Bloodless Coup

Let's see: Obstruction of justice, perjury, and making a false statement. Who says Democrats aren't efficient? With Pat Kennedy's help, it seems the Capitol police have made the case against him in less than 2 days, for the same charges that it took Pat Fitzgerald 2 years to make against Libby.
"A letter written by a Capitol Police officer to Acting Chief Christopher McGaffin said Kennedy appeared to be staggering when he left the vehicle after the crash about 3 a.m. The letter was first reported by Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper.
Kennedy said he was late for a vote, officer Greg Baird said in the letter to McGaffin. Baird is acting chairman of the Capitol Hill chapter of the FOP police union. The last vote of the night had occurred almost six hours earlier."

What the hell is this?

and some dude somewhere just murdered a few people in their bedroom simply for being there, so what's a few billion dollars criminally grifted by friends of the GOP. one liar means all liars are right, right?

don't you get tired of failing utterly at your amateurish efforts at sleight of hand. "other people are doing it" is no answer to any charge. and even if it were under ordinary circumstances, last i checked, DUI is not a matter of national security.

by the way, perjury requires false testimony under oath. show me an accusation of perjury where there's been no oath, i'll show you a libelous statement. but then other people are doing it, so who cares, right?

oh and btw, what on earth are you talking about? a link? a quote? something? what's big news to you isn't big news to everyone.

okay, found it.

. . . and as usual, your version and the news version -- not the subjective, personal accounts contained therein but the sourced, qualified, sanitized, dumbed-down CNN version -- diverge wildly. as of right now, as far as i'm concerned, there's libel in more than just your perjury accusation. and if it turns out that the police didn't administer a sobriety test, i'm sure that's because he's a democrat, 'cause everyone knows police love democrats and i'm sure no capitol hill policeman has ever ever ever let a republican walk away from what would have been a DUI for any normal citizen.

Thanks for the link Moon, I didn't know what that was all about.

And on the subject of ambien, that shit has serious side effects. There were some articles recently about people get up and do things in the middle of the night (sleep-eating was the most talked about) but experience amnesia:

Researchers in Minnesota are looking at instances where people taking Ambien for insomnia got up in the middle of the night and engaged in such behaviors as binge eating. The patients reportedly remembered nothing of the experience upon awakening. Dr. Michael Cramer Vornemann, a researcher at the University of Minnesota Medical School and the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, said it appears that those with a prior history of sleep walking and also women may be at higher risk for experiencing these side effects. The researchers believe that thousands of people taking Ambien experience sleep related eating disorders. The researchers looked at older sleep aids and found that these side effects are unique to Ambien, and possibly other newer medications such as Lunesta and Sonata. Mayo Clinic research conducted earlier on Ambien had similar findings. Consumer group Public Citizen has called for very limited use of Ambien because it causes temporary amnesia.

Dudes, he's a Kennedy. He was driving. He staggered. Therefore, he must have been drinking. Story line over.

Reality, of course, may or may not vary from the storyline.

And of course the interesting part of the tale is not Patrick's misbehavior or lack thereof, it's the way the Capitol Police handled it. It hasn't been much of a secret that this is their SOP for VIPs, but now it's out in the open. What else will come out?

What else? That Bill Clinton was riding shotgun in the radio car, right Morris?

Well, there were stories about this sort of thing happening to Janet Reno back in the day, but that's not quite what I meant. If one assumes that this sort of thing (Capitol Police taking care of a problem on the q.t.) happens from time to time, as I do, then surely exertions will be made to find evidence of this happening to other Members, if only to feed the usual partisan name-calling machines. It will be interesting, in a dynamics-of-the-media-governmental-complex kind of way, to see what (if anything) floats up and by what route.

and per usual, kennedy's shenanigans are the lead story on CNN, while the combat deaths of three more U.S. soldiers in iraq is relegated to the sidebar. so how's that for liberal media bias?

plus ca change . . .

I don't think that's bias, that's just pop-news reality. It is an unfortunate fact that combat deaths in Iraq aren't much of a big story these days, whereas "drunken Kennedy gets special treatment" is a big hook.

i'm quite certain you're right. i was making fun of the notion of a vast left-wing MSM conspiracy, one of the more readily debunked urban legends making the red-state rounds, unfortunately to good effect (if by "good" one means republican benefit).

Apparently Patrick is entering rehab effective immediately.

I haven't been near a TV in days, but if this is really the big news of the day, as opposed to the Senate spending extravaganza, the port security bill or Porter Goss's resignation (btw, what's up with that? is he running for the Senate?), the I think even less of the news that I usually do. Celebrity "news" is STUPID AND DULL.

Josh Marshall may have the scoop on Goss.

