My husband thinks I am a conspiracy theorist.

[TNNurse]

Am I the only one who thinks the reason to make the movie "Chappaquiddick" is that there is a rising star in Kennedy family in government????

I will tell him if you agree with him.

[kimbutgar]

1. I agree, why bring up this forgotten story for over 50 years ago than disparage the Kennedy name?

[TNNurse]

5. Thanks, I feel better someone agrees with me.

There is no way in HELL I would watch this movie. Though I am sure there are lifelong Kennedy family haters who have not forgotten it.

[Honeycombe8]

20. Conspiracy hadn't occurred tome, but I did think it was odd to make that movie...

it's being billed as one of the most "something" in American politics or something.

I thought it was odd because a lot of people don't know about it, no one really has all the facts about it, and Ted is dead, so not as much interest in it, any more.

We should see who bankrolled this. That would tell us something.

I don't connect it with the new Kennedy, though. That's a big stretch to visit prior bad behavior of an ancestor on a descendant. That's a lot of money to spend for such little payoff, if that's the goal.

[raven mad]

84. Honeycombe8, NOT kidding -

I had just said the same thing about bankrolling when I first clicked on this post. And prior bad acts of the farthest-back you can find is really nothing the Repukes would shy from.

[Honeycombe8]

90. Turns out it's produced by liberals. Seems to be just a money thing for them.

I really find this tenuous to connect that incident with today's politics, even Kennedy descendents.

Reagan's family felt the same way about the movie about Reagan.

[raven mad]

96. I wasn't thinking so much about the actors, extras etc nor the director or producer.

Nope, I was thinking "money guys", the "backers". Who fronted the Yuuuuge $$$$$$ it takes to put a movie in pre-and post production and filming? Where did the money for advertising, promotion, editing, props, permits, makeup, cars/trucks/boats etc; location purchase, lease or rent ⛺, costuming and wardrobe come from? I've never been involved in "$$how Biz" but I hear stuff...😊. And it occurred (to me, anyway, but I'm weird) these areas would be fairly easy to $lither into 🐍 without being noticed. From what I have read (usually in Vanity Fair), if the movie just HAS to be made, it's "in my soul" (producer) or "wrapped around my heart" or the lead part was "written for me" they don't care who the backing comes from.

I'm probably treeing the wrong raccoon, but coincidence??? Nah. The cadre of GOP thugs 💂in D.C. these days won't even stop at murder.

[Honeycombe8]

97. It's my understanding that that's what the exec producers are. The money guys.

They don't get involved in the actual production or anything. They put up the money, and have some rules and timelines & whatever, then they recoup their costs + percentages. Although they get that money from others often. That's between them and the suppliers of the money. And it's not the money suppliers whose idea the movie is. Someone goes to a producer (or a producer to a supplier) and asks for backing.

But there are liberals all over the place for this movie. They wouldn't have signed on if it was a hit piece for Republican purposes, I think (not most of them, anyway).

They're in the business of making money from movies. That seems to be the purpose. Hannity wanted to interview one of them...the director or one of the producers....but he refused, since he didn't want to play into the Republican hype of the movie.

[Hortensis]

94. Tell your husband "reason" is the word, goal and action taken.

Not conspiracy. All media that could affect large political figures are going to be manipulated.

I would surprised if that were not at least ONE of the impetuses behind this, and perhaps a very significant one. For sure the Kennedys would be very interested in a movie about them.

Another reason, btw, goes the OTHER direction. The young prince's appearance on the political scene has sparked renewed (market) interest in the Kennedys.

Neither negates the other. Better to think more in terms of synergy.

[bearsfootball516]

2. I dont think your necessarily a conspiracy theorist

But, I don’t think it was created because of the current Kennedy. The timing is coincidental.

[LiberalFighter]

61. As Gibbs would say "Rule 39"

There is no such thing as coincidence.

[TheBlackAdder]

76. Dang! I keep confusing Rule 39 with Rule 34 :-D

[crazylikafox]

3. I thought the exact same thing when I saw the trailer last night.

Joe Kennedy III.

[nolabear]

4. Depends on who made it. Did you look into that?

[Tanuki]

6. I think there is also an element of "whataboutism,"

so that when more info about Spanky Tariff's sexual misconduct comes to light, right wingers can pivot the discussion to Chappaquiddick.

[jberryhill]

8. That's precisely what this is

[ToxMarz]

39. Exactly. My mother wants to go see it for EXACTLY this reason

You can't say anything bad about Trump, what about the Kennedys!

