It appears that President Kennedy's sister Eunice has died and that brother Teddy is not long for the world. We will at that point be left without any of the issue of Joseph and Rose, only their grandchildren.
When Teddy goes, can we all agree that the Kennedy "dynasty" is dead, and that continued discussion of their relevance on the American stage is little but longing for a day long past? There is no question but that the children of Joe Kennedy had a good run. President, Senator, Senator, Senator, Congressman, Attorney General, Presidential Candidate, Presidential Candidate, Founder of the Special Olympics, war heroism. Clearly this was a group of accomplished Americans who left their mark in a special way on the 20th century.
But what of the children of this group? They have been unremarkable, save for the well-publicized forays into drug addiction, murder, rape, and other unseemly behaviors. Yes, there was a Lieutenant Governor in there, and a Congressman (in rehab), and an ex-publisher who openly sought the New York Senate seat by acclamation.
But a "dynasty"? C'mon now. It is time to end this strange fascination with a strange family.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Good arguments for the death tax, no?
Give Eunice her props. The Shriver strain of the Kennedy clan is far and away the most decent of the bunch.
I'm with you on the present group of lowlife Kennedys though. And besides their name and frat-boy behavior, they seem to share an incredible sense of entitlement. The fascination DOES need to end.
p.s. there is one other sibling besides Teddy, Jean-the Clinton-appointed Ambassador to Ireland and mother of rapist William Kennedy Smith.
No Anon--I will never concede to their being a tax on money already taxed.
Wasn't there also one who was institutionalized?
Yes, Rosemary, who had learning disabilities so Daddy Joe decided to have her lobotomized. She lived for several decades at a home in Wisconsin before dying a few years ago.
(I'm a bit of a Kennedy buff-which doesn't mean I like them, but I DO find them intriguing).
I don't like taxes either, but I have to wonder at the notion (above a certain threshold) that one's successors should be able to fritter away fortune, etc. that they bore no role in helping to create or perpetuate. Sure leave them enough to be comfortable in their sloth and dalliances, but then take the rest to contribute to something socially worthwhile like funding busts of William F. Buckley in public spaces.
Funding busts of william F. Buckley a wonderful homage to a great thinker who I am sure would not support the idea in any fashion.
Same old story with the Kennedy family. Power can be corrupting and for them it certainly was. The thing that fascinated me about the Kennedys was their image. They were seen as attractive, intelligent, positive, athletic and fun loving. I guess they really were all of those things but every characteristic has a dark side (their "fun loving" womanizing comes to mind).
They were a paradox, but it's all over now.
Post a Comment