The Hypocrisy of Teddy

Now, in all fairness, he probably doesn’t know that he is as hypocritical as he is- number one, it is his innate sense of entitlement that makes him oblivious to hypocrisy- after all, he is a Kennedy, therefore he is better than us mere mortals.

Number two, even though the brain cancer that has taken half of his brain has probably made him smarter in some respects, being a Kennedy is a different life- form- indeed, he might actually begin to make sense after the rest of his brain is eaten by the cancer. He certainly isn’t making sense now.

Back in 2004, when Herman Munster– uh, John Kerry (sorry, I get those mixed up ALL the time) was running for President, Teddy boy had the law changed in Massachusetts that would replace Herman Munster-(damn, not again) John Kerry in the Senate- the thinking being that the Dems did not want Republican Mitt Romney replacing Kerry with a Republican pick, so Teddy had the law changed from a Governmental appointment to a special election.

Now that the seat that may be vacated is his, Teddie wants a do- over.

 For nearly half a century, Sen. Edward Kennedy has guarded his family’s political legacy. Stricken with cancer and as Congress takes up his signature issue, he is tending to his own.

Kennedy asked Massachusetts lawmakers to change state law to give Gov. Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat and supporter of President Barack Obama, the ability to appoint an interim replacement to Kennedy’s seat should Kennedy be unable to continue serving.

Under state law, an election is required within 145-160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. That would temporarily leaveMassachusetts without a voice in the Senate — and Senate Democrats potentially one vote short on any health care overhaul legislation.

Kennedy said he supports the special election process, but wants to ensure the seat is filled during the course of the election.

news.yahoo.com

Oh yeah, I am sure that Teddye boy really cares about the process- that is why he is always changing it to suit his idea of the day here. The man never cared about fair- that has been evident since Mary Jo- he is just trying to ensure that “healthscare” doesn’t die with him. Personally, I would like to be the one that whispers in his ear, as he takes his last breath, “The bill failed, Ted- now go have a talk with God and Mary Jo- they have been waiting.”

Still, even the Dems in the state are somewhat reluctant to be changing laws every four years like a Banana Republic- that doesn’t bother Teddy, but then he has HALF a brain- (you see, even the village idiot can serve).

“We have great respect for the senator and what he continues to do for our commonwealth and our nation. It is our hope that he will continue to be a voice for the people of Massachusetts as long as he is able,” they said in a joint statement.

The state last changed its succession law in 2004 to require the special election. Before that the governor was allowed to name a successor. At the time, Democrats were worried that then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would be able to fill any vacancy created if Democratic Sen. John Kerry was elected president.

Republican House Leader Brad Jones said he proposed virtually the same idea in 2004 as Kennedy is proposing now — which would have allowed Romney to name someone to fill the seat on an interim basis — but it was overwhelmingly rejected by Democrats.

“If this is going to move forward, people are going to have to explain what’s changed between then and now,” said Jones, of North Reading.

news.yahoo.com

Now, I am aware that some people actually believe that Teddie is an OK guy- I am not one of them- just as people are outraged at the Lockerbie bomber being freed, despite never admitting guilt, I see no difference between Teddye and this other waste of space- the ONLY difference being the number of people killed. There has never been an admission of guilt, an apology, or ANY type of penance. 

In my world, he would have never been eligible to run for the Senate, much less serve as long as he has. Now he wants to change the rules so the seat can stay a Democratic seat- probably for some Kennnedy-to-be-named-later. What arrogance.

This healthscare bill needs to be defeated while he is still alive, so we can all “feel his pain” before he dies.

And then a Republican needs to sit in his seat.

After the seat is exorcised.

Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

64 Responses to “The Hypocrisy of Teddy”

  1. Adam says:

    Right, Ted Kennedy’s negligence behind the wheel and failure to report the accident that killed 1 woman makes him exactly like a man who intentionally caused the deaths of 270 people. Only in your wing nut fantasy world would that comparison be OK.

    But it’s too bad in your apparent blind hatred for Kennedy that you miss two important factors. One, Kennedy is asking for an “interim replacement” to fill the seat who will not run for actual election when the time comes, not simply a permanent replacement. Two, it’s a deep blue state where Kerry and Kennedy win by sometimes 40% margins. It has every bit to do with protecting Democratic votes on healthcare and other key issues Kennedy has worked his whole life on and almost nothing to do with his arrogance or entitlement.

