Oh my, as if the election didn't see enough mudlinging, now it has come to this!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/

I will let that article speak for itself.


Questions toDebate:

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?


2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?


3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

No, I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant. It's certainly not earth-shattering thinking that a man who boozed heavily in the 70's, who's been to coke parties, may have smoked the weed.

2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think? I'm pretty sure he did. I hope he picks it up again.

3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied? I don't think the CCR will care what he did - being born again is all about redemption.

I do hope this means an advance in decriminalizing / legalizing cannabis.

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?
No, it does not change the prospect for impeachment. Why would this be impeachable?


2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?
I think it's possible and that it doesn't matter. Our country engages in too many character assassinations. It's not the man, it's the message.

[b]3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

Questionable actions? The only people questioning his actions are the Democrats and it was reversed when Clinton was in office. This is partisan politics. The CCR will not and should not even be concerned. But I agree, marijuana should be legalized. It is far less harmful than alcohol.

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

Did Bush smoke pot in the White House? (I did find it interesting that the interview was conducted by someone named Wead.) This issue should be about whether Bush used drugs while he was the President. Only when he is claiming personal moral supremacy should his shady dui, cocaine, marijuana past be brought up.


2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?
Yes.


3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?
I don't think it will matter. If he came forward and admitted that he had been drugging and womanizing since being born again it might matter. But repenting in a big show sometimes can heal that.



Really folks, this is a non-story. Bush has basically told the world that in his pre 45 year-old life he was young and foolish.

And when you see me running for president, know that I too am a sinner who was younger and foolish but still young and foolish.

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

Definitely not. It's not like he lied about smoking pot, he chose not to answer the question. If a rabid Bush hater like myself cannot see a reason to impeach him over this, I do not think it's going to happen.


2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

I think he Definitely did. This is not an accusation that was thrown at him, this is him on tape talking about it. How can one think overwise, based on what he said?

3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

I highly doubt that the CCR will react in any way. There is nothing they like better than a sinner who repented and found his way to God. If it came out that he smoked pot after becoming born again, that would be a different story.

Personally, I think this is a non-issue....but then again, I also do not support the imprisonment of people who smoke pot. What the President needs to do is go to the prison of his choice, get together all the drug offenders imprisoned for possession, and deliver a speech explaining why, having done what they did, he is the President, and they are rotting in a cell. Or, maybe he should go to a police station, confess his "crime" and demand to be imprisoned.

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

In politics, Hypocrisy knows no bounds. However, I can't imagine anyone in the Democratic party calling for Impeachment over this when you can still find video of almost everyone of them saying (Rightly) that President Clinton using Pot in his youth didn't matter.

Frankly, I see nothing in this issue, and nothing anywhere that would be grounds for impeachment for that matter. Then again, I personally thought impeachment of President Clinton was over the line as well.

2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

I think nearly everyone in his age group at least tried it (or at the very least, got a contact high from being around it ). Of course he did, and of course President Clinton inhaled. Why do people make this an issue? What middle-aged men did in their youth is really irrelevant to who they are today. Someone could have been a hero in his youth, just to sour into a selfish looser as they aged. Likewise, someone could have been an idiot in school, but come to love learning and regret not going to college as they age.

Who people are now is what is important. I highly doubt the president is using drugs in the white house. I may not like alot of what is done in the white house, but I don't think there is a secret opium den or anything.



Great answer. Right on the money!

For what possible reason would it do that? That he lied on his Job Application for President? The lies are not news, folks, and this is just one more secret coming out.

You bet, but it's evident that cocaine and booze were his preferred drugs. Dry drunk or pothead, what difference does it really make now? I guess the one difference is that potheads aren't usually ambitious. Dry drunks still want to function, but they have less brain power with which to function.

The die was cast by the CCR (not to be mistaken for Creedence Clearwater Revival/Revisited! ). The only way they would have to sit up and pay attention to POTUS's sins are to those committed after the date he wrote he was saved inside the front cover of his Bible. This has already been explained.

Unfortunately, taking the nation to war on bogus evidence is not one of those things identified as sin in the good ol' King James Version.

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

No, the Democrats never had any prospects for pushing impeachment in the first place. There are three reasons for this:

a. The Democrats are a minority in both houses and any impeachment move would fail—making them look ridiculous.

b. The statute of limitations for this to be a “high crime or misdemeanor" has long passed.

c. Impeachment is probably the last thing Howard Dean has on his mind at the moment. The next chance for Democrats to make gains is the 2006 elections.

Antny, I don’t like Bush any better than you do, but I’m more concerned with his public sins—like starting a war in Iraq under false pretenses--than private sins from some years ago.