[Tumbulu]

7. Plus it is yet another attack on all liberals.

It is a conspiracy all right. No theory. They already staged the coup. They want to dismantle the federal system. They are doing it from within and without and everyone thinks this poor guy Muller is going to save us?

It's over as far as I can tell.

Just somehow keep hoping that I am wrong.

[NCTraveler]

9. Might be the reason why.

There is this. It has all that is necessary to make a great movie.

[asiliveandbreathe]

10. I have been wondering the same thing TNNurse...why now??

Born and raised in Mass.. a very sad story....we can all agree..I am sure Joe Kennedy is well aware of the headwinds he faces....they are going to throw everything at the wall to see if it sticks....look at what Brown tried to do to Liz Warren - and the Dotard is still doing it....

Mass. voters are issues voters..who for the most part, vote for those politicians who do the most good, for the most people.....

[jberryhill]

11. I'm with other commenters on this one - it's bigger than that

It's an attempt to minimize Trump's behavior.

At the end of the day, Ted Kennedy had been drinking, had driven off alone with a staffer, tragedy ensued, and he reacted poorly. It was what it was. It was a failure of character in an avoidable crisis.

But I think it has less to do with the "Kennedy name" than it has to do with "At least Trump hasn't killed anyone" (that we know about anyway).

[Texin]

89. Not only that, but Teddy's marriage to Joan was a tragedy in and of itself.

She was an alcoholic and hated politics. Put that together with a Catholic non-escape marriage and you have a prescription for misery - for both of them. At the end of the day, I don't believe it'll engender much excitement even with tRump devotees. It ain't about him, after all, and it only reinforces what they thought all along. These Forevertrumpers people have never been anything else but who they are. They despised the Kennedys back in the day and their views certainly haven't been altered over time. The younger folks don't want to see biopics about politicians.

[Sophia4]

12. Yes. But the movie will soon be forgotten.

[phylny]

59. This is my thoiught as well.

If they wanted "impact," they should have waited until September or later.

[patricia92243]

13. I am not a conspiracy theorist usually, but in this case I believe there

is a definite stab at the Kennedys and Democrats in general. Getting started on the dirt before the elections

[wishstar]

14. Mark Ciardi, the producer is a Republican

No question the people behind this movie want to influence public opinion negatively against Democrats and liberals by implying that no matter how bad Trump might be, he is still not as bad as a Kennedy.

[Hoyt]

15. I think actor and diector's comments are interesting.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston.com/culture/entertainment/2018/04/05/why-the-story-of-chapaquiddick-is-relevant-today-according-to-its-star-and-director/amp

Truthfully, I think it is just a film they knew would appeal to a lot of people, including white wing haters.

In any event, not interested in watching.

[LanternWaste]

16. An unsupported hypothesis is not a conspiracy. It's simply speculation.

An unsupported hypothesis is not a conspiracy. It's simply speculation. And (idiots aside) speculation is human nature.

If you start drinking cases of Red Bull while placing post-it notes attached to each other by colored yarn on the walls, miss work, read only that which validates your hypothesis, and fill your posts with a wall of blue links taking us to Russia Today or youtube, but never peer-reviewed research, then you're a conspiracy theorist.

But as it stands, idle speculation is never a bad thing.

[TNNurse]

28. Thank you, I laugh so little these days.

[druidity33]

73. yeah that was good wasn't it... had a chuckle too. nt.

[world wide wally]

17. There is no other reason to make this movie after so many years except to slam the Kennedy name

A Trump scandal movie would be bigger if it was just about money.

[BlueJac]

18. K&R from Florida...

Why else make the movie. I remember quite a bit about it. I was also wondering what ever happen to the JFK files that got some attention then dropped off the face of the earth!

[mgardener]

19. Great minds think alike

That was my first thought.
But. Ted Kennedy's son was Congressmen till a few years ago.
I just think the republicans are in PANIC mode are flinging you know what like monkeys to see what sticks!

[The Polack MSgt]

21. Part of the never ending stream

Of both siderism.

Yeah the GOP elected a criminal but but but - TED KENNEDY!!!

[BigmanPigman]

22. CNN (aka fake news)

has been running a series about the Kennedy family from the 1930s up until ? It is good and maybe will counteract any negative "Kennedy" themed movies.

[mtngirl47]

23. I thought the same.

Plus, right wing nuts that I know frequently throw Chappaquiddick out there to justify whatever the Republicans do....plus Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's emails and Benghazi.

Trump and all the Republicans trying to change the subject.

[UpInArms]

86. Reminds me of what I wrote years ago

Scandals and Lies

[tiptonic]

24. U got it

U got it right lady. There is a reason for everything they do. The are scared to death, of Joe Kennedy

[BobTheSubgenius]

25. I agree with you!

That being said...a conspiracy might well exist, and the more I think about it, the more that seems to be the case.

