Comments on: Did Dubya do the weed deed?

Did Dubya do the weed deed?

lobstah — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:44:32 -0800

CBS is reporting that George W. Bush acknowledged using marijuana during a recorded phone conversation. The conversations were recorded by Doug Wead, a former aide to George W. Bush's father, beginning in 1998, when Mr. Bush was weighing a presidential bid, until just before the Republican National Convention in 2000.

By: chrismetcalf

chrismetcalf — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:48:54 -0800

So what? Clinton smoked weed too...

By: jimjam

jimjam — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:49:23 -0800

and smoking weed is bad because...

By: S.C.

S.C. — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:49:52 -0800

The conversations were recorded by Doug Wead...

By: loquax

loquax — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:50:58 -0800

"I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions," he said, according to the Times. "You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried." Not that I think it matters at all, but this passage strikes me not as him admitting that he's smoked pot, but why he wouldn't admit it if he were Al Gore.

By: muckster

muckster — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:51:17 -0800

It should matter because of the utter hypocrisy. It won't better because, hey, he's born again.

By: oh posey

oh posey — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:51:35 -0800

Wead - oh ha oh ho oh.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:51:44 -0800

I can see the trial now. Taking oaths: "I, Doug Weed..." "That's an admission of guilt your honour, he's not a reliable witness!"

By: salad spork

salad spork — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:52:36 -0800

I thought we knew this all along... that his "youthful indiscretions" included both weed and coke. But I guess this just verifies it further. Let's see what the "liberal" media does with this (i.e. everyone but CBS/Reuters). If it's anything less than the "but I didn't inhale" fallout then the media is a bunch of hypocrites. But we already knew that, too.

By: lobstah

lobstah — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:53:40 -0800

In retrospect, it's about the only good thing I wouldn't bust him over.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:58:24 -0800

The pot thing aside (and I think loquax is absolutely right on that), this whole "private tapes shed light on Bush" thing is a crock and smacks of Karl Rove again getting the "liberal" media to flog W's PR for him. These "unauthorized" tapes are meant to show an unguarded Dubya so as to reveal his compassion, internal moral battles and his paternal instincts. They want to show us: the lonely warrior, who occasionally stumbles in expressing himself but has a heart of gold; the reformed sinner constantly struggling with his past demons and his vision for America... and deflect a bit of attention away from the hotmilitarystuds thing. Methinks we're all getting played again.

By: kjh

kjh — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:01:00 -0800

Why should I believe anything CBS reports?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:01:52 -0800

what a bunch of crapola. the real stories get profoundly underplayed.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:03:13 -0800

This is lame (1) because the underlying info is lamel and (2) this is posted to Metafilter. Your posting abilities (FPPs) should be suspended for 1 semana.

By: pantload

pantload — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:05:57 -0800

I vote for "we're getting played"...or more correctly, they are, because I'm not. Everything is so orchestrated with these people. There are no accidents.

By: teece

teece — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:11:35 -0800

Why should I believe anything CBS reports Why should you believe anything your senses tell you? There is the small matter of audio cassette tapes. Further, I believe that passage you quote is NOT the passage in which Bush admits to smoking pot, but I could be wrong, loquax. And this is a bullshit story. But it will also blow over quickly, just like that Clinton admission /sarcasm. Liberal media believers: that Flat Earthers of the information age.

By: lobstah

lobstah — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:12:19 -0800

By FPP, do you mean Fark Paris Paramus? Cause I can hold off for a bit, while you foam at the mouth !

By: TetrisKid

TetrisKid — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:22:02 -0800

ah best of the web... anybody else remember when MeFi wasn't just a rehash of whatever Drudge threw up?

By: S.C.

S.C. — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:22:20 -0800

It's more or less an accepted fact that the man used to be addicted to cocaine. How is a vague statement which could possibly intimate he has some history with marijuana supposed to matter in the grand scheme of things? The man invaded a sovereign country without provocation and against the wishes of most of the rest of the world, and the fact that oh, yeah, he may have toked up a time or two is news? psmealey and quonsar have it right. This is a, uh... Oh, god. This is a smoke screen. *winces*

By: mosch

mosch — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:23:14 -0800

I couldn't give a shit whether somebody smokes weed or not. I do wish our hypocritical "leaders" would take their heads out of their collective asses and admit that the criminalization of weed is absurd.

