Time to Read Uncle Ted the Riot Act?

jimnyc

...
Aug 28, 2003
20,368
273
83
New York
When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloviating on Capitol Hill on behalf of liberal causes, it was perhaps excusable to ignore his deplorable past.

But now that he's become Sen. John Kerry's leading campaign attack dog, positioning himself as Washington's leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are now over.

It's time for the GOP to stand up and remind America why Sen. Kerry's chief spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980 - time to say the words Mary Jo Kopechne out loud.

As is often the case, Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this "Conscience of the Democratic Party" left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking and partying with the young blonde campaign worker.

But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel.

Those young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the Democrats' leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.

Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier - for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final.

As they listen to the Democrats' "Liberal Lion" accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach, when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.

It's time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer "go along with the gag" when it comes to Uncle Ted's rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House.

The Democratic Party, not to mention Sen. John Kerry, should be ashamed to have the national disgrace from Massachusetts as their spokesman. And the GOP needs to say so out loud.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/6/124814.shtml
 
I find it humorous that the only thing the GOP can come up with to attack Kerry is to attack Ted Kennedy for stuff that happened at the earliest 15 years ago. Ted had no participation in the Kennedy Smith trial other than he was at home in his underwear in the middle of the night after having spent some time with his nephews earlier. If you are at my house in the middle of the night, you'll probably see me in my underwear. And, just for the record, Kennedy Smith was acquited, that means he was found not guilty, which means a jury didn't believe he did it. The case from the 1960s, one which Kennedy has apologized for numerous times, is constantly dragged up by Republicans who have nothing better to talk about.

acludem
 
There's 20 years of Senate record to attack Kerry on - he is the most liberal senator around! We just throw in Ted Kennedy because he's somewhat more well known, and an easy target when we don't feel like thinking too hard. :)
 
Originally posted by acludem
The case from the 1960s, one which Kennedy has apologized for numerous times, is constantly dragged up by Republicans who have nothing better to talk about.

What has Miss Kopechne said about his apology?
 
what does it matter??? The way I see it, at the very least a homicide took place involving a very drunk Ted Kennedy. It doesnt matter that it happened long ago. what matters is IT happened at all. In my book he should STILL be in prison. what does that say about the people in Mass???
 
Originally posted by jon_forward
what does it matter??? The way I see it, at the very least a homicide took place involving a very drunk Ted Kennedy. It doesnt matter that it happened long ago. what matters is IT happened at all. In my book he should STILL be in prison. what does that say about the people in Mass???

Agreed.

Remember, it is REASONABLE doubt that got him off the hook. That could have been anything vague.

Of course, if the Constitution were followed and he had a trial by jury of his PEERS, it may have been different.

For those that would disagree, he is still subject to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
What has Miss Kopechne said about his apology?

Yeah-my understanding is that she's still dead. A sheepish, "My bad!" from lushface scarcely changes that.
 
At any rate the family of Mary Jo felt so outraged that they settled the matter quietly - anotherwords they sold out...so its the past and time to move on.

I am not a Kennedy fan at all and find it absurd that this man stand before the American people and promote honesty when he himself has little ground to stand on - minus the Chap. incident.

Kennedy is the senator in Ma and thats as close as he will get to President - so currently, Kerry is as close to home as it gets.
 
This si true about many people under 40 not knowing about Ted's "adventures". My mom told me about it a couple of years ago. I find him repulsive. What in thee hell would John Kerry want him standing up for him for?
 
If George W. Bush won't discuss HIS life before 1972, why should Kennedy have to discuss his?

I feel sorry for the family of Ms. Koepechne, but it was 35 years ago, my guess is Ted would've plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and served a very short sentence. They didn't charge him, so deal with it.

acludem
 
Originally posted by acludem
If George W. Bush won't discuss HIS life before 1972, why should Kennedy have to discuss his?

I feel sorry for the family of Ms. Koepechne, but it was 35 years ago, my guess is Ted would've plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and served a very short sentence. They didn't charge him, so deal with it.

acludem

2 wrongs making a right is NOT a mature way to pick one's national leadership.
 
Originally posted by krisy
This si true about many people under 40 not knowing about Ted's "adventures". My mom told me about it a couple of years ago. I find him repulsive. What in thee hell would John Kerry want him standing up for him for?


Because he has the name 'Kennedy' attached to him. Some democrats are refering to JK as the new or modern JFK - I am sure Jfk is turning in his grave over that.

