[Big Mac]

So you really think changing the law to prevent a Republican governor from exercising his authority is okay, and changing the very same law back to help a Democratic governor exercise that same authority is something other than corrupt?

That turn-coat Senator Sphincter still has cancer right?

[SpaceMonkey]

No, I'm just pointing out that this is turning into another one of stupendousman's classic overreaching arguments. Certainly it's disturbing if there is a double standard applied to Republican and Democrat governors of the same state (although we also can't just dismiss out of hand the legitimate authority the state legislature might have to lawfully change the rules), but to say that it has nothing to do with the will of the people is absurd. The will of the people in the last election was to have Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, serve over his Republican challenger. One could make a realistic argument that it would be undemocratic to appoint a Republican as an interim senator. It depends, of course, on what aspects of the democratic process you prioritize.

[Big Mac]

I agree with you on the will of the people in that debate. The people of Massachusetts must be insane to have kept him in office all those years, and the forced universal health care that Romney and Kennedy bore sounds like it's really doing a number on them.

[SpaceMonkey]

Yeah, seriously. Romney: what a communist.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Other than the fact that the electorate voted for a Democrat to serve in that Senate seat...

They elected a man to serve in that Senate seat. A man who can no longer serve. If the people had qualms about putting a Republican in office, and trusting them, then Romney would have never been elected (another man elected to serve);.

When the law was changed before, they elected a Republican to the Governor's seat - the office where you used to get to pick a temporary successor when someone in Congress can't finish their term. This wasn't something Romney was given secretly that the rest of the Governors weren't allowed access to, but it was something that was taken from him for strictly partisan political reasons having anything to do with the "will of the people". To suggest that it's somehow anything other than corrupt power grabbing and a clear hypocritical double standard is assinine, IMO.

[andi*pandi]

The law isn't being changed to avoid special election, or promote Democratic governor pushing his own candidate on Massachusetts. It is adding an interim seat holder UNTIL the special election.

As someone who would be represented by such a person, I'd much rather an interim seat holder than nothing.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They elected a man to serve in that Senate seat. A man who can no longer serve. If the people had qualms about putting a Republican in office, and trusting them, then Romney would have never been elected (another man elected to serve);.

Well, duh, that's the legitimate other side of the argument. I'm just saying there is also a legitimate argument going the other way, and the fundamental difference between the two does have something to do with what one conceives of as the "will of the people." You are interpreting the will of the people as who they elected governor. Others would see differently, at least in terms of matters of the composition of Congress.

You guys really get your underwear in a twist over everything having a right or wrong answer, don't you?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The point of making the law in the first place was to ensure that the Governor couldn't put into place who he wanted. It was essentially drafted to make sure no Republican could be named to Congress mid-term when that appeared likely to happen.

Now that they have a Democrat governor, they feel that they can now craft a law that might make more sense, so that they can help forward their political goals. It doesn't matter how you spin it, the old law was created to help Democrats and hurt Republicans, and the new law will be put into place to help Democrats and hurt Republicans. It has nothing to do with the will of the people of Massachusetts.

What year was this law put into place?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

What year was this law put into place?

2004
When the MA Dems thought Kerry was going to beat GWB and his senate seat would be taken by Romney's hand picked GOP candidate.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The law isn't being changed to avoid special election, or promote Democratic governor pushing his own candidate on Massachusetts. It is adding an interim seat holder UNTIL the special election.

Something they could well have done in 2004, if the interest was in assuring that there was never a time they didn't have full representation. That wasn't the interest or purpose in 2004. Their interest was purely partisan, just as it is now.

As someone who would be represented by such a person, I'd much rather an interim seat holder than nothing.

Surely who expressed confused outrage back in 2004 when they sought to ensure that there was no interim seat holder? They specifically sought to ensure that there could be NO interim seat holder in 2004.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well, duh, that's the legitimate other side of the argument. I'm just saying there is also a legitimate argument going the other way, and the fundamental difference between the two does have something to do with what one conceives of as the "will of the people."

