Buck Showalter is a regular Lucas Cranach.

One wonders how many in the Kopechne family will be tuned-in today? Their daughter might have been 69 years old
a month ago, but a boozed-up Teddy left her submerged, helplessly clawing at the inside of his Oldsmobile to die an agonizing death. He was intimately familiar with the area, yet knocked on no doors for help as she was slipping away. Honorable men, by definition, would have acted differently. Signature significance.

The Saturday of Teddy's funeral will be a dark one, besieged by torrential rains, and another 4000 or so abortions in the U.S.

Not a fan.

Buck Showalter is a regular Lucas Cranach.

Only if his son is now painting Caroline's fences.

You would have preferred Joshua Reynolds?

One wonders how many in the Kopechne family will be tuned-in today? Their daughter might have been 69 years old
a month ago, but a boozed-up Teddy left her submerged, helplessly clawing at the inside of his Oldsmobile to die an agonizing death. He was intimately familiar with the area, yet knocked on no doors for help as she was slipping away. Honorable men, by definition, would have acted differently. Signature significance.

The Saturday of Teddy's funeral will be a dark one, besieged by torrential rains, and another 4000 or so abortions in the U.S.

Not a fan.

I can see why the Kopechne family wouldn't be fans of Teddy Kennedy, just as I'd imagine that the descendants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims might not be fans of Harry Truman, or that the current generation of American Indians might not be laying wreaths at the gravesites of most U.S. presidents. Or that the people left to rot and die by their insurance companies might not be fans of our form of social Darwinism.

Kennedy was one of those many politicians whose public life was a lot more exemplary than his private life, but I'm pretty sure that on balance, the world was a lot better off for his presence.

And that's my last post in this thread. Others may want to continue, but somehow this doesn't seem like the time or place for this sort of a discussion.

Kennedy was one of those many politicians whose public life was a lot more exemplary than his private life, but I'm pretty sure that on balance, the world was a lot better off for his presence.

~45,000,000 dead babies can't chime in as well, Andy. It was Kennedy, more than any single pol, who pulled his Party into the Culture of Death.

One wonders how many in the Kopechne family will be tuned-in today? Their daughter might have been 69 years old
a month ago, but a boozed-up Teddy left her submerged, helplessly clawing at the inside of his Oldsmobile to die an agonizing death. He was intimately familiar with the area, yet knocked on no doors for help as she was slipping away. Honorable men, by definition, would have acted differently. Signature significance.

The Saturday of Teddy's funeral will be a dark one, besieged by torrential rains, and another 4000 or so abortions in the U.S.

Not a fan.

Hey great post! What else you got for us on a day where thousands attend and millions more tune in from both parties to pay their respects?

~45,000,000 dead babies can't chime in as well, Andy. It was Kennedy, more than any single pol, who pulled his Party into the Culture of Death.

Excellent! What else?!?!

Man, I was hoping for court painters.

~45,000,000 dead babies can't chime in as well, Andy. It was Kennedy, more than any single pol, who pulled his Party into the Culture of Death.

Yeah, because abortion didn't exist until Roe v. Wade.

Not a fan.

We get it. You're a proud Glenn Beck fan. Let it go in here.

You mean people have been choosing to have abortions since the dawn of mankind? I think you'd better check your facts.

Ted Kennedy wasn't even born (oh, the irony!) until 1936....

45,000,000 dead babies can't chime in as well, Andy.

Yeah, we need to make sure those babies are born, then deny them access to adequate health care so THEN they die.

Please don't feed the trolls.

"He spent his life helping others."
To some degree. He also spent his life telling everyone they should pay more taxes. Then, when his mother died, the family ginned up some phony claim that she was a Florida resident to evade estate taxes.

In 1980, he wrote legislation punishing oil companies for what were deemed excessive profits at the time. Well, not all oil companies. You see, the Kennedys had a pretty big stake in companies called Arctic Oil, Kenoil and Mokeen Oil Company. Teddy saw to it that the legislation only punished the companies deemed to be "already cash rich", not the "small struggling oil producers". Not surprisingly, the line was drawn just above the ones in which the family had invested.

In 1981, the family bought prime real estate in DC that was only supposed to be eligible for purchase by minority owned companies. But what the heck, it was waived for the Kennedys. I mean, this is the Kennedys we're talking about.

And there's more in that vein but, you get the general idea. The public side of Teddy was a bit checkered as well.

Hey, nothing personal, Srul.

