CNN Breaking News

Sen. Ted Kennedy is rushed to a hospital in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, a Democratic source tells CNN.

Comments

[Brendan]

CNN TV says Teddy is "suffering from what appears to be stroke-like symptoms."

[Becky]

Isn't he like a month older than John McCain? That's the problem with old people. They die.

[Ted Kennedy]

Hey! I'm not dead yet!

Besides, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

[Benedict]

Any word yet from the Kopechne family?

[Mary Jo Kopechne]

He gets an ambulance ride and a chopper to Mass General. I got . . glub . . . glub . . . glub

[Brendan Loy]

According to the Boston Globe, "Doctors believe that Sen. Edward Kennedy suffered a seizure at his home in Hyannis Port this morning, then a second seizure while being transported from Cape Cod Hospital to Mass. General Hospital in Boston, according to an official briefed on the situation."

[Joe Loy]

Yeah. The Cablenewsies' reporting now is Seizure, as distinct from Stroke; & The Family :} cautiously optimistic. Good. / Ted Said to have Telephoned people after arriving at Massachusetts General, to express his Regrets that he'll be unable to attend a charity fundraiser scheduled for later today.

Get well, Teddy. You're Still the One.

[JO]

Get well, Teddy. You're Still the One.

Stil the one what? Senate beer-bong champion??!!??

While I personally think he's a bloviating jackass, I cannot wish harm on the man. Get well so you can defend your title in '08.

[Paul]

I don't how anybody could praise this man. He killed an innocent person. Wait, let me say that again: He KILLED an innocent person. Regardless of which side of the political aisle you're on, that fact alone should warrant a lifetime of disapprobation towards this man.

[Joe Loy]

Well, JO, possibly Ted does, or at least Did for quite some years, hold that particular Senate championship (though surely there's some stiff Bipartisan competition for the title, in That major league :); and God knows he ~ like his old man, his brothers, and all too many in the clan's Younger generations ~ scarcely sports a Blotless escutcheon in terms of personal Conduct.

But on the Other hand ~ as I heard none other than Patrick J. Buchanan :> suggest today ~ Kennedy is not merely a Democratic Icon & a sacred Relic of Camelot: he is likely the most Accomplished legislator presently serving in the Senate, and probably Among the most Effective solons who have Ever so served. Certainly when it's time for bloviation floor debate :} he's the roaring Liberal Lion; but in Hammering out the final bill that will Move the ball forward, he knows both When and How to compromise with the other side. (This trait, in Part, is why over the years he's been such good Buddies with the likes of Barry Goldwater, Orrin Hatch, and So forth. / Of course the other Part is simply the ould convivial Hibernian charm ~ conjoined as Always with the ould Irish Diplomacy: which as I'm sure you know is defined as the ability to tell a man to go to Hell in such a way that he'll Enjoy the Trip. :)

Now as to Defending his Title in '08, JO: (a) I dunno about the Title but his Seat isn't up for Election until '12. / In anticipation of which, however, let the record Reflect that (b) since his initial election in 1962 to fill the remaining 2 years of his brother's unexpired Senate term, Ted has won eight consecutive Re-elections to Full six-year terms (including the one in 1994 when he walloped the redoubtable future Governor Mitt Romney by 58% to 41% ~ Ted's closest Shave ever :). Apparently the good citizenry of Massachusetts doesn't much mind the Bloviation, provided the Bacon gets Brought home. :>

So like I Said: GO, TED! :}

[Teddy]

Paul, accidents happen...ask your parents.

[Joe Loy]

Paul, come off it & grow up. / Obviously Chappaquiddick was an awful human tragedy & Kennedy forever bears great responsibility for his Negligence in it, as he has long acknowledged. But your "He KILLED an innocent person" essentially casts it as a deliberate Murder, which is a Feverswampdweller's interpretation. / You don't know Exactly what happened, nor how & why, on Dyke Bridge in July of 1969 any more than I do.  So don't Bloviate so Hard about it.

[dcl]

I don't mind Paul's logic so much. By it I can state that George W. Bush has killed thousands of equally innocent people... Though I don't really know where that leaves any sort of debate. It does follow from the same logic.

