Today on Blogcritics
Home » Democrat Candidates Admitted Criminals

Democrat Candidates Admitted Criminals

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Democratic candidates met last night in what was supposed to be a debate aimed at the younger generation. According to Fox News, the debate “generally veered away from campaign issues such as Iraq and the economy, and into areas of interest to younger voters.”

Also from the article:

Asked whether they had ever used marijuana, [Sen. John] Edwards, [Gov. Howard] Dean and Sen. John Kerry said they have. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, [Wesley] Clark and Al Sharpton said they had not. Sen. Joe Lieberman answered the same, although he apologized as he did so. Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun declined to answer.

So we have three democratic presidential hopefuls admitting to committing a crime, and one apologizing for not committing one. That’s super. And who does Mosley-Braun think she’s fooling? I’m all for being honest about past transgressions and not condeming people for their pasts sins, but these guys almost sound like they’re endorsing it. I don’t care how socially acceptable it is, until the laws are changed smoking pot is still a crime.

This relevation comes after our current President was given so much grief for rumors about possible cocaine use when he was younger. Yet here we have three confessions of illicit drug use and we’re supposed to shrug our shoulders and act like its no big deal.

The whole debate was a production. The candidates were falling all over themselves trying to look “hip.” They all wore casual attire (read no ties, top button undone), even the moderator. The admissions of drug use were just another ploy meant to ingratiate the candidates with the younger crowd. Its just another example of how Democratic candidates will do or say almost anything for a few more votes.

If you think that all these candidates bickering amongst themselves might not be good for the Democrats hopes for the White House, you’d be right. The Bush Blog has some pretty interesting numbers from the Washington Post.

Powered by

About Rob

  • http://ari.typepad.com Steve Rhodes

    Yawn.

    Millions of Americans have smoked pot.

    They aren’t felons. They never were busted (and in some places it is a misdemeaner or even what is basically a ticket).

    And Bush was given so much grief because he wouldn’t answer the simple question the Dems answered last night.

    He just repeated his mantra that he hadn’t done anything since 1972.

  • http://www.resonation.ca Jim Carruthers

    All I know is a reporter in Canada asked our Prime Minister if he’d ever toked, he replied “do you ‘ave any”?

    As for Iraq and the depression, isn’t that the realm of the Republicans and their Evil Overlords? They broke it, they bought it.

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    I don’t care how many people do it, its still a crime. If its so “ok” to do, why hasn’t it been legalized? Because the majority of people still don’t think that smoking pot shouldbe legal.

  • JR

    “I don’t care how many people do it, its still a crime. If its so “ok” to do, why hasn’t it been legalized? Because the majority of people still don’t think that smoking pot shouldbe legal.”

    Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to some of the state intiatives that have passed lately.

    Oh well, I guess if you want to take the hard line, you don’t have anybody to vote for next year. Your problem.

  • http://www.resonation.ca Jim Carruthers

    Rex Banner will not let the Beer Baron go unpunished.

    Prohibition doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked, and it will continue to be a massive failure, except to provide bodies for the privatized US prison industry.

    That Tommy Chong spends more jail time than Ken Laye points to how screwed up the law is.

    Secondly I can’t vote in your country, but your thugs threaten us because we look at making it not a crime to have some weed. But at the same time you get all panty-twisted over our sensible gun laws and public health-care.

    And outsourcing our citizens to be tortured in what you identify as “rogue states”, that is so not cool, dude.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    JR, Robbie is what we will politely refer to as slow. He isn’t aware there is a difference between infractions, misdemeanors and felonies and that the latter are what are really significant. He also hasn’t heard that most states have made marijuana possession infractions and misdemeanors. If he is looking for felons he needs to looks elsewhere. Not that I believe this entry really came from Robbie. The poor thing is a parrot, i.e., someone who repeats material from well-known Right Wingers, such as Limbaugh and Savage, pretty much verbatim. This misleading material came from one of those sources and is being regurgitated here.

    There is a fracas emanating from the debate, but it is not about felonious Dems. You can read about it here.

  • http://www.resonation.ca Jim Carruthers

    Uhm, “Limbaugh”, now I know that isn’t some type of stinky cheese, wait, I know, he’s the Republican thug who is all hopped on goofballs, right?

    He’s doing hard time getting his salad tossed, right? Because he’s a hardcore junkie and friend of degenerate gamblers, doing synthetic heroin, right?