Moon,
Why so defensive? If it's a huge crime when a Republican lies, why do you do exactly what you attack me for and make an advantageous comparison? It's obvious there was a cover up, one that easily could have cost lives if he'd hit another car instead of a barricade. But why attack Republicans rather than Democrats doing the same things? Where are the cheap shots at Kennedy, the ones you liberals lob at Limbaugh for being addicted to pills?

For one thing Kennedy is not being a hypocrite, and for a second thing Kennedy doesn't have any power over my life - and hence I'm not really any more interested in his failings than I am in what the neighborhood crazy is up to in their garage (presuming it's not hurting anyone else).

And it's possible there's a "cover-up" - but last time I checked the people who currently run Capitol Hill aren't those who are interested in assisting a member of the Kennedy family cover-up anything they might be up to.

And I can't believe you bring up Rush here - Rush is a guy with a lot of influence in this country (horrifyingly) who lies about his actions and refuses to so much as acknowledge the fact that he was arrested, when he very clearly was. Young Kennedy openly admits to his actions, holds a press conference and announces he's going into rehab. Between the two it's abundantly clear who's the bigger liar, who's covering shit up, and who won't even acknowledge their considerable failures - and sadly the bad guy is the one who actually has power and influence.

Bro,
So you're saying that US Representatives don't have any power over your life? Considering the number of times this blog has posted about Republican Representatives, and a very specific Republican Representative's failing, it appears to me that your lack of concern for failings falls very strictly along party lines (otherwise the whole culture of corruption thing wouldn't matter). Can Democrats do no wrong, or does it just not matter less when they do?

No, I am saying that I eat puppies like all liberals, and then polish off my day with an abortion or three.

And Michael Moore is fat, goddammit!

Morris, a blog is not a newspaper or any sort of comprehensive public record of events (or opinions). No blog is required to have a post on every event of significance. Thus, the fact that BloodlessCoup hasn't commented on the Kennedy "thingy" isn't an example of hypocracy, just the much simpler explanation that none of the owners here care all that much. We generally comment when a public figure's actions are detrimental to the public good (as we define it). Kennedy may (or may not) be a boob, or may (or may not) be addicted to anything. In any event, his actions have no effect on any policy of the US. Thus, to put it bluntly, who cares?

You will note, for example, that I haven't blogged about Katherine Harris' self-destucting Senate campaign (which is much more relevant to policy, as her presence in the Senate will lower the intellectual debate by several orders of magnitude), or about Rep. Obey's likely ties to the Duke Cunningham bribery-palloza (which is also of more relevance in a policy sense, since Obey is high up in Republican leadership in the house). We let slide far more than we choose to comment on.

You have complained before about our failure to blog about something. Simply: there is no sin of omission for blogs. If the New York Times fails to take note of Kennedy, you have a right to complain (they are the "paper of record", or claim to be). We aren't.

Binky, my dear, puppy-eating (or at least puppy-blenderizing) is libertarian, not liberal. And to Baltar's point, as a famous puppy-blenderizer often points out, if you don't like a blog's omissions you are free to start your own.

baltar, you forgot to mention, we are all totally fucking consumed with grading the scintillating verbiage produced by the various intoxications of our students, and thus have little interest or time for the products of some Kennedy's intoxication. or something like that.

Baltar - Rep. Obey is a Democrat. And he's tied to Cunningham? I'd totally missed that.

Morris - Just b/c someone is a member of the US House of Representatives, that doesn't mean they have any power over my life. The US House is the most partisan of all the arms of the federal government. The Republicans run it on the basis of Republican votes. Only a handful of Democrats have any influence - and a very tiny handful at that. Obey might be on that list. Patrick Kennedy is not. Being powerless - I don't care what he does.

Now he is a big fundraiser, so maybe he'd be of some influence in terms of partisan decisions among the House Democrats - but those don't affect my life. And quite frankly, I'm not too interested in how the House Dems set their priorities - again, b/c they are powerless.

So add all that to the fact that he's not a big hypocrite on drug matters, and I really don't care what he's doing in his spare time. And most of the press on this has more to do with his last name than what he did. If we were talking about Bill Pascrell or John Tierney this probably wouldn't have gotten more than 20 seconds of air time. I mean there are members of Congress who appear to have done far worse in their private life (say, Don Sherwood) and their scandals aren't all over the morning shows.

