Fun & Acid for Ted

"Don't you think that Teddy is one Kennedy too many?" asked Syndicated Columnist Inez Robb last week. She was addressing a mythical Massachusetts ward heeler named James Aloysius Smythe, who did not agree. In fact, Smythe thought that it "was sporting of Teddy to wait until he was 30, instead of asking for an act of Congress or maybe a constitution amendment to lower the qualifying age for U.S. Senators to 25 or maybe even 21."

"It seems to me that this Administration's got a chance to make its mark with the first all-family cabinet in history," Inez continued, putting words into Smythe's mouth. "It'd be a triumph of togetherness. You know my choice for Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare when Abe Ribicoff resigns to run for Senator from Connecticut? Ethel--Bobby's wife! She's got more health than anyone I ever saw. And with all those kids in school, she's got a practical interest in education. And no woman with seven kids wants anything but welfare, particularly her own."

And so it went last week, with fun and acid, as pundits, gossips and editorialists began to ponder Teddy Kennedy's entrance into politics.

In the Kitchen? "We're surrounded," said the Chicago Tribune in mock despair. In Teddy's move, the Tribune thought it could sniff the course of U.S. politics for years to come: "President John F. (1961-69), President Robert F. (1969-77), President Edward F. (1977-), and before you know it we are in 1984, with Caroline coming up fast and John F. Jr. just behind her." New York Herald Tribune Columnist Roscoe Drummond, while noting in a graver vein that dynasties have never had much appeal for U.S. voters, added that "from the standpoint of future Presidential elections, there is just about the right age difference among the Kennedy brothers." Reaching back into history, the Philadelphia Bulletin discussed the dynastic problems of Napoleon Bonaparte, who "had four brothers and three sisters to cope with," but coyly added that "it would be silly, of course, to compare the Bonaparte family with any other, past or present." The Wall Street Journal, noting that some people feel "that if a third Kennedy acquires high national office the rest of us might as well deed the country to the Kennedys," warned Teddy of the perils of losing the Senate race: "He might find that at the next family dinner he would have to eat in the kitchen." Back of the Hand. Not everyone was so amused. "There can be too much of a good-thing," editorialized the Washington Post, which went on to praise Teddy for his modesty--but with the back of its hand: "He has, to use a famous Churchillian phrase, 'much to be modest about.' " In a similar but far less charitable mood, the New York Times acknowledged that "Edward M. Kennedy is just old enough for the Senate but has few other visible qualifications," acidly suggested that relatives of "prominent officials" should "present some solid evidence of talent before they make the sacrifice of starting at the top." The Times's Washington Bureau Chief James Reston predicted that "this whole exercise may prove to be the first Kennedy political blunder in years. In politics, nothing fails like success after a while. One Kennedy is a triumph, two Kennedys at the same time are a miracle, but three could easily be regarded by many voters as an invasion."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.