In any case, Malkin is an angry woman who’s managed to find a way to make slap people around by writing about it. I think her who schtick is basically that she’s a pretty young Asian woman who is (oh look!) a hard core conservative. And maybe I’d her some slack, but she’s simply nasty about everything she touches. To read an occasional angry diatribe column, fine. But a whole book of ranting? Sorry. Better things to do with my time.

I really miss the old conservatives. Buckley. Michael Novac. Irving Kristol. Even Jeanne Kirkpatrick. I hardly ever agreed with them, but they used to take a scholarly approach, mixing analysis with self-reflection. The conservative icons today don’t discuss. They yell. And we’re seeing the effect of their leadership in the town halls. Civility in discourse has slid over the past decade, and most of the decline is on the right side of the discourse.

Gee Wiz Eric I hadn’t realized I was such an inferior being.

Okay, I’ll concede that it could also be explained by a lack of political education, illiteracy, or mental illness.

No, Teddy was never Bobby. Bobby was much more of a leftist by the time of his death, and probably would have pulled us out of Vietnam by 1970. Teddy was also not always a great friend of labor unions, and you can criticize him on a number of fronts. But Teddy was Teddy and the country owes much to his efforts.

And while I also blame John Kennedy for much of what happened in Vietnam, the first military advisers were sent over in 1956 – by Eisenhauer, a Republican.

What some discribe as a life of public service I see as a life being intoxicated with power and influence. Teddy was never Bobby. Hearing the stuff about the “last brother of Camalot” is kind of sick.

And if the confused bystander is so interested in the casualties caused by presidents waging war read up Viet Nam. It was John F. Kennedy that put the Army and CIA into Loas in the early 60′s, then the thousands of combat advisors into Viet Nam, and finally Johnson hundreds of thousands of troops. How many innocents died in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos ? We’ll never know but you do know it wasn’t a Republican that got that mess going.

And Mr. Bystander how many thousands of guys joined the National Guard to avoid going to VN ? You nver even served, I can tell. Lots of guys joined the guard to avoid Viet Nam , I even know a few, and they didn’t have any sliver spoons. I joined the Army and am proud to have served, something most of the people that have posted on this blog could never understand.

“What might have been” “Change we an believe in”.

Empty words.

Well, anon, there has been some investigations into some of the things a younger (and not so younger) GWB did while intoxicated,(two known DUIs) that escaped purging. Then there is a possible felony offense coke snorting. But none of that ever saw the light of day on any front page as we were treated to quite often with the doings of Kennedy, Clinton and even an innocent, Condit.

You could also speculate on what Lori Klausutis might have accomplished in her life if she had not died under still unexplained circumstances in a Repub Congressman’s office. But then you never heard of her or anything about Bush’s coke use have you, anon? Which is extremely surprising knowing how liberally biased the media always, always, is.
Or are they?

Cover-ups are much more successfully accomplished if there is a willing and compliant media, wouldn’t you agree? So the total blackout on these matters outlined above presents a paradox in itself. And now we have the WaPo editorializing that the Cheney/Bush torture/EIT program was in reality a high point for democracy and learning. If a former well known liberal rag like the WaPo has come to see the light of Cheney’s brilliance it must therefor, be true. I’m sure you would concur with that proposition too.
Ergo; nothing then, that any republican ever does, or ever did, should ever be investigated under any circumstances because the only guilty people are Democrats. It’s as easy to understand as black and white, up and down, good and evil. Simple concepts for the simple minded.

Kennedy knew he was at fault, acknowledged his actions later in life, and spent said life in public service. He might have been cowardly, but no more so than the people you cite – also born with silver spoons in their mouths – who used their family connections to “legally” avoid going to Vietnam, while thousands of other, less privileged young men were being sent to the jungle abbatoir.

Oh, and I’m not a Harvard graduate, not a lawyer, and not a politician from a powerful family.

As to whether there was water in the lungs, the medical examiner concluded that she had drowned, so that leaves two possiblities: 1. The medical examiner was covering up for Kennedy or 2. He found water in her lungs.

The family refused to allow the body to be exhumed so either they accepted the medical examiner’s conclusion as sound, or they were also part of the cover up.

Funny you should mention Dick Cheney, because there is a great deal of speculation based upon weird occurrences that he and his managed to cover up the fact that he was drunk when he shot his buddy.

I’ve read Malkin’s blog often enough. Wasting a hour or two of my short life on her book just doesn’t appeal to me. When she stops publishing the addresses and telephone numbers of private citizens with whom she has political disagreement in order to generate harassment and terror of those individuals, maybe I’ll give her credit for enough reason to warrant the time.

I have no doubt that Kennedy was probably drunk and panicked at Chappaquidick. It was a horrible moment and I have no doubt he lived his life in a lot of pain over the incident. That doesn’t bring the woman back, but then neither does Laura Bush’s pain over the boy she killed under very odd circumstances. You may be willing to judge a whole life by one bad moment, but your introduction of Malkin into the discussion suggests and agenda beyond pure moral outrage. You might ask yourself whether you would view the circumstances differently but for your political agenda.

He went and took a shower, contacted a family fixer before going to the police! Family money, his brother’s fame, and political influence got him out of what would amount to manslauther here in California.

Mary Jo did not drown, there was no water in her lungs. The evidence showed that she was alive, trapped in the car, in the water, when Uncle Teddy was trying to sober up and cover his ass.

If Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or George Bush had done the exact same thing last week or five years ago you (and your posse) would want them publically disgraced, prosecuted, and sent to prison.

Family money and political clout gave him a pass, and that is a shame. There is basic “right and wrong” but the extreme “left” chooses to ignore it whenever it suits their agenda.

On that note have you read Michele Malkin’s latest book? I know, dumb question. I was wondering why Obama and his crowd hadn’t been trashing her publically and / or suing her over the book then it came to me!! The book is accurate and well documented ie; the truth.

In closing Ted Kennedy’s actions on July 18, 1969 were those of a coward.

But that is just the opinion of someone that is not a Harvard graduate, not a lawyer, and not a politician from a rich and powerfull family.

Well for one Mary Jo Kopeckne would not have died a lonely terrifying death at Chappaquiddick (sic). She might have gone on to get married, have a family, or even invent the longer lasting lightbulb. But we’ll never know will we.

And spin this as you will Eric (and posse) but the reason Uncle Teddy never ran for president is because he couldn’t, or wouldn’t, face the music on this one issue. Shameful conduct.

And about saying you’re sorry. I’m not sure but I don’t think Uncle Teddy ever apologized for causing the death of Mary Jo?