Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
This is a must read from David of BMG. It basically outlines everything we know about Kennedy’s position, from his prior support for bills that were in front of him. It also shows why it matters, against the backdrop of a wishy-washy editorial in the Boston Globe.
They go on to say that, yeah, Ted Kennedy probably would have lined up with President Obama rather than Scott Brown, but Brown “is allowed to interpret” what Kennedy said and did.
Well, yes and no. Yes, figuring out what Kennedy would have thought about an issue he never precisely faced necessarily involves some guesswork. But no, Brown should not be “allowed” to simply make stuff up, or to ignore the evidence we have about what Kennedy’s positions were.
And we do have some good evidence.
The rest of his post is devoted to pretty much the kitchen sink in terms of outlining what Kennedy supported in the past, and what that most likely meant.
The bottom line is, Brown is not allowed to just get away with any interpretation of either the language of the bill, as I have repeatedly written. or as as David says again
There is a difference between “religious beliefs” and “moral convictions.” Senator Brown, take note – words have meaning, and you are not free to take the Humpty-Dumpty approach of substituting your own interpretation when the plain meaning of the words differs from it.
or the language of Kennedy’s past letter to the Pope, the bills he is on record as supporting, etc. David has a very nice and factual takedown of Brown and his shooting from the hip - does anyone actually believe that Scotto did any research into Kennedy’s likely position on a bill like the Blunt amendment before putting together his shamefully exploitative radio ad? I didn’t think so.
[powered by WordPress.]
|« Feb||Apr »|
37 queries. 0.743 seconds