Bob & Valerie & Ted & Mary Jo
[Posted by Karl]
Editor and Publisher has compiled a list of where establishment media outlets placed the first mention of the Chappaquiddick accident in their obits of Ted Kennedy. E&P claims they compiled a similar list of where news outlets first mentioned the Plame case in covering the death of Robert Novak, but failed to provide a link — and searches failed to find it. Out of curiousity, I decided to compare them myself.
The Associated Press mentioned Chappaquiddick in the 7th graf of the Kennedy obit; Plame appears in the 2nd graf of the Novak obit (which later had to be corrected regarding the Plame case). Reuters mentioned Chappaquiddick in the 18th graf, but mentioned the Plame case in the lede. The New York Times mentioned Chappaquiddick in the 14th graf, Plame in the lede. The Washington Post put Chappaquiddick in the 9th graf, Plame in the 2nd graf (and the second sentence). The Chicago Tribune and the L.A. Times put Chappaquiddick in the 12th graf, Plame in the lede. USA Today put Chappaquiddick in the 19th graf, Plame in the 6th graf. The Hill made no mention of Chappaquiddick, but put the Plame case in the second graf. Roll Call put Chappaquiddick in the 25th graf, Plame in the 12th. The NY Daily News put Chappaquiddick in the 13th graf, Plame in the 9th graf.
Not every media outlet followed the pattern. The Politico put Chappaquiddick in the 24th graf, but put Plame in the 30th. The Wall Street Journal placed Chappaquiddick in the 6th graf, and Plame in the 11th. But these were the exceptions proving the rule.
WaPo media critic Howard Kurtz may have been surprised that Chappaquiddick was a trending topic on Twitter (and a number of the hottest searches on Google), but few in flyover country are likely to be surprised. Chappaquiddick — in addition to its inherent tragedy — is a milestone in double-standards, both in American politics and the establishment media. Carl Cannon has a must-read piece on the subject at Politics Daily, which I can merely excerpt here:
The one-car mishap was Teddy Kennedy’s fault, of course, no one disputes that. And his actions that followed – not summoning emergency personnel who might have saved her life, the cover-up of the facts, not even reporting the accident until the following morning – likely would have landed a man without political connections in prison. That thought has stuck in the craw of Kennedy critics and assorted conservatives for forty years. It was heartbreaking for her family and friends to experience the loss of a lovely, devout, and socially committed 28-year-old woman. For millions of Americans who never knew her, the tragic incident has fed a festering cultural grudge.
The idea that Edward M. Kennedy could be a viable national politician – let alone a much-admired and lionized political figure – has convinced millions of everyday citizens and succeeding generations of conservative activists that among the elites of academia, politics, and the media two standards of behavior exist: One for liberal Democrats and another for conservative Republicans. Along with sweeping changes in immigration law, soaring oratory, and strengthening the nation’s social safety net, this reservoir of class resentment is also part of Kennedy’s legacy.
Liberals in the media pretend not to see this. Or rather, they blame those who feel aggrieved…
***
[T]he Kennedy “haters,” to use James Fallows’ word, rarely seemed to include the Republicans who knew Teddy personally. Many ordinary Americans without access to the corridors of power saw it differently. They should not necessarily be discounted as wrong, either. In protesting Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, Kennedy thundered, “Is there one system of justice for the average citizen and another system for the high and mighty?” These words, uttered five years after Chappaquiddick, are ubiquitous on conservative websites where they are offered up as evidence, not only of Kennedy’s hypocrisy, but the mainstream media’s as well.
Similarly, to movement conservatives, Kennedy’s attack on Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork is offered up as a case study in the press’s historic double standard…
How bad is this double-standard? As the two men were dying of brain cancer, Ted Kennedy was far kinder to Robert Novak in life than Novak’s media colleagues were to Novak in death.
–Karl
And it has remained ever thus – in watching the local PBS news show here a few days ago, the predictable assortment of news “elites” begrudgingly admitted that Novak was often a tenacious and respected reporter, particularly during his days writing the “Evans & Novak” column. But they nevertheless focused their snark on his days on the Mclaughlin show, as well as his Plame column. All this, despite that reality that Novak grew up in quite modest circumstances in Joliet, IL – and attended the U of I on his own merit. He helped make the Sun – Times one of the most – respected papers in the country at one time, let alone Chicago. They should be ashamed of themselves, if they had any to begin with.
Comment by Dmac — 8/27/2009 @ 10:40 am
Kennedys are white trash. Now they’re mostly dead white trash, except for the horse-faced hoochie what made a laughingstock of herself.
I like it that so many of them are dead.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 11:02 am
…has convinced millions of everyday citizens and succeeding generations of conservative activists that among the elites of academia, politics, and the media two standards of behavior exist: One for liberal Democrats and another for conservative Republicans.
Yes indeed…I remember how the “liberal press” had daily reminders of how Laura Bush had killed her ex-boyfriend in a suspicious car wreck and gotten away scot-free thanks to her family connections.
Comment by Sunburn — 8/27/2009 @ 11:14 am
No doubt sunburn will provide links to that story.
I noted that one early Kennedy obit (I can’t recall where now) referred to Chappaquidick as an “accident that prevented… blah, blah, blah” with no mention that another person was in the car.
Comment by Mike K — 8/27/2009 @ 11:17 am
Hey Sundown, just which elected political position did Laura Bush hold?
Comment by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — 8/27/2009 @ 11:19 am
I guess sunburn doesn’t know how to use Google. The “family connections” didn’t seem to make the story. No doubt he has other links about them.