    But then again who wants to let facts and reality get in the way of a good bit of Ted Kennedy bashing, huh?

    • Big Dog says:

      Adam, you miss the point. Kennedy had the rules changed to accommodate the Democrats when he thought Kerry might win and now he wants them changed back. That lag was put in to prevent a Republican Governor from appointing a Senator and now he wants to change it back. This is an abuse of the system and results from the Constitutional Amendment that allows Senators to be selected by popular vote rather than State Legislatures.

      Ted drove drunk. He deliberately placed his life and the life of his passenger in peril. One can argue intent but the reality is he broke the law and killed a woman.

      The problem with liberals is when they do not like the rules they change them but if a Republican tried this stuff there would be bed wetting from the left.

  2. Blake says:

    It IS his arrogance and entitlement that has ALWAYS been at his core- the temp replacement is there to parrot his “will”, and then get out of the way of, as I said, a Kennedy to be named later.
    As far as bashing Teddieboy, he sure is a large target-can’t hardly miss, can I?
    And in both his case and the Bomber, not an ounce of repentance between them- no, they are two disgusting peas in a pod.

  3. Barbara says:

    The dems are like split peas. One side of their brain doesn’t know what the other side is doing, thus the tossing to and fro.

  4. Adam says:

    Only a wing nut like yourself would think that Kennedy accidentally killed that girl and then didn’t feel any sense of guilt afterwards. He plead guilty in court to the crime, attended the funeral, met privately with the family several times. I’m not sure what kind of “repentance” you want from him but I suspect it would never be enough for you to stop comparing him to a mass murdering terrorist. Body counts don’t matter. He’s guilty above all else of being a liberal, after all.

    • Big Dog says:

      Ted pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. After the accident he laid on the bridge in a fetal position asking how this could happen to him.

      He was guilty of drunk driving. He did not report the accident until the NEXT day so he could sleep it off and have a friend get a new license issued. His was expired at the time.

  5. Blake says:

    Yes, he is certainly guilty of that too. The dumbest of the Kennedys for sure- there is a special circle of hell that I am sure that his daddy bought. He should feel right at home.
    Perhaps he could take Sen. Byrd with him.

  6. Blake says:

    Oh, and Adam-Quit being a liberal and referring to that as an “accident”- it was not, it was drunken driving, it was negligence, it was manslaughter. It might be true that it was UNINTENTIONAL, but it was extremely AVOIDABLE, and that was always the problem- avoidance of responsibility.
    If he couldn’t man up at the appropriate time, why is he allegedly representing the people? Not a good example of leadership, just weaselly behavior.

    • Adam says:

      Kennedy’s only proven and convicted crime was leaving the scene and not reporting the accident. I would love to see your evidence that he was driving drunk. But again, who needs facts when you’re busy comparing him to a mass murder? Wing nut logic in pure form.

      • Blake says:

        He’s a Kennedy, ergo he is drunk- why do you think him and his minions took 14 hours to report the crime? It was his money and influence that made things go away, but the immorality persists.

      • Blake says:

        IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT. An accident is something that could not have been prevented- this could have been.

      • Adam says:

        Still waiting on your evidence.

        • Blake says:

          Gee Adam, I AM truly sorry I have no “way back machine” to go get a sample of his blood alcohol level- fact is that back then, there were not many ways that you could prove someone was drunk except from observing- and him being out of sight for 14 hours while Mary Jo drowned, AFTER walking by several houses, from ANY one of which he could have called for help, leads me to the conclusion that the little drunken coward didn’t want to be found until (a)- he had sobered up, and (b)- he had lawyered up.
          What a coward.

        • Adam says:

          So to sum up your stance Blake:

          “I admit there is zero evidence available that Kennedy was drunk when he drove the car off the bridge but since I’m a wing nut liar I’m going to simply say Kennedy was drunk and compare him to a terrorist that killed 270 people.”

          All in a days work for a lying wing nut coward like yourself.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          And to sum up your stance, Adam, you have no evidence to prove he wasn’t drunk. What there is evidence of is that he was at a party, drove off a bridge, and left the scene of an accident in which Mary Jo was killed. Oh yeah, he turned himself in the NEXT day, FOURTEEN hours later. How noble and convenient!