[Alasdair]

Darn ! There went the Democratic Party's best chance to avoid a meltdown at the Convention ...

Ted Kennedy was going to offer to drive Senator Clinton out to the Cape for a relaxing weekend just before the Convention ... it would have solved all sorts of problems ...

[Joe Loy]

Right, Alasdair. But you forgot to add, with similar hillarity :}, sure'n' wouldn't yer man O'Balmie Ted have been startled when he got Fosterized instead. ;|

[Alasdair]

Elder Loy ... apart from the fact that, through some in-law-in-laws (one of whom (since deceased) went to Law School with Robert Kennedy and helped to tutor him through Law School), I learned that, while Ted could be a lotta fun, no-one seemed to trust Ted as far as they could throw Ted ...

Still, I would love to hear the explanation, when they pulled Ted's latest car from the water at the Cape, of Herself (still in her seat belt) drowned in the back while Himself (similarly set-belted in in the front) is, as you said, Fosterized ...

The Kossacks would be all about how it's Bush's fault ...

And Senator Biden would be giving Press Conferences where he didn't do it, and he wasn't even there at the time, and he didn't report it anyway cuz he could see there was nothing he could do for her, and the local Law Enforcement Officer wasn't at home, and his lawyers had told him not to say anything to the Press or anyone else ...

And Senator Obama would be holding Press Conferences accusing the MSM of publishing the story as a personal attack on Obama ...

[Sandy Underpants]

I don't care if Kennedy lives or dies, and I don't care about the slut that died in his car in Chappaquiddick . But to defend Ted Kennedy for what happened that night is totally ignorant of the facts. If his name wasn't Kennedy he'd be in jail, not the Senate. 1) He was drunk and driving, 2) he crashed his car and knew he had a passenger in distress in his vehicle and didn't report the accident til hours (a day) later.

[Paul]

First of all, I'm not sure why people resort to childish personal attacks on others on this blog (Teddy). While I read the blog often, I rarely ever post, and this is why. A little civility would be nice, even if you disagree with others' views.

Joe, the above comment was not directed at you. The bit of moralizing on my part was done out of a similar sentiment that Sandy Underpants expressed. I was not there, nor do I know the full set of facts, nor do I believe that he intentionally killed Mary Jo Kopechne. However, one fact that seems very clear to me is that he did not notify anyone of what had happened until SEVERAL HOURS after he pulled himself out of the water. Most likely, he knew the kind of trouble he would be in if the police showed up while he was still drunk (and given Kennedy's reputation, it does not seem like a stretch to presume that he had been drinking at that party). Wouldn't any half way ethical person in a similar circumstance call someone IMMEDIATELY, perhaps in hopes of saving the girl's life? Does that seem even remotely unreasonable? Yet, Kennedy was more concerned about saving his own reputation than about the life of another human being, a life that he ended due to his reckless behavior. While he may not be murderer, he certainly deserves retribution that he never received. And, again, he certainly deserves the disapprobation of everyone who wouldn't have shown such ambivalence for someone that he was responsible for helping.

[David K.]

Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face and didn't even get arrested and prosecuted for it like he should have, at the very least Kennedy and his friends attempted to rescue Kopechne according to their reports. Did they lie? Maybe, maybe not, we don't know, we probably never will. Ted was charged and plead guilty to leaving the scene of the crime. Cheney didn't do any of that, and you want to throw around partisan smears?

Like Joe said, what happened was terrible and Ted has to live with that for the rest of his life and will be judged accordingly when he does die. You don't know the facts, I don't know the facts, so quit pretending like you do.

[David K.]

Kennedy claimed at the inquest that he called Kopechne's name several times from the shore, then tried to swim down to reach her seven or eight times

Paul, he tried to save her (unless of course he's lying which we have no reason to believe he was outside of partisan bickering. Depending on how far the nearest house was he may not have been able to even obtain help in time, trying to save her himself may have been the ONLY option. Sadly drowing doesn't take more than a few minutes, by the time he left the car its likely she was already dead. Should he have notified authorities, yes definitely, but the idea that he could have saved her if he had done so? Just about impossible.

