I’m getting tired of hearing all these Senators from both parties talking about what a great guy, what a charmer Ted Kennedy was. I don’t think I’d be able to be that friendly with someone who, regardless of his politics, essentially murdered a young woman with whom he had probably been philandering, got away with it, and joked about it. You know, there was another Ted who everyone thought was charming, too. His last name was Bundy.
[Late Sunday afternoon update]
Mark Steyn has some related thoughts:
You can’t make an omelette without breaking chicks, right? I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: 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? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? 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?
We are all flawed, and most of us are weak, and in hellish moments, at a split-second’s notice, confronting the choice that will define us ever after, many of us will fail the test. Perhaps Mary Jo could have been saved; perhaps she would have died anyway. What is true is that Edward Kennedy made her death a certainty. When a man (if you’ll forgive the expression) confronts the truth of what he has done, what does honor require? Six years before Chappaquiddick, in the wake of Britain’s comparatively very minor “Profumo scandal,” the eponymous John Profumo, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for War, resigned from the House of Commons and the Queen’s Privy Council, and disappeared amid the tenements of the East End to do good works washing dishes and helping with children’s playgroups, in anonymity, for the last 40 years of his life. With the exception of one newspaper article to mark the centenary of his charitable mission, he never uttered another word in public again.
Ted Kennedy went a different route. He got kitted out with a neck brace and went on TV and announced the invention of the “Kennedy curse,” a concept that yoked him to his murdered brothers as a fellow victim — and not, as Mary Jo perhaps realized in those final hours, the perpetrator. He dared us to call his bluff, and, when we didn’t, he made all of us complicit in what he’d done. We are all prey to human frailty, but few of us get to inflict ours on an entire nation.
Read all.
[Bumped]
When someone who has committed great crimes isn’t properly punished, but is instead protected and “forgiven” and sent on his way into an important and prominent career, the entire society that this person lives in becomes that much more corrupt. And corruption causes brain damage among the populace: for example, people talk as if it’s some great tragedy that because of Chappaquiddick Kennedy was “denied the Presidency” (as if he was entitled to it in the first place!), where he would at most have gotten eight years, and instead had to “settle” for a lifetime career in the Senate, where he got to do lasting and probably permanent harm to the nation. I’ve said this elsewhere, but a less tolerant (IOW, weak and decadent) era a man who left a young woman to die would have been banned from public life and shunned by polite society at the very least.
The senators would have had to get over those objections to him long ago. Unlike us, they had to see him every day (except for the very, very new senators).
Having seen him everyday, the brain most likely just had to get over it in order to do their jobs. I don’t see how I could sit across a table (or next to) a cowardly murderer every day, but since I think the whole pack of them are evil clowns, I can’t imagine having to be around to full group of them every day.
I don’t see how I could sit across a table (or next to) a cowardly murderer every day, but since I think the whole pack of them are evil clowns, I can’t imagine having to be around to full group of them every day.
I could be a colleague, and work with and negotiate with him, and even be polite, but there would be no social relationship with him, and the relationship at work would be purely business. And I wouldn’t be talking today about how charming and wonderful he was. My response to a question about that would be “no comment.”
I gave the late senator his due friday morning. Then I flushed it.
Andrea
That was an inspiring comment.
On the plus side, maybe the Cape Wind farm will actually be built now?
The Cape Wind farm is a plus? Who knew? They are actually tax farms.
Andrea: you’re right. Corruption destroys trust, which is what binds a society and makes it function.
A lot of harm is done because people tend to overlook the character flaws and corrupt behavior of their friends. For this reason there’s much to be said for not socializing with or even living near govt officials if you’re a govt official or a journalist. (Christopher Hitchens made a similar point once. It’s remarkable that so few journalists share his opinion.) This is also a good reason for term limits. I don’t want my elected representatives to be friendlier with their professional colleagues than with their constituents.
My guess is that if you weren’t collegial with any senator who’d driven drunk and/or been unfaithful, you’d restrict your professional options considerably. Of course most senators’ immoral acts aren’t as public as Kennedy’s became.
Jim, did you miss the part about how Kennedy left a young women to die? And years later displayed the depth of his remorse by revealing he enjoyed jokes about the incident? Yeah, it looks like you did.
