Liar, Liar
November 3, 2000 11:01 PM Subscribe
Liar, Liar
If you can explane away the DUI (DWI, OUI) arrest, then you will have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that Bush used his family's power and influence to first restore his Maine license on 7/25/78, in the middle of his Congressional campaign. Then, 15 years later had his Maine driving record updated with "violation free credits" on 12/31/93 at right around the time Bush was gearing up to run for Governor of Texas. Read more here.
If you can explane away the DUI (DWI, OUI) arrest, then you will have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that Bush used his family's power and influence to first restore his Maine license on 7/25/78, in the middle of his Congressional campaign. Then, 15 years later had his Maine driving record updated with "violation free credits" on 12/31/93 at right around the time Bush was gearing up to run for Governor of Texas. Read more here.
really, no matter how anti-bush i am, i could give a fuck if he got drunk and drank. So he was a stupid kid, it doesn't reflect on how he'd be as president. Given he's still a stupid man. it has nothing to do with it
posted by dominic at 2:07 AM on November 4, 2000
posted by dominic at 2:07 AM on November 4, 2000
incoherent. can someone please interpret that last post? bush is (allegedly) a slimy dirty rotten lying crook and cheney has a big fat cheese-eating pumpkin-head.
posted by internook at 3:49 AM on November 4, 2000
 | blah blah blah (lie) blah blah (lie) blah blah blah blah (lie) blah blah (lie) blah blah blah blah (lie) blah blah (lie) blah blah blah blah (lie) blah blah (lie) blah blah blah blah (lie) blah blah (lie) blah blah blah blah (lie) blah blah (lie) blah blah blah blah (lie) blah blah (lie) blah blah blah blah (lie) blah blah (lie) blah blah blah blah (lie) blah blah (lie) blah |
posted by internook at 3:49 AM on November 4, 2000
I think that it is very important to remember that not only are the Bushes rich and privileged, George Senior was head of the CIA for a time there. They know every way to get at information and every way to hide it. This DUI only came to light through a Rube-Goldbergian series of people overhearing other people. I am sure that anything else more serious that GWB might have done would not have been dealt with in an open courtroom, and so there would be no people there to remember and spread rumors.
posted by donkeymon at 7:23 AM on November 4, 2000
posted by donkeymon at 7:23 AM on November 4, 2000
And, as has been mentioned before, the DUI happened when W. was 30 years old, not when he was 'young and irresponsible.' How much of this bad judgement do you think he carries with him today?
posted by snakey at 9:05 AM on November 4, 2000
posted by snakey at 9:05 AM on November 4, 2000
Translation: It's ok if someone in public office lied under oath and sexually harassed women but if someone 24 years ago before he held any public office got arrested, then it's not ok.
posted by gyc at 9:50 AM on November 4, 2000
posted by gyc at 9:50 AM on November 4, 2000
I would say that there IS a difference, gyc, between being arrested and pleading guilty to a crime and being accused but never charged/convicted of a crime. The fact that no one has held Clinton accountable for whatever he may have done does lessen the impact upon his record, whether we like or approve of that fact or not.
Besides, you're creating a straw man, here. I have not heard one person suggesting that Clinton's behavior was "ok." I don't see how one man's behavior is relevant to another's in any case.
NEWSFLASH: Bill Clinton is not, I repeat NOT, running for president.
Personally, given the choices we do have, I wish he could and were.
posted by rushmc at 10:11 AM on November 4, 2000
Besides, you're creating a straw man, here. I have not heard one person suggesting that Clinton's behavior was "ok." I don't see how one man's behavior is relevant to another's in any case.
NEWSFLASH: Bill Clinton is not, I repeat NOT, running for president.
Personally, given the choices we do have, I wish he could and were.
posted by rushmc at 10:11 AM on November 4, 2000
Translation: It's ok if someone in public office lied under oath and sexually harassed women but if someone 24 years ago before he held any public office got arrested, then it's not ok.
Er, while I think you can make a case for the lying under oath, who's ever proven that Clinton sexually harassed anyone? A bunch of unproven accusations don't amount to fact.
That said, the tone of the posts wondering how much W's father used his influence to cover up stuff in his past is kind of distasteful really. It reminds me of the kind of crap the hard-core right-wingers like to spew about the Clintons. A bunch of unproven allegations don't mean anything, and it just loses you credibility with the other side.
posted by daveadams at 10:18 AM on November 4, 2000
Er, while I think you can make a case for the lying under oath, who's ever proven that Clinton sexually harassed anyone? A bunch of unproven accusations don't amount to fact.
That said, the tone of the posts wondering how much W's father used his influence to cover up stuff in his past is kind of distasteful really. It reminds me of the kind of crap the hard-core right-wingers like to spew about the Clintons. A bunch of unproven allegations don't mean anything, and it just loses you credibility with the other side.
posted by daveadams at 10:18 AM on November 4, 2000
So he was a stupid kid, it doesn't reflect on how he'd be as president. Given he's still a stupid man. it has nothing to do with it
Um.. sorry buddy, but I'm 20 years old, and ever since I've had my driver's licence, I've known better than to drink and driving. Dubya got nailed with the offense at age THIRTY. Stupid kid no. Stupid, irresponsible man, yes.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 2:27 PM on November 4, 2000
Um.. sorry buddy, but I'm 20 years old, and ever since I've had my driver's licence, I've known better than to drink and driving. Dubya got nailed with the offense at age THIRTY. Stupid kid no. Stupid, irresponsible man, yes.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 2:27 PM on November 4, 2000
« Older The results are in. | Rocket (Wo)man! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
George Dubya Bush is Texas Governor largely due to his Daddy's connections. Before that he got the ballpark with Daddy's money. His involvement with oil is because of Daddy. He's spoiled. Had he been involved in anything shady in his youth, his Daddy woulda gotten him off. In fact there could be felonies in Dubya's past that we'll never know about. Perhaps a little DUI wasn't considered a big deal compared to whatever else he did. They got sloppy on that one cuz they were busy covering up something greater, or used the DUI to divert attention from something else. Daddys' friends may have attempted to cover up other things Dubya did. How do we know if there wasn't ever something that was successfully erased from history?
If he attempted to cover up one thing, it opens up a whole plethora of possibilities, and means we can trust Dubya less than we can trust Albert "okay so I didn't exactly invent the Internet but I almost did" Gore.
A vote for Bush is saying you think those of the corporate oligarchy should have special privileges over the common working man. I ain't saying Gore's any different. This is par for the course in today's gov't. Why do you think Ted Kennedy's still walking free? Or OJ Simpson for that matter? How come Robert Downey Jr. was able to keep making movies even while incarcerated for breaking the law? Connections. Influence. Friends. Money.
Those with the money and influence continuously buy your rights and freedoms from you, either with your permission or despite it. That too pessimistic of a point of view? Tough.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:19 AM on November 4, 2000