I was introduced to politics on November 7, 1979. My mother brought me by subway to Boston's Faneuil Hall to watch our state's senior senator announce his presidential candidacy. Like other Irish Catholics in the greater Boston area, I was raised to think of the Kennedys as something between saints and gods. I was five. As I matured, I realized that others hadn't. Despite killing a woman, and attempting a cover-up far more shameless than Watergate, Ted Kennedy--the man I had heard speak at Faneuil Hall--had won reelection after reelection. The pull of ethnic and religious politics, sympathy engendered by the family's many tragedies, and four generations of Kennedys in politics had anesthetized Massachusetts voters to the ugly reality of their state's longest serving senator. But Ted Kennedy, like the rascal king James Michael Curley, is now the stuff of Bay State political legend. At around 1:30 a.m., I heard news of Kennedy's death after his long battle with brain cancer. After writing many critical articles on my state's senior senator, let me offer my condolences and a few kind words. Gregarious, self-effacing in his "Barney the Dinosaur" or Elvis costumes, and the athlete of the Kennedy family who caught a touchdown in the Harvard-Yale game, Ted Kennedy accurately pegged his greatest trait: perseverance. That he did through the airplane deaths of siblings Joe and Kathleen, the assassinations of brothers Jack and Bobby, the stillbirth and miscarriage of his own children, and myriad other tragedies. It's indicative of his perseverance that The New York Times, in reaction to the fate of his famous brothers, penned his obituary for reserve before I was born. Ted Kennedy, the third longest serving U.S. senator in history, of whom I will have more on later, rest in peace.

Well said as usual. But I have always found this guy to have few redeeming qualities and one who has done his share of destruction. Perserverence? Yeah. But it's easy to perservere when you're a rich, arrogant playboy.

Good riddance to murderers.

Rush just had a good one with regard to Kennedy's reputation as the 'Lion of the Senate'.

He might have been the Lion, but we were his prey.

How true is that?

I don't know if there is a Heaven, Hell, Jesus, God, Buddha, Allah, etc. but I sincerely hope ol' Ted is being forced to atone for a lifetime of stupidity, dishonesty and corruption. R.I.P Teddy, I'm about to take a piss in your honor.

From "The Onion"

http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/kennedy_curse_claims_life_of?utm_source=b-section

He stopped the drive to put Bork on the Court. For Bork, the ninth amendment had no meaning whatsoever. He will be remembered.

Bork's reasoning was that because the meaning of the Ninth Amendment is impossible to determine (which is arguably true, though on balance I'm not persuaded), and because all laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, there's no way to use that amendment to rebut the presumption of constitutionality--and so, as a practical matter, it's become meaningless, and rightly so: judges shouldn't speculate about the meaning of indecipherably written laws and then use their own speculation about the meaning of those laws to write social policy from the bench.

My position: as a practical matter the Ninth Amendment has no meaning as a provision of the Bill of Rights. It isn't a blank check to the judiciary to create new federal constitutional rights. All it was intended to do was guarantee to the nervous, state-centric population of 1791 that this new ominous federal government wasn't going to be powerful enough to erase rights that people enjoyed as a matter of STATE law. And that means it doesn't give federal judges anything to play with. So Bork was pretty much right that the Ninth Amendment is a dead letter, even though I disagree with his reasoning.

If, at the time of its ratification, the Ninth Amendment had been understood to mean what Bork's critics think it means, it would never have been ratified. The Amendment was meant to protect the freedoms enjoyed under state law--not to say what freedoms state law must recognize. To give the federal courts power to dictate to the states what social or economic legislation they could or could not pass would never have been accepted. In those days, people looked to the states as the primary guarantors of their freedom--which is why the original Constitution imposed very few limitations on state power, and why the first word of the Bill of Rights is "Congress." (CONGRESS shall make no law doing all these horrible things.)

Now that I'm done defending Bork, on to Kennedy. I've never understood the societal convention that it's wrong to badmouth the recently deceased. As I've said elsewhere, when Ivan the Terrible died, should people have started calling him Ivan the Sweetie Pie? No. Kennedy was a monster, and he deserves to be remembered that way.

