From the Waterbury Republican-American

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., can be counted on to put the ultraliberal spin on the news of the day as he did last week when he explained why Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath disproportionately killed low-income people.

"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those who were impoverished died", he bellowed on Capitol Hill, while his yacht bobbed in the waters off Nantucket Sound and security guards kept watch at the Kennedy Compound in Hyannis Port, Mass.

But Sen. Kennedy's point is well taken. Something is amiss when fat cats with cars can escape with their lives while plain folk are condemned to watery graves. And, it's worse when authorities are slow to respond to such emergencies because those in a position to summon help waited too long to ask for it. Just ask Mary Jo Kopechne.

Well there you go, now that I know that then I now know that obviously everything the man says is completely wrong.
So Fraudman the only way you can attack his statements is to attack his character? I'm not saying the man is always right in what he says and does but if you want to discredit what he's saying then give me reasons why it's wrong, don't bring up Mary Jo everytime.

The truth is self-evident. Nothing more needs to be said. The man is an elitist hypocrit!

It speaks loudly about his character and his veracity! He is a pompous ass who tries to give the impression that he is a champion of the poor while living in royalty on his yacht and casting crumbs to those less fortunate!

Would the only way for him to be a legitimate voice for the less well-off be to give up his wealth? If so, then everyone in Congress would have to do the same or also be branded elitists (which of course is what a lot of Americans already think of them anyway). Most of them are pretty rich, too, and they sometimes claim to be champions of the poor or to care about folks with lesser income.

I don't think you have to give up all of your worldly possessions in order to show allegiance with the poor and to be taken seriously as their advocate.

At any rate, to apply the same mode of thinking (character is eternal and it's your destiny) to Bush--he used Daddy's connections to get himself out of harm's way in the military! We can never take him seriously as Commander in Chief because he hasn't earned the right and he expects others to fight and die for a cause, while he dodged his chance to do the same back in the day!

The amazing thing is the level of blind hatred towards Kennedy, which I suspect has very little to do with a car accident that long ago.

Fraudman, your whole partisan charade is very old. Regardless of what you view as Kennedy's hypocracy, which randomname pointed out turns out to be a bipartisan shoe which many feet can fit into, the reality of the situation is to judge what he actually does in Congress and with his influence to actually benefit the poor. If you were so concerned about the plight of the less fortunate instead of playing party games you would demand a more sensible economic policy from the majority in government which would include not cutting taxes that, effectively, only benefit the rich while supporting a war at the same time. (I have said before that I support the "war" effort now that we are there)

Ron makes a bit of a piont Fraudman. Are you concerned with trying to discredit Kennedy because he is a loud critic agaist the right? Or are you complaining because you are concerned about the poor and feel Kennedy isn't doing a good job for them?

The "I couldn't leave because I didn't have a car" excuse just doesn't cut it. There was plenty of mass transit to get out of the city before the hurricane hit. I don't know what the Louisiana National Guard was doing, but a large contingent of the OHIO Guard was in New Orleans with big old trucks moving people out of the path of the storm. They refused to leave. For far too many of them, it wasn't a couldn't it was a wouldn't.

BF- I'm sure that there were instances of people who wanted to take chances and wait it out. 2 points though: 1, where would many of these people go. They didn't have the money to stay anywhere. 2, had the infrastructure designed to hold back the Gulf and lake waters held or better yet been upgraded consistent with the wishes of the Corps of Eng and if FEMA was allowed to have the funds that went elsewhere (war and rich people's wallets) the situation could've been mitigated considerably. You don't know what these people's circumstances were. Sure stubborness resulted in loss of lives but I posit that they didn't have to be in such a situation to begin with.

Regarding GWB making the poor poorer:

Per Fox News: "Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.

In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money."

"However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements."

Really doesn't support that "the poor get poorer while the rich get richer" argument.

Sounds pretty partisan to me. Statistics are but a snapshot of reality and cloud the big picture Mark. When it comes to taking care of ALL Americans the best "statistics" to look at are empirical evidence. You are the first to point out the "argument" that you referenced. I never couched my point in those terms nor have I ever.

To me, you either have character or you are a character. Sen. Kennedy is a character in my opinion only concerned with himself.

Seriously Mark, I am confused. You make generalizations when I make distinctions. Could you explain what you are driving at?

The situation of NO being in a perilous position did not just occur within GWB's tenure, correct? Errors were made at every level of the government - EVERY LEVEL. There was a plan (I believe during Reagan's tenure) to prevent widespread damage from a cat 3 or 4 hurricane by allowing the excess water to enter Lake Ponchatraine (sp?), however, due to protection of the wetlands, this idea was canned.

My contention is that you are the one that makes many of the posts battles between right and left, Republicans and Democrats, not necessarily everyone else.

I believe GWB has made a lot of mistakes, no question, but I believe that he is trying his best and is doing a good job. And, I also believe that your so-called attempts at making all of us doe-eyed, God-fearin', NASCAR-watchin', Budweiser-beer-drinkin', 4x4-drivin', Jeff Foxworthy-listenin' sheep wake up from our Republican Party lock-step trance absolutely reeks of the Holier-than-thou attitude of many Democrats that think they know more than the rest of us and that we are morons for believing the way we do.

You do not have a better perspective than everyone else, you have a DIFFERENT perspective.

Mark: Listen, I make points to point out what flaws I view. Yes, you are so right that this is a different perspective. I never claimed to be right. I simply claimed that the things exist. As far as putting things in a partisan context that is all on you and your kin. I feel that if I point out what I view as a flaw that you automatically put on you partisan team hat. I am an American and nothing else. I want the best for everyone. This is impossible but this is my MO. Just because I disagree with Bush and think that he is bad does not mean that I am anti-republican. Many times I have pointed out that I am anti-politician. Where the rubber meets the road is flaws that I viewed in emergency preparedness and readiness can be attributed to this administration. Sucks for him that it happened on his watch but it did. I would point out the shortcomings no matter who was the chief executive. Sorry that I view administration as the head of running the business of the country instead of the font of righteousness.

Read what the points I made on the thread were and then find where this turned "political". You might see it as a BOL mirror.

Off the topic...Mr. Mexico, what are you views on giving the states of California, New Mexico, Nevada and Texas back to it's original owners - Mexico? - Notwithstanding the fact that in 20 years CA will be part of Mexico anyway, since people south of Fresno hardly speak English even now.

guys, guys I think the point of this thread was to ask if Sen. Kennedy is a Credible Critic. Look at the news. Anyone is a credible critic. Sen. Kennedy just proves you don't need a pulse to tell the world you know more than anyone else.

I think that is absurd.

DH, no offense, I enjoy NASCAR, drink Guinness, go to a Christian Church, visit my family on their 113 acre farm (and have a blast), ride 4-wheelers and motorcycles, enjoy Drag Racing, but live in a Neapolitan location that is one of the hottest areas of real estate in the country, am a professional in my career, drink an occasional glass of wine, and drive a high-line European car.

That is my point, we aren't all alike and aren't all sheep.

Crap, I may be doe-eyed and God feering, but I don't care for NASCAR or Budweiser, I drive a Geo Prism, and I personally prefer Dennis Miller to Jeff Foxworthy, am I allowed to still support Gdubya?