Right. But the Catholic Church, which looked the other way repeatedly as kids were getting raped by their employees, is the "greatest institution the world has ever known" (your words, not mine).

I'm not even going to try to defend Ted Kennedy, but stones, glass houses, all that. Better to keep it down, I'd say.

~45,000,000 dead babies can't chime in as well, Andy. It was Kennedy, more than any single pol, who pulled his Party into the Culture of Death.

Shouldn't you be out murdering an abortion doctor today?

I'm not even going to try to defend Ted Kennedy

Don't, he was a reprehensible human being, like pretty much all the Kennedy men. That said, I hope he properly repented before he died. He has a lot of blood on his hands, and was personally immoral as other have noted.

I feel very bad for the Kennedy women, Rose in particular. Eunice Kennedy was an exemplary woman, who actually spent her life helping people, and doesn't get 1/1000th of the hagiography of her brother.

Alas, if only Ted Kennedy's legacy could have been uniform and unambiguous, like Clinton's, or Reagan's, or Nixon's, or LBJ's, or FDR's.

Yawn.

Geez, I had no idea Buck Showalter was YET ANOTHER member of the Ron Polk coaching tree.

#20 wins.

A measured and scholarly discussion of history is always interesting (#5, #15). A foolish display of vitriol rarely is. (Well, it is in the same way that Cops is, which is to say that one has a strange inclination to watch it unfold, despite one's better judgment . . .)

Politicians who share my political views are deeply flawed but able to transcend their personal failings to work to better society.

Politicians who don't share my political views are reprehensible human beings incapable of redemption. Also, they made a lot of people die.

Hey...how about those Giants....

After reading this I wish I could tear my own rotator cuff again just to change the subject.

Don't, he was a reprehensible human being, like pretty much all the Kennedy men. That said, I hope he properly repented before he died. He has a lot of blood on his hands, and was personally immoral as other have noted.

Seems pretty contrary to what most who knew him say - including his ideological opposites. I'm also pretty amazed by the endless stories of things Senator Kennedy did for people that didn't make news. Watching the coverage for the past week and reading LTEs, and such - it seems there were an awful lot of people that sought help from their Senator and his staff - and got it.

Setting aside his personal failings, however serious - there's a whole host of legislation that Kennedy championed, much of which probably owes its existence in large part to him.

Whatever anecdotal silliness may have come from a few scattered incidents, I would hope we can all agree that the world is a better place when the disabled are able to get into a public building.

Wherever you stand on health care, I would hope we can all agree that it's a good thing that the elderly can depend on some modicum of coverage and care.

Whatever your social views, I would hope we can all agree that it's a good thing that thousands with AIDS are getting treatment they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

Ultimately, it will be a greater power than yakkers on the radio or keyboard tappers that will weigh Ted Kennedy's life... just as with Reagan... with Strom Thurmond.... and all of us, eventually.

Most of us, if you get right down to it, have little business weighing any more than his legislative work. There is certainly a broad swath of opinion on how best to build a more equitable society. When you look at objectively at Kennedy's work in the Senate - I find it difficult to see how anyone can deny that was his aim. You might disagree with the policies he advocated in advance of it, you might question whether they were effective or efficient, but it seems impossible to doubt their intent.

What I always found most admirable about Kennedy is that you could never doubt his stance was based on principle. From both the right and left, too many of our elected officials are both prisoners of and paid for by various special interests. Looking at the current health care debate, I found it pretty outrageous that so many of the 'leaders' - from Baucus and Conrad to Enzi and Grassley - owe half or more of their campaign chests to industries with a vested interest in the matter.

Sure, he had the advantage of name and personal fortune - and maybe that made it easier - but when Ted Kennedy spoke up on an issue, one never needed to check the FEC to see if someone had bought and paid for that opinion.

Some of us are in mourning, and then when I see a thread like this....people tossing vitriol on the day of a national funeral, it makes me sad.

I take issue with the uninformed "scout" assessment of the Angel pitching. I thought scouts actually watched the games. If this one had seen Ervin Santana Thursday night instead of hanging out in his mom's basement, he wouldhave seen Ervin throwing 96 Mph.

AROM, is Ervin Santana finally healthy?

One wonders how many in the Kopechne family will be tuned-in today? Their daughter might have been 69 years old

I always have a hard time believing that there's any feeling behind comments like this. To Kennedy's enemies, her name and memory is just another political weapon, another dart to throw at the man.

I always have a hard time believing that there's any feeling behind comments like this. To Kennedy's enemies, her name and memory is just another political weapon, another dart to throw at the man.