The Kennedys days are long gone - after the assination of both John and Bobby - their dream was to be as sucessfull as the Bushs - in a sense that - following JFK brother Bobby would lead the country and of course brother Ted later on. That was their fathers dream...but it didn't happen.
Yes Ted's chances died when he plunged his car off a bridge - his cowardice will never be forgotten and should not be. Should it still be brought up? No. But Ted is no saint and no business standing before anyone promoting himself as anything but an overweight, overaged, past it senator.
The only reason he is still senator is because he is a fixture - he has been rep. Ma. for so many years - whats another six years?
 
Originally posted by acludem
If George W. Bush won't discuss HIS life before 1972, why should Kennedy have to discuss his?

I feel sorry for the family of Ms. Koepechne, but it was 35 years ago, my guess is Ted would've plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and served a very short sentence. They didn't charge him, so deal with it.

acludem


That would be a fair statement except that Kerry was the one who brought up HIS past. He is using his past to promote himself. His past which includes pre 1972....if he didn't want to use his past as ways of seaking the presidency he should have remained in the present. He should have just promoted his attentions (whatever they maybe today and changed tomarow).
 
Originally posted by acludem
If George W. Bush won't discuss HIS life before 1972, why should Kennedy have to discuss his?

What exactly are you referring to? Drinking? Drugs? National Guard duty?

Yes, all very comparable to manslaughter. :rolleyes:

They didn't charge him, so deal with it.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you don't get it? It's not us you have to worry about dealing with it! Lumping Kerry alongside Teddy is like lumping him alongside a big, fat bag of shit. Do you think shit is going to help him get votes?
 
Originally posted by musicman
Yeah-my understanding is that she's still dead. A sheepish, "My bad!" from lushface scarcely changes that.

He was refering to the fact that she is 'dead' thus no longer has a voice to speak out. However your observation is very good - she is still dead - that hasn't changed in twenty fives years.
 
Originally posted by acludem
I find it humorous that the only thing the GOP can come up with to attack Kerry is to attack Ted Kennedy for stuff that happened at the earliest 15 years ago. Ted had no participation in the Kennedy Smith trial other than he was at home in his underwear in the middle of the night after having spent some time with his nephews earlier. If you are at my house in the middle of the night, you'll probably see me in my underwear. And, just for the record, Kennedy Smith was acquited, that means he was found not guilty, which means a jury didn't believe he did it. The case from the 1960s, one which Kennedy has apologized for numerous times, is constantly dragged up by Republicans who have nothing better to talk about.

I find it humorous that Democrats will go out of their way to defend murderers.
 
Originally posted by acludem
If George W. Bush won't discuss HIS life before 1972, why should Kennedy have to discuss his?

I feel sorry for the family of Ms. Koepechne, but it was 35 years ago, my guess is Ted would've plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and served a very short sentence. They didn't charge him, so deal with it.

acludem

My mistake - I thought you were writing of Jk....

As for Ted? He has reasons why he doesn't want to discuss life pre 1972.
At anyrate - in my opinion - who cares about Ted Kennedy...he is a senator from Mass and that is all he will be. He has put himself forward in hopes of promoting Jk - as he had with Clinton...he seems to think his name still has the same meaning it did fourty years ago.
I wouldn't worry too much what others are saying about this man - I don't why you would take such offence. The truth about him is the truth - the past is the past.
 
Kennedy was Drunk when he had the accident in the late 1960s, Bush was an alcoholic who got a DWI in the early 1970s. Bush went AWOL from the National Guard and it appears he was a cocaine user. Ted has had some problems with prescription drugs. They sound pretty similar to me. They both come from wealthy New England families. They both have had to carry on legacies of famous families. Pretty similar.

acludem
 
Originally posted by acludem
Kennedy was Drunk when he had the accident in the late 1960s, Bush was an alcoholic who got a DWI in the early 1970s. Bush went AWOL from the National Guard and it appears he was a cocaine user. Ted has had some problems with prescription drugs. They sound pretty similar to me. They both come from wealthy New England families. They both have had to carry on legacies of famous families. Pretty similar.

acludem

AWOL proof? Haven't you dopes given up on this yet? You have absolutely nothing!

Similar? You consider manslaughter and getting high to be similar? I'll repeat myself again, CLUELESS!
 

Forum List

Back
Top