Posted on 07/26/2004 12:46:42 PM PDT by NorCoGOP
FFs didn't set up 2-party system it just sort of developed on its own. How many multi-party systems were there when the FFs were around?
The Founding Fathers did an excellent job but some of their mistakes ended up haunting us to this very day. Slavery, Immigration, Taxes, States-rights. Admittedly no one could have predicted how convoluted most of those concepts would end up. Hell, current democrats are even twisting the wording of the second amendment. I believe they would be horrified in many ways at what this country has become. I am not sure that the articles of confederation wouldn't have been a better system.
I don't think there were cameras in the archives at that time; in fact, I read that they were installed as a result of this fiasco.
That could be true. I can see where in the past they could be considered to create more security problems than they solved. Course, people weren't supposed to be bending the rules for former VIPs. The people who let him out without searching him need to be terminated and possibly prosecuted.
(Sorry -- I couldn't resist that one, folks. LOL.)
the full Rush comment:
But I just have this sneaking suspicion that it won't be long, it will be sometime this week, that if there are other examples of this kind of comment or behavior from Teresa Heinz Kerry, somebody's going to dig it up. Somebody will find this.
For example, you know, her husband that she really loves, John Heinz, who is now deceased, was a Republican. That's when she used to be a Republican. Now, I wonder if there are any tapes, any examples of Mrs. Heinz Kerry saying anything about Ted Kennedy back in the days when her husband was alive. This is the thing I'm talking about.
I wonder if there are any examples of her commenting on Democrats back when her husband was a Republican. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Enterprising, curious people are going to start digging deep to find other examples, because this is not a one-day story. This opens the floodgates and this convention is pretty much scripted. We know who's going to speak when, we pretty much know what they're going to say. We know the Democrats are going to try to put forth an image of love instead of hate that they have been known for the past, well, intensely for the past six weeks, six months.
So I just don't know anything, just a wild guess here, but I've always trusted my instincts, my friends. And I just wouldn't be surprised if back in the days when her husband that she really loves, John Heinz, was a Republican, and she was, too -- if she's a loose cannon now, she's been a loose cannon all along -- if there's evidence of it, they will find it, no question about that.
"I wonder if there are any examples of her commenting on Democrats back when her husband was a Republican."
Perhaps comments about John Kerry?
The FFs were dead set against a parliamentary system(a many partied system!).There weren't any parties,to begin with,but it became FERY apparent,VERY quickly,that that would NOT work at all;hence our two party syustem...which the FFsz WERE very much a party to.
Immigration? The FFs had a written policy about IMMIGRATION,that WE still hold to? REALLY? You learned THAT in school?
Taxes? There was a federal income tax from day one?
The Articles of Confederation? YOU WANT SLAVERY ?
Instead of delusions,I suggest that you learn some facts,because you aren't dealing with any.
So? I've read through the postings so far and nothing about what the 'announcement' was.
Maybe it is yet to be announced.
FROM DRUDGE...NO ARTICLE YET
INTRIGUE BUILDS AROUND UNEARTHED TERESA HEINZ INTERVIEW... DEVELOPING...
I was at my grandmothers this evening when the KDKA news, from Pittsburgh, was on. I couldn't hear the news but they were showing clips of Teresa at a news conference in 1993. Anyone hear what was said?
keep checking Drudge...headline is changing but no article yet...
INTRIGUE BUILDS AROUND UNEARTHED TERESA HEINZ INTERVIEW... DEVELOPING HARD AT BOSTON HERALD/ABC NEWS...
one article from Boston Globe
Teresa's Ted K tirade
By David R. Guarino/ Herald exclusive
Read Guarino's Road to Boston Blog
Monday, July 26, 2004
Teresa Heinz Kerry, years before becoming a Democrat, railed against the party's ``putrid'' politics, said she didn't trust Sen. Edward M. Kennedy [related, bio] and angrily called the liberal lion a ``perfect bastard.''
In comments published in a little-known 1975 book about political wives called ``The Power Lovers: An Intimate Look at Politicians and Their Marriages,'' Heinz Kerry lashed out at the senator she'll share the primetime convention stage with tonight.
``I know some couples who stay together only for politics,'' Heinz Kerry said at the time. ``If Ted Kennedy holds on to that marriage (to ex-wife Joan) just for the Catholic vote, as some people say he does, then I think he's a perfect bastard.''
Heinz Kerry, then married to Republican Sen. H. John Heinz III of Pennsylvania, said she ``didn't trust'' President Richard M. Nixon but added, ``Ted Kennedy I don't trust either.''
The combustible and ever-quotable Heinz Kerry said of Democrats, ``The Democratic machine in this country is putrid.'' Excerpts of the comments appeared in The Boston Herald American in January 1976.
Coming a day after Heinz Kerry was caught on camera telling a reporter to ``shove it'' when the reporter questioned her on statements made in a Boston speech, the remarks could undercut Democrats' ability to showcase a positive message at the convention.
