Republicus

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Name:
Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Friday, May 05, 2006

Above The Law And Double-Standards


At approximately 2:45 A.M. Thursday morning, Capital Police saw a car--operating with its running lights turned off-- narrowly miss a collision with a Capitol Police cruiser but smashing into a security barricade at First and C streets Southeast.

“The driver exited the vehicle and he was observed to be staggering,” Officer Baird’s letter states.

Officers approached the driver, "who declared to them he was a Congressman and was late to a vote. The House had adjourned nearly three hours before this incident. It was Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy from Rhode Island.”

Baird wrote that Capitol Police Patrol Division units, who are trained in driving under the influence cases, were not allowed to perform basic field sobriety tests on the Congressman.

Instead, two sergeants, who also responded to the accident, proceeded to confer with the Capitol Police watch commander on duty and then “ordered all of the Patrol Division Units to leave the scene and that they were taking over.”

"When it became apparent who it was, instead of processing a normal DWI, the watch commander had the Patrol units clear the scene. The commander allowed other building officials drive Kennedy home."

This came just two weeks after Kennedy was involved in a car accident up in Rhode Island. His car struck the passenger rear door of a second car (a constituent) while Kennedy was making a left turn from a roadway into a CVS pharmacy (i.e. a drug store), according to a police report on the April 15 accident.

No injuries were reported in the accident in Portsmouth, R.I., and Kennedy was not cited.

"I was involved in a traffic accident last night at First and C Street SE near the U.S. Capitol," Kennedy said in a written statement released by his office. "I consumed no alcohol prior to the incident. I will fully cooperate with the Capitol Police in whatever investigation they choose to undertake."

"At no time before the incident did I consume any alcohol," he repeated.

But he was seen--and served--at a Capitol Hill drinking establishment--The Hawk & Dove-- just hours before the crash.

“He was drinking a little bit,” said a woman who works there (she would not give her name).

Leaving his office late last night, Kennedy refused to say whether he’d been to the Hawk & Dove the night before.

M-hm.

Okay, anyway, so the Left has their Kennedy Dynasty and the Right has their Bush one.

Let's compare:

Republicus remembers the Bush-hating/Kennedy-loving Democrats digging up Bush's DUI citation for an October Surprise in the campaign of 2000 (the "Surprise" for 2004 were the forged documents about Bush's Guard service that backfired and got Dan Rather--not-- Bush fired).

What happened was this:

Before he found Jesus and quit drinking, aging frat-boy Bush was hosting a hard-drinking, Australian family friend in Maine and went out and had a few highballs or something one night but had enough wits about him to drive slowly.

And the cops pulled him over not because he was speeding and careening and zig-zagging, but, again, because he was driving too slowly.

That's a responsible drunk there, folks.

So the cops have junior there-- perhaps hiccuping and mangling words even worse than when he's sober ("Shumshing wrong, ofsher?")-- and it turns out that junior is none other than the eldest son of Republican power-player George Sr.

Did the cops blow off the breathalizer (pun intended, ha ha) and give Jr. a lift home?

No. They said: "Book 'em, Dano" (well, they would've said "Dano" if they were in Hawaii).

And Bush gets cited for DUI.

And what do we get for years from the all-of-a-sudden temperate Bush-hating/Kennedy-loving Left (most of whom just love Happy Hour and want marijuana legalized)?

We get the kind of noise that led Repoublicus to assume it must have been a DWI that led to the drowning of a pasenger.

We also get, in that so-annoying, liberal whiny voice: "Bush is an alcoholic! We can't have a drunk in the White House! Hey, didja read all those really neat editorials and brilliant books about how Bush's Born-Again Manichaeanism and nigh obsessive-compulsive anal-punctuality are hallmarks of former alcoholics who will nevertheless forever be alcoholics? Yeah, his booze-soaked brain and blah-blah-blah..." ad nauseum.

Yes. The chronic tardiness of their hero Bill "I-Can't-Find-My-Socks!" Clinton was just so much more reassuring than Bush's professional punctuality!

Anyway, and, of course, after Cheney sprinkled his buddy with bee-bees in the quail-hunting accident, the all-of-a-sudden teetotaling Bush/Cheney-hating/Kennedy-Loving Left sneer that they think Cheney--while wearing a pace-maker!-- had more than a beer!

Listen here: Patrick Kennedy's dad--the "Legislative Lion" of the Democratic Party--drunkenly drove off a dock at Chappaquidick, was able to save himself, but let his female passenger--Mary Joe Kopechne-- drown.

Now his son--a United States Congressman--irresponsibly mixes alcohol with two prescription drugs (with warning labels about the dangers of mixing them with alcohol) and hallucinates and careens through the streets of the Nation's Capital, almost hits a Capital Police cruiser (a lot harder than Cynthia Mckinnon's purse could have) and smashes into a road-block before saying: "I HAVE FINALLY DECIDED TO TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FACT THAT I'VE BEEN VICTIMIZED BY MY LIFE-LONG ADDICTION TO MEDICATION FOR DEPRESSION WHICH I ASSURE YOU HAS NEVER INTERFERED WITH MY HARD WORK ON THE NATION'S BUSINESS WHICH IS LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN DRIVING A FRIGGIN' CAR!"

Then his dad, Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass., with John Kerry--how the hell did those Massachusens wind up electing a conservative Mormon for governor?), issued a supportive statement tooday in which he said he's proud of his son for admitting his problem and taking steps to correct it!

"He has taken full responsibility for events that occurred ... and he will continue to cooperate fully with any investigation," he said.

Oh yeah, right, right, like...

...RUSH LIMBAUGH?

Sure, Republicus remembers:

"The drug-addict!" (Ha-ha!)

"The Oxycotin Kid!" (Hee-hee!)

The "criminal" who "belongs in jail!" (Hoo-hoo!)

Scoundrels.

[P.S. That's an old photo up there--but quite apropos]

33 Comments:

Blogger Kelly said...

