Rand Paul: Bush and Obama 'lucky' not to be in jail for drug use

POLITICO ^ | KEVIN CIRILLI

[JohnPDuncan]

Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday that President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush could have "conceivably been put in jail” for their drug use, ruining their lives and impacting their getting elected to office.

"Look, the last two presidents could have conceivably been put in jail for their drug use and I really think - look what would've happened, it would've ruined their lives. They got lucky. But a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky and they don't have good attorneys and they go to jail for some of these things and I think it's a big mistake,” the Kentucky Republican said on Fox’s “Fox News Sunday.”

"Actually, I think it would be the last three presidents, but who's counting?" host Chris Wallace said with a laugh, referring to former President Bill Clinton.

"There you go," Paul said.

"But he didn't inhale," Wallace quipped.

Paul said that he doesn’t support people using marijuana but said he also doesn’t necessarily support putting them in jail for extended periods of time.

[JohnPDuncan]

There’s not a dimes worth of difference between Obama and Bush. Maybe a few hundred billion in the size of their deficits but that’s it.

And yes Ron’s a wacko for opposing the Iraq war which destroyed the GOP, gave us Obama and the crushing 2006 election defeat which also gave him the majority in congress for OBAMACARE.

Thanks President Bush, you did a super job!

[Responsibility2nd]

There’s not a dimes worth of difference between Obama and Bush.

You are a troll. But I've known that for months now. When you finally get a well-deserved zot - please read the comments that will follow. You'll see me among the gloaters.

[trisham]

You’re right about one thing. Ron Paul is a whacko, and his son appears to be following in his footsteps.

[JohnPDuncan]

I’m not a troll.

Please point out the actual differences.

They both ran huge deficits. Both increased the national debt. Both expanded entitlement programs and on and on it goes.

[JohnPDuncan]

I actually think Bush was the wacko, not the man who opposed nearly everything he did.

[trisham]

Please tell us more.

[JohnPDuncan]

I’ve told you everything you need to know.

Obama simply picked up where Bush left off.

Yes, Obama runs a bigger deficit and has added more to the debt but Bush was wreckless and that’s an undeniable fact.

His recklessness led to the 2006 crushing defeat which gave Obama the ability to ram through Obamacare.

This is supported by several journalists who have drawn this very conclusion.

See:

Philip Klein: Iraq War made Obamacare possible
http://washingtonexaminer.com/philip-klein-iraq-war-made-obamacare-possible/article/2524926

Bush also bailed out Wall Street at the end of his term. Obama supported that too... $700bn in TARP. Obama voted ‘Yea’ along with McCain.

So again, I ask where is the difference?

[Bratch]

Maybe you should listen to Ron and Rand. You know, they believe in actually cutting the Federal government in about half.

Actually, Ron believed in "cutting the Federal government" as long as it didn't involve his constituents.

Ron Paul, big-government libertarian

---

In a recent column, The Washington Post’s Fact Checker declared Rep. Ron Paul “a consistent champion of smaller government” who votes against “virtually every piece of legislation that could be interpreted as government overreach or interference with the free market.”

There one small problem with the analysis: It ignores the fact that Paul is one of the biggest pork-barrel earmarkers on Capitol Hill.

The Texas Republican defends his record, telling Fox News’s Neil Cavuto in a 2009 interview that “earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more.” And besides, he explained, he votes “no” on all his own earmarks anyway. “I think you’re missing the point,” he told Cavuto, "I’ve never voted for an earmark, I’ve never voted for an appropriations bill.”

But that is exactly the point. His strategy is to stuff legislation with earmarks that benefit his constituents and thus his reelection, and then vote against the overall bill — knowing full well it will pass over his objections — so he can claim to have opposed all the spending in the first place.

---

[JohnPDuncan]

This is silly... Ron was doing his job by putting in the earmarks. He then voted against the budget and the bill because it invariably spent too much.

[JohnPDuncan]

Earmarks were about 1% of the budget. Every congressman put them in there because otherwise the money is simply spent how the president wants.

He then votes against the budget because most of Bush’s budgets were unbalanced and led to the mess we’re in now.

[Gator113]

Well said.

[Bratch]

His recklessness led to the 2006 crushing defeat which gave Obama the ability to ram through Obamacare.

The War in Iraq and Mark Foley were the reasons the GOP lost control of the House of Representatives.

[Bratch]

Door to Ron Paul's office?

[JohnPDuncan]

I don’t dispute that.

Invading another country that has never attacked America and on the pretense of a UN resolution qualifies as reckless to me!

And yes, it lead to the 2006 crushing defeat. Great job. There were about 50 blue dog democrats left over in 2009 who rammed Obamacare through.

[BfloGuy]

He's falling for the fantasy that people are in jail for the drug use when the reality is that they end up in jail over other crimes with drugs being an associated crime.

Yeah -- related crimes like buying them, selling them, or possessing them. I suppose you're right, though, that simply using them won't get them a sentence.

Paul makes more sense.

[trisham]

You believe in Marxism, then?

[deport]

President Bush and drug use has been argued for many years going back to the late 90s for sure when he became talked about as a presidential candidate. Here’s an article and there were numerous articles on FR back in that era.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4282799.stm

After he became President J.H. Hatfield wrote a book titled “Fortunate Son” and indicated drug use. Hatfield later was found in a motel in AR dead by a drug overdose and ruled a suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hatfield

Fortunate Son:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortunate_Son_%28Hatfield%29

All the above said it it means little when one has to come on FR and slam President Bush to promote his hero Rand Paul. If you’ll trace the poster history it has many comments etc. on Rand Paul threads since his joining FR on Dec. 22, 2012. He even brags that it took him seven weeks to make the sidebar.

[cripplecreek]

You people are quite simply liars and are doing great damage to your reputations with it.

[Hammerhead]

I see this guy going the way of his dad thereby giving an opening to Hitlery.

[trisham]

All the above said it it means little when one has to come on FR and slam President Bush to promote his hero Rand Paul. If you’ll trace the poster history it has many comments etc. on Rand Paul threads since his joining FR on Dec. 22, 2012. He even brags that it took him seven weeks to make the sidebar.

*******************************

Imho, the poster in question is a disruptor.