Reply
Thu 4 May, 2006 10:06 pm
Quote:May 5, 2006 - 10:25AM
US politician Patrick Kennedy crashed his car near the US Capitol early today, and a police official said he appeared intoxicated.
Kennedy said he had had no alcohol before the accident.
Kennedy, a Democrat from Rhode Island, is the son of Senator Edward Kennedy and nephew of assassinated President John F Kennedy.
He issued a statement about the accident after a spate of news reports.
"I was involved in a traffic accident last night at First and C Street SE near the US Capitol," Kennedy said in the 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."
Kennedy appeared to have been intoxicated when he crashed his car into a concrete barrier on Capitol Hill, said Louis Cannon, president of the Washington chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Cannon, who was not at the crash scene, said the officers involved in the accident were instructed by an official "above the rank of patrolman" to take Kennedy home.
Sobriety tests were not conducted at the scene.
Kennedy spent time at a drug rehabilitation clinic before he went to Providence College in Rhode Island.
He has spoken openly about his personal mental health problems, including having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
AP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/kennedy-intoxicated-at-crash-police/2006/05/05/1146335898349.html
I don't think this is a big deal, but am imagining what the response would be on this board if someone who is a Republican or named Bush were involved. NOT wondering, IMAGINING, because I know what it would be.
I have bipolar relatives and it is no joke. At some point one can wonder who the real person is, the medicated normal or the off the meds supremely confident crazy dude. Patrick is lucky he is a Democrat, and a Kennedy (what a fait accompli that is), or this would be this weeks, and next weeks, story for the MSM.
Or, on the other hand, one could run this unusual bit of police procedure and the possible factor of alcohol against the unusual bit of police procedure related to the Vice President's "hunting accident" and the possible factor of alcohol.
Exactly Blatham. Point being , no one brought up this 8 hour old story until I did. The parallels are clear. The lack of comment about it, on this pitifully tunnelvisioned board, is telling imo.
And never mind the difference between private property and the public streets, in this case. It makes it fairer, for those without a viable position.
EGAD MY MISTAKE.
Mysteryman posted about it before I did. Go over there, the responses are funnier!
Re: No harm no foul
paull wrote:I don't think this is a big deal, but am imagining what the response would be on this board if someone who is a Republican or named Bush were involved. NOT wondering, IMAGINING, because I know what it would be.
Well, it's not like he killed his former high school sweetheart or anything.
I'm sorry Joe, but that's a red herring. Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution reads, in part:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place, including upon cause of an allegation of having killed their former high school sweatheart.
Don't make stuff up, Joe.
The guy should have been given a sobriety test and charged if guilty no matter his last name or party afflitiation. What else need be said?
Anyone want top research the archives and pull up all the righties commnets decrying criticism of the Bush twins alcohol abuse.
paull wrote:Exactly Blatham. Point being , no one brought up this 8 hour old story until I did. The parallels are clear. The lack of comment about it, on this pitifully tunnelvisioned board, is telling imo.
And never mind the difference between private property and the public streets, in this case. It makes it fairer, for those without a viable position.
Really? Just type "Republican Congressman" and "charged with DUI" into google and gleen the rich harvest...no mention of which ever arrived on this board. Just one off the top...
Quote:Although state Rep. David Graves was charged with drunken driving for a second time, he says his position as lawmaker means he cannot break the law while the Legislature is at work.
Graves, a Republican from Macon, Ga., is citing a centuries-old provision in the state constitution to argue that he should not be prosecuted for a DUI he received in Cobb County in February. The arrest was made during Georgia's 2005 session of the General Assembly.
link
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace