Statistics should be an aspect of the information gathering process, not the entire process.
Have you ever tried to pay a bill with a statistic? Put fuel in your car or heat your home with a statistic? People have real problems in the real world that most often are not found in Paul's statistics.
Lauding him for writing "about public policy for free in news papers all over the 4th district"? Are you serious? He knew he was running for office a long time ago and he wrote those pieces to get name recognition. Well, he achieved his goal and as a result, I can effectively remove him from ever getting my vote.
Gretchen Robinson
12:28 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Fact Checker: Please look again and don't mischaracterize someone who is just starting his campaign. You state your opinions as fact (That Paul wrote to gain name recognition, he knew all along he was running). Do you have proof of this?
If not, then this is your your assumption, made in hindsight.
Do you know what another person's intentions are? Do you read minds?
Please don't dismiss any candidate out of hand at this stage. I'm not dismissing Sean Bielat totally. I am willing to listen to what he says. But I have my 'crap detector' on high when it comes to Republican propaganda.
The republican party, with its utter hatred of Obama has moved SO far to the Right that if McCain were running for president in this cycle, he'd never get nominated. He'd have had to drop out long ago.
If
Fact Checker
5:42 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Well Gretchen, let's look at this. You question my statement regarding Paul's motive for publishing numerous pieces over a period of time immediately prior to announcing a run for office. I have no proof that his motive was name recognition, just adding 2+2 and coming up with 4. You have no more proof than I that his motive was something else. I believed that when I was writing my opinion people would read it as such. When I cite a matter of public record, I often refer to it as such, which in this case I did not.
When a supporter of Paul's makes the statement "Sean Bielat went to private school in NY and eventually made $150K a year", as an attempt to disenfranchise him to "middle class" voters, I take it as hypocritical. Harvard University is not a middle class institution, neither is the London School of Economics. Why is it a bad thing that Mr. Bielat was making $150k annually? Is that not what we aspire to do in this country? Attend school, obtain a job and maximize our earnings potential?
How can Paul represent the average taxpayer when he does not pay property taxes? He is not currently listed on the database for the City of Attleboro. Maybe he is a property owner in another community that I am unaware of.
Gretchen Robinson
12:33 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
okay. here's what bugs me: when we/politicians demonize someone. I just did it with Bielat above. I'm going to see if I can delete my posting above. I'm willing to do that if people in this discussion will look at this 5 minute video of political decency and of the one person with the courage to stand up and speak against the extreme craziness in politics in this time.
I"m willing to rethink my positions. Are you?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/06-6
Fact Checker
5:42 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Part 2:
Your point about having someone from the far right is well put. I think having someone from the far left is as equally destructive. We need representation from people who look at each issue on its merits and not from one side of the aisle or the other.
Show me a prolonged period of time when either side was 100% correct and I register for that party.
I based these statements and my previous comments upon my understanding of Paul's numerous writings. I feel as though they offer greater insight into his likely decision making process than a well honed piece of campaign literature or a brief sound bite. I encourage others to read his many postings and make their own decision. If they come to the same conclusion as I, fine. If enough people come to a different conclusion, then Paul will be elected and I will be proven wrong. I can guarantee you this, I have been wrong before and will be again.
Gretchen Robinson
6:26 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Fact Checker: you added 2+2 and coming up with garbage.
That's what happens when you make assumptions about someone's motivations. (For starters, Paul Heroux could not have known that Barney Frank was going to quit, so logically he couldn't have been writing articles to get elected to Congress).
Rather than logic and reason, and finding out the facts, you set yourself up as a one person assassination squad. That's what I did in an earlier post. I attacked Sean Bielat's candidacy on incomplete information and a personal dislike. So I did what I thought was the decent thing and deleted it. I want to contribute to a positive discussion in this forum.
Please don't take a dislike of someone, your personal animosity and present it as "fact." The part that's missing, is the "checking" --Check it out, man. Don't assume that every mah-vel-ous opinion that pops up in your big brain is capital T-Truth.
Fact Checker
7:53 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Oh Gretchen, you are amusing.
I wrote "He knew he was running for office a long time ago and he wrote those pieces to get name recognition". I did not write that he was running for congress. I believe Paul knew he would run for an office this year. You should read more carefully.
I wrote that I base my perception of Paul on his writings and ask others to read those writings and make up their own minds.
I realize that rational thought does not fit your argument, but it is you that should look more closely at what is written.
