Read your Bible about crowd behavior when a rich man fails.  How you will be regarded if you admonish the arrogant. Their behavior is not acceptable to those who seek justice, but it is to be expected.  Right is not always might, and those who yearn for justice will have to wait for the Last Judgement, to see how God scores this and other tragedies…tempered by His infinite mercy for those who repent.

You don’t ask the real questions:  what was he doing at the party without his wife in the first place and how many other parties like this has he attended?

I didn’t realize it’s been 40 years since the Chappaquiddick Chicken did his dirty deed. If it had been you or me, we would still be in jail.

I choose to hole Kennedy totally responsible for this tragedy but I also choose not to excessively condemn him for the outcome.  Where society failed was to hold Kennedy responsible and charge him as any other citizen would have been charged.  Second, the local and state government should have conducted a proper investigation into what happened, including asking the questions Don Irvine asked in this column, with whatever consequences resulting against Kennedy.  However, to continue attacking Kennedy as if he did this intentionally and calling him vile names is beyond reason.  Let the man die in peace.  The time is long past when he should have been punished properly.  In many ways, Kennedy has achieved success in his Senatorial performance, although many times arguing wrongly against the Republican viewpoint on many subjects, but in that observance, is he any different from any other Democrat?  I am of the firm belief that whatever punishment that could have been leveled against him, in his heart, he has paid the ultimate payment in shame and guilt.

People like Ted Kennedy have a seared conscience, no longer able to determine right from wrong.  He feels no shame or guilt as he doesn’t think he did anything wrong.  The idea that time heals all wounds in sheer nonsense when it comes to actions such as this.  The Bible says we reap what we sow, if not in this lifetime, certainly in the hereafter.  We also read “The soul that sins shall surely die.”  It’s not too late Ted.  In
God’s economy, confession and repentance is necessary.

It is not a one-way road—where in the world do you come up with such an egregious error?  Have you actually been there?  That fact aside, only a few commentaries point out the obvious fact that Kennedy, having practically grown up on Cape Cod, knew Martha’s vineyard from long experience.  He knew very well that he was not headed for the ferry, which is obvious to even casual visitors.  He was heading (in my opinion) for a tryst with Mary Jo on the Alantic-facing beach at the end of the long bridge where he missed the familiar turn onto the bridge and crashed into the water.  It is a turn no sober driver could have missed(again in my opinion).  The road is deep sand, too difficult for much speed, so the verdict, which seems to be universal, was that he was drunk—a regular occurrence in Ted Kennedy’s life—after all, isn’t Teddy infamous as a life-long drunk.  After the accident, his complete knowledge of the area meant that he knew that there were people nearby in any number of houses where a sober? man could call for help.  ETC.  It all stinks!  A hundred years could not erase such a smell! Sorenson, Schlesinger, and all the other Kennedy apologists (all the King’s men) cannot redeem him. Newsweek does Kennedy on its current cover and has a timeline above its healthcare article on Kennedy’s life, omitting conveniently in its all-to-obvious whitewash, among other things, Chappaquidick, his womanizing, his cheating at Harvard, his father’s rescue from his 4-year enlistment in the Army when Harvard became too hot for him (reduced to two “safe” years in Europe).  It does mention his alcholism.

As they say, it’s water that long ago passed under that bridge. 

Kennedy’s conduct was despicable (and disappointing) on a variety of levels – as has been the conduct of many other high-level politicians before and since.

His final judgment by the highest authority will come later – and, maybe, has already begun with his suffering of incurable brain cancer.  However – he has also spent 40 years atoning, at least somewhat, by tirelessly and singlemindedly working inside the national government to help those less fortunate than himself in ways he and his associates over those years felt were appropriate.  Whether one agrees with his politics or not, he has been conscientiously and positively engaged in public service for these last 40 years.  And plenty of people, if not the majority, in this country will mourn his passing.

On August 8th, 2014, will we similarly be “celebrating” the resignation of the corrupted and crooked Tricky Dick Nixon for his long-denied, yet also very questionable, steering of the ship of state?  A young girl didn’t die – but the heretofore honorable and trustworthy image of the Presidency did.

Partisanship-motivated stone-throwing will ALWAYS end in a draw.

Come on!  Injecting Richard Nixon into a discussion of an old reprobate like Ted Kennedy is a non sequitur, and clear indicator of the very partisanship which you seem to want to condemn.  It won’t wash.  But don’t worry, the white-wash of the Kennedy’s still persists (I mentioned the current Newsweek white-wash—and a ridiculous book calling the old reprobate a “Lion.”). Mary Jo had no life, after Chappaquidick, drunken or otherwise.  Mary Jo is dead, but the criminal who caused her death has lived on without ever being called to account for his crime (not by the law, though admittedly by his wife and many outraged Americans). Because of the massive cover-up (politics is a dirty business, isn’t it!), we will never know the extent of her complicity or her willingness to be used by Kennedy—a married man, a notorious adulterer.  Should she have known better than to “party” with such obvious womanizing scoundrels?  What did she expect to gain to compensate for the for the loss of reputation which was surely to follow such immorality?  Perhaps the average girl is natural fodder for millionaires like Teddy et al, dazzled by their wealth and fame.  She had to know the Kennedy reputation, from notorious father down, for womanizing, of for womanizing. In other words, is Mary Jo, the victim, really blameless?  Perhaps the “Kennedyites” would have us think so! They would say, “if you play, you pay,” especially when it comes to a rough bunch like the Kennedys.”  But as I said at the beginning, with no proper investigation, we will never know.  Maybe only when Teddy finally dies can we finally say, “RIP, Mary Jo.”

