Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Ted Kennedy made it.

By 47 Comments

Massachusetts delegate Carol Donovan.

Delegate Steve Driscoll told me: “I was diagnosed with cancer at the same time [Kennedy] was, and his strength inspires me.”

He inspires me too, Steve.

(More from the Globe.)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

47 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
nomad943

Was the illustious Senator able to expain to seniors why he stopped them from filling their prescriptions with drugs from Canada or was he too wrapped up in his own situation to have the time?

0
0
johnk
0
0
nomad943

You mean you have already forgotten? Millions of people would be paying a fraction of what they are paying now
except for a certain senator’s nay vote on the bipartison proposal.
Dont bother trying to spin excuses as to why … just accept that once again 2 years after the fact, many seniors will be choosing between food, heat and filling their prescriptions.
Of course Teddy wont be one of them.

<

p>http://www.bcbs.com/news/natio…

<

p>snip

<

p>Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, was a pivotal figure.
On Monday, Mr. Kennedy voted against Mr. Dorgan’s proposal, and encouraged others to do so, because he feared that it would sink the overall bill granting new powers to the food and drug agency.

<

p>

0
0
lynne

You mean, the bill he COSPONSORED?

<

p>Hi, do some googling before posting.

<

p>Anyway, the answer to millions of Americans’ health care problems is to take a page out of the Canadian book and stop succoring Big PHarma and get OUR costs down the way the Canadians have. You know, by not wasting taxpayer money and allowing the US government to negotiate bulk prices for Medicare like any other big private company can. And by moving to universal health care.

0
0
lynne

why would he cosponsor a bill?

0
0
nomad943

The fact stands, when the bill came up for final passage, Kennedy voted against it and urged others to do the same.
Many Senators abstained thanks to Ted’s effort to squash the measure and the bill failed 48-40.
For up to date listings of multinational pharmacutecal company profits be sure to pick up the latest Wall Street Journal.
By the way, there has been no action on any other measure to lower consumers prescription costs since that time.
Nothing.
Enjoy!

0
0
johnk

to the FDA bill which Bush stated that he would veto if included, the override votes were not there.  Get a clue.  As for the ominous, no actions since that time.  This was just done in the 110th. The 111th Congress without that idiot Bush’s veto threat might pose some different results.

<

p>This is the weakest, most pathetic comment I’ve seen.  It’s Kennedy’s fault that George Bush will veto a bill with drug imports…and we have a short memory?

0
0
nomad943

This was just done in the 110th?
Are we living in the same world?
Umm, that would be May 4 2007, eighteen months ago?
What do you figure, one vote a decade is all we can ask from such gifted men?

0
0
johnk

the 111th starts in 2009, making sense now?  Bueller?  Bueller?  Anyone?

0
0
nomad943

Fortunatly the 111th will be given an agenda that America  can sink its teeth. McCain has been a long time advocate of allowing Americans to access cheaper prescription drugs via canada and unlike Kennedy he doesnt have to explain away his 2007 vote.

<

p>http://phoenix.bizjournals.com…

0
0
johnk

you are full of it.

<

p>Thanks for the update and the uselessness of your comments.  Stick to talk radio where you don’t need to make sense.

0
0
beachmom

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, was a pivotal figure. He is the chief author of the bill overhauling the F.D.A. In the past, Mr. Kennedy has voted to allow drug imports, and he is a co-sponsor of a bill to do just that.

But on Monday, Mr. Kennedy voted against Mr. Dorgan’s proposal, and encouraged others to do so, because he feared that it would sink the overall bill granting new powers to the food and drug agency.

President Bush had threatened to veto legislation that allowed drug imports outside the existing system. The White House said such legislation would “result in unsafe, unapproved and counterfeit drugs being imported into the United States.”

Mr. Kennedy cited the veto threat in explaining why he voted for Mr. Cochran’s amendment.

<

p>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05…

<

p>The overall bill was very important and needed to pass.  Had the drug importation amendment passed, it would have been the poison pill that sunk the entire legislation.  That is why Teddy voted against that measure.  The bill was about drug safety; given the Vioxx scandal which was clearly botched by the FDA, it was a long overdue bill.  

