Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Darcy and Seth | Main | Color of Change demands investigation into death of soldier likely murdered in Iraq »

July 28, 2008

Bob Novak diagnosed with brain tumor

Journalist Bob Novak has been diagnosed with a brain tumor. The diagnosis comes a week after Novak plowed into a homeless man on K Street and drove off. He later claimed he had no idea he'd hit anyone, despite an eyewitness's report that the victim was splayed across Novak's windshield.

The tumor might have had something to do with the crash, and with Novak's impaired speech in news footage recorded after the incident.

"I know Bob will confront this challenge with the same courage with which he has taken on the political establishment in Washington for decades," said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Novak was criticized after he was the first to publicly reveal the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in a 2003 column. His column came out eight days after Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, said the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. [AP]

Doctors don't yet know whether the tumor is malignant.

[HT: Norm Costa.]

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00e553bf3bdb8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bob Novak diagnosed with brain tumor:

Comments

I still say that Bob Novak's speech was as clear as the average person's.

Whoof. I honestly don't wish that on anyone.

If Novak's tumor isn't malignant, it'd be the only thing about him that isn't.

Let's hope it's not malignant.

If the tumour is as malignant as he is, he's in trouble.


Lindsay,

What's the significance of "[HT: Norm Costa.]"?

Norm, just saying thanks for alerting me to the story of Bob Novak's diagnosis. I learned about it from your comment in the earlier Novak thread. "HT" stands for Hat Tip.

A misdiagnosis. What brain?


Lindsay,

Likewise.

I wish the old SOB an effective treatment and a quick and complete recovery. Then, I wish the experience teaches him a little humility and sympathy. Like, say, some insight into what it must be like for the millions of his fellow underinsured citizens who don't seek medical help when they get sick because hospital doors are merely portals to penury.

Of course I wished in vain for the same thing when bloated ┼▒bermaggot Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing (ever as odious after as before) and R. Reagan was shot (he later canceled funding for a federal program that paid for emergency medical facilities like the one that treated him).

With a brain tumor any crazy-ass thing is possible. He could very well have run into someone and have had the poor bastard lying right across the windshield and not realized it. The fact remains though that the motherfucker was given a fifty fucking dollar citation for hit and run! When we hoi polloi commit a similar crime we're properly fed into the legal meat grinder. The rich and powerful however get a knowing wink and have to pay a little pocket change.

I didn't hear about the fifty-dollar ticket. Oy. Also interesting to learn (from a prominent member of Congress, no less) that Novak is an anti-establishment figure!


Why is a 'hit-and-run' driver issued a citation instead of getting arrested?

I'll give you an answer I got from a policeman who happens to be my son-in-law. [Police and lawyers who read this, please weigh in with your perspective.] We were discussing an accident that was much similar to the Novak incident. This was about 10+ years ago so some of the details escape me. The responding policeman issued the driver a fairly low level citation, as in the Novak incident. I did not understand why the policeman did not take issue with a more serious violation since witnesses gave statements about very reckless driving.

My son-in-law, the cop, said that a responding officer cannot issue a more serious summons or arrest the driver, if the cop did not actually witness the alleged violation. All the officer can do is take names and statements and issue citations for what is obvious to him - Novak hit the cyclist, therefore he failed to yield to the cyclist.

To the ordinary citizen who is naive to police procedure, it may appear that Novak is getting preferential, if not lenient, treatment. I don't think that is the case. Perhaps one of you readers out there can shed some light on what responding policemen are supposed to do in a similar situation.

Oh, you are all so nice. Would you wish Lee Atwater a great recovery so he could keep the neo-cons in power for another four years? A five year old getting a brain tumor is a tragedy. Bob Novak, not so much.


As for me, doctors may not know if the tumor is malignant, but I sure think it is karma.

My son-in-law, the cop, said that a responding officer cannot issue a more serious summons or arrest the driver, if the cop did not actually witness the alleged violation. All the officer can do is take names and statements and issue citations for what is obvious to him - Novak hit the cyclist, therefore he failed to yield to the cyclist.

But the cop didn't see Novak hit the pedestrian. And when the summons was issued, Novak wasn't at the scene of the accident, and he hadn't notified authorities that the accident had occurred. So if the cop can assume Novak hit the victim, and can assume that he had failed to yield (rather than that the pedestrian was jaywalking), why can't he assume that Novak had committed a hit and run?

My son-in-law, the cop, said that a responding officer cannot issue a more serious summons or arrest the driver, if the cop did not actually witness the alleged violation. All the officer can do is take names and statements and issue citations for what is obvious to him - Novak hit the cyclist, therefore he failed to yield to the cyclist.

But the cop didn't see Novak hit the pedestrian. And when the summons was issued, Novak wasn't at the scene of the accident, and he hadn't notified authorities that the accident had occurred. So if the cop can assume Novak hit the victim, and can assume that he had failed to yield (rather than that the pedestrian was jaywalking), why can't he assume that Novak had committed a hit and run?

swampcracker: FUNNY !!

what does bob know that they know he's getting ready to tell>

You can be sure it's SOMETHING. another dirty boy getting clean.

The comments to this entry are closed.