From Ted Kennedy to Robert Novak to…

Robert Novak has just announced that he has a brain tumor.

As was the case with the announcement that Ted Kennedy had one, I am going to struggle along a very fine line on this one.

I will not wish harm on these two men. I would not wish a brain tumor on anybody.

Yet I will not be phony and shed crocodile tears.

This a high wire act, and I am incredibly uncomfortable on the tightrope. I will do my best to offer frank thoughts.

First of all, I do not believe that either of these men were evil. That is an overused term that should be reserved for the most extreme of men, such as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam. There is not one American politician that fits into that category.

However, there are some people in American politics that are simply not good people. I am aware that what I am offering is opinion, but that is what my opinion column is about.

Ted Kennedy has a wife who loves him. He has relatives, and many constituents who care about him. He also is considered a liberal lion of the Senate.

I cannot feel sympathy for him. He has spent his life destroying other people.

He got drunk, drove a car off of a bridge, and allowed an innocent woman to die of suffocation. She was trapped underwater for hours. She could have been saved. He claimed to have jumped into the water to make rescue attempts, but nobody ever saw him in wet clothing.

He never spent a day in jail. His entire life has been dedicated to using his influence to benefit himself. He was expelled from Harvard for cheating. His family name and donations allowed him to be reinstated. He was was at the scene when his nephew was being accused of rape. It was a familiar charge, given that Senator Kennedy and his drinking buddy Senator Dodd sandwiched a terrified waitress between them at La Brassiere.

Some would say that his private life is not our business. After all, Mary Jo Kopechne’s parents forgave him for Chappaquiddick.

What about those he has hurt with his moralizing? He reduced Judge Robert Bork to tears. He excoriated President Bush, calling him a liar. Ted Kennedy should never attack another man’s integrity.

This is a man that praises wind power, but will not allow a wind farm in Nantucket because it blocks his view from his multi-million dollar mansion that he earned by being born into ill gotten prohibition wealth (His father Joe Kennedy was also a rabid anti-Semite, but the son was not afflicted with that disease.).

Some will say this is politics. No, it isn’t. It is Ted Kennedy politics. It is viciousness. It is destruction.

I will not lionize Senator Kennedy. Being pro-choice on abortion does not give one the right to make the decision for the woman. Mary Jo Kopechne’s pregnancy should not have resulted in her death. She was definitely pro-life with regards to her right to have an existence.

I do not wish pain on Ted Kennedy. I will also not sugarcoat is legacy of spreading hurt.

It is for that reason that the announcement that Bob Novak has a brain tumor leaves my eyes dry as a Midwestern sand storm.

Some people assume I worship Bob Novak. After all, he believes that virtually every problem in life can be solved by tax cuts in marginal tax rates. As an ardent supply sider myself, Bob Novak would make sense as a man to be admired.

Unfortunately for Mr. Novak, I am a proud Jew and son of a Holocaust survivor. Mr. Novak has a history of making inflammatory and hostile statements towards Jews and Israel. More than one famous Jewish republican has told me off the record that they were no fan of his.

I will not accept anti-semitism, whether it be from a left wing college waste of space, or a Reaganomics loving bile spewer. What makes it even sadder is that Mr. Novak was born Jewish, converting to Roman Catholicism as an adult.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons to criticize Israel. I have been critical of Israel myself. However, Mr. Novak has gone way beyond. Those that wish to look up his statements on the internet will find plenty.

Even if that were enough, Mr. Novak also has a sense of selfishness about him.

His refusing to reveal his source in the Valerie Plame affair led Scooter Libby to be convicted of a crime that had nothing to do with the underlying offense.

I understand that liberals enjoyed the Plame affair because it disrupted President Bush from governing. Anything that hurts President Bush has to be good, according to these people. Robert Novak spearheaded a destructive investigation that affected a Presidency, even though he knew the truth the entire time. He did not have to reveal Richard Armitage. He could have simply absolved Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, since they were innocent.