No, it fundamentally does not. It's a smokescreen. If it's super-important to not have a vacant seat, then they would have ensured that back in 2004 when it was really their goal just not to allow a Republican to pick an interim seat holder. There isn't anything that they know now that they didn't know then. The only thing different now is that the law they changed to hurt Republican chances in Massachusetts will now make it harder for them to maintain absolute party power in the Senate, and so the law will be changed to ensure they maintain that power corruptly.

The people picked a Republican governor who by law had the power to pick an interim seat holder, yet when it became apparent that the Governor would soon be able to exercise the power given to him by the people of the state of Massachusetts, the Democrats in power removed that power from him to insure that they maintained as close to absolute party power as possible.

You are interpreting the will of the people as who they elected governor. Others would see differently, at least in terms of matters of the composition of Congress.

Candidates are elected to office. In 2004, the people elected Republicans and Democrats to office. They elected a Republican to the office that gets to pick interim candidates. It wasn't an outraged electorate that forced the Massachusetts Democrats to change the law to ensure that the person the people of Massachusetts elected to pick interim candidates didn't get to do a job he was elected to do. If you change the law back and forth depending on who is in office to ensure one party stays in power, it's pretty comical to suggest that it's being done for any other reason than for partisan gain. To suggest otherwise is either naive or you are just bs-ing us.

You guys really get your underwear in a twist over everything having a right or wrong answer, don't you?

I pointed out an instance where the Democrats are engaging in corrupt power grabs via hypocritical double standards. My underwear isn't in a twist - this isn't something I'm surprised or shocked by. "Business as usual...". The Kennedys were never known for their ability to refrain from taking every unfair advantage they could. Otherwise, Ted's dad wouldn't have made a fortune via criminal activity and wouldn't have bought the Presidential election for one of his sons.

[BadKosh]

Those pesky tasteless liberals are wanting to name the Healthcare Pork bill after Kennedy. I say FINE!! So both Kennedy and the bill named after him can be dead this year.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think it's "arse kissing" to pay respects to a man who has dedicated his entire life to public service. His life plagued by familial tragedy and his reputation plagued by the poorest of choices saw a man that would persevere as one of the longest services in Senate history. The "lion" was certainly a polarizing figure and often a stick in the mud to his opposition. While he has contributed to perhaps the most contentious of leftist ideology; ideology you and I may find absolutely detestable if not outright seditious, he no doubt felt he was bettering his country. His constituents would see to it that he would serve nine terms in the Senate.

While I might not personally miss the man, he was a man and a human at that. I hope his family can find peace and I hope the representation we seek to advance our ideology serve with at least a third the unwavering passion and longevity of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Bill O'Reilly agrees with you:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video0...w.foxnews.com/

You don't have to like the guy to not take joy in his death.

[Big Mac]

I guess I'm solidly in the minority. I consider most of his career and political advocacy to be treasonous. But I liked his brothers a lot.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Right on Cap. Again, good riddance. It's really too bad he survived his far superior older brothers for so long, but as we know the good die young while evil figures seem to live on. He caused immense harm to this country throughout his career, and he contributed to the death of his girlfriend. Now we get days of arse kissing of the pig. I'm thankful, though, that his biggest endeavor, the full Socialization of medicine and further ruination of this country as we know it is something he did not get to see. He may have done some good, but the harm he did was far greater; I refuse to sit by quietly in the face of the arse smooching.

Of course, even though I disliked the man, it is the end of an era. Erra erra.

wow. I know absolutely nothing about Edward Kennedy, but listening to you it sounds like he was the mastermind behind 9/11.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think it's "arse kissing" to pay respects to a man who has dedicated his entire life to public service. His life plagued by familial tragedy and his reputation plagued by the poorest of choices saw a man that would persevere as one of the longest services in Senate history. The "lion" was certainly a polarizing figure and often a stick in the mud to his opposition. While he has contributed to perhaps the most contentious of leftist ideology; ideology you and I may find absolutely detestable if not outright seditious, he no doubt felt he was bettering his country. His constituents would see to it that he would serve nine terms in the Senate.

