http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Kennedy-wanted-to-go-to-heaven-says-priest-who-stayed-at-Kennedys-bedside.html?page=2

in which the cleric who attended Kennedy at his death makes such a point of crowing over the late Senator’s strong faith, and how it drove him to do “good” for others. I think if Kennedy’s faith had been that strong, he would have (1) Reported the Chappaquiddick situation to authorities _ASAP_, which he did not do; and (2) Resigned from the Senate afterward, seeking to do good in a venue through which he would get no publicity nor public acclaim.

I was also struck by the priest’s comments on how “peaceful” the Kennedy death scene was. Far different from the situation in which one’s lungs fill up with water and the struggle for every breath, with all its attendant shock and horror.

Still, I recoil from routine right-wing slandering of Kennedy over the death of Mary Jo Kopechne “whom he left to drown”. He said he dove several times to try to extract her from the submerged oldsmobile. Does evidence exist to rebut his story? Presumeably, he was drunk. Did this hinder his physcial efforts at rescue?

Kennedy said he left the scene only after he was sure she was dead. Maybe she was still alive when he left the scene; I don’t know. But did he know this? I doubt it. What would motivate him to abandon her?

Kennedy cheated on his wife and neglected his responsibilities by driving drunk. He caused a tragic accident that cost Miss Kopechne her life. He tried to cover up details of the accident, which was wrong and pathetic.

This is bad behavior. But accusing him of “leaving a young woman to drown” strikes me as mischaracterization.

http://www.tomroeser.com/blogview.asp?blogID=25043

[It is recommended in the “Posting Policy” that you acquaint yourself with your host’s views, to which this forum, among other things, is devoted to debating. The blog directory and Articles Archive are easily accessibly. You can’t debate views you don’t know.–IM]

The man stood AGAINST limited government and most of what I stand for and vice versa but:

( 1 ) Unlike many “principled” Libertarian/Conservative/Anarchists – he was more interested in making progress TOWARDS his goals rather than just bitching about some endgame Utopia. Sometimes “3 yards and a cloud of dust” will get to the endzone. It is a lesson for those who would rather lose than ever compromise strategically towards a goal.

( 2 ) By focusing on goals, he could be charitable towards “the other side” (not always – see his rhetoric on Bork) – rather than just gratuitously whip up vitriol for no reason. He
made enemies more by his “effectiveness” (e.g. destruction) rather than by trying to be a shock-jock, Michael Savage / Ann Coulter style.

( 3 ) He was tenacious and if he spent 48 years in the Senate doggedly making this country more socialistic, he did not give up. Persistency and patience is often lacking in those who would fight to get us OUT of the socialistic mess.

We all know what Barney Frank has done of late. Back in the in the 70’s and 80’s Tip O’Neill and his buddy Teddy managed to wring unbelievable amounts of pork from Washington, the crown jewel being America’s gift to Boston – The Big Dig. Forgive me if I don’t require a tissue today.

We do know that Teddy hid out long enough to avoid a blood test for intoxication. Even Time Magazine, almost as far to the left of Karl Marx as the Kennedys, has cited inconsistencies in Teddy’s story about the accident. That such a worm was allowed to sit in the Senate for more than forty years after the Chappaquiddick incident says nothing good about our country.

By the way, the Detroit Free Press says that Mary Jo Kopechne is the top search item on Google today. Apparently, several thousand other people have been looking for details of her death. That is Ted Kennedy’s legacy.

The greedy rich went to the Federal Government to back up their cartel with government violence. Why do so many wish to be wealthy when enough never seems to be enough for those who worship money?