I'll tell ya how they elected a conservative Mormon in that state...Mitt was the hero of the 2002 Olympics...and he capitalized on that. Plus his Dad was a former governor of Michigan...course that probably didn't change his chances.

The Kenney's have always been a protected class. One of the Kennedy clan

4:31 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

correction on spelling...Kennedys

4:32 PM  
Blogger the liberal samurai said...

Yawn... Kennedy (Patrick) deserved to be booked. Period. He got off; perk of power.

And your characterization of Cheney; c'mon John HE SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE!

Difference between Kennedy & Limbaugh: Kennedy has never advocated (to my knowledge) locking up drug users as Limbaugh has. Even you see some hpocracy there don't you.

Kelly, FYI I did some digging on Mormons. Turns out the text of the book of mormon was read by Joseph Smith out of a hat: http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/seer-stone.html
I'm not making any judgments; its just something I found.

8:23 PM  
Blogger John said...

Just leave me out of this one.

9:49 PM  
Blogger John said...

Sanjay said:

"... Kennedy (Patrick) deserved to be booked. Period. He got off; perk of power."

I'm glad you acknowledge that he should've been booked, but then you kinda shrug it off in acquiescence of the politically powerful being above the law...as far as Dems like the Kennedy's are concerned!

I made the contrast between Bush's run-ins precisely to exemplify the double-standard: The Left was not so acquiescent of the "perks of power" when it came to Bush's resurrected DWI and Limbaugh's similar predicament with prescription drugs.

And what "perks?" Bush got a DWI and Limbaugh was publicly drawn-and-quartered.

It seems the only ones who who are granted the benefit of perks are Democrats.

"And your characterization of Cheney; c'mon John HE SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE!"

It was a hunting accident, and the subject was the sneering inuendo about an alcohol "coverup" accounting for the delay in reporting.

We know about Teddy slogging home and waiting until the next day to report the car's submergement in the Chappaquidick tragedy.

And now we have his son disregarding warning labels and driving a car while essentially sleepwalking and hallucinating about a senate vote at 2:00 in the morning then narrowly missing a police cruiser and slamming into a road-block.

A little over two weeks after he had another car accident.

And not given a breathalizer.

Come on. If that was Limbaugh or even the scenario of Bush's DWI, they'd be hacked to pieces.

"Difference between Kennedy & Limbaugh: Kennedy has never advocated (to my knowledge) locking up drug users as Limbaugh has. Even you see some hpocracy there don't you."

I do see soome hypocricy on Limbaugh's part, but I think he's learned his lesson--as far as addictions go--and is probably more compassionate on that score...although he has proved that if you take responsibility, have the will, and pursue the right treatment, you can beat it, so his moral authority is even greater in that regard.

Like P. Kennedy's?

It seems to me he was engaging more in plagiarism--following Rush's example practically to the letter, which brings us back to the point of the post: Where is the character assault on Kennedy from the Left that bombarded LImbaugh, especially since the mea culpa was practically replicated, warranting an equal response?

Well, "Perks of power," it is shrugged. ;)

Also, I'm not sure what Limbaugh said verbatim in his oft-referenced hard-line on illegal drug use. I suspect he was thinking about --if not explicitly referring to-- the players in the dealing/consuming nexus of the hallucinogenic heroin/crack/meth etc. subculture, which has far wider cultural consequences than some professional's private addictions with prescription pain-killers after an operation, so although he is guilty of hypocrisy in principle, distinctions can be made which exempt his--and Kennedy's, for that matter--abuse.

But Rush's addiction was on pain-killers following the operation (a physical malady).

P. Kennedy was trying to treat his depression (an emotional/psychological condition).

Be honest: If it was discovered the the cheerful, optimistic Rush was really a closet depressive, the long knives would indeed be drawn and cut to the quick and personal.

If any Republican/conservative of influence was discovered to be a depressive, his career would be destroyed as columns and columns and perhaps a book or two come out to state that their condition disqualifies them from holding high public office.

But I guess everyone knows that the Kennedys are basket-cases, anyway, and they get a free pass (which is another point of the post).

4:01 AM  
Blogger Dana said...

I've hated Ted and Patrick Kennedy for as long as I've been able to vote (which really isn't that long, but I digress...) These two ridiculous, women abusing, alcohol loving, idiots get on my nerves so much so that I actually get red faced (I'm a Red!). I wonder what John F. would be saying if he were still alive. Would he be angry? Or would he help to cover this up? I guess we'll never know.

6:33 AM  
Blogger the liberal samurai said...

John,

The left lets the left get awy with murder (teddy, etc.)

The right lets the right get away with murder. (laura accidently killing her boyfriend, Cheney shooting a guy in the face, dead intern in joe scarboro's office)

I'm not gonna defend Kennedy for an indefensible action. Nor will I defend their apologists (of which I am not one).

Believe it or not, I often listen to Limbaugh and he makes no indication of softenung his position on drug use.

7:33 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

LS said, "Kelly, FYI I did some digging on Mormons. Turns out the text of the book of mormon was read by Joseph Smith out of a hat"

...Ya...and Mormons have horns, too...

You believe all that anti-mormon propoganda???

What was your point?? Merely to slam or was it to prove anything??

8:26 AM  
Blogger the liberal samurai said...

LOL. You've got horns! Sorry, I wasnt meaning to slam. I've seen the hat thing in a number of mormon/anti-mormon sites and unfortunately your the only mormon I know. Believe me, if you were a Muslim I'd ask you about the purported violent nature of your religion. I'm not saying I believe it, I just don't understanf why its so widespread. Is it fabricated out of whole cloth or is there some truth to it?

9:26 AM  
Blogger John said...

Like I said, just leave me out of this. :)

10:55 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Sanjay,

I bet you know more Mormons that you realize. You just might not know they are of that faith.

I have defended muslims in that the majority of them are god fearing people. I have a lot of respect for them, as a people, in general.

There is not one shred of truth to the hat story.