Jonathan — overlooking the character flaws of friends is one thing; it’s another when the person whose flaws are being overlooked is not a real friend, but someone with authority over you, like a government official. Positions like that are called “positions of trust” for a reason. If the flawed person can’t be trusted, they should not be given authority.
Three-penny Opera. Ted Kennedy was Mack the Knife, only worse, because he actually wielded real power.
Jim, did you miss the part about how Kennedy left a young women to die?
No, but I’m not sure that his decisions at that point — with Kennedy presumably drunk and in shock — are the ultimate test of his character. There’s no question that everything he did that night was selfish — but selfishness is sadly typical of U.S. Senators.
And years later displayed the depth of his remorse by revealing he enjoyed jokes about the incident?
Kennedy has been the butt of millions of Chappaquiddick jokes over the years; the fact that he joins in and enjoys these jokes at his expense does not necessarily indicate anything about his remorse or lack thereof. I doubt that Nixon ever told Watergate jokes, or that Clinton wants to hear Monica jokes, but I wouldn’t take that as a sign that either was consumed by regret over his deeds.
On the broader question, there is no doubt that it’s easier to follow a political leader if you aren’t repelled by his or her personal choices. But it’s hard to avoid having a double standard, where character is only particularly salient where ones political opponents are concerned. The GOP has put forward a number of adulterers and alcoholics for national office, and I don’t recall much hand-wringing about how they were corrupting the entire society.
No, but I’m not sure that his decisions at that point — with Kennedy presumably drunk and in shock — are the ultimate test of his character.
He wasn’t drunk the next morning, when he continued to not report it to the police (a major crime in itself).
The main point is that if anyone else had done what he did, they’d have gone to jail for it for a long time on manslaughter (at a minimum). But he got a two-month suspended sentence, because he was a Kennedy.
Yes, many Senators drink and are unfaithful. He’s the only one who murdered a woman as a result.
You’ve hit it dead-on, Andrea. Corrupt officials help create a corrupt society, by example.
Mr. Kennedy has now gone before a Judge who is not impressed by money, power, prestige, or influence. Justice may be delayed for a lifetime, but it is very, very sure.
The main point is that if anyone else had done what he did, they’d have gone to jail for it for a long time on manslaughter (at a minimum). But he got a two-month suspended sentence, because he was a Kennedy.
There’s no question that he got special favors because of his name. George W. Bush got them too.
Yes, many Senators drink and are unfaithful. He’s the only one who murdered a woman as a result.
It wasn’t murder, it was manslaughter, and the difference between driving drunk and committing manslaughter is largely a matter of chance. On that night his good luck in having the Kennedy name was more than outweighed by his bad luck in missing the bridge.
Making excuses for murderous and cowardly behaviour is contemptible in itself. Trying to equate mere callow hard drinking behaviour with cowardly murder is likewise contemptible.
“There’s no question that he got special favors because of his name. George W. Bush got them too.”
You mean the George Bush who volunteered to go to Vietnam Jim?
The Last of The Kennedy Dynasty
>
> As soon as cancer was found, there was the immediate
> canonization of Kennedy by the main stream media. They are
> saying what a “great American” he is. I say, let’s get a
> couple things clear and not twist the facts to change the
> real history.
>
> 1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended. He
> was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once
> for paying a classmate to cheat for him.
>
> 2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but
> mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops,
> the man can’t count to four. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy,
> former pro-Nazi U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from
> murderously bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada
> during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have
> his enlistment shortened
> to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not
> Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for
> him like “he” charged President Bush received.
>
> 3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the
> rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being
> discharged. Imagine a person of his “education” NEVER
> advancing past the rank of Private.
>
>
> 4. While attending law school at the University of
> Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times,
> including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour
> in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after
> dark. Yet his Virginia driver’s license was never revoked.
> Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959, amazing!!!
>
> 5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and
> hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the
> hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was
> legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a
> “state secret” until in the 1980’s when the report was
> unsealed. Didn’t hear about that from the unbiased media,
> did we.
>
> 6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on
> Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM,
> he borrowed his chauffeur’s keys to his Oldsmobile
> limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo
> Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit
> bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the
> bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond.
>
> 7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party, after
> passing several houses and a fire station. Then two friends
> returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to
> their later testimony, they told him what he already knew,
> that he was required by law to immediately report the
> accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to
> his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy
> called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had
> already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had
> scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the
> upside-down car.