2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

While smoking pot was not universal, it was widespread among baby boomers. Bush had a rather long adolescence, which ended sometime around his 40th birthday. Bush probably smoked pot, but has done a lot more egregious things since becoming President.

What I find hypocritical about Bush is that some of the toughest drug laws in the country were passed in Texas during his tenure as governor. With Bush it seems to be do as I say, not as I do.

3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

I read the article about this in this morning’s paper. What I found more interesting than Bush’s alleged pot use, was the rather cold calculations he made regarding the Christian right vote. The Christian right, especially the evangelical portion, loves a “saved” sinner. It’s like marking a notch on the handle of a gun.

I don't think it is hypocritical. Though I am one of those nutty people that thinks Americans should be allowed to do whatever they wish so long as it effects no one but willing adults, I can see the reasoning behind this.

Bush nearly self-destructed due to booze and drugs. When he turned his life around he more then likely went on a campaign of sorts against the "evils" of drug use, as many others have before him. Having personally lived through a roller Coaster ride like that, it would make sense for someone to feel that this is something that has to be addressed harshly to discourage others from falling "victim" to it. I for one disagree with the policy, but can understand it.

I really don't see the difference between this, and the reformed smokers who go on crusades against allowing smoking in bars they never visit. But then again, I am also one of those lunatics who thinks that if smoking bothers you, you should not patronize establishments that allow it, or accept that you might possibly encounter it if you do (another good subject for a topic, or more accurately, a revisit to a topic, oh if there were only a few more hours in a day ).

(3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

Damage control for the White House will come in the form of Bush admitting he smoked dope and massaging the situation with his reasoning why he didn't want it public because American kids might get the wrong message. After all, what the white protestant, born-again, and evangelical Christians did not like about both Monica Lewinsky and Bush's 1976 DUI, is both presidents tried to cover up their moral errors... well that is what caused them to stop voting until the Faith-Based-Initiative.

But that is if he actually did smoke dope... what person who has done coke has not tried pot before that? If he is not guilty of smoking pot (yeah right!), then he has to change public opinion otherwise... by a messy means of character assassinations and some good lip service. Very dangerous ground with the risk of blowing up in his face.

No doubt something like this will affect the Christian vote. Either this incident will cause certain parts of the Christian electorate to not vote at all, or cause them to vote for the democrats if the democrats can appeal to them and not scare them off with their secular fundamentalist support. This will affect the midterm elections. It is all about taking advantage of the situation by the democrats and putting forth candidates that look "clean" for both parties along with the republican damange control.

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

By all means. I think every Democrat in Congress should go before the American people and wave their arms around and tell 62 million people that they made a mistake in November. I think the Democrats should show their true colors to the American people (for once) and tell them that they as a party are more interested in denying the results of the past election than they are in actually addressing the issues facing our nation. So, hey, go for it. Go ahead and try to impeach Bush and stop whining about him already. Take your shots. See where it gets you.


2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

Maybe, maybe not. We need an investigation to find out. Call ole nosehair Waxman! He'll do it. Come on Democrats, go for it! What the heck are you afriad of? Gonna let the NYT and the latest kiss and tell author carry the water for y'all? Make it an issue and try to impeach Bush instead of just whining about him. Get some guts for goodness sake.


3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

Oh, this information is going to affect the "CCR" alright, but I'm not going to tell you how. That's a secret.

I'm pretty sure most democrats don't care too much about this, and the democrats, independents, and others did go around waving their arms and did tell 62 million people they made a mistake in November; along with the UK too I believe.

Seriously, I could care less about this. The article is pretty lame and doesn't really shed any light on anything important. Bush says he wont answer questions about smoking weed, which probably means he did smoke out.



What we don't need is another stupid investigation. I bet they'd made it bipartisan just to make sure it's fair, then release a 100+ page document which basically says he did do drugs, but by the time it came out no one would care any more and people would say "Oh, it's his personal life." Which they didn't say for Clinton.

Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

I'm gonna go with a no on this one. Unless those tapes have something in them about dealing drugs or that he's continuing to use them.

Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

Yes, why wouldn't he answer the question if he wasn't afraid of it? This is just don't ask, don't tell.

After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

Washed over and/or denied. If the Bush admin. is good at anything it's spin. If this becomes anything they'll just mention 9/11 a few times and then throw the words democracy, folks, liberty, and freedom in there and the next thing you know everyone loves Bush again.

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

Nope, impeachment isn't in the Demo's best interests. Knocking Repubs from their lofty seats of power is, but that has to be done in different ways from the ways Repubs used to gain power.

