|
May 30, 2008
 Teddy Kennedy: The Worst Of The Bad Guys
By Joe
Guzzardi
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. |