JS got the got the Book of Mormon from gold plates delivered to him by an angel. For most people they would rather believe that he got the book by pulling words out of a hat. If you have ever read it you would know that later claim is down right ludicrous.

Let them believe what they may. I know what I believe and that is sufficient for me.

10:59 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Sorry, John, didn't mean to use your blog for this subject...I could have replied to that on Sanjay's blog.

I am not upset at Sanjay for his comments. I just wanted to clarify a few things.

11:02 AM  
Blogger John said...

Kelly said:

"Sorry, John, didn't mean to use your blog for this subject..."

No need to apologize. I like a lively commentary. :)

Sanjay's a good natured man who does his political ideology credit.


When I go after liberalism, I hope you understand, Sanjay, that I take issue with the ideology and the more extreme, unhinged type and that I'm not attacking you--though a good head-butting never hurt anyone :)...

...but I'm the Highlander and you're the Kurgan (at least here :) )

With all due respect, Kelly, I'm personally inclined to think J.S. had a hand--his own--in the creation of the plates.

But WAIT!

1) I haven't researched the Mormom faith and history sufficiently enough to speak with any authority; it's simply a rational, across-the-board assumption in those matters, because...

2)...I'm also inclined to think that Moses did too, in the crafting of the tablets of the Ten Commandments (Cecil B. Demille's fiery "Finger of God" notwithstanding).

But I wasn't there, so I'm willing to ultimately shrug "who knows?" if push to comes to shove.

Furthermore, as a theist, I believe in miracles and Providence and discern the Hand of some Higher Power behind events that often make me wonder, "Who indeed writes this stuff?".

And that anything is possible.

Also, I'm not being cynical in thinking that Moses (or Smith, for that matter) probably had a "hand" in the creation of their respective, written Covenants "from God," as I consider "Written by God" and "Inspired by God" to be interchangeable without compromising the reality of the Authorship.

St. Paul did say that Scripture was written by Man, but that they were *theopneustus*--or "God-breathed," that is, Inspired by God, and that He was working through them.

Dana wondered:

"I wonder what John F. would be saying if he were still alive. Would he be angry? Or would he help to cover this up? I guess we'll never know."

Well, we can make an educated guess.

1) JFK kept the grave seriousness of his own maladies covered-up.

He was taking heavy doses of prescription pain-killers for the back injury he sustained with the PT-109 incident and suffered from Addison's disease.

Some medical experts have gone on record saying that he was so sick, his days were numbered, anyway.

2) Kennedy was able to keep his busy extra-marital sex-life (with partners ranging from a mafia don's girlfriend to a Hollywood sex-symbol) a secret from a wife with two children in the White House and during a time when adultery was far less tolerated in prominent public figures--not to mention POTUSes-- than it has been in recent years.

Granted, apparently, some in the media were hip to what was going on, but the decorum in those days kept a person's sexual matters as private as their bowel movements, which, perhaps, is proper...

...Actually, I think the electorate is entitled to know if the highest elected leader of their country is breaking his matrimonial vows and betraying his closest partner, and even if the partner is somewhat complicit in extra-marital affairs (I believe that Hillary is full of it when she acted and wrote about how oh-so-surprised she was and hurt and felt victimized).

The electorate--especially in a political environment highly-charged with the family-values debate, and particularly among conservatives-- values character, and votes on certain qualities (e.g. integrity, honesty, fidelity...) that they think their candidate embodies.

They have the right to know what their elected representative and leader of the Free World thinks about such matters (e.g. adultery), or at least shouldn't be led to believe the opposite.

Anyway, given all that, I would say that, if JFK could get away with a cover-up, he would (though I don't think he would stoop to perjury and obstruction of justice).

But I find it hard to believe that (1) and (2)--i.e. heavily-medicated maladies and an active sex-life--could co-exist:

Assuming his physical condition (his back, Addison's, etc. and the daily cocktails of drugs to treat them) was as bad as later diagnosed, how could he also be such a busy, dashing lothario P.V. (i.e. "Pre-Viagra"), as later publicised?

Assuming he didn't have any erectile disfunction from his illness, the powerful pain-killers, the pressures of the office (e.g. he was intimidated by Kruschev when they met, and Kruschev knew it, the October missile crisis with Castro/Kruschev almost leading to WWIII, etc.), and even his middle-age, what, did he just lie on his back and let the woman do all the work?

So it stands to reason that he either wasn't as sick as later diagnosed, or he wasn't as randy a playboy as later publicized.

The former prognosis, however, is arrived at scientifically, the latter by much hearsay, so I'm inclined to believe that-- although his affairs with Monroe and the gangster's girlfriend seem well-established-- I don't think JFK converted the White House into a Clintonian brothel (although the latter was thought he was modeling himself after the former), nor was able to be as dogged a skirt-chaser as mythologized.

3:40 PM  
Blogger John said...

Kelly said...

John said,

"Also, I'm not being cynical in thinking that Moses (or Smith, for that matter) probably had a "hand" in the creation of their respective, written Covenants "from God," as I consider "Written by God" and "Inspired by God" to be interchangeable without compromising the reality of the Authorship."


So, you do have a point.

We do also have the Doctrine and Covenants in addition to the Book of Mormon. That was written by Joseph Smith (as inspired by God). The Book of Mormon was written by other men (pre Columbian) and translated by Joseph Smith (by the inspiration of God).

It really comes down to finding out for yourself. Can we be given the same inspiration? I believe we can.

3:42 PM  
Blogger John said...

Kelly said:

"We do also have the Doctrine and Covenants in addition to the Book of Mormon. That was written by Joseph Smith (as inspired by God). The Book of Mormon was written by other men (pre Columbian) and translated by Joseph Smith (by the inspiration of God)."

Okay. See, there's my ignorance. I had assumed that the Book of Mormon is believed by Mormons to be a spontaneous manifestation in Time & Space a la The Ten Commandments.

3:49 PM  
Blogger John said...