>
> The Kennedy family began “calling in favors”, ensuring that
> any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked
> out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be
> conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the
> accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water
> trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn’t call police because
> he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was
> drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his
> family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident,
> Kennedy’s “political enemies” have referred to him as the
> distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to
> leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED
> SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne’s family received a small
> payout from the Kennedy’s insurance policy, and never sued.
> There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and
> autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this
> in court, and Kennedy’s family paid their attorney’s
> bills… a “token of friendship”?
>
>
> 8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty
> years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments
> seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that
> ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum
> wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the
> indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income
> seniors and is widely held as the “standard-bearer for
> liberalism”. In his very first Senate roll, he was the floor
> manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy
> upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from
> third world countries.
>
> 9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and
> author of every expansion of and increase in immigration, up
> to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to
> illegal aliens. Not to mention the Pious grilling he gave
> the last two Supreme Court Nominees, as if he were the
> standard bearer for the nation in matters of right.
>
> 10. He was known around Washington as a public drunk, loud,
> boisterous and very disrespectful to ladies.
>
> Let’s not allow the spin doctors to make this jerk a hero
> let us not forget what his real legacy is.
>
Worth Repeating
George W. Bush got them too.
George Bush didn’t leave a woman to suffocate or drown after driving her off a bridge.
It wasn’t murder, it was manslaughter, and the difference between driving drunk and committing manslaughter is largely a matter of chance.
It’s not about the DUI. He left her to die when he didn’t know whether she could be saved, and deliberately didn’t tell anyone else (other than his male party companions), who might have been able to save her, for many hours. Not immediately reporting the accident itself was a crime. He could have been prosecuted for murder. If he weren’t a Kennedy.
But I know that you’ll continue to try to minimize the monstrosity of what he did, and make foolish and inappropriate comparisons with what the evil Bush did. It’s what trolls like you do.
Didnt Laura kill her friend in high school? Hit him at 50mph and broke his neck. I wouldnt have a problem being civil to her.
It’s amazing how far leftists will go to defend the crimes of their own. The adventures of Charlie Rangel mean nothing to his equally corrupt and guilty colleagues of the left.
Ted Kennedy was too drunk to be much of a leftist, but he tried. And the lefties appreciate him for it.
Didnt Laura kill her friend in high school?
Yes, she did. Another inappropriate comparison, on multiple levels.
I wouldnt have a problem being civil to her.
Neither would I. Accidents happen.
And I never said I wouldn’t be civil to Kennedy. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
It’s not about the DUI. He left her to die when he didn’t know whether she could be saved, and deliberately didn’t tell anyone else (other than his male party companions), who might have been able to save her, for many hours.
There is reasonable doubt about whether there’s anything he could have done differently after the crash that would have saved her life. There is certainly reasonable doubt about whether his actions demonstrated willful disregard for life, which is the standard for murder. “Left her to die” is great rhetoric, but the real crime was getting behind the wheel while impaired — something that (unfortunately) millions of people do.
But I know that you’ll continue to try to minimize the monstrosity of what he did, and make foolish and inappropriate comparisons with what the evil Bush did
I don’t minimize the monstrosity of driving drunk. But driving drunk off a bridge and driving drunk over a mailbox are morally identical acts. Kennedy’s accident was fatal; Bush’s wasn’t.
In ancient times, that difference in outcomes would be regarded as a sign of the gods’ favor or disfavor — being lucky, and escaping the consequences of your poor decisions, meant that the gods were on your side. Hopefully we’ve come a ways in our moral reasoning since then.
The adventures of Charlie Rangel mean nothing to his equally corrupt and guilty colleagues of the left.
Both parties have corrupt members; it’s hardly a phenomenon limited to one side of the political spectrum.
You mean the George Bush who volunteered to go to Vietnam Jim?
Yes, him. The one who managed to keep a DUI arrest under wraps until days before the 2000 election.
That’s nothing. The Dems managed to keep their control of Congress under wraps until after the 2008 election.
There is reasonable doubt about whether there’s anything he could have done differently after the crash that would have saved her life.
We know that she lived for some period of time after he left her. We know that he walked past a fire station immediately afterward.
