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.

A Big Tent?

Earlier this week, when Arlen Specter announced he was switching parties, he referred, in his statement, to his election to the Senate in 1980 as part of Ronald Reagan's "big tent" Republican Party.

But in the nearly three decades that have passed, more and more people have felt they were being pushed out of the big tent. And, today, the "big tent" more closely resembles a pup tent.

Specter's switch seems to be a wake–up call for people like David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush.

In The Week, Frum offers suggestions for rebuilding the Republican Party.

He starts out by making a perfectly valid point about the diminishing presence of Republican office–holders in the Northeast.

There was a time when places like Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine were GOP strongholds. Vermont and Maine, in fact, were the only two states to vote against Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt all four times he ran for president. But now, in large part because of the intolerance for opposing viewpoints within the Republican Party, it "retains a minimal presence" in that part of the country.

"It's not like we have so many votes that we can afford to throw them away," Frum cautions. "And yet, some Republicans responded to the defection this week of Senator Arlen Specter by saying: 'Good riddance — don't let the door hit you on the way out.' Others say they would prefer a Republican caucus of 30 principled conservatives in the Senate to a less ideologically pure 40–vote, center–right coalition."

Frum advocates a return to the "big tent," recommending that Republicans "stop eating our own" by running conservative challengers against centrist incumbents in party primaries. It has been suggested by many, including Frum, that this was, to a great extent, responsible for Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, and it's hard to argue with that, given the tough challenge Specter faced from the right in his last campaign — and appeared likely to face next year.

Frum also believes the party must "find some way to make internal peace on the abortion issue."

The party's national platform may always oppose abortion, and most of its nominees may be against it as well. A fairly large segment of the public opposes it and probably always will. But an equally large segment of the public recognizes that abortions will happen, and it is preferable for them to be performed by trained medical professionals in sterile conditions.

It is also preferable for young women who are considering the procedure to have the benefit of counseling — all of which supports the wisdom of Bill Clinton's belief that abortion should "safe, legal and rare."

And it makes sense from a political perspective. "By penalizing pro–choice candidates, Republicans are not only making their party increasingly unelectable in the present, they are repelling the very people who might help restore electability in the future," Frum writes.

Republicans aren't the only ones who have had to wrestle with doctrinaire conflicts. When Clinton was first nominated in 1992, Pennsylvania's Gov. Bob Casey was not allowed to speak at the Democratic convention. Casey claimed it was because of his pro–life views. Organizers said it was because he had not publicly endorsed the Clinton–Gore ticket, even though others who had not endorsed the ticket, including other pro–life Democrats, were allowed to speak.

Those speakers, however, did not focus on abortion when giving their remarks. Casey made no secret of his desire to give a minority plank on abortion and claimed he was being censored for his views.

Frum also argues that "politicians have to be allowed some leeway to vote the interests of their constituencies."

Clearly, each state and each region has unique needs and interests.

"I've never heard anyone derided as a 'Republican In Name Only' for opposing the closing of redundant military bases, or for supporting Medicaid reimbursement formulas that favor the South and West at the expense of the Northeast and California, or for favoring lavish FEMA reconstruction projects after hurricanes and tornadoes," Frum writes. "Why not apply equal latitude to other regional concerns?"

Frum says he wants to see the Republicans build a national consensus. "Right now, I fear, the Republican mood is not conducive to party building. It's a mandate for party shrinkage. Our current demand, to paraphrase P.G. Wodehouse, is for 'fewer and better Republicans.' Better is always nice. But in democratic politics, quality is no substitute for quantity."

Frum makes fair points, and they are ones the Republican Party must consider if it wishes to be an active participant in discussions of the national direction.