[Brendan Loy]

Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face and didn't even get arrested and prosecuted for it like he should have

As reluctant as I am to weigh in on the Kennedy/Kopechne thing, I at least have to point out that this is a ridiculous comparison. The notion that Cheney "should have" been arrested or prosecuted is based on what, exactly, David? Cheney's hunting accident was clearly that, an accident, and there is no reason to believe he was drunk or otherwise impaired. Indeed, as I recall, the "victim" himself indicated that the accident was his fault -- that he was the one who was negligent, not Cheney. Now, I suppose you can believe that it's all a big cover-up, but based on the available facts, the most you can say is it "should have been investigated," not that Cheney "should have been arrested and prosecuted." There is, in short, no indication whatsoever that anything criminal occurred.

Well, unless something can be so utterly hilarious (as in, "HA HA HA, THE VICE PRESIDENT SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE!!!") that the hilarity itself becomes criminal. :)

[David K.]

Brendan, what Cheney did was in fact a crime, accident or not. Should he have gone to jail for it? No, especially since the "victim" would probably have declined to press charges, however he DID receive preferential treatment, and was able to refuse to talk to the police until HE was ready to do so, something you nor I would not have been able to get away with. I'm not saying it would have been worthwhile to pursue criminal charges against Cheney, just pointing out that of the two situations, one of them actually went through the justice system, one did not.

[Joe Loy]

"A little civility would be nice, even if you disagree with others' views."

Amen, Paul ~ and also, re the rest of your comment of today's date, Well Said and Fair Enough.

"Joe, the above comment..." [of May 17, re "I don't how anybody could praise this man..." ] "...was not directed at you."

For the record [for WHAT "record"? :], Paul, I didn't think that it Was, especially since it was posted Before my extensive bloviation ;) in Praise of EMK's Senate service. / Accordingly, and in furtherance of a little Civility, I hereby Apologize for the peevish & uncalled-for "Paul, come off it & grow up" Intro to my subsequent comment, and also for the unnecessary "Feverswampdweller's" reference therein. You seem to be a Grownup who dwells on miasma-free dry land :>. Sorry I vaulted to contrary Presumptions.

[Joe Loy]

P.S.: And, while I'm still in a Mood to Reach Out to the Kennedy critics, here :), this is the time to report that today on TV I heard some some eminent Doctor declare that Ted has by now undoubtedly undergone a Brain Scan. / So, don't all you Camelot Contras want to merrily mention that surely the Results must have been entirely Negative? :)

[Sandy Underpants]

Vice President Dick Cheney was drinking during a hunting expedition and shot a guy in the face and kept it a secret from media and the PRESIDENT of the United States for nearly a full day!!! And that really isn't a big deal to most people.

How crazy have the last 7 years been!?!

[Brendan Loy]

what Cheney did was in fact a crime

Really? Can you be more specific? What was the crime, exactly? "Shooting a guy in the face by accident" isn't, on its face (haha, no pun intended), a crime; the use of the firearm is of course legal in the context of hunting, and if the other person was somewhere he wasn't supposed to be and Cheney had no idea he was there (nor any reason to know he was going to be there), I don't see how on God's green earth that can be a "crime."

Unless you know some specific facts about the case that I don't know (and that you aren't mentioning), what you're saying is the equivalent of claiming that any time a person hits another person with a car, it is "in fact a crime." That's nonsense. It might be a crime, but only if the driver (or in this case the shooter) was in some way at fault -- e.g., if he was negligent, or drunk, or did it on purpose, etc. But the mere fact that a car accident (or a hunting accident) occurred does not make it a "crime."

It's not just a matter of whether the "'victim' would...have declined to press charges" (which is a misnomer anyway; it's the prosecutor who decides whether or not to file criminal charges; the victim's cooperation is generally necessary as a practical matter, but technically it's not the victim's decision to "press charges"). What I said about the "victim" was not designed merely to indicate that he would have magnanimously chosen not to pursue the matter; what I said was that he quite clearly stated that Cheney wasn't at fault. If that was the case, then there would have been no "charges" to "press."

