Woody, isn't this from the April 15th accident?

In that one he turned in front of someone to get into a pharmacy. No charges. A witness said he was under the influence, according to CBS.

It looks like he indeed was high on something.

* * * * * * * * * *

Thanks, MOM. Good catch, and I appreciate your pointing out that I mixed up the accidents. It's hard keeping up with which accident is which with the Kennedy's. I've exercised my license to edit the post to correctly identify and match this police report with the correct wreck, while attempting to maintain the flavor of the thought. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Woody

P.S. Everyone should check out MaxedOutMama's web site http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/ . She's smart and does a good job at dismantling wacked out ideas and claims from the left.

W.

Posted by MaxedOutMama at May 5, 2006 10:24 PM

I think the ironic thing is that he was trying to get to a pharmacy.

Posted by Oyster at May 6, 2006 07:41 AM

Wow! He writes better than Teddy when under the influence.
Stil can't make it out though.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at May 6, 2006 07:25 PM

Here's another arrest record for ya! :)

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at May 7, 2006 05:20 AM

Oh that was nice, Moose. According to that he was 2 months old when he got a DUI.

But aside from just an obvious mistake on the date, if I remember correctly (and I do) 30 years ago DUIs were not that big a deal even for the great unwashed. People were merely fined, had a brief suspension of their licenses and sent back behind their steering wheels regularly. Priviledge, indeed. You're judging this by today's laws.

So pray tell, how does a DUI 30 years ago compare to the current situation with Kennedy? Bush gets a DUI in 1976, is punished by the usual standards of the time, and it's used as a counter argument to Kennedy's more than a decade long record of drug and alcohol abuse and reckless behavior?

Or did you think you were informing us of something you thought we might not have heard about (yeesh, every newspaper and station in the country has carried that story ad-nauseum) and wanted to make dang sure we understood your level of contempt? Personally, I think you've made it abundantly clear - over and over.

Posted by Oyster at May 7, 2006 07:53 AM

So pray tell, how does a DUI 30 years ago compare to the current situation with Kennedy? Bush gets a DUI in 1976, is punished by the usual standards of the time, and it's used as a counter argument to Kennedy's more than a decade long record of drug and alcohol abuse and reckless behavior?

That's just the point... Bush Jr. certainly had more than a decade long record of alcohol and probably drug abuse. So why does your guy get a pass but Kennedy doesn't? We all know why... because he's *your* guy. Fair and balanced my hind leg!

wanted to make dang sure we understood your level of contempt

Not much difference from the level of contempt displayed here for Kennedy. Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black.

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at May 7, 2006 02:21 PM

A weak "certainly" and a definate "probably" doesn't cut the mustard, Moose. Let's use a little intellectual honesty here. Do you really think that this level of chronic behavior wouldn't have been uncovered during the last election cycle? Jeebus, they left no stone unturned looking for dirt on Bush and the best they could do is forge a couple documents.

Posted by Oyster at May 8, 2006 06:01 AM

So Bush's DUI back in the 70's and Kennedy's accident while driving under the influence of medication are in no way comparable to you? You throw stones at Kennedy but pretend Bush's DUI was nothing of importance at all. That's your definition of intellectual honestly? PUH-LEEEZE...

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at May 8, 2006 08:17 AM