I do not tell people what they should think (as did you), I asked that they get more information and make their own decision.
I would be very much afraid if someone based one of their most treasured rights, who they vote for upon my comments, yours or any other person's comments. I ask only that people make an informed decision.
You obviously support Paul's effort. That is nice of you. I simply asked readers to review the many guest columns he has authored and his position pieces here on Patch. If you feel as though that lessens the chance of your candidate's success, well, they are his words, not mine.
Good night.
Paul4Congress
9:17 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Everything Paul has written (except his book on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East not yet published) can be found at: http://www.paulforcongress2012.com/press.html ... happy reading.
Gretchen Robinson
8:31 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
condescension, sneering--ah, what scintillating communication skills some of you guys have. Please explain to me why you won't use your real name. It destroys all your credibility.
Gretchen Robinson
9:10 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
hey, Fact Checker, Fact check this...
(sent in parts)
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/16/102-things-not-to-do/
102 Things NOT To Do If You Hate Taxes
So, you’re a Republican that hates taxes? Well, since you do not like taxes or government, please kindly do the following.
1. Do not use Medicare.
2. Do not use Social Security
3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.
4. Do not ask the National Guard to help you after a disaster.
5. Do not call 911 when you get hurt.
6. Do not call the police to stop intruders in your home.
7. Do not summon the fire department to save your burning home.
8. Do not drive on any paved road, highway, and interstate or drive on any bridge.
9. Do not use public restrooms.
10. Do not send your kids to public schools.
11. Do not put your trash out for city garbage collectors.
12. Do not live in areas with clean air.
13. Do not drink clean water.
14. Do not visit National Parks.
15. Do not visit public museums, zoos, and monuments.
16. Do not eat or use FDA inspected food and medicines.
17. Do not bring your kids to public playgrounds.
18. Do not walk or run on sidewalks.
19. Do not use public recreational facilities such as basketball and tennis courts.
20. Do not seek shelter facilities or food in soup kitchens when you are homeless and hungry.
Gretchen Robinson
9:07 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
21. Do not apply for educational or job training assistance when you lose your job.
22. Do not apply for food stamps when you can’t feed your children.
23. Do not use the judiciary system for any reason.
24. Do not ask for an attorney when you are arrested and do not ask for one to be assigned to you by the court.
25. Do not apply for any Pell Grants.
26. Do not use cures that were discovered by labs using federal dollars.
27. Do not fly on federally regulated airplanes.
28. Do not use any product that can trace its development back to NASA.
29. Do not watch the weather provided by the National Weather Service.
30. Do not listen to severe weather warnings from the National Weather Service.
31. Do not listen to tsunami, hurricane, or earthquake alert systems.
32. Do not apply for federal housing.
33. Do not use the internet, which was developed by the military.
34. Do not swim in clean rivers.
35. Do not allow your child to eat school lunches or breakfasts.
36. Do not ask for FEMA assistance when everything you own gets wiped out by disaster.
37. Do not ask the military to defend your life and home in the event of a foreign invasion.
38. Do not use your cell phone or home telephone.
39. Do not buy firearms that wouldn’t have been developed without the support of the US Government and military. That includes most of them.
