I origionally wrote this for Peter. I forget the circumstances but I joked about Ted Kennedy not thinking that Non-Americans, or maybe even Non-Massachutteans might not know what I assumed was well know background. This seems to be the place to put it.


Under FDR Joe Kennedy Sr. was under secretary of State (or War I forget). He had four sons (and a plethora of daughter who are mostly irrelevant to Ted's story). The oldest three Joe Jr., John, and Robert joined the military during WWII. Ted was too young. (Note: this was before the honorable tradition of getting your sons in the National Guard.) Joe Jr. was a pilot of a B-17. He died. John was "Captain" (one who commands a boat not the rank) of a PT boat. After Pearl Harbor all the US had in the Pacific for a while were three Aircraft carriers and a slew of PT boats. His boat, PT 109, was rammed and sunk by a Japanese Destroyer. Kennedy and remnants of the ships crew (9 of 11 I think) swam to an Island and because of JFK's heroics were eventually rescued. Bobby didn't have a movie about his war experience.

JFK (John Fitzgerald Kennedy) was elected President in 1960. In the televised debate he and Ike's V.P., Richard Nixon, exchanged info on how much of the world they’d risk to keep Matsu and Queemoy out of red hands. Kennedy won because he was cuter than Nixon. Nixon was ugly and sweating visibly. After banging many starlets (including Marilyn Monroe) despite being married and almost blowing up the planet in 1962, increasing the number of advisors in Vietnam, rubber stamping Ike’s plan to liberate Cuba but providing no air support, and deploying national guard troops to Mississippi while J. Edgar Hoover compiled a dossier on Martin Luther King Jr., JFK made the brilliant political maneuver of being assassinated. Oh, his attorney general was Robert. For more info on JFK look into PT 109, Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, Martin Luther King’s FBI files, Marilyn Monroe, and Oliver Stone.

The third bother was Robert. Robert did the right thing and became a surrogate father to John’s kids. He was John’s Attorney General but it is not fair to blame all of J. Edgar Hoover’s excesses on him. His back channel diplomacy saved the earth in 1962. In 1968 he entered the Democratic primaries late. After addressing his supporters at the California primary his bodyguards decided to hustle him out through the kitchen. He was shot and killed.

That brings us to the fourth brother, Ted. Ted is also the only one it is safe to joke about. Ted claimed to do the right thing by becoming a surrogate father for John and Robert’s children; although they joke he could never tell them apart. He was elected senator from Massachusetts basically because he starts with 100% name recognition. In 1969 he was vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard (A resortish island in Massachusetts) with an aide named Mary-Jo Kopeckne (someone else can correct the spelling and clarify if she was an intern). Ted was drunk. He was partying with young women while married to one who was not there. (Draw inferences yourself.) He gave Mary-Jo a ride home. (In 1969 there was no MADD and drunk driving was not the scandal it is now.) He drove off the Chappaquidik Bridge. (Again I’ll let some one else check the spelling.) In fairness to Ted, I’ve seen pictures of that bridge and I would refuse to cross it while sober.

Ted managed to get out of the car. Mary-Jo didn’t. According to Ted he made several unsuccessful dives in an attempt to rescue Mary-Jo. I was 4 when this happened so I’m not sure if Ted went off drunkenly or was drunkenly sitting on the bridge when they were discovered the next morning. I am pretty sure he didn’t report it.

Ted’s wife, Joan, stood by her man when she was sober enough to speak, and he was re-elected. Ted ran for the Democratic nomination in 1980 but was defeated by Jimmy Carter. (Yes, the incumbent was in his party.) During the William Kennedy Smith rape trial the victim saw Ted in his underwear.

(This is understandable, but embarrassing nonetheless. It was Ted’s vacation house, late at night and he thought that Billy or one of those dang kids will try to get to the good scotch and he didn’t think a woman might be there. Explainable, yet I don’t think most politicians want their name brought up at a rape trial.)

During all this Ted Kennedy has remained steadfastly liberal. (That’s not bad in itself, however I’d like to see a conservative get away with murder to balance him off.)

(Moderator's note: This post was made in response to a comment on another thread before being moved here, and is not in respones to the post above that precedes it.)

