pages

Monday, August 31, 2009

Ted Kennedy versus Ronald Reagan

I claimed earlier, reinforced by the opinions of others, that senator Edward J. Kennedy would let an innocent die for the benefit of his career and goals but it is a far cry to say that he would betray this nation's interests and undercut the American President against the Soviets, that he would help the Soviet Union in order to undercut President Ronald Reagan to increase his own political capital.

I make the far cry.

Senator Kennedy attempted to work with the Soviets (in 1983) in order to undercut President Reagan to put himself into a position to challenge the Great Communicator for the American Presidency (in 1984). I do not know how he intended for this to work.

Perhaps I should simply call the post "Ted Kennedy versus the United Stats of America" or "Democrat Team-Up starring Ted Kennedy and Our Nation's Enemies!"
  • In any case where Ronald Reagan attempt to build up deterrents against Soviet nuclear proliferation Ted Kennedy sought to undercut these attempts, to help Soviet nuclear proliferation. Sweetness and Light presents the KGB letter detailing the Senator's request to the Soviets. There is no reason for the Soviet's legbreaking security bureau to lie about this matter in an internal memo. It was released in 1992.
  • Neal Boortz details how Senator Kennedy offered himself "as a PR agent to the head of the Soviet Union" on his radio show and draws out a narrative regarding his buddy John Tunney meeting with the Soviets. On the radio show (today) he emphasizes how Ted Kennedy "is not a traitor" and does not fit the proper definition of treasonous, although Jane Fonda definitely does. His blog post emphasizes how ted Kennedy did his jolly best to work against the country in exchange for his own benefits.
  • What would Kennedy get in return? The memo makes vague references to the Soviets helping him challenge Reagan in the 1984 elections.

    I guess we'll never learn what type of help Kennedy was seeking from the Soviets; and that would be because Andropov went Tango Uniform about 8 months late... and the Democrats didn't seem all that interested in running Kennedy anyway.

    Quite a guy, our Uncle Ted. Offering to help our enemy, the Soviet Union, gain a propaganda edge in the United States ... all to boost his own chances to become president.
    The Talkmaster's ultimate point is that while the American media lauds Senator Kennedy as the "Liberal Lion" and a champion for the interests of many Americans, he was often the opposite and "the media paid no attention... after all, the Liberal Lion had to be protected."
  • Forbes.com and Peter Robinson have more details. As it is now is the best time to not sweep this stuff under the carpet and now is the best time to analyze the stuff since people are so insistent on telling why this dead politician was so impacting and significant.
    Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum--within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead--and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator's opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure--perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day--we need to consider his record in full.

    Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.

    When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov.
    Yet I think Neal Boortz is correct in saying that Ted Kennedy was not a traitor.
  • Go chase Google
Now is the best time to speak ill of the dead not because I wish I have partisan viewpoints that I sit upon as a foundation that sees him as an evil creature. I think we glorify some and run over others after death, eulogizing them unfairly, in the media. Senator Kennedy's life is rife with examples of what not to do. Many forgive him for his weaknesses and failures because he was earnest in his actions; he believed that his policy choices, votes, acts of legislation, drive, was the right thing. It is best to treat individuals as individuals and even assuming that his Democrat Party policy platforms are the best thing for the country, his methods were not honorable at least more than once and he should not be lauded given that at the time the Soviet Union was our enemy.

The London Times exposed the letter in 1992 and published it. All my sources refer to it. Paul Kengor wrote a book that included this. Everyone else credited it too. By "everyone else" I of course am not referring to the American common media, that glazed over it out of simple favoritism, fanboyism, partisanship, and bias.

No comments: