Melissa Lafsky: Insane Liberal of the Week

Age:30

Birthplace: Washington D.C.

Claim To Fame:ex-lawyer and liberal writer

Why She’s The Most Insane Liberal of the Week: for making the gall suggestion that Mary Jo Kopechne may’ve thought her death, caused by Ted Kennedy leaving her to drown in the back seat of a submerged Oldsmobile at Chappaquiddick in 1969, was “worth” Kennedy’s legacy!?! “Despicable” would be an understatement, but then Lafsky article epitomizes the Left’s continued attempts to whitewash Ted Kennedy’s legacy, while spitting on the grave of Mary Jo Kopechne. So callous and partisan is Lafsky that she decides that since Ms. Kopechne was a “progressive”, maybe she wouldn’t have minded drowning for Kennedy.

Sayeth the soulless bitch that is Melissa Lafsky:

“Mary Jo wasn’t a right-wing talking point or a negative campaign slogan. She was a dedicated civil rights activist and political talent with a bright future…Then she got in a car driven by a 36-year-old senator with an alcohol problem and a cauldron full of demons, and wound up a controversial footnote in a dynasty…

We don’t know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she’d have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history…

Still, ignorance doesn’t preclude a right to wonder…what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.

Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.”

Yeah, I’m sure that Mary Jo Kopechne’s parents, friends and family would feel the exact same way.

Worth it, just so Ted Kennedy could go on and crack jokes about that fateful day in Chappaquiddick for 40 years.

Worth it, because Kopechne, young and bright in her own right, certainly didn’t have a chance to become a great political mind in the future.

Worth it, so the overrated Kennedy, a man totally unpopular outside of Massachusetts, could continue to live the lavish life off the famous Kennedy name while working tirelessly to expand government programs regardless of costs and lead the blockage of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.

Ted Kennedy, who at the time of Chappaquiddick, had already had a reputation as a hard-partying pol while maintaining the facade of a happily married father of three, waited 10 hours before reporting the accident. He later told cops that he “panicked”. Yet, soon the sordid details emerged. Kennedy and some other married pals had spent the weekend at a cottage with the “boiler room girls,” Kopechne being one of them. After receiving nothing but a suspended license, Kennedy would go on television, apologize and become the “greatest senator ever” according to Barack Obama and most of his minions on the Left.

And that includes Melissa Lafsky, who obviously feels that Mary Jo Kopechne was a mere blip on the screen who had to be wiped off so Ted Kennedy could become great.

They have no shame. None.

35 Comments

  1. Phoenician, were you always a total and utter moron or are you in the terminal stages of that disease you people down there get by eating your ancestors?

  2. Phoenician, were you always a total and utter moron or are you in the terminal stages of that disease you people down there get by eating your ancestors?

    “Incestors” is more like it, I suspect …

  3. It’s almost as stupid as talking about Iraqis being happy to have their husbands, wives and children blown up in teh cause of liberation…

    Geez, talk about having no shame or backbone.

    A young woman was left to die a horrible death. The man who let her die is close to being revered as a saint. And all you can do is pathetically whine while trying to make some sort of a moral relativistic statement?

  4. This is one of the most discusting things I have ever heard. I wounder if Ms Lafsky would be asking the same questions if it was one of her family members that was left to die in the back seat of Kennedy’s car. Kennedy should have been convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison for his actions that evening.

  5. Oh, I can picture it now, as Miss Kopechne was clawing at the windows, seeking that last bubble of trapped air in the car, calming herself and thinking, “Well, I sure hope this unfortunate incident doesn’t derail Senator Kennedy’s career.”

    With this one, I’ll use my fairly frequent line at work when someone says something really crazy: “The drug test lady will be here tomorrow.”

  6. A young woman was left to die a horrible death.

    Uh-huh.

    The man who let her die is close to being revered as a saint.

    Uh-huh.

    You people sat back and made jokes when Rachel Corrie was murdered. And you expect us to believe that you give a shit about Mary Jo Kopechne save as a stick to beat a man who spent the rest of his life proving himself to be more humane and a better American than any of you?

  7. Rachel Corrie was a radical twit who allowed herself to be used by terrorists. Her demise in an Arab-run hospital may not have been the result of her initial injuries. Only dead martyrs count.

    Perhaps the jokes about were helped to undermine her ‘martyr’ status.

    As for Mary Jo, her involvement in the Bobby Kennedy campaign was a rather legitimate act. The party that she left with Ted featured a lot of the ‘Boiler Room Girls’ who worked hard for a person (Bobby always tried to be on the winning side) who could exude the Kennedy charm. She may be faulted for her judgement in being alone with a Kennedy but no one can see her as being a willing pawn for terrorists.

    Some of us still make light of Ethel Rosenburg.

  8. Thank you for proving my point, Art. You have no concern for facts, truth or the actual reality of the dead, save as you can use them as ammunition for wingnut obsessions.

    You substitute self-righteousness for empathy, and you wonder why people despise you.

  9. Being despised by some people is taken as a badge of honor.

    I feel no empathy for traitors, thugs, nor terrorists. I feel utter contempt for their apologists and sycophants.

    I express my views openly, under my own name. This included (signed) op-ed pieces, testimony at legislative hearings, speaking before hostile audiences, engage in public debates, and participating (and encouraging) public demonstrations.

    Contrast this to the pseudo-activism of mouse-potatoes who cower behind fanciful screen names.

  10. Art, your posts using your real name do not earn for you any credibility when your spin is so revealing.

    On this topic, I continue to be amazed at the hatred exhibited by you and other right wing fringe folks toward Kennedy. You folks have no perspective, and you totally lack in grace and respect.

    Here is what grace and respect are all about:
    “When I came to Washington, I hadn’t the slightest idea that I would eventually have a strong working relationship with and love for the man that I came to fight. And if you would have told me that he would become one of my closest friends in the world, I probably would have suggested that you need professional help. But that’s exactly what happened. People called Teddy and me the odd couple, which was certainly true. There are few men with whom I have had less in common.”
    Senator Orin Hatch

    Phoenician continues to try to offer perspective, but it flies over your heads. Noone doubts Kennedy’s downsides, but compare that to those of you who support our wars on foreign soils, the death and destruction we create. Both are abominable. But Kennedy has been contrite, and apologetic, and devoted his mature years to public service. How many of you have expressed contrition for our wars of choice and their ramifications?

    I think it is Kennedy’s politics, as much as anything else, that drives those on the right fringe to excess, to lack perspective:

    “He was an unreconstructed Great Society liberal who was determined to fight for health care, civil rights, and social justice. When Kennedy made deals with Republicans, everyone was sure that he would be back the next year to fight for more. It was the second part of this equation that is crucial to understanding his legislative style. This is why the most ardent liberals respected him so much at the very same time that Republicans genuinely appreciated his role as dealmaker.”
    Julian E. Zelizer, Princeton University

    Like I said to JohnC, and I will say to Mr Grey Ghost and ‘other Dana’, a little introspection could go a long, long way.

  11. As a heavy equipment operator, I also have somewhat less sympathy for Rachel Corrie. A bulldozer operator cannot see through the blade, and cannot see exactly what he is doing; he uses the clues generated by the action of the blade, normally the debris trail pushed to the side, to tell him what effects his actions have had. If someone is stupid enough to stand in front of a moving bulldozer, thinking that his brave action will stop it, he has another think coming.

    Miss Corrie chose to act as a human shield; shields serve the function of stopping or deflecting incoming ordinance, but they do not “deter” ordinance. Miss Corrie’s choice was a poor one.

  12. Miss Corrie’s choice was a poor one. Dana

    As in the spirit of: “You chose poorly, Grasshopper.”

  13. Phoenician @ 30 August 2009, 6:12 am

    It’s curious that you seem utterly incapable of making a moral judgment that just *might* be against one of your political idols (which would be any with a ‘D’ after their name). Protection at any cost, or even sadder yet, pull out something someone on the right has done that you perceive as evil and use it to justify your protection of a liberal.

  14. Phoenician continues to try to offer perspective, but it flies over your heads.

    Under our feet is more like it.

    Sorry Perry, but Pho is up to his usual garbage. Barges in, completely changes the subject, goes off on his typical anti-American rants, then insults and attacks the character and morals of other people here. Not a good way to make friends and influence people.

  15. As a heavy equipment operator, I also have somewhat less sympathy for Rachel Corrie. A bulldozer operator cannot see through the blade, and cannot see exactly what he is doing; he uses the clues generated by the action of the blade, normally the debris trail pushed to the side, to tell him what effects his actions have had. If someone is stupid enough to stand in front of a moving bulldozer, thinking that his brave action will stop it, he has another think coming.

    OFFS – go and watch the documentary.

    It’s curious that you seem utterly incapable of making a moral judgment that just *might* be against one of your political idols (which would be any with a ‘D’ after their name).

    Riiiiiiight.

  16. Eric, each of us has our own style of communicating our respective views.

    If I step back from my own ideology and attempt to be as objective as possible, I find Phoenician to be on point and to give perspective, always well researched and documented.

    The reason certain commenters here recoil, is that she comes over as anti-American. If she were American, would that make any difference? It does not matter, it is the issue that matters, and we Americans ought to take it that way, in my view.

    My point is, we should be examining her points, not that she is a NZer, but that she has made a statement that can be considered as a statement of concern. If she were not concerned, she would choose not to participate here.