Comment by Mike K — 8/27/2009 @ 11:21 am
That is a f*cking lie, and you are a f*cking liar, sunburst.
End-stage BDS, folks, live and in person.
Comment by JD — 8/27/2009 @ 11:21 am
FANTASTIC job! That must have taken you a while and a lot of hard work slogging through what must have been some looooong reads. It’s a good thing we’ve got bloggers like you to do the work the media won’t.
Comment by Mad Monica — 8/27/2009 @ 11:26 am
how Laura Bush had killed her ex-boyfriend in a suspicious car wreck and gotten away scot-free thanks to her family connections.
You should learn to read, fuckstick.
Yes, at 17 Laura Welch, not elected to office, runs a stop sign and is injured and taken to the hospital.
Teddy Kennedy, 37, serving as a Senator, drunkenly drives his car off of a road himself, then swims away from the scene, doesn’t call for help, and then reports it the next morning, while Mary Jo’s body sits underwater the entire time.
Yeah, those two incidents are ‘equal’
Sunburn is a stupid asshole.
Comment by Apogee — 8/27/2009 @ 11:30 am
My father was a GOP operative in the 60s in the Commonwealth. He helped get a U.S. Senator, and two governors elected in Massachusetts. I shall never forget the morning when the news came out about how EMK was complicit in the death of MJK.
He explained to me how 1) the judges in MA were particularly harsh on those who cause injury or death while driving under the influence, and 2) that as he was speaking, he was certain that the police report would be “lost.”
It was my first lesson in realpolitik.
Comment by Ed from SFV — 8/27/2009 @ 11:32 am
10, actually it was proof once again that Old Joe bought and sold political favors.
Sunstroke, you must be one miserable, hatefilled putz.
The only person that really saved Teddy is Victoria Reggie.
Comment by PCD — 8/27/2009 @ 11:42 am
Ok, stop piling on Sunburn. He is just a typical liberal. And there is something important to learn from his post–the reason why the liberal press can so shamelessly maintain the double standard.
Sunburn and his fellow travelers are the sort of people for whom these two events ARE more or less equal. They are completely incapable of seeing the double standard because to them the coverage is fair and balanced.
Comment by tim maguire — 8/27/2009 @ 11:53 am
One section in Novak’s book concerns the West Virginia primary in 1960 which Joe K bought and paid for. The story was concealed for many years and even Novak didn’t know about it until years later.
Humphrey isn’t just grousing. By his own later account, Raymond Chafin, a political boss in Logan County, is asked by Kennedy backers what it would take to get him to switch his support from Humphrey to Kennedy. Chafin tells them “35,” meaning $3,500, but the Kennedy forces apparently misunderstand him. A few days before the election, Chafin is handed two sealed briefcases containing $35,000 in cash. When he calls the Kennedy campaign to report the mistake, he is told to keep the extra money, which by his own later admission, he spends bribing voters. Vote-buying allegations threaten to taint JFK’s victory in West Virginia, but nothing comes of a subsequent Justice Department investigation. Kennedy himself will joke about the expensive win, saying that his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, had complained that JFK was supposed to “rent the state, not buy it.”
I guess sunburn was going to post that one soon, too.
Comment by Mike K — 8/27/2009 @ 11:56 am
Sunburn and his fellow travelers are the sort of people for whom these two events ARE more or less equal. They are completely incapable of seeing the double standard because to them the coverage is fair and balanced.
Way too much credit. They’re partisan whores who lie so that they can feel that they’re ‘part’ of something. They get screwed for free by their masters because they’re fucked up, not because they’re incapable of seeing reality. This was demonstrated quite clearly on Sept 12, 2001, when this same group of people confided their relief that Bush, and not Gore, was in office. My favorite quote that day from one of these ‘fellow travelers’: “Yeah, Gore would probably be trying to negotiate with them.”
It’s a political addiction, but unlike an addiction to opiates, the negative effect on logical thought falls apart quickly when faced with their own survival.
Comment by Apogee — 8/27/2009 @ 12:14 pm
Two standards. Hilarious squawking from the ‘family values’ party whose pols have betrayed those standards with increasing frequency. Seems a real stretch (if not pathetic and petty) for conservatives to whine about the text placement of Chappaquiddick in Kennedy’s obits as compared to the Plame incident in Novak’s. The Plame matter was just a few years ago. Chappaquiddick was 40 years ago and a lot of water has passed under that bridge since 1969 in terms of career chronology. Kennedy was an elected public servant and has the legacy of some superb legislation with his name attached to it since 1962. Novak, the ‘Prince of Darkness,’ was a journalist, a columnist/reporter with decades worth if columns (penned along with partner Rollie Evans)with bylines attached to it. There’s really no comparison. Except that pols on both sides had respect for both men in their respective careers. Rank and file conservatives and Republicans should take note of the high number of Senator Kennedy’s colleagues across the aisle who have praised him as a friend and an adversary.
And frankly, it was up to the voters of Massachusetts to pass political judgement on Ted Kennedy regarding Chappaquiddick. Seems they did and re-elected him several times to the Senate. And he was essentially denied the presidency because of it. He’s dead now and no longer a scourge to the Right. But rest easy, no doubt Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck is on the trail of a Kopechne relative for a flashy interview to get the last word.
Comment by DCSCA — 8/27/2009 @ 12:22 pm
Jeez. Has the treatment center done a bed check recently?
