It's a curious spectable. The Left turns someone who left a
young lady to die in a car accident into an icon.
Then after some of us remember the bad as well as the good
about the man's life and character, his groupies shout
outrage. They might want to ponder just a minute the life
that Mary Jo Kopechne might have led had she not died as a result
of Sen. Kennedy's recklessness and negligence 40 Julys ago.
As Stacy McCain observed:
When news broke that Ted Kennedy had died, many people had a
reaction quite similar to
my own: "Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for
comment." It's an old line I'd used often over the years
whenever Teddy made news. While I thought I'd stolen it from
Ann Coulter, someone else said it actually originated more than
two decades ago as a Chevy Chase punchline on Saturday
Night Live.
Far more current is the political, rather than moral, scandal of
the Senator's last public utterance: his hypocritical call
for the selection of his replacement by the governor through
appointment rather than by the people
through special election. Even a few Democrats
are uncomfortable with this rush to let the politicians
substitute their preferences for that of the public--the very
people who Sen. Kennedy and others supposedly spent their lives
defending. Reports
the Wall Street Journal:
The question of how to fill Mr. Kennedy's seat is vexing
Democrats. In 2004, Mr. Kennedy supported a special election
rather than a gubernatorial appointment. Yet more recently, he
wrote to Mr. Patrick and legislative leaders, urging that
Massachusetts give the governor the power to appoint an interim
successor.
Mr. Kennedy wrote that the governor should receive "an explicit
personal commitment" from the appointee not to become a
candidate in the special election. Mr. Patrick has supported
the idea, and brushes aside concerns that Democrats were being
inconsistent: "Massachusetts needs two voices in the United
States Senate," he said this week.
In 2004, Democrats took the opposite tack. When some
Republicans complained of the cost of a special election,
Democratic Rep. William Straus said such reasoning might have
been used in a "totalitarian country" and that "one person,
whoever happens to be governor, will not make the decision for
you."
In an interview Thursday, Mr. Straus stood by his words, saying
he recently heard from many other Democrats who feel Mr.
Patrick is making a mistake.
Mr. Straus said there always will be a pressing issue in
Washington that seems more important than having an election.
"We need to hold ourselves to the higher principles of
democracy," he said.
Massachusetts state Sen. Brian A. Joyce, a Democrat who headed
the election-laws committee in 2004, agreed. "If we were to
allow an appointment, it would be wholly undemocratic," he
said. "When you cut through the rhetoric on both sides, it's
pure partisan politics."
There's nothing new about politicians switching sides for rank
political purposes. But the Senator's conduct should be
kept in mind as the encomiums about his "principles" flow.
Yes, he was an ideological liberal. But he also was a
hypocritical pol little different than so many of his colleagues
in Washington and Massachusetts. And his final public
action was to push to strip his constituents of their right to
decide on his successor.