Now, again, as I said before, you can argue that there should have been more investigation, and that's fine. Similarly, when you complain that Cheney "was able to refuse to talk to the police until HE was ready to do so," that's a fair complaint, if true. However, to say "it should have been investigated further" and "he didn't cooperate fully" is one thing. To say "he should have been arrested and prosecuted" and "he committed a crime" is something else entirely. You have said NOTHING that indicates the latter points are correct.

[Tony]

Looks like David K forgot to take his BDS medication again. It's gotten so bad he's showing signs of the rare "BDS by association".

[David K.]

Brendan, perhaps arrested and prosecuted was the wrong choice of words, but yes it was a crime. When hunting if you have a reasonable expectation that the target you are shooting might in fact be a person and not an animal it is against the law to shoot. By all descriptions of the incident that is in fact what happened since Cheney was unaware of the location of his hunting partner, which makes it a crime.

Tony, thanks for helping prove my point about this being a partisan smear job. When the opposition has to bring out "BDS" as an excuse its a pretty clear indication that its in fact quite the opposite.

[Brendan Loy]

David, you're still wrong, on the facts stated. (I reiterate that I don't know much about the facts of the case, but I'm assuming that the facts you've stated are correct.)

The fact that "Cheney was unaware of the location of his hunting partner" does not establish, by itself, that he had "a reasonable expectation that the target you are shooting might in fact be a person." He may have thought his hunting partner was at an unknown location in the opposite direction. Only if he had a reasonable expectation that his hunting partner might be in the targeted area -- as opposed to some other unknown location -- would such a reasonable expectation exist. It's possible he was criminally negligent on the facts you've stated, but it certainly isn't self-evidently true on those facts.

And, I reiterate, it's only "a crime" if he was negligent. Your attitude seems to me, "It was a crime, so they should have investigated it to see if he was negligent." But that's backwards. Only if he was negligent (or otherwise at fault) was there a crime at all. Maybe they should have investigated more than they did, but that investigation would have been to determine whether there was a crime. By presupposing that a crime occurred, you're presupposing Cheney's guilt. You haven't presented facts to back that up.

[Joe Mama]

The fact that "Cheney was unaware of the location of his hunting partner" does not establish, by itself, that he had "a reasonable expectation that the target you are shooting might in fact be a person."

According to the learned treatise David K. on Criminal Negligence, that fact that it was Cheney who was unaware of the location of his hunting partner automatically constitutes a breach of the reasonable person standard of care.

[David K.]

Brendan, even if I AM wrong and it wasn't a crime (having discussed this with a number of experienced hunters, they assure me it would be) it still wasn't further investigated, procedures that normally would have been followed had it been the average citizen were not followed, which is my underlying point here. The right wingers who are complaining about the Kennedy situation are ignoring the fact that in his case there actually WAS an investigation, he DID go through the legal system, and in Cheney's case neither of those was true.

[Brendan Loy]

They have "experienced hunters" in the Pacific Northwest? And here I thought y'all were too busy sipping lattes to get bitter and cling to your guns and religion. ;)

[Joe Mama]

Everyone involved had the same exact account of the incident, so what was left to investigate? I don't know whether authorities actually visited the spot of the accident, but even if they didn't, so what? What useful information could they have hoped to find? Blood marks? Footprints? What could that have told the authorities besides what was already known? Any "further investigation" of this obvious accident would've been a complete waste of law enforcement resources, unless you're a partisan hack looking for a fishing expedition.

[Brendan Loy]

...unless you're a partisan hack looking for a fishing expedition

It was a hunting expedition, dumbass, not a fishing expedition. Clearly you're not well-suited to be a politician, Joe: you gotta keep straight the various types of quaint outdoor activities that the plebes cling to in an effort to satiate their bitterness!

;)

[David K.]

Are you kidding? We have the whole eastern side of the state just filled with red staters, not to mention our proximity to Idaho and Montana. We may be latte drinking tree huggers on the west side of the state, but theres plenty of bitter gun totters around too.

[David K.]

Joe Mama, I'm NOT looking to investigate this further, although they should have followed procedure, its not that big of a deal, my point, which you continue to miss is that people like Paul up a above are perfectly willing to ignore one case of a politician actually getting preferential treatment while accusing another of it, even though the evidence that we have shows otherwise.