Baltar,
It does stand out that you continually take to task Fox News and refuse to take it seriously as a media source because it appears to offer a more conservative interpretation of news events than other media outlets. Personally, I can't really watch it except for Sunday Mornings because it's turned into the 24-hour Geraldo network, reporting on the car chases and the underside of courtroom business more than the alternative political perspective on which it was founded, thankyou Mr. Hannity. However, if its coming from a different wavelength along the political spectrum is reason to discount its content, then couldn't the same be said of your blog that with a few noted exceptions (for which I do give you credit) tends to be anti-conservative, much more than it is anti-Democrat or pro-Republican? Basically, if you expect people to take your blog seriously, then why don't you take seriously the Weekly Standard or other such media outlets that certainly don't cover all news but limit themselves to a few stories each week on which they want to comment? If I'm not supposed to trust the National Review because they're biased, why should I trust your blog for the same reason?
Bro,
Hidden within your idea of using the culture of corruption attack on the Republicans is the nasty assumption that the Democrats are better, because if both parties were given to ethical frailty then it's not a valid reason to vote for one party over the other. Maybe the Democrats are better when they're not almost killing people with their car, punching or cussing out the Capitol Hill police, or brought up on charges for bribery? We live in a political system that is in flux, that can change in any election, and you do seem to get the idea that simply because of his name Kennedy would have some power within the House if the Democrats were to get more seats than Republicans. We're living in a political time that is characterized by a lack of vision and personal courage among its leadership. Whatever his faults may be, Bush has a Middle Eastern policy that is an exception, even if you disagree with his vision. It's not more Democrats or more Republicans that will fix most of the problems in our political system. We have plenty of Republicans now, and we've had plenty of Democrats before. The leaders of both parties in the House and Senate lack the courage to be authentic, to stand for something regardless of the polls. It's all a drama we watch on Sunday morning, and they are the actors. What we need are legislators with the courage to be writers or directors, people to run for office more concerned with political courage than political identification or political fortune. But instead we have hundreds of Jim Moras, ahead in the 4th quarter. Every coach who's won a Super Bowl step forward. Not so fast, Mr. Mora.

Morris, Fox News claims to be a NEWS source - printing/reporting the NEWS. We claim to be a blog, discussing things that interest us.

Staff of Fox News: unknown, but clearly in the hundreds. Paid money to report news.

Staff of BloodlessCoup: 3. Paid nothing to do this (and, in fact, paid money to do other things, which interferes with our ability to do this).

If you can't understand the small, but important, difference between these two organizations, then I can't help you.

Morris - Wow, you've pointed out 3 Democrats who've got dirty laundry. You think that must mean every politician regardless of party is stained by corruption. That is patently ridiculous. Are there dirty Democrats, sure. Is the scale of Republican corruption at the moment much, much, much worse. Absolutely. Would some Democrats be corrupt if they won power in November? Sure. But does that mean that their corruption would exceed what we are seeing now amongst the Republicans? Uh, no, it doesn't. And I don't see why we should throw out the current bunch of corrupt incompetents. I like to think of it as "accountability". Once in opposition, if they can convince American they can govern more competently and cleanly THEN MAYBE we can consider trusting them with high office. But right now the scale of the corruption is hideous and calls for a response.

And I'll say it again, Patrick Kennedy has no power over my life. There are probably people working in the cafeteria who have more influence than Cynthia McKinney. Therefore, I'm not terribly interested in what wrongs they are commiting if no one is hurt by them.

And as to your support for the presidents delusions and standing-fast against the polls - I'm really confused by how your mind works. In the past on this blog you've implied that most civil rights and freedoms can be impaired or ended entirely if 50.1% of the public thinks that's what should be done. But when you have a president who's not doing at all what the public wants, and hasn't been responding to the public will for months on end ... you cheer him? Are you pro-representative government or not? You want us to fight wars to install it - but then praise a delusional leader who happily and proudly bucks public opinion. Is there a reason for this seemingly apparent inconsistency?

you still haven't explained to me why "other people are doing it" some how excuses misconduct, and you rely on that all the time, constantly pointing to dems for trivial misconduct to slide out of the clutches of the serious, system-compromising misconduct of, say, abramoff and everyone he touched (half the republican caucus, it looks like). any democrat who dealt with him has a problem too, but find me one publication, even among the right wing faithful, that dares to suggest it wasn't republican pockets that abramoff preferred.

it's sad what happened with kennedy, but capitol police, as we've aready said, treat folks on the hill different, and lambasting kennedy because no one caught a republican DUI this month is hardly interesting to me.

by the way, i didn't attack rush for being an addict, per se. i have tremendous sympathy for addicts and their behavior. i simply said that anyone who effectively states that all drug users should be locked up and the key thrown away deserves a taste of his own prescription. i believe in treatment and rehab for all addicts, and i believe in a massive restructuring of the federal budget in the form of diminishing or eliminating federal incarceration for non-violent drug offenses. i'm consistent. limbaugh's a f&*king hypocrite of the highest order.

but then i suppose anyone who is familiar with his particular variety of hate was hardly surprised, and in context could excuse him of the charge of hypocrisy. plainly, when he said lock up all the druggies forever, what he meant was lock up all the poor black druggies forever. limbaugh, being neither poor nor black, deserves different treatment. QED.