I know you all disagreed 100% with his political beliefs but jeeze take it easy. The man died less than 24 hours ago, have a little respect. Some of the things written in this thread really make you lose credibilty taken into consideration he passed just last night.

sooo long scumball, rot in hell. im gonna have me a nice cold bottle of IC lite, now if only Arlen Sphincter would pass on also i would hit the town! lol

Again, why should we speak more nicely of him now that he's recently deceased, than we would otherwise speak of him?

As with Bork, Kennedy had little regard or respect for those who held positions in opposition to his unrealistic views. Polically and personally.

So why the great rush to respect the dead?

Folks need to grow up as I'm sure TK never lost any sleep over the passing of his enemies or detractors when they reached the beyond.

Alan explained it accurately.

I always felt that not speaking ill of someone who recently died was showing respect to their loved ones, not in deference to the person themself. There are exceptions however and it is important to remember people as they truly were especially when others are trying to use the newly dead corpse to pass legislation, namely socialized medicine.

Its a safe bet that none of Ted Kennedy's loved ones is reading comments on this blog.

Oh, and his loved ones stood idly by while Ted Kennedy made himself the most immoral man in the Senate--no small accomplishment, that. So screw them.

Instead of RIP, how about "good riddance?"

Read "Death at Chappaquiddick" by Tedrow. Then objectively look at Ted Kennedy. He was a man who visciously attacked Bork and Thomas and had the audacity to claim the pardon of Richard Nixon was a travesty of justice when a man is bigger than the institutions he serves (this after skating through killing a woman- and not making any attempt at contacting authorities as she most likely was alive in a partial air pocket for 4 hrs. before she drowned!). This man and this family have been treated as though "any" crime is nothing more than a mishap or part of the Kennedy curse. In 1960 when the election had been stolen from Nixon (much worse than anything in 2000 that a lib could make up) Nixon refused to fight it- claiming the country would be put through an ordeal that would tear it apart ( unlike Gore who did). Yet its Nixon as the "evil one". Yea, I know he died 24 hrs. ago and I pray he knew Christ as we all fall short. But spare the Kennedy Camelot BS. I am sick of the slobbering love affair with mere fallen mortals that the far left perpetuates. And now we have another who is beyond being critiqued (because if you do your a racist by god). Spare me.

Mother Theresa being a 1 and Hitler being a 10 on the I'm glad your dead scale, I,d put Ted as a 7+.

Brian: Amen, brother.

"He might have been the Lion, but we were his prey."
-Rush Limbaugh

This is so incredibly stupid and self-pitying that it does not warrant a comment, but because it sufficiently enraged me I'll take the bait. A 2% income tax increase doesn't make you a victim or "prey". I'd say that Chelsea Clinton, when Rush Limbaugh called her a dog on national television while she was going through adolescence, was prey, but certainly not Mr. Limbaugh. His former wives he (at bare minimum) verbally abused to whom he was unfaithful, 3 to 4 times over, were prey, but certainly not Mr. Limbaugh. Those struggling with addiction he through cowardice and extreme hypocrisy pathetically attacked on a national forum were prey, but certainly not Mr. Limbaugh, who ravenously consumed synthetic opioids until he blew out his eardrums. Those whom he consistently demeans for wanting to secure a fundamental human right are prey, but certainly not a man with a net worth of over a quarter billion dollars who was so avaricious that he was caught with illegally-purchased Latin American viagra (this is ironic on multiple levels).

Since most of the attacks leveled at Kennedy from the right (whether justified or not) were ad hominem and assumed to be enough to summarily dismiss him, they should apply that same standard to their hallowed hero, Mr. Limbaugh. Otherwise, they're guilty of rank and miserable hypocrisy. You know, typical Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, David Vitter behavior we've come to expect from those with conservative minds and liberal genitals.

You people think you have it figured out. But you don’t. Outside of Palin, who else are going to blindly use as a whipping post of the Right?

Limbaugh a hero? Hardly. How about Limbaugh an entertainer.

That's what most people I know think of him. Truth is that his political philosophies are congruent with what most Conservatives think. And he’s a pretty smart guy as well. But if the left thinks for one minute that we fall in line blindly behind a radio talk show host the way that they do for their political icons Light, they don't know much. Which is typically the case.

Always try to remember – it’s Conservatives who think and Liberals who feel.

"Always try to remember – it’s Conservatives who think and Liberals who feel."
-asdf

That was retarded.

Ah, finally something you know about.

You sicks F%^&Ks

I wish you all the bad luck in the world.