While I might not personally miss the man, he was a man and a human at that. I hope his family can find peace and I hope the representation we seek to advance our ideology serve with at least a third the unwavering passion and longevity of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

nicely said

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, it fundamentally does not. It's a smokescreen..

You're getting caught in the weeds. The tactics have nothing to do with it, but the ideas justifying it on both sides too.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Those pesky tasteless liberals are wanting to name the Healthcare Pork bill after Kennedy. I say FINE!! So both Kennedy and the bill named after him can be dead this year.

LOL. I had sort of the same idea when I first heard about this. Ironic to name soon to fail liberal legislation on a guy who spent his life passionately failing (for the most part) to get liberal legislation put on the books.

I predict though that using Kennedy's death for partisan gain will backfire, because people will see how tastless that is. I expect the same kind of backlash we saw when they tried to use Wellstone's death to win congressional seats. That incident turned real ugly, and should have taught aessin to Democrat leadership. I'm guessing it didn't.

[mattyb]

RIP

[pooka]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

RIP

It's unfortunate that this young girl died. But logically and realistically speaking, I don't see how anyone can argue against the obvious cost/benefit analysis. Whether or not you support his actions or beliefs, it's quite easy to see that his career was simply more important than her life.

[turtle777]

Nice bait, pooka.

-t

[pooka]

Awe, c'mon. I wouldn't call it bait. It's an honest assessment. I don't star-**** celebrities, athletes or politicians regardless of stripes. It's hard to argue with someone that believes in NOTHING.

It just reminded me of a party I went to. Some dudes were arguing about the Vatican covering up priest abuse and whatnot. One of the fellah's tirades ended with a wish for some of the priests to be executed for molesting kids. I chuckled a bit and agreed with him. We were staging a mock execution before long and chanting "Diiiiiiiiie, baby ****er!". Good times. Anyway, I suggested that we go after politicians next to which he excitedly agreed. I named off a few that included old Ted.

"Man, **** no. THAT is completely different"

I can't STAND moral relativism.

[pooka]

heh

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/pol...es-eulogy.html

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Did i offend your precious little heart?

No, that's reserved for people who posses a soul.

BTW, that thread you posted...you know the one...seems I didn't post in that one at all, probably didn't even notice it. So yeah, you really put me in my place.

PPS, seems even Shif doesn't agree with being joyed at Kennedy's death, like I said you Conservatives, watch out for the company you keep. Pretty soon you'll be no better than even the most insane partisan shills.

[pooka]

Well, for the record, I'm not a conservative. As I stated above, I don't BELIEVE in anything. Waste of god damn time. Also, I'm not relishing or celebrating anyone's death. I just like stirring **** up when folks start recommending people for sainthood is all.

For the record, I wish I could get away with murder too.

[sek929]

I totally agree, I don't think Kennedy was a saint in any way shape or form...besides having the coolest last name ever. (cough)

Also, pooka, stirring up sh!t? Noooooooo way...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Okay, okay, before you get too high up on your soapbox, check ANY thread about the death of ANY prominent conservative.

You're absolutely correct; there are @$$holes on the left who will celebrate someone's death simply because they held a different opinion.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, by your own account, seems like Teddy was really mediocre, compared to Double U.

-t

Based on your criteria, Hitler must be your hero.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by pooka 

heh

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/pol...es-eulogy.html

Gotta love Rollins. Sometimes he hits it square on the head.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Based on your criteria, Hitler must be your hero.

Bravo. First to invoke Godwin's law. *golf clap*

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

RIP

I brought this up before, but I figure it's worth repeating.

What happened that night is that Kennedy left the party with a different woman. Kopechne was asleep in the back seat. Neither of them knew she was there until her body was found.

As I said last time, ignore the fact I have a really good source, and focus your attention upon how that's a much simpler explanation for his behavior.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

What happened that night is that Kennedy left the party with a different woman. Kopechne was asleep in the back seat. Neither of them knew she was there until her body was found.