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/27/2009 @ 12:24 pm
I also like the “a lot of time has passed” explanation for MJK, and all the drunken cocktail waitress tossing.
This from someone who keeps bleating about Ronald Reagan?
Again, time to up this braggart’s meds.
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/27/2009 @ 12:26 pm
a lot of water has passed under that bridge since 1969
Just don’t drink it, because it may contain decomposing flesh.
Comment by Apogee — 8/27/2009 @ 12:28 pm
Ted Kennedy was not a man you would want your kid to aspire to be, and everybody knows that. Everybody. He was a trashy trashy man fit only to represent the douchebag citizenry of Massachusetts and little else.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 12:44 pm
Hitler hasn’t done anything wrong for like 60 years! Water under the bridge!
Comment by Juan — 8/27/2009 @ 12:46 pm
“Hitler hasn’t done…”
Well, that’s the end of this thread.
Comment by Gesundheit — 8/27/2009 @ 12:54 pm
I probably should have appended a
to that.
Comment by Gesundheit — 8/27/2009 @ 12:56 pm
In a just world, “Teddy Kennedy care” would pass, but it would only cover hydrophobia.
Comment by proof — 8/27/2009 @ 1:01 pm
I guess DCSCA would also support John C Calhoun who said slavery was “a positive good” because he was elected to the Senate several times as well as being elected vice-president.
The “water under the bridge” was a cute rhetorical device in mentioning Kennedy. Roosevelt said never mention rope in the house of a man who has been hanged but that was back in the days when politicians had some sense of justice. I disagreed with Roosevelt about some things but his like has not been seen in the Democratic Party for quite a while.
Comment by Mike K — 8/27/2009 @ 1:06 pm
I lived in Massachusetts for over 30 years. If Ted Kennedy had beheaded new born babies on live statewide television two days before the election he still would have received 60% of the vote.
That’s just how The Democratic Republic of Taxachusetts rolled.
Comment by BJTexs — 8/27/2009 @ 1:09 pm
Anyone else think that International Man of Parody and Sullivan are suffering similar mental degeneration?
Comment by JD — 8/27/2009 @ 1:10 pm
I remember how the “liberal press” had daily reminders of how Laura Bush had killed her ex-boyfriend in a suspicious car wreck and gotten away scot-free thanks to her family connections.
Sunbeeyotch, every time you post here from now on this sentence will be repeated, ad nauseum. Get used to it, you farking hosemonster.
This lends more credence to this being just another yet – to – be outed sockpuppet from i like amerikka.
Comment by Dmac — 8/27/2009 @ 1:55 pm
Anyone else think that International Man of Parody and Sullivan are suffering similar mental degeneration?
Unless they both claim to have serviced Gunga Dan in the CBS men’s restroom between commercial breaks, probably not.
Comment by Dmac — 8/27/2009 @ 1:56 pm
You’re right about the hypocrisy and double standard Karl. But, that’s not part of the approved narrative!
Remember, only conservatives can be hypocritical; because left wing liberals have no morals, character, nor integrity…
How can you be a hypocrite when one of your guiding tenets is, “by any means necessary…”?
I’ll close by leaving the Coulter quote:
“‘The reason any conservative’s failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It’s an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.’”
-Ann Coulter
Comment by Bob Reed — 8/27/2009 @ 2:22 pm
Anything can be forgiven for those that are footsoldiers in service of Teh Narrative.
Comment by JD — 8/27/2009 @ 2:41 pm
Anything can be forgiven for those that are footsoldiers in service of Teh Narrative.
We can also forgive those who are graceless enough to attack Teddy even before he’s in the ground, JD.
It’s the Christian thing to do.
Bless you, brother.
I know you guys can’t help yourselves.
Comment by Sunburn — 8/27/2009 @ 2:58 pm
And why were the denizens of the Commonwwealth even given this opportunity? Because the damn evidence was stolen out of police custody.
This was an issue for a jury. We were all cheated.
Comment by Ed from SFV — 8/27/2009 @ 2:59 pm
Now I know for certain that sunbeyootch is i like amerikka. No question about it.
Comment by Dmac — 8/27/2009 @ 3:09 pm
F*ck you sunburst. This idea that it is an attack to tell the truth is abject BS.
Comment by JD — 8/27/2009 @ 3:18 pm
Sunburn,
Maybe people wouldn’t be reminding everyone about Ted’s glaring immorality if his party had not started trying to exploit his death for partisan advantage at 2:30 a.m. yesterday.
Apparently, the whole thing about double standards sailed right over your head. Not that anyone is surprised.
Comment by Karl — 8/27/2009 @ 3:33 pm
It is an attack, I guess. It’s just not a dishonorable or tasteless attack.
When Ron Reagan started bashing W during his father’s funeral, that was tasteless. When people cheered that Tony Snow was dead, that was tasteless. When people say ‘It’s too bad Ted died badly, but I do not respect this person because he left that girl to die, or assaulted that waitress, or was otherwise slimy’. That’s the opposite. That’s being conscientious of reality.
It’s far more tasteless to slam Ted against a bill that he took basically no part in crafting and claim that this means we should pass the bill.
Comment by Juan — 8/27/2009 @ 3:44 pm
“We can also forgive those who are graceless enough to attack Teddy even before he’s in the ground, JD.”
sunburn – What did you have to say about Tony Snow before he was in the ground?
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/27/2009 @ 3:44 pm
Yes, let’s wait until he is in the ground before we dance on his grave.
Far less likely to break an ankle.
