It has been said too many times that he never lived up to his potential, that he will forever be overshadowed by his two brothers. I disagree. Given the limited time that fate would allow them, their legacies are decidedly eclipsed by their little brother's. As John Meacham said this morning on the Morning Joe program, "He certainly belongs in the company of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster." As legislators, Jack and Bobby aren't even in Teddy's league. It's not even close.

So many "red state Americans" who regarded him with suspicion if not outright hatred, will probably never even realize how much they owe Senator Kennedy. It's kind of sad that a lot of the people Kennedy worked the hardest for despised him with a passion born of decades of anti-Kennedy propaganda. Nothing was handier for a Republican running in a conservative district than the image of Bogeyman Ted in a campaign ad. It usually worked.

TEDDY KENNEDY'S GONNA GET'CHA IF YA DON'T WATCH OUT!

I wonder how these people would react if tomorrow - just for a day, mind you - every law Teddy Kennedy is responsible for were made null and void. Call it a hunch but I have a strong feeling that more people than you might suspect are going to miss him now that he's gone.

Teddy, they hardly knew ye!

We're a better country because for seventy-seven years Teddy Kennedy walked amongst us. His impact on the country he loved so much will be felt for generations. The loss his passing means to progressive politics in the United States is incalculable. We need him at this moment in history more than we ever needed him before. It's so unspeakably sad. He's gone and he's not coming back. Now he belongs to the ages.

In the good old Irish Catholic tradition, tonight I'll be drinking a toast or two (or twelve) to you, Ted. Sleep well and thanks.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

It's kind of sad that a lot of the people Kennedy worked the hardest for despised him with a passion born of decades of anti-Kennedy propaganda.... I wonder how these people would react if tomorrow - just for a day, mind you - every law Teddy Kennedy is responsible for were made null and void.

I won't question his motives, and was trying to avoid politicizing the issue in just this manner: if you praise the guy, or acknowledge he worked hard (he did), or wish him well — then must certainly have to agree that increased government power, and leftism in general, is good for people. And doesn't all that make him just a great guy, to whom we all owe a huge debt?

In a word: No. I don't know much about motives, I don't care about motives, and I don't generally judge people by them.

But since you raise the question: While I'm strongly in favor of the Freedom of Information Act, those noted above, and a few other bill he backed (many pre-1970s and/or bipartisan, such as the Civil Rights Bill), I have to say the world would have been a much better place, on average, without Ted Kennedy's legislative impacts since that time. Completely overlooking Kennedy's support for abortion (which has undoubtedly taken millions of American lives):

During the Vietnam war, Kennedy was instrumental in making sure we broke our promise to South Vietnam, leading to the fall of a democratic government (or three), and, ultimately, the death of 100,000 Vietnamese and 1.7 million Cambodians. He also pacified world opinion by adding to the voices of those denying such things were happening. That's a mighty awful death toll to have played such a significant part in bringing about. Forget Chappaquiddick, in comparison.

Was there a good-sounding idea which would similarly harm millions of Americans? Kennedy backed it. You name it. Minimum wage policies have a devastating impact on the poor, especially those most vulnerable: poor black males. But Kennedy consistently backed them — impact on the poor be damned.

Troy, I'll actually come to Kennedy's defense on this one:

I heard, somewhere (lost the link), from a close associate of Kennedy, that what happened that Mary Jo had apparently passed out in the back seat of someone else's (Kennedy's) car. Kennedy and SOMEONE ELSE got into the front seat, driving off to the middle of nowhere to make out, unaware of the unconscious woman in the back. When Kennedy, being an idiot, drove the car into the water, he helped his would-be sexual conquest out, to safety, unaware of the other passenger — who he didn't learn about until long afterwards.

Can I prove this? No. But it is not unreasonable (indeed, it makes a lot of sense and answers a lot of loose ends — Kennedy wouldn't willingly let a sexual partner die in his presence if he wanted a political career, and he certainly DID; and, sorry to be crass, but this is an important point: Mary Jo wasn't really that much of a hottie or party girl, which was Kennedy's type), and is the most charitable scenario I can see.

The death of 1.7 million Cambodians, on the other hand, is something he fought for. When some suggested the governments of these countries could fall he said "Let it fall!", and indicated that was he WANTED. So I don't buy into the Stalinist analysis that one death (Kopechne) is a tragedy while a million deaths are a statistic. The million deaths are a far greater tragedy than the one. Living under such a system (Communism) wasn't what he would have wanted for himself, but he was sure eager for others to have that experience.

You're right. I stand corrected!