From Sen. Ted Kennedy's keynote 1980 convention speech:
"Finally, we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. So I will continue to stand for a national health insurance. We must -- We must not surrender -- We must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. Let us insist on real controls over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth.
The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America."
Interesting how similar issues affect us now. Interesting also that here, Kennedy comes right out and says what today's Democrats are unwilling to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Jim,
I don't know what the political climate was like in 1980 because I would not be born until 82. However, I do know that there were no national news outlets (i.e. CNN,FOX,MSNBC), and there wasn't nearly as much ridiculous political commentary. Maybe in 1980 you could actually say what you meant without it being distorted or overly analyzed?
This isn't a knock on FOX News, but all news outlets. The prime example would be ESPN. When a baseball team loses 4 games in a row they have to over-analyze and ask "Whats wrong with Team X?". They then make up bogus claims on why this is happening. In 1980, I doubt this kind of thing happened.
Vince, very true. More time and space for information != better information.
Jim,
Have you seen the HBO doc "Teddy:In His Own Words"?
Before this I had no idea that Kennedy ran against then president Jimmy Carter for the dem. nomination in 1980. How many times does a sitting president actually get challenged in primaries?
They are always opposed by at least one person. Although typically it is fringe candidates. Buchanan (Bush I) was the last real challenger that I can remember.
Sorry, Vince, I haven't.
Reagan ran against Ford in the '76 primaries (and almost beat him?) But Rich is right in that Pitchfork Pat was the last guy to challenge a sitting president in '92.
Fundraising is probably the key gatekeeper these days-- the 200 or so top donors probably are the folks who can stop a primary challenger. I know there is talk of HRC v. Obama, but that's just troublemaking from the right.
Wasn't old enough to be around, but it seemed like the key bit with Kennedy is that with his speech, he made Carter look bad by comparison. Between that and Reagan, it was a bad year for him.
Reagan's landslides were unreal and maybe a little bit ahistorical by comparison (now that his last is ~25 years old.)
Not only are primary challenges to sitting presidents rare. One term presidency is also not very likely. I am pretty sure that HWBush lost re-election due to Perot and the fact that he signed off on a tax increase despite a read my lips pledge. Of course, he did so to lower the deficit but republicans then and now want it lowered through cutting programs (all but the military).
Thus, Vince it is very unlikely that Obama will be a one term president. Of course, it all depends on the economy in 2012 and whether his "hammer&sickle" tatoo is ever caught by paparazzi.
The primary reason Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter was Carter's refusal to support a national health care system. Just interesting to see that some things never change.
Jim, if you would like a copy of the documentary I would be happy to send you one. And yes, I acquired it legally.
whether his "hammer&sickle" tattoo is ever caught by paparazzi.
Don't listen to Rich -- he's just part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
The real story is that Obama is a CIA plant (why else would Mom be a world traveler, huh?), and he's in power simply to slow down the true forces of revolution against Goldman Sachs corporatist Amerikkka.
P.S. Thanks, Vince, but no, I'm not interested.
That being said, I'm pleased to hear that (as a future generator of IP) that you're respecting other people's IP as well.
hammer & sickle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlLM5lCNJg
Post a Comment