In any event, even if true, that is not the legal standard in such a case, and it would be laughed out of court in a trial. The burden would be on him to prove that she was dead beyond a reasonable doubt when he left her. He was criminally negligent, and not just for the DUI. Don’t give up your day job to be a lawyer. Stick to Internet trolling and defense of the indefensible.
Or not even that. No one here would miss you.
Both parties have corrupt members; it’s hardly a phenomenon limited to one side of the political spectrum.
But only one party refuses to investigate, and defends its corrupt members to the bitter end.
I always found a degree of irony in that the Chappaquiddick incident didn’t hurt Ted Kennedy’s political career even more than it did, because it happened to occur while eveyone’s attention was on Apollo 11, a project started largely by his brother, and which he once characterized as one of his brother’s ‘aberrations…’
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch4.htm
Jim is pretty much a textbook example of what I mean by corruption, though in his case I’m having a hard time excusing him on the basis of brain damage. His persistence could be evidence of dementia; or else it could indicate he openly chose to participate in his corruption. I leave that up to Another’s judgment.
Speaking of brain damage, I think condemnations of Kennedy ought to be mixed with a little humility, due to our regrettable lack of understanding of how the brain works. We know Kennedy suffered from a concussion (unless the doctors were lying) and we know he also engaged in peculiar behavior (such as his impulsively making a dangerous swim across the channel back to his hotel room). I’m not defending Kennedy, but I’m reminded that we really don’t understand how an injured brain works.
Jim, go on, reply to Mike Puckett’s 10 Point quote. Come on, man. Stop with “the other side does it too” shit.
bubba Says:
August 30th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Didnt Laura kill her friend in high school? Hit him at 50mph and broke his neck. I wouldnt have a problem being civil to her.
When Laura Bush was 17 years old (her name was Laura Welch at the time), she was the driver in a fatal car accident. The accident was investigated to the standard of the time and no charges were filed. She wasn’t connected to the Bush family in any way at the time so it’s hard to say political influence was a factor in the investigation or lack of charges.
The autopsy of Mary Jo showed little or no water in her lungs. She didn’t drown – she sufficated. Some estimate she lived for several hours after the accident – plenty of time for Kennedy to do something to save her. Only, the only one he was interested in saving was himself. The fact that he enjoyed making jokes about it only underlines what a sleazebag he was. Those who defend him are just as sleazy.
bubba Says:
August 30th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Didnt Laura kill her friend in high school? Hit him at 50mph and broke his neck. I wouldnt have a problem being civil to her.
I forgot to mention in the previous post, the accident report shows that boy was thrown from his car and died on injuries. Back in 1963, very few cars had seatbelts. IIRC, they weren’t mandated as standard equipment in cars until 1966. Not that I’m excusing Laura Welch for running a stop sign, just pointing out what might’ve been a contributing factor in the boy’s death. Laura Welch was driving with another teenaged girl as her passenger. Odds are distraction was a contributing factor to the accident. We had the same thing happen with a coworker’s teenaged daughter several years ago, only in our case both girls died. Accidents happen.
In any event, even if true, that is not the legal standard in such a case, and it would be laughed out of court in a trial.
A trial for manslaughter, yes, but not a murder trial — and murder is the term you’ve been throwing around.
He was criminally negligent, and not just for the DUI.
I agree — for manslaughter.
But only one party refuses to investigate, and defends its corrupt members to the bitter end.
Really? I didn’t see the GOP rushing to investigate Duke Cunningham, or Bob Ney, or Ted Stevens.
Jim, go on, reply to Mike Puckett’s 10 Point quote.
Aside from its assessment of his legislative accomplishments, I don’t see anything to argue with.
Stop with “the other side does it too” shit.
If you want to argue, as Andrea does, that a leader’s personal moral corruption is linked to corruption of society as a whole, then you should be evenhanded in your application of that rule. Rand’s response seems to be that drunk driving and infidelity aren’t immoral enough to trigger social concern, but fatal drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident are. That seems like a fine distinction, purposefully calculated to separate Kennedy from the rest of our unfaithful, drunk driving leaders.
For myself, I don’t think that personal moral failings are a particularly good indicator of poor or immoral leadership. Churchill was a heavy drinker, FDR was an adulterer, and Hitler was more or less a celibate teetotaler. For all I know James Eastland and Jesse Helms were faithful to their wives, while Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly weren’t. Ronald Reagan was an adulterer and a lousy father, while Jimmy Carter appears to be a very moral man — does that mean that Carter’s leadership was more moral and effective?