    What? you didn’t even give him a perp walk?

    What’s the matter with you people? Don’t you realize that you have to do what you say?

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    dang, this is pretty funny…considering as how i just happend to watch Reefer Madness last night.

    gees, maybe if some of you cranked up conservatives would spark up once in a while you could relax a little.

    probably not.

  • Taloran

    Ddin’t the Prime Minister of Canada recently say that he’d probably smoke some dope when he retires next year? If the hawks would try it, they might feel less like sending people off to die in the far-flung reaches of the planet. Might unpucker their backsides for a few hours, as well.

  • http://robbedbyafountainpen.blogspot.com BJ

    Taloran, LOL. Our man Robbie could probably use a good smoke too.

    Or maybe he could have some of what Rush is having.

  • Taloran

    Sorry, Jim answered my question in 9 in his comment 2.

  • http://www.whiterose.org/michael/blog/ Michael Croft

    As long as it doesn’t get blown in my face in restaurants, I don’t care if people light up at home. However, it’s not necessarily a crime at all. Any of them could have been visiting Bill Clinton at Oxford and taken a trip to Amsterdam.

    Poor Bill’d be sitting there trying not to inhale and all, while Dean and Edwards were looking over the menu and trying to figure if they could stick Kerry with the tab…

  • Taloran

    They do a great job with public consumption of the demon weed in Amsterdam. You can buy it over the counter in what they call coffee shops, and smoke it pretty much anywhere. However, the entire social structure of weed smoking is based around people speaking up if and when it offends them, and the smoker politely putting it out when asked, with no arguments, no hurt feelings, no whining or pouting. They’re very realistic and cultured about the whole thing.

    I can’t smoke it any more, as it makes me extremely paranoid for a few hours and thickheaded for three days, but I have no moral compunction against it. If it works for you, go for it. And that includes politicians.

    They should just legalize it and get boatloads of tax money for it, while lowering the price to consumers and putting the smugglers out of business.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    i was unaware that pot smoking is a felony. nice to know that if any of those guys become president, they will preside over a gocvernment that jails people for what they admit to having done (which rankles though in a different way from some of the dynamic up to this point).

    considering that both parties are responsible for the disastrous war on drugs and considering that many non-leftists oppose the war on drugs, some of you might want to reconsider your shrill and pointless attacks on your dreaded “conservatives” in this thread.

    if your goal is to alienate and demonize people even when they agree with you, and make yourself feel better, decriminalization be damned, you are making a good effort.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    along that same line, launching into hysterical anti-american attacks in this thread is supposed to accomplish what?

    and mac, who until yesterday was calling a “bake sale” a “bake sell,” is again not content to disagree with the poster–she has to call him “slow” and impugn his integrity. perhaps she will someday conquer her insecurity and be content to disagree with someone without launching into vicious attacks.

  • Eric Olsen

    I believe the point about smoking pot not being a felony anywhere in the U.S. that I am aware of has been made. I believe it is a misdemeanor at worst, and isn’t even enforced at that in NYC unless you blow it in a cop’s face, which would be foolish under any circumstances I can think of.

    The law in this case is seriously out of touch with reality and that is a problem, and Tommy Chong being sentenced to 6 months in federal prison forselling bongs over the Internet is an outrageous affront to proportionality, which is supposed to be at the core of our law in the first place.

    Smoking marijuana may turn some people into unmotivated, paranoid lunkheads, but it doesn’t turn them into felons.

  • Taloran

    Thought it was nine months…

  • Eric Olsen

    sorry, you’re right, ANY form of imprisonment for this “crime” is insane

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    I made a mistake. Possession of marijuana is not a felony, at least in my state and from looking at the comments apparently in a lot of states. So I’ve changed the post to read “criminal” instead of felony. That should be more accurate.

    The angle I was taking on this issue is that the candidates all admitted to a crime. I think marijuana should be legalized. Just think of the tax dollars that would free up. My problem was that it is not yet legal and here we have three men running for President admitting to a crime. That was my point, for what its worth.

    Sorry about the mess up on the felony thing, mea culpa. I’m not perfect.

  • Taloran

    I think one would be hard pressed to find any politician in any country and any era who wasn’t guilty of one crime or another. At least the current crop of Dem losers admit it.

    And no, I’m not a Democrat.