Re: Post 7;

Pardon me, but in my opinion, as bizarre as was the Kennedy episode, the Nixon Watergate scandal was equally bizarre.  Because Nixon was a sitting President of the United States – his corruption is probably more meaningful to me than is Kennedy’s.

I’m not interested enough to split hairs or parse language to condemn one more than the other.  They’re both culpable in significant moral failures.

(With the exception of the difference that a girl died in the Kennedy “womanizing” (as you put it) – it seems many politicos, regardless of party affiliation, are routinely pretty equally susceptible to carousing and spousal cheating, e.g., just recently, Ensign, Sanford, Spitzer, Edwards, et al.)

Pardon me, but I thought the subject a hand was Kennedy and Chappaquiddick!  I wouldn’t call it bizarre but at least rather disingenuous to inject Nixon into a debate about Kennedy as an excuse for Kennedy’s unforgivable bad behavior.  Where in the world did any Nixon connection come from here?  How does Nixon’s paranoia (the prevailing consensus) excuse Kennedy’s general dissipation and drunken crime (the anti-Kennedy consensus on Kennedy).
Perhaps I can draw some parallel, if I go so far as to conclude that Mary Jo did not die in vain: Her untimely death and the subsequent cover-up ended once and for all Teddy’s hopes for the Presidency, and a Ted Kennedy Presidency (in my opinion) would have been far more calamitous to the nation than Nixon’s Presidency—we’d still be reeling from it.  (You see, I was a sophomore once, and by a little pleasant regression, I can conjure up such sophisms with ease.  Subtract a few years—many, many years—put a mug of beer in my hand, and sit me down with some fellow twenty-year-olds, and we can come up with a dozen such non sequiturs and overly bright conclusions as we solve the world’s problems and freely impugn the motives of whomever we please!) Pardon the nostalgia! Those were the days!
Again, the article is about Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo.

Re; Comments # 8 & 9,  Boys, your comparing apples & elephants. The apple is Chappaquiddick.
Small in #‘s as far as loss of life is counted,
compared to the elephant,Vietnam. The bumper sticker says that “Teddy’s car has killed more people than my gun”. Kennedy DIED because of it.He would NOT be able to run for President in 72
or ever again. It would be Senator,(re-elected by a small # every 6 yrs.) or nothing at all. Nixon on the other hand , since you brought him up, took office ,1Jan69. How many brave men died in Vietnam from 1Jan69 ‘til 5May75?? You could say that Nixon & Henry the K, are responsible for their deaths, in the thousands. I was almost one of the dead. God only knows why I’m not. Kennedy has suffered alot & will continue to until his death, then the Liberal media will praise, & the Conservative media will not, while Barack Hussein
Ali-Baba & his 535 thieves + Czars, will bankrupt the country. I’ll bet you my next pension check that Teddy is saying,that he’s glad he won’t live long enough to see his family wealth destroyed by the man he backed openly for the job he could never have himself.

Again, the subject is Kennedy and Chappaquiddick!  As for Vietnam, had Nixon been elected in 1960 (an election possibly stolen by Kennedy in Obama’s hometown Chicago), there might not have been a Viet Nam war as we know it.  One is always foolish to think that he can rewrite history, and such speculation, while fun as an intellectual exercise is not really valid—historians call it conterfactual.  (Vietnam is too complicated a subject, but I carry on regardless, acknowledging freely that nothing less than a few hours could begin to do justice to a real discussion of Vietnam).  However, the fact is that the highly inexperienced JFK and his favorite advisor Mcnamara got US troops directly involved in Vietnam.  (Not to absolve Eisenhower and Dulles and Geneva 1954 of much of the blame.)  Nixon saw his task as to undo the harm the Demos had done and to extract us from Viet Nam (“with honor!”—it sounded so good on the campaign trail), which he wasn’t able to do very quickly or without more bloodshed.  The communists bear most of the blame for Viet Nam—something people seem to forget—we were fighting communism first and foremost. Johnson (who should bear most of the blame from the US side)just follwed up JFK’s policy.  Johnson once said that the worst thing he did as President was keep JFK’s cabinet.  Now Obama, another highly inexperienced President, has just campaigned on getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan: same problem: like Vietnam, it’s not easy, though the problem is presented constantly in oversimplied terms by demagogues—both politicians and the media, hostile or friendly (History does repeat itself, doesn’t it?).  And as I have said, Vietnam is really too complicated a subject to compare with Teddy Kennedy’s drunken crime—really a ridiculous comparison, don’t you think?  At one time, the Kennedy family worried that Teddy would turn out to be a wastrel if they didn’t find something for him to do. They bought him the senate seat, but apparently they couldn’t do anything about his character—after all, he was born and bred a Kennedy! Like father, like son! Joe is supposed to have said to John, at his wedding, words to the effect that, “Just because you’re married, son, it doesn’t mean you can’t have other women.” Whether apocryphal or not, it does fit the Kennedy creed.  So maybe Teddy, the baby of the family, isn’t responsible after all.  Is not the permissive or liberal view of crime that the criminal as a child is a product of his environment or his heredity, and thus is not really responsible for his later actions as an adult?  Thus can we not argue that Teddy “inherited’ the womanizing and duplicity.  And further, that he is not responsible for the cover-up, which was a family matter in protecting an “errant” son.  However, the drunkenness is his own.
Now, I’m waiting for the kitchen sink.

Re: Post 9;

My personal point of view is that BOTH Kennedy AND Nixon engaged equally in “unforgivable bad behavior”.  Period.

I made no excuse for one at the expense of the other.