A TRAFFIC accident? Guarded language, shall we?

Well, if the Chappaquiddick incident were made into a movie, it'd probably be called "A Bridge Too Far." (If the title hadn't already been taken that is...)

Personally, I don't think Kennedy has any moral authority either. If he had an ounce of shame or honor or decency, he'd have quietly retired a long time ago.

Actually I feel like there are darn few politicians with moral or ethical authority. Just somethign about politics that makes people very ethicaly and morally "flexible" shall we say.

Yeah, well, I think Kennedy is one of the biggest contortionists of them all.

One out of many. I wouldn't have the good silverware out if any of the politicians came over for dinner.

What's all this nonsense? You shouldn't be parroting Sean Hannity. Ted Kennedy has never proclaimed himself to be a moral authority. That claim is a typical Hannity method of evading discussion of an issue. Kennedy does have an extradorinary record of compassion for the poor, minorities, children, etc. He is a man of conscience. I applaud that he was one of the few to have the guts to vote against Bush's invasion of Iraq. It seems that others are contorting now to justify voting for the invasion.

Why do Republicans always bring up Chappaquiddick? How is it relevant to his voting record. Laura Bush caused an accident that killed a teenager. Did any liberal journalist during the Inauguration (or anytime) say , "Look at the President and his killer wife". Of course not, so why do Republicans find it acceptable to shamelessly play dirty politics as a routine tactic?

Kennedy's problems with alcohol and avid dating (before he was married) are well known. But Bush did exactly the same thing in his youth. Conservatives excuse that and say it's wonderful he changed his life (with Jesus, of course). Teddy changed his life too. Where is the praise for him? Or is it that he hasn't made a calculated political issue out of it, unlike Bush who uses his recovery to appeal to the Religious Right (Jesus saved me).

For the record, Kennedy is a wonderful man. Anyone with a conscience would realise that. Whether Democrat or Republican.

No one is parroting Hannity, Rona. I am expressing my own opinions. If my feelings about Kennedy coincide with Hannity's then so be it.

As for being a moral authority, a politician is most certainly a moral authority with respect to how he treats others and how he treats the law. Chappaquiddick is most certainly relevant because it calls his character into question, and IMO, he should've had the shame to fade into obscurity, if not prosecuted.

I also have a problem with how he voted against windfarms in his area because it would supposedly be an eyesore, even though they would generate clean energy.

This has nothing to do with alcohol, or with being a Republican, since I am not one, and I say this with a full conscience, thank you very much.

Wind farms are a danger to flying sea gulls.

No, that has been disproven. There are enough windparks around in the northern coastal areas here, and they have no negative effect on the birds.

Besides, if huge man-made structures have a negative effect on the enviroment, what about power-lines, which are much more numerous? It's a bit suspicious that the groups which oppose wind energy parks never oppose any other form of construction which is really bad for the enviroment, or when it's found out that these groups are sponsored by energy companies.

Could somebody explain (objectively) to me:

which Kennedy you are talking about? (I though they were both dead???)

And what's this accident chappsomething is all about?

Senator Ted Kennedy.

In the late 60s, Ted Kennedy was driving in a car with a woman (not his wife). He was drunk, and went off a bridge at Chappaquiddick. She drowned, he survived. Big scandal.

I still don't understand about the accident. Was the accident his fault because he was driving drunk? (How old was he at that time still twen, or already responsible enough?)

Or was the scandal more because the woman who died was not his wife?

If he was drunk, why wasn't he prosecuted? Why should he "fade into obscurity", if he wasn't guilty enough to be prosecuted?

(We had a scandal with a politican driving drunk in the 80s - a bavarian minister, Wiesheu, was dead drunk driving at night and drove into the small car of a pensioneer, who died. Although he should've gotten a heavy sentence for this, most people predicted correctly enough that he would get either no sentence or a light one, since he wouldn't have been able to continue as politican if the sentence had been longer than 14 months. Part of the scandal was that the reason the pensioneer died was that the minister was driving a big, heavy car - a BMW, I think - and the pensioneer a small, cheap car - Honda or such - and had therefore almost no chance to survive the accident.
Wiesheu wasn't sentenced harshly, he belonged to the right party, CSU, of course, and he didn't have the decency to disappear either. He's still a prominent figure, and I haven't noticed that voters are bothered by this. But then, CSU/CDU voters want to win, not to vote for good guys. )

The scandal was due to both, if I recall correctly (I was about 8 or 9 at the time, so I don't really remember too well).

