Ted Kennedy has died

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Only a few prefer liberty. Most just want kind masters.

Government is, for whatever reason, the only profession where people who haven't the slightest clue whatsoever about the topic think they are fully, completely, 100% qualified.

Usually, the less learned the person, the more qualified they think they are (at least from my experience).

Before offering such broad generalizations about the integrity of people in government, it might not hurt if you were to offer a citation for your aphorism.

[Team Sergeant]

In it, Kennedy says his actions on Chappaquiddick on July 18, 1969, were "inexcusable."

Rot in hell ted, you're a slimeball.

You didn't deserve a hero's burial and you definitely don't deserve to be buried with real hero's. Personally I'd like to see a movement to have you tried for murder and disinterred and buried in a prison grave.

ted kennedy is the reason we should have term limits.

Team Sergeant


Kennedy Memoir Reveals Remorse Over Fatal Chappaquiddick Crash
Thursday, September 03, 2009


NEW YORK — In a posthumous memoir, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy writes of fear and remorse surrounding the fateful events on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969, when his car accident left a woman dead, and says he accepted the finding that a lone gunman assassinated his brother President John F. Kennedy.

The memoir, "True Compass," is to be published Sept. 14 by Twelve, a division of the Hachette book group. The 532-page book was obtained early by The New York Times.

In it, Kennedy says his actions on Chappaquiddick on July 18, 1969, were "inexcusable." He says he was afraid and "made terrible decisions" and had to live with the guilt for more than four decades.

Kennedy drove off a bridge into a pond. He swam to safety, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne in the car.

Kopechne, a worker with slain Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's campaign, was found dead in the submerged car's back seat 10 hours later. Kennedy, then 37, pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and got a suspended sentence and probation.

Kennedy also writes in the memoir that he always accepted the official findings on his brother John's assassination.

He said he had a full briefing by Earl Warren, the chief justice on the commission that investigated the Nov. 22, 1963, Dallas shooting, which was attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald. He said he was convinced the Warren Commission got it right and he was "satisfied then, and satisfied now."

In the book, Kennedy writes candidly about his battle with brain cancer and his "self-destructive drinking," especially after the 1968 death of his brother Robert.

He also explains why he decided to run for the presidency in 1980, saying he was motivated in part by his differences with then-President Jimmy Carter. He criticized Carter's go-slow approach to providing universal health care.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that a spokesman for the memoir's publisher said he was "dismayed" The New York Times had obtained the book before its publication date.

"We regret that the New York Times did not respect the September 14th release date of 'True Compass,' which was carefully coordinated with the senator's family," Goldstein told The Post. "That copy was obtained without consent or permission from Twelve -- or if it was somehow purchased, then it was sold illegally."

The book was written with the help of a collaborator and was based on contemporaneous notes taken by Kennedy throughout his life and hours of recordings for an oral history project.

Kennedy died last week at age 77.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546020,00.html

[jw74]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

In it, Kennedy says his actions on Chappaquiddick on July 18, 1969, were "inexcusable."

I heard an NPR interview with a Ted Kennedy biographer who also said He loved a good Chappaquiddick joke and would ask people if they've heard any good chappaquiddick jokes lately. And this was being told as though it demonstrated his great sense of humor. It didnt dawn on the biographer or the host that it was tasteless.

Hilarious

[Richard]

Term limits!

Ever think about why the Constitution does not address term limits for legislators?

Richard's $.02

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by Richard

Ever think about why the Constitution does not address term limits for legislators?

Richard's $.02

Yes, because our forefathers never dreamed there would be such a thing as a career politician. They were somewhat naive as shown by the "standing army rule".

[Richard]

As I understand it, Ted Kennedy is now eligible to vote in Chicago elections.

Richard's $.02

[Red Flag 1]

Originally Posted by Richard

As I understand it, Ted Kennedy is now eligible to vote in Chicago elections.

Richard's $.02

He does bring some depth now.

RF 1

[Richard]

Yes, because our forefathers never dreamed there would be such a thing as a career politician. They were somewhat naive as shown by the "standing army rule".

