Personally, given the choice between fawning over a man who drove drunk and killed someone doing it but expressed sincere remorse, never drove drunk again, and went on to redeem himself through dedicated service to his country, and fawning over a man who caused the deaths of thousands of American citizens (soldiers and Katrina victims) through negligence, cronyism, and downright perjury–not to mention all but raped the Constitution (and also drove drunk in his day, but had the sheer dumb luck not to kill anyone doing it)–and has given no sign whatsoever of remorse (let alone tried to fix the tiniest part of the misery he caused), I’ll choose the repentant drunk driver any day, thanks.

Unlike many self-professed Christians, I actually believe in the power of redemption if one is willing to repent. I’m no Christian, but Jesus was right on that score, at least.

I really don’t give a damn about the difference between the speech and his personal life. It’s disgusting that Democrats would honor such scum to begin with. It highlights the ludicrous hypocrisy that invovles stringing up any Republicans for the slightest faux pas while fawning over a philandering drunkard who let a poor girl suffocate to death in car while he slept off his hangover and worked out an alibi with his lawyers.

At least one day soon he’ll be down with his brothers and Mary Jo Kopechne will be able to rest easy and if the best you can do is justify his disgusting actions by saying ‘other politician’s have done it,’ that shows how any democrats will turn a blind eye to anyone with the last name of “Kennedy”

If we were grading politicians on their personal lives, many of the greatest statesmen would get dismal failing grades. (And many lesser statesmen would as well, of course.)

But yeah, other than that pet peeve, nice analysis. I look forward to reading the rest of the series.