March 29, 2026

BATYA UNGAR-SARGON: Love Story: The Death of the Kennedy Myth and the End of the Political Nepo Baby.

The show is about John and Carolyn, but it’s also very much about what it meant to be a Kennedy back in the day. And one of Love Story’s strengths is the way in which it constantly seems to be putting before the viewer the question of whether these people, these Kennedys, were deserving of all the attention they got. And it certainly leaves open the possibility that the answer to that question is no.

Like most of the TV that’s made these days, it was a visual smorgasbord of the conspicuous consumption of the rich and famous—ostentatiously set breakfast tables, gorgeous beach homes, endlessly expanding loft apartments, beautifully appointed rooms and stunningly tailored clothing. But the beautiful interior shots are contrasted with the absence of an inner life when it comes to the main characters, who appear to spend no time at all dwelling on ideas about the world or anything that extends beyond their own personal crosses.

What were JFK Jr.’s politics, beyond “generic Democrat”? What did he think about the world around him? The character portrayed in Love Story is motivated only by careerism. He fails the bar. He doesn’t like being a lawyer. Will his magazine, which only exists because he can trade on the family name, succeed? He has no thoughts beyond making sure his image lives up to the expectations of the family name.

A more pretentious show might have given us evidence that there was more to John than his need to be a Kennedy. But this show allows the viewer to contemplate the very real possibility that there just . . . wasn’t. The point wasn’t to make the world a better place; it was to be seen doing so.

Exit quote: “The replacement of public service with careerism is one of the defining problems in our elites today. It’s not that older political celebrities weren’t personally ambitious, of course. But there was a worldview there, a theory of the case about why you wanted to be the one to assume power, what you would do if you were given the chance.”

Some notable exceptions apply, however: “The Question:” Ted Kennedy and the Pitfalls of Running for President. “One of the most obvious questions a candidate may be asked is why do you want to be president? Why you? Why now? This isn’t the 19th century, after all, when presidents had to be dragged to the White House under the guise of modesty. Why do you want to be president is a simple question with a complex answer–and candidates should be prepared to offer one. Failing to do so could be fatal to any campaign. Just ask Ted Kennedy.”

Related: Paramount made bank on a film titled Love Story in late 1970 and much of 1971. It seems odd to see its title recycled by another production, though apparently one as equally trite:

Posted at 4:45 pm by Ed Driscoll

HE’S NOT WRONG:

Even the History Channel concurs:

 

Posted at 4:24 pm by Ed Driscoll

I DON’T BELIEVE THIS IS THEOLOGICALLY SOUND:

Posted at 4:11 pm by Glenn Reynolds

GREAT LOW ACID COFFEE: Puroroast sent Glenn some of the French Roast to try and as usual, I wanted to try it too. I have had trouble drinking coffee in the past because it always caused stomach pain so I thought “Why Not?” Even one of my health providers told me to give it a try. I’m glad I did. It is like night and day with no stomach pain but even more amazing is the great bold taste that is smooth at the same time. I actually like it better than my regular coffee. If you have reflux or stomach issues, give it a try. Highly recommended.

Posted at 2:58 pm by Helen Smith

ANALYSIS: Absolutely True.

Posted at 2:14 pm by Ed Driscoll

AS WELL-FUNDED AS THESE COMMIE GROUPS ARE, YOU’D THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO HIRE SOME ACTUAL TALENT:

Posted at 12:48 pm by Stephen Green

SICK:

Posted at 12:26 pm by Stephen Green

PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS: Tony Blair says the Left has to end its ‘unholy alliance’ with Islamists to stamp out anti-Semitism.

‘Progressive’ politicians are failing to tackle leftwing anti-Semitism because they won’t tackle the ‘unholy alliance’ between parts of their movement and hardline Islamists, Tony Blair has warned.

The former prime minister said that figures on the left are failing to confront extremists who see all Jews as supporters of Israel and the Netanyahu regime and therefore ‘fair game’ for violence and intimidation in the wake of the Israeli war in Gaza.

His intervention comes after an arson attack that destroyed four Jewish community ambulances in Golders Green, north London, last week.

Sir Tony, who is now involved with Donald Trump‘s Board of Peace initiative, said that while people were free to criticise Israel for its actions in killing thousands, they were failing criticise the Hamas terror attack which triggered the war, and the groups actions during the fighting.

Writing for CBS chief executive Bari Weiss’s The Free Press blog, he said: ‘The problem is that, under pressure from party activists and parts of the Muslim community, many progressive politicians who do sincerely reject anti-Semitism are not making these arguments, and failing to take head-on this literally ”unholy alliance” between parts of the Left and Islamists in our own societies whose ideology leads inexorably to anti-Semitism.

‘Because failure to do so creates the climate in which, even if anti-Semitism is not explicitly condoned, it flourishes.’

He also warned that ‘without a challenge to the ideology that encourages anti-Semitism, while clothing it in indignation at the human cost of war, incidents like the one with the ambulances will continue to the shame of our society.’

That’s nice. But it was Tony Blair’s Labour Party that created the conditions in which antisemitism flourishes in 21st century England: Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

—The London Telegraph, October 23rd, 2009.

Posted at 12:00 pm by Ed Driscoll

I MEAN, HE’S NOT WRONG:

Posted at 9:39 am by Glenn Reynolds