Text of Congressman Hyde's Floor Statement On Term Limits given during the House debate on term limits March 29, 1995

[QUOTE]"If someone told you on election day you had to vote for a certain candidate, you would wonder if you were back in the Soviet Union! But if someone tells you may not vote for a certain candidate because he's overqualified, what is the essential difference? Your range of choice has been limited -- and your fundamental right as a free American to freely elect whom you want to represent you has been abridged --

"If this were a trial, I'd call as my first witnesses the Founding Fathers who directly and unanimously rejected term limits. Chief Justice Earl Warren summed it up by quoting the Founding Fathers in the 1944 case of Powell vs McCormack: "A fundamental principle of our representative democracy is, in Hamilton's words, 'that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.' As Madison pointed out at the convention, this principle is undermined as much by limiting whom the people can select as by limiting the franchise itself."

"In 1788 during the New York debates on ratifying our Constitution, Robert Livingston asked, "Shall we then drive experience into obscurity? He called that an absolute abridgment of the people's rights.

"George Orwell once said it has become the task of the intellectual to defend the obvious -- and while I make no pretense at being an intellectual, defending experience over ignorance is certainly obvious.

"Have you ever been in a storm at sea? I was -- and I was terrified until I looked up at the bridge and the skipper was there sucking on his pipe -- an old Norwegian 45 years at sea and that was reassuring.

"When the dentist peers into your mouth with his drill whirring, don't you hope he's done this work for a few years?

"When the neuro-surgeon has shaved your head, and made the pencil line across your skull and he approaches with the electric saw -- ask him, won't you, one question: "Are you a careerist?"

"ls running a modern complex country of 250 million people and a $6 trillion economy all that easy? To do your job around here you've got to know something about environmental issues, health care, banking & finance and tax policy, the farm problems, weapons systems, Bosnia-Hertzegovina - North Korea, foreign policy, the administration of justice, crime and punishment, education, welfare, budgeting in the trillions of dollars, immigration. The list is endless and we need our best people to deal with these issues.

"We deal with ultimate questions -- war and peace - life and death -- drawing the line between liberty and order -- and do you really doubt that America will never again face a real crisis? With a revolving door Congress, where will we get Everett Dirksens, Scoop Jack sons, Hubert Humphreys, Barry Goldwaters, Arthur Vandenbergs and Sam Ervins?

"Where did Shim on Peres and Yitzak Rabin get the self confidence to negotiate peace with the P.L.O? Experience~ my friends, long bloody experience.

"To those of you who are overwhelmed by popularity of term limits let me remind you of what Edmund Burke told the electors of Bristol in 1744 -- that he owed them the highest fidelity, but he owed them his best judgment too -- and he didn't owe his conscience to anyone.

"l once told an incoming freshmen class at a luncheon speech, that you have to know the issues you are prepared to lose your seat over -- or you will do real damage here. To me, this is such an issue.

"The unstated premise of term limits is that we are progressively corrupted the longer we stay here -- To that, I say look around -- you'll see honest, decent, idealistic men and women in far greater ratio than most other occupations. The 12 Apostles had their Judas Iscariot, and I refuse to concede to the angry, pessimistic populism that drives this movement, because it is just dead wrong.

"Our negative campaigning and mudslinging have made anger the national recreation, but that's our fault, not the system's.

"America needs leaders, statesmen, and giants -- and you don't get them out of the phone book." New is always better? What's conservative about that? Have we nothing to learn from the past? Tradition, history, institutional memory -- don't they count anymore? Ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever.

"This isn't conservative -- it's a radical distrust of democracy -- it is cynical and pessimistic, devoid of the optimism and hope that built this country.

"This corrosive attack on the consent of the governed stems from two sources -- one, is well meaning but misguided, and the other are those who hate politics and politicians. Well, l love politics and politicians -- they invest the one commodity that can never be replaced, their time, their family life, their privacy and their reputation -- and for what? To make this a better country.

"Do incumbents have an advantage? Sometimes not. A challenger has no record to defend while an incumbent may have hundreds of votes to explain. But yes, an incumbent does have the advantage of name identification, and why not?

"lt's 11 p.m. on a snowy January night. l'm at a banquet honoring the mayor of a local town - I'm tired, and they haven't introduced the commissioner of streets yet, much less the mayor! But where is my opponent? Does he even know he's my opponent yet ? He's home, smoking a Macanudo, stroking his collie dog, sipping from a snifter of Courvoiser and watching an R-rated movie on cable. And I'm at my one-millionth banquet. Years of faithful constituent service - that's what gives an incumbent an advantage and, on the merits, it's deserved.