(But, obviously, the voters of Massachusetts apparently have repeatedly believed Kennedy’s ostensible “bad behavior” was, in fact, “forgivable”.  And, in terms of his continued service in the Senate, the ONLY opinions that have actually ever mattered are those of the voters of Massachusetts.)

CTR—WTF??? Kennedy not responsible? Are you insane?

Justice demands that no man be denied the consequence of his actions. In this case, Kennedy was denied the consequence so the outcome was unjust.

Those who believe he’ll get his justice in the afterlife also believe God is both just and merciful—an oxymoron, as mercy is granting unearned and unjust reward. A just being cannot act with injustice by definition. So those hopeful folks are dreaming.

As for your Vietnam history, Johnson was the one most responsible for that mess, as Eisenhower and Kennedy had only sent special forces advisers whereas Johnson (and Robert STRANGE McNamara) sent 500,000 regular forces. Remember the bogus Gulf of Tonkin non-incident?

And the propaganda, er, “historical narrative” has the domino theory wrong—it wasn’t the communist dominoes we feared, although that was the propaganda theme: it was that the Viet Minh nationalists would have set the “bad” example by telling the big bad UN to get lost, thus potentially encouraging the other SE Asian nationalists telling the colonialists (including us) doing likewise.

It was after Ho and his Viet Minh kicked French ass at Dien Bien Phu that the UN split Vietnam and we moved to install American-backed despots in the south. We couldn’t allow Ho and the Viet Cong nationalists in the south thumb their noses at the “international community” now could we?

To “Major.”  Sorry I opened that can of worms, Vietman.  I really should have stuck to Kennedy-Chappaquiddick.  To me the coummunists are the villians, then and now.  My hat’s off to all Vietnam vets. They were great warriors in which this country can take great pride, and who deserve to be honored equally with the vets of all wars on Veterans Day.  The mismanagement of the war, the intracies of Cold War politics, the homefront propaganda war, media hostility, none of it kept them from doing their duty as they saw it! 
To TK. It is next to impossible to remove an entrenched Senator or Representative.  That’s where all the impetus for term limits comes from.  What candidate can match the billions a senator has to spend?  (Only a potential winner could raise the massive sums needed.)  A challenger has to fight not just the incumbent, but a whole entrenched machine, a whole statewide web of interdependent office holders and bureaucrats (incuding many federal bureaucrats beholden to the senator for their appointments).  As long the incumbent politician votes the party line and doesn’t rock the boat, does the required mutual back-scratching, goes along with party-recommended appointments, etc. re-election is insured in perpetuity.  (Except for one instance, however: If the racial majority changes in his district, he/or she is a dead duck.) In other words, Senator Kennedy can stay drunk, carry on his adulterous womanizing, etc., to his heart’s content, while his bright, well-paid staff, which does all the hard work and is the real brains of the machine—his senate office—will carry on. This is not just true of Kennedy, but is true of all too many office holders everywhere.  Fortunately, we have been wise enough to limit the terms of governors and our president.  Only term limits could rid us of the Kennedy’s and their ilk throughtout the country.  Also, these entrenched office holders gain valuable seniority which the party officials are loath to give up.  As I said, as long as he plays ball with the state politicos, he has full job security.  Wise voters also understand the power of seniority and the benefits accured thereby to their state/districts.  Many think cynically of all politicians as equally corrupt (which I don’t personally believe), so why replace one just to get another just like him/her?  The replacement of a long-time senator or representative comes more often from infighting among the machine politicos.  Thus, finally my original point! which is that even though a great many good people in Mass. loathe him and the whole Kennedy clan, they see it in their best interest to keep him nevertheless.  After all, what does the untimely death of one little foolish Mary Jo mean in the scheme of things?

People, people, people! All these comments, especially the long-winded ones, citing your vast knowledge of the why’s and wherefors of Viet Nam, the sins of Nixon and Johnson, et al, ad nauseum, when all of you are forgetting to limit your comments to THE SUBJECT, which was Ted Kennedy, no one else, his crime against a human being, outwardly unpunished, his supposed guilt-erasing “service” in the Senate, which mostly has involved harmful and repetitive participation and deep involvement in all kinds of liberal and unnecessary causes.  Let’s not even discuss the irresponsibility of the voters of Massachusetts in continuing to re-elect him, which, like those reelecting a scoundrel like Barney Frank again and again, all the while knowing his sins and political chicanery, just shows their venality, to re-elect a man like Frank, contributing largely to our national economic nightmare, simply shows there is no conscience among voters there.  I still say factors being what they are, Kennedy has escaped the final judgement that mankind should have servced on him, so we are left with him having to face his ultimate judgement after death.

Charlie Seng

Re: Post 13;

Your comment:

“… Justice demands that no man be denied the consequence of his actions …”

But – look around – PLENTY are denied the consequences of their actions – including PLENTY of politicians – and, currently, plenty of the white-collars whose actions precipitated this Great Recession!

Your comment:

“… Those who believe he’ll get his justice in the afterlife also believe God is both just and merciful—an oxymoron, as mercy is granting unearned and unjust reward …”

I’m a lifelong committed Christian – and I believe God is “Just” which, to me, unequivocally (and solely) means he’ll “Punish” the sinners, evil-doers and f***ups!  Period.

I don’t, and never did, buy into your “mercy” concept – nor did any of those who taught me my version of Christianity.  Your “escape clause” of “mercy” is for those weakminded clowns who DO NOT accept accountability and look for excuses for every wrong thing they’ve ever done.

In one way or another, my version of God punishes ALL wrongdoing.

An eye for an eye.

Re: Post 14;

I can agree with some of your non-partisan-type comments, e.g., term limits, political processes, etc.

