I’m playing catch up on some of the stories that have caught the attention of the blogosphere this week so forgive me if some of what I blog about tonight seems like old news.
As you’ve no doubt heard by now, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) got into a one-man traffic accident in which he crashed his car into a Capitol Hill traffic barrier around 3:00 a.m. Thursday. He says he doesn’t remember details of the incident, but also said, “I do know enough to know that I need to seek expert help.”
From what I’ve read, Rep. Kennedy has said he had taken some prescription pills (Phenergen and Ambien). Having just gone through about a week and a half of taking Promethazine on an as-needed basis (and I needed it a lot), which is the generic of Phenergen (and sometimes in harmony with another generic drug that causes drowsiness - Hydrocodone) I can testify personally as to the drowsiness associated with Phenergen. It takes about 45 minutes for both to take affect, and I confess to taking the generic Phenergen right as I left for work about a week and a half ago to go ahead and get it started in my system so when I got home it’d be on its way to doing its thing. I wouldn’t, however, take both the “as needed” drowsy-drugs (that’s what I call them) when I got behind the wheel because taking them both together, as I’ve found out, cuts down on the amount of time they start working on the pain and nausea associated with the stomach problems I have, problems of which it sounds like Kennedy has some variation. It’s easy enough for me to sit here and say that Kennedy shouldn’t have gotten behind the wheel of his car, but it sounds like, from the combined effects of what he was taking, he may not have known exactly what he was doing at the time. Thankfully, there were no injuries as a result of this. I’m glad he’s entering into rehab - hopefully it will help.
What I haven’t liked seeing is some of the barely restrained glee I’ve seen a few on my side of the aisle express over what happened. I’m with Bill Crawford at All Things Conservative on his request for how people on the left and right should conduct themselves on this issue. And if you’re on the left and trying to excuse the issue with cries of “bbbbbut Rush!” shame on you.
Over the two or three years I (and many of you) have watched, read, and listened with disgust at what some liberals have said about Rush Limbaugh’s addiction to prescription pain killers. It really goes beyond all human decency to take joy over someone’s addiction to painkillers as though the people doing the laughing have dreamed of something like that happening to their political enemies for years and years. I encourage conservatives not to engage in a “payback” of sorts here. Note: to liberals who think it was ok to laugh at Rush for his supposed “hypocrisy” on the issue of drug use, think again. It’s only funny to you. Maybe when you get caught doing something you’ve preached against (oh, like “LYING!!!!!!!” for example) then perhaps then you’ll understand while laughing at someone’s supposed “hypocrisy” isn’t always such a great idea.
What I *am* curious about on this story is whether or not Rep. Kennedy received favorable treatment from the Capitol Hill police. Betsy Newmark speculated about that here, and others have joined in on the speculation.
The question of the day, though, comes from ST reader Karl at Leaning Straight Up:
How will they blame THIS on Bush?
The usual suspects with think of something, I’m sure!
(Hat tip for the All Things Conservative link: Michelle Malkin)
Others writing about this: Captain Ed, PunditGuy, Political Pit Bull, Right Voices, Riehl World View, GOP Bloggers, James Joyner, Roger L. Simon
I am sorry, but I disagree with both you and Bill Crawford on this issue. Patrick Kennedy has not taken responsibility for his actions. He has changed his story 3 times since the story broke. He could have come foreward at 9:00 am on Thursday May4 to claim that he had a problem. Instead, he waited until after the story broke. He claimed he did not drink, although that has been disproved. He claimed he is going back to rehab (3rd time since Dec.), for an addiction to pills, pills that he was prescribed on May 2. Obviously the man has problems, but in order to get well, he needs to be honest about the problem he has. I should think that his first priority would be to gain control of his life. He needs to take responsibility. Lying is not taking responsibility. As for the police..lets not forget that they would not be an issue had Kennedy not caused the problem. Kennedy claimed to be enroute to vote..if that were in fact what he was doing, the cops would not have been able to do anything with him. I would bet the cops called in because he claimed to be going to do official Congressional business. This is the second accident in 3 weeks.
It appears that Kennedy is in need of a very in-depth program, but he needs to be willing to go through it. Obviously the booster visits are not working.