Source?
It's very interesting that it was never Kennedy himself.

At the inquest, he testified that after escaping from the car, he dived back into the water seven or eight times in a vain attempt to free Kopechne. Then he made the mile-and-a-half walk back to the cottage, where the party was still underway, collected two male friends and returned with them to the car, where they also attempted to free Kopechne. When that proved impossible, Kennedy decided to return to his hotel across the water in Edgartown. But instead of summoning the night ferry, he chose to swim 500 feet across the bay.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Source?

It's a person.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's very interesting that it was never Kennedy himself.

Not really. A valiant attempt at rescue which becomes ultimately hopeless vs. clueless and drunk off my ass with two women, neither of whom are my pregnant wife.

If you had the choice, which would you pick to 'splain the dead girl?

Now answer that question if your moral compass is compliments of Joe frigging Kennedy.

[smacintush]

So, can someone tell me why exactly why we should speak any differently about this pig in death than we did when he was alive? He was a divisive, bitter partisan, far-left, misogynistic sot, and it's nothing short of amazing to me that he has gotten a pass (literally or politically) for all these years for Chappaquiddick. His death doesn't change any of that.

As far as his legislative accomplishments and such, whether or not he really was trying to make a difference and thought he was doing good is totally irrelevant. So did the unibomber. His good intentions mean nothing.

This absolute "respect for the dead" is just another of those silly social conventions that people blindly follow without ever actually thinking about WHY they do it.

[stevesnj]

Bush and Cheney killed Teddy!!! Damn righties!!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's a person.

Wow, impeccable. No arguing with that.

Not really. A valiant attempt at rescue which becomes ultimately hopeless vs. clueless and drunk off my ass with two women, neither of whom are my pregnant wife.

I honestly don't get where you're going with this, because it sounds like you don't really grasp the facts of the case, and why it was a big deal. The 'valiant attempt at rescue' as you call it, totally blows away the notion that he was clueless about her being in the car. Seriously, did you miss that?

Also, the whole problem for Ted was the 'valiant attempt at rescue' rescue of a political career more than a person- rather than call the proper authorities immediately -who actually might have been able to rescue the victim. Again, I have to ask, did you miss all of that?

If you had the choice, which would you pick to 'splain the dead girl?

Which would I pick, what? So rather than deal with what actually happened, it's just about picking whichever story sounds best? I really don't get that.

Really, if you have some information about the case, with a better eyewitness to what happened than Kennedy himself (who never claimed he didn't know she was in the car, and as I pointed out, testified that he attempted to rescue her and brought friends to do the same- not something you do if you don't know someone is in the car- then please cite your source. Otherwise, I can't see how you can criticize others for 'ignoring facts'.

[SpaceMonkey]

Crash, he's saying that Kennedy lied during his inquest because he thought it sounded better than the truth, which, according to subego, is that he was drunk and unaware.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Crash, he's saying that Kennedy lied during his inquest because he thought it sounded better than the truth, which, according to subego, is that he was drunk and unaware.

Well gee whiz. So obviously to prove Kennedy lied during his inquest, perhaps you need to produce an actual eyewitness that trumps Kennedy himself? I mean other than just "a person." I mean, I realize that's asking a lot.

And the lie makes no sense. There were at least two other people that tried to rescue her that have to be involved in the lie too. Also, please explain to me how it's better to tell a lie that leaves you negligent for the death of someone (the problem is, and always has been that he didn't call the authorities immediately, like any other rational person would have done after an accident)- than the supposed 'truth' which gives you the out that you didn't know the person was in the car?

So it's the ol' "cheating with two women is worse than causing the death of one" defense?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I brought this up before, but I figure it's worth repeating.

What happened that night is that Kennedy left the party with a different woman. Kopechne was asleep in the back seat. Neither of them knew she was there until her body was found.

As I said last time, ignore the fact I have a really good source, and focus your attention upon how that's a much simpler explanation for his behavior.