However, I part company with you in your partisan hatred of the Kennedys.  In spite of the human frailties that we all apparently have – including the Kennedy Family – I may have had a little more occasion than you to have seen some of the very positive things “from the inside”, so to speak, that members of that family have accomplished over the years in terms of their public service and charitable works – similarly with the Rockefeller family – and I really don’t go along with minimizing and/or demeaning that service (of either the DEM Kennedys or the GOP Rockefellers) on a purely partisan basis.  I would have to say that there are credible and valuable good works that may transcend partisan political perspectives and personal failings.

Re: #14

To me, term limits only addresses the ‘symptoms’ concerning the re-election of bad politicians. It’s the ‘disease’ of a deteriorating intellect and maturity in the general population along with a lack of open-mindedness (blind-partisanship) which is in need of a ‘treatment’. However, these days with the advent of electronic voting machines, even a mature, intelligent, open-minded electorate willing to vote out the scoundrels within both parties may not get who they voted for.

Re: Post 18;

Your statement:

“… To me, term limits only addresses the ‘symptoms’ concerning the re-election of bad politicians. It’s the ‘disease’ of a deteriorating intellect and maturity in the general population along with a lack of open-mindedness (blind-partisanship) which is in need of a ‘treatment’…”

Boy – short – sweet – and 110% ON THE MARK!

I’ve been bitching about the voting population’s increasing ignorance of the real facts of relevant significant issues – and the increasing development and growth of blind ideological partisanship – for decades!  (I believe both have increased significantly over the past 15 or so years.) 

Just take a look at some of the stuff posted herein!?!?!

TK – RE: #48

TK denies the existence of his angry posts and throws it back in the face of someone who points it out to him as being ultra-sensitive.

He justifies the obvious legal blockade by Obama concerning his personal records by pointing out perceived past witch-hunting by the GOP concerning Clinton scandals while leaving out the partisan witch-hunts by Democrats in regards to the comparatively benign Watergate scandal, baseless censorship of Joe McCarthy by a Democrat majority in Congress, Iran-Contra, Trent Lott remark concerning Strom Thurmond, etc.

TK also tries to justify Obama’s legal evasiveness by bringing up his own personal experiences as if he has any credibility at all, considering his consistently fierce, partisan defense against anything said negatively about Obama or any other Democrat politician.

Despite the masquerade TK tries to pull with his self-proclaimed ‘Independent’ status, this individual, in my opinion, is as hard-core a left-wing ideologue as they come.

Good Luck, Wesley, in continuing your attempted civil discussions with this nasty, uncivil individual who endlessly PROJECTS his negative aspects onto you and others who disagree with him. You and I may not be on the same political plane Wes, but I do respect the mature conduct you consistently display in this forum with those you have disagreements with, especially considering the battering the GOP took this past election.

As far as TK; his guy is in the White House, the Dems have a majority in the House and Senate, and yet he’s still miserable, hostile, and ultra-defensive.

By the way Wesley – you were proven correct again about the way TK changes the topic of threads. Just look at his #6 post in the “40 Years Later Chappaquiddick Just Distant Memory” thread where, as usual, he plays down any justified criticism of a Democrat (Ted Kennedy) by bringing up a Republican counterpart scenario (Nixon) which has nothing to do with the topic. Always equivocating.
Partisanship to the extreme!!

But don’t worry – TK will, countless times in the future, remind us all here that he’s been a registered Independent for 40 something years and a registered Republican for 4 years, and that he didn’t vote for Obama.

YEAH, RIGHT!!!

Re: Post 20;

So, now the REAL “con”man comes out!

What a jerky post.  I didn’t think you were one of the “hardcore” ideological rightwing rockheads here.  But, I guess you certainly are.

Too bad.  I thought you were more intelligent than that.

Re: post #21

Another example of his myopic outlook.

Disagree with TK on anything or point out any hypocrisy on his part, and you’re regulated to being a hated ‘right-winger’. Thank God he’s not a judge sitting on some kangaroo court.

A classic case of paranoia.

Oh, I forgot, TK’s an ‘Independent’ and a ‘Christian’.

If that’s an example of being a Christian, I think I’ll convert to being a devil worshiper.

Sorry about the confusion everyone.

My post #20 in this thread was meant for the “Popularity Waning, Obama Gets Testy” thread. I re-posted it over there in response to TK’s #48.

TK – RE:post #19

Thanks for your compliments concerning my post #18. Didn’t mean to blind side you with my accidental posting of #20 which was meant for the other thread.

It’s just that sometimes, those exclamation points you use, such as in responding to the question I posed to you and Mark in the other thread concerning Obama’s personal records, comes across to me as anger. Is it, instead, your way of using emphasis?

Anyway, no hard feelings on my part; it’s not in my nature, and I would bet anything from reading Wesley’s posts all these months, not in his nature either.

Re: Post 24;

I HAVE posted an “angry” post to you on the other thread!  As far as I’m concerned, your post there was totally off the wall – since I did answer your questions there in detail, with illustrations and politely and respectfully.

I am a true lifelong Independent, a moderate, a Traditionalist – and a despiser of extremist nutcase partisans.  If you don’t dig that or believe that – fine.  But I haven’t generally seen you get into the guttersniping, namecalling and attacking the messenger that often occurs here.  However, you did do that here with your bi-polar-like post – and with that same post on the other thread.

In terms of my Christianity, I grew up in a very religious environment – but “my” Christianity is the “eye for an eye” version – NOT the “hate the sin and love the sinner” variety.  So – as I’ve said before here – if someone is going to poke at me – I DEFINITELY am going to poke back.

(And, of course, as with nearly ALL Christians, most are strong believers – but not always such good practitioners!)

