- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Why Did Sen. Kennedy Remain in the Senate Until his Death?
The papers are filled with stories on Sen. Ted Kennedy. Even the Washington Times devotes its entire front page to the "Liberal Lion."
Yet politics can't wait. Democrats are in a hurry to fill Sen. Kennedy's seat. That comes as no surprise in Washington. Whatever his colleagues in the Democratic caucus really think of him, they can count votes. And they want that 60th Democratic seat filled.
But would it be too churlish to note that the reason the seat is presently vacant is because Sen. Kennedy insisted on remaining in office until his death? He was diagnosed with brain cancer 15 months ago. Although he made a few celebrated public appearances, most dramatically at the Democratic National Convention, he has essentially been absent from the Senate, and his duties, for more than a year. If he, and his colleagues, had been truly concerned about maintaining representation for the people of Massachusetts, he could have quit months ago, allowing the special election to already have been run.
I'm not begrudging him his decision to hang on. He's not the first nor will he be the last legislator to do so. And the majority of his constituents probably supported his decision. But elected office is not personal property, something that is yours irrespective of circumstances. When your illness prevents you from carrying out the minimal duties of the office, and your diagnosis is terminal, shouldn't you resign?
I know, I know, it seems crass to ask. But I wouldn't bring it up had not Sen. Kennedy himself urged Massachusetts legislators to replace special election--the very "reform" he successfully advocated in 2004 to prevent then Gov. Mitt Romney from filling Sen. John Kerry's seat if Sen. Kerry had defeated George W. Bush in the presidential race--with gubernatorial appointment in the name of maintaining Senate representation for the people of Massachusetts. The hypocrisy is glaring, but not at all unusual in Washington. But the fact that Sen. Kennedy's actions are what deprived his constituents of representation at this time is unusual.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Tim| 8.27.09 @ 8:41AM
Nobody is deprived of anything. TheRepublic shall endure. The old man got to die on his horse, as it were, you begrudge him even this? The only people who ought to be complaining are Democrats because now there is a better chance, however small, that his seat will go Republican.
Becky| 8.27.09 @ 8:54AM
Public office is not a personal office. The constitution provided a succession order if the president became incapacitated and could not carry out his duties.
Congressmen that hold onto their jobs in name only are like the old people who have to have their cars taken away. They don't know when they are not up to the task anymore.
I don't admire people who think they are irreplaceable. It has been proven time and time again that it is not true.
Sean| 8.27.09 @ 10:49AM
Democrats play to win and advance their agenda. The Republicans don't play to win and are always willing to compromise to advance the Democrats agenda. That is why you will see Medicare prescription drug bills passed during Republican control, but no such thing when Democrats are in charge.
Oldefarte| 8.27.09 @ 11:00AM
Doug, the citizens of Massachusetts DESERVE to be under/not represented, because of their historical STUPIDITY in electing this morally corrupt, egotistical moron!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberal Reader| 8.27.09 @ 11:27AM
It's not just "crass" and it's not just "churlish."
It's presumptuous and it's tainted by the air of sanctimony -- the least attractive trait of modern day "conservatives."
And if you could read a newspaper (daily publication of news events written by journalists), you'd probably learn that his colleagues -- Republican and Democratic -- supported his decision. But those Republicans are of an other age, back when conservatives didn't believe ideas were unpatriotic and reading was a liberal conspiracy against America.
And you're right: his constituents supported him. So what do you have to say about it, jackass?
The response to Kennedy's at American Spectator has really given you guys an opportunity to show your true colors. With one or two exceptions, you come off looking shallow, ignorant, spiteful, and almost completely lacking in historical sense. One of your posters compared Kennedy to Stalin and Hitler. And of course, he was just a deranged person on the internet: but he's learned his lessons well from you Bandow, and from Vadum, Hillyer, McCain and the rest. It's shame, and it's a sham. You are a sham, Bandow.
Liberal Reader| 8.27.09 @ 12:03PM
Just because the late senator was a accessory to rape, a coward and murderer doesnt mean he wasnt a good Senator.
