The American Spectator

br> — A. DiPentima /p>

Have you ever talked to a committed liberal about the many escapades of Senator Kennedy? The response is predictable. First they will attempt to defend him against offenses such as cheating on exams, cheating on one’s wife, public drunkenness, etc. When the defense falls apart, as it inevitably does due to the fact that the Senator’s behavior is indefensible, they will wax eloquent about his compassion for his fellow man. Next comes the Ms. Kopechne debacle. The defense for that is usually the old “what a tragedy it could happen to anyone he just panicked that was a long time ago,” to which I usually reply that Ms. Kopechne is still dead. Finally, the conversation settles on the incoherently bumbling rambles that characterize the Senator’s speeches on virtually any subject. By this time, the Kennedy defender is mumbling about the Senator’s “martyred brothers”. This gambit usually ends with the Kennedy defender launching an ad hominem attack on President Bush.

p>I suppose the attack on Senator Kennedy is an ad hominem attack, but it isn’t one by accident. It is fair to attack the man when his public history is that of an alcoholic scoundrel. Besides, who could attack his ideas? I can’t recall that he has ever had one. br> — Joseph Baum br> Newton Falls, Ohio /p> p> Why don’t the critics just be as honest as they expect the nominee to be and admit they want liberal judges because they want liberal opinions? br> — GP br> Arizona /p>

“Who would parents want their daughters to go work for? Ted Kennedy or John Roberts?”