Was George W. once a coke-head?

Great Debates
21

SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:

There’s a line to be drawn with regards to hypocrisy, isn’t there? A prison sentence doesn’t exist to only punish people who do wrong, it also exists to keep people from doing wrong in the first place. So he thinks people should be punished for committing a crime… where’s the hypocrisy, now?

Spoofe, take a trip to your local court house. I’m willing to be that near the roof, this phrase (or something very much like it) is carved:

THE IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS THE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY

If Dubya did the crime, he should pay the penality.

The Dubya, by being the Republican nominee, is endorsing harsh penalities for drug use. Yet he, apparently, used drugs yet escaped those same harsh penalities. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

John Corrado wrote:

Heck, one could even argue that the reason W. supports the War On Drugs is because he knows how much getting into cocaine screwed over or nearly screwed over his life. “He knows how hard it is to get your life back after getting into hard drugs, and so he wants to make it even more tougher/dangerous for anyone else to get caught in that morass.”

Oh, I get it! The government ALWAYS knows what’s best for me and I should ALWAYS listen to them! (sarcasm: OFF)

If you believe that, I have some WONDERFUL deals for you! I’ve been trying to get rid of some property, especially this piece of land about a mile east of Miami. I can let you have it for a steal!

22

I would be more inclined to argue that W. is evidence that the penalties for drug use are too harsh and the war on drugs is a useless failure. Nobody is saying his life was screwed over or nearly screwed over, are they?

“I can’t amount to anything if I do drugs? I can be mayor of DC or the Republican nominee for the presidency! I might even be president someday!”

There are only 2 possibilities, right?

  1. It’s “bad” to try drugs, and W. should have done time for breaking the law like us little people would have to (and hence have a record and no political career)

or

  1. It’s “OK” to try drugs, which makes W. a flaming hypocrite for his drug war support.
23

OK, there’s also the possibility he didn’t do drugs at all.

24

Which would be highly unlikely, given his response to direct questions about it.

25

Well, yes, he could say that.

But he didn’t and isn’t.

Why is that?

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, five days, 16 hours, 48 minutes and 14 seconds.
5108 cigarettes not smoked, saving $638.50.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours, 40 minutes.[/sub]

26

I don’t see that there is a double standard. If Bush had been arrested for cocaine use 26 years ago and gotten off due to family influence while others of the time went to jail, that certainly would have been a double standard. However, if he did do cocaine, he wasn’t caught doing it, and the statue of limitations has long since past. He’s no different than anyone else who did drugs a long time ago (if he did do them) as far as the legal system is concerned.

I’m quite sure no ‘other guy’ has ever gotten 5-10 in prison for drug possession that occured 25 or more years before his admission.

27

(Dubya seems more & more like a GOP version of Bubba - except for the connections of course.)

If Dubya used hard drugs like cocaine and refuses to be straight with the American people about it, then his chief campaign aim - to restore dignity and trust to the Presidency - is pure hypocrisy.

I’m not sure that he did, actually. What he is really refusing to talk about is the long stretch of his life when he was a boozing ner’do-well, getting by with his father’s connections.

His so-called sabatical with the Mississippi National Guard (actually a political favor arranged by “Dads” to help the pre-metastasizing Trent Lotts) is a good example. Dubya never set foot in a ole Miss jet plane nor never had to pay the price for being AWOL. (Cue John Fogarty)

Now a Democratic Lee Atwater would be all over Dubya - not on cocaine but on booze. Yeah, yeah, Dubya claims he found Jesus and thus dropped the bottle. What he hasn’t ever faced in his entire life is the pressures that start from day one as President. Will he reach for the bottle then?

A sleaze merchant like Atwater would have the Ol’ Miss and booze commercials running every other day. Mixed in would be how Dads bailed out Dubya’s failed oil venture and how Dubya blackmailed the people of Dallas/Ft Worth to fund the Ballpark in Arlington through a nifty tax increase.