Comment by Dr. K — 8/27/2009 @ 3:48 pm
I reject your forgiveness. Forgiveness is not possible without one’s acknowledging of and repenting a wrong. I do neither. Many times before his death I referred to Ted Kennedy as a Harvard cheating, Honor Code violating, Navy coddled, lying, adulterous, murdering son of a thieving, booze running Nazi collaborator. I stand by that, and will continue to remember him this way. I do not celebrate his death, I do not celebrate the death of any human. And I regret that he betrayed his Church’s teachings. Since yesterday I have held my tongue and said nothing, but I consider your accusation a provocation. Frankly, I don’t give a damn what you think of me. But don’t you dare “forgive” me. (Like you have any concept of the meaning of the word!)
Not that this is any way equivalent, but have you forgotten the absolute “progressive” glee upon the deaths of Ronald Reagan then Nancy Reagan? Remember keeping a bottle of champagne in your fridge to celebrate the event when it came?
But I forget… you can’t be a hypocrite because you have no values.
Comment by RB — 8/27/2009 @ 3:52 pm
Q: Who siad the following, and in what circumstance?
A:
Comment by Dr. K — 8/27/2009 @ 4:00 pm
I don’t think there’s any glee that this nasty white trash dirty socialist frat boy is dead and I think if anything there’s just some concern that dead boy will be held up as some sort of honorable human being. He was just an average white trash scion of an exceptionally trashy white trash family. It’s unseemly for there to be either glee or sorrow in any notable amounts. He’s just not worth either.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 4:01 pm
Then there’s this:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/remember-dancing-on-reagans-grave.html
Comment by Dr. K — 8/27/2009 @ 4:03 pm
Rep. Matsui steers clear of town-hall circuit in Sacramento
I can’t think of another place to post this.
It seems wrong to me that there is only one listing at google news.
It looks like… no, that most definitely is… party discipline.
We are alone out here. On an island.
Comment by papertiger — 8/27/2009 @ 4:25 pm
Here is a picture of the bridge where Ted Kennedy killed that one chick. It says it’s how it looks today and it probably looked different back then plus it was dark and he was drunk drunk drunk. Here is another picture of the bridge where Ted Kennedy killed that one chick.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 4:30 pm
Forgiveness is not possible without one’s acknowledging of and repenting a wrong.
Sure it is, RB.
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
I see now that it’s just a problem of upbringing.
Teddy always did try to help the most those like youself, unfortunates who came from disadvantaged back grounds.
I’m sure he’d be the first to forgive your graceless words.
Comment by Sunburn — 8/27/2009 @ 4:46 pm
Hmm. There were some folks from disadvantaged backgrounds who might disagree. Heck, one of them from beyond the grave.
Or the cocktail waitresses of whom he would make a Senator Sandwich with Chris Dodd.
But you know all that, and are just being a troll.
And most likely, a sockpuppet.
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/27/2009 @ 4:51 pm
This is how we shall remember poor dead Ted, before illness crewel and spiteful ravaged his glorious beautiousness. He was white trash but dammit he was America.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 4:51 pm
Oh, I get it. You didn’t mean:
What you meant was:
Sorry, Patterico and DRJ. But I am amused by the reflexive Left trying to turn a dead groper of women into some kind of folk hero.
I mean, Nixon did a lot of good, but we don’t hear him lionized.
Maybe Nixon should have gotten snot slinging, waitress pinching drunk a lot more, and cheated on his wives just about weekly.
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/27/2009 @ 4:54 pm
Today I received an email from a chatroom acquaintance asking me to sign a card for the Kennedy family. My answer …. You’re kidding, right? Will be interesting to see if I get a response.
Comment by PatAZ — 8/27/2009 @ 4:55 pm
lookit this is sad here is a picture of that one chick that Ted Kennedy killed’s motel room what she never got to go back to cause of she drownded. Room 56.
The motel is gone now. It got destroyed in 1999 and a new more better one was built. Here is what it looked like.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 4:59 pm
A fitting discussion of Ted Kennedy:
It’s unfortunate that the personal sorrow of a man’s death must become a topic of political discussion, but it’s only fitting, because Ted Kennedy helped write the field manual to the politics of personal destruction. Politicians have been spreading scurrilous lies about their opponents since the early days of the republic, but Kennedy used scurrilous lies to destroy a man who wasn’t a politician: Judge Robert Bork. Kennedy kicked Bork’s Supreme Court seat out from under him, by questioning his very humanity. Let me repeat a Kennedy quote you have probably heard a few times today:
Thus began the modern era of below-the-belt, win-at-any-cost politics, played for the highest of stakes. Kennedy’s Democrats have never been shy about throwing elbows while the media referees are taking one of their frequent naps. Kennedy was the chief programmer for the endless loop of Great Society liberal arrogance, in which the Left used various social problems as the pretext for power grabs, which invariably made the problems worse… justifying further power grabs. This is the virus Democrats wish to introduce into the health-care system. The initial injection of a government-funded “public option” would lead to the total collapse of the health insurance industry, which would require even more sweeping government control of medicine, leading to a grim future in which titanic amounts of taxpayer loot would be shoveled into a system that produced sub-standard care and wealthy politicians.