So the gold plates are believed to be hand-made?

3:51 PM  
Blogger John said...

P.S. Sanjay, nah, you're not the Kurgan.

Jeff is. :)

3:55 PM  
Blogger the liberal samurai said...

Kelly,
Thanks for the info. I find asking true believers more insughtful than trying to glean info off the web.

John,
There can be only one! ;)

4:23 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John,

The gold plates were hand made...by several men (we consider prophets) the first one was a man named Nephi. He lived in and around Central America 600 years before Christ. The last of these prophets hid them in the ground (circa 420 AD). He had made it as far as modern day New York State.

Sanjay, Hey, glad to help. I don't mind the debate.

Oh and John is right on that Jeff is the ,what John says, "Kurgan".

5:13 PM  
Anonymous houstonmod said...

Are facts allowed on this blog? The Bush DWI was not in Texas, it was in Maine and it was a short driving suspension and a small fine. The issue was not that W. received a DWI, it was that he lied about it and then was caught.
Patrick Kennedy is bi-polarand on two powerful medications. The Hawk and Dove has officially said they have no idea of Kennedy was there. Also, the Hawk and Dove closes at 1:30 on Wednesdays. (the accident was 2:45am)
The police report makes absolutely no mention of the smell of alcohol.

Having a pace maker hardly stops anybody from drinking. Cheney has two prior DWI's and finally admitted to having "a beer" the day he shot his friend. (I wonder how many cops have heard "I only had one beer officer")

The reason Rush is under such heat is that he's a moronic hypocrit who for years demanded Clinton's medical records to try and prove drug use. Of course once he broke the law, he went and recieved a friend of the court brief from the ACLU and then hired liberal attorney Roy Black of William Kenndy Smith fame and threatened to argue his right of privacy all the way to the Supreme Court. If that isn't hypocritical enough, maybe you should read what he had to say about illegal drug use.

"And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
"What this says to me," he told his listeners that day, "is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

"'When you strip it all away," Rush had said of the Grateful Dead guitarist, "Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks."

7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Suprising that Clinton could come up in this blog. Shocking I say...just shocking.

Unbelievable statement that presidential affairs were less tolerated in the old days. Completely the opposite. BTW, I guess Reagan being divorced, Newt being on this third marriage (plus some lovely affairs while his wife had breast cancer), Livingston's "youthful indescrections" in his 40's, Strom Thurmond's illegitimate daughter, Bob Barr's affair and wife's abortion would make them unelectable in the Republican Party??


Well just a quick list of President's with known affairs and illigitimate children:

FDR, Kennedy, Warren Harding, Dwight Eisenhower(while a General), Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland. Woodrow Wilson.

7:46 PM  
Blogger John said...

Houstonmod sniped:

"Are facts allowed on this blog?"

Uh-oh. The nitpicking Fact-Master is back. :(

"The Bush DWI was not in Texas, it was in Maine and it was a short driving suspension and a small fine."

I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. The post was updated accordingly.

However, I will point out to you the utter irrelevancy of that detail to the thrust of the argument, which is the decibel level and sensationalism from the left about unseemly slips by conservatives/Republicans which are of the same nature as the glaring slips of liberals/Democrats but which themselves were-- and still are--excused, if not outright defended.

My flippancy about him receiving a DWI--which is far more serious than the D.U.I. he actually received--is simply proof that I was on the receiving end of the sensationalism which screamed so loudly, one would think he received a DWI (if not causing an accident that killed a passenger which he walked away from in order to sober up.)

He went out with a family friend--a hard drinking Australian--and was indeed pulled over for driving too slowly afterward (yes, in Connecticut).

Furthermore, everyone knew there was a period in Bush's life when he drank heavily. But that was before he quit drinking and got involved in public service.

I pointed out how vicious the attacks were on that score, how "analyses" came out insisting that his previous drinking was enough to disqualify him from high office (because of "booze-soaked" after-effects, side-effects, personality disorders that led to the problem in the first place, mother Barbara's domineering influence, etc. *ad nauseum*).

It seems to have really irked the Left to no end that Bush linked his quitting with his Born Again faith.

Again, Houstonmod, all that noise was in comparison to the silence--and outright defense--of liberals regarding their own who drink and drive women off a dock and slam into Capital Hill police barricades--well into their professional careers of serious public responsibility and social leadership.

"The issue was not that W. received a DWI, it was that he lied about it and then was caught."

You mean "DUI," don't you, Houston?

Interesting slip of FACT.

Physician heal thyself.

Anyway, false. The issue--resurrected in October of the 2000 presidential elections in November--was precisely that he got a DUI to confuse and anger his greatest base: the consevative values crowd in what appeared--and proved-- to be a razor-thin margin of victory.

Bush didn't "lie." He never said anything like "I drank but never swallowed." It was already publicised--and admitted by himself--that he liked to drink but stopped cold turkey upon threats of leaving by Laura and with the help of his Faith.

He also had said that he would not discuss that time in his life--because he put it behind him.

It was over.

"Patrick Kennedy is bi-polarand on two powerful medications."

Yeah, which make him sleep-drive and hallucinate.

Today, the day before, and, by his own admission, for many. many years.

And yet here you are arguing for moral equivalence with that and Bush's 15-year-old plus pre-public drinking problems?

Actually, you're not arguing for moral equivalence. You're still asserting that Bush's "lie" and past problems were worse than "Poor" Patrick, who's bi-polar and should be forgiven!

Fine, I wish him well and just glad that he wasn't near water.

But what would you be saying, Houston, if it came out that a conservative/Republican congressional counterpart was in the same situation?

You'd be singing a different tune.

"The Hawk and Dove has officially said they have no idea of Kennedy was there."

I was passing on this report:

"But he was seen--and served--at a Capitol Hill drinking establishment--The Hawk & Dove-- just hours before the crash.

'He was drinking a little bit,' said a woman who works there (she would not give her name)."