    Her participation keeps you on the Right on your toes. Moreover, more often than not, instead of responding in the spirit of debate and discussion, the responses often either never happen, or do happen in the form of personal attacks.

    What I like most about her, other than I share many of her views, is that she tries to step back, give perspective and insight, and challenge assumptions. Be glad to have her participation here. I am!

    PS: By the way, if you go to her web site, you will discover that Phoenician is a female.

  17. And besides everything else here, Melissa Lafsky is really cute, don’t you think?

    And this, Perry, is the only thing I agree with you about on this thread. :)

  18. Interesting? Uh oh!

    Phoenician, I was going on this clue, and the fact that you never corrected me: “Needless to say, I am not a Masterton woman.”

    Eric, looks like you are correct, I think!

  19. Well, Miss Lafsky might be physically attractive, but, last time I heard, there was no particular correlation between looks and intelligence. Perhaps like Maureen Dowd, she got where she is with some writing ability and a lot of feminine pulchritude, but little at all in the was of sense or judgement.

    Of course, it’s always possible that she wrote this deliberately, to seek controversy and notoriety, in sort of the “all publicity is good publicity” vein. I really don’t know anything else about her.

  20. Eric, each of us has our own style of communicating our respective views.

    Well, I don’t want to beat the point to death, but I think there are ways to communicate that don’t invariably piss off everyone in sight.

    I sometimes post on a well known liberal blog, and while I do post provocative points that go against the political/ideological grain, I try not to get in personal pissing matches with the regulars there, nor do I make a habit of attacking them or impugning their intelligence or morality. One can disagree on Iraq, for instance, or interrogation methods used on terrorists without having to resort to the “America sucks” kind of attitude. In short, you can make a point without intentionally stepping on toes. That’s one reason I’ve held off on the Ted Kennedy bashing while his friends, family and fans are still in a state of mourning. There’s plenty negative to say about the guy, and I’ve said plenty while he was alive, but this doesn’t seem to be the appropriate time right now.

  21. And besides everything else here, Melissa Lafsky is really cute, don’t you think?

    Well, I’ll agree that she is physically attractive. But her “Point” was stupid at best, and highly insensitive at worst. Again, I’ll refrain with bashing Ted directly, but I won’t say the same for his enablers, the people who thought being a liberal, and especially being a Kennedy, entitled one to ignore the rules that apply to the peasantry. And this woman is definitely an enabler, making excuses and trying to whitewash the truth just because she supported Teddy’s liberal agenda.

  22. Phoe, chances are that I’m the only person here, and maybe even the only person you “know,” who has every actually run heavy equipment. I don’t know if the operator in question knew that Miss Corrie was in the way or not, or whether he had orders to just proceed through, regardless of what or whom he saw, but when it comes to running heavy equipment, you should always trust me.

    To the right is a picture of an armored Caterpillar D9R used by the IDF. Look at it closely, and you tell me just what the operator can and cannot see from the cab. The D-9 is one of the larger bulldozers that Caterpillar makes.

    According to the Wikipedia article, there’s dispute concerning Miss Corrie’s death. The IDF claims that the operator did not know she was there, couldn’t see her, and that she was killed by debris pushed by the dozer, not the blade itself. Naturally, the Usual Suspects claim that no, the IDF killed her deliberately, and that the operator deliberately squashed her a second time.

    Joe Carr, an American ISM activist who used the assumed name of Joseph Smith during his time in Gaza, gave the following account in an affidavit recorded and published by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR):

    Still wearing her fluorescent jacket, she knelt down at least 15 meters in front of the bulldozer, and began waving her arms and shouting, just as activists had successfully done dozens of times that day… When it got so close that it was moving the earth beneath her, she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer… Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer’s blade, and the bulldozer driver and co-operator could clearly see her. Despite this, the driver continued forward, which caused her to fall back, out of view of the diver. [sic] He continued forward, and she tried to scoot back, but was quickly pulled underneath the bulldozer. We ran towards him, and waved our arms and shouted; one activist with the megaphone. But the bulldozer driver continued forward, until Rachel was all the way underneath the central section of the bulldozer.

    The eyewitnesses who claimed that Miss Corrie was known and visible to the operators were all people who had a political grudge against Israel; their word cannot be taken as unbiased or objective, and I do not. We don’t really know who was telling the truth, but, on the whole, I’d believe the Israelis.

  23. Phoenician, I was going on this clue, and the fact that you never corrected me: “Needless to say, I am not a Masterton woman.”

    I make a point of never correcting people in their gender assumptions, or confirming or denying when asked outright. I’ve seen it drive some commentators *insane*. It’s very amusing, Perry – you should try it. Or perhaps you already have…

    People with limited self awareness tend to reveal themselves if you give them enough room. The people who deride feminism, and yet need to know what sex you are in order to respond to you in a gender-appropriate way, for example…

    I don’t know if the operator in question knew that Miss Corrie was in the way or not,

    Well, you could try watching journalism and draw your conclusions rather than blindly accepting whatever government propaganda you want to believe in, but if you were able to do that, you wouldn’t be a wingnut.