That stadium, paid with other people’s money (the Bushes are no Jack Kent Cooke) led to Dubya’s only private sector success. With the new ballpark, the Texas Rangers’ value increased enough for Bush to sell out at a good profit. Dubya used the windfall to buy his “ranch”.

(I wonder if his “ranch” enjoys any agricultural subsidies.)

28

If the GWB coke rumors were true, it seems like the press would’ve found some evidence or someone claiming to have direct knowledge of it. Has anyone seen this?

29

Power can buy anything. Even police coverups. :slight_smile:
I’ve heard similar allegations of Bill Gates in his childhood actually. (arrest record disappearing)

30

“What he hasn’t ever faced in his entire life is the pressures that start from day one as President. Will he reach for the bottle then?”

C’mon! Yes, Dubya hasn’t experienced the stresses of the presidency. On the other hand, being the governor of one of the largest states in the Union is no tea dance, either.

Hijack: that’s why it bugs me when people make Bush out to be an idiot. (Not that that’s what you’re doing.) It seems a lot of people who disagree with Bush feel obligated to make him out to be a gibbering moron, as if anyone who has so many “wrong” (to them) beliefs or positions HAS to be stupid. I find it hard to believe that anyone could become a governor (especially of a state as large and complex as Texas) and be stupid.

31

John Bredin wrote:

C’mon! Yes, Dubya hasn’t experienced the stresses of the presidency. On the other hand, being the governor of one of the largest states in the Union is no tea dance, either.

Unfortunately, yes it is. While Texas is a large state, it also has an old, out-dated constitution. The position of governor is almost ceremonial. The Lt. Governor has as much or more power, since he presides over the state legislature. The governor can’t even pardon criminals, only take advice from the Board of paroles and pardons.

No, the Dubya isn’t a moron, but he lacks political experience. I honestly feel he’ll say whatever his advisors and spin doctors want him to say. He’s not a leader, he’s simply a convenient front for the Republicans.

32

Freyr…

He apparently snorted coke? Where’s the proof for this? The fact that Jay Leno makes jokes about i? I suppose you want Jerry Seinfeld to serve on the Supreme Court, too?

Is it as “old” and “outdated” as the constitution for the United States? Think it’s time to give it a new coat of paint, perhaps?

Let’s see some evidence of this. Those are rather outrageous claims.

Which is blatantly untrue. Again, show some evidence.

33

…well, draw your own conclusions.

Spoofe, I’ve tried to dig up the citations and I’m still digging. Unfortunatley, many of the articles I wanted to show are in archives that won’t let you see them unless you pay a fee.

So, my citations will be from the local Austin independent paper. From your viewpoint, this’ll probably mean “bleeding heart liberal” but as I see it they’re pretty down to earth and pragmatic.

Okay, check out the state Constitution here:

http://capitol.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/toc.html

Specifically look up the duties of the governor vs those of the lt. governor. While the governor’s duties are almost nil, the lt. governor presides over the legislature and appoints committee heads or chairs those committees. The late lt. governor Bob Bullock weilded an incredible amount of power thru this office.

Also check out Article 4, section 11 of the constitution. The governor can only pardon someone on the WRITTEN ADVICE of the Board of Pardon and Paroles. 'Til this Board acts, the governor can’t do anything. Literally appeals (and often the prisoner) die before this board.

As for the old constitution, here’s an article out of the Austin Chronicle (from last year’s election) about its out-datedness. As an example, the state legislature meets only every other year, the last time being in 1999. It’s 2/3s the way thru 2000 and they don’t meet again 'til early 2001.

Lastly, about Dubya and his drug use. When asked about using cocaine, the Governor has never said directly “NO.” Instead he’s referred to his distant past and youthful folly. This leads me to believe he did but doesn’t want to talk about. Fine with me. But by being the Republican nominee, he explicitly endorses the party’s platform, which calls for harsh penalties for drug use. He is saying, implicitly if not explicitly: I can use drugs and call it youthful folly, but if you use drugs, you’ll go to jail. THAT is a double standard and hypocracy.