2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

Of course he did, and he liked it a lot. I think he is an incompetent President, partly from his whacked-out earlier years. I also think he is taking fistfuls of powerful drugs right now -- just legal ones, and of course that's okay if the drugs are prescribed. No evidence of this, just what I think, judging by his behavior.

It irks me how he whines at questions that ought to be asked with a lot more power behind them than what he gets. It's addict behavior. Wiggling out of responsibility is another addict behavior that drives me up the wall when it comes from a President.

BTW, Clinton drove me up the wall too. He just didn't send as many troops out to fight a foreign war and possibly other foreign wars to come. Think I'm quite a bit higher on the wall with Bush.

I liked the thing about kids doing something bad because a Prez did something bad. I liked it for the simple-mindedness that it displays. Parents and peers have much more influence than Presidents. That's why the first family has a few problems with the first kids.

3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

I think conservatives in general will ignore this situation. Wead (and that is a name that brings snorting guffaws) is simply pushing for publicity for his new book. Every published author knows this, and probably quite a few folks who pay attention to the publishing business.

Bush is beyond Teflon® and fully into slime. But we knew that.

Sure, now all the Democrats have to do is...
1. Convince enough Representatives [who are heavily Republican] to impeach a President most of them like.

2. Look good while doing this, or Americans will turn against more so than they already have. In addition, they have to convince people they're not hypocrites, that is, for impeaching Bush for pot, but letting Bill go.

3. By some grace of God [or the other guy], get enough votes to impeach the President.

4. Impeach Cheney.

Yeah...And if you're going to go after him personally...He did do Coke, you know. Pot isn't much of a big deal...in the 70s...

No, this is old news, the RR didn't care then, and probably won't care now...And if the media brings it up later, they won't care then.

CP

Wow, amazing how in tune you are with the Dems Aquilla, save Crazy Howie some time and drop him a line. I see and hear more smug “can’t get over it” comments coming from the Our Boy Bush crowd than from the Dems. You act as if this man is beyond approach (nothing new there) and because he won a second term he shouldn’t be criticized.

So from now on every criticism leveled at our president is to be blamed on sour grapes over the election results?

Baaaaaaah-----bump! said the blind sheep.


1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

He’s done fare worse while President than fire up a hog leg in his youth. He shouldn’t and won’t get impeached. Plus, I want him to remain in office and sleep in the bed he’s made.

2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

It was never a question in my mind and quite frankly it’s the one of the few activities in his silver spooned lifetime that makes him an average Joe.


3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

As mentioned before, a redeemed sinner had far more value with the Christian right.

I'm just supposing that since the things that seem to me to be legit reasons for impeachment (that's an unfinished debate of it's own, and I still believe that there are plenty of legit reasons for impeachment) perhaps some more personal reasons may change things in the minds of some? It's just a quandry...obviously, I don't think the same as everyone else, or Schrubb would already be on trial. Maybe those "private sins" carry more weight than the public atrocities we've all witnessed?



Or, simply use the numbers they've got to force a debate on it, and an investigation.



They don't have to look good, all they have to do is make public the results of the investigations. If you compile the corruption evidence of the Administration, you can't help but hate them. The evidence will speak for itself, all the Dems have to do is make it happen.

The impeachment process has nothing to do with pot. I never implied that it was the reason, the reasons were already there. My query is whether or not this new spin will have an impact.



Nahhh, Impeachment doesn't have to be successful. It has a signifigant strategic place for the Dems. It would drag all the corruption of the Bush Admin into the open. It would make the public open their eyes and see the billions of dollars squandered, the deliberate lies and propaganda, and so on and so forth. It would also put the brakes on the whole agenda that the Bushist Regime is pushing.




Oh, right...he's the smart one.




Wow, Aquilla. I agree with you about something! The Democrats need to have some GUTS. Don't kid yourself, though. The pot has nothing to do with impeachment. It could just be the public opinion straw that broke the Bush's branch. The Articles of Impeachment would be much more serious, about things like condoning torture, deliberate lies for the purpose of WAR, sanctioned summary executions, etc...

How appropriate, after the Republicans attempted to DESTROY Clinton b/c of his past, now it could come back to haunt them. The hipocracy is not the Dems, It is that the Holy Roller moral Republicans now have their own snake to take care of. The same weaponry they used to deal with Clinton's power is aimed right back at them. Now what? I'm sure Rove'll smooth it all out.

Really, though, I'm afraid the Democrats are just part of the same problem. They are slave to the same special interest groups that own Washington. That's why they have no dukes here. The reasons are plenty. They are part of it all

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

Absolutely nothing. These tapes show George W. Bush in an incredibly positive light. He wants to be role model (even in 1998, before he had decided to run for President officially) and did not want a kid using his past actions as a justification for bad behavior. Incredibly positive.