Robert Novak put his ego above his nation. I expect this of liberal journalists. Conservative journalists should be ashamed.

A week or so ago, Mr. Novak hit a pedestrian and left the scene. He stated that he did not even know he committed this act.

This does not pass the smell test. Even if he were being truthful, he should not have been driving. He has money. He could have gotten a chauffeur.

Ted Kennedy and Robert Novak are both respected by many people. I do not respect them.

I wish both of them rest comfortably, and that their remaining time on Earth be peaceful, and free of physical pain.

I also wish they would both retire, and never be seen on my television again.

For those wondering what would cause me to soften my opinion, apologies would be a good start.

Ted Kennedy should apologize to Robert Bork, George W. Bush, and every other person he has wronged. If he has proof that his nephew did commit that rape, an apology and large financial settlement should go to Patricia Bowman, the victim.

Robert Novak needs to make things right with the victim of the traffic accident he was involved in.

He should also apologize to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Vice President DIck Cheney.

Then he should apologize to Jews everywhere for his awful comments. A donation to the SImon Wiesenthal Center would not hurt.

He also might wish to donate to animal rights groups. I am not animal rights activist, but Mr. Novak has expressed enthusiasm for dogfighting, cockfighting, and other acts of barbarism.

All of this matters to me because I have a relative that is in ill health. This relative has violated members of my family financially and emotionally. In short, I have virtually nothing positive to say about the woman.

She wants sympathy because she is ill. Yet she continues to act in a selfish manner. She takes possessions that do not belong to her.

She keeps a smile on her face, an extended hand, and a knife in the other hand.

I always have to be the bad guy. Family business needs to be done. She keeps getting in the way.

She is spiteful, selfish, and greedy.

My mother wants me to be compassionate because she is not well.

Then I have to be the villain. I am always the bad guy because I have the nerve to tell somebody that I am tired of their excuses.

This person was awful when they were healthy, and are determined to be awful to their last day.

I will not sugarcoat the truth.

I am far from perfect, but I sleep well at night. I have integrity, and deal with people on an honest level. WIth me, what you see is what you get.

This is not about politics. It is about decency.

Whether it be Ted Kennedy, Robert Novak, or a female relative that will not stop being an awful person, I have no tears to give.

I save them for good people.

Yes, I am being judgmental. People judge people every day, and if I am wrong, God will judge me.

I will not sit by and let people offer warm fuzzy sentiments to those that deserve none.

Yet I will not spit on their graves. I will not excoriate them. I will hope they atone for their behavior, so that I can mourn them.

I do not expect that to happen.

I wish all three of these people would just go away. There are too many people that bring good into this world for me to focus on those who refuse to do so.

I respect that there are people that have benefited from these people. I hope they respect that I have been hurt by them.

On Yom Kippur, I will atone for wrongs I have committed, and ask forgiveness for those I have hurt.

If these three people are running out of time, I suggest they start now.

If the words ever come out, they have to then be matched with deeds. Platitudes won’t cut it.

I am offering these sentiments now because I will not offer them on the day they die. I will stay respectful and silent.

It is what anybody short of Hitler deserves, and these people are not even close.

Nevertheless, they do not deserve warm and fuzzy tributes from me.

May they rest safely at home, and may I never have to hear another awful word out of their mouths again. It is never too late to develop decency, but after all this time, they will not start now.


14 Responses to “From Ted Kennedy to Robert Novak to…”

  1. Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam??? SADDAM??? You’re putting Saddam Hussein in the same league with Hitler and Pol Pot??? Are you kidding??? Hitler directly and indirectly caused the deaths of over 50 million people! The Khmer Rouge caused the deaths of up to 3 million people! Stalin and Mao purged and starved to death countless millions! Imperial Japan killed over 7 million Chinese alone!