I definitely DO NOT have an endless, meandering, difficult-to-light fuse.  It can get very short very quickly – especially after a post like your Post 20 above!

It’s lit very easily by whomever chooses to engage in an unwarranted personal attack; unnecessary snarkiness; refusal to accept my sincerity when sincerity is applicable; typical partisan disrespect that is an occupational hazard here; or plain, non-reconstructable blockheadedness.  I also don’t like pure partisan propaganda; assumption and supposition presented as fact; and outright misrepresentation.

(And, as YOU mentioned above, the fuse gets very short in the face of “deteriorating intellect” and “lack of open-mindedness”.)

I AM, by nature, definitely an EMPHASIZER!  In the real world, shrinking violets probably keep their distance.

And, finally, I most certainly am NOT subject to “paranoia”.  I don’t have fears; only dislikes – and I’ll fight with anyone who starts a fight.

There you have it.  Take it or leave it.

And, Good Luck with that exclamation point problem!

RE: (post #25) – “in terms of my Christianity, I grew up in a very religious environment – but “my” Christianity is the “eye for an eye” version.”

That’s all well and good, as I share the same outlook, which explains my support for the death penalty.

However, whether you realize it or not, the ‘tenor’ in some of your posts, unlike the tenor of Mark’s response, who I asked the same question of, came across as angry, which to me doesn’t place you in the defensive, but rather in the offensive mode. So the ‘eye for an eye’ ideology wouldn’t apply there.

Also, using ‘personal experiences’ to verify the defense of a political position is an easy way out in trying to win an argument. Anyone can say anything they please in order to grant legitimacy to their arguments, knowing it’s almost impossible for the opponent to prove false.
I remember a few months ago when Joe McCarthy was being debated. When the decrypted Venona Files were brought up by your opponent proving Communist infiltration in our government, you ended up talking about your experience of seeing him in your youth in trying to verify all the negative descriptions thrown at him by Democrats and the MSM.

So then, that made it a done deal?

Your experiences watching McCarthy on TV or maybe seeing him in person overrides the vindication he received through the decrypted Venona Files?

That is why I’m opposed to such “strategery” (to steal a word from our former POTUS).

Re: Post 26;

I’m not in agreement with the logic of your post.

However, PERSONALLY, I AM one of those people who go through life – not “offensively” – but rather – “on offense”.  As I said – no shrinking violets here.  I’m of the Harry Callahan School.

I also judge people.  Always have – always will.  And far too long ago to matter today – in real time, I judged that Sen. Joe McCarthy was, PERSONALLY, a slimeball.  Plenty of others, then and now, were/are of that same opinion.  Finished business.  And, obviously, you weren’t there.

“Mark” is apparently a more gentle soul than I.  Good for him.

As I said, the Harry Callahan School – and, believe me – the Harry Callahan “offense” is DEFINITELY “an eye for an eye” – whether your logic supports that reality or not.

TK – (post #27) – <<<“And far too long ago to matter today – in real time, I judged that Sen. Joe McCarthy was, PERSONALLY, a slimeball.  Plenty of others, then and now, were/are of that same opinion.  Finished business.  And, obviously, you weren’t there.”>>>

That’s an interesting statement in that you capitalized the word ‘personally’. So, assuming that McCarthy did indeed possess the personality traits of a ‘slimeball’, do you feel that on a professional level, that he was in any way vindicated by the decrypted Venona files during the 1990’s?

<<<“However, PERSONALLY, I AM one of those people who go through life – not “offensively” – but rather – “on offense””>>>

I always assumed that those who live by the ‘eye for an eye’ motto would go through life ‘on defense’, another words, counter-attack after you are first attacked.
Unless, of course, you interpreted my question concerning Obama’s legal evasiveness in releasing his personal records as being an attack on you, or on Obama?

TK,

Ignore the second half of my post #28 concerning the ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘question about Obama’. This is an irrelevant issue at this point as you’ve already stated your response to my Obama question as not being an angry one, which I’ll take your word for.

I would, however, appreciate your response to the McCarthy question from the same post.

Re: Post 29;

First, my “offense” is generally reserved for those who offend me first – so – in your terminology – if you wish, I suppose you can call that “defensive”.  I suppose one might even call it “sensitive”.  But, believe me, in the traditional senses of the words, I am not defensive nor sensitive.

Second, with all due respect, and in my opinion, there was NOTHING “professional” about Joe McCarthy – so I would never perceive him to be “professionally vindicated”.  His “means” were totally unacceptable – regardless of how some younger people today might perceive, through the lens of “history”, his supposed “ends”. 

He was a run amok obnoxious, offensive and alcoholic attack dog who caused untold damage to many innocent people – and he was an obvious embarrassment to the political processes of the day.  Personally, I perceived him as somebody who likely had severe personal problems of some kind – or some kinds of personality disorders – and I capitalized the word PERSONALLY in my post only because I was there, IN PERSON, and witnessed his freak show first-hand – rather than via some historical hindsight.

And, of course, over the last 60 or so years, in the real world, nothing has actually come of the “Red Scare” thing that McCarthy promoted – in spite of the anti-Obama “communist” name-calling still engaged in by the far-out (and oldtimer?), right-wing fringe.  To me, McCarthyism is nothing but an ideological anachronism – dredged up from the swamps of the anti-Communist dinosaurs.

(To me, today, McCarthy is an historical persona non grata – long gone and happily forgotten – and I really can’t believe anyone would even bring him up some nearly 60 years later!  I believe he and his doings are irrelevancies.)