By: ShawnStruck

ShawnStruck — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:23:52 -0800

I think this whole thing is just utter tripe, nothing but smoke and mirrors. It's supposed to get people to try and forget about Jeff Gannon, and maybe even make us lib'ruls feel bad about being mean to the Preznit. I think a friend of mine put it best: Actually I think this is bullshit and it's supposed to distract us and make us feel bad about playing hardball against the dirtiest politician of our time - the man whose campaign paid for thugs to go down to Florida and stop the vote count and then got them cushy jobs and brought Karl Rove into the White House and stirred up hatred and prejudice against gay americans so he could say that torture and the lies that got us into war were vindicated and get his friends some more tax breaks and gut social security and cripple the FDA and remove controls on greenhouse gasses and put more mercury into the environment - and we should ignore it.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:24:48 -0800

I think loquax is correct about him speaking as though in Gore's shoes. And Kos is right, even if his diction isn't:

To be honest, I do think releasing these tapes is a betrayal. This guy Doug Wead is an ass. Could you imagine one of your good friends secretly taping a conversation with you and then leaking it to the NY Times? That said, these tapes are out, and they don't appear to reflect too good [sic] on the president.

Further, I believe that passage you quote is NOT the passage in which Bush admits to smoking pot, It's the one being quoted in that context all over the internet, fwiw.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:27:05 -0800

For those of you who would like to see a source that is not CBS news : here's the info in that bastion of credibility, the New York Times.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:32:37 -0800

It's supposed to get people to try and forget about Jeff Gannon Gannongate being, of course, the biggest and most important scandal of our lifetime. I hear Gannon conspired with Tojo to bomb Pearl Harbor, and his arch enemy Bigfoot knew it was coming but just let it happen anyway to justify waging war against the unicorns.

By: Zurishaddai

Zurishaddai — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:33:56 -0800

While Bush's "It's better to say 'don't do it' than to admit it to your kids" is a bit of defensive bullshit, the main reason this DrudgeFilter fodder is not Real News is that the tapes actually improve the image we get of this man from other sources. I mean, he can't stomach "kicking the gays" because he's a sinner. Here's where the Christian Right™ needs to take a lesson in Jeebus-speak from their elected representative, tho in fact of course this sort of stuff (not kicking gays) makes them boilin', hoppin' mad.

By: punkbitch

punkbitch — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:35:00 -0800

I did not have relations with that spliffy!

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:35:01 -0800

I'm pretty sure it was an AP Wire story. It was all over the place today on the Times, CNN, MSNBC and CBS News

By: S.C.

S.C. — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:37:59 -0800

This guy Doug Wead is an ass. Could you imagine one of your good friends secretly taping a conversation with you and then leaking it to the NY Times? I have to agree with this. As I mentioned earlier, there's plenty of data publicly available to attack Bush for (if you care to) without resorting to crap like this. What's next? Reading his diary aloud, live on CNN?

By: PuppyCat

PuppyCat — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:38:28 -0800

I bet i f you're the President you can score some good shit. I saw this around noon on CNN.com, so yes, it's made the rounds.

By: scheptech

scheptech — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:41:40 -0800

How is this newsworthy? How many people born anytime in the last 50 years have literally never touched pot under any circumstance whatsoever sometime between the ages of 15 and 25? I think this is one of societies biggest blind spots and everyday hypocrisies.

By: Boydrop

Boydrop — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:42:01 -0800

What psmeasley and ShawnStruck. Doug Wead is NOT an ass . . . he is doing what good friends do - helping out his friend who's administration faces a serious scandal (Jeff Gannon). I can't believe you guys are so easily played!

By: Boydrop

Boydrop — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:43:27 -0800

whoosps, what psmeasley and shwanstruck SAID. duh.

