Decision ‘08

How To Respond To Ted Kennedy

Here’s a surefire tip for any prospective Supreme Court nominees out there. Doubtless, you will be attacked by Ted Kennedy, who, as we know, has been appointed senator-for-life by the people of Massachusetts. Mr. Kennedy, you see, is a lacky for special interest groups and will stop at nothing to smear your good name and drag you through the mud. Everyone (at least everyone interesting) has at least one skeleton in his closet, and even if you don’t, Kennedy will make one up.

So, here’s the plan (boy, I should really hang on to this and go into the consulting business - this is solid gold, I tell you!):

When Kennedy goes into attack dog mode, look him straight in the eye, and say the following:

“Senator, what I (did, said, thought) was unfortunate, and a sign of my immaturity at the time. After all, Senator, surely even you did at least one thing in your life that you’ve come to regret.”

I triple-dog-guarantee the Senator will give you no more trouble…

16 Responses to “How To Respond To Ted Kennedy”

1 Mussolini Says:
January 11th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
That assumes Kennedy is a reasonable man with a sense of shame. He has neither reason nor shame.
2 Ed Driscoll.com Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 12:35 am
Or, Just Offer Him A Free Half-Gallon Of Chivas

Decision ‘08 has free advice for any potential Supreme Court nominee who will invariably have to respond to Teddy Kennedy, the left’s answer to Terry Gilliam’s Bridgekeeper character (in more ways than one…) from Monty Python and the Holy Grail….
3 Toby Petzold Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 1:21 am
I don’t think this is going to come through here, but I have written an exquisitely foul-mouthed and altogether righteous post about Ted Kennedy and decided to share it with the class.

Enjoy.
4 Toby Petzold Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Oh, okay. I guess the preview function hides anything past the hyperlink tag. So now you really can enjoy my angry response to Kennedy!
5 Hugh McCarthy Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 4:44 am
Tell me Senator, did you name your dog “Splash” before or after Chappaquidick.
6 too many steves Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 7:09 am
You know, someone famously asked Senator McCarthy “Have you no shame, sir?” and the answer, obviously, was “no”. Likewise with Senator Kennedy. So, while I appreciate the effort and agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, I think your construction would fail to have the desired effect. Sorry.
7 Clint Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Damn. Mussolini beat me to my response.

All kidding aside, can’t you just see Ted Kennedy preening self-righteously while he demands to know what the nominee is implying about him? About the respect due to United States Senators? How such a personal attack on a senior Senator clearly demonstrates that the nominee lacks judicial deference?

Totally off topic, but I’m watching Katie Couric toss softballs at Joe Biden this morning and two things jump out — Biden announced he would vote against Judge Alito if the vote were taken now (no surprise — he voted against confirmation for Roberts) and more importantly, his phrasing of the question of unlimited executive power, that he wishes Judge Alito would answer, stated twice, was “Does the President have the authority to go to war with IRAN without Congressional authorization.”

Two intriguing points — (1) he said it twice, so he wasn’t misspeaking about Iraq, he’s talking about whether we’ll have military strikes against IRAN — is it possible that the Congressional leadership has been briefed on something?? I don’t recall ever hearing Iran mentioned hypothetically during the hearings, though I certainly haven’t heard every minute.

(2) Doesn’t the War Powers Act say exactly that — that the President can indeed order attacks on other countries on his own authority, requiring Congressional authorization only if the conflict extends beyond thirty days? That is, Congress’s most recent opinion (rejected by every President since, and never addressed by the Supreme Court) on where the War Powers line lies — where it was drawn by liberals in the immediate wake of Vietnam — is well on the Executive Powers side of where Senator Biden seems to be implying that he draws that line.

Is it possible that Democrats are getting ready to slam the President if he takes any responsible military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program? Is it possible that he’s quietly asked for Congressional authorization (to give weight to any ultimatum), and relatively senior legislators like Joe Biden have weighed in and told him that Democrats would vote against such an authorization?? Yes, I realize I’m reading quite alot into one comment, but it’s one of those that the staff carefully prepares and the Senator carefully memorizes and delivers more than once to be sure he’s heard, so there’s certainly some message he’s trying to send, even if it’s just “Bush is a Tyrant!”
8 Mark Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Clint - very interesting stuff - he said Iran twice?…
9 peter Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Clint: What, in your view, would constitute “responsible military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program?”
10 Clint Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Peter-

Complicated question — I don’t have access to any of the classified intelligence that would go into answering questions like: How much damage could we do to Iran’s nuclear program with one round of air strikes? and How close is Iran really to a functioning atomic bomb?

My use of the word “responsible” wasn’t meant to indicate that any military action would be a responsible one, but that the absolutist tone of the senator’s comments seemed to rule out even a “responsible” — by which I basically mean “not disproportionate” and directly related to our interests (in either a free Iran, a non-nuclear Iran, or both) — military action. Covert insertion of special-ops teams to seize and demolish buried nuclear facilities, for example, or support for a military coup which promises free elections within a year and an immediate termination of Iran’s nuclear program, might be considered “responsible” depending on details none of us are privy to.

Mark-

In his questioning, Senator Biden reiterated the “invade Iran” idea several more times — then misspoke once and used “Iraq” after which he corrected himself by suggesting Syria or Iran. Alito started to lay out what is established law — such as the President’s authority to act in an emergency when there’s no time to consult with Congress — and Senator Biden chopped him off the very second he mentioned the War Powers Resolution…

It’s possible that there’s nothing to all of this, but it’s interesting fodder for speculation for those who are wondering what the administration is thinking on Iran at the moment.
11 peter Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Clint: interesting answer, thanks, no argument with anything you say. Incidentally, there was an article in the Times today which noted that North Korea and Iran are now the top two priorities for covert surveillance and infiltration –
12 The Strata-Sphere Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Demo-Destruction

The democrats really did a number on themselves yesterday. They presented the perfect example of what WE DON”T want our political leaders to be - arrogant bullies. Too many have said too well today for me to waste time trying to add my two cen…
13 william s Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
It is difficult to believe that we have all those donkeys getting reelected. Their attitude and behavier tells us what asses they really are!!
14 Chris J. Breisch Says:
January 16th, 2006 at 10:11 am
I personally just loved all the stuff about “judicial activism”, where Alito was told by more than one Senator that the Court had to step in and “fill the gaps” of laws that were on the books. I don’t know how Alito managed to resist saying “Senator, the Court’s job is to interpret the law and the Constitution. It is not the job of the Court to fix problems that occur when the Legislative Branch doesn’t do IT’s job.”
15 Mark Says:
January 16th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Hear, hear…
16 william s Says:
February 6th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
It is not belieable that ther are so many idiots in Mass. who keep reelecting such sheer idiots as Kennedy and Kerry!