Teddy Kennedy: The Worst Of The Bad Guys


Typically, when we learn that someone has terminal cancer our
thoughts and prayers go out to him.

In the case of

Edward M. Kennedy
, our emotions are more complicated.

Kennedy is on our minds, for sure. But although we are
compassionate, how much any of us may be praying for Kennedy
varies widely.

I`m taking a dispassionate view. Cancer is a

scourge
, an ugly way to die.

But, putting aside his cataclysmic moral failings and the
murder in full public view
of his two brothers, Kennedy has
lived a wonderful life.

At age 76, Kennedy has already exceeded the

average life span
for American males. And unlike his
brothers, he will die from natural causes.

Born into a
family of enormous wealth and influence
, Kennedy (whose

estimated fortune
is $10 million) has had everything handed
to him—that includes his U.S. Senate seat.

Time has somewhat obscured the shady details of how Kennedy
became a senator. Allow me to refresh your memory.

In 1960 when

John Kennedy was elected President of the United States
, he
vacated his Massachusetts Senate seat.

Ted, then only 28, would not be eligible to fill his brother`s
position until

February 22
,

1962
, when he would turn thirty.

Shamelessly working behind the scenes on Ted`s behalf, the
President-elect asked then

Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo
to appoint Kennedy
family friend

Benjamin A. Smith II
to fill out his term citing the
authority granted under the

17th Constitutional amendment
and Massachusetts
law.

Completely understood by all parties was that Smith would not
run for re-election.

This maneuver held the Senate seat open for Ted until he could
be duly nominated in a special election held two years later.
And, as he had promised, Smith did not run.

The rest, as they say, is history. Re-elected eight times,
Kennedy is now the
second most senior Senator.

Kennedy`s 1962 opponent Edward McCormack, then Massachusetts
attorney general, spoke perhaps the most insightful line ever,
still memorable today: "If your name was simply Edward Moore
instead of

Edward Moore Kennedy,
your candidacy would be a joke."
[The
Ascent of Ted Kennedy,
Time Magazine, January 10,
1969]

A few years further down life`s road, Kennedy`s wealth, fame and
connections allowed him, infamously and unjustly, to avoid a
vehicular manslaughter charge related to

Mary Jo Kopechne`s tragic death.
Kennedy`s plea to a lesser
charge of leaving the scene of an accident resulted in a
suspended sentence.

Summing up, Kennedy has had it way better than most—vast amounts
of money, power and all the trappings that go with it.

I`m speaking of material things, of course. Like most readers, I
would never trade places with Kennedy.

To us, Kennedy will always be the worst of the bad guys.

Of immediate concern is

a question
posed by VDARE.COM`s

Marcus Epstein
—will Kennedy make one more run at an amnesty
for millions of illegal aliens from his deathbed?

Or, alternatively wonders Epstein, will one of Kennedy`s
colleagues in a farewell salute and evoking his memory, rally
the Senate troops around an amnesty?

I view both scenarios as possible but improbable. Whether
Kennedy makes a last gasp effort or someone does it on his
behalf, amnesty is doomed—conceivably for a good long time.

Given then that amnesty will inevitably fail, which politician
would dare to gamble his future on it?

Without stopping to count precisely, I estimate that since
President

George W. Bush
took office at least ten amnesties—in various
forms both “comprehensive” and piece meal—have been
beaten back.

If you include those that were

whispered about
on Capitol Hill but never got off the
ground, the number could be larger.

Lest we forget, the

last victory
for the other side occurred in 2000 when the

LIFE Act
—a sub-section of the

rolling 245 (i) amnesty
—passed.

From 2000 to 2008 is a
long time between drinks.

Epstein correctly pointed out that in

1965
, motivated by a sense of indebtedness to the enormously
popular president, Congress passed

1965 Immigration Act
.

A

gullible Congress
bought into the Kennedy deceit that
America`s demographics would not be altered. Unsuspecting
citizens offered no resistance.

Forty-five years later, however, we have an entirely different
perspective.

Patriotic immigration reform is near the top of American`s
domestic concerns.

Well-organized grass roots
organizations fight illegal
immigration from almost every state.

Resistance to

legal immigration
is mounting.

Vast amounts of information about immigration`s impact are
easily found on the

Internet
and widely discussed on

talk radio
.

Today`s conditions are poles apart from what they were four
decades earlier.

And, most importantly and going against conventional wisdom,
Kennedy doesn`t have the clout  to pull off an amnesty. He
didn`t have the muscle when he

teamed up with John McCain
in their

bipartisan
2005 effort. And he certainly doesn`t
have it today. 

To the patriotic immigration reform movement, Kennedy is a
central figure of the opposition.

But what`s interesting is to speculate on just how important
Kennedy is to other Americans —that is, those whose interest in
immigration is not as all consuming as ours.

The majority of the nation, especially the farther you travel
from

New England
and the

Eastern Seaboard
, considers Kennedy just another tired, old
Senator who has outworn his welcome.

Because Kennedy is so prominent in our minds, what`s often
forgotten is that to many the Kennedy name—whether it`s

John
, Ted or

Bobby
— is merely a chapter in a history book.

John was assassinated in 1963—when

Barack Obama
was two years old.

In 1968,

Sirhan Sirhan
killed Bobby; the

Chappaquiddick incident
occurred in 1969—both events over two
generations ago.

But our opposition to immigration is greater than anything
Kennedy—or any other

treasonous Senator
—can overcome.

In

my December column
last year that summarized our many 2007
triumphs, I predicted that amnesty was so “toxic” that no
one in Congress would dare touch it before 2010, at the
earliest.

Apparently,

Senator Dianne Feinstein wasn`t listening.

Last month, when

Feinstein
tried to backdoor her Ag Jobs provisions onto an
Iraq spending bill, she was rebuked and totally humiliated as

Majority Leader Harry Reid
stripped all her language related
to the amnesty.

After

Feinstein`s
Senate floor embarrassment, who would dare to
resurrect amnesty yet again—even in Kennedy`s name?

I`ll go out on a limb to predict that the other side cannot now
or perhaps ever achieve its coveted amnesty.

Look at its recent track record—repeated failures.

Every effort for eight solid years—non-stop
lobbying
by the

White House
, ham-fisted interference from

two Mexican presidents
, feverish pleas from the

ethno-centric groups
,

insider influence
on key Congressional legislators, massive,

angry street demonstrations
, 10,000 (conservative estimate)

rancid MSM sob stories
and 5,000 (understated guesstimate)

slanted editorials
—failed to change American minds.

A Senate attempt to force a Kennedy-driven amnesty—whether he`s
dead or alive—would be a different tactic.

But the results will be the same—another

stinging defeat
for the other side.

Joe Guzzardi [e-mail
him] is the Editor of VDARE.COM Letters to the Editor.
In addition, he is an English teacher at the Lodi Adult School and has
been writing
a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive
to
VDARE.COM.