That, in fact, was what we had as the story was developing.

That the Hawk & Dove--a Congressional watering-hole--came out with that "official" stance with no following up on the big-mouthed employee-- indicates a promise of discretion for their clientele (what do you think would happen to business there if it came out that their employees were indiscreet about drinking?).

"Also, the Hawk and Dove closes at 1:30 on Wednesdays. (the accident was 2:45am)."

You should've been on the defense team for O.J. Simpson.

I was going by the reports as the story was breaking, as are you (throwing updates and alibis at me).

I wouldn't be so eager to stand behind them, though, as they could change as well.

Anyway, he got out of Dodge mighty quick.

"The police report makes absolutely no mention of the smell of alcohol."

Houston, you're sneaky. Typical Lefty "absolutely none whatsoever" hyperbole on detail meant to distract from the substance.

Yes, the Fact-Master here speaks factually when he says that there was "absolutely no mention of the smell of alcohol," but on the second page of the report the officer indicated that he thought Kennedy was impaired and under the influence of alcohol.

On the third page of the police report, it is written by the officer that Kennedy's "eyes were red and watery, speech was slightly slurred, and upon exiting his vehicle, his balance was unsure."

Those are the facts.

Furthermore, Houston, this post was not an attack on alleged drinking.

The thrust of the argument was the double-standard.

"Having a pace maker hardly stops anybody from drinking."

I assumed doctor's would advise against it, for blood pressure reasons etc.

"Cheney has two prior DWI's and finally admitted to having "a beer" the day he shot his friend. (I wonder how many cops have heard "I only had one beer officer").

The two DWI's likewise were a long time ago.

And it was a hunting accident. Get over it.

"The reason Rush is under such heat is that he's a moronic hypocrit who for years demanded Clinton's medical records to try and prove drug use."

Whoa, didn't you defend (above) the Left's demands for any and all records about Bush's DUI (as well as his guard service) because: "The issue was not that W. received a DWI, it was that he lied about it and then was caught?"

Yes you did.

Clinton said: "I tried it once, but didn't inhale."

And Rush was trying to catch him in his lies.

That was the issue.

"Of course once he broke the law, he went and recieved a friend of the court brief from the ACLU and then hired liberal attorney Roy Black of William Kenndy Smith fame and threatened to argue his right of privacy all the way to the Supreme Court."

lol Kudos to the ACLU for not discriminating.

"If that isn't hypocritical enough..."

On whose end, yours? Are you saying its okay for liberals to access the services of the ACLU but not conservatives, on legitimate privacy issues, at that (e.g. medical records, etc.)?

Are you saying a conservative shouldn't use the same liberal lawyer that drunk and accused date-rapist William Kennedy S. used to get off (no pun intended)?

Thank you for strengthening the point of post, Houston. :)

"...maybe you should read what he had to say about illegal drug use.

'And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.'

'What this says to me,' he told his listeners that day, 'is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.'

'When you strip it all away,' Rush had said of the Grateful Dead guitarist, 'Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks.'"

Oo! He attacked liberal icon Garcia!

Off with his head.

I commented above:

"Also, I'm not sure what Limbaugh said verbatim in his oft-referenced hard-line on illegal drug use."

Thank you for providing it, Houston. Seriously.

But I stand by what I followed with:

"I suspect he was thinking about --if not explicitly referring to-- the players in the dealing/consuming nexus of the hallucinogenic heroin/crack/meth etc. subculture, which has far wider cultural consequences than some professional's private addictions with prescription pain-killers after an operation, so although he is guilty of hypocrisy in principle, distinctions can be made which exempt his--and Kennedy's, for that matter--abuse.

But Rush's addiction was on pain-killers following the operation (a physical malady)..."

Anonymous said...

"Suprising that Clinton could come up in this blog. Shocking I say...just shocking."

Why? This was a compare/contrast kind of post, and Clinton is great fodder--though he was only briefly mentioned.

"Unbelievable statement that presidential affairs were less tolerated in the old days. Completely the opposite."

"Completely?" R U kidding me?

"BTW, I guess Reagan being divorced, Newt being on this third marriage (plus some lovely affairs while his wife had breast cancer), Livingston's "youthful indescrections" in his 40's, Strom Thurmond's illegitimate daughter, Bob Barr's affair and wife's abortion would make them unelectable in the Republican Party??"

No. It would make them flawed human beings.

And two can play at that game very easily, Anonymous. If you want me to accumulate little facts about divorces, adulteries, illegitimacies, abortions, and other "youthful indiscretions" among liberal/Democrat politicians, I'll then whip it out and show you that my list will be significantly bigger than yours.

I don't think you want to compare criminal records, either.

"Well just a quick list of President's with known affairs and illigitimate children:

FDR, Kennedy, Warren Harding, Dwight Eisenhower(while a General), Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland. Woodrow Wilson."

But you said:

"Unbelievable statement that presidential affairs were less tolerated in the old days. Completely the opposite."

No it's not. Why do you think they tried damn hard to keep them a secret? It wasn't "widely known" in most cases.

Furthermore, I don't think 60% of the population would have supported a president who had an adulterous affair with a White House intern of his daughter's generation in the Oval Office after coming home from Easter Sunday church services and engaged in the kind of sexual behavior that included inserting a cigar into the intern's nether-region, pulling it out, tasting it, and exclaiming: "MMM! TASTES GOOD!"

3:50 PM  
Anonymous houstonmod said...

Republicus, do you just sit in a closet and make stuff up?
"Physician heal thyself" and then go back and refer to Maine as Connecticut? nice.
Do you have any idea if Maine had a DWI and DUI in 1976. I doubt it. They are one and the same back then. Usually they had a misdemeanor and a felony, but used the same expression. I still can't stop laughing about your two wonderful points to exonerate the President. 1. He was driving too slowly. See, he's a very careful drunk driver.(btw, the only person who says that was why he was pulled over was Bush himself) 2. It was a lesser of two charges so he's not that bad of a drunk driver. ahhh well that's great news!!