And, I don’t believe Obama is being “evasive” in not releasing personal background data.  As I’ve said, I believe it’s strictly a party-generated, partisan, “political thing” – simply giving the GOPs the single-finger salute.  The partisan DEMs clearly believe that the GOPs were in partisan overdrive between 1994 and 2006 – and I think the DEMs are now simply doing the “eye for an eye” payback thing.  (Extreme partisanship clearly reduces effective governance.)

TK (re: McCarthy) – “He was a run amok obnoxious, offensive and alcoholic attack dog who caused untold damage to many innocent people – and he was an obvious embarrassment to the political processes of the day.”

So, to put things in perspective –

1)Your above personal opinion of McCarthy

compared to –

2)Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick which resulted in the death of a girl and him leaving the scene.

compared to –

3)Bill Clinton defiling the Oval Office with his bimbo, Monica Lewinsky.

Your conclusions –

Clinton’s ‘balancing the budget’ and leaving Bush with a ‘surplus’ supersedes his moral ‘toi-per-toood’ in defiling the Oval Office. (I’m not going to include his perjury, because compared to the other more serious ‘gates’ involving his administration, the ‘Monica’ episode was the least important thing to impeach a president on.)

Your opinion that [“Ted Kennedy has done an awful lot of good for a LOT of people - much of it for kids, the poor, and the aged”] and [“It’s water under the bridge’] in regards to Chappaquiddick,  supersedes his past chronic alcoholism and entering a guilty plea to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident that had ended a woman’s life, with him not serving a jail sentence.

As far as McCarthy, you said, “nothing has actually come of the “Red Scare” thing that McCarthy promoted”. This supersedes the fact that Sen. Moyhihan, Chairman of the bipartisan Commission on Government Secrecy responsible for securing the release of Venona Project materials during the mid 1990’s, said in his book “Secrecy”, [“The Venona intercepts contained overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America, complete with names, dates, places, and deeds.”]

That tells me that McCarthy was onto something.

With all due respect TK, and with no hard feelings intended as this is a political forum; I would sooner take a dozen rides on the Parachute Jump then to share the perspective that you have concerning these three individuals.

Re: Post 31;

Personally, I never cared for any of the three on a personal level.

McCarthy NEVER accomplished a single positive thing while promoting his anti-communist paranoia – and he harmed many innocent people.

Regardless of anyone’s partisan perspectives, it is factually undeniable that Clinton and Ted Kennedy have had political and charitable accomplishments that have helped million in many varied ways.

For me, “personality” preferences and “political” preferences are two different things.  I have little respect for Clinton and Ted Kennedy on the personal level; however, I do respect the fact that both have historically benefited many people in their “political” lives.

I have no respect for McCarthy, as a person or as a politician – because of his rampant alcoholism at the personal level – and the fact that he actually HARMED thousands of innocent people at the political level.

Anybody that refuses to recognize the historical differences in the political records of Joe McCarthy vs. those of Clinton and Ted Kennedy is a … … … ???  (I can’t even come up with an applicable word for such a ridiculous circumstance.)

P.S.

Sure – now that the “Parachute Jump” is nothing but a memory – you suddenly overcome your fear of it!  Why don’t you do the same with your apparent paranoidal fear of the “Red Scare” of communism – ALSO nothing now but a memory.

MCCarthism in retrospect, was certainly bad, even evil and rather destructive. It was a Cold-War phenomenon, a public and Congressional over-reaction to a few Communists in the government and in Hollywood.  Many people had to sign “Loyalty Oaths,” which most people just shrugged off. Declaring that one is not a Communist was almost silly, and the oaths were generally regarded as such. Stalin was in power, and the world lived under the real threat of nuclear war.  It is easy today to take McCarthyism out of context and condemn it.  McCarthy had the support of the American people, and had McCarthy not been finally proven to be such an egregious liar and had he not gone to such excesses in accusing people such as George Marshall and even Eisenhower (in Eisenhower’s case, Eisenhower he called an “unwitting” communist), he might have not have ultimately been remembered as such a villain. It’s all to easy for those who weren’t there to take McCarthyism out of its historical context. The times changed, and we left the anti-Communist hysteria behind. (Though the Cold-War persisted, and led us unfortunately into all the problems of Vietnam.)
However, the present-day PC is all pervasive, ten time, a hundred times, or even more destructive and vicious than the evils of Right-wing McCarthyism ever were.  Maybe, like the demise of McCarthyism, the evils of PC will also diminish with time, as we move on to to a less contentious, less partisan, more enlightened society.

Re: Post 33;

I agree with everything you say except: “… McCarthy had the support of the American people …”

I was there – and even had some higher-ranking, working relatives in D.C. – and none of the people around me EVER seemed supportive of McCarthy, his methods – or even his grandiosely stated and badly performed purpose.  I even had the chance to be in attendance at some of his dog-and-pony show – and he struck me, personally, as a totally despicable human being.

And:

“… as we move on to to a less contentious, less partisan, more enlightened society …”

Boy, I sure believed in the ultimate reality of that concept for the great majority of my lifetime – but over the last dozen or so years – it seems to me the track is clearly “MORE contentious”, “MORE partisan” and “LESS enlightened”.

One of my biggest disappointments in the American political scene over the last six-plus or so decades is the ever more contentious partisanship and increasing lack of enlightenment that I seem to see all around!

(But, of course, those adherents of the current version of “Political Correctness” BELIEVE they are proceeding with achieving the very apex of “enlightenment”.)