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    I guess I’m not prepared to just shrug my shoulders and let it go when a candidate for our nation’s most important political office admits to any sort of a crime.

    But that’s just me.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    The current Supreme Court annointed president has broken the law (DWI) as has the VP. The first lady killed her former boyfriend with her car during her youth. Her family had a lot of clout in the town and, if I remember correctly, she wasn’t even charged. Suffice it to say looking for unlawful behavior among pols can produce some interesting, non-partisan results.

    Come to think of it, a Congressman and former governor is now under indictment for running down a motorcycle rider while speeding in Robbie Port’s neck of the woods. The rider’s remains were apparently spread all over the highway. Has Robbie mentioned the case on his blog? Of course not. The fellow is a conservative.

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    Yeah, George W. Bush committed a crime. He was convicted of it and served his punishment. Your story about the first lady is fascinating, but she was never convicted of anything. I’m not familiar with it, but you intimated at a crime with no proof. As for that recent case involving the motorcycle, he has also been apprehended and charged.

    You know, I read these comments too. Its funny how you talk to everybody else as if I don’t read these.

    The three democratic candidates through out a flippant remark to a question and admitted to committing crimes. The tone in wich they admitted them showed that they have no respect for the law they broke. That is not what I want to see in a candidate, even if the law is silly.

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    Also, you talk about how I only tell one side of the story because I’m conservative. If you think that’s disturbing then your one-sidedness against republicans and conservatives should be equally so.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Lord! Robbie, the candidates were trying to appear hip because the debate was targeted to a young audience. You have heard of hipness, right? It is a synonym of savvy, def and cool. Part of being hip is not getting a bug up one’s arse over every little not exactly legal thing people do. Since young people are usually more relaxed in regard to drug laws, the candidates wanted to be appear relaxed about them, too. Within reason that is. I doubt any candidate for any party will admit to shooting up H.

  • http://www.whiterose.org/michael/blog/ Michael Croft

    They admitted to doing something that had they done it in the US would have been a crime, albeit a minor one.

    Here’s a tip. I drove on the left side of the road in England. Would you like to call the cops on me?

    No one admitted to committing a crime. Not that they necessarily wouldn’t, but they weren’t asked a question involved public admission of criminal acts.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Rob, silly, hypocrisy is for other people who hold contradictory views for personal reasons. Not MD! She’s too busy slandering Laura Bush, knowing that she can say whatever she wants without having to back it up. It’s the word of MD against the people who were actually there, but MD is always right.

    On the topic at hand, I wish they would just legalize the stuff and then nobody would care. Then we could all stop hearing nonsense about how cool it is to brag about having broken the law, so long as you’re a Democrat.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    rob, i see your point. i actually think that moseley-braun was the only person who handled that question well–she refused to answer.

    and rob, consider this: smoking pot has evolved to the point that it hardly more serious than driving a little over the speed limit. in any free society, there is a zone of transition, if you will, where the “crime” is a no-no but generally only a belligerent arsepot will end up facing liability.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    What’s with the vitriol, Phillip? I didn’t say anything that isn’t well-documented. As for Laura Bush not being charged, that could well have been part of a fix. (Nothing in the report you linked to counters that interpretation, by the way.)

  • Taloran

    Chris, given Tommy Chong’s recent run-in with the authorities, I would say that your comment 28 is only partially true. “(O)nly a belligerent arsepot will end up facing liability” unless the establishment decides to make an example of a particular individual. And poor old Chong wasn’t even in possession!

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    Mac,

    You haven’t exactly offered any evidence for a fix either. I think the burden of proof is on you. Its not exactly fair to insinuate an accusation and then expect those defending against the accusation to offer the proof.

    As for the pot thing, I guess I’ll have to agree to disagree with most of you. I guess most have a relaxed view of the situation. To me, a crime is a crime. That may just be my law enforcement heritage kicking in, but its still my opinion.

    I would definately vote to legalize marijuana, however.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    tal–you are right, 100%.

    i guess i meant the average schlub with a joint–they singled chong out, but a local cop could do the same to an average schlub.

    light a bong for tommie chong!

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    I don’t know what really happened in the Laura Bush case, Robbie. No one does because there was never an investigation. But for her status as a town princess, there would have been. If a regular citizen had been involved in that ‘accident,’ there would have been an investigation. That is why Phillip’s nasty response makes no sense. He is arguing for elitism. Shame.

