Ted Kennedy Has No Shame
Print This Post
Email This Post
Yes, I know the headline of this post is hardly news to anyone, but how else do you describe it when a senator brazenly attempts to change a law multiple times with the sole objective of retaining political power for his party?
He first did it in 2004, when John Kerry, his fellow Democrat senator from Massachusetts, was running for president at the time. Kennedy didn’t like the prospect of Republican Mitt Romney, then governor, appointing Kerry’s replacement (predictably, a Republican), as the law at the time dictated.
So, what would a Kennedy do in this situation? Of course! He had the Massachusetts law changed to force elections should a senator vacate his office.
Well, if it his objectives weren’t transparent enough at the time, I think his latest efforts pretty much do the trick. Now that he is seriously sick with cancer and his seat could become vacated before the term is up, he’s worried that an election (as per the law that he pushed through himself!) might cost the Democrats their filibuster-proof majority in Congress. And, guess what: there just happens to be a Democrat in the governor’s office now! And, so, what would a Kennedy do in this situation? Yup, of course! He would try to change the law again, this time to revert the seat selection to the governor’s appointment, thus ensuring Democrat filibuster-proof control!
How clever! If only his partisan motives weren’t so appallingly transparent…

I previously posted about the latest rash of scandalous photos coming out of Afghanistan showing U.S. military atrocities under Obama’s command, and wondering if the media would pick up on it the way they did when it was Bush’s army… Well, here’s a twist I wasn’t expecting: yes, one of the U.S. media, Rolling Stone, [...]
Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for the Atlantic, cast a spotlight on yet another disgustingly overt example of pure bias in the mainstream media, particularly at the anti-Semitic Reuters newswire. He points to a Reuters news item which contains the following despicable sentences: Police said it was a “terrorist attack” — Israel’s term for a Palestinian [...]
In the [sparse] reporting of the Palestinians’ massacre of the Fogel family, several newspapers stand out with their distorted sense of “balance”, i.e., where they feel overwhelmingly uncomfortable describing the barbarity of the Palestinians without at least taking a swipe or two at the Israelis, no matter how patently irrelevant or disgustingly disrespectful it comes [...]