You then go on to "translate" what you wish Rush had meant, not at all what he said. I guess what he meant was everyone who is caught with illegal drugs should be "sent up", except him.

You then go on to say that a 24 year old arrest of Bush is a non-issue, but I guess Clinton talking about trying pot while in college is still relevant? hahahaha exactly!! too funny. maybe you need to work for Fox News.

Bush was pointedly asked by a Dallas reporter if there were any other arrests after a wreath stealing arrest Bush got while at Yale. Bush replied "no". I don't know where you are from, but where I am from, we call that a lie.
Of course there are people like Karen Hughes who try to pretend that because Bush wanted to talk about it later, it wasn't a lie. Sorry, but that is a lie.
But you don't need to worry about small little "facts" like that.

You think that past Presidential affairs were kept secret? YOu have no idea what you are talking about. Grover Cleveland even admitted to his affair and was still re-elected. Jefferson's sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings was printed by his opponents over and over. But that's ok....facts are part of this blog.

Your sophmoric and comical comments of trying to compare the number of "scandals" or crooks by party affiliation is very funny. I don't think you understand what hypocritical means. Actually, I'm sure you don't. When you are Bill Bennett and write a book titled "The Death of Outrage" which goes on and on about our loss of morality, you can't get caught with a huge gambling habit. See how that works? If you are John Daily, nobody really cares because you haven't been preaching from a soapbox about how superior you are. When you are Rush and ramble on and on about how evil the ACLU is, you don't ask for their help when you are in trouble. Is this starting to make sense? When you are Rush Limbaugh, you don't tell the whole world that anybody who "does" drugs should be "sent up", you can't get caught doing illegal drugs. Are you one of those guys who doesn't think that if the drugs are prescription they aren't illegal? (hillbilly heroin)
If Kennedy was drunk (which unfortunately there is no proof of), he should have been arrested. I would wait for some proof before I started making stupid comments.

Look, you want to talk about principle? How about you stick to your supposed principles and stop the ridiculous double standard and amazingly desperate defenses of conservative wrong doers. The nice thing about true principle is that it doesn't bend like you would like it to.

4:37 PM  
Blogger Jess said...

Kelly said:

"Also, I'm not being cynical in thinking that Moses (or Smith, for that matter) probably had a "hand" in the creation of their respective, written Covenants "from God," as I consider "Written by God" and "Inspired by God" to be interchangeable without compromising the reality of the Authorship."


Good point. Usually problems don't arise until the original has been translated.

6:18 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Jess,

Actually, John made that statement and I replied to it.

but ya...things get lost in the translation.

10:25 PM  
Blogger John said...

Kelly was quoting me, Jess. But right you are.

Houston said:

"Republicus, do you just sit in a closet and make stuff up?
"Physician heal thyself" and then go back and refer to Maine as Connecticut? nice."

Heh. Texas, Connecticut, Maine, it's all the same Bush playground. :)

"Do you have any idea if Maine had a DWI and DUI in 1976. I doubt it."

No, I have no idea and don't care.

What's relevant is the decibel level and the timing of its release in the hopes of using that to disqualify him from the presidency while excusing--indeed defending-- far more reckless and depraved behavior on the left.

"They are one and the same back then."

You're the one who decided to make a credibility issue of my use of "DWI"--before going on to say that it wasn't the issue, and that they were "one and the same."

The point was that Bush was drinking and driving. I got it, and I wasn't interested in dredging over the details of which were irrelevant to the point, anyway.

"Usually they had a misdemeanor and a felony, but used the same expression."

So a felony and a misdemeanor are "one and the same?"

"I still can't stop laughing about your two wonderful points to exonerate the President. 1. He was driving too slowly. See, he's a very careful drunk driver."

I would think that you could tell I was writing tongue-in-cheek, but I really wish other drunk drivers had enough self-awareness of their impaired ability to do the same (a high school friend lost his brother and father to a drunk driver).

(btw, the only person who says that was why he was pulled over was Bush himself)"

Who says otherwise? What does the police report say?

"2. It was a lesser of two charges so he's not that bad of a drunk driver. ahhh well that's great news!!"

So it was the equivalent of a DUI.

You took the opportunity to attack my knowledge when I carelessly--and presumably, based on all the noise--called it a DWI, but then you trapped yourself because in the effort to discredit me you ended up belittling the incident to what it was, but then angrily equating it with the kind of "one and the same" intoxicated, reckless driving that ends up drowning passengers and smashing into police barricades (the fact that it wasn't is indeed good news).

You're making my point, Houston.

Perhaps I should have said:

"My flippancy about him receiving a (felony)--which is far more serious than (a misdeanor) he actually received--is simply proof that I was on the receiving end of the sensationalism which screamed so loudly, one would think he received a (felony)."

That was the point, Houston, and it's a fact.

"You then go on to 'translate' what you wish Rush had meant, not at all what he said. I guess what he meant was everyone who is caught with illegal drugs should be 'sent up', except him."

Not what I "wish," but what common sense should tell anyone.

I stand by what I followed with:

"I suspect he was thinking about --if not explicitly referring to-- the players in the dealing/consuming nexus of the hallucinogenic heroin/crack/meth etc. subculture, which has far wider cultural consequences than some professional's private addictions with prescription pain-killers after an operation, so although he is guilty of hypocrisy in principle, distinctions can be made which exempt his--and Kennedy's, for that matter--abuse."

And I was right:

Limbaugh: "And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them."

What do you think he's talking about there? You know what he's talking about there.

"You then go on to say that a 24 year old arrest of Bush is a non-issue..."

I did not. I was making comparisons with similar circumstances.

"...but I guess Clinton talking about trying pot while in college is still relevant? hahahaha exactly!!"

You just made that a non-issue.

I was making comparisons about how the Left viciously attacks the Right for slips while making excuses, being dismissive, or outright defending their own--and then projecting and saying that it is the right who are engaging in the hypocrisy.