  • JR

    “The three democratic candidates through out a flippant remark to a question and admitted to committing crimes. The tone in wich they admitted them showed that they have no respect for the law they broke. That is not what I want to see in a candidate, even if the law is silly.”

    If I think a law is silly, then I want to elect other people who think the law is silly. But that’s just me.

    I think you have a point if it’s a matter of a candidate respecting “The Law”, as in the rule of law in general. But to me that goes with having a sense of justice and understanding that laws are supposed to be about how we treat each other. Marijuana laws have nothing to do with justice.

    It’s an interesting problem because if you disagree with drug laws, you want to elect people who will try to overturn them. But at this point, the only people who haven’t used drugs are the sanctimonious, uptight moralists who actually agree with the silly laws.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    “the only people who haven’t used drugs are the sanctimonious, uptight moralists who actually agree with the silly laws”

    that’s a patently ridiculous statement, but it does evidence an unhealthy animus toward people who differ from the poster. and i write this as someone who favors decriminalization.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Nonsense, MD. Laura wasn’t even a Bush then – she *was* a normal citizen. Tragic accidents happen all the time, and sometimes the people to whome they happen become famous later in life.

    More importantly, the article to which I linked, providing facts instead of pulling assertions out of thin air, reveals that there *was* an investigation, but that the accident report has not been released, primarily because she was a minor.

    You want a larger investigation? I wouldn’t get a larger investigation than that, and neither would you. Is it possible that you’re suggesting something more should have been done because she would later in life become First Lady? What is the word for prescient reverse-elitism>?

    Vitriol? Check comment 6, where the nastiness started in this thread.

  • JR

    “that’s a patently ridiculous statement, but it does evidence an unhealthy animus toward people who differ from the poster. and i write this as someone who favors decriminalization.”

    And that’s an ad hominum attack.

    The statement is an exagguration, but it may be substantially true. Can you name a candidate for a major public office who hasn’t used drugs, yet is pushing for decriminalization?

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    jr, you attacked with no basis whatsoever, and i concluded from that malice that an unhealthy animus existed.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    the point about the candidates for public office would be a good one, but better if detached from the hostility toward people who get high on life and just say no and DARE to be different or don’t want to end up in a pound me in the ass prison or get shot in a drug raid or… what was i talking about?

  • JR

    I have no hostility toward people with those attributes. Those are all choices I’ve made. But I’m not impressed by people who want to force those choices on others.

    Ah, I think I see the problem here. You perhaps a inferred that I meant that all people who don’t use drugs are prigs. I would never say that. What I was saying is that in this day and age, when you’ve eliminated all the people who’ve even tried drugs, and all the people who’ve decided to mind their own business rather than pursue public office, and all the people who don’t feel strongly enough to take a political risk over drug laws… well, then, who’s left but the people who strongly support drug laws? And what better way to describe those people than “moralists” (or perhaps “nannies”)?

    I don’t know, maybe John McCain never used drugs; he seems to have principles without being sanctimonious. But then he’s not running for President.

  • Anon

    This “crime” is laughable. To be so upset because politicians used a substance that is proven to not only be less harmful than -many- legal substances, but to have medical benefits as well? Please, grow up, be more concerned with politicians destroying social security and whatnot over them smoking a plant that was only made illegal because it threatened cotton and nylon profits as well as artificial lubricants (hemp seed oil is still more effective than many artificial replacements). Marijuana was never made illegal because of it’s narcotic qualities, rather soley based on the slander campaigns of DuPont and Hearst to protect their investments during the 30s. I say, three cheers for the candidates that admit to smoking pot – they’re that much more likely to legalize it.

  • Joshua Kent

    i find it so interesting how marijuana in the news is placed in the same class as coke, and i find it so interesting how marijuana in the law is not put in the same class, and i find it so interesting how everyone wants to punish the democrats for admittance to their delinquency and everyone wants to close their eyes to the lies of the republicans when they try to cover their problems up, or drag us into more problems for that matter with their lies. bible thumpers need to open their eyes and just accept that not everyone wants religion, not everyone wants politics, read your books at home just how the gays get condemned to closet relationships. the hypocracy is enough to make one laugh during times of deep depression the world is seeing. and if i want to smoke some reefer then i’ll do it, if you were truly a biblethumper you’d know that it says in that book that forgiveness is given upon request and love is unconditional. i need to go before i write all day. adios