A couple of points. As I read it, your second and third points here are solid. But what people don’t get about mitigating circumstances are that they are not (or should not be) an attempt to excuse away blame, but simply an assertion of extrenal factors affecting why she had the accident. And let us not forget she was 17 at the time. I ran a stop sign at 17 once – one I had stopped for the few times I’d taken that route previously. But on this occasion I was distracted and didn’t notice it until too late. Fortunately there was no oncoming traffic and no cop around to ticket me – but it shook me nonetheless, to realize I’d done it. Yes, she should have paid better attention. But she didn’t – something that has happened, with less tragic circumstances, to many of us in our youths, and perhaps even later in life.
But on the first point, I humbly beg to disagree. My reading of what she was saying was not that she blamed the accident on its being a Corvair, but that she blamed the death on it – why she brought up Ralph Nader’s indictment of the car’s failings. In other words, the accident would still have happened, and been her fault, if the other driver had been driving a well-engineered Saab – but the other driver would likely not have died from the accident in a Saab.
Extenuating circumstances are a way for the guilty to pray for mercy. To set a hypothetical example, “Yes, your honor, I caused the accident. I admit my guilt. But I humbly request that the court take into consideration that I was having a seizure at the time – something which happened to me in my younger years, I had surgery to correct which I was assured would eliminate the problem, and I had not had a seizure in twenty years. Had I had any inkling that I was still subject to them prior to the accident, I would not have been driving, but I was totally unaware that I might still have them. So I admit my guilt, and beg the court to be merciful in handing down judgment.” That’s an extreme case, but it paints the picture of why extenuating circumstances are not excuses but grounds for asking for mercy.
This is exactly how I read it and I don’t even like Laura Bush. I can’t get on board with the OP. Although I have to say that I don’t think the stop sign was ‘small’. WTF?
Originally posted by Equipoise
My main thought regarding the accident was knowing that, if the tables were turned, and Hillary Clinton had had an accident at age 17 that killed someone, the right would have screamed about it so loud and so long, think Chappaquiddick x 10, even jungle hermits who still think World War II is going would have known about it. And that was then, when she was First Lady. Imagine when she ran for president, and then become Secretary of State!
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Hilary even gets blamed for things she has nothing to do with.
Yeah, I’m not really even getting why this has to be a pissing contest. Both Ted Kennedy and Laura Bush were at fault. I don’t see why we have to pretend like Ted’s car crash was more reasonable in order to criticize Laura.
Well, I see it less that way and more that she knows she made a mistake but not one that she could have foreseen having such consequences. I think in most people’s minds, killing someone is something only bad horrible people do and she’s not a bad horrible person–she knows that. And she wants to explain it.
I remember reading in psych class that we tend to excuse mistakes more the closer we are to who did it. That is, I tripped and fell because someone left garbage out in the street. My best friend Mike fell because he wasn’t looking where he was going. That guy I don’t know is probably just a clumsy ass.
I think it’s a normal reaction to try to explain yourself in those terms. “I wasn’t a silly, careless girl like those other careless drivers. I had a good reason.” It does seem to come off as callous but I can see where she is coming from. It’s a horrific thing to be a part of and I can see why any person would want to distance themselves from it.
I don’t see what Teds accident has to do with Bush whatsoever.
She can never absolve herself of the guilt but the book is a halfhearted stab at it. Stop signs fault. (too small) . Corvair unsafe vehicle. I was a kid.
I think in her dark little Bushian heart she knows it will stick with her as long as she lives. She is attempting to lessen her role to abate the guilt. That is a human thing to do. I do understand the need.
Why assert them, then, especially so many years later?
Suppose it had been a pedestrian, or a bicyclist. (Presumably Nader doesn’t object to people traveling by these means.) The victim would assuredly be dead; would she be pointing out that a big heavy car would have protected him then? If not, why point it out now?
I suspect that most posters in this thread have at one time or another gone through a stop sign or committed some other traffic no-no that under certain circumstances could have resulted in serious injury or death.
Unfortunately in Laura Bush’s case the end result was another person dying.
I understand the human need to try to explain away something in a manner that makes you feel less guilty. I still can’t imagine any way in which it’s decent or proper to bring up the belief that the car the victim was driving was an unsafe model.
Off topic a little, but how come every time I hear “sleek sports car” and “prone to rolling over” in the same sentence my world spins? I always thought the definition of “sleek sports car” was that it was low an wide, making it more difficult to tip?
You keep bringing up illegality. Do you really think any points go in Ted’s favor when comparing the two cases because there’s no specific law prohibiting one form driving off a bridge but there is for going through a stop sign?
What is your proof that his accident was caused by negligence? The bridge was at the end of an unlit dirt road, and the bridge itself was unlit and had no guard rail. He had turned down that road in the dark by mistake, and didn’t see the bridge until it was too late (going 20 miles an hour, by the way, so no speeding). If there was any negligence, it was the lack of markings, lightings or guard rails on the bridge and on the road.
Unless you can prove Teddy did something illegal or negligent, you’ve got nothing.
I’m pretty outraged that people who I otherwise consider reasonable posters on the board are attempting to excuse Laura by saying “Well, she was 17. Who ISN’T irresponsible at 17?” and that they feel sorry for her.
I feel sorry for the person she killed. I don’t feel sorry for Laura at all. There were no consequences for her.
Driving under the speed limit does not automatically mean driving safely (neither does driving above the speed limit automatically mean driving unsafely; it’s merely a convenient tool to allow prosecution, but that’s a debate for another day). When driving, you must drive at a speed such that you are able to stop within the distance than you know will remain clear. If he didn’t see the bridge in time he was going to quick for the conditions, regardless of any speed limit. Alternatively he was impaired in some way. Or distracted at a critical moment. Whatever. It’s still his fault.
The accident has to have been caused by negligence, unless it was done on purpose, which is only believed by a few lunatics.
Actually your attitude worries me. Go and get some more driving lessons.
By the way, Clinton was not impeached for getting a blowjob. Jackson blew off the Supreme Court to trash the Cherokee. And Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus.
Since we’re bound to play tu quoque on a partisan basis whenever anyone brings up anything about any person who is or is related to a political figure, I figured I’d get some of the Usual Allegations out of the way.
Laura fucked up when she was 17 – and it took the life of another. She rather foolishly revisited it in her recent book, and brought up extenuating circumstances. Ted Kennedy is now as dead as Mary Jo, and it would be nice if the debates about Chappaquiddick were too. Especially when they’re hijacking a thread on a different topic.