"The case for term limits is a rejection of professionalism in politics -- "career politician" is an epithet. Careerism, they say, places too much focus on getting re-elected and not on the public interest. That's a perfect non-sequitur. You get re-elected by serving the public interest. Professionals will run this government, only they will be the unelected, unaccountable, try to get them on the phone, permanent bureaucracy. There are two contradictory arguments for term limits -- one, we are too focused on re-election and not close enough to the people, and the George Will theory that we are too responsive to the people and need a constitutional distance from them. Any cause that depends on such conflicting theories is standing on two stools which as they separate will cause a serious hernia.

"Term limits limit the field of potential candidates -- what successful person in mid-life would leave a career at 50 and try and pick up that career at 56 or 62? This will become a sabbatical for the well to do elite and bored retirees.

"And so, the question of 1788 recurs: Shall we then drive experience into obscurity? Shall we perpetrate this absolute abridgment of the people's rights?

"Last June 6th I stood with Bob Michel, Sonny Montgomery and Sam Gibbons at Normandy -- and I heard the mournful, piercing sound of the British bag pipes playing Amazing Grace as they were scattered among the sea of crosses and Stars of David at the cemetery.

"I looked at some of the names on those crosses -- young men buried over a thousand miles from home -- and I saw a cross with the words, "Here lies in Honored Glory a Comrade in Arms Known but to God" and you realize he died in the cause of freedom -- and today you should realize that the right to choose who will represent you in Congress is a fundamental freedom. I can never vote to diminish that freedom -- and I hope you can't too."

"l speak for Sam Gibbons, Bob Stump. John Dingell, Sonny Montgomery and yes - Bob Dole. Fifty years ago our country needed us - and we came running!. l think our country still needs us. Why do you want to stop us from running? Why do want to drive experience into obscurity? Have you forgotten the report card we received last November?

"Trust the people!"

http://judiciary.house.gov/Legacy/010.htm[/QUOTE]

[incarcerated]

With 46 years of service as a Senator from Massachusetts, a champion of Civil Rights, icon of American liberal politics, Senator Edward Kennedy was an elder statesman and bulwark of the Democrat Party. If he could be cutting deals with the Soviets to undermine a sitting President, what have other members of his Party done in the way of contact with the KGB/FSB/SVR? This makes Chappaquiddick pale in comparison.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...kennedy_i.html

Kennedy and the KGB

By Paul Kengor
August 31, 2009
Shortly after the announcement of Ted Kennedy's death, I had already received several interview requests. I declined them, not wanting to be uncharitable to the man upon his death. Since then, I've seen the need to step up and provide some clarification.

The issue is a remarkable 1983 KGB document on Kennedy, which I published in my 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperCollins). The document is a May 14, 1983 memo from KGB head Victor Chebrikov to his boss, the odious Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov, designated with the highest classification. It concerns a confidential offer to the Soviet leadership by Senator Kennedy. The target: President Ronald Reagan. (A pdf file of the original Russian language document and an English translation are available here.)

With Kennedy's death, this stunning revelation is again making the rounds, especially after Rush Limbaugh flagged it in his "Stack of Stuff." I'm being inundated with emails, asking basically two questions: 1) is the document legitimate; and 2) what does it allege of Senator Kennedy?

First off, yes, the document is legitimate. If it were not, I would have never reported it. Over the years, from my book to radio and web interviews, I've provided specifics. Briefly summarized, here are the basics:

The document was first reported in a February 2, 1992 article in the London Times, titled, "Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file," by reporter Tim Sebastian. Russian President Boris Yeltsin had opened the Soviet archives. Sebastian discovered the document in the Central Committee archives specifically. When his article appeared in the Times, other on-site researchers dashed to the archives and grabbed their own copy. Those archives have been resealed.

The Times merely quoted the document and ran a tiny photo of its heading. Once I got ahold of it later, I published the entire text (English translation) in my book.

Importantly, when I published the document, Senator Kennedy's office didn't dispute its authenticity, instead ambiguously (and briefly) arguing with its "interpretation." This was clever. The senator's office didn't specify whether this interpretation problem was a matter of my personal misunderstanding of the document or the misunderstanding of the document's author, Chebrikov. Chebrikov couldn't be reached for comment; he was dead.

So, what was the offer?