34

Replying before I read your cites, Freyr…

He is NOT saying “I can use drugs etc. etc.” He’s saying, “I screwed up, and don’t want anyone else to do the same.” There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that he is currently using coke, or has used it any time recently. To say otherwise is insane. And to claim that dragging up some possible error, 26 years old, and to compare that to present-day status, is also insane.

Just a note… a few weeks ago, there was a big hubbub about Hillary Clinton having supposedly “uttered an ethnic slur” back in the '70s. I responded to that rubbish the same I did to this, that is, it happened decades ago. Hell, I’ve done stuff just a couple years ago that I’ve regretted and learned from.

I find it disrespectful to be using such a toothless argument against someone, just because you happen to disagree with his political policies.

Now… I’m off to read your provided info…

35

Freyr…

Skimmed over the provided information, but it seems that the only reason that you believe the Lt. Governor to be in higher authority is that the listing for that office is longer than any single listing for the Governor’s position.

In essence, the Lt. Governor is president of the state senate. All other powers of that office seem to be to take the Governor’s place if the Governor ever becomes incapacitated.

However, I do concede that the Governor does need to consent of the Board of pardons; however, your previous post seemed to imply that the Governor had absolutely no control over the process. My apologies for misunderstanding you.

Finally, the outdatedness of the Texas constitution is open to debate. Of course there are always better ways to run a state… there are also worse ways. That’s a topic I’m not qualified to argue, since I always hold that if there’s a serious enough problem, it would be fixed (yes, I know, naive of me :D)

36

This would only be a valid analogy to the Dubya situation if Hillary Clinton had been actively advocating legislature to jail people for uttering ethnic slurs.

37

Suppose someone has in the past violated traffic laws (speeding, red lights etc.). Or even someone who has done it quite recently. Is this person a hypocrite if they do not believe in the abolition of these laws? If they are a politician and do not make an effort to reduce penalties for these offences?

What’s the difference?

38

Bein’ a cokehead is currently a criminal offence.
Running a traffic light isn’t.
Of course, one might possibly argue it shouldn’t be a criminal offence, but criminalization is part of the policy that Bush continues to push.
And, of course, running for President is different if you were once on crack, rather then a maniac on the road.

39

Quick question, with my insidious right-wing-conspiracy agenda behind it:

Does the Democratic platform call for the legalization of marijuana, or for reducing penalties for those convicted of possession/distribution of marijuana?

If not, is Bush still more of a hypocrite than Al Gore, who has admitted to having smoked marijuana several times during the late '60’s to early '70’s?

40

[Slight Hijack]
The Drug Laws, and War on Drugs, are some of the most ridiculous circus acts on the planet. To say that it should be illegal for an adult to take ‘drugs’, while selling alcohol freely, is a bigger laugh. The information about the effects of drugs should be available, just like information about the effects of jumping off a building. But that’s where it stops.

Telling kids, and especially teenagers, that one puff of MJ will ruin your life is ridiculous - they see right through it. Just like the bit with GWB - he did coke, now he could be President. Every person handles drugs differently, and it’s up to every person to handle their situation. Some people can’t even handle Coca-Cola, others are fine with weed, and still others are fine with coke. Go to it, pick your poison, and dig your grave if you’re dumb enough. Why fight it with this silly drug war?
[/Slight Highjack]

The shining example for Dubya to set for the rest of us would be to come right out with it, tell the story, and introduce an information campaign about drugs. Let’s say it like it is, get the stupid laws off the books, and put the damn drug business out of business. But we won’t see any of that any time soon, - too much at stake. Too many bought and paid for Politicians will continue to tell us how dangerous that would be: ‘Why, our children would be taking drugs if we legalized them’ as if they don’t now. Keep it illegal for minors, but forget the damn war.

(PS - tried coke in college, what’s so great anyway?)