Partisan bickering and name-calling has been going on since the beginning of the country.  Geo. Washington expressed great relief at the end of his Presidency when he returned to Mt. Vernon because he got tired of all the already vicious attacks focused on him personally; Jefferson stayed away from the Capitol for long periods of time because he could hardly bear the partisan attacks—not that he did not mount his own unconscionably vicious attacks against John Adams! And so it has gone since the beginning.  Lincoln (perhaps our most most viciously attacked President) was called, among many things, the “obscene ape of Illinois.”  No one was more partisan in our history than Woodrow Wilson, whose extreme partisanship sank all his noble (in my opinion) attempts at the League of Nations.  There’s no name that Franklin Roosevelt wasn’t called—or Eleanor, for that matter.  Bernard Baruch called Truman a “rude, ignorant, uncouth man,” Truman called the Republicans Nazis, recently President Bush was called a Hitler and a Nazi by leading Democratic Senators and Representatives, etc. Part of the “stock-in-trade” of politicians and political pundits is ad hominem attacks. (Who could be more vile as an attack dog than Maureen Dowd, e.g, whose column reeks with vicious ad hominem attacks!)  Even the woman who reported the seeming break-in at Prof. Gates’ house has been attacked as “racist”; unfortunately, its quite usual to see the messenger attacked!  We nightly listen, (and laugh at) the most sadistic group of late night hosts imaginable Letterman, Leno, SNL—they call themselves comedians—anything for a laugh! So it will be until the end of the world!  You can begin just by reading the level of personal attacks in this group of letters, or almost any blogs.

TK (#32) – “Sure – now that the “Parachute Jump” is nothing but a memory – you suddenly overcome your fear of it!”

The Parachute Jump may not be in operation any longer, but it still stands in Coney Island. After reading your rebuttal to my post #31, I may be tempted to climb to its top and do my best swan dive onto the boardwalk below. – EGADS!!!

Sorry Joe, I tried my best.

Re: Post 35;

Right.  BUT – the issue today is all about its currently extremely high levels of INTENSITY and HOSTILITY on a WIDESPREAD basis – helped along by 24/7 newstalk cable TV channels, right-wing radioheads, and the “anything goes” communication on the internet and personal electronic devices.

Re: Post 36;

My point stands:

If you were able to talk yourself out of a nonsensical fear of an amusement park thrill ride of 50 years ago – then you should be equally adept at squelching your nonsensical fear of the “Red Scare” promulgated by a political pariah of 60 years ago.

And – there’s NO logical, reasonable or even a partisan-based link between the real or imagined foibles and/or failures of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy to the enormity of the personality failings of Joe McCarthy – COMBINED with the national paranoia he attempted to generate and fuel – and the thousands of innocent people that he actually damaged in a woefully-destructive process that he initiated and carried out.

And “apologizing” to Joe McCarthy?  Priceless!

EGADS!!! to you, too!

TK (#38) – <<<“and the thousands of innocent people that he [McCarthy] actually damaged in a woefully-destructive process that he initiated and carried out.”>>>

Who are these thousands of innocent people?

<<<“And – there’s NO logical, reasonable or even a partisan-based link between the real or imagined foibles and/or failures of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy to the enormity of the personality failings of Joe McCarthy”>>>

So the death of a girl was nothing in Kennedy’s case.
Something tells me that if Kennedy was replaced by McCarthy in the Chappaquiddick episode, you’d be castigating McCarthy A LOT WORSE than you have been doing already. But, he’s a Republican who went after communists in our government, which the Verona Papers proved the existence of,  while the other two are Liberal Democrats; so they get a pass from you.

<<<“you should be equally adept at squelching your nonsensical fear of the “Red Scare” promulgated by a political pariah of 60 years ago.”>>>

In another words, Moynahan was delusional when he wrote [“The Venona intercepts contained overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America, complete with names, dates, places, and deeds.”]

CTR (#33) – “had he not gone to such excesses in accusing people such as George Marshall and even Eisenhower (in Eisenhower’s case, Eisenhower he called an “unwitting” communist), he might have not have ultimately been remembered as such a villain.”

To me, the “unwitting” communist remark served as a loose reference to the post-war Eisenhower/Dewey/Buckley New Right faction of the Republican party, which, although not card-carrying Communists themselves, shared the same pro-New Deal, internationalist philosophy that the communist infiltrators in the FDR administration held. 

I think that this shared philosophy and comfortable alliance between the post-war New Right and the New Deal Democrat party made them more fearful of McCarthy’s populist persona, which inevitably led to the Republican establishment distancing themselves from him during his censure by the Democrat majority Senate. Populists have a way of making entrenched ‘Establishments’ very nervous. Remember how the Republicans distanced themselves from the populist Pat Buchanan after his 1996 New Hampshire primary win over ‘status quo’ candidate Bob Dole?

My defense of McCarthy’s goal of weeding out Communist infiltrators in the government may seem that I was a supporter of the Cold War, which I wasn’t. In fact, the most negative consequence of the internal ‘weeding out’ tactic that McCarthy used, was the inevitable expansion of this tactic onto an international scale. To me, the pumped up hysteria of worldwide Communist domination was a cynical, stealth deception by the government to further accelerate the transfer of power and wealth from the American populace to them. Schemes like this eventually led to the massive, unaccountable government Leviathan we suffer under these days, along with the increased threat to our sovereignty and into a world government.

I feel the same way about our unnecessary involvements in WW1 and WW2, as did the majority of Americans during those times felt, until ‘needed calamities’ occurred which changed the population’s minds; in those two instances, the ‘sinking of the Lusitania’ and ‘Pearl Harbor’.

Ultimately though, I feel that the best way to tackle communist infiltration would have been to eliminate the incentive for such infiltration by means of GREATLY reducing the size of the ‘host’ (the federal government in this case) which attracted them in the first place.