    And you lump that two-bit, half-@$$ed, Third World dictator, Saddam Hussein with Hitler and Pol Pot???

    Man, that’s just plain loony. Saddam is barely a footnote in the history of malevolent tyrants. True, if you were one of his victims, you’d probably rank him up there with the worst of them, and there can be no moral equivication in the ranking of mass murderers (ie: would Saddam have killed countless millions if he’d had the chance? Probably.). But when all is said and done, to compare Saddam to Hitler is like comparing an Imp to the Devil, a miligram of strychnine to a pound of cyanide, a fender-bender to a train wreck. Nuts.


  2. Micky 2 says:

    Jersey, all Saddam needed was more time.
    You even said it yourself.

    He was the same kinda monster of the same mentallity Its no so much about the numbers.

    But of course the leftys would like to minimize any of the true threats out there just to be able to bad mouth Bush.
    And its insulting to the troops who went there to put a stop to that madman.

    Its just that kinda thinking that got us 911.
    Especially since the Islamic brotherhood got its doctrine right out of the Nazi play book there is no way bin Laden should of been allowed to exist.
    But, I guess Bill had better things to do.

  3. Micky, comparing Saddam to Hitler is ridiculous. Pol Pot, okay, maaaaybe. But Hitler?

    And, “more time”??? More time to do what??? More time to continue being broke and under seige???

    C’mon. Get real.

    And at least Bill Clinton didn’t have a 9/11 already happen and then fail to stop Bin Laden! At least Clinton did’t have a CIA report on his desk warning of an impending Bin Laden attack on American soild and still do nothing!

    Bush is a tragic joke.


  4. parrothead says:

    Eric did not compare Saddam to anybody. He just said he was evil Once you get to a certain point relativity doesn’t mean anything. If I am in Ridgecrest California and the temperature is 118 do I care that in Death Valley its 125. No it is unbearably hot where I am at so it doesn’t matter that it could be worse.

    Bill Clinton did have a 9/11 happen on his watch, the only difference is the plan was more successful the second time. In fact Bin Laden did attack the world trade center and the Clinton administration did nothing. That does not mention the several other attacks on the US by Al Quaeda during his presidency which resulted in no response giving the m the confidence and time to successfully plan the 9/11 attack. He was offered Bin Laden and REFUSED him. That was the tragic joke.

  5. Look guys, if it makes you feel better that Bill Cliton failed to do what George Bush failed to do, then fine. Whatever floats your boats.

    But to pu Saddak in the same sentence, even, as Hitler is inane at best – a rather sneaky way of justifying the worst American foreign policy blunder since Vietnam at worst.


  6. Micky 2 says:

    “I do not believe that either of these men were evil. That is an overused term that should be reserved for the most extreme of men, such as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam”

    “Micky, comparing Saddam to Hitler is ridiculous. Pol Pot, okay, maaaaybe. But Hitler?”

    First of all, as Parrot said, there was no comparison as in contesting who was more evil than the other.
    This is what you do, if you havent noticed.
    If you havent noticed then you are just victim of your own habitual whims generated out of your deep desire to minimize anything that Bush has had to confront. So as to belittle him in the sense that he is some rabid warmongering rambo.
    You minimize Al Queda and radical islam by using metaphors and analogies that compare them to children.
    If you have noticed that you do it then you are being intentionally disengenuous and taking things out of proportion so as to elevate your normally weak arguments to some intellectual plain that would portray you as some great visionary of the truth.
    Quite the contrary.

    “And, “more time”??? More time to do what??? More time to continue being broke and under seige???