Don't presume to look into either my head or my heart.

AROM, is Ervin Santana finally healthy?

I dumped him a couple of weeks ago from my fantasy team so it's very likely he is now healthy.

Don't, he was a reprehensible human being

Because he refused to attack China last year?

Santana's health definitely seems to be improving (though I haven't looked at his pitch data recently.) His fastball is hitting the mid-nineties and his two-seamer is really sawing off lefties again. I still don't think he's 100 percent but he's healthy enough to be effective and improving enough to think he might get back to the pitcher he was last year.

With Santana and Kazmir basically in the same spot health wise, the Angels starting pitching could end up anywhere from dominant (healthy Lackey, Santana, Kaz) to below-mediocre. Either way, pending the PTBNL, I absolutely love this move from the Angels standpoint- even if it doesn't pay off this season.

With Santana and Kazmir basically in the same spot health wise, the Angles starting pitching could end up anywhere from dominant (healthy Lackey, Santana, Kaz) to below-mediocre.

It helps that Kazmir is only 25. That's an injection of Jute.

I always have a hard time believing that there's any feeling behind comments like this. To Kennedy's enemies, her name and memory is just another political weapon, another dart to throw at the man.

Pretty big dart though... I mean it's not like the issue is gray... I mean he let her die. I can acknowledge he did a lot of good for America, but at the same time can recognize that much like the Michael Jackson circle jerk that went on for weeks, a balanced portrayal of the man would be a awful nice rather than just hero worship.

Pretty big dart though... I mean it's not like the issue is gray... I mean he let her die.

Amazing as it may sound I never knew about this until this thread. In any event I just went and read the wikipedia entry on the drowning. It's pretty appalling.

I don't have enough info to answer whether Santana is completely healthy or not. But he looked really good against the A's. Most of the fastballs were 96 mph. His location looked really good too. Seemed to be a tight strike zone which forced him to throw more pitches, but he looked like he was hitting the corners. In other words, an Ervin v2008 start.

Amazing as it may sound I never knew about this until this thread. In any event I just went and read the wikipedia entry on the drowning. It's pretty appalling.

It's a fairly common response Gaelan- even amongst educated folks like yourself. I think that it's hard for people to see at this point, but Kennedy was such an unbelievably sympathetic figure when it happened, a lot of people, even ideological opponents, just wanted to give him a pass and make the thing go away.

Here's the National Lampoon on Chappaquiddick from 1973, using one of the most famous ad campaigns of the 1960s/early '70s.

The thing I'd never heard about before was Ted Kennedy's 1964 plane crash.

The first time I read/heard about Kennedy and the drowning was in a MAD magazine around 1986 or so.

I think that it's hard for people to see at this point, but Kennedy was such an unbelievably sympathetic figure when it happened, a lot of people, even ideological opponents, just wanted to give him a pass and make the thing go away.

The only thing sympathetic about him was the untimely death of his brothers. Teddy himself had already been expelled from Harvard for cheating, weathered at least two hushed-up infidelity scandals, and led a completely aimless career in the Senate up until that point. The worst thing about Kennedy is that he continued to behave like a monster after Chappaquiddick. It wasn't even as if he became a "reformed" man: he was a cheating drunkard who was more famous in Washington for his frequent sexual assault of stewardesses, waitresses, and female Senate staffers than anything else. But he helped pass some sweet, sweet liberal legislation so hey, who cares about that?

And I guess that's what galls me most about Kennedy's defenders, apologists, excuse-mongers, etc.: they know all this, and they've made the moral calculus that it's worth it. In other words, it's okay that Ted Kennedy never went to jail for the crimes he committed, or was forced to retire from public life in expiation of his sins, because down the road it resulted in some bills they liked. Kennedy's defenders are actually willing to grant forgiveness for homicide in order to advance a policy agenda.

The only thing sympathetic about him was the untimely death of his brothers.

It's fair to say that no one thinks less of TK than I, but having all three of your brothers killed while in service to their country makes someone pretty damned sympathetic. Even if, as you note, the person in question doesn't deserve sympathy for any other part of their existence.

And I guess that's what galls me most about Kennedy's defenders, apologists, excuse-mongers, etc.: they know all this, and they've made the moral calculus that it's worth it.

31. Esoteric can feel Strasburg well within his reach! Posted: August 29, 2009 at 03:54 PM (#3308642)

Don't presume to look into either my head or my heart.

