Re: Molly Ivins on Hypocrite George W.

[Scott Dredge <sdredge@yahoo.com>]

No surprise here.  The hypocrite factor is alive and
well on both sides of the political aisle.  The cocaine
issue circling around George W. is not going to have
an impact on his viability as a candidate, unless it
is proven that he's been lying about it.  George W.'s
appeal to the masses is that he's more of a centrist
than a hardliner to the right.  And if taking a tough
stand against drug users remains popular to the voters,
Bush will continue to do so...all the while ducking
questions about rumors of his past drug use.

--- Sue Hovey <suehovey@moscow.com> wrote:
> My nephew sent me this Molly Ivins column and
> inasmuch as most of you
> probably aren't taking the Fort Worth Star Telegram
> these days, I thought
> you might appreciate this one--and if not, just quit
> reading at any point.
> Sue Hovey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Craig Young <cyoung@gte.net>
> To: Sue Hovey <suehovey@moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 12:46 PM
> Subject: Molly Ivins' Wednesday column
> 
> 
> > > The real question: What did Bush learn?
> > >
> > >                    AUSTIN -- Watching the
> political press corps try to
> figure out
> > >                    what to do about George W.
> Bush's supposed cocaine
> use is a
> > >                    walking test case in media
> ethics that will be used
> in
> > >                    journalism schools for the
> next 50 years. You
> probably didn't
> > >                    know there were courses in
> media ethics. You may now
> make
> > >                    up your own joke.
> > >
> > >                    For starters, under the old
> rules, before we wrote
> about
> > >                    something we were expected to
> have some evidence that
> it
> > >                    was true. Under the new
> rules, the fact that there is
> gossip
> > >                    about someone is news,
> whether the gossip is true or
> not. In
> > >                    this case, the fact that Bush
> refuses to deny that he
> used
> > >                    cocaine has seemed to the
> entire press corps
> sufficient
> > >                    evidence -- a charming
> latter-day version of "Have
> you
> > >                    stopped beating your wife?"
> > >
> > >                    To add insult to injury, the
> Washington media --
> whose
> > >                    provincialism knows no bounds
> -- is busy analyzing
> the Bush
> > >                    campaign's response, deciding
> that it was
> insufficiently nimble
> > >                    for the big leagues, that he
> didn't stay "on-message"
> (a mortal
> > >                    sin), and otherwise picking
> apart his campaign
> operation.
> > >
> > >                    The week before, they had of
> course been praising
> said
> > >                    operation as flawless and
> awesome. Now "Bush himself
> is
> > >                    responsible for the current
> flurry . . ." Oh, sure.
> This is my
> > >                    favorite media trick: We do
> something disgusting and
> then
> > >                    blame it on the person to
> whom it was done.
> > >
> > >                    The media, as happens so
> depressingly often, are
> asking the
> > >                    wrong question. Bush himself
> stands there and begs us
> to ask
> > >                    it. "I have learned from my
> mistakes," he says over
> and over.
> > >                    The question is: `What' did
> he learn?
> > >
> > >                    Until 1973, Texas had the
> most draconian drug laws in
> the
> > >                    nation. Whether they stopped
> Bush or not, they didn't
> stop
> > >                    me, didn't stop people now
> serving in the
> Legislature, and
> > >                    didn't stop most of a
> generation of Texans from
> trying
> > >                    marijuana. What did he learn
> from that? Nothing.
> > >
> > >                    Harsh laws do not stop young
> people from trying
> illegal drugs.
> > >                    So what does Bush do when he
> gets to be governor?
> > >                    Increases the penalties and
> toughens the system so
> it's harder
> > >                    on young people. Signs a
> memorably stupid bill making
> > >                    possession of less than a
> 20th of an ounce of cocaine
> > >                    punishable by jail time.
> > >
> > >                    Are there people who are now
> in Texas prisons for
> making
> > >                    "youthful mistakes"? There
> are thousands of them.
> Based on a
> > >                    combination of Texas
> Department of Criminal Justice
> figures
> > >                    and U.S. Justice Department
> figures, there are at
> least 5,000
> > >                    people in Texas prisons for
> marijuana possession
> alone. (The
> > >                    numbers are extremely
> difficult to pin down, since
> many of
> > >                    those in for possession
> probably pleaded down from
> other
> > >                    charges; this is a
> conservative estimate.) Twenty
> percent of
> > >                    the Texas prison population
> of 147,000 is there on
> > >                    drug-related charges.
> > >
> > >                    The truth is, if Bush `had'
> been caught using
> marijuana or
> > >                    cocaine 25 years ago, he
> would not have been
> sentenced to
> > >                    prison -- he was rich and
> white and his daddy was an
> > >                    important guy. That's the way
> the system worked then;
> that's
> > >                    the way the system works now.
> Lee Otis Johnson, the
> black
> > >                    political activist from
> Houston, got 30 years for
> marijuana;
> > >                    white boys walked. Bush was
> there; he saw it happen;
> what
> > >                    did he learn?
> > >
> > >                    When he became governor, he
> had a world of
> opportunity to
> > >                    try to make the system more
> fair. What did he do? He
> vetoed
> > >                    Sen. Rodney Ellis' bill
> (passed unanimously by the
> > >                    Republican-controlled Senate
> and by the House), which
> would
> > >                    have given poor defendants
> the right to see a lawyer
> within 20
> > >                    days. Twenty days, big deal
> -- in most of the
> country, an
> > >                    indigent defendant gets a
> lawyer within 72 hours or
> they have
> > >                    to let him go. We have poor
> people who spend months
> in jail
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com