By: simra

simra — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:45:35 -0800

Yawn... man, I'm hungry. Somebody pass the cheesies...

By: mediareport

mediareport — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:46:29 -0800

lobstah's drudge-like CBS link is actually one of the more heavily edited versions of this story. From the ABC version: Instead of being a negative for the president, Wead sees Bush's past indiscretions as a positive story of redemption. "Leo Tolstoy said, 'Everyone wants to change humanity, but no one is willing to change themselves,' " said Wead. "I see George W. Bush as an example of someone who changed themselves." Yeah, whatever; this is a sign of Bush's integrity. Anyway, I'm not sure if psmealy's right in claiming this is a Rove-orchestrated distraction, but it's certainly not anything that is capable of really hurting Bush. Clinton lowered *that* bar long ago.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:51:44 -0800

1. go to the source--the place where the tapes were given and not to a place where some material taken from the original. 2. the tapes were not meant to show that Bush did or did not smoke pot but rather to make public tapes that had been made. The guy also says he would tape other highly placed leaders if given the chance--this is not a get Bush or Defend Bush thing. 3. What is revealed is some clues about the guy's (Bush) style of thinking political. 4. Many people in fact do and have taped conversations over a period of time even though the taped personality might have been a confidant or close personal friend...not at all unusual. 5. I see no reason to bash Bush or defend him over these tapes...they show us his style of thinking and leadership... example: he doesn't like bashing gays but does think an anti-gay marriage position is a vote getter. etc etc

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:52:40 -0800

Not only that, did you hear this guy also attacked Iraq? Whoo boy. How many people born anytime in the last 50 years have literally never touched pot under any circumstance whatsoever sometime between the ages of 15 and 25? /me raises hand

By: Creosote

Creosote — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:54:20 -0800

Does this mean that now when I see an old broken-down pickup truck with a bumper sticker reading IMPEACH THE POT-SMOKING DRAFT-DODGING LIAR I have to wonder whether it's really a old sticker or a brand new one?

By: telstar

telstar — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:55:43 -0800

Oh, the humanity! Our brave leader (before he was washed in the blood of the lord) actually was nearabouts unsaved sinners who offerred him the deadly mara-gee-wanna! Of course, he, like juh-heeeeee-ziz, had his moment of temptation, but, then, the holy spirit chose that moment to visit him and set him on the path to glorious righteousness! Setting his firm jaw he dashed off to don his tight-fitting flight suit. Tipping his hat to a couple of dainty southern belles who smiled at him behind their hankies, he jumped into his screamin' eagle jet and took a couple of supersonic turns while praying to the lord that he, George W. Bush, would be a conduit for HIS righteous wrath. Then taking careful aim, he proceeded to nuke that house of deadly iniquity into the stone age with super-patriot missiles, saving hundreds of innocent children from a life of sin, while bringing them to the lord instead.

By: jperkins

jperkins — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:01:23 -0800

The new "flag this post" feature is great!

By: scruss

scruss — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:02:38 -0800

Uh, simra, don't you mean pretzels?

By: maggieb

maggieb — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:04:37 -0800

I wish he smoked weed still.... with Rumsfeld and Negroponte.

By: alfredogarcia

alfredogarcia — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:24:44 -0800

Did you ever look at a dollar bill man? There's some spooky stuff going on on a dollar bill.

By: jimfl

jimfl — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:36:47 -0800

Good timing on this story! GWB will definitely not get another term now.

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:36:52 -0800

I wish him and Rush could do the times they propose others do for possesion. The hypocrisy of it all is what stings, but it always has and this is old news. The most interesting bit for me was his talking about how to "play" the Christian evangelicals, but that's old news too.

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:38:04 -0800

So what? Clinton smoked weed too... Yep, and he caught a world of pain for it, but Dubya won't. That's because of all the liberal bias in this country right?

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:38:20 -0800

I hope now that this has come to light that the United States of America is be able to have an open and honest discussion about the legalization of marijuana.