<

p>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05…

<

p>

The measure, which has bipartisan support, would renew and increase the fees paid by regulated drug companies. Such fees, which are to expire in September, are a significant part of the agency budget. If they are not renewed, it is likely that workers will be laid off.

The bill would provide more money to track the safety of drugs after they have reached consumers and more authority to force drug manufacturers to complete promised safety studies. It would also renew requirements and incentives for pharmaceutical companies to ensure that their products are safe for children.

“This is the most important legislation for F.D.A. in at least 10 years and, probably, forever on issues of drug safety,” said Dr. Mark B. McClellan, a former food and drug commissioner appointed by Mr. Bush.

Dr. David A. Kessler, a commissioner in the Clinton administration, said, “This is a pivotal moment in F.D.A.’s history, as important as 1938 or 1962, when Congress gave the agency its fundamental responsibilities.”

Despite a widening scandal about the safety of imported food, the bill as written would do little to change the oversight of the safety of the food supply. Instead, the measure represents years of concern about the safety of drugs that began with studies showing that antidepressants seemed to cause suicidal tendencies in a small number of children and teen-agers. The agency suppressed an initial report on the problem, only to acknowledge later that it was real.

<

p>If you are mad about drugs imported from Canada still not being allowed, then go complain to President Bush.  

0
0
nomad943

So I take it that you are happy with the explanation that the reason Kennedy voted it down was because if it had passed it might than have been vetoed?
I am not that surprised you would accept such logic.
Thats how we have gotten where we are today.

0
0
beachmom

AND would not have been overridden by Congress (the votes were not there).  Drug safety bill dead.

<

p>Clearly, you do not follow Congress nor understand how it works.  Kennedy is for the importations of prescription drugs from Canada, but that was a poison pill amendment to a very important bill Kennedy sponsored.  Do you understand the term “poison pill”?  

<

p>So if I am understanding you correctly, Teddy should have voted the way you wanted so that he could pass this test you have given him, even if it meant killing the bill he sponsored and labored on for years.  ‘Course, had he done THAT, you would have complained that he hadn’t done anything on drug safety, and can’t get anything done in Congress.  Oh, and the importation of prescription drugs from Canada STILL would not have been passed; it’s more that the drug safety bill would have died along with it, too.  That seems what you wanted from him, which of course, is maddeningly illogical and silly.

<

p>

0
0
nomad943

Its the same game it has been for a long time. I understand perfectly, well almost.
There is one new thing that has come up lately in the realm of procedural that I still havent figured out.
Why is it that all of a sudden it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the senate? Have you been able to figure that one out?

0
0
beachmom
0
0
nomad943

No. I wasnt refering to veto overrides.
I was refering to general business.
NOTHING is getting out of the senate without 60 votes.
Its like there is an implied filibuster threat hanging over EVERY single piece of business. The old simple majority rule is apparently irrelevent.

0
0
christopher

The GOP has apparently decided to adopt an obstructionist strategy, so yes, in practice you might as well try to hit 60 or there could be trouble.  I’m not sure they’ll make it, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is pushing for a 60-seat majority for precisely this reason.

0
0
beachmom

to your original question.  If you are changing subjects, then apparently that means you know you have lost this debate.  

0
0
nomad943

What is there to debate? “I supported it before I voted against it” is a theme I have heard once to often.

0
0
beachmom

you are bashing Ted Kennedy with, and he was going to kill legislation if it was added on.  You have no leg to stand on here.  IF you claim you are for importation of prescription drugs from Canada, then I assume you are going to start railing against Bush any minute now.  Unless …. you really don’t care, and were just looking to take a pot shot at Teddy, thinking nobody would be able to show how it was the GOP President, not Ted Kennedy, that made sure that provision would never become law.

0
0
nomad943

My president? Bush? Lol
Isnt he the president for all of us, we lucky Americans?
Just like his asshat predecesor Big Dawg who along with Chimpy have blocked every measure that has come along in the past 20 years which attempting to address the Canadian drug importation issue.