And, just because an idea or concept is a "theory" doesn't mean it's not true.

[AZ Jim]

26. Wrong

Your Hubby is wrong!!!

[griloco]

27. I hope they finally link Hillary to it...

[erronis]

29. With $$s from RW pockets such as the Mercers/Kochs - they don't even care if you watch it

They just want to be able to cite it as another fux reality in a debate between talking heads.

Their "base" (all paid for or dope'd) has a visceral reaction to a "Kennedy" or other well-known liberal political person If those people end up going to a theat(er/re) to watch, small change to the bottom line or the intent.

Fux & Fiends will present trailers/spoilers/excerpts/etc. ad nauseam until the POS watching his T.V. becomes obsessed and rants about East Coast liberals, immigrants, bridges, infrastructure repair, and his FANTASTIC approval ratings!

Watch those stubby fingers fly!

(Controlled from afar.)

[lapfog_1]

30. saw a trailer this morning on morning joe

"a gripping story of how THIS FAMILY used FAKE NEWS to maintain a DYNASTY in American Politics."

So yeah, it's is squarely aimed at any politician who has a last name of Kennedy and / or is related to Ted, John, or Robert.

Not a conspiracy if they are so blatant about the motive.

[Enoki33]

31. I agree with you it is a pre-emotive strike, and not coincidental.

[Honeycombe8]

32. I don't think so. Looks like it's liberals who made & produced the movie.

It's just a money thing, looks like. They're already defending it, and say they're not playing into the hands of rightwingnuts about the movie. Hannity wanted them on his show to discuss it, but they refused.

Besides, it would be a longshot to think that spending this kind of money on a movie about someone would have any effect on a descendant 50 years later. It's not like it's a movie about his being a Nazi sympathizer.

I think I recall seeing a made for tv movie about it years ago.

One of the exec producers is comedian/tv show owner-producer Byron Allen.

[brooklynite]

33. I agree with him.

Setting aside the question about why a story about a relative 50 years ago would influence anyone's decision to vote for a candidate today, did you bother to check who produced/wrote/directed the movie and what their political leanings before assuming they're all anti-Kennedy?

[TNNurse]

35. If you do not think the scum in the GOP will use this against Joe Kennedy, I hope you are right.

I do not care who made it, it is a bad idea. It cannot be flattering. It was an awful mistake.

[brooklynite]

41. If they try to , they won't need an obscure movie that few people will see to drive their narrative.

FWIW, Kennedy has been running for office since 2012; nobody's brought Chappaquiddick up.

[bullimiami]

34. Seemed odd to me too.

[dameatball]

36. I think that what was behind the "Swift Boating" story would make a more interesting movie

[former9thward]

37. Many people who think this is a conspiracy to cover for Trump

will run into some inconvenient facts. The film began shooting in 2015 long before Trump was elected. That means it went before producers before Trump even announced. So the film was being produced at a time when H. Clinton was thought to be the front runner for the election and she would be serving for 8 years. So to say the film was to cover Trump or to attack the younger Kennedy is not in line with reality. Whether you are a CTer or not is for others to say.

http://deadline.com/2015/12/sam-taylor-johnson-chappaquidick-ted-kennedy-fifty-shades-of-grey-1201666821/

[mountain grammy]

38. I agree with you.

and I don't care who made the film, it's been told before and has no value but to smear the Kennedy's and Democrats.. I think the only ones who want to see it are liberal haters, so maybe we'll know what we're up against.
Me, I'm hoping they lose a bundle on this movie.

[brooklynite]

42. So, the Churchill biopic was indented to make Theresa May and the Conservatives look good?

"It's been told before".

[mountain grammy]

82. Just my opinion for what it's worth, probably nothing.

Haven't seen the Churchill biopic you're talking about so don't know what you're talking about.

[FromMissouri]

40. Of course there exist conspiracies

Rough around the edges, but sound examination of Chappaquiddick:

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. With all due respect that theory is crazy.

Occam's Razor- Parsimony of assumptions. The most likely explanation is true. Ted Kennedy was the driver in a traffic accident where someone died and reacted poorly.

The reason he didn't run in 1976 is because every election has a theme and after Nixon probity was the theme of that election.

[Boomerproud]

47. I'm still waiting for someone to ask John Dean what he meant on the Watergate tapes when he said

"We've got Teddy just where we want him." (either a quote or paraphrasing).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Nixon was obsessed with the Kennedys. That's well documented.