        • Blake says:

          Adam, I am sorry for you that teddie is your hero- but as Mike says, you have no evidence that he was NOT drunk, therefore my POV is every bit as valid as yours, really more so, if you take his actions as circumstantial evidence, which I do.
          He was looking out for his own a$$, which is typical Kennedy behavior, and he did not care for Mary Jo.
          Sounds like manslaughter to me, and it would be, absent the Kennedy money and influence.
          He makes me sick.

        • Blake says:

          And Adam- where am lying?

  7. Blake says:

    When he dies, I will light a special candle for Mary Jo.

  8. Big Dog says:

    The people at the party reported how much Kennedy had to drink. The amount reported would have put him over the legal limit.

    Why did he wait until the next day? He wanted to sleep off the booze.

    • Adam says:

      Again, I won’t pretend Kennedy wasn’t in the wrong with how he handled the accident and the aftermath and that there was suspicion all around. I just find it funny that faced with zero evidence that intoxication caused the accident still you find so many wing nuts like yourselves parroting the idea that Kennedy was drunk and negligent and worse as Blake has now concluded Kennedy is as bad as a mass murderer. Good work, folks. Give yourselves a pat on the back for a job well done.

      • Blake says:

        If you won’t pretend Kennedy was in the wrong, and you can accept the evidence from other people at that party that he was over what is now known as the legal limit, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that he was impaired. That much is not in dispute. Nor is the fact that he stumbled past several houses, and neglected to inform the authorities for 14 hours about the “accident”. That is not in dispute, either.
        It is the refusal of people like you to see this, that enabled (yes, I said ENABLED) him to be elected despite what should have been a felony conviction, and perpetuated the chronic bad behavior pattern of all the Kennedys- pedophilia, rape, serial drunkenness, drugs, and God only knows what else.
        That is a family that is in serious need of more closet space for all their skeletons.

  9. Blake says:

    In God’s eyes, one life is the same as 270 lives- we do not put murder on a meter with some vague “redline” that makes you beyond the pale.
    Character counts, and teddye is found wanting.

    • Adam says:

      Where are you lying? You have said Kennedy was drunk and murdered that girl, neither of which has any proof. Lies. I’m sure God appreciates you explaining to us what’s in his eyes but you are a liar and I’m pretty sure God looks down on that as well.

      • Blake says:

        Perhaps it is not now provable, but that does not make it a lie- you just love to use the word.
        Are you insecure?

      • Blake says:

        I also believe that by saving his own sorry a$$, that he killed that girl. He IGNORED her plight in favor of his, and that is sorry behavior.
        Certainly not heroic nor worthy of any “Residential Medal of Freedom”.

  10. Adam says:

    In wing nut world having no proof something happened means it is more valid to say it did happen than to say it didn’t. Keep dreaming, liars.

    • Mike Radigan says:

      Wing nut, wing nut, wing nut. Adam, I get it. Let’s see; a party, drove off a bridge, and left the scene of an accident. Oh, and by the way, not enough balls to tell Mary Jo’s parents he was the driver when he called them to inform them Mary Jo was dead. Quite a guy.

    • Blake says:

      It is EVERY BIT as valid to say it did as it did not- there we have a standoff- but it is my opinion.

    • Blake says:

      Actually, a wingnut has a function, but a moron does not.

  11. Adam says:

    In the real world one would simply argue that we do not know if Kennedy was drunk and he was not charged for being drunk because there was no evidence.

    In Wingnutopia, which exists outside the bounds of logic and reason, you are not required to present evidence or facts to back up your opinion. Simply believing it to be true is perfectly valid and acceptable.

    • Mike Radigan says:

      http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/02/17/chapter_3_chappaquiddick/

      From the article:

      More confounding, a sheriff’s deputy named Huck Look had contradicted Kennedy. Coming home that night through the Dike Road intersection, Look said, he had seen a car like Kennedy’s, with a man and woman inside and a similar plate number, at 12:45 a.m. – an hour and a half after Kennedy said the accident happened and 45 minutes after the last scheduled ferry.

      More:

      Within days of its decision, Judge Boyle released the 764-page inquest transcript — including his own stunning conclusion that Kennedy’s negligence had contributed to Kopechne’s death.