Kennedy was a prince in the Aristocracy of Intent, absolved of every crime by the soaring nobility of his intentions. His constituents were delighted to watch him emerge from a warm bath of incredible wealth, to rail against men who were crass and selfish enough to accumulate their fortunes by creating jobs and meeting consumer needs. A straight line can be drawn from his limousine liberalism to Al Gore’s Learjet environmentalism. To be a Kennedy supporter is to endorse the notion that only the wise elite of the ruling class are morally entitled to the trappings of wealth. In the workers’ paradise, the masses will be uniformly poor, controlled, and maintained… while the commissars live in mansions, the Castros are billionaires, and the Kennedys hold court at Martha’s Vineyard. The desperate slobbering of people like Chris Matthews is an embarrassing illustration of the liberal’s enduring need to believe his leaders are giants in the earth, the elite of the elite. Of course the Left is feverishly working to deify Kennedy. Liberals see themselves as moral and intellectual heroes, and heroes kneel only before gods.
Lust and sanctimony are a dangerous combination. We’ve had enough of politicians who believe their duty to their party, and its vision of the future, transcends their loyalty to the real America that lives beyond their ideology. Ted Kennedy unquestionably believed this, when he offered to help the Soviet Union defeat Ronald Reagan… or when he found it expedient to portray George Bush and the American military as the new management of Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers, even as American troops were locked in mortal combat with al-Qaeda terrorists. We’ve had enough of Senators-for-life, and royal families who use safe districts as dynastic thrones. We don’t need any more “visionaries” who think the purpose of the private sector is helping government to realize its true potential.
Read the whole piece; the link is in the first sentance…
It sums things up quite nicely…
Comment by Bob Reed — 8/27/2009 @ 5:01 pm
Also,
For all of the talk about Teddy’s Bi-Partisanship and his dedication to Health care reform, it’s useful to remember that [object] with that sacred issue he was supposedly dedicated to…
Instead of compromising with Nixon on an employer based health insurance plan, the great bi-partisan lion of the Senate chose the, “my way or the highway” approach…
So next time a lefty is lecturing about how Obama won and how the right needs to compromise with him on his agenda, just ask them; “What would Ted Kennedy do”?
(WWTKD)
Check.Mate.Beeyotch…
Comment by Bob Reed — 8/27/2009 @ 5:20 pm
Proving that you are clueless on the concept.
Help? Is there anyone who really thinks of his power grubbing intrusions into out lives as help? Wanna help[? GET OUT OF THE WAY .
You also have no clue as to my background. Just looking to push some buttons? Well, that’s all you seem to be left with.
“Grace” is another concept you seem fuzzy on. Forgiveness from a Kennedy? Rejected. I would remind EMK to first remove the plank from his own eye. (Look it up.)
Comment by RB — 8/27/2009 @ 5:26 pm
Also,
For all of the talk about Teddy’s Bi-Partisanship and his dedication to Health care reform, it’s useful to remember that he played politics with that sacred issue he was supposedly dedicated to…
Instead of compromising with Nixon on an employer based health insurance plan, the great bi-partisan lion of the Senate chose the, “my way or the highway” approach…
So next time a lefty is lecturing about how Obama won and how the right needs to compromise with him on his agenda, just ask them; “What would Ted Kennedy do”?
(WWTKD)
Check.Mate.Beeyotch.
Comment by Bob Reed — 8/27/2009 @ 5:28 pm
Meanwhile, more tax cheating comes out about Rangel, and the Obama administration is buying pro-Obama propaganda with NEA money.
Its astonishing what the Democrats get away with compared to the GOP.
Comment by SPQR — 8/27/2009 @ 5:35 pm
You also have no clue as to my background
I think I do.
It sure is nice to see Republican politicians behaving so much better than their so-called base.
Did you see John McCain boot the crazy shouting lady from his town hall yesterday?
I think we’re seeing a trend here.
Comment by Sunburn — 8/27/2009 @ 5:37 pm
So that is all you had left.
Comment by RB — 8/27/2009 @ 5:51 pm
I know what Meghan’s daddy calls his wife when she pops her mouf off and I don’t think she even has to shout to set him off. He has lots of anger issues, McCain does.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 5:53 pm
One of these days he’s gonna burst something important and then we’ll have to have a thread where we all have to either shut up or lie.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 6:00 pm
What the hell does John McCain have to do with Republicans anyway?
Comment by Chuck Roast — 8/27/2009 @ 6:09 pm
damn good question
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 6:13 pm
A thread where we have to shut up or lie. What a great way to describe it.
Comment by JD — 8/27/2009 @ 6:29 pm
Oh, and lest we forget, Ted loved his country soooooo much, that he was always ready to team up against the real enemies of America…
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr
Read it, and weep; weep that such a Machiavellian person held sway in the Senate for nearly 50 years…
Comment by Bob Reed — 8/27/2009 @ 6:32 pm
You can find a picture of the car in the water here. Scroll down a little.
Comment by nk — 8/27/2009 @ 6:52 pm
Kennedy left the party, supposedly to drive his brother’s former secretary, Mary Jo Kopechne, to catch the last ferry back to the mainland but, instead, the car turned onto a side road and crashed off a bridge into a tidal creek.
[The way some cars turn onto side roads and crash into tidal creeks has always surprised me, too. For some reason, mine won't do it. I have to steer it myself.]
Kennedy pulled himself from the upturned car and, after swimming across a narrow creek, returned to his hotel without reporting the accident.
It was the following morning before local fishermen found the sunken car and discovered the body of Mary Jo Kopechne still inside.
Evidence given at the subsequent inquest suggested that she had probably remained alive in an air pocket for several hours and might well have been saved had the alarm been raised at the time.
Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, claiming that he had been in shock, and was given a two-month suspended jail sentence.