You could google for Kennedy Chappaquidick and find more than you'd ever want to know.

Ted Kennedy was an established Democratic politician when this happened and would have most likely mounted a serious challenge to President Nixon if the scandal never happened (meaning that Nixon could have theoretically ran against all three Kennedy brothers--JFK in 1960, RFK in 1968 if he wasn't killed, and Teddy in 1972).

Look, I think Ted Kennedy's basically a decent guy and he does a lot of good, I just disagree with him on Iraq. I don't think that means he's evil or unpatriotic or a fool, I just disagree.

The reason that it was a big scandal was because he didn't call the cops after it happened instead he just left the scene of the accident (which is a crime) and didn't say anything about it . A day or so later police found his car and her body, I think after she was reported missing and they were looking or something like that.

An example of how the Right is still using Chappaquiddick:
Tony Blankley (from the conservative rag The Washington Times), on this week's edition of The MacLaughlin Group, was all smiles as he announced that his paper featured a cartoon showing a sinking car (with Iraq in the back) and Ted Kennedy running away from it. How classy. Maybe Hannity can clip it out and put it on his fridge.

Even less humorous is that this hints of things to come. If Iraq is a colossal failure, Republicans will blame it on Democrats (who else to blame since the Netherlands, Thailand, and even Poland are pulling out their troops).

Rona, if it makes you feel better, i never bring up chaqqaquiddick, and I am most definatly right. Plus, the example you just used isn't about rights using it, political cartoonists take a defining incidednt about a person and use it to slam their credibility. They are cartoons, they are supposed to make a point AND make someone look like a fool.

btw, I feel really out of touch here, 4 hours of math homework a night takes it out of me

Personally I don't have a problem with a political cartoonist making that joke, nor do I have a problem with the jokes that Bill Mahr has made about it "It's so easy to offend someone here in DC lately. The other day (someone) was speaking before (someplace) and was trying not say anything that someone might not like and suggested that they play a game of bridge and Ted Kennedy got up and left"

I think that Hannity using it to attack his credability was off, how about responding to what he said about the war if he's so far off? But I think that by being involved in something like that opens you up to getting mocked my commedians and cartoonists.

I do have a problem with such disrespectful cartoons. Ted Kennedy is a national treasure. We shouldn't be disrespectful of him. Now Bush, he's an international disgrace. That's a different matter.

In my opinion, anyone in a public setting is fair game. Ted Kennedy, regardless of whether or not he is a national treasure (and I would dispute that), is eligible for lampooning just like President Bush, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Dick Cheney.

In other words Rona, cartoonists shouldn't satirize those politicians you like because that's disrespectful, but it's okay to do so with those you don't like?

Chappaquiddick cartoons aren't satire, they're ugly cheap shots. Since Bush's Iraq war has now cost around 120,000 Iraqis their lives, would it be acceptable to have a cartoon of Bush (in NAZI uniform) in front of a pile of 100,000 bodies proclaiming himself to be the great liberator? No it wouldn't, but when it comes to Democrats, it's acceptable to use death as humor?

I'm pretty sure that there have been cartoons like that; perhaps not as extreme, but definitely ones that implied Bush was a murderer. So, I think it runs both ways, and seeing as we have freedom of speech, that's fine by me (I, of course, have the right to disagree with these cartoons).

Since Bush's Iraq war has now cost around 120,000 Iraqis their lives

Document that claim. From an *INDEPENDENT* source. Many people love to spout that number, but I've never seen any documentation.

Rona: Chappaquiddick cartoons aren't satire, they're ugly cheap shots.
Luigi Novi: That's your opinion, not an empirical definition. One person's satire is another person's insult. The best satire, in fact, often offends someone. The point remains that your distinction between satire and ugly cheap shots is merely the distinction between those politicians you like and those you don't.