Kennedy's office dismissed the comments as water under the bridge and said the two get along famously now _ regardless of what Heinz Kerry has said in the past.
``Over the years, Sen. and Mrs. Kennedy and John Kerry [related, bio] and Teresa Heinz Kerry have developed a deep friendship and strong mutual respect,'' Kennedy spokesman David Smith said in a statement to the Herald.
``A 30-year-old quote dug up by the Republican attack machine made long before they became friends is irrelevant.''
Heinz Kerry's spokeswoman also said the quotes' age makes them irrelevant.
``You are talking about statements that are more than 30 years old. A lot has changed since then,'' said Marla Romash, a senior adviser to Heinz Kerry.
But it isn't the first time quotes have emerged in which Heinz Kerry targets the legendary Bay State senator.
In an interview with The Washington Post in 1971, Heinz Kerry declared, ``Ted Kennedy I don't trust, like I don't trust Nixon, although I think Nixon's done a helluva lot better than I thought he would.''
Just last year, Heinz Kerry said she regretted the comments she had made to the Post regarding Kennedy.
Romash noted the number of times Heinz Kerry has campaigned with Kennedy and said Victoria Reggie Kennedy will host a luncheon for Heinz Kerry this afternoon at the Museum of Fine Arts.
``There's a very good relationship now,'' Romash said.
She said Heinz Kerry stood by her comments about the Democratic machine, saying state Democratic parties in New Jersey and Pennsylvania at the time were ``a big problem,'' Romash said.
``I think there are a lot of people who would say there were problems in state parties in Pennslyvania and New Jersey,'' Romash said. ``Those problems don't exist anymore.''
This is nothing. They can say that the Democrat party has changed since 1975, and she didn't know Kennedy well back then. She can explain why she has changed her mind, and turn it into a positive. Keep this up, and people will be sympathizing with Ta ray zuh.
Yeah, well, big whoop. If it had been KERRY she had dissed in the past, that would be at least funny. But the fact that she bashed the swimming whale just shows she had some sense at one point at least.
Oh the irony....the unbelieveable forgetting to think before speaking such a line!
WOW!
Teddy, I'm sure you and Mary Jo were "getting along famously too"....as you drove off the bridge....
Talk about handing a loaded gun to the opposition!
Fear of factionalism and political parties was deeply rooted in Anglo-American political culture before the American Revolution. Leaders such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson hoped their new government, founded on the Constitution, would be motivated instead by a common intent, a unity. Political parties did form in the United States and had their beginnings in Washington's cabinet. Jefferson, who resigned as Washington's Secretary of State in 1793, and James Madison, who first began to oppose the policies of Alexander Hamilton while a member of the House of Representatives, soon united, as Jefferson wrote in his will, "in the same principles and pursuits of what [they] deemed for the greatest good of our country". Together, they were central to the creation of the first political party in the United States. In the meantime, those who supported Hamilton began to organize their own party, thus leading to the establishment of a two-party system.
Political parties were not outlined in the constitution they developed out of Washington's cabinet. The 2-party system developed out of necessity. It did "just happen". I would argue that the FFs orginally hoped for no polical parties and they wanted each man to vote his conscience on whats best for the nation. Each senator/person voting their conscience is a many partied system. Parties of One. If we had a pure 2-pary system we would just check republican or democrat every time we vote and there would be no choices on individual candidates.
Immigration was not addressed by the founders except to say that:Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Income taxes came about by the 16th amendment which was ratified in 1913. My point is that the FF's could have better defined taxes that limited the excess taxation we live under today. You would think that they would address it since that was the primary reason for the revolution.
The Articles created a nation that was "a league of friendship and perpetual union." The state governments retained most of the power under this framework, with a subordinate position given to the central government. The central government commanded little respect and was not able to accomplish much because it had little jurisdiction over states or individuals. Hmmm. A weaker federal government that had little jurisdiction over states or individuals. Sound pretty good to me. Admittedly it had flaws on lots of issues like warfare.
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/documents/articles/ http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=557
I agree.
We need some videotape of John Kerry brow-beating a waiter or dropping the f-bomb on a Secret Service agent.
There's a lot of mileage to had off videotape like that.
I think the drug theory has merit. During her speech, she really seemed to be struggling to form the words, a lot of weird hesitation. I can't, however, think that the campaign would admit she is on drugs. Maybe she's going to try some kind of menopausal psychosis sympathy plea?
The FFs clearly stated their opposition of the parliamentary system,which is WHY they didn't want many political parties.And,once they found out that you can't haves a president and a V.P. with discordant views,the two party system came about.Of course,they,the FFs,in their infinite wisdom,set up the Electoral College because they didn't think that the average man had the intelligence to choose a president.In your case,they were 100% correct;you don't even understand why a multi party system would be an utter disaster for this nation.
Yeah,yeah..vote for the man,not the party.When you grow up.......get back to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.