I have to admit, I am somewhat impressed.  The guy has taken some fairly good steps in his road to recovery and has taken responsibility for his actions, something any addict has to do at one time or another.

While most of Congress might have delayed and avoided the costs (ala McKinney and Jefferson), he seems to have a desire to come clean.

Maybe there is some integrity in the Kennedy line after all.  His dad and cousin sure do not show signs of it.

But don't get me started on those guys.

Would that more in Congress would do likewise.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy has reached a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to a charge of driving under the influence of prescription drugs in connection for his middle-of-the-night car crash last month near the U.S. Capitol.

Two additional charges of reckless driving and failure to exhibit a driving permit will be dismissed under the plea agreement reached with prosecutors.

"As congressman Kennedy has said all along, he will take full responsibility for his actions and that is what he is doing today," Kennedy's chief of staff, Sean Richardson, said Tuesday.

I am sure the cynics will emerge, and proclaim that this is an empty plea, that he likely has a sentencing agreement as well, and likely they are right.  The amount of jail time is not the issue, accepting consequences is.

Congress, like it or not, is a privilaged class.  He could have stonewalled this and done nothing except pay his tickets.

He didn't and I think that takes a certain amount of guts.  His opponants will not let this go, and this could eventually cost him his seat in the next election.  He obviously knows that, and I am sure he is hoping to capture loyalty with the honesty factor.

So yes, I am admitting this is possibly a calculated risk on his part.  Is that so shocking?  That someone in Congress might have a second agenda of self interest?  I may be naturally cynical, but I am also a realist.  The system is what it is.

GOOD!  He should have been fired, but half a loaf is better then no loaf I suppose.

God help LA...

County elections director resigns

In response, Sims says that he will delay the new all-mail voting system

Dean Logan, the politically battle-weary director of King County elections, is resigning to take the No. 2 elections job in Los Angeles, prompting County Executive Ron Sims to delay moving the county to a virtually all-mail voting system.

In an interview Monday, Logan said a factor in his decision to leave his job as director of the Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division was the "toxic environment" surrounding the elections operation. It heated up after the contested 2004 governor's election and intensified again recently over Sims' vote-by-mail plan.

	Logan

Sims has planned for an August 2007 rollout of the vote-by-mail system, which the County Council, after several delays, is scheduled to vote on next week. But he said Logan's departure, coupled with other vacancies in the elections office, "is a major setback for us on vote by mail."

"I think the earliest we're going to achieve it now is 2008. ... We're going to be very methodical, and I'm not even guaranteeing we'll do it in 2008," the executive said.

The job of elections superintendent under Logan has been vacant for a year, and a number of vacancies exist in the department. Sims said they have been difficult to fill because of the negative publicity.

In a letter to Sims Monday announcing his resignation, Logan said one of the factors was "the continuing struggle to manage the ... division in what remains a highly politicized and divided structure. ...

"My personal and professional disappointment in the recent incivility and disrespectful nature of proceedings with the County Council related to the vote-by-mail proposal has further exaggerated that dynamic," Logan wrote.

Sims, in an interview, added, "I think Dean's concern was that the environment had become so politically toxic that he felt that even if he succeeded, he wouldn't be beyond criticism for political reasons, and he didn't want to feel there was no upside to remaining.

I am sure this comes as a disappointment to the unhinged sore losers, but it seems that Robert Kennedy Jr's rousing expose is not being universally adored.  Apparently some pesky facts have gotten in the way of his stirring tale of fraud and disenfranchisemnt.

Sure, the New York Times has come on board with Bobby Jr, claiming that "the integrity of the election process needs to be more fiercely defended in the face of outrageous Republican assaults. Democrats, the media, and ordinary voters need to fight back."

He must have missed the story about Chad Staton who filled out phony voter registrations, at the request of a NAACP worker, who admitted to paying him crack to do so.

He also likely missed the cases where Democratic staffers slashed tires on the Republican staffers cars in Milwaukee.

Those who shriek "every vote counts" forget that Gore only requested a recount in the heaviest Democrat leaning counties initially, in Florida 2000.

They likely also didn't hear about the ridiculous chicanery that surrounded the Governor's election here in Washington.

The point of this is, that saying we need to defend the sanctity of elections is fine....If we protect it from all sides.  If you want to address the problems of fraud, do so from a productive standpoint, and a proactive one, perhaps by inserting security elements such as requiring ID, validation of eligibility to vote and various other measures that make the process more integral.

But back to Bobby.  Today a few people from the media (obviously not the NY Times) fights back against Bobby.

Some Ohio Editors and Reporters Criticize 'Rolling Stone' Story on 2004 Alleged Vote Fraud

Did the press really miss the story in the 2004 presidential election of massive voter fraud and conspiracies to keep millions from casting ballots that a recent controversial piece in Rolling Stone has alleged? As the article's author, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., believes, did news outlets, both nationally and in the battleground state of Ohio, engage in a "media blackout" that ignored what he claims are "deeply troubling" aspects of the election that returned George W. Bush to the White House?