Talk about gullible. No wonder you guys voted for Obama.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Well gee whiz. So obviously to prove Kennedy lied during his inquest, perhaps you need to produce an actual eyewitness that trumps Kennedy himself? I mean other than just "a person." I mean, I realize that's asking a lot.

And the lie makes no sense. There were at least two other people that tried to rescue her that have to be involved in the lie too. Also, please explain to me how it's better to tell a lie that leaves you negligent for the death of someone (the problem is, and always has been that he didn't call the authorities immediately, like any other rational person would have done after an accident)- than the supposed 'truth' which gives you the out that you didn't know the person was in the car?

So it's the ol' "cheating with two women is worse than causing the death of one" defense?

Hey, I'm just clarifying for you, not agreeing with subego or attempting to explain it. But it probably has something to do with, as subego wrote, having a moral compass "compliments of Joe frigging Kennedy."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

But it probably has something to do with, as subego wrote, having a moral compass "compliments of Joe frigging Kennedy."

Even trying to imagine the 'moral compass of Joe friggen Kennedy' then the story that says you're not guilty of a girl's death because you didn't know she was there sounds a LOT better that the two women thing. First off, if you didn't know the other woman was there, then we're right back to it only being one woman. Plus: you're no longer on the hook for anyone's death. Seems to me ol' Joe would approve of snapping up that excuse in a heartbeat, but maybe I greatly overestimate Kennedy clan capacity for logic.

And just a 'by the way' since when was it ever reported that there were two women in the car at the time of the accident? If he dropped some other woman off (that he obviously didn't spend the night with) and then didn't know about a second in the car and was just heading back to his hotel, then that'd be about the best possible excuse imaginable for the whole incident. But then, ol' Ted- with the moral compass of dear ol' Joe- never claimed any such thing.

[subego]

Sorry this took so long.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Wow, impeccable. No arguing with that.

I apologize if you felt my mentioning of a source was meant to persuade you one way or another. As I said in the OP, what I think is more relevant is whether the explanation fit the events, and I had intended for my claim to be challenged on said merit, or lack thereof.

As luck would have it, someone is willing to do so...

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Also, please explain to me how it's better to tell a lie that leaves you negligent for the death of someone (the problem is, and always has been that he didn't call the authorities immediately, like any other rational person would have done after an accident)- than the supposed 'truth' which gives you the out that you didn't know the person was in the car?

I doubt he intentionally concocted a scenario that made him look as bad as he did. He wasn't making the calculation with the benefit of hindsight, was under some pretty serious time pressure, and just had a dead body turn up in his car. Not ideal circumstances in which to think things through.

On the other hand, a publicly messy affair is extremely high risk to one's political career. This is true now, and was only more so in less permissive times. You can't get more publicly messy than using your affair to explain a dead body. It would have been an instant killing blow to all that BS manufactured Camelot image he was the sole remaining heir to.

Either way, Kennedy's behavior (as he describes it) in not calling the authorities, you charitably portray as not rational. Likewise, his behavior, as reported by every witness who wasn't at the party, was described to be as if nothing had happened. What should be noted, is that both sets of behaviors are rationally explained if Kennedy didn't know there was anyone in the car.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If he dropped some other woman off (that he obviously didn't spend the night with) and then didn't know about a second in the car and was just heading back to his hotel, then that'd be about the best possible excuse imaginable for the whole incident.

There's was no place to drop her off. They were on an island with ferry access. Their hotel wasn't on the island.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Talk about gullible. No wonder you guys voted for Obama.

I'll gladly respond to a more specific challenge.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Either way, Kennedy's behavior (as he describes it) in not calling the authorities, you charitably portray as not rational.

I really think you miss what's not rational about it. And in doing so, I think you're missing that what you're saying is an 'excuse' is even less rational.

By rational, I mean that a normal, non-narcissistic, non-psychopathic, non-*********, non-whatever-you-want-to-call-it person would care more about saving the life of someone, than they would giving two shits about revealing an affair, or about their stupid political bullcrap career. (Especially since a girl dying in your car and you being responsible is going to to DO BOTH ANYWAY!!!!!- can this not be stressed enough?)