      Based on testimony at the inquest, Boyle concluded that Kennedy had lied; he “did not intend to drive to the ferry slip and his turn onto Dike Road was intentional.”

      • Adam says:

        I’m not really getting your point. That Kennedy was negligent? That he didn’t handle the aftermath correctly? I don’t pretend Kennedy is free and clear of blame but my contention is still that there is no proof he was drunk and no evidence that he has not paid any penance for what he did wrong. That makes his comparison to the Lockerbie bomber just more wing nut garbage.

        • Blake says:

          Where’s your proof that he paid ANY penance? Come on, man up- let’s see some punishment- you can’t point to it, can you?
          At least the bomber WAS in prison, even if the squishy-soft Scots let him go- Kennedy did do time, no apology- he wasn’t even man enough to tell her parents that he was the one driving.
          A coward.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          From the article:

          His heavy drinking on a flight back to Washington from Alaska, where he had gone for hearings on Eskimo education, became legend among reporters who were present.

          So we know he’s a heavy drinker. We know the judge thought he was a liar about where he was going that night. He had been swimming that very day going over the same bridge. And we know he just happened to drive off a bridge. Yeah, sober people drive off familiar bridges all the time.

  12. Adam says:

    But again Blake agrees that there is no evidence that Kennedy was drunk. The problem is that some of you here live outside reality where you are apparently free to slander a person because what you’re saying can neither be confirmed or denied. That’s lunacy and you all know it.

    • Blake says:

      Pardon me- Kennedy did NO time- and you can provide no evidence to contradict my assertion of his drunkenness, so I guess for you it would be, what?
      Moronland?

      • Blake says:

        You need to give it a rest, Adam- we could go around all night, and will, if you wish- neither can prove the opposite here, nor can we prove our own statements- I stand by mine, as I have ever since the incident, and I have never seen anything to change my mind.
        You seem to be similarly inclined.
        So be it.

  13. bconvis says:

    I’ll tell you, when I read that ted kennedy article, i wanted to reach into my computer and wring that evil man’s turkey neck. The fact that he is still alive is a crime against nature; it makes you wander what deity of the lower planes he cut a deal with.
    But i digress… him wanting to change the law back so the Massachusetts governor could do exaclty what the he prevented Mitt Romney to do 5 years ago is the epitome of hypocracy and arrogance. Thankfully it doesn’t look like the Mass. government is going to repeal the law, whcih would ahve allowed the Mass governor to seat a Senator without a special election, like they did in illinois with Obama’s seat.
    the gall of this fat, disgusting, small man… the law was fine and dandy when it suited his needs, keeping a Republican Senator from being chosen, but now that he may miss any health votes because of his health, he wnats to ensure that a Dem is ready to take his place.
    This was his own goddamn law!!!
    What a disgutsing, piggish excuse for a man.
    Read my post at http://www.notjustaboringdentist.com

  14. Adam says:

    I need to give it a rest? Let’s get one thing straight. I’m not proving anything, simply pointing out your lack of evidence and how big of a lunatic you are to compare Kennedy to a mass murderer.

    First of all your request for me to “man up” is hilarious and sad. Man up? Really? While I’m busy learning how to “man up” for you why don’t you do me a favor and educate yourself on logic and reason and come to terms with how big of a moron you are when you insist no evidence means you have grounds for accusations.

    Second, the police were never able to charge Kennedy for anything other than leaving the scene of which he plead guilty and received a suspended sentence. The problem is you baselessly judge him guilty of murder and then when he was not charged with murder and didnt’ go to jail you think that’s some miscarriage of justice.

    Fortunately most people don’t get charged for crimes for which there are no evidence of no matter how many wing nut conservatives foam at the mouth over it or pout like a bunch of little kids.

    Unfortunately in Wingnutopia liberals are guilty until proven innocent and lack of evidence is no argument against a conspiracy theory, that just makes it stronger. This is similar to the Birther conspiracies about Obama. Wingnutopia, heaven on Earth.