Since Bush's Iraq war has now cost around 120,000 Iraqis their lives, would it be acceptable to have a cartoon of Bush (in NAZI uniform) in front of a pile of 100,000 bodies proclaiming himself to be the great liberator?
Luigi Novi: Depends on what you mean by "acceptable," and who you ask. Ask me or MikeC, we'd say that it's a poorly-made point because the comparison is extremely simplistic. Ask Brian Webber, and who knows, he'd probably be OK with it.

But that's not the point.

First, the point is whether it's satire or not. Not whether it's "acceptable."

Second, a Ted Kennedy cartoon that invokes Chappaquiddick is not analogous to a Bush cartoon invoking Nazism, since Kennedy was, in fact, invovled in an incident at Chappaquiddick involving some highly questionable judgment on his part. Bush, by contrast, was never a Nazi, and the deaths incurred by his policies were never systematic, directed deliberately at civilians, nor occurred for reasons of ethnic cleansing. A better analogy would be a cartoon of Bush with allusions to drunkeness, doing cocaine, dodging the draft, being less than sharp, etc.

I'm Dan Rather, and I approve this message.

I resemble that remark!

At least Kennedy can pronounce the word "nuclear".

I'd like to point out that Carter, who was trained as a nuclear engineer (he went to Navy Nuke school under Rickover) also mispronounced "nuclear" as "nucular".

{At least Kennedy can pronounce the word "nuclear".}

And yet he can't discern the difference between Barak Obama and Osama Bin Laden...

I've heard that clip. Kennedy should be ashamed of himself.

You say Osama, and er I say Obama,
You say Obama, and I say Osama,
Osama, Obama, Osama, Obama,
Let's call the whole thing off.

Conservatives should call off their nasty attacks on Ted Kennedy.

And liberals should call off their nasty attacks on President Bush.

Disclaimer: I still think *BOTH* sides are wrong.

And Rona, if President Bush had called Barak Obama "Osama bin Laden", the Dems would have been all over him like a cheap suit. Why does Kennedy get a free pass?

Because most dems would just as soon act like Kennedy does not exist. Sure he gets elected and votes the party line but no one wants to act like they're too happy about his position in the party.

Still, Ted is THE man!

The sleazy man.

No, he is a National Treasure. Laura Ingram, day after day, mocks Kennedy and Charles Schumer. Her ugly remarks are sleazy, not dear old Teddy.

You're entitled to your opinion. I believe he means well, but the living up to the legacy of his brothers has taken its toll.

Rona, why do you consider ole Ted to be such a national treasure?

He has an unmatched commitment to fighting for the poor, minorities, women's rights etc. Yes, he was quite a ladies man when he was younger. So was Bush. Conservative critics forgive Bush because he's "born-again". I forgive Kennedy's indescretions because of his deeds (they're also irrelevant to his politcal work). I like to think of him more in the tradition of a progressive European politician.

Ah, like Stalin.


(SORRY!)

Mike, I'd have thought by now that you would know that Rona would take offense to that, regardless of the smiley or the "sorry."

Sorry!

Well, he's not as progressive as Dworkin. Nobody's perfect!

I think fondly to the time I was 7 years old (1970) and my grandparents were taking me to Boston for a family funeral. I also remember how we had to get off the plane at the last moment, cause National Treasure Teddy and his posse showed up at the last minute and wanted our seats.

We missed the funeral.

Rona (from the Cindy Sheehan thread): I respect Kennedy and Howard Dean because they both had the moral strength to oppose the Iraq Invasion from the beginning.
Luigi Novi: But how does that jive with Chappaquiddick? I know you mentioned above about his "indiscretions," but surely you're not referring to Chappaquiddick as merely an "indiscretion," right?

Seeing how Ted Kennedy "drives" a car, maybe he's an ancestor of Deanna Troi.

Who truly knows what happened at Chappaquidick. Kennedy could have had a concussion or might have been drunk and didn't remember.

History has proven Kennedy was right about the Iraq Invasion. He didn't lie to the American people and the world.

Good excuses. I'll have to remember those next time I get into a drunk driving accident where someone dies. "Uh...I might have been drunk!"

