My colleague and Declaration of Independents co-author Matt Welch likes to point out a sad disparity between tea party Republicanoids and civil liberties Democratoids (?).
He notes that on occasion, Republican voters will actually hold one of their own accountable for their wicked, wicked ways when it comes to spending like there is no tomorrow and bounce them from a primary. This happened a bunch of times in 2010, when big-government conservative such as Robert Bennett in Utah and Mike Castle in Delaware lost their primaries to tea party favorites; Rand Paul was elected against the express wishes of Kentucky Senate poohbah Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski took a primary shellacking too. Matt is bummed that, with the exception of the Ned Lamont anti-war insurgency against Joe Lieberman some years back, you haven't seen the same thing happening to Democratic candidates who suck on issuses such as war, civil liberties, and drug legalization.
Here's MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell explaining why that happens. The rageaholic and congenitally misinformed talk show host is so delusional as to think that President Barack Obama, who just revealed a drug control strategy that specifically refuses to consider legalization as an option while pushing the humiliating yet ineffective idea of workplace drug testing, just maybe might make the pot he admitted smoking legal in 2013 or some other year in the future.
O'Donnell identified a growing ideological overlap between members of both the political right and left in America and said that "possibly ending the war on drugs [is] the 204th reason to vote for President Obama on November 6th."…
O'Donnell said he believes that Obama is likely to embrace laxer drug laws in his second term. "Although, president Obama thinks it's entirely legitimate to have a conversation about whether our drug laws are doing more harm than good, he has absolutely no intention of having that discussion in the United States until after he is reelected to a second term," said O'Donnell. "With exactly 204 days remaining until the election, makes possibly ending the war on drugs the 204th reason to vote for President Obama on November 6th."
In case you missed it, here's the ending refrain of the presidents 2012 strategery document: "Legalization of drugs will not be considered in this approach. Making drugs more available and more accessible will not reduce drug use and its adverse consequences for public health and safety. We will continue to educate young people and all Americans about the science on the harmful health effects of marijuana use."
Mediaite's Andrew Kirell wants O'Donnell to be right (don't we all, at least just once?) but points out further:
Earlier this year, the Obama DOJ made its priorities clear, issuing a warning that "the department of Justice has the authority to enforce federal law even when such activities may be permitted under state law. Persons … who operate or facilitate the operation of such dispensaries are subject to criminal prosecution…" The threats have effectively prevented states like Delawarefrom moving forward with licensing dispensaries under newly-passed state laws.
Which is another way of saying that when it comes to Obama's second-term drug policy, Lawrence O'Donnell is either high as a kite, dumber than a box of rocks, or mendacious to a Nixonian degree. Larry, Larry, how can you solve a problem unless you admit that you got one in the first place? When it comes to drug legalization and the president, the problem is the president. Deal with it and hold him accountable by withholding your vote if it's an important issue to you. Then and only them will Democrats who may be in favor of actually legalizing drugs understand that they got to deliver or they kicked out of the van. Nobody rides for free.