This is from memory, while I was driving. Nothing in quotes, therefore, but I think I’m getting the gist.
National Public Radio, talking about Ted Kennedy’s legacy, says that already, a battle is shaping up between two factions: Those who will remember him as a champion of the oppressed, of minorities, of the underprivileged, of the poor; and those who favor his skills as a negotiator, as a compromiser, as a reacher across the aisles.
Nothing, not a word, about remembering the murderer of Mary Jo. Drunkard and a groper. Pal of communist thugs. Destroyer of the Constitution. Enemy of defense. Enemy of self-defense. Nothing about being one of the most hated politicians in America, outside Massachusetts, outside liberal circles, outside the fans of totalitarian statism.
And some say the media is biased. Wow. How short sighted.
Update: Ah, here’s the transcript of the debate between flaming liberal E.J. Dionne and glowing liberal David Brooks:
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:Joining us now, our two political observers: E. J. Dionne of The Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times. Welcome back to both of you.
Mr. E. J. DIONNE (Columnist, The Washington Post): Thank you so much.
Mr. DAVID BROOKS (Journalist, The New York Times): Good to be here.
SIEGEL: And we do have some other political developments to talk about. But first, you were both here earlier this week when Senator Kennedy died. You’ve both written about him this week: last thoughts about Ted Kennedy – first E.J.,.
Mr. DIONNE: You know, politics being polarized as it is, people are already arguing about the true meaning of Ted Kennedy’s legacy. On the one side, you have people saying he was an outspoken crusading liberal, a friend of the dispossessed. The other says, he was a warm bipartisan figure who could work with anybody. And of course, he was both of those. He was an empathetic and warm human being who could work with anybody. But he could make deals precisely because he knew what he wanted and where he wanted to move the country. And I think the lesson that Ted Kennedy teaches is that politicians with strong principles are better at compromise than people who don’t know what they really want or what they believe.
SIEGEL: David, you agree with that?
Mr. BROOKS: I do agree with that and he was formed by the constitution. That’s what the constitution wants. We have this, I think since even, since his brother John F. Kennedy, we’ve had the stream of the dominating politician, the charismatic leader who will sweep all before him, and I have to say, I think George Bush and Barack Obama are sort of captured by that image of what a leader is. But if you’re in the Senate in particular you can’t do that. You have to bring people together. It takes a different set of skills, a different set of intelligences.
And it’s a much more team-oriented sport, politics at that level. And I think Kennedy was raised with one style of leadership but emerged to find that he was very talented at the much more team-oriented style of leadership.
Wow, that’s some battle. Fierce. Uncompromising. Takes no prisoners.
Cute little girls in pink PJs have a pillow fight in a pink room.
I believe the Down-Tickling-Her-Button-Nose award goes to E.J., though.