What is a suspended sentence in Hell and how long are two months there?
Comment by nk — 8/27/2009 @ 6:57 pm
I mean I know Ted Kennedy is a big fat white trashy coward but for reals can you live that long in an air pocket in a car?
Comment by happyfeet — 8/27/2009 @ 7:01 pm
People have lived for days buried in eartquakes and mine collapses. Something to do with carbon dioxide. Maybe one of the doctors can explain it.
Comment by nk — 8/27/2009 @ 7:14 pm
Huffington Post suggests that Mary Jo probably should have, and maybe would have thought her death was worth it for having helped Kennedy become a super-powerful senator.
Basically it says that Kennedy was the greatest senator in history (LOL) and if he killed a kid and all that other stuff, big deal! His leadership was worth it.
This kind of stuff is positively North Korean. Any fault is forgiven, even killing people?
What’s even more hilarious is the idea that Ted Kennedy’s senate career was somehow promoted by this trial by fire of Ted killing this girl. Ted was powerful because he was JFK and RFK’s brother. He lived off their bones for half a century, and he gained seniority and thus power, but Ted’s career was drastically damaged by the Mary incident.
Comment by Juan — 8/27/2009 @ 7:48 pm
Sunburn said:
We can also forgive those who are graceless enough to attack Teddy even before he’s in the ground, JD.
It’s the Christian thing to do.
Bless you, brother.
I know you guys can’t help yourselves.
Go check with your buddies at Kos who are anxiously awaiting the execution of Bush and Cheney without trial.
I know they can’t help themselves either.
I actually remember when Mary Jo Kopechne died. I was only 10, but the news coverage was extensive. However, I didn’t understand, at the time, what really happened.
I was sympathetic, of course. After all, his brothers had both been assassinated by two crazed individuals. One was a commie and the other an anti-Zionist.
At the time, and for years afterwards, I maintained the thought that this tragedy was just another visited upon the ill-fated Kennedy family.
But, as I’ve grown older and learned the actual circumstances, I know that it wasn’t.
Kopechne’s tragedy was just the first public confirmation of the Kennedy hubris. However, if you don’t believe me, go back and read the early writings of uber-liberal Kurt Vonnegut.
And yet, the media continued to push the idea of Camelot — eventually elevating a grade-cheating, coddled and abusive womanizing alcoholic to the upper echelons of politics.
Now, we’re supposed to respect him and heap rewards because of his efforts to take money from those who earned it to those who didn’t because he was compassionate.
Except, he wasn’t compassionate to Mary Jo, or the waitresses who formed the middle of his sandwich with Dodd, or the poor girl raped by his nephew in Florida.
His compassion was for the unfortunate he didn’t know, much less would deign to associate with.
He was the consummate politician. A lion of the Senate. A deal maker and deal breaker. And, a worthless human being.
Because he left an innocent girl to die in a ditch for no other reason than his ambition.
We can all glorify his accomplishments and rationalize his short-comings.
But, ultimately, we have to remember the sacrifice of a young, true-believer whose soul rests in the mud of Chappaquiddick.
Comment by Ag80 — 8/27/2009 @ 8:18 pm
Sunburn is a stupid asshole.
I wonder what he’s like in real life? Probably one of those flaky, half-assed type of people who — as is true of virtually all leftists — fancies himself as a truly compassionate and humane soul, but who, in reality, is one unpleasant, foolish, selfish, miserable SOB and POS.
Comment by Mark — 8/27/2009 @ 8:25 pm
And yet, the media continued to push the idea of Camelot
Even though I’m a conservative, if the inside story of the main players in the Kennedy family had been relatively down-to-earth and decent, I’d give them their dues. If JFK (ie, an early 1960s version of scroungy Bill Clinton) and his youngest brother (ie, the drunkard at Chappaquiddick, among other things) were connected to a history of honor and decency, I still wouldn’t care for their politics but I could accept the so-called charisma or aura around them.
I try to relate to my reactions towards Ronald Reagan, who, yes, was of the right, within the past few years. Even if he were a “lefty,” the details I’ve learned more recently about him — due in part to material released by his wife after his death — because they indicate a very thoughtful and truly humane individual, still would have impressed me.
Comment by Mark — 8/27/2009 @ 8:39 pm
I wonder what the plaque for Teddy is going to say on the Kennedy wing of the Hazelden Center in Minnesota. I’m sure Patrick will do a good job at the installation ceremony.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/27/2009 @ 8:45 pm
Mark said:
If JFK (ie, an early 1960s version of scroungy Bill Clinton) and his youngest brother (ie, the drunkard at Chappaquiddick, among other things) were connected to a history of honor and decency, I still wouldn’t care for their politics but I could accept the so-called charisma or aura around them.
There’s not doubt that the Kennedys were charismatic.
I suppose the real question is how did their words coincide with their deeds?
Comment by Ag80 — 8/27/2009 @ 8:57 pm
Ag8o, never try to make any mathematical or statistical analyses where liberal words and liberal deeds correlate. You will fail in your analysis each and every time.
(And this is a good place to point out to Leviticus that I don’t “diplomatically” couch my words as passive-aggressive people would. I speak bluntly, especially bluntly online.)
Comment by John Hitchcock — 8/27/2009 @ 9:33 pm
The real comparison is not Laura, but Dubya’s cocaine use and possible buying of an abortion for a gf. We’ve got 25-35 years for people to fill in details, etc., before he passes.
What comes around goes around.
