Guiliani, Huckabee raise Obama's drug use as an issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't care if my president smoked pot.

Or snorted cocaine either I presume

I have heard Obama's past drug use juxaposed against Cindy's past drug use as reported front page in the NY Times Sunday. As is, why is the wife of one candidate on the front page for a past drug problem, and the other candidate isn't?

As to the pp who says Cindy stole drugs from her charity, did Obama buy cocaine legally at the corner drug store? Both broke the law to obtain the drugs. That's the whole point - it happened in the past, it has been admitted by both, why should either side bring it up now? But since the Dem-supporting NYT did, tit for tat.

Cindy didn't admit it so much as get busted. As an adult, stealing drugs from her charity. Addicted. Through the age of 40. She was investigated by the DEA. (How do you attract the attention of the frickin' DEA?) Since the DEA was going to go public, she had to cough up the goods.

Barack Obama, unprompted in his own book, disclosed that he experimented with drugs during high school. That made Page One of the Obama-endorsing Washington Post. Way back in early 2007. So maybe it is that you just forgot that he already got his news coverage.

Oh, so you are saying that the NYT just happened to find out about Cindy in the last few days and felt it had to run on page 1. The Post rant this in the summer - August I think.

Of course if you cannot see the bias here, there is no sense to my trying to help you. And when the opponents use the negative NYT story to shine the light back on Obama, please remember where this started.

[Anonymous]

I think McCain could use a doobie—he might be able to control his temper better if he knew how to relax.

[Anonymous]

LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't care if my president smoked pot.

Or snorted cocaine either I presume

I have heard Obama's past drug use juxaposed against Cindy's past drug use as reported front page in the NY Times Sunday. As is, why is the wife of one candidate on the front page for a past drug problem, and the other candidate isn't?

As to the pp who says Cindy stole drugs from her charity, did Obama buy cocaine legally at the corner drug store? Both broke the law to obtain the drugs. That's the whole point - it happened in the past, it has been admitted by both, why should either side bring it up now? But since the Dem-supporting NYT did, tit for tat.

Cindy didn't admit it so much as get busted. As an adult, stealing drugs from her charity. Addicted. Through the age of 40. She was investigated by the DEA. (How do you attract the attention of the frickin' DEA?) Since the DEA was going to go public, she had to cough up the goods.

Barack Obama, unprompted in his own book, disclosed that he experimented with drugs during high school. That made Page One of the Obama-endorsing Washington Post. Way back in early 2007. So maybe it is that you just forgot that he already got his news coverage.

Oh, so you are saying that the NYT just happened to find out about Cindy in the last few days and felt it had to run on page 1. The Post rant this in the summer - August I think.

Of course if you cannot see the bias here, there is no sense to my trying to help you. And when the opponents use the negative NYT story to shine the light back on Obama, please remember where this started.

Why is it bias? They covered Obama. They covered Cindy McCain. Both got front page. Do you think they were wrong to cover Obama early, when he still had to get through the primary? Or do you think the bias is in not getting to Cindy McCain sooner? Which is it that you want?

Here is the problem with your insistence on rehashing the Obama thing. Nobody cared when it ran before, for the reasons above. That includes Giuliani himself, who went on the record specifically on Obama praising his candor and basically making a nonissue of it, saying all politicians have something. Now he has changed his tune. Why? Do you think Giuliani had a sincere change of heart about it? Or is he playing politics and others aren't wiling to go along? What happened between 2007 and 2008 that made Giuliani decide this is now something important? I mean, other than the desperation of the Republican party. Was there some new revelation? No.

Done.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I obviously don't think the Republicans should be doing this. But I also found the NYT story on Cindy McCain to be a poor rehashing of old news that the paper has already covered. Besides, Cindy isn't running for president. Not sure 13:48 gets that distinction when he or she points out that the Times covered Obama's drug use and covered Cindy's drug use, and both were on page 1. Only one of the two is running for president, and Cindy's problems really already had been covered in detail in the same paper.

I think the two GOP surrogates raising the issue now is a poor tactic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I obviously don't think the Republicans should be doing this. But I also found the NYT story on Cindy McCain to be a poor rehashing of old news that the paper has already covered. Besides, Cindy isn't running for president. Not sure 13:48 gets that distinction when he or she points out that the Times covered Obama's drug use and covered Cindy's drug use, and both were on page 1. Only one of the two is running for president, and Cindy's problems really already had been covered in detail in the same paper.

I think the two GOP surrogates raising the issue now is a poor tactic.

Isn't it a little bit of desperation, clawing at any shadows that move?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I obviously don't think the Republicans should be doing this. But I also found the NYT story on Cindy McCain to be a poor rehashing of old news that the paper has already covered. Besides, Cindy isn't running for president. Not sure 13:48 gets that distinction when he or she points out that the Times covered Obama's drug use and covered Cindy's drug use, and both were on page 1. Only one of the two is running for president, and Cindy's problems really already had been covered in detail in the same paper.

I think the two GOP surrogates raising the issue now is a poor tactic.

Isn't it a little bit of desperation, clawing at any shadows that move?

Of course. I was just trying to be nice by calling it a poor tactic, rather than desperation. It's both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't care if my president smoked pot.

Or snorted cocaine either I presume

I have heard Obama's past drug use juxaposed against Cindy's past drug use as reported front page in the NY Times Sunday. As is, why is the wife of one candidate on the front page for a past drug problem, and the other candidate isn't?

As to the pp who says Cindy stole drugs from her charity, did Obama buy cocaine legally at the corner drug store? Both broke the law to obtain the drugs. That's the whole point - it happened in the past, it has been admitted by both, why should either side bring it up now? But since the Dem-supporting NYT did, tit for tat.

Bush was an alcoholic and used cocaine. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't care if my president smoked pot.

But I really, really hope he inhaled!

I don't want a pot smoker living in the people's house. Next thing you know he will be in the movie room smoking it up. Smoking is bad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't care if my president smoked pot.

But I really, really hope he inhaled!

I don't want a pot smoker living in the people's house. Next thing you know he will be in the movie room smoking it up. Smoking is bad

Well, you already have one. Laura Bush not only smoked but SOLD pot in college. Google it. Look it up. Read it. True True True.