By: goodnewsfortheinsane

goodnewsfortheinsane — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:45:19 -0800

Dude, I live in Holland, I can go up to the President and blow smoke in his stupid monkey face and he'd just have to sit there grooving on it. Then again, the man is a mere 80 miles away, so I ain't sayin' nuttin. *lights up*

By: Balisong

Balisong — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:48:13 -0800

I'm sure that this was (produced) allowed to release by Carl Rove. It shows Bush as a "regular guy" instead of the monster the media have (rightly) portrayed him as. It shines light on his faith, that he had to word things tricksy in order to confirm his Christianity in order not to bring forth an untruthitude. He's tried pot, but would rather just say that you shouldn't do that, than admit a doing it. So I assume that he will immediately decriminalise minor possession and release from prison those with minor drug charges, and tell them not to do it again. And he doesn't want to kick gays.. Great! Don't you think that having these subjects together isn't just a ploy to try to swing over some of those that don't think he's an evil monster yet? I call shenanigans!! Lemmie get my broom!!

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:51:57 -0800

He says he inhaled, but I don't believe him.

By: loquax

loquax — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:52:43 -0800

While we're talking conspiracies, doesn't the picture on CNN's front page look incredibly fake?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:55:35 -0800

he is doing what good friends do - helping out his friend who's administration faces a serious scandal (Jeff Gannon). I can't believe you guys are so easily played! Bingo! once Guckert started getting major play (twice today on CNN, a NYT story, etc...), they trotted this out--from a friend of the family, no less. please. if this doesn't work, watch for either a raising of the alert level (to Pink???) or a wag the dog attack on Iran or Syria.

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:07:54 -0800

Hyopocrisy? You mean all Dems want to legalize all drugs? When did that happen? How did I miss those sound bites?

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:07:56 -0800

The picture, here, looks really bizarre. Especially the one that isn't Bush. I must've missed the boat, was the Gannon story really that big of a deal? I mean, it SHOULD be a big deal, but was it really? I don't think so, I don't think it's caught the attention of America.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:36:46 -0800

Howard Dean totally manufactured the tapes to get Churchillgate off the front pages.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:39:45 -0800

jimfl: don't count yer chickens.

By: dances_with_sneetches

dances_with_sneetches — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:54:20 -0800

Damn! If he just spoke to Doug Crack, we would have had a much better story. Or Doug AWOL. Doesn't anyone else feel that it is his lack of admission that is more likely to have kids emulate him? Knowing that you can erase your past?

By: LittleMissCranky

LittleMissCranky — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:02:28 -0800

Meh. Didn't care when it was Clinton, don't care now that it's Bush. Yeah, it's hypocritical, but a) I can't think of a lot of people who aren't, especially among politicians or others who depend on the general approbation of strangers, and b) in the general scheme of odious things about Bush, this ranks somewhere below "taking pictures with fake medals" and somewhere above "sure is a smirky son of a bitch."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:07:10 -0800

why would a family friend possibly release this stuff? and why now?

By: troybob

troybob — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:09:46 -0800

if bush came out and admitted he had smoked weed, then it would become instantly uncool, and the sales of corn dogs and frozen carrot cake would drop instantly... i'm rather frustrated that the marijuana is the big deal, and not the fact that he considered ashcroft a good candidate for the supreme court

By: trharlan

trharlan — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:26:45 -0800

Man. Every now and then, this small-l libertarian begins to feel as if he is starting to identify with the left, just a wee bit. And then the left uses an incident like this not to expose how stupid the drug war is, but rather to toss more poo at Dubya.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:34:17 -0800

Good thing this came out just after the election. When, you know, it doesn't matter or anything.

By: livii

livii — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:42:06 -0800

What I can't believe is this part: Mr. Bush threatened that if his rival Steve Forbes attacked him too hard during the campaign and won, both Mr. Bush, then the Texas governor, and his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, would withhold their support. "He can forget Texas. And he can forget Florida. And I will sit on my hands," Mr. Bush said. I'm just...appalled. Real party loyalty, there. I'm not saying any of this is worse than anything else he's done, or is of any particular use, or isn't just a setup, but I'm still literally stunned by the comment above. If anything from this were going to stick to Bush, I wish it would be that - the fact that he's a petty fucker who was willing to be unloyal to his party. Oh, and re marijuana use: never done it either. Doesn't mean I'm not for decriminalization. It's actually pretty annoying dealing with the assumption that decriminalization is only wanted because hey, we've tried it, it's okay, blah blah. I still understand the reasons for wanting to decriminalize without feeling the need to try it - kinda like how I support gay marriage without being, y'know, gay.

