Ted Kennedy has malignant brain tumor

Message

JBillyGirl · #1 Post by **JBillyGirl** » Tue May 20, 2008 11:20 am

Just read this breaking news headline on the NYT website; no details yet.

Bob Juch · #2 Post by **Bob Juch** » Tue May 20, 2008 11:29 am

Not good.

And NY Gov. Paterson is in the hospital for migraine symptoms which also could indicate a brain tumor.

JBillyGirl · #3 Post by **JBillyGirl** » Tue May 20, 2008 11:32 am

More from the NYT:

Doctors for the Massachusetts Democrat say tests conducted after Kennedy suffered a seizure this weekend show a tumor in his left parietal lobe. Preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma, they said.

His treatment will be decided after more tests but the usual course includes combinations of radiation and chemotherapy.

The 76-year-old senator has been hospitalized in Boston since Saturday, when he was airlifted from Cape Cod after a seizure at his home.

His wife and children have been with him each day but have made no public statements.

His doctors said in a statement released to The Associated Press that he has had no further seizures, is in good spirits and is resting comfortably.

Malignant gliomas are a type of brain cancer diagnosed in about 9,000 Americans a year -- and the most common type among adults. It's a starting diagnosis: How well patients fare depends on what specific tumor type is determined by further testing.

Average survival can range from less than a year for very advanced and aggressive types -- such as glioblastomas -- or to about five years for different types that are slower growing.

HelpBrainTumorPatients · #4 Post by **HelpBrainTumorPatients** » Tue May 20, 2008 11:46 am

We were never expecting Senator Kennedy to show up on our doorstep. I'll call my friend HelpLiverCancerPatients and tell him he can prepare that bed he had reserved for Teddy for someone else....

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #5 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 am

Bob Juch wrote:Not good.

And NY Gov. Paterson is in the hospital for migraine symptoms which also could indicate a brain tumor.

I have been to the hospital for migraines. Migraines don't always mean brain tumors.

Bob Juch · #6 Post by **Bob Juch** » Tue May 20, 2008 12:12 pm

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:Not good.

And NY Gov. Paterson is in the hospital for migraine symptoms which also could indicate a brain tumor.
I have been to the hospital for migraines. Migraines don't always mean brain tumors.

Of course, but if one happens for the first time in an adult, that's certainly something to check.

ghostjmf · #7 Post by **ghostjmf** » Tue May 20, 2008 12:19 pm

I had my 1st migraine as an adult, in my 40s. And my 2nd, 3rd, etc. Mine were pretty much cycling with the hormones. Now that the hormones are bye bye, I have fewer migraines, but I still get them. I am glad I didn't know the brain-tumor correlation or I'd have had something to be paranoid about. Also, after years of being told "don't worry, they don't weaken your blood vessels to allow strokes", the thought is that they do weaken your blood vessels to allow strokes.

gsabc · #8 Post by **gsabc** » Tue May 20, 2008 1:25 pm

If Teddy decides not to run for re-election, Romney runs for the seat if he's not a Cabinet official by then. You heard it here first.

earendel · #9 Post by **earendel** » Tue May 20, 2008 2:20 pm

gsabc wrote:If Teddy decides not to run for re-election, Romney runs for the seat if he's not a Cabinet official by then. You heard it here first.

Why would Hillary choose Romney as a Cabinet secretary?

Bob Juch · #10 Post by **Bob Juch** » Tue May 20, 2008 2:22 pm

ghostjmf wrote:I had my 1st migraine as an adult, in my 40s. And my 2nd, 3rd, etc. Mine were pretty much cycling with the hormones. Now that the hormones are bye bye, I have fewer migraines, but I still get them. I am glad I didn't know the brain-tumor correlation or I'd have had something to be paranoid about. Also, after years of being told "don't worry, they don't weaken your blood vessels to allow strokes", the thought is that they do weaken your blood vessels to allow strokes.

In this case it's actually glaucoma per his doctor.

He had a laser procedure and went home.