40. Do not eat USDA inspected produce and meat.
Gretchen Robinson
9:08 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
41. Do not apply for government grants to start your own business.
42. Do not apply to win a government contract.
43. Do not buy any vehicle that has been inspected by government safety agencies.
44. Do not buy any product that is protected from poisons, toxins, etc…by the Consumer Protection Agency.
45. Do not save your money in a bank that is FDIC insured.
46. Do not use Veterans benefits or military health care.
47. Do not use the G.I. Bill to go to college.
48. Do not apply for unemployment benefits.
49. Do not use any electricity from companies regulated by the Department of Energy.
50. Do not live in homes that are built to code.
51. Do not run for public office. Politicians are paid with taxpayer dollars.
52. Do not ask for help from the FBI, S.W.A.T, the bomb squad, Homeland Security, State troopers, etc…
53. Do not apply for any government job whatsoever as all state and federal employees are paid with tax dollars.
54. Do not use public libraries.
55. Do not use the US Postal Service.
56. Do not visit the National Archives.
57. Do not visit Presidential Libraries.
58. Do not use airports that are secured by the federal government.
59. Do not apply for loans from any bank that is FDIC insured.
60. Do not ask the government to help you clean up after a tornado.
Gretchen Robinson
9:09 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
61. Do not ask the Department of Agriculture to provide a subsidy to help you run your farm.
62. Do not take walks in National Forests.
63. Do not ask for taxpayer dollars for your oil company.
64. Do not ask the federal government to bail your company out during recessions.
65. Do not seek medical care from places that use federal dollars.
66. Do not use Medicaid.
67. Do not use WIC.
68. Do not use electricity generated by Hoover Dam.
69. Do not use electricity or any service provided by the Tennessee Valley Authority.
70. Do not ask the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild levees when they break.
71. Do not let the Coast Guard save you from drowning when your boat capsizes at sea.
72. Do not ask the government to help evacuate you when all hell breaks loose in the country you are in.
73. Do not visit historic landmarks.
74. Do not visit fisheries.
75. Do not expect to see animals that are federally protected because of the Endangered Species List.
76. Do not expect plows to clear roads of snow and ice so your kids can go to school and so you can get to work.
77. Do not hunt or camp on federal land.
78. Do not work anywhere that has a safe workplace because of government regulations.
79. Do not use public transportation.
Gretchen Robinson
9:10 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
80. Do not drink water from public water fountains.
81. Do not whine when someone copies your work and sells it as their own. Government enforces copyright laws.
82. Do not expect to own your home, car, or boat. Government organizes and keeps all titles.
83. Do not expect convicted felons to remain off the streets.
84. Do not eat in restaurants that are regulated by food quality and safety standards.
85. Do not seek help from the US Embassy if you need assistance in a foreign nation.
86. Do not apply for a passport to travel outside of the United States.
87. Do not apply for a patent when you invent something.
88. Do not adopt a child through your local, state, or federal governments.
89.Do not use elevators that have been inspected by federal or state safety regulators.
Gretchen Robinson
9:11 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
90. Do not use any resource that was discovered by the USGS.
91. Do not ask for energy assistance from the government.
92. Do not move to any other developed nation, because the taxes are much higher.
93. Do not go to a beach that is kept clean by the state.
94. Do not use money printed by the US Treasury.
95. Do not complain when millions more illegal immigrants cross the border because there are no more border patrol agents.
96. Do not attend a state university.
97. Do not see any doctor that is licensed through the state.
98. Do not use any water from municipal water systems.
99. Do not complain when diseases and viruses, that were once fought around the globe by the US government and CDC, reach your house.
100. Do not work for any company that is required to pay its workers a livable wage, provide them sick days, vacation days, and benefits.
101. Do not expect to be able to vote on election days. Government provides voting booths, election day officials, and voting machines which are paid for with taxes.
102. Do not ride trains. The railroad was built with government financial assistance.
Tisiphone
8:08 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Although I might have missed something, I doubt if the items you list take up more than 10% of the Federal budget. Efficiency suggests that we should concentrate on the other 90%.
Fact Checker
8:49 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
WOW! I realize that it was raining yesterday and then the temperature dropped quite a bit but I thought Gretchen's Prius would have anti-lock brakes. You just skidded way out of control there and a few miles off the topic. You might want to stop in to New England Tire and have your vehicle checked out. 6 posts about taxes when the discussion was regarding Paul's published position pieces. I asked people to look into what your candidate offered in the form of lengthy position pieces so that individual voters could have a better insight into the likely decision making process of a person asking us to vote for him.
Mrs. Robinson, why are you so intimidated by a request that voters should look into the published opinions of your candidate or, for that matter, any and all candidates?
Paul4Congress
9:16 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Everything Paul has written (except his book on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East not yet published) can be found at: http://www.paulforcongress2012.com/press.html ... happy reading.
Gretchen Robinson
9:11 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
The fact is, we pay for the lifestyle we expect. Without taxes, our lifestyles would be totally different and much harder. America would be a third world country. The less we pay, the less we get in return. Americans pay less taxes today since 1958 and is ranked 32nd out of 34 of the top tax paying countries. Chile and Mexico are 33rd and 34th. The Republicans are lying when they say that we pay the highest taxes in the world and are only attacking taxes to reward corporations and the wealthy and to weaken our infrastructure and way of life. So next time you object to paying taxes or fight to abolish taxes for corporations and the wealthy, keep this quote in mind…
“I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization.” ~Oliver Wendell Holmes
Just sayin'
10:00 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
So your post today (Saturday) at 12:33 states in part "okay. here's what bugs me: when we/politicians demonize someone. I just did it with Bielat above." What have you done continuously since you made that post?