<

p>http://www.swcollege.com/bef/e…

<

p>Say, arent the Clintons going to be blabbing it up for the next two nights? Maybe they will clear things up for us and not waste the time spinning the same worn out old rhetoric.
Thats if they still care. If I were in their position I think I would probably skip the spotlight and just buy up some Caribean Island nation and proclaim myself czar (ess)

0
0
johnk

or are you doing okay by yourself…

0
0
johnk

just making stuff up now, huh?

<

p>Very clearly detailed that an amendment would cause a Bush veto to the FDA bill.  Yet, this is somehow Kennedy’s fault.  Now you are just ranting dumb things to get out of it.  But you just sound more pathetic with each attempt.  What’s next, are you going to hold your breath?  Maybe you should cut your losses.  

0
0
nomad943

The only thing that is clearly detailed is that when faced with a choice between bailing out strugling seniors and pumping up bloated beaurocracies “The Lion Of The Senate” offered no appologies when making his selction.
And why should he? All of that extra cash may not have done a thing to assuage our fears that the tomatoes on the shelves of stop and shop are far more risque than the antibiotics imported from Toronto but; imagine the long lines of patronage and nepotism that have been preserved for posterity.
And besides, people like you will slurp it up and he knows it.
GROUP HUG

0
0
cougar

Sounds like a joke.

<

p>How many asshole Republicans does it take to screw a million Americans at one time?

<

p>Answer: One.  But it takes all the rest of them plus a Joe LIEBERMAN to pretend that it’s the Dems fucking us over.

0
0
johnk

I just read his comment this morning to see what wisdom would have been written and just responded.  When I hit post, I saw yours.  Very detailed …. great post.

0
0
cougar
0
0
lynne

We were watching on PBS, and before Kennedy came out to speak, I think during the intro by Caroline, the camera kept flitting to different parts of the audience, and there was Kate! (Hi Kate!!)

0
0
afertig

but just decided that I couldn’t possibly recognize anybody on TV.

<

p>Kennedy brought my whole family to tears. I was so moved by the introduction piece because of all the people and causes he has fought for his entire life. It was a really majestic and unforgettable moment.

0
0
christopher

…but I did catch a glimpse of Curtis LeMay on C-SPAN.  He’s hard to miss in that flashy patriotic vest he wears to conventions.

0
0
regularjoe

that you will see at the convention or any convention for that matter.  

0
0
mr-lynne

Michelle Obama is giving him a run for his money…

<

p>Man, she could run for president!

0
0
lynne

That was me – I logged off and logged on as me, what the heck? Stupid cookies.  

0
0
smadin

I’d vote for her.  Maybe in twelve or sixteen years we’ll get the chance?

0
0
sco

0
0
lynne

Are you in Denver too? pout

0
0
sco

On the couch.

0
0
lynne

me too. Actually, I should be in bed…

<

p>That was some speech by Michelle, wasn’t it? I was very impressed.  

0
0
smadin

I was in tears the whole way through the montage and his speech, and I don’t cry much.  They don’t make them like that anymore.

0
0
lynne

David, Charley, Bob…are you all going out to the most raucous parties tonight?

<

p>Cuz we want reports!

0
0
charley-on-the-mta

We’re old, tired, and there are wolves after us!

0
0
lynne

You are NO fun at all!

<

p>And you are not old.

<

p>And…wolves??

0
0
cannoneo

Is that Dianne W. in the first picture, clutching a Kennedy sign and shedding tears? Good thing some of today’s Mass. progressives weren’t around at Teddy’s public-image low point, or they would have tried to drive him from office too.  

0
0
charley-on-the-mta

could stitch together 39 years of pretty outstanding public service, then the pecadilloes would be forgiven — or at least viewed in that context.

0
0
geo999

…due to a 4 hour blackout (gotta love these Cape Cod thunderstorms).

<

p>I will say this to the Senior Senator: Thank you for taking the time to visit our little town this past week. It’s been a tough one for us, and the gesture was greatly appreciated.

0
0
mr-weebles

I loathe Ted Kennedy’s politics and everything he stands for but I’m glad to see he’s doing well.

<

p>Cancer is a pure, 100% bitch.

0
0
wpdiscuz   wpDiscuz

Archives




47
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x