Kennedy suffers in silence at the hands of �Liberal� Democrats
January 14, 2006 ~ 5:24 p.m.
Say what you will about Charles Kennedy, the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, he did not deserve his fate.
Earlier this month, on January 5, Kennedy received a 4-1-1 from ITV, a terrestrial British television station, that they would expose his alcoholism by going with a report that he�d had treatment for his drinking problem. He beat them to the punch by holding a press conference, owning up to his problem, but he also verified his intention that he would stay on as party leader. His admission, however, damaged his standing with parliamentary leaders of his own party who quickly abandoned him, withdrawing their support. Only two days later, he resigned.
Since taking over from the combative Paddy Ashdown in 1999, Kennedy twice brought about some of the greatest successes the LibDems ever had in the general elections. In 2001, the party received 18.3 percent of the vote, up from 1997; in 2005, it was 22 percent, their best showing since 1923, taking 62 seats.
Admittedly, Kennedy did lie. On December 18, Kennedy was asked in an ITV interview with Jonathan Dimbleby, �Has it been a battle to stay off the booze, have you had to have medical support in any way at all?� Kennedy replied, �No, no, no, that is not the case, it is a matter on all fronts � if there's something my doctor really wants me to do over this holiday period as a matter of fact, is give up smoking and I think he�s right.� Furthermore, in 2004 The Times reported that Kennedy had not attended a budget debate due to being hungover. Lastly, in 2002, BBC contrarian Jeremy Paxman asserted that Kennedy was often drunk in interviews and straightforwardly asked him, �do you drink by yourself, a bottle of whisky late at night?� Kennedy denied this. The BBC apologized to Kennedy, but Paxman himself didn�t.
Kennedy should have admittted the truth earlier, but due to the nature of alcoholism, he was in denial. As with any disease, alcoholics need help, even with the truth. But instead of standing behind Kennedy while he sought help, twenty-five members of his party presented him with a letter demanding his resignation. The point was clear � either he resigned or they all did. European Parliament LibDem Chris Davis called him �a dead man walking.� His own private secretary said he should go. And so Kennedy was forced out into the cold.
The writing may already have been on the wall for him, drink problem or not. Kennedy was criticized for having a laconic style. The December 29 edition of The Daily Telegraph reported that Kennedy was under fire for having no strategy for combating the Conservatives under their new leader David Cameron. In 2005, the LibDems failed to capture seats they expected, losing bids to either the Conservatives or failing to unseat incumbent Labour MPs. One LibDem source said Kennedy might step down after the local May elections.
But the issue here is how he was treated, whether his future as party leader was secure or not. Was he ever offered help from his colleagues? Hell no, he was stabbed in the back by the majority of them. LibDem voters in Kennedy�s native Scotland are disgusted. Those who believed in Kennedy are feeling betrayed. The man�s got a medical problem and nobody cared: Get out, you�re ruining the party.
On last week�s edition of the BBC�s �Question Time,� members of the Liberal Democrats were assembled to answer questions about Kennedy and the party�s future. One of them said, �Charles Kennedy is very talented and it is our dearest desire to see him back in politics once he�s sorted himself out.� But you could hear the codicil in his head, indeed all of their heads: But if he chooses to drink himself to death instead, it really doesn�t matter.
No, I don�t think �a lush should run the country�. The voters should vote smart with the truth. But, again, that is not the issue. (Besides, in a country where binge-drinking is a persistent problem, Kennedy might even appear �cool� to hip voters.)
A letter writer to the left-wing The Mirror wrote, �The LibDems claim they are liberal, but they are not. This was cold-hearted.� I concur. I don�t agree with Kennedy or the Liberal Democrats, aside from their desire to limit state control over the individual and their opposition to the ID card scheme. But Kennedy is a good and decent man, very hard to dislike. His opposition to the War in Iraq was based on his belief that it was illegal and ill-thought out; he never once attacked Bush or Blair personally as most anti-wars have done. Plus, unlike the most of the peace movement, once the war was underway, he gave the troops his blessing.
Will the Liberal Democrats pay a price for this insensitive treatment of their former leader? We will see come May.
Speak for yourself, Belafonte!
Forget the libel of calling the President �the greatest tyrant in the world� and �the greatest terrorist in the world,� which is nothing new � we�ve heard this a million times from Lefties of all stripes and persuasions. What gets me about 78-year-old calypso musician Harry Belafonte�s chummy sessions with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was his incredible chutzpah in proclaiming to Chavez, �Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people support your revolution.�
Belafonte�s little delegation included actor Danny Glover and perennial Princeton University rabble-rouser Cornel West.
To their credit, the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), which shortly before the incident awarded Belafonte with one of their Impact Awards, said of the quote: �To our dismay, Mr. Belafonte has made reckless and irresponsible statements about the President of the United States which we neither support nor condone. Mr. Belafonte is entitled to express his own personal views, but AARP does not condone the manner and tone which he has chosen and finds his comments completely unacceptable.�
In the finest tradition of Latin American dictators, Chavez stands accused of electoral fraud, political repression and human rights abuses. So I would hazard to guess that it�s only natural that those of Belafonte�s political stripe would fawn over him. After all, Venezuela�s upper and middle classes have taken a beating under his tenure.
Given his desire to combat U.S. influence, Chavez� Venezuela does not work with the United States to combat terrorism. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented human rights abuses, documenting torture and censorship of anti-Chavez political prisoner detainees. The U.S. State Department concurs. The International Criminal Court has taken up a case by relatives of those killed in a violent clash during a march against Chavez on April 11, 2002. Chavez is also regarded as someone who won�t hesitate to use the military to crush domestic opposition, in addition to being a demagogue.
One of Chavez� �Bolivarianist� objectives is the end of corruption. Except his own, that is. Chavez is accused of spinning the political wheels in his favor through electoral fraud.
Don�t be fooled by Chavez� offer of aid and assistance after Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, Mississippi and Alabama. In addition to food and water, Chavez offered a million barrels of petroleum. But he announced that such a gesture encompassed �a strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage� and �a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States.� In other words, he intended to hold us captive to his generosity. Bush was right to reject his offer.
In November, during FTAA trade talks between the U.S. and Latin America, Chavez erupted in rage at Mexican President Vicente Fox for daring to defend U.S. trade interests. Chavez warned Fox not to �mess with him, lest you get stung.� Although Mexico and Venezuela have not officially cut diplomatic ties with each other, each of their respective ambassadors were recalled over the dispute. Again, all this simply because Fox dared to stick up for free trade.
Chavez has also attacked pro-free market Peru in typical cry-baby form. Let�s also not forget Chavez� warm relationship with Fidel Castro, clearly designed to support his own Marxist revolution and anti-U.S. agenda.
And this is the sort of man �millions of Americans support�? Mr. Belafonte, please speak for yourself. Daylight come and you want go home � to La-La Land.
� M.E.M.
|
[Sign My Guestbook]
[View My Guestbook]
|
Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!