Hey, all you people talking and talking, leaving your messages about everything that is off topic – I left a message on 7/20/09 and since then, there has been a running battle from all the know-it-all’s touting their battles about McCarthyism, etc, enough about all this stuff!  The column was about Ted Kennedy, can we just stay on topic and stop all the going’s on?  Everytime someone leaves another one of these “off-topics”, I get another e-mail.  Enough already!

Charlie Seng

To #43.  Then why don’t YOU leave off the name-calling and stick to comments ABOUT Chappaquiddick yourself?
Or simply undo your request for “follow-up comments.”  Then you will be rid of us and can go on to a more high-minded discussion somewhere else!

Re: Post 39;

If you have some sort of a fetish for Joe McCarthy, that’s your business – and I’m not interested in it.  Nor in rehashing McCarthy, Chappaquiddick, or Clinton-Lewinsky.  All of it is finished business and all of it is what it is.

If you don’t know or understand how McCarthy harmed and damaged thousands of people – then you ought to take some time off from reading the partisan neo-pro-McCarthy, revisionist crap you’re apparently hooked on – and take a look at the other side of the coin – the side that most Americans in that period and most historians active in that period are on.

And regarding your statement: “… proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America …”

Believe me, nobody needed somebody like McCarthy to give them “proof” that Soviet spies operated in America.  The media of the day did that well enough – and the Rosenberg case (and others) exemplified the reality of the situation.  German spies also operated here during WWII – and even blew up a munitions factory in New Jersey – and German submarines were sunk within swimming distance of American beaches.  And there were plenty of military and civilian law enforcement forces policing the potentialities.

McCarthy was a besotted political grandstander – irrespective of his political party membership – and why anyone would be interested in his doings and defending him and his tactics today is beyond me.  (Who’s next on your “study” list?  Benedict Arnold?)

Clinton and Kennedy, in spite of their real and/or imagined shortcomings, have accomplished a lot of good for a lot of people.  McCarthy did not.

And, note: Ted Kennedy did not tie-up, blindfold, and kidnap Kopechne; she was a willing and full participant in the drinking party that, apparently, had been going on all night and, ostensibly, she may also have been a willing partner in an adulterous affair.  And, he was 36 and she 29 – so, neither was it a case of some old geezer taking advantage of a near-child.  While nothing absolves Kennedy of his responsibility – Kopechne, on the other hand, was not an entirely unwilling and totally “innocent” party or participant.

And your “Something tells me …” equipment, at least in this matter, is obviously in need of some warranty service.

Also note: In the ‘50s – when McCarthy committed most of his damage – the U.S. was a VERY post-WWII and Korean Conflict patriotic – with a VERY Republican administration in place with a VERY decorated Republican 5-star general running the show – assisted by a VERY conservative V-P – during, possibly, the most conservative and most anti-communist period in American history – and maybe the heyday of Republicanism.  So – it’s just completely goofy of you to ascribe that “partisanship” was the fuel of anti-McCarthyism and that just DEMs opposed him!  The guy turned himself into a nationally-vilified pariah irrespective of political partisanship or anyone’s party membership.

And, I’ll wager a guess here:  All things considered, I would almost guarantee that I am, personally, far more “conservative” and far more of an “old-fashioned Traditionalist” than you are – yet far LESS partisan about it.

TK (post #43) – <<<“Clinton and Kennedy, in spite of their real and/or imagined shortcomings, have accomplished a lot of good for a lot of people.  McCarthy did not.”>>>

So, leaving the scene of an accident that resulted in a girl’s drowning is just a “shortcoming”?

Man, I thought you were just a left-wing hack, TK, but instead, you are Hard Core!!

I’m not insistent that you share my admiration for McCarthy, but you defend the indefensible when it comes to Kennedy.
Anything for the Marxist cause, no matter what immoralities committed by Democrat politicians has to be played down.

<<<“While nothing absolves Kennedy of his responsibility….”>>>

YOU apparently absolved him by rationalizing that he “accomplished a lot of good for a lot of people.” That’s known as ‘Talking Out Of Both Sides Of Your Mouth’.

<<<“And, I’ll wager a guess here:  All things considered, I would almost guarantee that I am, personally, far more “conservative” and far more of an “old-fashioned Traditionalist” than you are – yet far LESS partisan about it.”>>>

To that, I can say that you’re either incurably delusional or a con artist to the EXTREME, but won’t, out of fear that most of the posters in this forum would probably laugh me out of this site for grossly UNDERSTATING such an evaluation.

I just can’t take you seriously enough anymore to waste anymore time ‘debating’ with.

Re: Post 44;

Kennedy has done good.  His children’s health care plan alone has saved countless lives.  McCarthy did nothing positive for anyone.  The judicial system dealt with Kennedy.  Finished business. 

What does precious little you prefer to do: Burn him at the stake?  Deny him cancer surgery?  Kill his eldest daughter as retribution?  Exactly, what is it that your pretty little philosophical and logical perspective tells you should happen to Kennedy?

Hey, if you’re another rockheaded Kennedy-hater, just say so.  Don’t try to hide inside of your pseudo-intellectualism.

And, note, scholar:  I’m not “defending” Kennedy.  I said earlier he was irresponsible at Chappaquiddick and that nothing excuses or absolves him of that.  I simply SAID that “he has done an awful lot of good for an awful LOT of people over the last 39 years”.  The record is there.  Ignore it if you choose.

And – is it ignorance or just your own partisan parroting that makes you insist that because I’ve said that Kennedy HAS done a lot good since – that I’m “absolving” him for Chappaquiddick?  That’s your version of “logic”?  Ridiculous.

You’re a phony.