Dubya Drivin' Drunk...does it matter?

[qupte]BUT- I am kinda worried he did not divulge this, when asked- he really should have, especially after all the grief he gave Gore about “lying”. So, the drunk-driving… no big deal-the LYING about it- that’s more of a problem. There is where this will hurt. He tried to take the “moral high ground”- only to find out there was quicksand there.

When was he asked about being arrested? I don’t think he has deceived anyone on this issue. I think it’s a positive that Bush pled guilty and paid his fine. Other people I know would have tried to challenge the legality of the charge any way they could. Couldn’t he have also used his father to get out of this? He’s been straightforward about his alcohol problems. Was it necessary to tell us about every arrest he’s had? I really don’t think so.

I think the more pressing question is why now? I listened to the reporter who broke this story and it smells fishy. She claims she was in the courthouse waiting for another verdict and an officer she had spoken with a few times before told her she had overheard a lawyer and a judge talking about this arrest. The reporter is naturally curious. The lawyer the officer overheard just happens to pass this reporter on his way out of the courtroom, and offers to retrieve the document for her. This lawyer is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. And has a copy of a court docket from 24 years ago. I think this reporter really thought she was doing her job, but she was set up. Heck, even Ted Koppel was suspicious. He even asked her if she thought she was set up!

I don’t think the Gore campaign had anything to do with this. They’re too smart to get their hands dirty. But you know they loved hearing questions like: “Isn’t driving under the influence of alcohol a serious crime?” One reporter actually asked Bush how many beers he had that night. 24 years ago!!

But who honestly thinks the DNC is innocent? 4 days away from the election and Gore trails in many of the polls and Nader is as stubborn as ever. Come on. :rolleyes:

This isn’t intended to be a ringing endorsement for Bush. But there sounds like there is something going on here that is not quite right.

  1. By the Press, and his own party- ferkrisakes, he was just on TV, and he SAID he was asked about “If he had anything in his past”, and did not disclose- his excuse- “I did not want my daughters to know”, and “I did say I had committed youthful indescretions”.

  2. Yes, he was not just arrested- he was convicted, and the US Code says you must disclose any arrests or convictions. He was convicted of a CRIME, a misdemeanor.

…padding the post count :smiley:

Since when do parents owe their kids full disclosure? I’m sure the issue of why Dad doesn’t drink has come up. I don’t think a retelling of an event from before they were born (they are 18 or 19) is warranted.

While I see your point, there is a difference. Drinking alcohol is legal, smoking pot isn’t.
FWIW, it never mattered to me.

He did, when he spoke about his drinking problems in college and afterwards. I don’t know how productive it would have been to point out that he had this arrest and it didn’t turn him around. Had he stopped drinking forever after that night, it would be a story.

I don’t think this news constitutes “lying” on W’s part. A “lie” is when you are asked something, and then say “No” when the answer really is “yes”. When asked about drinking and driving in the past, W merely said “I don’t have a spotless record” (or something to that effect.) He wanted to be general in his answer, not specific. He admittted he had screwed up in the past because of his drinking. That is not lying, that seems to be accurate. And that’s not news to any of us.

during interviews? during campaigns? I’m not trying to be snippy, I am just unclear as to what this has to do with anything. During his FBI background check of 25yrs (25, right?) I am sure TPTB saw it, and since it was of minor importance (to them, at least) they didn’t make a big deal out of it.

True, but that question doesn’t mean “have you been arrested?” (I am all ready for politics :wink: ) He did admit to having difficulty with alcohol.

You answered your own question… it was a relatively simple arrest. Why didn’t he bring it out? Feh. I challenge anyone here to think back to 25 years ago and reveal every single piece of dirty laundry you have. You wouldn’t be able to do it.

Now, if he had accidently run down a fisherman and dumped the body into the ocean, then there might be a story… as it is, this is one huge non-issue. I can’t think of a greater Mountain:Molehill ratio.