The subject head, carried under the words, "Special Importance," read: "Regarding Senator Kennedy's request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Y. V. Andropov." According to the memo, Senator Kennedy was "very troubled" by U.S.-Soviet relations, which Kennedy attributed not to the murderous tyrant running the USSR but to President Reagan. The problem was Reagan's "belligerence."

This was allegedly made worse by Reagan's stubbornness. "According to Kennedy," reported Chebrikov, "the current threat is due to the President's refusal to engage any modification to his politics." That refusal, said the memo, was exacerbated by Reagan's political success, which made the president surer of his course, and more obstinate -- and, worst of all, re-electable.

On that, the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Chebrikov's memo got to the thrust of Kennedy's offer: The senator was apparently clinging to hope that President Reagan's 1984 reelection bid could be thwarted. Of course, this seemed unlikely, given Reagan's undeniable popularity. So, where was the president vulnerable?

Alas, Kennedy had an answer, and suggestion, for his Soviet friends: In Chebrikov's words, "The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."

Therein, Chebrikov got to the heart of the U.S. senator's offer to the USSR's general secretary: "Kennedy believes that, given the state of current affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan."

Of these, step one would be for Andropov to invite the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting. Said Chebrikov: "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they would be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA."

The second step, the KGB head informed Andropov, was a Kennedy strategy to help the Soviets "influence Americans." Chebrikov explained: "Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year [1983], televised interviews with Y. V. Andropov in the USA." The media savvy Massachusetts senator recommended to the Soviet dictator that he seek a "direct appeal" to the American people. And, on that, "Kennedy and his friends," explained Chebrikov, were willing to help, listing Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters (both listed by name in the memo) as good candidates for sit-down interviews with the dictator.

Kennedy concluded that the Soviets needed, in effect, some PR help, given that Reagan was good at "propaganda" (the word used in the memo). The senator wanted them to know he was more than eager to lend a hand.

Kennedy wanted the Soviets to saturate the American media during such a visit. Chebrikov said Kennedy could arrange interviews not only for the dictator but for "lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military," who "would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR."

This was apparently deemed crucial because of the dangerous threat posed not by Andropov's regime but -- in Kennedy's view -- by Ronald Reagan and his administration. It was up to the Kremlin folks to "root out the threat of nuclear war," "improve Soviet-American relations," and "define the safety for the world."

Quite contrary to the ludicrous assertions now being made about Ted Kennedy working jovially with Ronald Reagan, Kennedy, in truth, thought Reagan was a trigger-happy buffoon, and said so constantly, with vicious words of caricature and ridicule. The senator felt very differently about Yuri Andropov. As Chebrikov noted in his memo, "Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y. V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

Alas, the memo concluded with a discussion of Kennedy's own presidential prospects in 1984, and a note that Kennedy "underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal."

What happened next? We will never know. None of the Kennedy admirers and court composers who serve as "journalists" bothered to ask, even with decades available to pose questions, beginning back in January 1992 when the highly reputable London Times broke the story.

In 2006, when my book was released, there was a virtual media blackout on coverage of the document, with the exception of conservative media: talk-radio, Rush Limbaugh, some websites, and mention on FoxNews by Brit Hume. Amazingly, I didn't even get calls from mainstream reporters seeking to shoot down the story. I had prepared in great detail to be grilled on national television, picturing the likes of Katie Couric needling me. I didn't need to worry.

I worked up a detailed op-ed on the document, where I even played devil's advocate by defending Kennedy, trying to get at his thinking, being as fair as possible. No major newspapers would touch it. The Boston Globe editors refused to acknowledge it or reply to my emails. The editor at the New York Times confessed to being "fascinated" by the piece but conceded that he wouldn't "be able to get it in."

One editor at a West Coast newspaper, a genuinely fair liberal, considered it carefully. We went back and forth. I was shocked to see that neither the editor nor his staff would do any investigating, not placing a single phone call to Kennedy's office. In the end, the editor rejected the piece, telling me: "I just can't believe Kennedy would do something that stupid."

Alas, here we are now, after Kennedy's death, and I'm reliving the same experience, as no one from the mainstream media has contacted me. Liberal reporters lionized Ted Kennedy in life and have begun the canonization process in death. They are liberal activists first, and journalists second.

Finally, a postscript for these liberal Democrat "journalists:" We know they don't care that Ted Kennedy did this to Ronald Reagan. Fine. Well, how about this? As the Mitrokhin Archives reveal, Senator Kennedy did something similar to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 -- his own political flesh and blood.