By: Tommy Gnosis

Tommy Gnosis — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:19:08 -0800

the fact that he's a petty fucker who was willing to be unloyal to his party. As opposed to what? The fact that he's a rigid fucker that is doing irrevocable damage to his nation's environment and economy? Let's at least agree that whatever transgressions are mentioned in these (obviously intentional and calculated IMO) released tapes, those are pretty minor compared to what he's actually doing as President.

By: ilovemytoaster

ilovemytoaster — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:26:02 -0800

not to drop the ball on Guckert/Gannon, Frank Rich posted a little catch-up in the times today. 'Bruce Bartlett, a White House veteran of the Reagan-Bush I era, wrote on the nonpartisan journalism Web site Romenesko, that "if Gannon was using an alias, the White House staff had to be involved in maintaining his cover." (Otherwise, it would be a rather amazing post-9/11 security breach.)'(nytimes registration blah blah blah) '...Mr. Guckert has at times implied that he either saw or possessed a classified memo identifying Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative.'

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:59:48 -0800

trharlan: WTF are you talking about? The general consenus here is that these tapes are plants to make bush look good, and we should ignore them.

By: berek

berek — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:22:00 -0800

Let's see what the "liberal" media does with this (i.e. everyone but CBS/Reuters). If it's anything less than the "but I didn't inhale" fallout then the media is a bunch of hypocrites. Liberal Media?! You must be the one smokin' somethin. This is the same media that harped on every accusation leveled against Clinton, no matter how ludicrios. Yhey've given Bush a free pass ever since before he was elected. Getting people like yourself to believe in the myth of the Liberal media is the single greatest Conservative victory is the last thirty years.

By: drscroogemcduck

drscroogemcduck — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:06:06 -0800

This is hillarious. The Left's favourite boogey man Karl Rove is responsible for any poo flinging the Left does. fake Memos: Karl Rove did it. Private Conversations: Karl Rove did it.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:14:56 -0800

berek Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Perhaps you ought to read what he wrote again...

By: Sir Mildred Pierce

Sir Mildred Pierce — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:01:33 -0800

I'm missing something about this whole Jeff Gannon things, I wasn't aware that anything in that story rose to the level of "Serious Scandal".

By: graventy

graventy — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:34:48 -0800

Who fucking cares? The man still has a mandate to do whatever the fuck he wants. Let me know if he's found tomorrow morning in the Reflecting Pool with his nose filled with coke. Then, I'll be interested.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:11:25 -0800

Yeah, it's hypocritical... I think your on to something there LittleMissCranky, but I think the irritation and hypocracy tagging is more for BushCo's followers than the man himself. Folks jumped all over Clinton for it and yet those same folks look the other way when their guy does it. Betraying your own shallow affectations is one thing, but betraying what you say is a stand on principle shows you for what you are. (Since, y'know there is no other real reason to keep marijuana illegal while alcohol, etc. etc. etc.) I'm on the 'I don't care' bandwagon as I was with Clinton, but why is something wrong when someone you disagree with does it and right when someone you agree with does it? But again - similar circumstance with Clinton - righties outraged at a bunch of things 'Slick Willie' got away with. Now it's coming from the left. Although I do think the difference is while Clinton was impeached for what was really a bullshit charge (while others went unanswered), Bush could get away with sodomizing a dog on national t.v. while stuffing children in a meatgrinder (not that specifically, just using the hyperbole there) and his fan club wouldn't squawk.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:38:29 -0800