    And here is another example of exactly what I was just talking about.
    You did it again.
    You insult a good mans intelligence by assuming that we are so dumb and misinformed that we are not aware of the atrocities , mass murders, millions of human rights violations and outright evil this man has commited.
    And the insult is furtherd by you assuming that we are so naive as to believe this BS portrait of Saddam that you offer saying he was only going to continue being broke and under seige.
    If you restudy the english language and take it at its real and proper context the key word was “”continue””. As in “extending the trend”
    Saddams trend was to kill millions of people by means that fit right into categories that Hitler and Pol Pot used. Much for the same reasons.
    Mass tortue, mass murder, mass rape, mass incarceration at some of the most inhumane methods known to man.
    The only difference between these three men is that Hitler and Pol pot had larger populations to use and have access to and had managed to mett a climax in ther reign of terror.
    Saddam was of the same mindset and profile, used many of the same methods and the only thing that kept his rate of murder less than the other two was time.

    “C’mon. Get real.

    And at least Bill Clinton didn’t have a 9/11 already happen and then fail to stop Bin Laden! At least Clinton did’t have a CIA report on his desk warning of an impending Bin Laden attack on American soild and still do nothing!”

    Never mind a CIA report !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Clinton had an actual attack on american soil in front of the whole freaking world !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and did nothing.
    Also 3 attacks on Americans elsewhwere in the world in front of the world.
    And did nothing.
    (oh yea, he attacked Bosnia)

    Man, you blew that one.
    I havent seen anyone ever be so wrong on anything…

  7. Micky 2 says:

    “But to pu Saddak in the same sentence, even, as Hitler is inane at best – a rather sneaky way of justifying the worst American foreign policy blunder since Vietnam at worst.”

    There you go again.
    Minimzing the enemy that out troops have offerd to risk their lives to take down.
    Dont try to turn it around into us trying to justify anything.
    We are trying to prove to you that you wouldnt know the enemy if he was sleeping next to you.
    And that you consciously minimize the threat only to propell your childish hatred for anything Bush by trying to make it look as if all our troops sacrifice was for nothing and that Bush was not right in taking down what very well could of been the next big catastrophie.
    Unlike the left and those who minimize the threat and got 3000 Americans killed Bush took action so as to make sure something like that would never happen again.
    He had to clean up 911 which was your mess and then move on to concentrate on making sure that no such thing happened again. Which basically grew to what it was due to more of Clintons constant derilictions of duty.

    I would hardly call all the progress in the last 7 years a failure.

    Go tell that to the troops

  8. Micky 2 says:

    I’m growing tired of your name calling and the denigrating little names you offer me and others such as “inane, dumby, and your smart “A” epithets as you assume evreyone is so much dumber than you.

    Really, I even offerd to change the decorum and came down a notch and offerd us a chance to bring things to a better level
    Since it seems you dont want to do that let me point out an example of just how wrong you are, and why.

    In the above comment you defended Bill Clinton by saying that at least he didnt ignore a CIA report on a desk.

    That wasnt too bright, let me explain why.

    You say that Eric and myself are ridiculous, insane,looney,nuts for comparing Saddam to Hitler.

    lets see how you compare Bush to Clinton and see if you are not looney, insane, nuts,and ridiculous.

    George W Bush has a CIA report on his desk and fails to act.

    Clinton has 4 attacks on Americans , one here at home and 3 abroad and fails to act.

    One guy has a peice of paper, the other has dead Americans all over the world from Yemen to NY city.

    You critisize Bush and compare him to Clinton ? After those facts are presented ?

    Think about that for a while.

    Who is making insane comparisons now ?

  9. Okay Micky, a couple of points…

    The Bush/Clinton/Osama thing – First of all, I’m not a big Clinton fan, so I’m not going to defend him here. And you know how I feel about Bush. But allow me to agree with Bush for a moment here when he said back in ’02, “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” The point here is that Bush or Clinton could have killed Bin Laden and it really wouldn’t have made that much of a difference. Al Qaeda would have lived on, Osama would have become a sectarian martyr, and some other lunatic would have taken the helm in that organization. So as for that entire subject goes, let me agree with Bush and say, “I really don’t care.”

