Let’s be fair here. The death was tragic but it was an accident, not a murder. Very, very few people have ever been through comparable circumstances. How many of our current politicians, in exactly the same circumstances, would have acted with the nobility you seem to expect? How many of these “no collusion with Russia”, “hiking the Appalachian trail”, “never had sex with that woman”, “you wouldn’t believe what my investigators in Hawaii are discovering about Obama’s fake birth certificate”, “never heard of anyone named Stormy Daniels” – how many of these fine politicians would have acted in these circumstances the way you seem to think is a reasonable expectation and baseline moral requirement?
Let’s be fair, and let’s be clear. I’m not claiming “they all do it” and that this is just the norm. I’m saying let’s realistically assess what is important and what isn’t, what is likely to lead to good leadership and good outcomes, instead of demanding abstract moral qualities that few can live up to, and then for some reason actually electing the worst scoundrels of the whole lot.
It’s easy enough to heap scorn on the Kennedys. JFK was a womanizer and a privileged oligarch with many faults. One might have said he’d never survive a personal crisis, let alone a national one, yet he led the world away from the very brink of nuclear war, and he did it without compromising American security. I’d hate to think of the outcome if any such crisis were to happen today.
I honestly don’t know what point you think you’re making. My friend grew up with the Kennedys and Ted would be in the bag driving the kids around DC. This is after Chappaquidick.
I’ve never understood the need certain Americans have for a royal family, it helps create entitled creeps like the Kennedy clan. The Mary Jo Kopechnes of the world are little people and letting a few of them drown shouldn’t be allowed to undermine Ted’s personal ambition.
Think about what kind of person would leave her in that water and wait ten hours to do anything about it.
The point I believe he’s making is that hyperbolic embellishment of reality is commonplace in storytelling but serves no constructive purpose.
So was he literally driving around with a drink in his hand as you claimed?
Oh look - more hyperbolic exaggeration. No one is suggesting that we should “let a few ‘little people’ drown”.
My take on events is that Teddy drove drunk, crashed, left Kopechne behind out of panic, shock and drunkenness, and then his family covered things up. He should have suffered serious legal consequences for his actions but even today rich white boys get a light ride through the judicial system and it was far worse back then (and not just for the Kennedys, let’s be clear). He got away with it legally, although he did not escape the public stigma (as well he shouldn’t have).
That he spent the rest of his life working for civil rights does not negate his crime, but neither does his crime negate his good works. People are complicated.
I think that’s a pretty unreasonable expectation. If you’re in an upside down car underwater, in the dark, your first and probably only impulse is to get out. Grabbing her hand and pulling her along isn’t going to be the first thought in your head. He claimed at the time that he dove back down to attempt to get her afterwards, but was unable to.
However, here’s an article from a few weeks later, where the diver who did retrieve her body the next day claimed that there was a “strong possibility” that had the accident been reported immediately, instead of several hours later, Mary Jo could have been rescued alive, due to the air space in the back of the car.
While his later public life is a story of redemption and good works that Christians ought to admire, even though he remained a human and not a saint, it’s simply easy and fun for the regressive faction to use his name and his guilt as a way to say “Ha ha, so there, libbies!”. Half a century later.
But you do sound like it. And excusing politicians being POS’s personally is exactly what some conservatives (I mean actual conservatives, who if they actually are should by definition be at least wary of Trump, not rightist populists who love everything about Trump) do in excusing Trump because some of his appointments and policies have been conservative. ‘A commendable record’ for Ted Kennedy is likewise strictly a political opinion, not a fact. A long history of bad behavior was an apparently fact, as much as the press in those days was more complicit covering that stuff up (even for Republicans, but especially for Democrats). Including non-Chappaquiddick sexual stuff it’s in theory much harder to get away with now, unless you have a ‘commendable record’ to the people commending you.
Although as the article points out: “It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and…”
According to my friend, yeah. He said that Ted would drive them to soccer practice or whatever with a rocks glass with an actual swizzle stick in it like he was Dean Martin or something. He knew them well and was at their house a lot.
ETA: I mean this was a guy who was once caught having sex with a female lobbyist on the floor of a private dining room in a DC restaurant. He wasn’t exactly classy or subtle.
There is no redemption story. Kennedy in 1969 was a liberal politician who drove drunk and fooled around with younger women. That combination got a young girl killed. For the rest of his career Kennedy was a liberal politician drove drunk and fooled around with young women. He was lucky in that his reckless behavior did not kill anyone else, but that is not redemption, merely luck.
He made a mistake, drove drunk and a death was the result. Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed someone as a result. George Bush lied about WMD and hundreds of thousands died. The only one of the three who had positive accomplishments to offset their mistakes was Ted Kennedy.
He drove drunk, caused a death and hid out for ten hours instead of going for help. It’s far worse than anything that Trump has ever done and he’s a piece of shit.
Nonsense. The lady in question was already dead and would have been dead if he had sprinted to the nearest house and called for help. Compare that to the environmental damage and resultant death caused by putting someone in charge of the EPA with the mission of destroying the EPA and trying to slowly kill the ACA and the resultant deaths that will ensue for the sole reason of wanting to destroy everything associated with a black guy.
That’s not what the captain of the local fire and rescue stated:
But apparently you know better than he. This all goes to the Kennedys as America’s royal family, anyone else, and especially any Republican, would have been excoriated for his behavior that night. It was craven and it was immoral, but because he’s a Kennedy, people will bend over backwards to make excuses. They are oligarchs above accountability and can kill whoever they want.
I’ve seen the movie. It isn’t a “hit piece”, it stays with known facts, it doesn’t accuse Ted of trying to seduce or deliberately abandon Mary Jo, and the only real speculating it does is showing scenes where his brain trust and fixers are hard at work on damage control, which seem pretty realistic.
Too bad there are still many who see the the Kennedys as progressive demigods above criticism, or who view them as domestic royalty, and do the old “ancient history” or tu quoque routines whenever inconvenient facts about them are mentioned.
Ted was far from the worst of the bunch when it came to sleazy doings (check out The Dark Side of Camelot), but he also played at being a party animal long after any remorse about Kopechne dissipated.
Maybe your experience is different, but in mine the history, and other ritual denunciations of the Kennedys, is always brought up BY regressives AS a tu quoque in response to any criticism of any of them (along the lines of “Bush lied us into a war? Yeah, well your hero Ted Kennedy killed somebody too!” or “Ted Kennedy killed more people than any nuclear power plant!” and the like), or for the purpose of discrediting anything any progressives try to accomplish, or sometimes simply to snicker. It’s recreational, and by now one might think the fun would have been exhausted. But here we are fifty years later.
Funny that (as a conservative) you immediately leap to the most negative conclusion rather than considering the much more likely explanation that most people don’t know or remember that Laura Bush was a teacher and librarian (as indeed I did not, although I find the “let’s compare atrocities” approach to be pointless).