Choosing Kennedy's Successor

Ted Kennedy's body is in its final resting place.

The eulogies have been given. The mourners have returned to their homes. The president is back in Washington. Kennedy's congressional colleagues are wrapping up their late summer break.

And, back in Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts, attention is turning to his successor.

Gov. Deval Patrick announced today that a primary will be held Dec. 8 and a special election will be held Jan. 19. Hillary Chabot of the Boston Herald writes that "[e]arlier today, Democratic lawmakers hit the gas on a push to appoint a temporary successor to Kennedy, moving up a public hearing on the legislation to Sept. 9."

Frank Phillips writes, in the Boston Globe, that "[a]ll eyes now are on Joseph P. Kennedy II ... with family members and political allies expecting him to make a decision very shortly."

There had been some talk, in the days before Ted Kennedy's funeral, that his widow might be persuaded to take his place. Most indications are that she is not interested. Chabot, in fact, writes that she told Patrick today that she is not interested. But there is some doubt. Chabot's colleague, Edward Mason, reports, in the Boston Herald, that a "Democratic operative with Kennedy contacts" has said that Victoria Kennedy is "very much interested" in being her husband's temporary replacement while the voters choose his successor.

So it falls to Joe.

"No other Kennedy of his generation with the political stature to step into the role has signaled interest in it," Phillips writes.

And the entry of a Kennedy into a special election campaign shortly after the death of Ted Kennedy apparently would have a chilling effect on the field of potential contenders.

Phillips writes that two Kennedy loyalists who have been considering seeking the job — Reps. Edward J. Markey and Michael Capuano — "would not run against a member of the family."

Joe wouldn't have an open shot at the Democratic nomination, though. Phillips reports that "[t]wo other major Democratic figures considering entering the race — Attorney General Martha Coakley and Rep. Stephen F. Lynch — have told associates they plan to compete for the primary nomination no matter who enters."

Personally, though, I find it hard to imagine Massachusetts Democrats nominating someone else if any Kennedy was on the ballot.

And, even though some Republicans in Massachusetts have expressed an interest in the seat, I find it even harder to believe the voters in the Bay State would elect one to the Senate over a Kennedy or some other Democrat — even though they did elect Mitt Romney governor in 2002. During Kennedy's tenure, only two Republicans — Edward Brooke, a black progressive who earned his reputation by prosecuting organized crime and contributing to the investigation that led to a conviction in the "Boston strangler" case, and former Gov. Leverett Saltonstall — were elected to the Senate from Massachusetts.

Only Democrats served as Kennedy's Senate colleagues from Massachusetts in the final 30 years of his life.

The other day, when I wrote about Teddy Kennedy Jr.'s eulogy to his father, I observed that he was not a likely choice to take his father's place because he lives in Connecticut. Today, Phillips sets me straight on the fine points of the law in Massachusetts.

Teddy Jr., Phillips acknowledges, "lives in Connecticut but owns a house in Hyannis Port. This would not be an issue, however, as there is no residency requirement of a U.S. Senate seat."

Even so, "he has given no indication publicly that he is interested in the seat."

And that brings us back to Joe, who increasingly appears to be the sole hope for those who wish to see the Kennedys keep the Senate seat in the family on a long–term basis.

Ideologically, he appears to be well suited to succeed his uncle. When he was in the House, Joe's high ratings from Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the Committee on Political Education (COPE), Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) mirrored Ted's.

And the two got similarly low ratings from groups like the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the National Security Index (NSI) of the American Security Council.

In the meantime, I suppose, all eyes — especially those in the Oval Office — will be on Patrick and the Massachusetts lawmakers — and whether they will grant Ted Kennedy's dying wish to have an interim successor named to speak for Massachusetts in the Senate — and preserve the Democrats' "filibuster–proof majority" for the rest of 2009.

Bobby Kennedy's 'Moral Compass'

Spiritually, I suppose, Bobby Kennedy was father to a lot of people.

In reality, he had an exceptionally large family. He had 10 children during his lifetime and an 11th was born after he was assassinated in June 1968.

That's a bigger family than the one in which he grew up -- and Bobby Kennedy didn't exactly come from a small family. He was the seventh of nine children.

The other day, I reflected on my memories of Kennedy's assassination, using as one of my sources a New York Daily News article by Kennedy's oldest child, Kathleen, but mostly relying on my own (admittedly faulty) memory, remembering what that time was like for an 8-year-old who was witnessing what was one of the most remarkable years in American history unfold.

Today is the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's shooting. He lingered for more than 24 hours before he finally died, so tomorrow will be the actual anniversary of Kennedy's death.

And, to mark the occasion, Kennedy's oldest son, Joseph P. Kennedy II, recalls, in the New York Times, "how my father listened with rare empathy to everyone."

Kennedy truly had gifts that this year's presidential candidates have lacked.

"He lived by a moral compass that others, less certain of their direction, looked to for guidance," Joseph Kennedy writes. "Even if what he asked was hard to hear and heed, he gave others the strength to believe not just in his guidance but in themselves."

Evan Thomas says in Newsweek that Bobby Kennedy's role in the 1968 campaign represents "one of history's great 'what ifs.'"

Thomas makes what may be one of the great understatements when he observes, "It's safe to say that his presidency would have followed a different course from that of Richard Nixon.

"And it may just be," he continues, "that American politics would not be endlessly refighting the 1960s" if Kennedy had not been assassinated and had gone on to be elected president.

There are, to be sure, some problems with this guessing game.

To win the nomination, he would have had to overcome Hubert Humphrey and the support he had from the party bosses across the country. These bosses still controlled who their state's delegates voted for, and "Kennedy was regarded as too 'hot' and too radical by the big city and Big Labor chieftains," Thomas points out.

If one makes the assumption that Kennedy could have overcome the obstacles within his own party, Thomas says, he "would have faced a formidable foe in Richard Nixon in November.

"The New Nixon was an expert at divide and conquer, and he was building a Silent Majority of white middle-class Americans fearful of rioting blacks and hippie college radicals."

Again, if one makes the assumption Kennedy could have overcome both Nixon and George Wallace in the general election, he would have faced his own difficulties enacting his progressive agenda.

Perhaps he could have done it.

"He was at once passionate and detached," Thomas writes, "a rare combination but essential in a leader."

By the way ...

There's been talk in Massachusetts recently that Joe Kennedy might be a candidate for his Uncle Ted's Senate seat -- if Edward Kennedy has to step down because of his brain tumor.