Liberal Reader| 8.27.09 @ 12:34PM
I'm sorry about my previous comment. I'm an idiot. I'm also tragically uninformed about almost everything. My opinions are spoon fed to me by the DNC, Big Unions, Big Education, and Big Hollywood. They tell me what to think and I just regurgitate it without any critical thought. The truth is that Ted Kennedy was a very bad man. Bad for his family. Bad for America. Bad for Mary Jo.
Big Jim| 8.27.09 @ 1:02PM
He was the Cowardly Lion of the senate. He earned no praise from anyone. What a waste of oxygen and good booze.
Liberal Reader| 8.27.09 @ 1:13PM
Obviously some unmanly cad is taking my good name to write foolish, adolescent nonsense. I'm not writing in to prevent misunderstandings: anyone who can read knows what's what.
But it is fairly typical. Reactionaries habitually borrow the rhetoric and even the ideas of liberalism to be used against the people.
Liberal Reader| 8.27.09 @ 1:22PM
And furthermore I say the following:
Bandow, McCain, and Hillyer are dishonorable men.
In our society, for better or worse, we rarely appeal to honor, perhaps because the concept is uncomfortable in a democratic society.
However, when a family or nation recognizes and memorializes someone who has just recently died, the honorable thing to do -- if you hate the man, as you people seem to do -- is simply be quiet for a little while.
No one will begrudge you rejoining the fray; no one will claim they've been harmed if you attack Senator Kennedy after his body is buried.
Sanctimony -- utter sanctimony -- that is so offensive and so indicative of puny men characterizes much of the response to Kennedy's death that I've read here at the American Spectator. It especially characterizes the responses of McCain, Bandow, and Hillyer.
So I say it again: these are dishonorable men; they are phonies.
Liberal Reader| 8.27.09 @ 2:13PM
I'm really sorry for writing "Bandow, McCain, and Hillyer are dishonorable men." They are not. I just happen to be off my medications today and I'm not feeling at all well. There are little green men in my closet and they want to take me to their spaceship to perform sexual experiments on me. I really want to go, but I'm afraid they won't respect me in the morning. Also, I am only looking for a casual relationship. Much like Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd only wanted to have sexual sandwiches with waitresses who they knew they could bully into being silent. I wonder if Ted's wife was ok with his numerous adulterous affairs? Probably not. But CBS tells me that Ted Kennedy was a great man, and who am I to disagree with CBS?
L. Ross| 8.27.09 @ 2:31PM
Liberal Reader:
Sorry, dude. You are attacking a wide number of columnists without citing specifics, rather than addressing the specific issue of this column. Ted Kennedy worked the system to keep a Republican governor from appointing a Senator in 2004. Ted is dead now. The Democrat govenor can't appoint a Senator. Because of what Ted did.
A. This is funny.
B. This is really funny.
C. Democrats are bitching about this.
D. Which makes it funnier.
I know, I know. The Lion of the Senate is dead. Never mind that the list of personal faults would fill a phone book, and the top of the list would start with negligent homicide.
I'm sorry, dude, but straight up: Ted Kennedy is gone, and the world is a better place.
NO LIBERAL BETA BOYS!| 8.27.09 @ 2:42PM
Poor LibReader/Jeremiah; some clever AmSpec spook is haunting him. Whoever you are, Spook--keep it up, you make me laugh!
Sanctimonious little fascist Jeremiah. Whine, whine, whine.
Tim| 8.27.09 @ 2:45PM
Honor? What are you doing messing around with such a bourgeois construct? You keep carping about honor and the next thing you know...BAM! You'll want personal responsibility, integrity. You'll be a conservative.
Now go smoke some weed, jaywalk and shoplift a candybar. Get hold of yourself.
R. Madsen| 8.27.09 @ 2:53PM
Liberal Reader
It's the laws of physics man. Equal and opposite reaction. If the main stream media and liberals were not fawning all over the memory of Ted Kennedy and trying to jam socialist Health Care down our throats in his name, the reaction from conservatives would be appropriately less. These are serious matters.