Comment by SocraticGadfly — 8/27/2009 @ 9:57 pm
Huffington Post suggests that Mary Jo probably should have, and maybe would have thought her death was worth it for having helped Kennedy become a super-powerful senator.
It is a despicable suggestion. And when read in full, even more shocking that a writer would be so calloused and brazen to write this. Can we expect to hear about Mary Jo’s elevation to martyr status? You know, her sacrificial death was necessary to bring life and rise to another political career of a hallowed member of the Kennedy dynasty.
I would love to see the author pose this same question to Mary Jo’s parents about their daughter’s death.
Comment by Dana — 8/27/2009 @ 9:58 pm
Oh, my…
Of course, we have admissions of drug use by the current President, no grades, no real investigation about many aspects of his past…and you are seriously talking GWB?
What is with you people?
Oh, that’s right: you are an alphabetist troll.
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/27/2009 @ 10:14 pm
Dana #76—
I’m not surprised. Remember how “feminists” felt about WJC?
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/27/2009 @ 10:15 pm
Feminists felt about the opposite about WJ Blythe C as they do about Phyllis Schlaffly and Sarah Palin and Laura Bush and Laura Ingraham and Laura Hitchcock and Meghan Kelly (who has two girly names) and every stay-at-home mom in the US.
Feminists only love women when those women love Democrat men. If certain women admire or respect conservative values, they are a traitor to their gender (much like liberals deem blacks traitors to their race).
Again, is there anything passive-aggressive in my statement showing irony? Or am I being typically blunt? Yes, Leviticus, I’m talking to you. While I have respectfully disagreed with you in the past, I do tend to hold a grudge — especially when my integrity is called into question. Want to draw my ire, Leviticus, and any other liberals? Question my integrity. That’s a sure-fire way to get fire and brimstone from me.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 8/27/2009 @ 10:27 pm
Too sick for words!
Comment by RB — 8/27/2009 @ 11:12 pm
Ted Kennedy was a worthless, gutless waste of oxygen, who would have lived in the obscurity he so richly deserved had his bootlegging father not had half the reporters in the country on his family’s payroll, and subsidized editors to make sure that stuff that made his family look like the losers they were never saw print. He made the most tawdry European royalty look like Nietzschean supermen.
Unfortunately, there’s no law that I know of against bribing editors and reporters, so there was no way to stop Joe Kennedy from buying the publicity that made his useless progeny powerful.
I have wondered what would have happened if Chappaquiddick had happened in a state that the Kennedys didn’t have sewn up airtight—maybe one where Democrats in general were despised, and the Kennedys were highly unpopular? My guess is that Teddy, and a bunch of his family “retainers,” would have gone to prison for manslaughter at the least. Of course, the zombie voters of Taxachussetts would have re-elected him. I wonder if they’d let him out of prison for important Senate votes?
Comment by technomad — 8/27/2009 @ 11:29 pm
This pretty much says it all, a fitting tribute to the ideology of Ted Kennedy and all those around him.
RIP, Ted.
Peter Schweizer, American Spectator, June 2008
Many modern liberals like to openly discuss their altruism. Garrison Keillor explains that “I am liberal and liberalism is the politics of kindness.” But it rarely seems to turn into acts of kindness, especially when it comes to making charitable donations.
Consider the case of Andrew Cuomo, current New York Attorney General and advocate for the homeless. He has, according to his website, “compassion toward the most vulnerable of us.”
…But that advocacy should not be confused with actually giving to the less fortunate. Cuomo was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990s, but according to his own tax returns he made no charitable contributions between 1996 and 1999. In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750. In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to charity. Cuomo made no charitable contributions in 2003, when his income was a bit less than $300,000.
Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.
The last two Democratic Party nominees for President have come up short on the charity scale. Al Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998 he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity.
Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy.
Senator Ted Kennedy has clearly relished his role over the years as a liberal Robin Hood. He once told Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, “I come from an advantaged life, and I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to get re-elected to the U.S. Senate by taking food out of the mouths of needy children.” But this should not be confused with Senator Kennedy actually giving much money to needy children.
Kennedy’s tax returns are obviously a closely guarded secret. But when he chose to run for President in the 1970s, he released some of them. With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity. The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop Curragh.
Robert Reich, once Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and now a professor at Berkeley, has been outspoken about how greedy conservatives are. Conservatives believe in “reviving social Darwinism” and because of conservatives, “America has placed too high a value on selfishness.”
But when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he was all but forced to release his tax returns. It’s not a pretty picture. Reich’s 1040 reveals an income of more than $1 million, much of it giving speeches to corporations and universities for up to $40,000 a pop. He contributed just $2,714 to charity, or .2 percent of his income — note the decimal — and not all of that was cash. Part of it was the value of a donation of a used drum set to an organization called City of Peace.
Jesse Jackson has often claimed that he operates from a “liberal spirit of compassion and love” while conservatives are “heartless and uncaring toward the silent poor.” But according to his publicly-released tax returns, he regularly donates less than 1 percent to charity.
NOR IS THIS liberal tightfistedness anything new. The greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He is regarded by many on the left as the personification of charity and compassion, but FDR actually has a slim record when it comes to giving to charity.
Roosevelt had an average income of $93,000 ($1.3 million in today’s dollars) but gave away about 3 percent of his income to charity. In 1935, during the height of the Great Depression, when people really could have used it, he donated just 2 percent.
This evidence of liberal hypocrisy is damning enough, but what really amazes is how poorly these liberals do in comparison to so-called “heartless conservatives.” President Ronald Reagan, for instance, was often called heartless and callous by liberals. Unlike Roosevelt or JFK, Reagan was not a wealthy man when he became president. He had no family trust or investment portfolio to fall back on.
