About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Alter falsely asserted Clinton's "chief strategist" "raised" Obama's drug use

January 18, 2008 9:14 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Alter falsely asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton's "chief strategist" was among the "Clinton surrogates" who have "raised these drug issues" about Sen. Barack Obama. In fact, during a December 13 appearance on Hardball, Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn did not bring up Obama's drug use -- the entire segment was devoted to controversial comments about Obama's past drug use by then-Clinton campaign co-chair Billy Shaheen.

41 Comments

Appearing on the January 17 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Newsweek columnist and senior editor Jonathan Alter falsely asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton's "chief strategist" was among the "Clinton surrogates" who have "raised these drug issues" about Sen. Barack Obama. In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, during a December 13 appearance on MSNBC's Hardball, Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn did not bring up Obama's drug use. The entire December 13 Hardball segment was devoted to controversial comments about Obama's past drug use by then-Clinton campaign co-chair Billy Shaheen, who had resigned earlier that day in the ensuing controversy. Hardball host Chris Matthews explicitly asked Penn at least three distinct questions about the topic, two of which directly referenced "drugs" or "drug use." Penn offered at least two specific responses before he referred to drugs at all and did so only in direct response to Matthews' question about whether "going after his [Obama's] perhaps youthful drug use" is an "appropriate shot[] at the opponent or ... below the belt." Prior to his reference to "cocaine," Penn had disavowed Shaheen's comments.

Additionally, in a January 15 post on The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog, reporter Susan Davis asserted that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), a Clinton supporter, "further pushed the drug issue" during an interview on Inside City Hall, a program on the New York City news channel NY1 News. Davis wrote that Rangel "further pushed the drug issue, calling it a 'big mistake' for Obama to have used drugs, adding snarkily, 'For him to be honest enough to write about it, I guess he thought it might sell books.' " But contrary to Davis' assertion, Inside City Hall host Dominic Carter repeatedly pressed Rangel on the issue, and Rangel stated during the interview that bringing the issue up would be "improper" unless Obama began to criticize "what someone else had done in terms of making a mistake when he was younger, then it would be proper." Carter began the interview as follows: "Let's start with the fact -- let's go back to Senator Obama's book that he wrote in which he acknowledges, on his own, past drug use -- and in the book -- including cocaine." After Carter aired comments by Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Bob Johnson, Rangel stated that Johnson "doesn't help anybody in talking about what Obama had written in his book" and added: "I think this is ridiculous, and it has no place in our campaign." Carter later asked whether "past drug use" is "irrelevant in a presidential campaign," and Rangel responded, "I'm a lawyer, and I'm not trying to avoid your question, but it's almost like a trial. If a person raises the issue, then it's proper to bring this up against him. But if he had written in a book and it's not relevant, it's improper to bring it up. ... I don't think you should bring it up. But if he were to be critical of someone else's childhood, or what someone else had done in terms of making a mistake when he was younger, then it would be proper." Carter also asked Rangel whether he believed Obama made a "big mistake" by writing about his past drug use, to which Rangel replied: "No. It was a big mistake for him to have done it. For him to be honest enough to write about it -- I guess he thought it might sell books."

From the January 17 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: One other story. The president of change -- that Senator Obama reference, we'll get to in a moment. -- but this other thing I wanted to get to with you. The BET founder, Bob Johnson, apologized for the allusion that was thought to be towards the senator's drug use in his teenage years -- the one that he originally claimed he had never made it in the first place. Wait, I'm missing something again here.

ALTER: Well, his original claim that he wasn't talking about drug use was ridiculous on its face and he was pummeled for it, so he had to back up. But, you know, the larger question here, Keith, is you've now had four different Clinton surrogates, including her chief strategist, who've raised these drug issues. And you can sort of excuse it when it happens once or twice. But when four different surrogates are doing this, you start to see a little bit of a pattern.

From the January 14 edition of NY1's Inside City Hall:

CARTER: Let's start with the fact -- let's go back to Senator Obama's book that he wrote in which he acknowledges, on his own, past drug use -- and in the book -- including cocaine. So now let's fast-forward to a rally this past weekend, and let's listen to a big Clinton supporter, the founder of BET, Bob Johnson, what he had to say about Senator Obama.

JOHNSON: Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -- that I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book.

CARTER: OK, Congressman. What do you make of that comment? Mr. Johnson says now that he was referring to the fact that Mr. Obama was a community activist and not talking about past drug use. What do you think?

RANGEL: I don't think, to get to the bottom of your agenda, if you're going to spend a whole lot of time of what Robert Johnson has said politically. A good businessman he is, a politician he is not. So he doesn't help anybody in talking about what Obama had written in his book. Or, for that matter, I hope he doesn't go read my book and perhaps your book, in terms of what happened when we were kids. No, I think this is ridiculous, and it has no place in our campaign.

CARTER: Big mistake by Mr. Johnson?

RANGEL: I don't know how big it is. Who will remember who Mr. Johnson is on the campaign trail? You know, like, he -- his biggest job is how to count money. He does that well. He's a great investor, and I'm proud of what he does. But I would not advise anyone to bring him on the campaign trail.

CARTER: Why not?

RANGEL: Because I don't know who would be overly impressed with his remarks. I mean, I just can't imagine to say, "I've been endorsed by Bob Johnson of BET." Do you?

CARTER: Well, Congressman, you know, some will say that it's dirty tricks to allude to past drug use. Do you agree with that?

RANGEL: I don't see where it's relevant. You know, if you came "holier than thou," you know, condemning me and my kids for something that we have done. Assuming you were Rudolph Giuliani, you were critical of me, in terms of anything involving my domestic life, I'd say, "Come on, Rudy." You know, it all depends on what it is. But to bring it up, I don't think there's any need for that.

CARTER: But is drug use irrelevant in a presidential campaign, past drug use?

RANGEL: I'm a lawyer, and I'm not trying to avoid your question, but it's almost like a trial. If a person raises the issue, then it's proper to bring this up against him. But if he had written in a book and it's not relevant, it's improper to bring it up. I would not recommend that one would follow the path that he followed as a kid, to give it to teenagers saying, "If you want to become a candidate for president, this is what you do."

And so I don't think you should bring it up. But if he were to be critical of someone else's childhood, or what someone else had done in terms of making a mistake when he was younger, then it would be proper. But just to bring it up --

CARTER: So Senator Obama should not have even written about this? Is that what you're telling me, Congressman?

RANGEL: Of course not. Of course not. I assume that the book was not written for political purposes. It was honest. As a matter of fact, you cannot believe what my son made me take out of my book. You know? He said it was not relevant what I did when I was a kid, and he was right, and I took it out.

CARTER: So it was a big mistake, starting with Senator Obama to even write about this?

RANGEL: No. It was a big mistake for him to have done it. For him to be honest enough to write about it -- I guess he thought it might sell books.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tex (January 19, 2008 4:48 am ET)
         

      Google the term "Didn't Inhale". Count the number of hits (a MILLION and a HALF, I got).

      Then tell me again how prior drug history is "out of bounds" in a political campaign. These Rightwingers are such blatant, insufferable HYPOCRITES. Perpetrators of blatant DOUBLE STANDARDS. (We used to call such people "one way bastages".)

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (January 19, 2008 11:21 am ET)
           
        Tex, What does this have to do with rightwingers?  You are nothing if not utterly predictable, amazing.  This is all about Democrats and their infighting, not the evil RIGHTWINGERS, sorry.......I know that is your mantra and by god you will insert in anywhere, even if irrelevant - but try sticking to the whiny leftwingers who are the topic here, if you can.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tex (January 19, 2008 2:36 pm ET)
             

          TOMMY:

          Today's MEDIA is overwhelmingly RIGHTWING. They are currently busy manufacturing "scandal" where none exists, and doing so in a predictably "party specific" way.

          Clinton's "didn't inhale" response to the question of drug use (pot) was broadcast and ridiculed far and wide. Bush's avoidance of answering specific drug questions, combined with his 40 of active alcoholism? Wiped out by being "born again" ... as the MEDIA reported it.

          Now, of course, ANOTHER opportunity for the press to press a scandal to harm the Democratic frontrunner. The topic? A couple of scattered mentions of Obama's ADMITTED drug use, blown into a "Hillary is racist and unfairly attacking" narrative.

          The first step to recovery, Tommy, is to admit you have a problem ... seeing clearly that there is a blatant double-standard practiced by the RIGHTWING, both by party operatives AND the MEDIA. Once you recognize THAT fact, things will make more sense to you. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (January 19, 2008 2:45 pm ET)
               

            Tex,

            Sell it to your fellow liberals, the media is far from being overwhelmingly RIGHTWING, that is only your partisan paranoia speaking, again......and it is totally unsupported by facts.  But you keep pushing that left wing fantasy to keep your victim status intact - if you can continue to push the baseless narrative of a heavy right wing bias in the media, then you can blame the media for what the Democrats and the leftists should be taking responsibility for themselves - their own failings within their own party.......all the infighting and what not.

            But we all know it's in many liberlals blood to point fingers, blame someone else for that alleviates you of responsibility, it's classic Pardner' - and you top the list here.  Try those facts on.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (January 19, 2008 3:55 pm ET)
                 

              Sell it to your fellow liberals, the media is far from being overwhelmingly RIGHTWING, that is only your partisan paranoia speaking, again

              I don't think they're right-wing; I just think they're woefully uniformed.  Most of them can't correct the conservative misinformation and lies so they repeat them on air.  There's also the problem of these media outlets being a part of large conglomerates.  Democrats being elected could jeopardize any future plans in acquiring more media outlets or it could lead to the breaking up of these conglomerates.  Likewise, the news models that now make millions of dollars per year could be hit with higher taxes if Democrats are elected.

              But we all know it's in many liberlals blood to point fingers, blame someone else for that alleviates you of responsibility, it's classic Pardner' - and you top the list here.  Try those facts on.

              No.  This is what republicans do.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by tex (January 20, 2008 9:23 am ET)
                 

              TOMMY:

              You say, "Sell it to your fellow liberals ..."

              RESPONSE: My "fellow liberals" are not only clued in, you happen to presently be posting on a site which SPECIFICALLY and EMPIRICALLY proves that Rightwing Media is dominant and busily spreading misinformation. For decades, the Rightwing has clung to the "POOR US, we are VICTIMS" of a harsh and liberal Media. So unfair, Republicans and conservatives excoriated all day long by "LIBERALS" like Walter Conkrite.

              You wish, TOMMY, to continue portraying yourself as a VICTIM, a poor defenseless pitiful VICTIM of an unfair press out to destroy "conservatives" and their politicians. The problem is, Tommy, it's bullcrap. Your DESIRE to be a "victim" is belied every day by the FACTS, Bush is coddled while Clinton is smeared, McCain being lauded while Hillary is belittled. Hell, EVERY THREAD on this site screams that your desire for Victimhood is not supported by REALITY.

              You continue, "... the media is far from being overwhelmingly RIGHTWING, that is only your (listen closely to yourself!) partisan paranoia speaking, again."

              RESPONSE: Hoist on your own petard...

              Tommy says, "...and it is totally unsupported by facts."

              RESPONSE: The FACTS abound, but admittedly they cannot penetrate a mind poisoned by Rightwing propaganda and false narratives, such as your own. No matter, the FACTS are making Rightwingers think twice about spouting their nonsense partisan misinformation (Matthew's "apology", for example).

              Tommy says, "But you keep pushing that left wing fantasy to keep your victim status intact - if you can continue to push the baseless narrative of a heavy right wing bias in the media, then you can blame the media for what the Democrats and the leftists should be taking responsibility for themselves ..."

              RESPONSE: Fair enough. I'm MORE THAN WILLING to "take responsibility" for the FACTS that Bush/Cheney is now seen as the WORST administration in history, and that the GOP is in tatters and floundering, with NOBODY predicting they will even hold seats this next election, and in the primaries, voters are turning out 2 to 1 in support of DEMS, signaling LANDSLIDE VICTORIES for Dems in the general. Sure, I'll accept responsibility for ALL THAT ... and you can even say I'm "victimized" by it, if you like!

              Tommy says, "... SHOULD BE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY- their own failings within their own party.......all the infighting and what not."

              RESPONSE: Again, your "advice" is best taken by yourself ... as you "conservative" rightwingers will be TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for your UTTER FAILURES of leadership, policy, and personal behavior in this next election. It will HAPPEN, so I don't even need to intone you TO take responsibility ... it will be meted out, sure as judgment day.

              Tommy says, "But we all know it's in many liberlals blood to point fingers, blame someone else for that alleviates you of responsibility, it's classic Pardner' - and you top the list here.  Try those facts on."

              RESPONSE: So, it's "in my blood" to blame others, and your PROOF of this is to ... uh ... BLAME ME!!!!! LOL. You can't even see yourself, can you? Don't listen to the words you speak, are oblivious to the irony of projection you demonstrate.

              It's OK, events will unfold without noting your personal lack of rationality. GOP are going DOWN, and HARD. The REAL irony? YOU PERSONALLY will be better off with Democratic leadership ... although you don't deserve it one iota. 

              Report Abuse
          • Author by bruce1ace (January 19, 2008 10:22 pm ET)
               
            Tex, the reason Clintons "I didn't inhale" was broadcast far and wide wasn't because he was a Democrat, it was because it was a ridiculous answer. 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (January 19, 2008 10:54 pm ET)
                 
              I thought it was a ridicoulous answer until I went on constructon job site and the GC there was smoking cigar after cigar after cigar.  I asked if he wasn't afraid of cancer and he said he wanted to quit but couldn't so he decided to just puff on the cigars - no inhalation.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by tex (January 20, 2008 9:33 am ET)
                 

              BRUCE:

              Keep telling yourself that. That "reasoning" can also explain the MEDIA's obsession with Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, and all those other "ridiculous" pursuits of NON-scandals.

              The so-called "liberal" New York Times took the LEAD in broadcasting Whitewater, for YEARS, and there was NOTHING THERE. The NYT took the LEAD in being stenographers for Bush in his run-up to WAR in Iraq, printing front-page LIES in the service of the Bush White House. The NYT buried the lead in the Consortium Report ... that AL GORE had actually won the presidency in 2000.

              Clinton's "didn't inhale" was no more a ridiculous answer than a THOUSAND of Bush's declarations, yet Bush's are buried, while Clinton's was broadcast. Yet, you have fooled yourself into thinking there is no double standard. One cannot hope to penetrate such stubborn ignorance, so believe what you like; the GOP are going down HARD, and you'll just have to deal with THAT. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by bruce1ace (January 20, 2008 11:42 am ET)
                   

                Your posts are written from the perspective of a true partisan Democrat, which is fine and legal, but oftentimes they don't accurately reflect history or they intentionally omit relevent information in order to make better arguments.

                You say there was "nothing there" in the Whitewater investigation.  It's true that it was eventually determined that there was "insufficient evidence" that the President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct.  Stars's successor Robert Ray criticized the White House, saying that undue delays in turning over evidence and "unmeritorious litigation" by the President's lawyers severely impeded the investigation's progress.  (I'm sure you recall the mysterious Rose Law Firm billings that were supposed to be turned over within 30 days but were withheld for 18 months).  The Clintons lack of cooperation was a major factor in the length of the investigation.

                You say there was "nothing there".  Except that 14 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including a sitting Governor who was forced to resign.

                Jim Guy Tucker - Fraud 3 counts

                John Haley - Tax Fraud

                William J. Marks Sr. - Conspiracy

                Stephen Smith - Conspiracy to Misapply Funds (Pardoned)

                Webster Hubble - Embezzlement, Fraud

                Jim McDougal - 18 Felonies, Varied

                Susan McDougal - Multiple Fraud, Contempt of Court (Pardoned)

                David Hale - Conspiracy, Fraud

                Neil Ainley - Embezzled Bank Funds for Clinton Campaign

                Chris Wade - Multiple Loan Fraud (Pardoned)

                Larry Kuca - Multiple Loan Fraud

                Robert Palmer - Conspiracy (Pardoned)

                John Latham - Bank Fraud

                Eugene Fitzhugh - Multiple bribery

                Charles Matthews - Bribery

                It's easy to say after the fact that there was "nothing there" and why did we spend all this time and money when there was "nothing there".  Of course, on the front end you don't know that there's "nothing there" until you look at the evidence to make that determination.  Then, when 14 people are convicted of over 40 felonies as a result of the investigation and you still claim there was "nothing there", then I will respectfully say that you are entitled to your opinion on that.

                As far as your comment that I will just have to "deal with" the fact that the GOP are going down hard this year, I'm fine with it.  I've been predicting just that result for well over a year.  Actions have consequences and I'm fully aware that this administration has been languishing with bad poll numbers and a poor track record for several years.  In fact, I'm very likely voting for the Democratic candidate this time around. 

                The fact that I don't accept everything this website publishes or posters write as the gospel truth doesn't make me a right-winger or a neocon or whatever your term of the day is.  It just makes me somone who is interested in figuring out what's going on.  You know, if there weren't a few more conservative posters around to challenge what this website or posters publish, who would do it?  Would you have the conviction to challenge a misleading thread, or would you just figure that the end justifies the means?  Or perhaps you think this site is perfect, in which case I would challenge you to read the threads and their arguments more carefully.

                 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (January 20, 2008 1:17 pm ET)
                     

                  Then, when 14 people are convicted of over 40 felonies as a result of the investigation and you still claim there was "nothing there", then I will respectfully say that you are entitled to your opinion on that.

                  The targets of the witch hunt were the Clintons and the right wing failed to come up with anything.  The ten to fifteen year old land deal was already being investigated by Arkansas authorities who were looking at the same people that were eventually convicted.  It could have been handle at the state level but the right wing pursued it at the federal level for political reasons wasting so much of our tax dollars.

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by captfoster2 (January 20, 2008 11:47 am ET)
               

            TEX,

            I agree with you that the media is more vastly right-wing..... however, I think that the corporate run media aims for this kind of thinking because it suits their purposes and pocketbook......

            From the corporate media point of view, when they spew sensationalism or sell talking points that are given to them by those in power, it endears them to those powers and they get more access, etc, etc.

            If the factual truth were proved to make twice the profit than inuendo or lies or exagerations or sensationalism do, you can bet your ass that the corporate media would clamour wildly to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but!

            Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (January 19, 2008 8:51 am ET)
         

      And on last nights Countdown, Keith did clarify the situation and appologized for not catching it.

      It may or may not mean much to some that KO did this but compared to BillO or any of the other right-wing brainiacs attempts at non-appology appologies....... yeah....I thought so

      As for Alter himself, Does he believe what he said, that the Clinton camp is using 'surrogates' to spread drug use rumors about Obama? If so, shame on your Mr Alter, if not, then why bring it up on KO, where you know it wouldn't pass muster for long, as proved on last nights Countdown.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (January 19, 2008 2:54 pm ET)
           

        I did not DVR last nights Countdown, so I missed it. If KO did apologize for not catching Alters smear than I say great job for Olbermann. As many know I am very critical of KO but if he said he should of caught this and did not I say that is good enough for me.

        As for Alter, the man rarely makes good points, this is just yet another example. He can only be in the graces of many of us for so long with his anti Bush rhetoric, that does not get people very far since 80% of America wants this man out of office.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by philio (January 19, 2008 10:46 am ET)
         

      I understand that we as media matters readers want to address issues regarding the truth within the media; However, I am concern about Bill Clinton's misrepresentation of Obama statements.

       

      Barack said that the 1980 election changed the trajectory of America and its truth!

      Bill Clinton said that Barack said that the Republican had the best idea for the last 15 years. This is a LIE!!!

       

      I want this election to be about ideas not lies!  I have always respect Mr. Clinton and voted for him both times. My family loved him too; however, we are beginning to not trust what he says because on many occasions lately he twists the truth! I am afraid that he wants to win so much that he would lie to the American public-- will Hillary do the same? One thing, I can say about Obama, he will tell the truth and admit to anything that is not truthful. Whether he wins or not, this is what I want the Whitehouse and Oprah was right about his character.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Clevenative (January 19, 2008 11:08 am ET)
         

      Just yesterday I received a chain email from a Republican “friend” which contained the months old story suggesting Obama refused to pledge allegiance to the flag.

      The problem with lies is that once they start, there are plenty or parrots out there willing to continue their propagation. It’s much easier to click the “forward” button to a group of email recipients than it is to check the facts. Regardless the source, whether it comes from the candidate themselves, “chief strategist”, talking head shill, or the parroting sheep – a lie is still a lie.

      I would like to think that anyone who receives a chain email propagating such lies, would do more than just ignore it when it reaches your inbox. FIX THE FACTS – and then continue the chain - this time with truth trumping the fiction.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (January 19, 2008 1:00 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

      Cocaine, Cocaine, Cocaine, Cocaine, Cocaine in the morning, cocaine in the day, cocaine in the evening time, cocaine all the time. I hear these words and I'm transformed back in time, the '80's in Vegas, and you get a cab much faster if you have.........Cocaine. You meet the crowd, and make the best party if you have.......Cocaine.

      I wonder if you were a teen, or a young adult during the '80's I wonder what dark cave you must may have been in that didn't have cocaine easily available and you didn't find yourself at a party, and .................