I seem to recall that Ted was pretty much a joke of a senator for most of his senatorial career. Then the Democrats lost control of the senate and a short time later Ted supposedly cleaned up his act. He got sober, lost the weight, and got fiesty. I have no idea if that was PR or not but I do recall Ted at one pointed looking like a bloated alcoholic walrus.

Lassus:

In defense of Esoteric, Kennedy defenders have said as much. There is, for instance, that stunning claim at Huffington Post (by a woman whose name I forget) that somewhere Mary Jo may wonder whether her death was worth it (worth igniting Kennedy's passion to do legislative good).

And I expected this to be a thread wondering what Adam Kennedy's chances to be on the A's for 2010 were.

A note on "sweet, sweet liberal legislation."

Imagine, just try, that you're a pretty standard, down-the-line American liberal, like maybe 50,000,000 other Americans or some such, and you share a lot of your views with more millions of centrists and center-leftists and center-rightists. It is then your belief that various expansions of the welfare state over the past 40 years have resulted in massive good. Real lives saved by the provision of health care when no funds were previously available, real families no longer in poverty because of wage increases, real individuals treated as fully human and deserving of full dignity before the law regardless of race, sexual orientation, or physical disability. And many other kinds of good, perhaps less broad-ranging, but nonetheless legislation that had real impact on AIDS research and care, and legislation that helped millions get the mental health care they needed, and so on.

You may, not being a liberal person, not think these mattered much and had these sorts of effects. But imagine you did. If a single person was involved in fighting for these causes over decades, and won many of these fights and sponsored and wrote legislation that had these kinds of effects, wouldn't that person's legacy and memory be something you wanted to honor?

We can argue about whether various bad things he did (and he did bad things) mean that his memory ought to be cited differently than it has been over the past few days and months, and on into the future. But I think unless you consider how Ted Kennedy's legacy is viewed by people who have very common and easily historically and ethically defensible views on American governance and history, you can't reasonably make the case against honoring his legacy and memory.

One wonders how many in the Kopechne family will be tuned-in today?

One probably needn't wonder how the Kopechne family feels about wankers graphically describing their loved one's death to score cheap political points.

Matt,

I'm in favour of all, or maybe most, of those things. I still can't get passed that story.

If you don't have anything nice to say about a man/woman after his/her death, it's best to shut your trap. From most indications, Kennedy doesn't deserve many good words either.

can we only link to articles which are accessible to all?

Hmmm, he was a drunk, and a philanderer and a bit of an privileged oaf.
I don't really think that type of stuff warrants grudges of this sort.

He was on the right side, or at least had the right intentions on an awful lot of very important issues, and I think as time passes that's kinda what we remeber.
I mean I judge figures like Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Pol-Pots, Stalin etc far more on what side of important stuff they were on, than if they got drunk and acted like a Drones club member.

Now he did basically murder that girl, or at the very least manslaughter her, and got away with it.

Regardless of your views on his personal character and political achievements, I think you have to honor the man. Teddy, more than Jack and more than Bobby, gave us the model for Mayor Quimby.

"He spent his life helping others."

He spent his life, I guess, intending to help others. Unfortunately, the method he chose -- through government -- was selfish and counterproductive.

selfish?

how about naive and counter productive?
not that I agree.

He did do a lot of human rights junk as well as that south africa business.

It's fair to say that no one thinks less of TK than I, but having all three of your brothers killed while in service to their country makes someone pretty damned sympathetic. Even if, as you note, the person in question doesn't deserve sympathy for any other part of their existence.

As a personal matter, it was a tragedy, and I always felt sorry for him for that, too. I imagine that if both my brothers were murdered, I might well be an alcoholic too. But JFK and RFK died as politicians, in pursuit of power, not in service to their country.

He spent his life, I guess, intending to help others. Unfortunately, the method he chose -- through government -- was selfish and counterproductive.

I assume you are a big fan of Kennedy's work liberalizing immigration and deregulating transportation.

His eldest brother died in combat during WWII. JFK died as the Head of State for these United States; presumably for that reason. The former is rather clearly in service of the country. I would place the latter there as well.

RFK may be a closer case, but I'm being charitable today.

EDIT- In response to 57- I take your point but I think you're being a tad restrictive on the "service" element. I certainly understand that YMMV.

The former is rather clearly in service of the country. I would place the latter there as well.

There's a Kevin joke in here, but I can't quite word it.

I assume you are a big fan of Kennedy's work liberalizing immigration and deregulating transportation.

Yes, he does get some credit for those things (as does, for that matter, Carter on the latter).

I'm in favour of all, or maybe most, of those things. I still can't get passed that story.