[Tony]

In a post about Kennedy you bring up how Cheney shot someone in the face and SHOULD have been arrested and how it's a giant coverup etc.. YOU proved your own partisan BDS.

[Joe Loy]

"... theres plenty of bitter gun totters around..."

David, yes & it's the ol' Bitter Gun Totters that've got Sandy "Cheney was drinking during a hunting expedition and shot a guy in the face" Underpants all Fired up, here :}.

"It was a hunting expedition, dumbass, not a fishing expedition..." Waw haw, Brendan! :} "He may have thought his hunting partner was at an unknown location in the opposite direction." Yes & that's Exactly where you don't want your angling partner to be on your Backcast :>, albeit in My experience there's seldom any Reasonable expectation that the target one is aiming at might in fact be a Fish ;]. But saaay, did I ever tellyez about the time I Hooked myself in the Thumb, barb & all? What happened was, the huge Dragonfly buzzed down and Startled me...hm?...I Did? Oh. Nevermind ;}

[Joe Mama]

my point, which you continue to miss is that people like Paul up a above are perfectly willing to ignore one case of a politician actually getting preferential treatment while accusing another of it, even though the evidence that we have shows otherwise.

I don't see where Paul claimed Kennedy received preferential treatment -- seems to me Paul's issue is with Kennedy's behavior, and rightly so. Likewise, I'm unaware of what procedures weren't followed by the authorities in Cheney's case, where the explanation as to what happened was plainly obvious and no one involved disputed what happened.

Of course, you could say that no one involved in Chappaquiddick disputed what happened either, because only Kennedy survived.

[Alasdair]

Joe Mama - I suspect we may need to be a tad more cynical in David K's world-view ...

So - perhaps we should frame it this way ...

Cheney had his interaction with his hunting buddy who was also a significant political supporter ... as far as we can tell, said hunting buddy has *remained* a significant political supporter ... in spite of Cheney shooting him, in the face, non-fatally ...

OK - in Kennedy's case - he had is interaction with Ms Kopechne ... as far as we can tell, Ms Kopechne is no longer a Kennedy supporter ...

This would support the view-point that Cheney didn't commit a crime in the eyes of his hunting buddy ... me, if I thought someone I supported politically had *shot* me anywhere near *any* of my cheeks, I'd not be a happy camper ...

Then, added on top of all that, I have to also suspect that various organs of the MSM are very likely to have expended significant resources to try to dig up any possible dirt on the whole Cheney shooting debacle ... the FACT that, even with a literally and so-stipulated smoking gun, the MSM were not able to find anything criminal (beyond their BDS-by-association whereby Cheney is criminally guilty of *being* Cheney), that tells us that it wasn't there to find ...

[Alasdair]

I do have to 'fess up that Kennedy gave rise to one of my favourite bumper stickers ...

More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than because of Three Mile Island

[David K.]

Tony, did I say it was a 'giant coverup'? No. I brought up the Cheney incident because it was the most recent instance of a Republican getting preferential treatment. I did not imply it was ONLY republicans, I merely pointed out that its not ONLY democrats. Anytime someone has to bring up "BDS" as an excuse in an argument they lose. Just as anytime someone brings up 9-11 Truthy in an argument they lose.

[Joe Mama]

LOL Alasdair.

My favorite sticker re Chappaquiddick was one created during Clinton's presidency:

The good news is we're building a bridge to the 21st Century. The bad news is Ted Kennedy is driving us across it.

[copndor]

It's funny until you realize your party is in shambles.

[Joe Mama]

No, it's funny anytime.

[Bea]

The right wingers who are complaining about the Kennedy situation are ignoring the fact that in his case there actually WAS an investigation, he DID go through the legal system, and in Cheney's case neither of those was true.

I don't think Sandy Underpants is a right winger, David. You don't have to be a right winger to think Ted Keneddy and the accident are shady.

[Alasdair]

At the risk of being a tad tasteless ...

You don't have to be a deep thinker to fathom that the Chappaquiddick affair (and Senator Kennedy's innocence) just wasn't watertight ... ummm didn't hold water ... ummm ... you know what I mean ...