Have you lost your mind! Alcohol is legal, but driving drunk is VERY illegal! It is can also KILL other people (unlike marijuana use). In my mind, driving drunk is one of the most reckless and contemptable things you can do. It is an excellent way, however, to kill assorted innocent people. Anyone that would put other people at that risk, twenty four years ago or not, is a contemptable person.

I don’t think saying “I committed youthful indescrecions” instantly absolves you from any responsibility of discussing anything in your past you would rather not discuss.

While he isn’t required to tell his daughters anything, I think he should have told the American people that he was convicted of a crime. If his daughters found out…well…they are adults for crying out loud and ought to be able to handle that knowlage. Thats what happens when you run for president. Bush looks like a fool for useing his daughters as an excuse. I think Nixon was trying to protect his daughter from watergate, too…

That said, I dont actually feel as stongly about the issue as I let on. I couldn’t care less what Bush does because he is a lost cause anyway.

we gotta stop meeting like this :wink:

No, I haven’t “lost my mind.” Yes, driving drunk is illegal. But just being drunk isn’t, while being stoned is. Bush’s mistake was driving, not taking the substance into his body (as Al Gore’s was- FWIW).

Now I think you have lost your mind. Are you seriously claiming that driving stoned couldn’t lead to the same kind of accident as driving drunk? In both cases your reflexes are affected!

Yeah. this misdemeanor is on par with that debacle. Come on sven! We both know that isn’t a fair comparison.

I have very strong feelings about drunk driving - I think it is shitty and crappy, and irresponsible. And I always have a hard time getting over the idea that someone committed this crime.

However, I also have strong feelings about someone who has turned over a new leaf, and want their past to be their past. I think when they have proven themselves to be “reformed” (and I think W has proven this with his drinking) then there’s a limit to how long past mistakes should be dredged up. I take this philosophy to heart. In the past, I was labeled as a “loser” for various reasons. While I definitely feel that have overcome that label, I still will occasionally encounter someone who just loves to rub it in that I used to be a “loser”. And they are never going to let me forget it. I think that is shitty, REALLY shitty. And that is why I don’t think much of the idea that W did something shitty and irresponsible twenty four frickin’ years ago. That’s a LOOOOONG time ago, and he already admitted that he was a screw-up when he was drinking. He’s not a screwed-up sloppy drunk anymore, and hasn’t been for a long time. That’s what counts. And if he didn’t want to be totally specific on every single screwed-up crappy thing he did during his drinking days, I think a lot of us can understand that too. He admitted he was a general screw-up during that era of his life, that’s totally accurate, and truthful.

I have a feeling that there are a lot of people out there like me, who used to be screw-ups (or had a screw-up patch in their life) and can understand that just because you were a screw-up when you were young, it doesn’t mean you are forever a screw-up. I think that a lot of people have empathy for that, especially when it was something that happened twenty four frickin’ years ago.

Driving drunk (like Bush did) can kill people. Smokeing pot and not driving (like Clinton) cannot. That is all I am saying. Personally, I go with Nader, who doesn’t drive at all.

Thank you for the clarification. So both substances can be dangerous, and I am sure people have been arrested for driving while under the influence of marijuana. That doesn’t negate the fact that use of one substance is legal, while use of the other is illegal. Drinking and not driving doesn’t kill innocent people, either.

…completely off the point…why is the font in your posts so much larger than mine (obvious jokes aside!)?

what, do you expect him to be reasonable?:slight_smile:

Which is a more reasonable term for Gore supporters. Bush haters or gore supporters. I mean ive seen posts where bush mispronounced a word and posts where Gore lied. And people think that mispronouncing a word is stupider than lying where you can be easily found out.

aye aye aye, what have I gotten myself into? I don’t even think this is a big issue! Bush (and Gore) lost my vote long ago, based on the issues, not their character. I am a Nader suppoter, not a Gore supporter. I have to admit to being a Bush hater, although that has naught to do with his youthful indescresions or grammatacal errors. (says evensven, a female poster, not that she expected you to devine that)