[FromMissouri]

63. of course

All conspiracy theories are crazy. Nobody ever conspires to manipulate public perceptions. Ignore the men behind the curtain.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I will defer to Benjamin Franklin

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."



Oh, this makes no sense at all:

The third clue is Ted's withdrawal from the presidential race in November 1975. It is a fact that all of his and Robert's children were being protected by the Secret Service for five days in November 1975. A threat had been made against the children's lives unless he officially announced his withdrawal. He made the announcement and has stuck to it ever since. The Secret Service protection ended the day after he made the announcement.

Why did the Power Group let him run in 1980 ?

[FromMissouri]

69. I'm not saying this guy has the whole conspiracy figured out.

It's just the best scenario I've run across. It kind of annoys me that few researchers have looked deeper into the whole thing, as Oliver Stone did in "JFK". Or the movie "Executive Action", also JFK. When I read it the first time, I thought the threats against the kids was the weakest part of the argument, but the way it was set up, with the tire prints indicating that the car may have stopped before it accelerated over the edge... with the movie coming out, I believe now is the time to pay closer attention to the forensics. Public interest, you know, though I have a bit of a problem with "Power Control Group"... but we have to call them something, right? I mean, IF they exist...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. The Power Group stopped him from running in 1976 but didn't stop him in 1980

Doesn't that raise a big red flag to you ?

As to Chappaquiddick accidents happens and some accidents result in fatalities.

[FromMissouri]

67. the funny thing is, the movie probably takes your point of view

There was heavy weirdness around the whole thing, impossible assertions, narratives that just didn't fit together. At the time, I was thinking, Perry Mason could figure this out. But Ted was pressured mightily to accept the narrative forced on him... afterward, he was a haunted man. Sure, haunted by the perception that he had killed her. But there was simply more to it than the public narrative.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. What narrative ? What point of view.

He drove his car off a bridge and the passenger died. He didn't report it to the next day. Almost everything else is conjecture and supposition.


Why did the Power Group murder a young woman to prevent him from running in 1976 but allowed him to run in 1980?

The (Power) Group hired several men and at least one woman to be at Chappaquiddick during the weekend of the yacht race and the planned party on the island. They ambushed Ted and Mary Jo after they left the cottage and knocked Ted out with blows to his head and body. They took the unconscious or semi-conscious Kennedy to Martha's Vineyard and deposited him in his hotel room. Another group took Mary Jo to the bridge in Ted's car, force fed her with a knock out potion of alcoholic beverage, placed her in the back seat, and caused the car to accelerate off the side of the bridge into the water. They broke the windows on one side of the car to insure the entry of water; then they watched the car until they were sure Mary Jo would not escape.
...


The third clue is Ted's withdrawal from the presidential race in November 1975. It is a fact that all of his and Robert's children were being protected by the Secret Service for five days in November 1975. A threat had been made against the children's lives unless he officially announced his withdrawal. He made the announcement and has stuck to it ever since. The Secret Service protection ended the day after he made the announcement.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html

[FromMissouri]

71. I don't know

Cover?

It's not like he was going to beat the incumbent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. If the Power Group believed him to be all powerful why wouldn't they believe he could beat Carter?

[evilhime]

43. Makes perfect sense to me

And I had also thought the timing was a bit too coincidental... but I think they blew it . . . He's a real threat in a couple of years, not quite yet. And as we know the memory of the sheople in this country is real short!

[zentrum]

44. Yup.

Look for the deep funding on this one, buried in some RW shell company.

[ashredux]

46. No real reason to make this......

Won't make any money......just trying to tarnish the Family name

[alittlelark]

50. They are certainly spending a fortune on advertising................

.............

[alittlelark]

49. U R Spot ON !!!!

I had a couple people tell me that I must be paranoid as well..

[bluestarone]

51. Gotta agree with you here!

Anything to stop another Kennedy, which they WILL NOT DO!! I'm with you here!

[smirkymonkey]

52. I am not sure if that was the intention, but I am certain the republicans will pounce

on this in order to discredit Joe III. However, anyone in their right mind won't pay any attention. The incident is almost 50 years old and Joe III had nothing to do with it, so anybody holding it against him is just a fool. He should be prepared for it though, because it will come up. There is no limit to how low they can go.

[woodsprite]

53. I said the same thing, and my husband thinks Im extreme. N/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Joe is Joe. Ted is Ted.

Most people know the Kennedy legacy is complex but is positive overall. Those who are reflexively anti-Kennedy don't need a movie to confirm their biases.

[madamesilverspurs]

55. My immediate thought was, "Seriously?!"

And it was followed by "hmmmmmm..." That was when I first heard about the movie. Not necessarily a conspiracy theorist, but the timing and subject matter do beg a certain distrust of motives.