Alan Brooks| 8.27.09 @ 3:26PM
"[snip] With one or two exceptions, you come off looking shallow, ignorant, spiteful"
Then put on your thinking cap, if only one or two are worth YOUR time, then you are wasting YOUR time at AS. We are mostly people who have little 'faith' in human nature. We are not here to be nicey-nice. You can't force us at gunpoint to be nice. Go to Homeless GLBT Whale blog.
Tell them Al sentcha.
Alan Brooks| 8.27.09 @ 4:01PM
Ted stayed in the senate until not long before his demise because he heard there might be a baggie filled with 97.9 percent pure cocaine at a party this summer.
Liberal Reader| 8.27.09 @ 5:10PM
I've read all of your posts.
I've not read one that made an interesting or compelling argument, and I still think the responses to Kennedy's death by Bandow, McCain, and Hillyer were indecent and dishonorable.
There's a reason why taboos attach to speaking ill of the dead, and it has nothing to do with any Polly Anna-ish desire for nice talk.
Kennedy's personal flaws were many, and it will not do to simply attribute them to an emotional life traumatized and disrupted by tragedy. Kennedy was a powerful, wealthy man, and he ought to be held accountable for all of his life -- including the irresponsible and foolish behavior he engaged in.
However, in the few days before his body is buried, decent people will give it a bit of a rest.
You people, by and large, are not decent. You're ignorant, resentful, and fearful. Your reactionary politics are no surprise, nor is the barely suppressed racism and neo-fascist populism. These are what people who feel impotent and marginalized are often have turned to, when they've lacked wise leaders.
What is most repellent about these posts is the sheer lack of historical sense or curiosity, the sheer ignorance, the lack of any understanding of civics or the most important political events since WWII. I know longer even know how to distinguish most of the official contributors from the posters; in my view, for the most part, there's no difference.
Gotcha!| 8.27.09 @ 5:47PM
Waah, waah, waah. The scent of bitter, liberal whine.
LibReader/Jeremiah is a beta boy b!tch, and that's an insult to female dogs everywhere!
ConservativeWanderer| 8.27.09 @ 6:18PM
Well, there you go again, Jeremiah.
Face it, we all know you didn't come here to listen to our arguments, to consider what we say thoughtfully, or to keep an open mind that we might be right and you might be (gasp!) wrong.
You came here to be a true internet troll, to throw as many firebombs as you possibly could, probably so you could feel some measure of satisfaction in your otherwise worthless existence.
You know I'm right. So does everyone who's hung around here for more than a couple of days.
So, if someone swipes your name from time to time, well... forgive me if I don't feel a lot of sympathy for someone who comes here merely to cause trouble.
Dennis| 8.27.09 @ 7:04PM
Way to go Doug! I had been thinking exactly the same thing. It would have been different if his illness was one he would recover from (broken leg, by-pass, etc.). But everyone, including Teddy, knew he would never again be in the Senate. He should have given it up long ago...
Alan Brooks| 8.27.09 @ 9:09PM
"I know longer even know how to distinguish most of the official contributors from the posters; in my view, for the most part, there's no difference."
There's a very simple solution to your quandary, Lib Reader: DON'T BLOG AT AS! resist the temptation to read the pieces; resisting temptation is usually the best choice.
Alan Brooks| 8.27.09 @ 9:11PM
Lib Reader:
pssst: if you don't read the pieces, you'll be much less likely to blog. And that's good for you and we conservatives-- not as much scrolling down to get to the IMFORMATIVE stuff.
Alan Brooks| 8.27.09 @ 9:24PM
gosh, that should have read INFORMATIVE not 'IMFORMATIVE' stuff.
Jeremiah is getting to me.
MattSwartz| 8.28.09 @ 12:21AM
The solution is to repeal the direct election of Senators.
uggboots| 9.2.09 @ 3:31AM
ugg boots sale
Classic Short Ugg Boots
uggboots| 9.2.09 @ 3:32AM
ugg bailey button boots
Classic Tall Ugg Boots
discount Laptop cpu fans| 10.30.09 @ 1:25PM
brand new discounting laptop AC Adapters
brand new discounting Laptop Batteries