    Another thing – Let’s get back to that old analogy I used involving adults/children/terrorism that you’re so hung-upon. Now, remember, I wasn’t using all children in general in the analogy, but rather “bad” children who seek “negative attention.” In the analogy, we, America, are the adults; the parents in this case. Anti-American terrorists here are the “bad children seeking negative attention.” Now, a good parent knows how to deal with misbehaving children seeking negative attention. The last thing they do is “overreact,” because that feeds right into the need of the misbehaving child to receive the negative attention they’re after. The parents act like adults, and calmly but firmly put the child in his or her place. They do not overreact. Now, if one adult threatens another adult, the other adult has to react proportionately – if a man tries to strike you, you try to block the strike, and may well have to strike them back, or at least physically restrain them, maybe even kill them. If the attacking adult is too much for the attacked to handle, then the attacked is wise to run away. But if a child tries to strike an adult, the adult certainly does not strike the child back (maybe a smack on the bottom, but that’s about it). The adult restrains them and then, again, calmly and firmly handles the situation.

    The analogy here is simple – we are the greatest power on Earth. Al Qaeda is a bunch of sick wierdos akin to child molesters or dog beaters. Lowly, pathetic, scum of the Earth. They are nothing. Bugs. Bugs to be stepped on, squished into the Earth and forgotten. But they are NOT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER a power on par with ourselves or an existential threat to our being. They are just international organized criminal murderers. And what they crave more than anything is to be recognized as a true power, a true threat to humanity, and so the LAST thing we want to do is give them that status. And that moron you cons put in office did just that. He declared a “war” on these lowly slime as if they were Nazi Germany, the USSR, or Imperial Japan – elevating these scum of the Earth to some kind of super-villians worthy of fearful respect. He gave them EXACTLY what they wanted, and the lesson the terrorists learned was that terrorism WORKS. And THAT was the most STUPID thing America has done perhaps EVER.


  10. Micky 2 says:

    “The point here is that Bush or Clinton could have killed Bin Laden ”

    NO !!!

    The point is that you called Eric and I names for comparing Saddam to Hitler.
    And then you went and compared a CIA notice on Bushs desk to 4 REAL LIVE ATTACKS ON AMERICANS WITH DEAD AMERICANS BEING THE RESULT !!!!

    Gee Jeresy !!!!
    Which one do think is more deplorable and neglegent ????????

    Being warned by 4 attacks on Americans, one of them at the trade towers and the other a US Navy ship resulting in 17 dead soldiers or a piece of paper on a desk ???
    HUH ???

    You try to make Clinton out to be more competent than BUSH ???
    When we were getting shot at , blown up and even trying to take down the towers and your best come back is that Bush had a CIA notice ???

    I think actual live real attacks along with dead americans is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more of a reason to go after Bin Laden than a piece of paper that says watch out !!

    You think its nuts and looney and ridiculous to compare Saddam to Hitler and then you go and make a comparison like that ??

    And then you try to divert attention away from your lunatic comparison by saying the point is that Bush or Clinton could of killed Bin Laden.
    You try to change the point so you can avoid embaressment, thats all.

    “I wasn’t using all children in general in the analogy, but rather “bad” children who seek “negative attention.”

    There you go again, distorting things.
    And now you put up some long post trying to explain away.

    You said “unruly children”
    Would you like me to parade that statement up here again ?

    Your comparison of Bushs one peice of paper to Clintons 30 something dead Americans and 4 actual physical attacks on our country.

  11. Micky 2 says:

    He he.
    Oh, so now they’re not “unruly children” they are now “bad children who seek negative attention”

    Even the enemy would be laughing his rear off right now if he heard that.

    Why dont you quit while you’re ahead ?

  12. Okay, “unruly,” whatever. I was just trying to recall off the top of my head. It was an analogy, Micky. Obviously analogies are just not your thing. Kinda like Limbaugh with debating. ;)

    “Your comparison of Bushs one peice of paper to Clintons 30 something dead Americans and 4 actual physical attacks on our country.”