Comment by Pam @ 5/5/2006 - 10:50 pm
Pam, what part about asking for conservatives not to shout out with glee over this issue do you disagree with? That was Bill’s premise, and I agreed with it.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 5/5/2006 - 11:00 pm
This is what I have a problem with: Republicans should not attack him, or try to take political advantage of the situation, and the Democrats shouldn’t defend his actions. Both sides should say that it is clear Patrick has a problem, and that he should get help for it. That is all. No that’s not all. Patrick is a member of The United States Congress. He created the situation that Bill is claiming that people are taking advantage of.
BTW, Rush wasn’t the 1st person I thought of when the story broke..I thought of Robert Downey Jr. It took him going away to prison and having to see his son through bars, for him to straighten his life out. Maybe Kennedy needs the same kind of tough love for him to become serious about recovery…just maybe the thought of losing his seat will wake him up!
Comment by Pam @ 5/6/2006 - 12:07 am
“No that’s not all.”
Bill didn’t seem to think it was either, as he called for Patrick’s prosecution later in that same post:
“Patrick is a member of The United States Congress. He created the situation that Bill is claiming that people are taking advantage of.”
I’m not sure what your point is there. Of course he created the situation. The point is that the situation shouldn’t be used as an excuse by anyone on the right to make an a$$ out of themselves by expressing joy at what’s happened. That was Bill’s point, and mine as well. No one in their right (no pun intended) mind is saying he should be let off the hook, Pam, which seems to be what you’re implying that I (and also Bill) am/are asserting. I believe you and I are more in agreement than disagreement.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 5/6/2006 - 12:21 am
yep. she is back.
Karl
Comment by Karl @ 5/6/2006 - 1:22 am
The Kennedy clan and its altitude are clear demonstrations that the New England states are clinically insane. Every Kennedy who’s risen to public prominence has disgraced himself one way or another — including JFK, whose many amorous adventures were discreetly buried by the press of his day.
I’m generally opposed to federal funding of research, but I’d favor a grant for the purpose of discovering why the Kennedys are lionized by so many, and how they’ve retained popular affection in the face of so much destructive (and self-destructive) behavior.
Comment by Francis W. Porretto @ 5/6/2006 - 6:12 am
Sister- yes I do think we are in agreement on the point that he should not be let off the hook. And no that is not what I thought you and Bill were implying. This is a political issue. He is a Congressman. His actions before, during and after the incident are being questioned.
Comment by Pam @ 5/6/2006 - 9:10 am
- There is much to say about the Kennedy Klan, but I want to enjoy my breakfast first. *chuckle*
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 5/6/2006 - 9:51 am
Sister- As a followup, I would like to say that I don’t think that this should be compared to Rush. Rush is a radio host that is paid a great deal of money to give his opinion. He may be right leaning, and could even be a card carrying member of the Republican Party, but he is not a Senator nor Congressman. Let’s compare this to any elected member of the Republican Party that is now facing criminal/ethics charges. And when we are done with our comparisons let’s take an honest look at how we ended up justifying the behavior. That is what I want to see come to a screeching halt. Let’s stop justifying bad behavior on our side because the other side is presumably worse. It’s time we say enough is enough and bring dignity back to Washington.(or should I say bring it to) We all become the enabler when we shrug our shoulders and say “Oh well, that’s how it’s always been. Nothing is ever going to change. They get away with it because they are Senators or Congressmen!”
Shame on us for allowing it. If Washington is not going to clean itself up, it is time we clean it for them, and keep it clean. There are far too many elected officials, and potential candidates that appreciate the honor of the job, and they should be who we concentrate our efforts on. Unfortunately, we are faced with the Cunninghams and Kennedys that make a mockery(and I am being kind) of the office.
Comment by Pam @ 5/6/2006 - 10:56 am
You’re missing the point, Toldjah.
Aside from putting the public at risk (which I object to… when you’ve been lucky enough - since they’re not dead - to hear loved ones scream out in pain as a result of drunk driving, it tends to put things in perspective), he abused his position as a Member of Congress. This goes right to the heart of the relationship between the government and the governed.
Background info: According to two independent sources, Kennedy probably lied about not using alcohol:
Capital Police incident report states Kennedy under influence of alcohol
Bar hostess says Kennedy drinking that night
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, if he lied to the police about this, that was obstruction of justice.
However, there is a much more serious side to this.
