2008 RNC Attacks Obama for Defending Sick Folks
posted by on May 15 at 12:55 PM
The Obama interview in Willamette Week.
Would you stop the DEA’s raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers?I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science, and if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it’s something that I think we should consider.
Seems an innocuous enough answer: He’ll stop the raids on sick people, but he won’t “support” medical marijuana until it goes through the same rigors as pharmaceuticals. (Not that there isn’t a ton of evidence already.) Of course, that’s a cop-out response because he’s not promising to stop prosecutions and the government usually won’t fund or allow “sound” research on the schedule-one drug. In the meantime, he says, we have higher priorities. Here’s the RNC’s retort…
Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?
Gee, RNC, it seems like Obama agrees with the current Republican administration: After 9/11, the federal government overhauled priorities for the FBI—federal agents—directing resources away from certain domestic crimes and toward terrorism.
But there’s no question that the GOP has pulled an about-face on terrorism before. The real question is this: Given the public support for medical pot in swing states, will McCain try to muzzle the RNC on the medical-marijuana issue before November?
yes but public support may be there...but i really don't see it as 'hell ya' support but only from a small bit of the public that alot of people think are hippies anyway. i think people support it in a kinda/sure/why not way that won't make muzzling it a big issue.
Were was the RNC with these talking points during the discovery of the Bush's numerous signing statements.
WTF? As if Goerge W. Bush has any understanding about what the job of President of the United States is. He is just about the most incompentent person anyone can possibly find for that job.
I was just thinking recently that I may have passed some line with the Republican party. Once upon a time, I agreed with them on some things. Even the first year or two of the Bush administration, occasionally I would hear something and think to myself, "that sounds sensible."
But I can't remember a time in the last several years when I've heard anything from any of the current leaders of the party that I agree with in the slightest. It seems like they are always, ALWAYS on the side of bigots, faux moralists, war, anti-science and really, really rich people.
Fuck 'em.
#2, the same thought occurred to me as well. I guess they only care if the president doesn't enforce laws they like.
The Red Bushies and McSame are about spending money where it does little good - President Obama is about defending America, not Red Bushie no-bid-contract pocketbooks.
Is this the same RNC whose president regularly puts "Signing Statements" onto bills he approves, reserving his Executive Powers to interpret the new law any way he damned well pleases?
And they have the nerve to lecture Obama on the responsibilities of the presidency?
GMAFBA
"Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping."
Odd that I never heard him question it when bush did it.
After that I linked to the article about when the actually approved the bill and read this.
""The balance between public safety and order and individual rights is always a difficult dilemma in a free society," said Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-New York."
Odd that you never hear Republicans concerned with individual rights any more. So strange.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).