    • Blake says:

      Evidence that is thirty years old- what- you want me to dissect his liver (or whatever is left of it?)- you know that the strongest evidence at the time was his drunken self, but the eyewitnesses at the party that describe him ads drunk are enough for me. The fact that he had driven that same road many times is proof that something impaired him- was Mary Jo doing a Lewinsky on him? We will never know, but we DO know the result- a dead lady, who did not drive herself into that watery grave, and an unrepentant and entitled Kennedy alive on the shore.
      You want to get into it,lets go, moron. You would have to have the brains of a petri dish not to connect the dots. The fact that you refuse to do so, I fear, is a moral defect on your part. Were you never taught common sense? Or is it a genetic defect?

    • Big Dog says:

      So when you guys all had Rove and Bush guilty of “outing” Plame with not one shred of evidence then you were engaging in this nuttery you speak of? When you claimed that Bush was violating your civil rights by listening to your domestic calls when there was evidence that this was NOT happening, you were being a nut?

      So when you screeched about a draft that Republicans were pushing despite the fact it was Democrats, you were a nut.

      When you guys claimed we went to war for oil when there is no evidence of this you were being a nut?

      When Bush was guilty in the court of liberal opinion without any charges being filed you were being a nut.

      Kennedy was not charged with manslaughter (the correct crime, not murder) because he is well connected and he pleaded to a lesser charge. His money made it go away. The police and the judge said that he was lying. If a bunch of people say he drank a lot then they are more credible than he is.

      He could have been charged with manslaughter regardless of the drinking because he left the scene, did not call for help and delayed reporting the accident. All of these contributed to her death so whether he was drunk or not (he was definitely impaired) he committed manslaughter. Just because he was not charged with it or convicted of it does not mean he did not do it. I mean, you guys keep saying Bush committed war crimes but he has never been charged or convicted. But, using your examples I expect you to never make any assertion about a Republican unless he has been charged and convicted.

      Congressman Foley did not have inappropriate contact with a page because he was not convicted of it. Nothing else ever happened if they were not convicted.

      It is funny to me how your side dismisses ALL the crimes committed by the Dems and points fingers each time the right farts and then you have the audacity to say that we call them guilty until proven innocent.

      Now Adam, I want you to admit that Bush never murdered any civilians in Iraq or elsewhere. For years you have made that claim but he has not been charged with that and we know by what you said people do not get charged for crimes if there is no evidence they did something wrong.

      SO ADMIT IT, HERE AND NOW. I am waiting.

  15. Blake says:

    And Adam Before you make a fool of yourself, defending the indefensible, read this in its entirety. its not looking good for teddie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

  16. Adam says:

    Let’s go over the magical kingdom that is Wingnutopia again, shall we? In Wingnutopia you simply need to believe something for it to be true. There is no burden of proof in Wingnutopia. You don’t need facts or truth or logic to be correct or to draw conclusions. In fact, a lack of all that stuff just adds to the validity of your argument. It’s just “common sense”, right? You only need to connect the dots, to fix the facts to fit your view, and you’re off and running. If it can’t be proven wrong then it must be right, in Wingnutopia.

    • Big Dog says:

      Let’s go over the magical kingdom:

      Bush and Rove outed Plame.
      Scooter Libby outed Plame.
      Bush will bring back the draft.
      Bush started the war for oil, or to avenge his father, or fill in the blank.
      Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened.
      Bush ignored warnings about 9/11 because he was too busy going on vacation. (The briefing he had was the same one given to Clinton. Either it was non specific or Clinton ignored it as well. Can’t have it both ways.)
      Bush stole the 2000 election.
      Republicans disenfranchised Florida voters.
      Bush stole Ohio in 2004.
      Bush reprogrammed the Diebold voting machines.
      Bush hates black people.
      Bush caused Katrina.
      The failure of Katrina was solely George Bush’s and no one else had any blame in the matter.
      Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.
      Bush hid the bin Laden family and got them out of the US after 9/11.

      Yeah, I can see where you got this idea that WE only need to believe something for it to be true.

      • Blake says:

        Adam, I think Dog has you by the short ones-that is, if you have short ones.

      • Mike Radigan says:

        You’re up, Adam.

      • Adam says:

        Big Dog:

        Shorter Big Dog: “Our unsubstantiated and un-sourced accusations and smears and outright paranoid delusions are ok because there are liberals that do it too.”