Add to that Bush's very positive comments against discrimination (i.e. indicating that he would not fire someone for being gay) and I don't think you can take anything but positive feelings for Bush away from these tapes.

Throw on top the fact that Bush had no idea he was being taped--candid moments are always the best judges of character, and this tape is a home run for Bush on the character issue.


2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

I think if you read between the lines, there is little doubt that he did (that, or cocaine).


3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

I don't know what questionable actions this question refers to exactly. Most Christians don't have a standing against pot use, although tolerance is often a Christian position (especially when coupled as "love the sinner, hate the sin").

All in all, this tape is very positive for Bush. It shows tolerance in a way that might be underappreciated (or unexpected) by his opponents. It even shows wisdom in his views on how kids might view a world leader's actions in his youth.

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?


2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?


3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

1. I guess. It doesn't really matter what he did thirty years ago.

2. Yes.

3. No comment.

I think the jury is still out on this one. It’s going to depend on whether Wead used his best ammunition for prepublication or is saving the “best” for the book itself.

Here’s the take from two of Joe Scarborough’s guests from last night:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7011719/

Questions to Debate:

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

No. It might be to difficult to find enough Congressmen who had not smoked pot, drank alcohol, etc. I suspect that most of them spent some time at college, away from family supervision, and subject to peer pressure.

2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

Yes. Listening to the tapes repeatedly on television, it is clear that he has tried drugs. I really wish that he had chosen to answer questions about his drug use. It might have been a different Election in 2000 if GWB had stood up and distinguished himself from Bill Clinton by saying, "I tried Marijuana, but unlike Bill Clinton, I didn't exhale."

3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

It is apparently being washed over without denial. So far, Mr. Wead is receiving far more criticism for recording a "confidential conversation" than the President is receiving for its content. I am surprised that no one is calling for an investigation of Mr. Wead for taping telephone conversations without an informed consent or a warrant. I had always thought that was illegal.

Actually, in most states, as long as one party consents to the taping (in this case, Wead), then it is legal.

I'm surprised that not many people have commented about Bush's "role model" explanation of why he will not discuss his past actions.

Do we really want people saying "Well, the President did it" as an excuse for poor behavior?

I don't have much to add to this debate, bit I saw this item and guffawed. Shouldn't he have used a.....sniff....different terminology?

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?


The democrats have made themselves irrelevant by becoming "republican-lite"


2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?


I think he did and I wish he would start up again.


3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?


If they didn't raise a stink about a gay prostitute shilling for the administration during "press conferences", I doubt they are going to worry much about him smoking a little weed.

1.) Does this change the prospects for a possible impeachment push from the Democrats?

If the president breaks the law, doesn't that mean he can get impeached? I doubt they will, but if the police investigated this and found evidence of it, Bush could face an impeachment vote (which would lose in our Republican congress). However that would be somewhat awkward.


2.) Did G.W. Bush smoke pot, what do you think?

He said he did, the tapes have been checked, and its been proven that it was his voice. Given the evidence, I don't see how anyone could say no to that question

3.) After some questionable actions by this administration, will information like this effect his standing with the Conservative Christian right, or will it get washed over, and denied?

Even if it did bug the Christian right, they would still support him as the lesser of two evils.

My feelings about Bush are pretty well known on this board, but I'm going to take exception to your remarks.

I think Bush has received a pass on taking responsibility for his actions until about the age of 40, making him at one time the nation's oldest living teenager if we eliminate Dick Clark. My observation is that he is still doing just that.

That does not mean, even if there were a heavily Democratic Congress, that he should be impeached. Marijuana use, including experimentation, has been common since the 1960s. I’m wondering how many potential presidential candidates would be disqualified or impeached if we based it on marijuana use?

Actually, I would have more sympathy or perhaps empathy for Bush, if he just admitted his use as part of a cultural/generational thing rather than making such a show of born-again repentance.

As I said, it would be somewhat ackward. Considering all the things that Bush has gotten away with, it wouldn't seem right for him to be impeached over something as trivial as this. To state my beliefs more clearly, I think that he shouldn't be impeached for this. His personal life is none of our business, its the things that he does as a president that should be what we judge him by.

QUOTE

This will not be a quest for impeachment by the Democrats. This is a can of worms that nobody will want to open, as a large number of the men and women in Congress lived through the 70's, and most probably did experiment at one time or another with pot.

QUOTE

Probably so. But again, a majority of the people that I have talked to that lived through the 70's did, and it was quite accepted.

QUOTE

I don't think that this will have any bearing on his standing with the Conservative Christian right, as they have many more pressing issues that they support Bush on, such as the fact that his is a good husband, father, ect.