From Mark Styne's NRO salute to "The Swimmer":

How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile?

There is, for instance, that stunning claim at Huffington Post (by a woman whose name I forget) that somewhere Mary Jo may wonder whether her death was worth it (worth igniting Kennedy's passion to do legislative good).

From the same Styne piece:

At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo “would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.” What true-believing liberal lass wouldn’t be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?

Jaw-dropping. Brings to mind that other feminist nitwit, from Newsweek?, who wrote that she wanted to fellate Clinton for keeping her own fall-back option to kill her own young legal. Nobody embodied the Democrat's dogma that your personal actions matter not, as long as your hold he "correct" macro positions better than Teddy Kennedy.

Some of us are in mourning, and then when I see a thread like this....people tossing vitriol on the day of a national funeral, it makes me sad.

I'd join in complaining, but IIRC, the usual suspects could hardly be accused of being reverent when Reagan died.

Nope, just one "23 years late. Damn your aim, John Hinckley. I lived my childhood in terror because you MISSED." Boy, Primer/BTF was much lower populated back then.

Thread from Reagan's death.

Just giving a glimpse of the first 40 or so posts (of more than 1,000), I'd have to say reverence wasn't the rule.

Kennedy did a lot that was worthwhile, in the eyes of many. But his memorial has been a celebrity- and politician-filled overblown mess. If this man had not been a Kennedy, we wouldn't be treating him like royalty. Nor would we have given him a free pass on his shortcomings, especially the manslaughter.

I'm with Esoteric. He's not being a troll about it, either.

I always have a hard time believing that there's any feeling behind comments like this. To Kennedy's enemies, her name and memory is just another political weapon, another dart to throw at the man.

Casey Sheehan's on line one for you.

It saddens me now to see just what a small percentage of the anti-war protesters actually were protesting a horrible war, given the complete lack of interest as soon as the Democrats won everything in November. Loved how the daily HuffPo and MoveOn update of Sheehan's picketing suddenly disappeared the second she criticized Pelosi.

Say what you will about bible-beaters, but at least they don't all magically melt away and move on to more interesting things as soon as someone with the same party affiliation as them gets elected.

Jaw-dropping. Brings to mind that other feminist nitwit, from Newsweek?, who wrote that she wanted to fellate Clinton for keeping her own fall-back option to kill her own young legal. Nobody embodied the Democrat's dogma that your personal actions matter not, as long as your hold he "correct" macro positions better than Teddy Kennedy.

Quoting one wingnut who even I would agree could stand for a rather swift and harsh kneecapping doesn't actually illustrate any kind of cogent point.

If you're going to set up "person actions" as your big reveal against Democrats, then look to the jail sentences of your own party.

As long as we are recounting vehicular homicide by privilege:

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bioforum/1997-July/024343.html

I actually don't have much admiration for Kennedy. He's in some large way responsible for the trainwreck that is NCLB and the damage to millions of kids that has caused.

I don't understand why we have to suddenly forget reality when someone passes away. Can't we just see the good and the bad?

I hope that people will remember all the strengths and weaknesses I had when I do leave this world whether it is a sacrifice to save my kids or quietly slipping away in my sleep.

I don't understand why we have to suddenly forget reality when someone passes away. Can't we just see the good and the bad?

Not if they're political opponents, apparently. In that case, we only judge them by the worst days of their lives.

Quoting one wingnut who even I would agree could stand for a rather swift and harsh kneecapping doesn't actually illustrate any kind of cogent point.

This goes double for those who choose to ignore the continued war protests because it doesn't fit their version of the two-party world.

I'd join in complaining, but IIRC, the usual suspects could hardly be accused of being reverent when Reagan died.

I can't recall.

I hope that people will remember all the strengths and weaknesses I had when I do leave this world whether it is a sacrifice to save my kids or quietly slipping away in my sleep.

All 5795 of them.

LOL, I was checking the lounge for that day and didn't think to look for a dedicated thread.

5. Jack Who Resembles Voros (before he got fat) Posted: June 05, 2004 at 05:32 PM (#661222)
Hinkley had a vision.

8. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: June 05, 2004 at 05:38 PM (#661230)
I'm sure all of Nicaragua weeps with sorrow.

11. s.zielinski Posted: June 05, 2004 at 05:47 PM (#661237)
Re: #8

Or Grenada...

13. fra paolo Posted: June 05, 2004 at 05:54 PM (#661240)
Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, all join with Nicaraguans in their sorrow. A decade of blood in Central America partly stains the hands of this

And it goes on, interspersed with complaing about Bush not turning soldier funerals into spectacles by attending.