.

[Nitram]

56. I think it's an attack on the Democratic Party and liberals in general.

[Kentonio]

57. Its clearly an attempt to besmirch Democrats

Not necessarily the new Kennedy, but the party in general to provide some counter to the endless sleaze coming from the GOP. This helps them paint a ‘all politicians are bad’ narrative. You’re not a conspiracy theorist, this is a very deliberate political move.

[Anon-C]

58. I am a bona fide conspiracy theorist, and I believe that's far-fetched.

Attention is power and introducing a new generation to the Kennedys, even in infamy, would probably only popularize Joe Kennedy to a further degree among younger voters quite unfamiliar with the family.

And tell your hubs not to use conspiracy theorist like its a bad thing.

[wendyb-NC]

60. Absolutely

The rethug machine, will go to any length in order to boggle promising democrats, and dis democrat's efforts to get the country back on track again.

[TNNurse]

62. I am sharing some of your comments with him. I believe the responses are generally on my side.

So, thanks.

[Niagara]

65. I googled 'is director john curran a republican"

it took me to a website [link:http://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/local-news/adam-interviews-chappaquiddick-director-john-curran/1095431782|.....turns out John Curran the director of Chappaquiddick is a fan of Teddy Kennedy. If I linked this correctly you can read and watch the interview by Adam Chodak.

[barbtries]

66. i don't know

you'd have to tell me who's backing it. there will always be movies about the Kennedys. not saying you're wrong, i just don't know.

by the way my son says I'm obsessed. the middle son that is. the youngest seems to get it, the oldest doesn't want to talk about. obsessed with what you may ask? the president, the republicans, the state of the country.

[WhiteTara]

74. No. You are not a conspiracy theorist

Carolyn is thinking of running for office and Joe is an incredible politician already and is destined for higher office.

This movie and the teevee show are both designed to put a taint on them both. Your husband sounds like a nice guy, but is being naive about republicon active measures.

[mcar]

75. I find the timing suspicious

Plus it is getting slammed for its inaccuracies.

[Lunabell]

77. My wife said the same thing.

Which Kennedy is running in 2020? That's the only reason to dredge up this trash.

[Blue_true]

81. There is a Kennedy in Congress.

Joe Kennedy III. Appears to be a solid family man, wife, two kids, I think.

[dchill]

78. I agree with you; disagree with your husband.

Tell him, "Duh."

[arthritisR_US]

79. I agree with you.

[democratisphere]

80. Definitely a redumbliCON hit job on the Kennedy name.

redumbliCONs are the lowest form of evil and hatred.

[raven mad]

83. Joe, III is going to kick butt -

and I certainly wouldn't put it past RWNJ's to financially back a movie that shows the family in a bad light.

[peggysue2]

85. I don't think you're a conspiracy theorist at all

It was my first thought when I heard about the production. Why bring up the event after all these years except to ding the clout the Kennedy name still carries, particularly with a new Kennedy face and voice entering and making an impression in the political arena?

In politics, there's no such thing as coincidence.

That being said, I read a review of the movie and it honestly sounds like a fair, even-balanced script. Still, the timing is more than a little suspicious.

[dlk]

87. A Pathetic Attempt at Both-Siderism

No one is as Disgusting or truly awful as Trump. He wins the prize!

[Texin]

88. I'm in complete agreement with YOU!

Now, I don't think that movie is going to garner much enthusiasm by the typical moviegoer. And, frankly, I'm not entirely buying into it being able to lure Shitler's devoted fools. But this being dredged up now is suspicious.

[Vinca]

91. That didn't cross my mind, but I did wonder if it wasn't an attempt to trash Democrats

pre-November blue wave. I do like the newest up and comer from the Kennedy clan, though.

[floWteiuQ]

92. More like.....

Hollywood and the rest of the movers and shakers in TV land are bankrupt on new ideas. And, all they can do is rehash old crap! Like Roseanne. WTF.

[mahina]

93. Absolutely.

Teddy’s been gone for so many years, and now??? Just as Joe is starting to be known?

They try to tear down everyone good. Hang in there Joe.

[lunatica]

95. I cant think of any other reason to do it

Why Chappaquiddick? It’s not like it was a terribly influential event in American history. Frankly it’s not of any importance and has never been solved or reconciled.

What possible value does the story have on anything happening today? The answer is none.

It will also not garner interest from anyone anymore. It hardly did before.

None of the Milennials even know much about specifics of the 20th Century and this story is ancient.

And no one is going to be interested enough to bother watching it.