That's why, if you drive off a bridge and leave someone still trapped in the car, you go and report it to authorities who can save the person. Not go get your buddies, and then just slink off back to your hotel.

His behavior is 'rational' in the sense that he was trying to save his own skin by not reporting the incident, and trying (and failing miserably) to do damage control, rather than just go get proper help, screw whatever stupid political consequences.

What you're floating, that he didn't even know she was there, makes even LESS sense, in light of the actual facts. FACT: He did call other people (not proper authorities, but his buddies) to the scene to try and rescue someone from the car. How on earth you can then say that he wasn't aware someone else was in the car, and yet documented attempts to save someone from the car were made, makes no friggen sense. Heck, as I said, to pretend he didn't know someone else was in the car would have actually been a GOOD EXCUSE. He never used it, because he never thought of it, because THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. FACT: he officially testified to all this, something no one who was innocent of such would just make up. You don't seem to understand that his testimony was MORE DAMAGING, than saying he wasn't aware she was there would ever have been.

What should be noted, is that both sets of behaviors are rationally explained if Kennedy didn't know there was anyone in the car.

No, it's explained easily by someone who was way more concerned with the bullshit 'Camelot' image, his political career, his desire to someday be President, than a human life he was responsible for.

There's was no place to drop her off. They were on an island with ferry access. Their hotel wasn't on the island.

Again, I've seen no evidence that there was someone else in the car, other than Kennedy and the girl that died.

You should step back and look at what you're saying, and realize it doesn't jibe with the facts, and makes no sense.

Kennedy DID testify that he attempted to rescue Kopechne, and then went and got others to try to as well. So look at what you're floating: that in 1969 it was political suicide to admit you had a woman in your car other than your wife. Well newsflash: HE ADMITTED JUST THAT!!! Do you get that? Does that sink in? HE ADMITTED THAT! Not only that, he admitted to a girl being in his car other than his wife, but also a girl being in his car that HE'S negligent in the death of because he didn't call the proper authorities, as anyone else would do, regardless of outside motive.

So what you're saying is, he could have just said: "I wasn't aware she was in the car, therefore I wasn't WITH another woman other than my wife, (well, except for this OTHER woman other than my wife) and therefore *DUHHHH* I can't be held responsible for her death either. This is known in the real world as a WIN-WIN. Do you get that? Is it that hard to grasp?

Except Kennedy himself DIDN'T EVER CLAIM ANY SUCH THING, even though it's kind of a no-brainer.

So people can spin all they like, but it just doesn't hold water. Kennedy's testimony as to what happened is something no one in thier right mind would just 'make up as an excuse' because it's much worse than what you're claiming actually happened, which actually would have been a better excuse. It MAKES NO SENSE. The story that you (I realize not just you, but this excuse seemed to surface around the time Kennedy wanted to run for President ten years later) float is NOT a valid excuse for what happened, NOR is it the slightest bit more logical, and worst of all for those that claim it, Kennedy himself contradicts it. Sorry, but that's pretty weak dude.

Just saying "someone" says otherwise doesn't mean much. Unless it was a person right there in the car, able to say what happened with as much certainty as Kennedy himself, and contradict other witnesses (like those Kennedy called before authorities to try and help him clean up his mess) it's just pure bullcrap.

[stupendousman]

"Social convention" or not, I think it's good policy not to "speak ill" of the dead. It's not any different than "talking behind someone's back" - a person can't defend themselves when they are dead.

Having said that, I do disagree with attempts to rewrite history and ignore a persons extremely bad deeds just because they've died. Unless you are a family member or giving his eulogy and are just being polite, there's no need to pretend someone was something they were not. Any "news" coverage of Kennedy's death should give at least equal time in any examination of his life to the really crappy, immoral and partisan elements of his personal and private life given that he's known as much or more for that than any of his "good" deeds he's been able to accomplish via the silver spoon in his mouth he was born with. It shouldn't be the job of journalism to be polite cheerleaders.