Reverence for the mourning, as I suspected, was in extremely short supply.

This is what really disturbs me about the man.

Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. "A direct appeal ... to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. ... If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. ... The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

This goes double for those who choose to ignore the continued war protests because it doesn't fit their version of the two-party world.

I actually don't understand what you are trying to get across here. Could you elaborate a bit?

Shibal, could you cite #74?

I was just referring to the post above yours:

It saddens me now to see just what a small percentage of the anti-war protesters actually were protesting a horrible war, given the complete lack of interest as soon as the Democrats won everything in November. Loved how the daily HuffPo and MoveOn update of Sheehan's picketing suddenly disappeared the second she criticized Pelosi.

Say what you will about bible-beaters, but at least they don't all magically melt away and move on to more interesting things as soon as someone with the same party affiliation as them gets elected.

I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but there have been plenty of continued anti-war and anti-militarization actions since Obama's ascension and this is his home.

Gotcha - thanks, Eso.

Lassus, I added the link from Forbes into that post.

I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but there have been plenty of continued anti-war and anti-militarization actions since Obama's ascension and this is his home.

No, these things definitely do exist and continue to happily go on at the grassroots level. But all the strongest media and establishment voices on the Democratic side, be they mainstream or netroots, have gone eerily silent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/

Where's Iraq? Or Afghanistan, the hot new quagmire? There are 70 or so articles there. We're in two wars and one party has completely control over them and...crickets. Apparently, whether or not Bush volunteered or not to go to Vietnam and how Bush handled Katrina is apparently far more important than either of the two actual wars we're involved in.

And it would be different if this was always the coverage. When Bush was president, these same sources had ending the wars as front and center. Now, not so much.

What's added salt into the wounds is that it makes the claims of Republicans accurate. The Republican ridiculous-at-the-time charges that the netroots didn't care about the American soldiers being killed or the individuals that made up the statistics of war casualties, but only cared about getting their team into office, suddenly looks a whole lot more plausible than they once did.

It's going to be awhile until I can support the Democratic party again. At least those neo-con Republican ########## actually believed the #### they were shoveling.

Is there anything actually more credible than Forbes about Ted Kennedy and the Soviets? It's just a bunch of right-wing blogs parroting each other about that.

Is there anything actually more credible than Forbes about Ted Kennedy and the Soviets? It's just a bunch of right-wing blogs parroting each other about that.

This credible enough for you?



TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY
_________________________________________

Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics."

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee
V. Chebrikov

Didn't your boy Robinson say that the Soviets were evil and not to be trusted?

Unless they were talking about the Democrats, then? ;-)

Thankfully, Kennedy's evil plot was foiled and all those nuclear weapons are still floating around the former Soviet Union somewhere.

I actually don't have much admiration for Kennedy. He's in some large way responsible for the trainwreck that is NCLB and the <strike>damage</strike>annoyance to millions of <strike>kids</strike>teachers that has caused.

For a no-holds-barred obituary, check out what HL Mencken wrote about William Jennings Bryan in 1925.

Somewhere else, a friend commented that Obama ought to use the occasion of Kennedy's funeral to make a ringing speech urging the passage of a comprehensive national healthcare bill. I responded, "How about, 'We will provide to you, at no cost to you even though you are incredibly wealthy and have been on the government payroll your whole life, at a job that was "held by a family friend for two years" (per NPR) until you were legally old enough to have it, a healthcare plan that will give you the best in healthcare, access 24/7 to top ... Read Moredoctors and treatments, and a job that will allow you to miss 80% of the time, showing up only when there is something that you feel is important where you will have an equal vote, and we will allow your state government to change the rules repeatedly so your hand-picked successor can take your place.'"

...Reagan was a likable guy who supported some terrible things.

Ted was a very troubled man (and I've yet to hear a eulogy that didn't mention this) who was generally good.


I actually prefer him to his brothers, as we are even worse about glossing over their flaws.

Plus, Ted may have had a different view on the role of government, but he never got us into Vietnam, nearly caused a nuclear apocalypse, authorized spying on civil rights leaders, etc etc.

For a no-holds-barred obituary, check out what HL Mencken wrote about William Jennings Bryan in 1925.

