A Cyclops Cries

Sphere: Related Content

If there's anything more disturbing than watching a former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK cry, I don't want to know about it.

What To Do About Teddy

Sphere: Related Content

Today's news that Senator Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumour is, if nothing else, a surprise. Although Kennedy is understandably keeping the details private, the diagnosis itself and the reactions of his Senate colleagues leaves little doubt but that Kennedy is dying. Six months, two years, whenever the end comes his life has unalterably changed course, the end line no longer hazy and somewhere in the distance as it is with most of us but clear and growing larger daily.

The news of his condition is, of course a challenge for him but in a smaller way it is a challenge for we who have opposed him and his politics for so long, as well. The temptation for dealing with someone whose time is growing near is to do what the media and his supporters certainly will: issue encomiums, speak glowingly of all his achievements and generally not allow a discouraging word to be heard. The temptation for those of us who have disagreed with him for so long, often powerfully disagreed with him, is to lash out with vituperation and invective. But is important that we not give in to such natural instincts. This is what the Left does. When conservatives become ill or die the Left lashes out with the kind of bile and hate that almost boggles the mind. Remember the Daily Kos and Huffington Post when Jerry Falwell died or whenever Dick Cheney has some cardiac complication. We have to be better than that.

But that doesn't mean that we have to now pretend that Kennedy is someone other than who he was. A cheater in school, a cheater in marriage, Kennedy committed manslaughter and treason, he destroyed the reputations of good people, he was a hypocrite, he...the list of his personal failings and sins could go on for pages. As could the list of the abysmal, destructive policies he has husbanded into law throughout his career: every bad immigration bill since the sixties, minimum wage increases that damage the poorest of the poor, tax hikes, bad nuclear policies, bad environmental policies, the expansion of government into more and more areas of our daily lives. Kennedy has had a large part in all of it.

But conservatives believe in personal responsibility and that means believing in the in exercise of self control. And we can't give in to the urge to revel in Kennedy's impending suffering and death. A successful society of free people requires that they control their more base urges. Ted Kennedy is a bad man but the time to make him pay for his crimes in this world has passed. He has a family that loves him and decent people should have compassion for them at this time. Ted Kennedy can't be made to pay for the wrongs he has done in this world any longer. Soon he will pass on to the next where someone greater than we are will take a fuller measure of him and deal with him in a more just way than we ever could.

Our duty is to listen to the better angels of our natures and wish him well. It may be hard to do but it is also right. Our prayers go out to him and his family.

Hot Air also comments
Liberty Pundit comments
Cassy Fiano comments
Synthesis Magazine Blog comments
Ed Driscoll discusses a controversy about the reaction to Kennedy's illness

Couldn't Have Said It Any Better Myself

Sphere: Related Content

Just an internet guy voicing his opinion on a bunch of things...and making a lot of sense.

Ted Kennedy - Spy

Sphere: Related Content

When the news came this Saturday that Senator Ted Kennedy had apparently had a stroke and his passing seemed potentially imminent all the talking heads on the news shows went into obit-speak, referring to the Massachusetts legislator in the past tense and reviewing all the "Lion of the Senate's" achievements and sterling personal qualities. This was to be expected as it is generally considered indelicate to speak ill of the (almost) dead but it also left the impression that Kennedy is a "great man" and has done much good for the country.

Well now that it looks like the Senator didn't have a stroke (apparently some seizures of still unknown origin) and will probably recover people can be allowed to take the rose colored glasses off and discuss Kennedy as he really is. Unlike the Left side of the blogosphere, we here on the Right haven't spent the last few days gathered around the pentagram chanting (and blogging) for our opponents' demise. We wish him a return to good health...while admittedly urging him to consider how the present time might be a good time for him to consider retirement.

Why retirement? Because after 45 plus years we on the Right think he has done enough damage. Most Americans are aware of the Ted Kennedy story and all its ugliness: Chappaquiddick, his virtual invention of the concept of "Borking" an opponent (wherein you scurrilously impugn the character of decent people to further a political agenda), the fact that he has been deeply involved in virtually ever national tax hike, bad immigration bill and every other anti-democratic, statist policy for decades, his alcoholism, the famous "waitress sandwich" episode, etc. An in-depth rehash isn't needed.

But there is a story that has gotten very little press which I'd like to review now and that is Kennedy's act of treason during the Reagan administration. In 2006 Paul Kengor wrote The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. In researching it he made an interesting discovery:

FP:...Ok., let’s get to the intended main focus of our interview. There is a shocking revelation about a Ted Kennedy in your book. Tell us about it.

Kengor: In my book, I comment on, and publish, a May 14, 1983 document from the KGB archives that reveals that Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) reached out to the General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party, Yuri Andropov, to propose a kind of public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's defense policy initiatives toward the Soviet Union, policies that Kennedy felt were too aggressive.

FP: How did you come in possession of this document?

Kengor: As a result of an article that I wrote on FrontPageMagazine.com, titled, "Reagan's Freedom Fighter," which was about Natan Sharansky.

FP: So what can our interpretation be of this document?

Kengor: My intention in revealing this document was simply to place it in the historical narrative of the Reagan presidency as I did with hundreds of other documents in the book from the Soviet archives and various media archives. It is very important to understand that I tried not to cast judgment on the document or what it alleges that Senator Kennedy did.

Based on the document itself, as well as other Kennedy writings at the time, I believe that Kennedy did this because it was a very dangerous time and Kennedy, like many liberals, was genuinely worried that Reagan was too aggressive in his nuclear arms buildup.