I have great difficulty believing that anyone on the left is outraged about specifically the marijuana allegations, as it is pretty much ho-hum. I mean other than that fringe group that is outraged that every breath he takes being an affront to all other respiratory systems the require oxygen to live. As you peruse the thread, you'll see that most of us "lefties" pretty much agree that this whole deal is a PR plant the inevitably improves that W public image more than it does anything to sully it. As far as Bush's hardcore supporters are concerned, this will have no effect whatsoever. In their view, this messianic strongman can do no wrong.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:39:36 -0800

Oops, bad link. Here's the good one.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:53:36 -0800

To the folks who think the leak was deliberate to "make Bush look good" (yeah, that makes sense): it may be time to officially make the downward leap from MeFi to DU, or start DrudgeLeft.com. Do you guys get your weed from Bush's guy? Also: can you get me a $20 bag?

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:56:28 -0800

yeah, that makes sense Well, it actually does, if you actually bother to think about it.

By: LittleMissCranky

LittleMissCranky — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:42:40 -0800

Smedleyman: I see what you're saying, and I agree -- it irritates the holy bejeebers out of me that the same people who just about lost their teeth that Clinton smoked marijuana a hundred years ago or got his rocks off or whatever are the same people who think that Bush is the second coming and willing to overlook anything to keep that idea going. A couple of years ago, I had the following conversation with a Bush supporter: Me: Okay, I really want to understand why you are so highly supportive of Bush. Where I'm sitting, he's done a horrible job, and I just can't find anything redeeming about him. I could understand people's support of, say, Reagan, even if I didn't agree with it, but Bush -- I just don't get it. Bush supporter: I believe that he's a moral man, and I think that's what we need in office. M: But what makes you believe he's a moral man? BS: He's Christian and he supports moral values. M: It seems like he's done an awful lot of "immoral" things, though -- drunk driving, lying, etc. etc. etc. BS: I don't believe that he has. Besides, we all make mistakes. This went on for a while, but the upshot was this: because Bush talks the talk of evangellicalism and is against abortion and gay rights, a large number of people are very ready to chalk him up under "moral," and thus dismiss anything and everything to the contrary. Very irking. In a broader view, I think that we're all likely to excuse people that we like/agree with for things for which we would condemn people we dislike. I would really like, though, for the left to do some of the work towards "raising the tone" that we've heard so much about, and they can start by not getting into this petty shit. I know, I know, I know that the right has been giving it to us in the shorts for years, but I don't want the left to contribute to this stuff. We've got PLENTY of things about Bush that are roughly nine million times more odious than this. We need to work on framing those things in terms of relevance to the rest of the country, not spending time on trying to play a game of gotcha with the right. We're not going to win -- the right has a lot more experience and a lot less compunction in this area.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:50:23 -0800

Well, it actually does, if you actually bother to think about it. Then perhaps he's more your president than mine. Keep creating noise with these 'theories' and maybe we can alienate the rest of Middle America by 2008 and have Republican presidents indefinitely. The March to Irrelevance stops for no one. I would really like, though, for the left to do some of the work towards "raising the tone" that we've heard so much about, and they can start by not getting into this petty shit. Amen.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:14:45 -0800

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:39:00 -0800

LittleMissCranky: "I would really like, though, for the left to do some of the work towards "raising the tone" that we've heard so much about, and they can start by not getting into this petty shit. I know, I know, I know that the right has been giving it to us in the shorts for years, but I don't want the left to contribute to this stuff." amberglow: Fuck dat. McCain in 2000. I do what I want.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:55:04 -0800

You can't raise the level of discourse in an exchange by yourself. All parties have to participate.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:43:51 -0800

POLITICS TODAY, A PLAY WITH 5 CHARACTERS. GEORGE W. BUSH, the president of the united states. DOUG WEAD, a former aide to George W. Bush's father. And a close friend and supporter of GEORGE W. BUSH. A REPUBLICAN and CONSERVATIVE. THE MEDIA. THE LEFT. THE RIGHT.

INT. AMERICA 1998

GEORGE W. BUSH

"I once smoked some weed. I don't think you should tell the kids though. I don't like kicking gays."

DOUG WEAD.

I see.

INT. AMERICA 2005

DOUG WEAD

I taped George W Bush and he said he likes weed and dosn't like kicking gay people.