And that's exactly what you're doing.

You said "The issue is not the DWI, but that he lied."

"I tried it once, but didn't inhale?" That's such a whopper, it's insulting to the intelligence.

To this day he never released his medical records.

Why?

We even have Bush's dental records going back 30+ years.

"Bush was pointedly asked by a Dallas reporter if there were any other arrests after a wreath stealing arrest Bush got while at Yale."

Fraternity prank. College shenanigans. And he, the eldest of George H. Bush, got arrested.
You keep making my point, Houston.

"Bush replied 'no'."

But you yourself belittled the incident--implying the privileged favoritism applied to a Kennedy-- by scoffing at my use of "DWI," and dismissing it as "a short driving suspension and a small fine."

"I don't know where you are from, but where I am from, we call that a lie."

Clinton was impeached for perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice.

"Of course there are people like Karen Hughes who try to pretend that because Bush wanted to talk about it later, it wasn't a lie. Sorry, but that is a lie.
But you don't need to worry about small little 'facts' like that."

No, I don't.

"You think that past Presidential affairs were kept secret?"

They tried. Even Kennedy--or at least his closest advisors who knew what was up--knew that if his philandering got out, it threatened his re-election.

Clinton knew his affairs could threaten his presidency.

Why do you think he lied about each and every one?

"YOu have no idea what you are talking about. Grover Cleveland even admitted to his affair and was still re-elected. Jefferson's sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings was printed by his opponents over and over. But that's ok....facts are part of this blog."

Your list is meant to imply that, going as far back as far Jefferson, presidential sexual peccadillos were "tolerated," if not acceptable, and moreso than they are today by the uptight, extreme, Puratanical Right (whatever).

The freakish sea-change in attitude towards traditional social mores is a rather recent phenomenon that originated from the socialist Left.

I can assure you, Jefferson did not receive 60% approvals (as did Clinton during the Impeachment) from the demographic that actually heard about his affair with Hemmings, an affair which you present as "fact" but is all speculation--something you accuse me of doing.

The revelation about Cleveland was scandalous, too, and didn't do him any favors.

"Your sophmoric (sic) and comical comments of trying to compare the number of 'scandals' or crooks by party affiliation is very funny."

There's no arguing with someone--you, Houston-- who obviously dismisses Clinton's Impeachment on Perjury, Subornation of Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice while President of the U.S. as being about "just a blowjob" while labeling Bush as "a liar" for not talking about what you yourself describe as "a short driving suspension and a small fine" when he was 30 and a private citizen while excusing Congressman Kennedy's careening into a police road-block and coming out of the car with "blood-shot eyes, slurring, and staggering" and not getting arrested as Bush was.

You prove the post, right here.

"I don't think you understand what hypocritical means. Actually, I'm sure you don't."

You're proving the post, Houston.

"When you are Bill Bennett and write a book titled "The Death of Outrage" which goes on and on about our loss of morality, you can't get caught with a huge gambling habit."

I don't think you get it, Houston.

"See how that works? If you are John Daily, nobody really cares because you haven't been preaching from a soapbox about how superior you are. When you are Rush and ramble on and on about how evil the ACLU is, you don't ask for their help when you are in trouble."

Like the UN in some areas, the ACLU has a fine record as well.

But if Limbaugh was fondling little boys and ran to the ACLU for help, then your point is applicable.

"Is this starting to make sense? When you are Rush Limbaugh, you don't tell the whole world that anybody who "does" drugs should be "sent up", you can't get caught doing illegal drugs."

Oxycontin is not an "illegal" drug. It's a prescription drug.

"Are you one of those guys who doesn't think that if the drugs are prescription they aren't illegal? (hillbilly heroin)/"

Are you one of those guys who think that a prescription drug is illegal (illegal like heroin)?

"If Kennedy was drunk (which unfortunately there is no proof of), he should have been arrested."

The title of this post was "Above the Law and Double-Standards."

Kennedy should at least have been subjected to a breathalizer.

The personal attacks on Limbaugh went beyond any legal infringements and attacked him for his post-surgery addiction, e.g. "The Oxycontin Kid", and your own sadistic compulsion to gratuitously and snidely slide in "Hillbilly heroin."

But you excuse: "Patrick Kennedy is bi-polarand on two powerful medications."

You prove the post, and you're utterly oblivious to your own sneering hypocrisy.

"(I would wait for some proof before I started making stupid comments."

That's good, Houston. So when you said "If Kennedy was drunk (which unfortunately there is no proof of)," you really, smugly, meant "fortunately."

"Look, you want to talk about principle? How about you stick to your supposed principles and stop the ridiculous double standard and amazingly desperate defenses of conservative wrong doers."

You're projecting like an AMC cineplex.

I made no "amazingly desperate defenses" but simply made comparisons.

It is YOU who are on the defensive.

"The nice thing about true principle is that it doesn't bend like you would like it to."

I bent nothing in principle. You launched your attack by nitpicking on details irrelevant to the principle (e.g. Maine vs. Texas or Connecticut and D.U.I. vs. D.W.I. in a state and time where they were "one and the same"), then with an utter lack of self-awareness then went on to prove the point of the post and finally concluded that it was I who "bent principle," a conclusion which is a non sequiter.

10:37 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

A comment on Oxycontin:

Anyone who has ever had to take this drug for pain following surgery or any other reason knows of its highly addictive nature. It is very difficult to take it and keep from becoming addicted to it.

As John says, it is not the same as using an illegal drug. Yes, it causes problems, but it is like comparing an accidental auto-pedestrian encounter (where the pedestrian is killed) to a drunk-driving hit and run where the pedestrian is killed. Both have the same outcome for the pedestrian. But the cause is FAR different and the penalty is FAR different.

The left is excusing their behaviors because sometimes the end is the same. The cause, however, is FAR different. They don't look at the cause of all this.