ToLiveIsToFly · #11 Post by **ToLiveIsToFly** » Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

gsabc wrote:If Teddy decides not to run for re-election, Romney runs for the seat if he's not a Cabinet official by then. You heard it here first.

Romney may run, but he has no chance of ever being elected anything again in Massachusetts.

gsabc · #12 Post by **gsabc** » Tue May 20, 2008 7:05 pm

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:
gsabc wrote:If Teddy decides not to run for re-election, Romney runs for the seat if he's not a Cabinet official by then. You heard it here first.
Romney may run, but he has no chance of ever being elected anything again in Massachusetts.

Wouldn't bet on that. We're a perverse bunch, and Mitt did give Ted a run for his money a couple of terms ago. Lord knows I wouldn't vote for him, but then, I never have.

The Democrats in the state legislature are hoisted on their own petard. When Republican Mitt was governor and Kerry was running for President, it became possible that Mitt would be appointing Kerry's replacement as Senator. To prevent the oossibility of a Republican being named to complete the term, the state legislature changed the rules so that in the event that a Senator doesn't complete his/her term, there has to be a special election within some period that I've forgotten - 120 days? 90? So now the Democratic governor Deval Patrick won't be able to choose Ted's replacement, should it come to that. There's already a Republican challenger to Kerry, whose re-election is coming up. I have no idea who would run on the Democrat side to replace Ted.

#13 Post by **Bob78164** » Wed May 21, 2008 12:55 am

gsabc wrote:
ToLiveIsToFly wrote:
gsabc wrote:If Teddy decides not to run for re-election, Romney runs for the seat if he's not a Cabinet official by then. You heard it here first.
Romney may run, but he has no chance of ever being elected anything again in Massachusetts.
Wouldn't bet on that. We're a perverse bunch, and Mitt did give Ted a run for his money a couple of terms ago. Lord knows I wouldn't vote for him, but then, I never have.

The Democrats in the state legislature are hoisted on their own petard. When Republican Mitt was governor and Kerry was running for President, it became possible that Mitt would be appointing Kerry's replacement as Senator. To prevent the oossibility of a Republican being named to complete the term, the state legislature changed the rules so that in the event that a Senator doesn't complete his/her term, there has to be a special election within some period that I've forgotten - 120 days? 90? So now the Democratic governor Deval Patrick won't be able to choose Ted's replacement, should it come to that. There's already a Republican challenger to Kerry, whose re-election is coming up. I have no idea who would run on the Democrat side to replace Ted.

Is there some reason the Legislature couldn't change the rules again? --Bob

gsabc · #14 Post by **gsabc** » Wed May 21, 2008 6:25 am

Bob78164 wrote:
gsabc wrote: The Democrats in the state legislature are hoisted on their own petard. When Republican Mitt was governor and Kerry was running for President, it became possible that Mitt would be appointing Kerry's replacement as Senator. To prevent the oossibility of a Republican being named to complete the term, the state legislature changed the rules so that in the event that a Senator doesn't complete his/her term, there has to be a special election within some period that I've forgotten - 120 days? 90? So now the Democratic governor Deval Patrick won't be able to choose Ted's replacement, should it come to that. There's already a Republican challenger to Kerry, whose re-election is coming up. I have no idea who would run on the Democrat side to replace Ted.
Is there some reason the Legislature couldn't change the rules again? --Bob

No, but as I said, MA voters are a perverse bunch. Huge majority for the Democrats in the state legislature and the Congressional group, but frequently we vote in a Republican governor. Patrick is the first Democrat to hold the office since Dukakis left, and there have been many more Republican than Democratic governors since the 1960's. There could easily be a backlash if the General Court (as our legislature is called) flips back on this subject. Maybe if this happened in Texas, it would be okay and expected.

hf_jai · #15 Post by **hf_jai** » Wed May 21, 2008 8:49 am

Several Western (and generally red) states have laws that say the governor must select a replacement from the same party as the vacating senator. In fact, I believe that happened in Wyoming (?) last year. Too bad MA didn't think of going to that solution, but I suppose it wouldn't be politically feesible now.