[ghporter]

Ted Kennedy was a powerhouse. The scion of an immensely wealthy family, he LIVED the idea of nobles oblige, and privately supported causes that most wealthy people make a big PUBLIC deal about just for the press. Of all the ideologues in the Senate, he seems to have been alone in discussing issues of import rather than "arguing" them, and I don't think I've ever found an instance where he demonized people who disagreed with him-something very common on both sides of the aisle.

I strongly disagree with many of the late senator's political stands, but damn, he was eloquent in voicing them, and extremely good at presenting them. He also was a real politician, rather than the kind of crook that most elected individuals become; he understood compromise and what it was appropriate to compromise on, and through that he worked out many laws that were really beneficial to the nation as a whole (as opposed to the rather small population he putatively represented).

In an age when "thoughtful discussion of issues" is a quaint notion, Senator Ted Kennedy will be sorely missed.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Ted Kennedy was a powerhouse. The scion of an immensely wealthy family, he LIVED the idea of nobles oblige, and privately supported causes that most wealthy people make a big PUBLIC deal about just for the press. Of all the ideologues in the Senate, he seems to have been alone in discussing issues of import rather than "arguing" them, and I don't think I've ever found an instance where he demonized people who disagreed with him-something very common on both sides of the aisle.

I strongly disagree with many of the late senator's political stands, but damn, he was eloquent in voicing them, and extremely good at presenting them. He also was a real politician, rather than the kind of crook that most elected individuals become; he understood compromise and what it was appropriate to compromise on, and through that he worked out many laws that were really beneficial to the nation as a whole (as opposed to the rather small population he putatively represented).

In an age when "thoughtful discussion of issues" is a quaint notion, Senator Ted Kennedy will be sorely missed.

Some thoughts that will go over most people's heads here. +1

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

His behavior is 'rational' in the sense that he was trying to save his own skin by not reporting the incident, and trying (and failing miserably) to do damage control, rather than just go get proper help, screw whatever stupid political consequences.

It's beyond failing miserably. How is it damage control not to mention to the police he got his friends to help? I note he dictated his statement to one of the people who had supposedly helped. Or the part in the report where someone at the party drives him home, which changes into a swim home at the testimony? Why did he even leave the island in the first place? All he had to do is stay, and he could have made a far more believable plea of passing out on the shore due to exhaustion. I don't see being in a comfy bed that night taking precedence over his political future. What part of damage control involves calling the front desk of his hotel at three in the morning and complaining about a noisy party?

He's cucumber cool according to loads of witnesses, even though he had just negligently killed someone, but is too stupid to get his story straight, even with help from someone who he claims was there?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

FACT: he officially testified to all this, something no one who was innocent of such would just make up. You don't seem to understand that his testimony was MORE DAMAGING, than saying he wasn't aware she was there would ever have been.

His testimony was, by necessity, based somewhat on the original report he gave to the police, which as I already pointed out, he didn't have a lot of time to think through, and was under an unusually great amount of stress while concocting it.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Again, I've seen no evidence that there was someone else in the car, other than Kennedy and the girl that died.

The only witness not at the party testified he saw a shadow in the back seat which could have been "a bag, an article of clothing, or a third person" (page 125, left column, halfway down).

Also, there was a purse from one of the partygoers found in the car. It wasn't Kopechne's.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So look at what you're floating: that in 1969 it was political suicide to admit you had a woman in your car other than your wife.

That's not what I said. It's not having a woman in your car, it's having that woman testify in court as to what she was doing there, to explain a dead body.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So what you're saying is, he could have just said: "I wasn't aware she was in the car, therefore I wasn't WITH another woman other than my wife, (well, except for this OTHER woman other than my wife) and therefore *DUHHHH* I can't be held responsible for her death either.

Where was he going? He left his chauffeur.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

and worst of all for those that claim it, Kennedy himself contradicts it.

Your counter-claim to "Kennedy lied at his inquest" is that his testimony at said inquest contradicts what I'm saying?

This is circular.