And yet, according to his tax returns, Reagan donated more than four times more to charity — both in terms of actual money and on a percentage basis — than Senator Ted Kennedy. And he gave more to charities with less income than FDR did. In 1985, for example, he gave away 6 percent of his income.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this Reagan record. During the early 1990s, George W. Bush regularly gave away more than 10 percent of his income. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity. He was actually criticized by some liberal bloggers for this, who claimed he was getting too much of a tax deduction.
Comment by Mark — 8/27/2009 @ 11:47 pm
#51- Bork essentially ‘borked’ himself when he showed just how much of a politician he was at heart on October 20, 1973… the night he fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
“[The] U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the White House to comply with Cox’s subpoena demanding the full collection of [the Nixon Watergate] tapes. In the following week the Nixon administration attempted to negotiate a deal with Cox whereby Democratic Senator John Stennis of Mississippi would listen to the tapes and write summaries of them for Cox. Nixon’s deal, an obvious attempt to circumvent the appeals court’s ruling, was unacceptable to the prosecutor [Cox], and he said as much in a press conference on October 19. By rejecting Nixon’s proposal, Cox provided the President with a pretext for a drastic measure of self-defense: firing the investigator.
Attorney General Elliot Richardson had refused to do it, and had been forced to resign; Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus had then also refused, and also resigned; finally Solicitor General Robert Bork—who would later be nominated, unsuccessfully, to the Supreme Court—assumed the post of acting head of the Justice Department and carried out the President’s order. The serial firings of that October evening quickly became known as the Saturday Night Massacre. They represented both a profound challenge to the American justice system and a turning point in the downfall of Richard Nixon.
Many historians agree that the most devastating effect of the Saturday Night Massacre was its undercutting of Nixon’s support among all but his most fiercely loyal partisans. Republican Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona and James Buckley of New York were so appalled that they openly expressed their own discontent, opening a floodgate of criticism from Republicans in Congress. The White House had crossed a dangerous line, and even the President’s own party was in revolt.
Archibald Cox, a Harvard Law School professor who served as President Kennedy’s solicitor general, found it terrifying that the President of the United States had dismissed the man assigned to investigate him, simply because he was coming too close to the heart of a secret. Reflecting on the events of October 1973 Cox later wrote, “The most important thing was that the rule of law should prevail; the president must comply with the law. Ultimately, all [the people’s] liberties were at stake.” And the American people clearly agreed. Taking to the phones and the wires, the post and the streets, they set aside partisan politics and successfully rose up to defend the supremacy of the law. Within months [President Nixon] was out of office…” source-AmericanHeritage.com
Comment by DCSCA — 8/28/2009 @ 1:14 am
STFU, IMP. Thank you. Your off-topic rants and raves and copy&paste jobs serve no purpose other than burn up bandwith, and put walls of text up to deflect from the topic. I guess it was good that you moved beyond BDS and Reagan, but to suggest that Bork borked himself is laughable even for you. Apparently, you never read Kennedy’s borking.
Comment by JD — 8/28/2009 @ 5:32 am
It’s hard to find ONE dumb thing Bork did.
Comment by imdw — 8/28/2009 @ 5:33 am
The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.
Comment by kazooskibum — 8/28/2009 @ 5:35 am
See, the Left doesn’t want to talk about Mary Jo. They do not want to talk about how they support and canonize the person that killed her. They do not want to talk about how the media provides cover for these people, and those that support them. They want to talk about Bush. Or Bork.
Comment by JD — 8/28/2009 @ 5:39 am
I love it when IMP blathers on about Watergate, as if he wasn’t about 17 at the time. He loves to give the impression he was an adult debating Great Affairs of State during historical periods. Like his snobbery about Thatcher, when it turns out he was 14 at the time. What a Walter Mitty type.
The precious part about all this is that he JUST gave EK a pass over MJK, because so much time has passed. But as usual with him, it all depends on the letter associated with the name. Partisan hackery, thy name is IMP.
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/28/2009 @ 5:52 am
JD, I don’t think IMP reads much at all. He KNOWS stuff, after all.
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/28/2009 @ 5:55 am
The snake St. Patrick missed liked Chappaquidick jokes.
I am of the view that the Devil is kinder and nobler than humans, but I hope that in this one instance Teddy will spend all of eternity gasping for breath in an air bubble that is turning poisonous.
Comment by nk — 8/28/2009 @ 8:01 am
I spent a day or so not saying anything bad about old Ted, but, I deem that the mourning period is over, so…
“a worthless human being.”
If there was any justice that would be etched onto Kennedy’s tombstone.
He was a scumbag even compared to other liberals.
Comment by Dave Surls — 8/28/2009 @ 10:29 am
DCSCA is again lying about history in #83. Bork did not fire Archibald Cox from any sense of partisanship. The two resignations of Richardson and Ruckleshaus demonstrated the strength of opinion. Bork believed that as unwise as firing Cox was, that the principle was demonstrated by the two resignations, and that he should carry out the President’s order.
Claiming that Bork was enthusiastic about firing Cox for partisan reasons is yet another example of the fantasy life that is IMP.
Comment by SPQR — 8/28/2009 @ 10:47 am
The idea that he enjoyed Chappaquiddick jokes is remarkable, yet also not the least bit surprising.
Comment by JD — 8/28/2009 @ 11:03 am