Another aspect of Teddy Kennedy’s politics

I am immensely grateful to Iain Murray (who is well known to Chicagoboyz, I am sure) for pointing out that it was a Spartan who first coined the phrase “De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est”. Indeed, it was Chilon of Sparta and that makes me feel a good deal better about the fact that I cannot think of single good thing to say of the recently deceased Senator Kennedy.

At first I was not going to post about him though like everyone else I felt nauseated by the paeans of praise, especially those coming from the BBC. Apparently one reporter even had the bad taste to say that the Senator never recovered from Chappaquiddick. Well, no, but then neither did Mary Jo Kopechne or her family.

Over on this side of the Pond many of us recall Kennedy’s support for the IRA, both politically and financially. We have not forgotten his visits here, his rudeness to our soldiers, his interference in British and Irish politics or the help he and his family gave NORAID.

As the day progressed I realized that there might be no mention of Kennedy’s rather curious relationship with President Gorbachev, whom he visited in 1986, allegedly to promote better understanding between the two countries. It would be nearer the truth to say that he went then and at other times and sent messages in before and after to promote his own and his party’s position.

Think of it: a United States senator apparently saw nothing wrong in negotiating with his country’s enemies in order to find the best way of defeating the President and undermine Congress because the government was formed by the other party.

I have more on this over on Your Freedom and Ours. I should dearly like to know how well this is known in the United States.

12 thoughts on “Another aspect of Teddy Kennedy’s politics”

  1. I think myself pretty well informed,but I had never heard of this. I doubt if this is known by one in a hundred here,but maybe now the word will be spread.Thank you very much for this link.

    I suggest that people here link this as a reminder of just how bad this man’s character was.

  2. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    It won’t happen, but it would be good if the Democrats would take the opportunity to think about the moral corruption they brought upon themselves and their party by covering for and, later, following this guy. Chappaquiddick, his traitorous correspondence in 1983, his immigration bill in 1965, and many many more things that should be sources of shame. Good for them as individuals and as a party, and good for the country.

    Never happen, of course.

  3. God rest his soul.

    We’re better off (cold, I know, but ture, and one wouldn’t say to those who mourn).

  4. In the US, today is Womens’ Equality Day, though not really celebrated these days. In any case, I think it is a fitting day for Edward Kennedy to have shuffled off this mortal coil. Mary Jo Kopekne, RIP.

  5. See, he knew for a fact that he wasn’t gonna be called on ANYTHING because of mwho he was.

  6. Kennedy was a cancer in the the Senate. I’m as sorry about his death as I would be about the death of any other little tyrant.

  7. Such a think as translations, Charlie, from Greek into Latin as well as other languages. Many a saying from the ancient world started in Greek and has come down to us in Latin.

  8. That should be such a thing not such a think. I should not type so fast so late at night and check what I have written before posting. D’uh!

  9. I can’t verify this, but another site says that Kennedy was a strong supporter of the deregulation of the trucking and airline industries in the 70’s and that (naturally) neither his fans nor his enemies like to mention it.

  10. Bruce Hoult,

    That’s true.

    His fans don’t like it because they believe government should control everything.

    I would put myself in the enemies camp and I have no problem talking about it. I just find that helping to pass a couple of good pieces of legislation isn’t enough to overcome a lifetime devoted to the naked pursuit of personal power and the confiscation and spending of other people’s wealth (but never his own) in the name of some disadvantaged group or other.

Comments are closed.