Rona, I really recommend that you read Leo Damore's Senatorial Privilege and then tell me how likely it is that EMK had a concussion that night. If you don't feel inclined to do so, then may I recommend you check out this site? Despite it's right wing bent and blatant agenda*, the information on it is gleaned from Damore's book. It makes for some rather disturbing reading, IMHO.

*The site was created to try to prevent Teddy Kennedy from being re-elected to office. I freely admit that. However, that doesn't mean the info it provides is inaccurate. It's based, as I said, on the documented information provided by Damore's book.

Is "Senatorial Privilege" another example of the Right 'swift-boating' a Democrat?

I have no idea what Mr. Damore's political leanings were. I wasn't able to find that out. I did look. I do admit that the Right Wing has embraced the book. However, in my opinion, the book is well-researched, well-writtened and is probably the most accurate account one will find of what happened at Chappaquiddick. But I again invite you to read the book and judge for yourself.

More evidence that the media has a right-wing bias. Again, the supermarket tabloids are running unflattering pictures of a shirtless Ted Kennedy at the beach. The pics are accompanied by witless conservative jokes about a "government waist" and a "pork barrel". Conservatives really stoop to lows in their personal attacks. The man is in his seventies. Show a little respect.

Last week you were praising the tabloids for dissing Bush. Now they're right-wing?

I've seen tabloid photos of Pat Buchanan in his underwear in a locker room. It was a very flattering photo, and obviously not taken or published with his consent. Pat Buchanan, of course, is a staunch right-wing conservative.

Mike, Bush's alcoholism is a valid topic for the news. It could affect his judgement.

The topless photos of Kennedy are inexcusable cheap shots at a Democratic politician. News Corp, which owns most of the tabloids, is well known for being a supporter of the Republicans Party.

Again, the Enquirer is... shall we say, not particularly concerned... about printing the truth?

I ask once more, was he drinking with Elvis and Bigfoot?

Ted's accident was probably very innocent. I think a deer ran out in front of his car, and he swerved to avoid hitting it. After all, Ted repects all life.

....except Mary Jo Kopechne's life

If by deer you mean "he was smashed out of his mind" and by "very innocent" you mean "alcohol was most certainly involved," then I think you are right.

Ted's accident was probably very innocent. I think a deer ran out in front of his car, and he swerved to avoid hitting it. After all, Ted repects all life. - Rona

Are we talking about Chappaquiddick here? No one - and I mean no one - has ever said anything about a deer. Least of all Teddy Kennedy himself - the driver of the car. If a deer had been involved, you can bet Teddy would have mentioned it to help clear his "good name" and excuse the incident. He has never said anything about Bambi's mother being in the road. That is most definitely something of your invention, Rona.

(Dammit, I've been doing so good about not posting here. And then this happens. I've just gotta stop reading these things...)

I doubt that was the real Rona.

The IP number is the same, Scott.

OK, then it is real. It was just so over-the-top and ignored the published facts about Chappaquidick that I figured it had to be a troll.

So THAT'S what happened to my mother! Ted Kennedy killed her! Why I oughta.....(storms off)

No, Ted swerved!

The deer also intervened to prevent Ted from calling the police after the accident. And this is what he gets for supporting animal rights all these years. But Ted is too virtuous a man to bring this up in his defense. Ted Kennedy is a wonderful, decent man. You can see that by the fact that he gave a ride to Mary Jo out of the goodness and kindness of his heart. I hope he has many wonderful, bright years left to serve the nation.

I mentioned Kennedy's accident because Bill Bennett brought it up again. On Hannity's FOX show, Bennett was aked about Kennedy describing his "abort black babies to prevent crime" statement as racist. Bennett's response was to dredge up Chappaquidick again. It's such a tired routine. Conservatives always bring up Chappaquidick to deflect attention from their own actions. Since no one really knows what happened, Right-wingers should stop acting as if they were eye witnesses to the event.

Whenever a Republican is wrong... just bring up Chappaquidick. Maybe Bush should just answer "Chappaquidick" to any critical questions from now on. Dems are tired of hearing about it.

In this particular case, Rona, I agree with you.