    Micky, my comparison is more than 7,000 dead Americans vs Clinton’s “30 something” (I hated that show).

    As for all your other points – eh, whatever. I stand by everything I said on this thread.


  13. Micky 2 says:

    “Okay, “unruly,” whatever. I was just trying to recall off the top of my head. It was an analogy, Micky. Obviously analogies are just not your thing. Kinda like Limbaugh with debating.”

    There you go again.
    Totally blowing things out of context.
    Wishing for Rush to debate Franken was just that, a wish.

    Aligning terrorist murderers with unruly children is a clear example of misconception, not just making an ordinary wish.
    It is concievable for Rush to debate Franken since they were wished to do something as the people they are in their real physical form and to be nothing other than who they are

    You are comparing terrorists to the people they are not and minimizing the threat by saying they should be handled as children.

    “Micky, my comparison is more than 7,000 dead Americans vs Clinton’s “30 something” (I hated that show).”

    No its not !

    Now you need to straighten out.
    We were talking about Afgahnistan/Al queda, where did the 7000 dead Americans come from ? In Afgahnistan the casualty rate amongst the whole COALITION is on 949 ! And also we were talking about the difference in response by both presidents. to afghanistan/alqueda

    Besides that , you do not address the ridiculousness of saying that a piece of paper, a CIA warning is a better warning than four attacks, one on our own soil right in downtown NY all resulting in dead americans.
    Now, what would be the one situation that motivates you more to take action.
    A memo ?
    Or 4 attacks on Americans and america with dead americans ?
    (an answer would be nice)

    Clinton had so much reaosn it wasnt even funny, even after being attacked 4 times.
    At least Bush went after the bastards the first time they messed with him.

    Please, the only group of people that would buy your (redacted) is at the insane asylum.

    Man you missed that one just like you forgot which war we were talking about.

    This is a joke, you’re just arguing like a guy who lost a boxing match, laying on the mat flailing his arms around in some desperatre attempt to hit something.
    Hows that for an analogy ?

  14. uhangtight says:

    Saddam was evil, it does not matter if he was responsible for as many deaths as Hitler or PolPot (when it comes to shear numbers). The parallel of the evil, is the brutatilty of the actions towards those that he ruled over. Those whose lives were powerless to fight back. That is the path of an evil man. And, don’t forget that his sons were following his path.

    What type of logic does it take to presume that because he killed merely a quantity of people over 1,000,000 makes him less evil? Also, the numbers that we have for Saddam caused deaths may or may not be completely accurate. Germany at the time of Hitler had approximately 76 million people. Iraq has currently a population of 25 million. By extrapulating the numbers Hitler killed 6-10 million people (6 million Jews out of 9 million total) out of the entire population of the European Continent (total population of Europe during the reign of Hitler (approx 200+ Million). Still all in all 3%-5% of the entire European Continent was killed by Hitler. Under Saddam 1.13 million people were killed approximately 3-4% of the entire population. When you consider percentages of popuation Saddam and Hitler are tied.

    Now, if you want to state that Hitler singled out an almost erradicated an entire ethnic group in Europe then maybe he was more evil. Saddam used this method to control the poplation by fear not just Shia but Sunni (his own tribe) alike. Now, that is pure evil.

    Back to Teddie and Bob. Having survived cancer and knowing a little about the subject. Our body’s cells are always producing cancerous cells, but as the body ages our ability to fight these cells diminishes. That is why Cancer researchers tend to look at populations consisting of cancer under age of 40 to determine if a genetic predisposition. Obviously, Teddie and Bob were just getting old. One could wish that they would have retired long ago, but power and the association to power tends to blind even at times the good people, far more so the not so good.

    I agree no tears from me for these
    Two men aligned themselves for self
    The gratification of power over others
    Blinded them and bound them
    Now to the end of their path they go
    May the Lord forgive their souls

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.