        Blake:

        I’m too busy learning to man up to figure out if I also have short ones, so give me some time.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Adam, you didn’t address the obvious conflict. And as far as Kennedy is concerned it doesn’t even matter if he was drunk or not. What you acknowledge to be true is enough to despise the coward.

        • Big Dog says:

          Shorter Adam:
          “I am a mind numbed liberal who will follow what my leaders say because I am incapable of independent thought.”

        • Big Dog says:

          I wonder where you got the idea that these items are unsubstantiated and unsourced? Some of these things are conjecture and opinion. Others are based on historical record. When a group of 5 people tell us how much Kennedy drank before driving I think it is easy to conclude that he was impaired. Even if he were stone sober, he committed manslaughter. He was complicit in her death. He was guilty of more than what he pleaded to and he had friends who took care of him.

          Those are the items obtained from reading about the incident.

        • Big Dog says:

          I also find it funny that when liberals (including Adam) were involved in these things they were patriotic people who dissented and when it was pointed out that there was no evidence they said evidence be damned. Now they criticize and go after those who they deem to be doing the same thing.

          Why is it not patriotic to dissent now? Why is it now terrible to oppose the planse of the occupant of the White House? Why is it that if what we read in a bill is different than the way others interpret we are always wrong. Why is it that they can tell us what they are trying to do when they have not read the thing?

          There is a difference between being unhinged and being in opposition. A guy in Maryland carries a sign that says “Death to Obama” and he is arrested and will be prosecuted. Not one of the thousands of people who carried signs calling for the death of Bush was arrested or prosecuted (as far as I can tell). If they were the ACLU and the Adams of the world would be crying about free speech.

          For the record I don’t advocate killing our leaders. I advocate getting rid of them through the voting process. I just wanted to make that clear because people like Adam and Meathead will claim I am calling for the death of our leaders.

  17. Adam says:

    Big Dog:

    I would love to see a source for these people who knew how much Kennedy drank and who knew that at the time of driving Kennedy was intoxicated.

    Blake had no problem admitting there was no evidence. He just has a problem grasping logic and how you make an argument. That’s common for wing nuts. In Wingnutopia the term “common sense” is always used when there is no logic or reason to back up a claim but yet they still want an excuse for how they drew the conclusion.

    • Mike Radigan says:

      Adam, you still haven’t addressed the lack of proof that:

      Bush and Rove outed Plame.
      Scooter Libby outed Plame.
      Bush will bring back the draft.
      Bush started the war for oil, or to avenge his father, or fill in the blank.
      Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened.
      Bush ignored warnings about 9/11 because he was too busy going on vacation. (The briefing he had was the same one given to Clinton. Either it was non specific or Clinton ignored it as well. Can’t have it both ways.)
      Bush stole the 2000 election.
      Republicans disenfranchised Florida voters.
      Bush stole Ohio in 2004.
      Bush reprogrammed the Diebold voting machines.
      Bush hates black people.
      Bush caused Katrina.
      The failure of Katrina was solely George Bush’s and no one else had any blame in the matter.
      Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.
      Bush hid the bin Laden family and got them out of the US after 9/11.

      or:

      And as far as Kennedy is concerned it doesn’t even matter if he was drunk or not. What you acknowledge to be true is enough to despise the coward.

      • Adam says:

        My argument is about Blake’s lies right now about Kennedy, not about a long list of things hypothetical liberals accused Bush of doing in the past. Don’t wait too long.

    • Blake says:

      Tedye is a party person=teddy is a heavy drinker= drinking is done at parties=people at that party testified teddie boy was drunk,ergo logical inference that teddie drove drunk off of the bridge.
      You all loonies had LESS evidence on Bush’s National Guard service, and you still went bonkers.

      • Adam says:

        Again, your argument is “I have very little evidence but I’m drawing the conclusion anyway to support my prior notion, just like liberals did back in the day.” Fine little argument you keep coming back to.

        • Blake says:

          tit for tat, Adam- suck it up- it seems to work for you, or at least you think it does.
          When you hold people to different standards, that is hypocrisy.

  18. Blake says:

    Ohhhhh, I swear, I NEVER get tired of looking at the National Lampoon ad claiming that f Teddy drove a Beetle, He would’ve been president. It showed the eetle floating in the water. I saw that when it came out and just about blew soda six feet out my nose in raucous laughter.
    Anyone wanting a laugh at Teddy’s expense, just scroll up to my wikipedia post here, and click.
    Oh, and while you are there, read the FACTS.
    Enjoy.