And as much as I hate to encourage this conversation going so off topic, the truth of the matter is that non-government organizations are more efficient and more effective reaching out and helping those in need. Less waste = more who need help receive help.
The UN even acknowledges this: http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/131ngo.htm
Admittedly what appears to be an opinion piece, but containing some interesting facts and stats: http://www.policymic.com/articles/2121/philanthropy-is-more-effective-than-u-s-foreign-aid
Just sayin'
10:04 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
This is a must read. Gretchen, I thank you. Your comment about taxes and rankings and lifestyle prompted me to find which countries pay the most/least in taxes and compare that to services, etc. I honestly and truly learned something.
http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/
Gretchen Robinson
10:17 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
thanks, Just saying.
As for your first post (10 PM), we all need to be looking for what works. "Government is best which governs least"--yes, but we need a safety net for the poor and elderly and children and those with disabilities, etc.
I like that you have taken the discussion beyond national borders. I support groups like Doctors without Borders. They have had a major commitment to places like Haiti even before the earthquake. NGO's have done phenomenal work. So maybe we can update the quote above: Government is best that develops public, private partnerships that work, are ethical, non-discriminatory, and benefit everyone.
The problem with US and First World aid, is that it doesn't get to the people who need it, starving in Africa, rape victims wherever, political prisoners, etc. I also support Amnesty International. Most people don't let themselves look at the awful stories and the terrible conditions. But that's not an adult way to be.
I'm glad you looked further and found something. I find things online that open my eyes and cause me to revise my opinion.
PBS is showing a program on a volunteer effort to save conjoined twins from India, taken in by a nurse in Australia. Riveting TV, life changing to watch. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/separating-twins.html
Thanks for businesspundit. Will check it out tomorrow. My husband and I watch Nightly Business Report so I do follow business news.
Tisiphone
8:03 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
"JK3 is a fine person but he went to private school (BB&N) at $30K a year for 13 years and will probably never know what it is like to live as middle class. "
My daughter did her 13 years there, such students are known as "lifers". Many of the students are quite middle class, if you live in Cambridge and care for your children at all, public schools are not an option.
I think BB&N topped out at 19K while he was there. While my daughter was there, they decided to drop several "units" of American history to make room for "units" of African history. Several parents, including myself, objected. We were warned that if "students were not supported at home,their grades might be degraded". I understood that they meant they would punish the children, "grades" are what it is all about. I could not recommned BB&N for "middle class" values.
Tisiphone
8:14 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Would love to know what the latest Pampered Kennedy - Joe 3.0 - thinks about JFK cheating on his wife in the White House with a teenage intern???
Gretchen, will you ask Joe 3.0 for us? We need to know his opinion on this before we go to the voting booths.
Gretchen Robinson
9:53 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
I am a married woman of 46 years. I am socially conservative for my own personal life. I never had sex before marriage. My husband and I never had sex outside of marriage. I am appalled by the news that JFK cheated on his wife, and betrayed the decency of his office. The woman may say it was consensual now but he targeted her, cultivated a relationship, seduced her, and had an immoral relationship with her. It violated his wedding vows.
I don't want to defend him by saying Everyone does it (every male potentate leader) in both parties. Read the bible. It's everywhere, harems, concubines.
But please don't smear Joe Kennedy from the outset. I withdrew my smear of Bielet because that's not how I want to be on this forum. Wait and see. I am probably as against oligarchy as anyone. But look to the national presidential candidate for instruction in this. All these wanna be princes of the kingdom and no one likes Romney but the others are real kooks. So along comes Palin and draft Christie movements, such utter desperation on the Right. Meanwhile ole Jeb Bush refuses to endorse anyone for the repub. nomination, waiting to be Bush III?
I'm 68 and a grandmother. I'm retiring from 6 years of hospice chaplaincy. And Tisiphone, I don't know who you are, because you hide behind a pen name. But I am not going to waste my time here responding to snide remarks, smears and putdowns. I have a good life to live. And life is too short for such prattle as I see here.
Tisiphone
3:34 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
"such utter desperation on the Right" It is true that the "right" is somewhat disconcerted. Faced with the liklihood that Romney will be the Republican candidate gives pause. It would seem that Mr. Romney speaks "conservative" as a second language. There is some concern that he is just saying what he must to get elected.