That said, I think I might have misinterpreted your earlier post, Sapphire. I thought you were saying that Clinton’s act on youthful indescretion was worse than Bush’s because it involved an illegal substance while Bush’s involved a legal one. I was explaining that while the substance that Bush used was legal, he drove under it’s influence, which is illegal. So far both Clinton and Bush have committed equally illegal acts involveing substances. The difference to me is that Bush’s act posed immediate danger to the lives of othes, while Clinton’s did not. I think that makes the offense morally “worse.” I can’t for the life of me figure out where the argument of smoking pot while driving came from, as no political figure that I can think of has been accused of that.

Hehehe…I have no idea why my text shows up bigger. It doesnt show up like that to me. Maybe it is an issue with the browser.

I’ve seen hundreds of people arrested for DUI. I can understand one arrest for DUI…anyone can make a mistake. They screwed up and that happens sometimes. It is the people with 3rd and 4th offenses I have no sympathy for. As far as I have heard, this was his one and only offense. Bringing this up at this time in the race raises my suspicions though.


So G.W. gets a dwi twenty four years ago. Only one. Now if there was an offence labeled LWT (lying while talking) Gore would have been busted every day for the last twenty four years.

Let’s not forget that during the primaries, Holier than thou George used John McCain’s famous temper to imply that McCain was too unstable to be President.

Did it slickly too by running the story out of the Senate than through his staff.

But no, Al Gore is the only one running this year that will do anything to get elected.

Just what else is out there? And more importantly, when things get tough, will W hit the bottle? I come from a family that has had its sad share of alcoholics, some like W sober for years then back to the bottle.

Bottom line:

Can we trust the Presidency to an ex-alcoholic?

I heard he was 30 at the time, that hardly counts as youthful. What was his blood alcohol level? What was the limit back then in Maine? He could have endangered lives. To me that is very serious. Also his running mate has 2 DUI’s. It gives me the impression that he doesn’t take this crime very seriously.

His attendance while in the service bothers me too. How can you be in the National Guard and not show up?

Releasing this kind of information is kind of a double-edged sword to the democrats. If they’re hoping to attack W’s character by illustrating an example of when he’s shown poor judgment, then they succeeded. It was a long time ago, yes, but 30 is old enough to be beyond the “youthful indiscretion” argument. And it also shows that he wasn’t 100% honest with the American public.

However, it also illustrates that he has strength of character because he clearly had a drinking problem, recognized it, and took steps to correct it. He is now completely sober.

It at least gives the media something new to talk about. Geesh, it was getting boring!

I think it is a non-issue. It happened 24 years ago, and he was charged with a misdemeanor. I’m not 100% sure about this, but I don’t think DUI was as un-PC as it is today. Kind of like smoking.

I would be curious however as to what DUI laws W signed into law as Texas Governor. For instance here in PA the anti-DUI lobby has got tons of laws passed, even though over 30 of our state legislators here have been arrested for DUI.

They get to keep their jobs, but if it happened to you or me, we could lose ours. But that’s OK. Government officials are supposed to be higher up than us, right?

Al Gore and George Bush have used drugs before- and they get to run for President. But you and I go to jail.

OK- maybe it is an isuue.

Has anyone heard the expresion “lying by omission”?

This is clearly what Bush has done. Driving whilst drunk is the kind of behavior that the public should know about if they are going to make an informed decision. It should have been an issue earlier in the campaign, probably during the primaries, when there were more candidates to choose between.

Americans should feel anger towards Bush for not disclosing it while Macain was still a nominee for presidential candidate.

As an Australian, I am amused that it was an Aussie (John Newcombe) that he was drinking with. Australia once elected as its Prime Minister the then holder of the “Guiness Book of Records” record for drinking a yard of ale. (but we knew well before!)