The climax of said:

Bryan was a vulgar and common man, a cad undiluted. He was ignorant, bigoted, self-seeking, blatant and dishonest. His career brought him into contact with the first men of his time; he preferred the company of rustic ignoramuses. It was hard to believe, watching him at Dayton, that he had traveled, that he had been received in civilized societies, that he had been a high officer of state. He seemed only a poor clod like those around him, deluded by a childish theology, full of an almost pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all beauty, all fine and noble things. He was a peasant come home to the dung-pile. Imagine a gentleman, and you have imagined everything that he was not.

They don't make 'em like Mencken any more.

we will allow your state government to change the rules repeatedly so your hand-picked successor can take your place

I don't get the issue here. The will of the people of Massachusetts is quite obviously to be represented by someone who continues Kennedy's legacy. The laws of the state have been altered to make sure, as best as possible, that that's the case.

The appointment of successors to Senate seats by governors is the anti-democratic thing here, not the creation of laws to allow Kennedy's term to be served out by someone who will vote as Kennedy would.

What's added salt into the wounds is that it makes the claims of Republicans accurate. The Republican ridiculous-at-the-time charges that the netroots didn't care about the American soldiers being killed or the individuals that made up the statistics of war casualties, but only cared about getting their team into office, suddenly looks a whole lot more plausible than they once did.

This.

This.

A thousand times this.

Geesh, I'm an independent, but...

afaik, Kennedy had no problem with Governors appointing Senate seat successors until 2004, when it appeared Romney might get to appoint Kerry's successor if he became President.

Seems like only THEN did Ted Kennedy worry about an "anti-Democratic" process.
So he led the fight in the change to the current law.

I'm not fired up for this like the righties here will be.
But are you saying that Kennedy supported a terrible process only until it became politically convenient to change it?
And should the process enacted 5 years ago be expedited simply for political convenience?

I haven't looked into this topic enough, I assume, so no doubt I'll be set straight....

This credible enough for you?

No, you posted a text to a letter which could easily have been forged. Have you got a link to anything more credible than Forbes?

Howie-

I really don't care who's been consistent or inconsistent. That's entirely beside the point. The people of Massachusetts ought to be represented by Teddy Kennedy, or failing that, someone who will vote along the same lines. If the laws need to be changed to accommodate that democratic process, that's fine by me.

through government -- was selfish and counterproductive.

Yeah, government measures such as DOMA. Which Ted Kennedy was one of the few to vote against.

I really don't care who's been consistent or inconsistent. That's entirely beside the point. The people of Massachusetts ought to be represented by Teddy Kennedy, or failing that, someone who will vote along the same lines. If the laws need to be changed to accommodate that democratic process, that's fine by me.

Don't worry, Matt, they will be -- in 135 days, or however long it takes for the special election to be scheduled. In the meantime, the imponderable burden of representing Massachusetts' interests in the Senate will be taken up by John Kerry, who I trust is doughty enough to shoulder this heavy load. There are absolutely no reasons of state that the law needs to spot-changed to get a successor in there right this second, especially given that the special election method was pushed by Kennedy, approved the legislature, and supported by the people.

Until then, I can't see a reason why you would object to Kerry being Massachusetts' point man for liberal issues. Surely you're not supporting a rule change out of a purely cynical desire to get another vote into the Senate to break cloture, are you? I think better of you than that.

A couple of things in terms of coverage of war protests. There are multiple factors causing less coverage of war protests.

1) The honeymoon effect. Every president gets it to some extent, regardless of politics.

2) Limited time to cover protests. Since certain groups are very vocally protesting everything the Obama administration is trying to do, not every protest gets on the air. There are still anti-war protests, but they're dwarfed by health care and other protests, not to mention the nut jobs who still are claiming that Obama isn't eligible to be President. The press tends to focus on newer things, since that's what gets ratings.

3) and finally, there ARE fewer protests than before. Not because of hypocrisy, but because of there being a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. The vast majority of protesters were always energized by the Iraq war, and not so much by Afghanistan (though a smaller amount were energized by that war too). Now that the US is withdrawing from Iraq, relatively few want to spend the time protesting - it's now a matter of wanting the time table shortened, instead of wanting the withdrawal to even begin. It's not hypocrisy to have been against the Iraq war, and then stop protesting when a new President actually starts the process of removing the troops. It's ignorant at best to claim that most protesters are so stupid as to think that a wand could be waved to bring the troops home overnight. Most realize that the process will take a little while - to protect the troops themselves if nothing else.

Amazing as it may sound I never knew about this until this thread. In any event I just went and read the wikipedia entry on the drowning. It's pretty appalling.