      We should encarcerate all whom used cocaine, and then disparage them for decades no matter their contribution, no matter their circumstance. If that be true then most of the executives, politicians, and business community of Las Vegas that stil live there since 1980 are permanently disparaged.

      When are we going to grow up. I lived and went to college in Las Vegas in the 80's when cocaine was as much a second currency being used to barter most of anything a guest would desire in Vegas. I know the rest of the country was starting to catch the same insanity, and it passed.

      We had enough of the Drug War with prison over flowing with our excesses making others pay all our penance. We made drugs a anti-religious icon and declared holy war on ourselves. We took an addiction, an illness, and made a crime out of it, and tossed the afflicted into prisons. We declared a war against human nature, illness, addiction, and thought if we gave it a long sentence it would disapear from sight, and mind. Problem solved??

      Oooooopssss. We are in the 21st Century and stil treating addiction like we did at the turn of the last century, with prohibition, and in the violent terms of WAR. Euorpe has dealt with addiction, and narcotics as a illness, a behavior to be mitigated civilly, instead of as a combatant. As though the drug is the problem, not the behavior, the addiction. Like having a doctor treat the patient declaring them criminals and locking them up instead of treating their illness.

      If a candidate can admit that he or she had an experience with drug use, and living in America then maybe we'll have a chance that a President will make a stand, and treat drug use as an addiction, and not a crime.

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (January 19, 2008 1:24 pm ET)
           

        P.S. 

        Unless your name is Rush Limbaugh.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by T-Hone (January 19, 2008 1:57 pm ET)
             
          Rush Limbaugh does treat drug addiction as a crime.  The fact that he was an addict himself and yet didn't go to prison, all the while talking about how drug abusers should go to jail should tell you what a hypocrite he is.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 19, 2008 2:54 pm ET)
             

          Rush's drug addiction was a crime because he is a lying rightwing, hypocritical, racist, xenophobic gasbag - unlike leftwingers who are victims of rightwinger's double standards........come on Bruce, it's totally different.

          ;)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by T-Hone (January 19, 2008 3:55 pm ET)
               

            "unlike leftwingers who are victims of rightwinger's double standards"

            That part is why it's different.  Using Rush's own standard, he should go to prison.   

            Report Abuse
          • Author by T-Hone (January 19, 2008 4:35 pm ET)
               

            "Rush's drug addiction was a crime because(...)"

            It's only a crime based on his own standard. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by bruce1ace (January 19, 2008 5:38 pm ET)
                 

              I agree that Rush was a hypocrite on his drug addiction stance.  However, I know that he admitted that he was wrong about that after he went through treatment and I don't believe he has advocated that position since his addiction was "outed".  I am also not aware that he has relapsed since his treatment several years ago.

              I have no problem with people who call Limbaugh a hypocrite on this issue.  I do think that people who call him a drug addict simply because they hate his politics should ask themselves whether or not they really think addiction is a disease or a character flaw.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tex (January 20, 2008 9:38 am ET)
                   

                BRUCE:

                Of course, Limbaugh should be getting treatment for his addiction.

                It's just that, while he is demonstrating his flawed character, he should NOT be working in a daycare facility, nor broadcasting his addled views on the radio. Positions of responsibility call for responsible behavior, and Limbaugh is IRRESPONSIBLE. It's that simple. 

                Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (January 19, 2008 2:40 pm ET)
           

        Your post exemplifies the reason Obama’s admitted cocaine usage is becoming more and more of a non-issue. However, the more conservative of the conservatives, as well as the older generations, simply do not relate. Just as the suggestion that Bill Clinton might have inhaled was not enough to deter most voters from electing him based on his merits - a small subset of voters will still continued to use this as an argument against his “electability”.

        My grandmother considered Elvis “immoral” because he swiveled his hips on stage. She destroyed his records when she found them in my mother’s collection of 45 rpm records. If Elvis had become a war hero and run for president in the 70’s, most people would have thought such a correlation to moral aptitude as being ridiculous – but I bet my Grandmother still would not have voted for him for this reason alone. But now that my grandmother’s generation is gone, if he were running in ’08 – such a charge against his character would be considered laughable. (OK, I’m ready for a bashing for my Elvis analogy – but you have to get my point?)