"please don't smear Joe Kennedy from the outset" He does seem to come from a family which lives outside of societal norms, that may be considered reason for enquiry. It also seems acceptable. I listened to NPR for a bit this morning. Three times commentators referred to Romney's great grandfather as a "polygamist". Well, at least as opposed to the Kennedys, he married them.
Just sayin'
3:40 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Huh? But, didn't...? Aren't...? Wha? Oh, nevermind.
So how about them Red Sox?
Gretchen Robinson
5:25 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
wonder what ole Barry Goldwater would say about this election....
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Goldwater.html
part 1
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."
While some Americans might find Goldwater's stand against all interaction between religion and politics too sweeping, many would agree with his strong commitment to individual freedom of conscience on issues as diverse as religion in schools, gay rights or abortion. In 1994 he told The Los Angeles Times, "A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
Gretchen Robinson
5:27 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Goldwater, an Episcopalian, had theological differences with greedy TV preachers. "I look at these religious television shows," he said, "and they are raising big money on God. One million, three million, five million – they brag about it. I don't believe in that. It's not a very religious thing to do."
But Goldwater was also deeply worried about the Religious Right's long-term impact on his beloved GOP. "If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet," he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, "they could do us in." In an interview with The Post that same year, Goldwater observed, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Gretchen Robinson
5:31 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
But most importantly, Goldwater was deeply concerned about the Religious Right's relentless war on the Constitution and basic American freedoms. In a Sept. 15, 1981 senate speech, Goldwater noted that Falwell's Moral Majority, anti-abortion groups and other Religious Right outfits were sometimes referred to in the press as the "New Right" and the "New Conservatism."
Gretchen Robinson
5:31 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Responded Goldwater, "Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength." Insisted Goldwater, "Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. . . "
Gretchen Robinson
5:32 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
By maintaining the separation of church and state," he explained, "the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . . Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?" Goldwater concluded with a waming to the American people. "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others," { he said,} "unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now" { he insisted}. "To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic." from CHURCH & STATE July / August 1998
"In your heart, you know he's right."
"Church and State" magazine can be accessed at www.au.org
Tisiphone
6:13 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Gretchen, it is always well to remember that America is the product of Judeo-Christian culture and that is almost inextricably woven into our laws. It is not unreasonable to assume that, at many times, culture and religion will converge. As the country secularizes, there will also be more divergence.
The Constitution requires that Congress "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,". This does not necessarily interpret as "freedom from religion". The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. And is clearly means that the government shall not support, nor incorporate, a religion. A clearly American principle our Founders did not wish to replicate the "Church of England".
Since Mr. Goldwater's paternal family was Jewish, he probably exerienced anti-Semitism first hand. Understandably, he would not wish to see fundamentalist Christians becoming a branch of government. Interestingly, as far as I know, Massachusetts is the only state to have elected a priest to Congress. He lived at the Watergate Apartments during the "Watergate Crisis".
At the time Mr. Goldwater was a nominal Episcopalian, the Archbishop of Canterbury was the senior bishop of the Church of England and symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. So, I guess he had not escaped it completely.
Just sayin'
6:40 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Gretchen: ok - you lost me. Why the Barry Goldwater comment? What am I missing?
Tisi: I agree. Romney reminds me of Clinton in that he says what he thinks people want to hear.
Gretchen Robinson
8:02 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
separation of church and state, something the Religious and Political (the same thing these days) that the Right hate. Goldwater was a REAL Liberarian. Scary to me back then. I never would have voted for him. But he was true to his values and told it like it is. he caught the beginning of the evangelists taking over the government. It's just about complete now.
Tisiphone
9:00 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
"the evangelists taking over the government. It's just about complete now."
Can I assume that this is a guarded reference to Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Or is it Rev. Sharpton? Rev. Jesse Jackson? (Remember how he used the "priest - penitent" exclusion to have secret conversations with Clinton during the Lewinsky mess, knowing that he could not be required to testify)
Gretchen Robinson
9:03 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
the wrongs of a few marginal Black preachers arrayed against the Right wingers Barry Goldwater describes....surely you jest
Tisiphone
12:54 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
"surely you jest" The preachers I mentioned as no more "marginal" in the black community than Farwell was in the white community. Of course, they get much better press.
Gretchen Robinson
9:03 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
tizzy, I'm out of here. You wasted enough of my time....
Tisiphone
12:54 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Always a pleasure to hear from you.