A trial for manslaughter, yes, but not a murder trial — and murder is the term you’ve been throwing around.
Yes, a murder trial. He had means, opportunity, and if an autopsy had been performed (as it should have been) and she was found to be pregnant, motive. But even if it’s “merely” manslaughter, it remains reprehensible that he got off so lightly for it.
I didn’t see the GOP rushing to investigate Duke Cunningham, or Bob Ney, or Ted Stevens.
You didn’t notice the prosecutions by a Justice Department in a GOP administration? What Republicans defended Duke Cunningham?
This is what makes you Jim, you personally, evil…
The adventures of Charlie Rangel mean nothing to his equally corrupt and guilty colleagues of the left.
Both parties have corrupt members
This response is on no level a defense of the charge. It is a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible. It is the direct reason that corruption of any kind can exist. Pure evil. You have the intelligence to be part of the solution but choose not; This is contemptible and I can easily hear the contempt for you in other voices. You really should wise up. If it were my choice I would not ban you because you provide an interesting example of a diseased mind.
It’s also the most common method of the left. Circle the wagons Jim.
That Ted could exist as a senator for a single day means we have a long way to go in cleaning the corruption out of our government.
Jim seems to think that manslaughter was the best that the DA could do. Given the political pressures, it was actually the least.
It’s unclear why the Kennedy defenders are bringing up Laura Bush. Are they claiming that it’s okay for Kennedy to kill someone because a Republican killed someone? They keep telling us that Dems are better than Repubs, so doing something that a Repub does would seem to be a bad thing.
How does “Laura did it” excuse Teddy?
The idea that this was a pre-meditated murder is pretty bizarre. I can only imagine someone using those means if it was part of a murder-suicide, in which case, I’d expect the murderer to attempt to remain in the car. If was simply a murder, I’d expect the murderer to contact the police immediately, to demonstrate that it was an “accident”. I think you’d be investigating a lot more accidents as amazingly elaborate and dangerous murders if you applied the same standard you are using here to other accidents. Anyway, if you were a Senator who wanted to arrange a murder, is this even in the top 500 ways you would do it?
Maybe you are suggesting “malice afterthought” but I think he just figured no one could have survived for very long.
About the lungs not holding water — if there was a small air pocket she could use, and she used the available oxygen, she still would have suffocated rather than drowned.
The idea that this was a pre-meditated murder is pretty bizarre.
I agree. I didn’t say it was murder one. But it’s possible that once it accidentally occurred, he found it a convenient solution to a previously inconvenient problem.
If was simply a murder, I’d expect the murderer to contact the police immediately, to demonstrate that it was an “accident”.
That would risk having someone rescue her. He seemed to do everything possible to avoid that outcome, for many hours.
Sorry, my last point, about the air pocket, missed the point: that the air pocket might have been very small — and thus suffocation is consistent with being impossible to rescue.
that the air pocket might have been very small — and thus suffocation is consistent with being impossible to rescue.
Well, I guess we’ll never know because Uncle Teddy just left her there to die.
Sorry, my last paragraph, about the air pocket, missed the point: that the air pocket might have been very small — and thus suffocation is consistent with being impossible to rescue.
Replying to Rand: if he wanted to make sure she was dead with no police interference/rescue, he shouldn’t have told anyone until the next day. Instead he told people, including a former US attorney, not all that many minutes (20?) after the accident.
the air pocket might have been very small
And it may have been quite large. Some think she may have lived for hours. We’ll never know.
Instead he told people, including a former US attorney, not all that many minutes (20?) after the accident.
A former US attorney who was also a partying crony. The men decided not to tell the women, and didn’t make a rescue attempt, or contact authorities. They are all complicit.
The two other partygoers say they did attempt to rescue her. There has been a lot written about this incident – I’m not defending Kennedy, but I’m not inclined to say more without reviewing the history. If you’re going to write about this theory of murder, you might benefit from reviewing the known history too.
There was conflicting testimony.
“Both parties have corrupt members; it’s hardly a phenomenon limited to one side of the political spectrum.”
For sure, but only one party campaigns with the message of ‘cleaning up the culture of corruption” a la Hillary Clinton as if it were a one sided phenomenon only the ‘evil’ republicans engage in.