Around this same time, Kennedy wrote a March 1984 article for Rolling Stone magazine in which he said that Reagan officials were "talking peace in 1984 as a prelude to making war in 1985." And he wrote of his "fears about an administration whose officials have spoken of winnable nuclear conflict." That was a reckless, irresponsible allegation, to be sure. Yet, it further illustrates where Kennedy was coming from: Clearly, Senator Kennedy was worried about the U.S.-Soviet confrontation spiralling out of control and going nuclear. He was seeking to defuse a situation that he thought could lead to nuclear war. His motivations were peaceful. This is not to say, of course, that what Kennedy allegedly did was not an example of very poor judgment and does not deserve heavy criticism, which it does. And what Kennedy did was obviously extraordinary.

FP: How are Kennedy’s actions relevant today in your view?

Kengor: First of all, I do not answer that question in the book because, as I said, I don't cast judgment on it in the book. However, if you're asking for my personal viewpoint, I do find it striking that certain American politicians were more worried about Reagan than about Yuri Andropov. In the KGB letter, which was written by the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, Chebrikov said that Kennedy was "very impressed" with Andropov. So, Kennedy was, By Chebrikov's account, impressed by Andropov but fearful of Reagan. Kennedy literally seemed more trustful of the Soviet dictator than the American president; that's a fair interpretation of Kennedy's thinking, based upon what Chebrikov reported to Andropov in the memo.

This kind of thinking is still common among much of the left today, as many liberals fear the conservative Republican president more than the dictator-enemy the president is trying to defeat. Today, there are many on the left who will tell you that George W. Bush is a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein ever was. This is a continuing example of poor judgment by the likes of Ted Kennedy.

FP: Kennedy was “very impressed” with the former head of the KGB? We don’t need to get into a history of the mass crimes that Andropov oversaw and ordered in that capacity. The ruthless suppression of Hungary's bid for freedom in 1956 was just one of them. Saying this about Andropov is the same thing as a person saying he was impressed with the head of the Nazi Gestapo. Where is the outrage on this shameful behavior?

Kengor: The mainstream media doesn't care. I literally have not received a single inquiry from the likes of the New York Times, CBS, or CNN. If not for the web and talk radio, and sources like FrontPage, there would be a total blackout on this revelation, and history would never learn about it. It is an amazing example of media bias, the most extraordinary example that I've ever personally encountered. Truly stunning. It makes me wonder how much history we never know.

FP: What Kennedy did, when all is said and done, was reach out a hand of solidarity to a monstrous and vicious totalitarian regime. Would we be so careful with our judgement of such an act if an American politician had done something similar with Nazi Germany?

When you refer to the non-existence of inquiry from the mainstream media into this outrage, what do you think lies behind it? I am focusing in on the psychology here. What is the mindset within the Left that exonerates this kind of behaviour, and, as some would argue, even supports it?

Kengor: It indeed requires a psychological explanation. They don't want to report it because it involves one of their own icons on the Left. So, they simply convince themselves that it doesn't matter or happened too long ago or that no one cares -- or whatever works.

To get a real flavor for what Kennedy was up to, it is instructive to read the KGB's letter to "Comrade" Adropov:


Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:


1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.


If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee
V. Chebrikov

So while the duly elected President of the United States was trying to conduct his foreign policy (which later proved to be uniquely successful), Senator Ted Kennedy was trying to conspire with the Soviet Union, the most murderous nation in the history of the world, to subvert that policy.
The only conclusion is the obvious one: Ted Kennedy committed treason. And like the manslaughter of Mary Jo Kopechne, he got away with it.

While it is not "polite" to speak ill when someone seems near death, it would also be dishonest not to acknowledge the bad things they have done as well. But dishonesty fits Ted Kennedy like a glove so the glowing "memorials" come as no surprise. But we who know better shouldn't forget. And we won't.

Sister Toldja comments on Kennedy's illness
So does Common Sense Political Thought
Wizbang comments

What To Make Of Mitt

Sphere: Related Content

At its root, it may just have been a problem of geography. After going to Harvard, Mitt Romney decided to stay in Massachusetts, raise his family, and make his fortune. And so when he decided to enter politics, doing so anyplace other than Massachusetts probably would have seemed obvious and false. Maybe he really felt it was home. Whatever his reasons it was in this very liberal New England state that he took his first stab at politics, taking on a giant's task of trying to topple the liberal icon, Ted Kennedy. And he came closer than any other opponent in Kennedy's career.

And that race, which brought him to national political attention also planted the seeds that led to his failure in this year's presidential race. Because Massachusetts is so liberal Mitt ran as a moderate. He said he was one. He really made no bones about it. Maybe he was. Or maybe he was really more conservative and made "accommodations" in the interest of being in the running at all. Whatever the truth that run coupled with his later slow shifting to the right through the years left voter's believing that Mitt had an authenticity problem. He was hard to trust then as he announced for the Presidency in 2007 as a true-blue Reaganite. The lack of total conservative commitment through most of the race which was only recently (too late) to rally to his side doomed him.

But whatever questions conservatives had about him, Mitt Romney ran his presidential campaign like the true-blue Reaganite he now said he was and when you look at that effort, just ended today you'd have to say he ran it with style and maybe even with a good deal of sincerity. Having stepped aside at what must have been a hard time for him but the right time, Romney leaves with great good will and should he comport himself over the next four years with the kind of class he showed in this race he will probably have positioned himself to be not just a candidate with far greater conservative acceptance in 2012 (should McCain lose this year, as is highly likely) maybe he will enter that race as the candidate of choice for conservatives.

He is a man of great intelligence and many talents. He will bear watching.