Uncategorized

Just Inhale? The Democrats Could Be Helped By The Legalization Movement But Remain Largely Silent

Marijuana Leaf220px-Democratslogo.svgThere is an interesting (and potentially important) change occurring on the ballots of states with tight Senate races. Legalization of marijuana issues are appearing on the ballots in places like Alaska and Oregon and are expected to draw in younger voters. This could be the margin that the Democrats need to reduce their expected losses. However, the Democratic leadership has followed the lead of President Obama in opposing (or at least not supporting) legalization efforts. The result is that the Democrats could benefit from the ballot pull of pot but do not appear to be capitalizing on the prospect.

Brookings Institution expert John Hudak expects an influx of potential young Democratic votes. All that is required is a couple seats to stay blue for the Democrats to keep the Senate — though Joe Biden might have to become a full-time member of the Senate in casting votes on ties. The GOP is widely expected to make gains in both houses but the pot issue could be a game changer in a couple of states. The GOP is counting on Alaska and Oregon.

These type of wedge issues have worked for the GOP with the gay marriage ballot issues in the past. Hudak says however that the Democrats are missing this “real opportunity” to use pot at the polls.

They seem to be trying to have it both ways in a political version of Bill Clinton insisting that he tried marijuana but “I didn’t inhale.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/inhale-marijuana-initiatives-should-keep-senate-democratic/article/2552401

160 thoughts on “Just Inhale? The Democrats Could Be Helped By The Legalization Movement But Remain Largely Silent”

  3. “This thread hit the skids quickly. I can’t even go out to lunch for chrissake.”

    Someone needs to find some friends and a life.

  4. Abortion is not even an issue for a non-hypocritical, literal reading, Christian. The Bible is quite clear that a fetus is not a person. Indeed, according to scripture, even an infant less than a month old is not a person…

    Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. Numbers 3:15-16

    … and has no worth.

    And if it [a child] be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. Leviticus 27:6

    1. fiver – try telling that to parents who have killed their new borns.

  5. Darren, Govt. people don’t know how to run a business. Hell, that can’t eun the freakin’ govt. The politicians in your state are hurting their tax revenues by overtaxing. Thanks, for a good comment. This thread hit the skids quickly. I can’t even go out to lunch for chrissake.

  8. Not so fast. I do not know of a single young person who does not believe that both the democrats and republicans are now the enemy, in bed with the 1 percenters. It’s the same thing all over the iNet, too. You are not going to fool young people by putting marijuana on the ballot. They will easily see it for what it is, a ruse, a distraction to maintain business as usual. The ACA, for them, is now seen as the big bite. Once bit, twice shy.

    The same thing with all the illegal aliens, whose employers are entrepreneurs and mostly conservative. Their liberal employers, too, have bite marks, only lots more, no longer rolling over for the Democrat’s lies, smart enough to know that at some point, 1 more person in the life boat will sink it.

    The only bright light I see in the future is that all the old people, responsible for destroying our nation, will eventually die. Christians believe that Jesus died for your sins. I believe you die for your own sins. What a horrible thought, someone actually dying for the sins of those who’ve destroyed our nation, ruined lives, orphaned children, split up families, imprisoned millions, contaminated the food supply, sickened everyone, destroyed the middle class, impoverished 80% of the population — it gets worse with each passing day, and there is no shame in it for any of them.

  9. Paul c, So you are for outlawing stem cell research, many forms of birth control, invitro fertilization, abortion even under the circumstances of rape and incest and keeping dead women alive as incubators? Sounds very libertarian…not

  14. I would say the modern definition of a theocrat is one who is for fetal personhood.like Rand Paul.

  16. I wonder how faux libertarians embrace Rand Paul’s stance on foreign wars. If Rand Paul actually won the nomination, would he get enough of the neocon vote? If he actually won the Presidency, how would he treat the ISIS problem?

  17. Annie – you are throwing that word theocrat around like you know what it means. You are using it in the wrong context. Did the White House send out new talking points with ‘theocrat’ on it?

  18. Legalize all drugs and address behavior.

    Stop spending tax dollars on “drug” laws, enforcement, prosecution and incarceration.

    Take the issue off the table.

  19. Yep, I agree Gary and SWM, a REAL libertarian wouldn’t be a theocrat. I just wonder why so many want to be libertarians, claim they are, make big pronunciations, yet it’s exceedingly evident they are not. Why don’t they just embrace their conservative selves? One of life’s mysteries I guess, oh well.

  20. Gary T, I agree. A real libertarian would not be running on a republican platform.

    1. SWM – there is the problem of getting elected. In most states it is impossible to be elected as an Independent. Arizona makes it very hard to get on the state-wide ballot. So, if one actually wants to win, one has to elect to declare as running from one of the two major parties. Therefore, to really win, one should declare from the party most likely to get them elected. If that is the Republicans, the a true libertarian would run as a Republican.

      1. Swath:
        A real libertarian would be running as anything the system permits him to run under. If there are no viable choices to run under your own political party because the parties in power prevent it from happening, then one is forced to run under their banner.
        I would agree perhaps though, if the party has irretrievably anti-libertarian fundamentals as an integral part of its platform and bylaws, then I would agree that a real libertarian could not honestly run under that party moniker.

Comments are closed.