Does that story interest liberal reporters? No. I likewise noted that gem in 2006. I didn't get a single media inquiry.

It will be left to future generations to examine these truths. As for Senator Ted Kennedy's motivations for doing what he did with the Soviet leadership? Alas, now we can definitively say, he will never tell us. The liberal media protected him, all the way to the grave.

Paul Kengor is author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007) and professor of political science at Grove City College. His latest book is The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Richard

Text of Congressman Hyde's Floor Statement On Term Limits given during the House debate on term limits March 29, 1995

You can't have it both ways. Is legislative experience a critical factor in being a member of Congress or a Senator (as implied in this article, and thus by extension is your opinion), or is it almost completely irrelevant, as you argued earlier in this thread regarding Kennedy's wife or son possibly taking his vacant seat?
No 'John Kerry-ing' allowed.

[Richard]

Actually - my argument was that legislative experience isn't a requirement (whether one determines it's an important factor or not) by law to hold public office...but...that demonstrated effective legislative performance should be a point of consideration when going to the polls and deciding whether or not to renew a legislator's contract with the people they represent.

Richard's $.02

[Claemore]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

You're a nice forgiving man, I'm not, especially to those that are liars, murder women and then use their money and influence to beat the law.

You need not believe me, just read the FACTS concerning the case.... make up your own mind.

Had Mary Jo been my daughter ted kennedy would have been given a dirt nap a long long time ago.

TS

http://foia.fbi.gov/chappaquiddick/c...ddick_pt01.pdf

http://foia.fbi.gov/chappaquiddick/c...ddick_pt02.pdf

http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/chappaquiddick.htm

You are my hero Team Sergeant! I agree 100%. I was going to hold a party when he died, but he died too soon. I hope his last few hours were like trying to breathe underwater.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Well the thing is, Senators and Congressman are elected by direct election, which can mean tyranny of the majority. Pure democracy is not necessarily a good thing. Representatives only serve two-year terms, and there are more of them than Senators, so I don't have much a problem with them.

Well as for me, if I have to put up with tynanny at all let it be "of the majority" because at least most of us are getting what we think we want. I'm from Spokane WA where we were happy to re-elect Tom Foley over and over and over and over. (That's Speaker of the House Foley to you!) Most of us liked him a lot, we never worried about Fairchild AFB closing, I-90 got rammed right through the middle of Spokane (look at a map if you don't know where Spokane is - it is in the economic middle of no-where (but it is God's gift believe me). Then along came this Republican named George Nethercutt talking about term limits and how he would only serve 2 terms. Out goes Tom (actually off goes Tom to Japan to work for Bush the Elder) and in comes George. My My my! the learning curve was steep and slippery. He never seemed to get it right. But, come time for the third term he was all about "I've finally got it all figured out."
The voters were unimpressed and unmoved. But George? He moved to DC and worked for a lobbying firm.

[Sdiver]

Myself personally, I'm somewhat divided about term limits for members of congress. On the one hand, I'm for it. People like Kennedy and his little "dynasty", are reason for creating term limits.

But on the other hand, look at Charlie Wilson, (Charlie Wilson's War). Had term limits been in place while he was first elected into office (1972), and the Soviets still marched into A-stan, would he have been as instrumental in bringing them down, as we all know how he, along with others, brought down the Soviets?

IMO, instead of looking at term limits for members of Congress, we should look at instituting "Perk" limits. If someone is running for office, either the House or Senate, their Salary and "Perks" should be based off their net worth, taken of course from their tax returns.

Number one, this would show the American people that their elected representatives were indeed paying their taxes, as should be. For example, I give you Barry's cabinet. Second, I feel this would show the resolve of these elected people, that they are there for the American People and not just for the "perks". It should be an honor to serve in the Congress.

What always pissed me off was, someone like Kennedy, why would he have to draw a salary, and all the "perks" that went with his office, while we all know, he, and his "family" has money.

I think if "Perk" limits were to be installed, you would see a lot of the Career politicians, leave office early.

Granted, something like this would NEVER see the light of day on either floor, but hey....I can dream can't I?

[JAGO]

Driving home for the long Labor Day weekend I was listening to Boortz on the radio discuss Kennedy's death and the Dem's using his demise to push their health care agenda. He commented on that being "a shovel ready project".
v/r
phil