        What I do find remarkable though is, how a person who has been honest about past drug usage is as much, or more, oppressed than the candidates who skirted the issue in the recent past – i.e. Clinton’s half-truths and GW’s silence.

        Aughh, the (il)logic of politics.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by kromecom48 (January 19, 2008 5:31 pm ET)
         

      POLICY, POLICY, POLICY. That's all the media need focus on in reference to elections. If a candidate is suspect of some rhetorical hypocrisy in their personal lives and policy positions -- i.e. Senator Craig -- then its fair game. Otherwise, just the facts please? Obama admitted experimental drug use -- so what. The Clinton campaign be accused of raising something that Obama raised himself. There's no news there.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by solonswine (January 19, 2008 5:42 pm ET)
         
      Yeah, prior substance abuse should be a non-issue, right leftwingers? That's why you all NEVER howl about Rush Limbaugh or George W. Bush's prior drug use. (wink, wink) Ahhhh, libs. Digging a bigger hole for themselves each and every day.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by T-Hone (January 19, 2008 6:15 pm ET)
           
        Their prior drug use should be discussed since they support stiff penalties for drug offenders yet weren't penalized themselves.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (January 19, 2008 6:46 pm ET)
           

        The issue with Bush's drug use was that it was brushed off by the same party that made Clinton's drug use a "character" issue.  And with Rush, it was because he said drug addicts should go to prison.  It's about hypocrisy.

        Outside of that, I couldn't care less, personally. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by hogprint (January 21, 2008 12:59 pm ET)
             

          Do you mean Bush's rumored drug use from gossip columnist types who suddenly turned author during election years? 

          Credible sources please. 

          Oh and old friends with "tapes" supposedly vetted by the NYT don't count either.  

           

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (January 19, 2008 8:26 pm ET)
           

        The big difference,Solonswine, is that libs aren’t the ones running around insisting that everyone who does drugs should be thrown in jail - or that everyone who is not exclusively heterosexually monogamous is committing an immoral crime against nature. Maybe you don’t understand the word hypocrisy?

        Your stupid comments never cease to amaze me. Talk about “Digging a bigger hole for themselves” – the hypocrisy of the wingnuts of The Republican Party is doing just that – open your eyes instead of your parroting piehole.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by solonswine (January 19, 2008 5:58 pm ET)
         

      You know what? Prior drug use SHOULD be off-limits. Why not? Let's look at a few of the other things that are already off limits in this democrat presidential race: extortion, bribery, fraud, theft, embezzlement, perjury, impeachment, adultery, tampering with evidence/witnesses, burglary of a federal building, solicitation of prostitution, nepotism, murder.

      So, yeah, might as well take drug use out of the equation as well.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (January 19, 2008 7:04 pm ET)
           
        Who says they're off-limits?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (January 19, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
           

        Why do you go on doing this to yourself, Solonswine?  As if any one of the items in your list haven’t been “problems” for Republicans . The list is laughable because all it does is remind one of all the Dick Nixon, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Bush/Cheney, Larry Craig types that have given Republicans the reputation as the party of crooks and hypocrisy. Keep diggin’, dude - and take those blinders off, you friggin' mule!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solonswine (January 20, 2008 1:44 pm ET)
             
          Yeah, and it's people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Sand Berger, William Jefferson and Teddy Kennedy that make the democrat party the party of angels and honesty? Who's wearing the blinders now? Nice name-calling tactics, too. Really shows your maturity level.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne (January 20, 2008 9:34 pm ET)
             
          I thought he WAS talking about the Republicans. Oh, just projecting on Democrats as usual I see. 
          Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (January 19, 2008 9:15 pm ET)
           
        gosh yes, good thing the republicans never make any of those accusations.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (January 20, 2008 9:42 pm ET)
           

        extortion, bribery, fraud, theft, embezzlement, perjury, impeachment, adultery, tampering with evidence/witnesses, burglary of a federal building, solicitation of prostitution, nepotism, murder. Swiney

         

        Swiney, which of the DemocratIC candidates are engaging in these things you list? Who is bribing, who is extorting, who is tampering with evidence/witness (I didn't know any of these candidates were involved in a suit), who murdered who? Inquiring minds want to know. Please provide names of these illicit people so that it may be provided to the authorities. I want all of them arrested. If you won't provide names and are knowingly covering up crimes, then you are an accessory. Please be swift in this pursuit. Justice is counting on you.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.