Job One

---

---

Not everyone is as fortunate as Josh in "The West Wing." Of course, I doubt that Josh's character thought of himself as fortunate.

In the attached clip, Josh is struggling with post–traumatic stress disorder, brought on by injuries he suffered during a presidential assassination attempt. Leo, the chief of staff, tells him a story and assures him, "As long as I've got a job, you've got a job."

Millions of Americans could use that kind of connection these days, even if they don't suffer from post–traumatic stress disorder.

Being unemployed is traumatic enough these days. Jobs are in short supply, there are more applicants for every opening than there have been since the government started keeping track of these things, and now the government is on the verge of taking away the lifeline that is keeping many out–of–work Americans going — their unemployment benefits.

The New York Times, in an editorial it ran yesterday, urged Congress not to forget the least of these. True, hundreds of millions of dollars already have been committed to the big corporations that were in danger of going under earlier this year. No one really seems to have much of an appetite for adding to the national debt. Presumably, the investment that has been made in saving the big companies eventually will translate into more jobs.

But what shall be done about the unemployed in the meantime? Shall they be permitted to slip beneath the waves? What is the alternative? Shall America allow the victims of the recession to be further victimized? If we can keep the banks and the auto companies afloat, can't we keep middle–class and lower–income families from going under?

If the president and the Democrats need any more convincing that job creation is the key to their electoral fortunes in 2010, John Harwood of the New York Times has a reminder: "Whatever the fate of health care legislation, persistently high unemployment has made 'Where are the jobs?' the most potent Republican campaign argument as next year's midterm elections come into view."

If Harwood isn't blunt enough, maybe Robert Kuttner is in his piece on The Huffington Post. Perhaps his headline sums it up for vote–conscious Democrats: "It's the Unemployment, Stupid."

All That You Can't Leave Behind

---

I found this on YouTube today.

---

Tonight, mourners have gathered in Boston to pay homage to Ted Kennedy.

It is closed to the public, but it is still being televised on CNN and C–Span. It has been alternately moving and amusing to listen to the eulogies from both Democrats and Republicans. As vilified as Kennedy was in life for his liberal leanings, it has been enlightening to listen to people like Orrin Hatch and John McCain speak with genuine affection for a friend.

But, as I have been reading the articles on the internet — and viewing videos like the one I have posted — it has occurred to me that Ted Kennedy, like Richard Nixon, has one Achilles' heel that will be with him as long as there is an American history that is chronicled in the history books.

For Nixon, it was Watergate. For Kennedy, it was Chappaquiddick.

It was inevitable, I suppose, that Kennedy's death would bring another round of discussions about that incident.

The Week reported that "Kennedy's name was Google's top search term the day after his death, but Mary Jo Kopechne and Chappaquiddick were Nos. 2 and 3."

And some writers, like Michael Scherer in TIME, mentioned it only in passing. Scherer referred to it as one of Kennedy's "darkest moments."

Howie Carr of the Boston Herald briefly brought up Chappaquiddick in a general article that recites all of Kennedy's shortcomings.

There has been much talk in tonight's memorial for Kennedy of the late senator's love of humor. Tom Blumer writes, for NewsBusters, that Chappaquiddick was one of his favorite topics.

To be sure, some people defended Kennedy. Melissa Lafsky speculated at The Huffington Post that Kopechne, "a dedicated civil rights activist and political talent with a bright future," might have "felt it was worth it" to trade her life for Kennedy's career.

Boy, that sparked a debate.

Rick Moran responded, in American Thinker, that it was "maybe the most amazingly shallow, myopic, and ultimately self–centered sentence ever written."

Perhaps that is unduly harsh. Personally, I believe that, unless one possesses the selflessness of a soldier, who knows he might at any moment have to sacrifice his life for others, no one is ever prepared to die at the age of 28.

So I thought Lafsky's article was interesting but a little preposterous.

Especially when I consider Eliott C. McLaughlin's survey of media experts for CNN.com, asking if Kennedy's political career could survive a Chappaquiddick in the 21st century — "in the era of blogs, talk radio and 24–hour news cycles."

It's a fair question. The media has changed considerably in 40 years.

I remember, at the time, that Chappaquiddick was overshadowed, to a great extent, by Apollo 11 and its historic trip to the moon. If we could return to July 1969 and everything else was the same — but talk radio, blogs and 24–hour news were part of the media mix — I agree that Chappaquiddick would be a source of continuing discussion — even as the lunar module was descending to the moon's surface.

Heck, with split–screen technology, both stories could be covered simultaneously.

And I think Kennedy's career might well have been over. But I'm thinking from the perspective of one who has just been through an election year in which reverence for political dynasties was brought into question. In 1969, Kennedy, I believe, benefited from a reservoir of affection that Massachusetts had for John and Robert Kennedy and the Kennedy family.

We may find out in the months to come whether that reservoir still exits as Massachusetts chooses a replacement.