    The eyewitnesses who claimed that Miss Corrie was known and visible to the operators were all people who had a political grudge against Israel; their word cannot be taken as unbiased or objective, and I do not.</i.

    Israel was, at this point, bulldozing the homes of civilians in a land they occupied by force. That you choose to believe the IDF is telling; haven’t you learned anything from your denial over torture, the lies that started the invasion of Iraq, etc etc etc?

  24. BTW – from here:

    I have found many other instances in which authoritarian followers show a double standard in their judgments of people’s behavior or the rightness of various causes. For example they will punish a panhandler who starts a fight with an accountant more than an accountant who (in the same situation) starts a fight with a panhandler. They will punish a prisoner in jail who beats up another prisoner more than they will punish a police officer who beats up that second prisoner. (Remember when I said in chapter 1 that high RWAs will go easy on authorities, and on a person who attacks someone the authoritarian wants to attack?) On the other hand I have found it difficult to catch low RWAs using double standards. In all the cases above they seem to operate by principles which they apply in even-handed ways.

    So – a young woman killed in a tragedy by a guy driving recklessly, who performs badly on the scene, and then spends the rest of his life doing well – something to be bought up at every possible turn as a means to attack his very real subsequent accomplishments.

    A young woman killed in a tragedy, probably deliberately according to the witnesses and the camera footage, by a foreign army engaged in destroying civilian homes – something to make jokes about when you’re not attempting to paint her as a criminal.

    And the reason is – because you disliked Kennedy and you like the IDF.

    You need to read the book, Dana. Of course, you won’t.

  25. Melissa reminds me of the character “Hadassah” on the comedy show “Crank Yankers”.

  26. “Melissa reminds me of the character “Hadassah” on the comedy show “Crank Yankers”.”

    One of the amusing things about the organisms of the left, is their constant refrain that “right wingers” employ “double standards” of moral judgment.

    You are, I know, familiar with this from having seen it in other venues, wherein a lefty would illiterately attack another poster for being “stupid”.

    When it was pointed out to the lefty that its screed was prima facie evidence of its own distinct lack of brilliance, the typical response was a question along the lines of, ” How come you are criticizing me for errors, when you never criticized your own? You are engaging in a double standard!”

    The questions of what constitutes “one’s own”, why a leftist is entitled to be judged by the same standard, or why an intrusive nuisance and parasite does merit negative attention when a harmless individualist doesn’t, aside; what seemed to be invisible to the lefty was his own manifest hypocrisy and stupidity in making the attack.

    Lefty calls Righty stupid for making posting errors. And, Lefty implies that Righty cannot now be taken seriously because of those errors. But, in the very act of posing as judge and making this condemnation of Righty, Lefty exhibits his own profound factual ignorance and errors.

    When this situation is pointed out to Lefty, does this then imply to the leftist’s mind that he has just proved his own untrustworthiness?

    Not as far as Lefty is concerned. What Lefty thinks it proves, is that the person noticing his errors was guilty of a double standard in the first place: for not earlier attacking Righty too.

    Another closely related example of the queer mental set-up of the leftist, is their constant “dehumanization” (to use an exhausted word) of the opposition; while refusing (or fearing) to recognize the implications of the inferior alien subspecies paradigm they have themselves put in place.

    Let’s say that they, as they often do, say that some conservative’s political opinions on public policy, as manifest in and through the electoral process of a representative democracy, are worthless and invalidated because of some “cultural” or educational shortcoming attributed to the conservative.

    What’s her name Marcotte, was an good example of this tendency recently when she labored on in a posting about an adversary whom she imagined had never read certain “classics”; classics which she of course (supposing she actually knew any) could not trouble herself to name.

    Now, what do you suppose the reaction of someone like that would be when it was pointed out to them that the voting population of the City of Detroit had been evaluated as the most liberal Democrat population in the country; that the percentage of voting age citizens supposedly registered was among the highest in the nation; that voter turnout among those supposedly registered was often suspiciously high; and, that of those voting age citizens comprising the pool from which those who were supposedly registered were taken, 47 or so percent were judged to be functionally illiterate?

    What you would get, as I have found out in broaching just this point with lefties, is not an admission that the citizens of Detroit are according to the lefty’s own standards probably incapable of effective self-government, but an abandonment of the previous criterion for judging political competency.

    But then no one ever accused lefties of having a sense of honor; just persistence.

  27. Wow, it’s a good thing I can type this commemt because I don’t know how long it will take to get my jaw back in place from it hitting the floor as I read this article. Unbelieveable.

Comments are closed.