It's a fairly common response Gaelan- even amongst educated folks like yourself. I think that it's hard for people to see at this point, but Kennedy was such an unbelievably sympathetic figure when it happened, a lot of people, even ideological opponents, just wanted to give him a pass and make the thing go away.

It's even worse than that: some people saw the incident as a tragedy that had happened to Kennedy rather than a tragedy to others that was caused by Kennedy. Here's an interesting piece I read in Slate about the stories filed at the time by a fairly well known New York Times reporter, James Reston. (Some of you may recognize that name from the excellent Rose-Giamatti book "Collision At Home Plate" -- the author of that book is Reston's son, James Reston Jr.)

Quoting now from the Slate piece:

Reston's high point—or low, depending on your frame of reference—came on Saturday, July 19, 1969, when Kennedy's submerged 1967 black Oldsmobile Delmont 88 was discovered in a Chappaquiddick Island tidal channel, just off Martha's Vineyard, Mass.

...

Let's turn to John F. Stacks' informative biography Scotty: James B. Reston and the Rise and Fall of American Journalism (2003) for the rest of the story:

[Reston] dictated the first paragraph, the lead in which the essence of the story is usually conveyed, with this first sentence: "Tragedy has again struck the Kennedy family." The victim was not mentioned until the fourth paragraph. Later in the day, [top Times editor] Abe Rosenthal called [Reston's wife] Sally Reston at home in Edgartown, asking her to advise Scotty that there had been a few changes made to Scotty's story. (In the edited version, the real victim was in the lead.)

That Reston viewed the accident as a tragedy for the Kennedy family rather than for Mary Jo Kopechne or her family reveals how smitten he was with the clan.

...

Lelyveld, reflecting later on Reston's role that weekend, felt that he had operated for so long among the powerful in Washington that he saw the story as only about Kennedy. "He had no sense of how people outside Washington would see the story. He was not interested in the investigative angle," Lelyveld said. It initially eluded Reston that the story was not about something happening to Teddy Kennedy but about something a Kennedy did to someone else.

This.
This.
A thousand times this.

Holy drama queen, Eso. Protests are likely to be covered more pre-election than post-election, you know.

Also, um, when you vote in a party you support against the party that put you into the war with no plan for getting out of the war, you might actually back off the protests for the first six or so months months, especially when you've been given the plan (or at least think you have) that the people will be withdrawn.

No notable difference has occurred to justify the scenery-chewing of your entry. The point makes no sense, at least to me.

EDIT: coke for akrasian

I am not a scholar of the Soviet Union or recent political history, so I don't pretend to have a lot to say about the Andropov-Kennedy link.

I just googled a bit. It looks like Kengor says he got the memo from a Ukrainian, then had it confirmed by just one person, Herbert Romerstein. Romerstein does not appear to be a real scholar, but rather a Regnery author who recently argued that a guy Obama knew when he was a teenager was a communist and thus, well, this. It's really hard to give credence to claims made mostly by whackjobs.

Don't worry, Matt, they will be -- in 135 days, or however long it takes for the special election to be scheduled. In the meantime, the imponderable burden of representing Massachusetts' interests in the Senate will be taken up by John Kerry, who I trust is doughty enough to shoulder this heavy load. There are absolutely no reasons of state that the law needs to spot-changed to get a successor in there right this second, especially given that the special election method was pushed by Kennedy, approved the legislature, and supported by the people.

Massachusetts should have two senators, not just one. Massachusetts voters should be represented by two votes in the Senate. These votes should represent, as best as possible, the will of the people of Massachusetts. If it takes rewritten laws to ensure that Ted Kennedy's seat is properly filled by someone who will vote along the lines of Ted Kennedy, that seems well worth it to me.

He was on the right side, or at least had the right intentions on an awful lot of very important issues, and I think as time passes that's kinda what we remeber.

Funny; to me, he was on the wrong side of an awful lot of very important issues -- and by that I don't mean what *I* consider the wrong side to be. I mean that his liberal dreams for America did not come to pass, time and time and time again. His ideas were *rejected*, time and time and time again.

Example: I watched an HBO documentary on him last night (actually aired on CNN) "Teddy in his own words." It was interesting (though it of course whitewashed his life). Anyway, watching clips of him speaking 30 years ago on health care, speechifying that health care "is a right, not a privilege, for ALL Americans!"... hell, he could have given that speech last week and nobody would have known that thirty years had passed since it was written. His liberal dream for health care has been soundly rejected here in the US, over and over and over again.

Whether Obama can finally realize that dream for health care remains to be seen, but to this point it's been a non-starter here in the US.