Kennedy told officers he was going to a House vote at 2:45 AM. As you may be aware, the U.S. Constitution protects Members of Congress from being arrested or detained by the police in most circumstances providing they are going to or from the House. This is to protect from interference in the Democratic process by the administration or police.
He lied to the Capital Police officers and told them he was on his way to a vote at 2:45 AM… when there was no vote (but bars had recently let out)… which may have caused the Capital Police to confer with higher-ups and the higher-ups to order not to arrest Kennedy because of the U.S. Constitution… is Kennedy guilty of obstruction of justice: a felony?
If I was on a jury, I’d have to conclude he was.
He’s trying to escape legal jeopardy.
Q. Why did he lie about his drinking to the officers if he did so?
A. Obstruction of justice.
Q. Why did he lie about going to a vote at 2:45 AM if he wasn’t?
A. Abusing his power as a Congressman to subvert the U.S. Constitution and obstruct justice.
So now he’s saying he wasn’t drinking, but he was abusing prescription drugs. This despite the two previous sources I cited that state he was either “under the influence of alcohol” (the cops) or “drinking” (bar hostess).
And Kennedy’s own statement said that he took precisely the prescribed amount of his prescription drugs and no more.
His statements have changed multiple times, but it’s his actions that night, which were in my opinion felonious.
If it walks like abusing his power to subvert the U.S. Constitution and obstruction of justice and if it talks like abusing his power to subvert the U.S. Constitution and obstruction of justice, it’s a duck.
Comment by Chris from Victoria, BC @ 5/6/2006 - 1:09 pm
Now I will come to Sister’s defense..I don’t think she missed any of the points that you are giving Chris. And they are all good and valid points. IMO, she feels we should not use it as a political tool or one-upmanship if you will…
Comment by Pam @ 5/6/2006 - 4:24 pm
To me it seems as though yet another Kennedy is trying to evade responsibility for his actions.
Crucify him because he’s a Democrat? Never! That’s pointless as hell.
Bore into his story because it began falling apart within minutes of his first telling? You betcha! Nail the jerk! For getting behind the whell, for lying, for abusing his position as a Representative. And any other charge that will stick! Enough pampering.
Lives are at stake with that man on the road!
Comment by benning @ 5/6/2006 - 6:04 pm
Okay, Pam, I’ll agree with that. They definitely should not be used as a political tool or one-upmanship.
Crimes aren’t political… they’re simply crimes that should be investigated and prosecuted on their merits. This doesn’t, in my opinion, have anything to do with him being a Democrat (except that if he was a Republican, the mainstream media would give him a harder time).
Still, drunk driving… or driving under the influence of drugs… changing your story with the public now saying you don’t remember things you previously remembered… lying to the police… obstucting justice and misusing the constitution as a shield to avoid prosecution… these are all serious and have nothing to do with politics.
The only thing that makes it in any way political is that he’s a politician. I follow crime cases where non-politicians are involved.
The name “Kennedy”, a person’s political affiliation, money, or being a Member of Congress shouldn’t change anything.
And that’s the point. I’m not yet completely sold on the concept that his being a Kennedy caused the Capital Police to back off. Maybe, but I’d have to see the results of their investigation before I formed an opinion on it.
What we do know for certain 100% incontrovertible is that the Speech and Debate clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids the police to arrest or detain a Congressman while travelling to or from the House while the House is in session except under very narrowly defined circustances - and Representative Kennedy told the police he was headed to a House vote when there was no vote. I think this is highly troubling.
Comment by Chris from Victoria, BC @ 5/7/2006 - 1:12 am
Rush was very humble and gracious on the Pat K. matter, but the left will still hate him and poke at his drug problem. But they’ll demand kid gloves for Tedward’s offspring.
Kennedy, and McKinney, are two examples of how some politicians can get a mere slap on the wrist. Ordinary Joe Lunchbucket hits a cop, he goes to the pokey. Mr. Average Wage-earner crashes his car in front of cops, he by God gets a field sobriety test.
BTW, why didn’t Jesse Jackson get upset when Patrick shoved that airport secu- oh, never mind… white liberal men can do that sort of thing. I forgot.
Comment by The Libertarian Guy @ 5/7/2006 - 9:55 am
Thanks for the backup, Pam
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 5/7/2006 - 7:51 pm