...and a year later, Chappaquidick is dredged up again by Republicans. In defense of the Speaker of the House Hastert(ignoring repeated warnings from different people about Foley and pages) , Christopher Shays mentioned that Hastert didn't kill anyone like Kennedy.

I'm a registered Democrat who has voted that way, and I don't think bringing up Chappaquidick is unreasonable. Kennedy has no business, IMO, being in office any more than Foley does. They're both reprehensible, as do the fellow politicians who rationalize or shift the blame for their wrongdoings.

In my opinion, G.W. Bush has no business being in office. He is one of the most intellectually unqualified politicians I've ever seen. That Karl Rove can use sleazeball tactics to put such a piece of garbage in office is telling. Bush is responsible for perhaps the worst blunder a President has ever made ( the Iraq War). Kennedy has quite a distinguised political record, Bush doesn't.

I fully agree with everything you say, up until the last sentence--not to necessarily disagree with the notion that he has a decent political record, but with the notion that that alone bears any relevance to Chappaquiddick.

I'm a registered Democrat who has voted that way, and I don't think bringing up Chappaquidick is unreasonable. Kennedy has no business, IMO, being in office any more than Foley does.

I'm a lot older than most of the people who post here (I'll be 52 next week) and I was in high school when the Chappaquiddick incident happened. It was big news for a while, but IMHO, it was then swept under the rug big time. Don't forget people, a young woman named Mary Jo Kopechne died due to Mr. Kennedy's actions, or lack of them. I'm no raging conservative, but I feel that the Kennedys and their extended clan get a free pass on just about anything (that includes convicted killer Michael Skakel, who's looking for a "get out of jail free card"). (Teddy Boy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident that caused bodily injury, and got a two-month suspended sentence. Hardly fair, IMHO, for a crime that caused the loss of a young life.

Ted Kennedy suffered a seizure this past weekend, and follow-up tests have shown that he has a malignant brain tumor. More on that here.

RIP Ted Kennedy.

geez, why are people mentioning Chapaquidick (sp)

then...

Because it's relevant to the man's life.

74s tm, I have removed your prior post. Please do not post irrelevant material on my boards. Political Musings is not a place for you to make posts complaining about your life.

I found the opinions expressed in this video about Kennedy and related issues to be interesting. I don't agree with all of it, but there are some valid points in it.

Interesting video but I think his "liberal media (TM)" paranoia about Kennedy's death vs Stanford's situation isn't a fair comparison. The media certainly never shut up about Chappaquiddick for the 40 years after it happened. That fact that Massachusetts voters kept voting for him after it says something about them but the fact was that he was a member of the US Senate and even decades later if he spoke on or introduced a bill on anything from Education to taxes to military action you couldn't turn on a political chat show without someone mentioning "The Chappaquiddick Incident."

The man had just died and the media is usually pretty respectful of someone like him after their death. Anyone Remember when Ronald Reagen died? The media was fawning over him so much it prompted my cousin Pam to ask "do these people remember the 80s?" Not a word about him selling WMDs to Iraq or Iran/Contra; decisions that lead to the deaths countless civilians and innocents; many more than one (probable) mistress who chose to get in the car with a drunk guy.

As for Stanford, his thing is new so of course it's being talked about. He's also set himself up as a family values conservative who would deny rights to gay couples because of his Christian values about the sanctity of marriage.

The video's point about Michael Vick is valid. Although a better one about him is that Ray Lewis was involved in an incident in Buckhead (Atlanta, GA) where two men were stabbed to death and he was still chosen as the MVP of the Superbowl that year.

As for that book that the video advocated, I think the video producer's tin-foil hat was showing a bit there. The book ranks John Tyler (the only former President ever elected to a position in the Confederacy) as a better President than Lincoln (who kept the union together) or Roosevelt (who got us out of the Depression and through most of WWII.)

Kennedy would have been president at some point without Chappaquiddick.

A movie based on the Chappaquiddick incident, titled (what else?) Chappaquiddick, opens today. I doubt it will be in theaters too long, as I feel it has pretty limited appeal. Like to older people like me, who remember the incident. More on the film here.

Yeah, most younger folk would have no idea about this.