In her article in the Waukesha Freeman today, discussing the life and death of Senator Ted Kennedy, McBride states (emphasis mine):
I’m not going to be one of those tossing cheap ideological arrows at his casket, however. I didn’t always agree with his politics, but I recognize that he strived [sic] to make a difference in matters relating to the public interest. I am able to separate that from Chappaquiddick and recognize him for those actions, but I am not able to separate Chappaquiddick from the life story of the man. So, it’s not that the media should have mentioned only Chappaquiddick or trashed the man in death. But a little more restraint, a little less “lionization” was due.That's a fair and honest approach for a conservative to take, right? I would say so.
The problem is, the above paragraph came after this one (again, emphasis mine):
There were many Ted Kennedys, certainly. He deserves, even in death, sadly, to be defined by his worst act, even if it was 40 years ago, because those are 40 years that Mary Jo Kopechne never got to live. However, he also deserves to be recognized for contributing something positive to the community as well, even as he bore what must have been an almost insurmountable family sorrow and even as his life was occasionally troubled in the years that followed. The Kennedy story has always been one of great highs and lows. To whom much is given, much is expected.Something tells me that she didn't do the same thing for Reagan when he died.