THE MEDIA

OMG, really? THE MEDIA goes and tells everyone

THE MEDIA

Hey everyone, the president smoked weed and dosn't hate gay people like we all thought.

THE LEFT

I don't really care, we have more important things to worry about.

THE RIGHT

(yelling)God damnit, why won't the left stop throwing shit at the president. Sore losers, mandate bla bla bla!

THE LEFT

What?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:32:12 -0800

this must be one of those "raising the tone" things from the fine upstanding Repubs, no?

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:39:43 -0800

Same tone, different target, just as low *shrugs*

By: LittleMissCranky

LittleMissCranky — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:52 -0800

so it's ok for the right to slur, and do whatever dirty tricks they want, but other people have to "raise the tone"? McCain in 2000 is the best response to that bullshit, and just one of many many examples. Um, no, and that's a pretty disingenuous reading of what I said. It's not okay for the right to slur. It's also not okay for the right to do a whole lot of things that the right loooooves to do. However, they do it, and we need to come up with a winning strategy against it. As events have shown again and again, the left just stinks at getting flung shit to stick. It's pretty much the stock and trade of the right, and we are just not going to beat them at that game. You can't raise the level of discourse in an exchange by yourself. All parties have to participate. Yes. But you can choose not to sink to the lowest level, regardless of what the other guys is doing. Look, this isn't just a let's all hold hands and sing kind of thing. We're not losing because we just haven't caught Bush doing something evil/stupid/illegal. We're losing because we haven't framed the evil/stupid/illegal things in terms that resonate with middle America. That's what we need to fix, rather than finding stupid crap that even we don't care about to get shrill about it.

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:56:12 -0800

The irony of illustrating dirty Repub smear tactics by linking to a Kos thread which quickly devolves into "GOP=Gay Sex *snicker* *giggle*" ad infinitum...

By: davejay

davejay — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:25:51 -0800

How many people born anytime in the last 50 years have literally never touched pot under any circumstance whatsoever sometime between the ages of 15 and 25? I haven't, but does it really matter? Would you all think less/more of my comments if I did? Of course, that presumes any of you think of my comments at all. (sob)

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:33:03 -0800

The irony of illustrating dirty Repub smear tactics by linking to a Kos thread which quickly devolves into "GOP=Gay Sex *snicker* *giggle*" ad infinitum... Kos is just as bad as Freep or whatever as far as diversity of allowed oppinion. I complained about some of the excess and got banned...

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:56:02 -0800

Alas, he who raises the tone is in a most vulnerable position when it drops.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:57:45 -0800

dhoyt: Keep creating noise with these 'theories' and maybe we can alienate the rest of Middle America by 2008 and have Republican presidents indefinitely. On Foxs News Sunday, noted left-wing conspiracy nut William Kristol suggested that it might have been a Rove operation because the sum total of what was divulged was actually favorable to the president. The roundtable chortled in seeming agreement. Give me a break, dhoyt, your talking points are showing.

By: catchmurray

catchmurray — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:11:12 -0800

Liberal bias in the US? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:36:47 -0800

William Kristol suggested Right. He suggested a 'theory' based on clichés. Without evidence it's still a theory, which means discussing as if it was truth makes him look like a questionable source of info. Kind of like Cronkite's dopey theory on Rove/Osama. Hey, get some facts and we'll talk. Til then it's just theories. Just like the theory that Wead released this info because he has a book coming out and wants to get his name in lights. Using the Rove boogeyman for everything is starting to have a "Little Boy who Cried Wolf" effect.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:45:07 -0800

dhoyt: Facts? 1) The person who released the tapes is a friend of bush 2) The person who released the tapes thinks they show bush in a favorable light. It certanly seems like a think Rove would do, but maybe Wead acted on his own. Either way, the effect is the same and the tapes are of no importance to the left. It's just that some people seem to reflexively complain about "The Left" whenever anything happens in politics. Saying rove might be behind this is just a joke, and yet we get accused of "lowering the tone" while Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are out there screaming about how we hate america and want to destroy it. We are not the ones who lowered the fucking tone.