    • Adam says:

      I read the wiki post before my first comment on your post in order to make sure I was clear on the facts. I find it lacking in any evidence that Kennedy was drunk driving. Still waiting on any real evidence…

      • Blake says:

        You must not have read it all,or you would have seen the suppression of facts in the Grand Jury proceedings, the inquest, and indeed the autopsy- a second was requested, because there was unexplained blood on her skirt, blouse, nose and mouth. The officials declined the second autopsy- I wonder why?
        Gee, you libbies are quick with the conspiracy theories- so where is the big “Daddy’s money paid everyone off” scenario, Adam? If this was Bush, you’d be all over this like white on rice- don’t deny your little inner conspirator- you know I am right.

      • Big Dog says:

        * ( 3 ) – Rum and Cokes aboard the Bettawin – (witness: Stan Moore )
        * ( 2 ) – Heineken Beers at the Shiretown Inn – ( witness: Joseph Gargan )
        * ( 1 ) – Rum and Coke in hot tub at Lawrence Cottage – ( witness: Jack Crimmins )
        * ( 2 )* – Rum and Cokes at the Party -( witness: Ted Kennedy )

        *Because this number is based on Kennedy’s inquest testimony, it should be viewed with some skepticism. The actual number of drinks was probably greater.

        Sigcarlfred

        From the book Senatorial Privilege:
        Mr. Damore interviewed everyone connected with the case, but the core of his book is the testimony of Joseph Gargan, who finally decided to stop covering up for the senator and spilled the beans to Damore. Like many others, I had the impression that Gargan was just another Kennedy gofer, one of the many parasites hanging around Camelot. I was wrong. Gargan is an intelligent man and a successful lawyer. He was a childhood friend of Teddy Kennedy’s and had “looked after him” ever since Teddy was an inept child, whom Gargan had to keep picking up and dusting off. In later years Gargan helped out as a volunteer in various Kennedy political campaigns, meanwhile establishing himself as an attorney. After Chappaquiddick, where he had refused to perjure himself to protect Teddy, he was treated atrociously. Even so, he smoldered for years, before talking to Damore. As Damore reconstructs it, here’s what happened: Kennedy, probably drunk, drove the car off ,the bridge into Poucha Pond. [emphasis mine]

        Gargen was one who testified to the beers. The others who were with Kennedy testified to the other drinks he had. Gargen was one of the people Kennedy tried to persuade to lie about the accident. There was a cover up and Kennedy was under the influence. He certainly drank more than he admitted in his testimony.

        His admission was that he was not under the influence of liquor but don’t most people who drive after drinking say that?

        • Adam says:

          Big Dog:

          Oh, if Kennedy was probably drunk then I guess that’s all you need to know, huh? Kennedy is obviously evil and had Leo Damore murdered like Hillary and Vince Foster. Waiting for Blake to revise his “I don’t have evidence but that doesn’t mean I can’t say he was drunk” argument to “I always knew he was drunk but libbies just ignore the facts.” I’

          Blake:

          I’ve read it straight through twice now actually. I never said there wasn’t fishy stuff or that Kennedy wasn’t at fault. I just contend that with so little evidence, it being so long ago, and with no convictions, that to say Kennedy was drunk for sure, that he’s a terrible man because of it and as bad as the man who killed 270 people, is just wing nut garbage. You’ve yet to prove otherwise with your hilarious lack of logic fueling your arguments here.

          • Big Dog says:

            Adam, the people reported he had at least 8 drinks. I know that he was impaired. I have drawn blood on plenty of people who have had fewer than 8 drinks and they were impaired. You wanted evidence that people said how much he drank, I gave it to you. The guy at the party believed he was probably drunk because of how much he drank.

            It is amazing to me that you see this and will not say he was probably drunk but then turn around and say the Rather forged memos were OK because they were true anyway…

        • Blake says:

          Wow- I do not want a loon like you to try and put a scenario together- you would omit leaps in logical thinking and come to one of those wishy washy conclusions that let criminals off- beyond a REASONABLE doubt- you are un- reasonable.