[P-40]

And many of these commentators will be the same people who were giddy in their ceaseless attacks on Rush.

Well, the case with Rush was different because (remaining sentence under construction).

[mnehring]

Well, the case with Rush was different because (remaining sentence under construction).... Simply being addicted to a legal substance is not a crime, DUI is.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Well, the case with Rush was different because (remaining sentence under construction):

• Rush endangered no one, whereas Kennedy was illegally driving under the influence of something, and crashed his vehicle just like dear old dad.

• Rush spent millions vindicating his right to privacy against a zealous prosecutor; in the case of Kennedy, senior cops prevented the junior ones from documenting that Kennedy was DWI. Just like the authorities in Massachusetts laundered the record for dear old dad.

• Rush has a history of coming out of rehab and (two years and counting) staying clean; Kennedy was already in rehab once, and unless the cock-and-bull story about sleepdriving is actually true, this is a relapse.

Other than that, the cases are similar. </sarcasm>

[AzNASCARfan]

#1) and most important difference, Rush was not driving...
#2) Rush took full responsibility, admitted the problem, went to rehab.
#3) it still cost Rush tens of thousands of dollars and three years to even get a plea offer and he still had to spend minimal time in Jail... Kennedy did not even get a slap on the wrist... he got a lift home.

Damn it sure seems like each of the Kennedy's should be able to afford to have a full time driver in their employ to make sure there are no more DUI's