Limbaugh misused a legal drug because of its overwhelming addictive tendencies and they use that to excuse abuse of alcohol or illegal drugs (used for pleasure) among their own.

Being bi-polar does not give a person an excuse to abuse alcohol.

So, why didn't they do a breathalizer test on Kennedy?? Because they know that with that evidence he was toast and he was being protected (read enabled).

8:00 AM  
Anonymous houstonmod said...

wow...I am befuddled. We have some guy named John who apparently can read Rush Limbaugh's mind and then change the statements he made. He can criticize my use of DWI and then say it's irrelevant.

Nobody thinks that addiction is a game or funny. The problem is that Rush flippantly disregarded any "liberal" thought of compasion to drug addicts when he said they should be "sent up". But now both you and Kelly are changing principles and giving him an "excuse". Isn't that exactly what you are accusing liberals of doing for Kennedy?

As I look through the local paper today, I see that Bush has hit an all time low of 29% popularity rating. See, there are people in this world who can step back and think rationally. Then there are the others who's nonsensical and hypocritical crying will never allow themselves to see the faults of their beloved party. History has shown as many of these occasions and it's nice to see it alive and well here.

11:09 AM  
Blogger John said...

"wow...I am befuddled."

Yes. Apparently.

"We have some guy named John who apparently can read Rush Limbaugh's mind and then change the statements he made."

We have some guy named Houstonmod
who can't read.

I repeat, I said that I had not heard or read his statements, but:

"I suspect he was thinking about --if not explicitly referring to-- the players in the dealing/consuming nexus of the hallucinogenic heroin/crack/meth etc. subculture, which has far wider cultural consequences than some professional's private addictions with prescription pain-killers after an operation, so although he is guilty of hypocrisy in principle, distinctions can be made which exempt his--and Kennedy's, for that matter--abuse."

Sure enough, I was right:

Limbaugh: "And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them."

"He can criticize my use of DWI and then say it's irrelevant."

It was irrelevant-- and YOU began the nitpicking criticism:

"The Bush DWI...was a short driving suspension and a small fine."

...before you yourself said it was irrelevant:

"Do you have any idea if Maine had a DWI and DUI in 1976. I doubt it. They are one and the same back then. Usually they had a misdemeanor and a felony, but used the same expression."

"Nobody thinks that addiction is a game or funny."

Can you read, Houston? I wasn't using this post to make fun of P. Kennedy, and the only one who semed to play a game with it for many, many years was P. Kennedy himself.

Part of the title of this post was "double-standards."

Indeed, the one's who thought that addiction was "funny" were the lambasting leftists, who--again--made fun of Limbaugh as being:

"Sure, Republicus remembers:

'The drug-addict!' (Ha-ha!)

'The Oxycotin Kid!' (Hee-hee!)

The 'criminal' who "belongs in jail!" (Hoo-hoo!)"

"The problem is that Rush flippantly disregarded any 'liberal' thought of compasion to drug addicts when he said they should be 'sent up'."

Perhaps, but can you read? Do you follow where an argument is at before jumping in and digging up ground that was already covered?

I addressed that when answering the Samurai:

"I do see some hypocricy on Limbaugh's part, but I think he's learned his lesson--as far as addictions go--and is probably more compassionate on that score..."

But I contimued:

"...although he has proved that if you take responsibility, have the will, and pursue the right treatment, you can beat it, so his moral authority is even greater in that regard."

"But now both you and Kelly are changing principles and giving him an 'excuse'. Isn't that exactly what you are accusing liberals of doing for Kennedy?"

What "excuse," Houston? I was pointing out the double-standards. You're the one making excuses:

"Patrick Kennedy is bi-polarand on two powerful medications...the police report made no mention of alcohol..I guess Clinton talking about trying pot while in college is still relevant? hahahaha..."

"As I look through the local paper today, I see that Bush has hit an all time low of 29% popularity rating."

Oh, gawd.

"See, there are people in this world who can step back and think rationally."

Right, Houston, like conservatives who are a lot more conservative than Bush or yours truly and are angry that he allowed a Republican congress to spend like a liberal one without vetoeing a single spending bill and doing jack against an exodus of illegal aliens who don't even carry passports.

"Then there are the others who's nonsensical and hypocritical crying will never allow themselves to see the faults of their beloved party."

Because they're blind and project the fault onto the other side.

"History has shown as many of these occasions and it's nice to see it alive and well here."

How would you know, Houston? Aside from trivial details, you're take on history is not only warped, but inverted 90 degrees:

"Unbelievable statement that presidential affairs were less tolerated in the old days. Completely the opposite."

4:58 PM  
Blogger John said...

Houston said:

"As I look through the local paper today, I see that Bush has hit an all time low of 29% popularity rating. See, there are people in this world who can step back and think rationally."

Is that why the approvals for the Democratic leadership are 29%?

7:06 PM  
Blogger nanc said...

hello john - i caught your comment at autonomist and just though i'd stop by and see your site. i'm a regular poster at autonomist and enjoy seeing new posters in the neighborhood. stop by the site (longrange) being shared with me - you'll find some interesting topics and meet some great people of like minds.

10:10 PM  
Blogger John said...

Thanks for visting, Nanc, and thank you for the invitation.

5:54 AM  
Anonymous douglass said...

"Is that why the approvals for the Democratic leadership are 29%?"

yes! the dirty secret of the bush basher finally sees the light of day!

oh, about Limbaugh and his oxycotin, don't be so kind to Mr. Limbaugh. As hustonmod pointed out, that stuff is called 'hillbilly heroin' for a REASON.

All Limbaugh had to do was admit to himself that he was powerless over his addiction, then seek help.

Instead, he chose to lie to himself and the people that were close to him for a long time, and it was only when he was busted that he got help.

It's sad, but for a spell, Limbaugh was no better than a heroin addict.

Oh, and did you know that Ted Kennedy was BUSTED cheating on his Harvard Spanish exam, but was let go because he was a KENNEDY!?

11:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home