Giuliani And Huckabee Now On Drugs?

Giuliani And Huckabee Now On Drugs?


Looks like somebody has given the green light to the surrogates to talk about Obama’s past drug use.

This doesn’t surprise me about Giuliani, but Huckabee?

First Giuliani…

Then here’s a link to Huck.


  • NYkrinDC

    I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don’t have much of a vision for the future or you’re not ready to articulate it.” [John McCain – The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 2/21/2000]

    Ironic and sad.

  • mark

    to NYkrinDC
    Great quote from John McCain 2/21/2000 That confirms what 99.9% knew or suspected about the reasons for HIS negative attack ads…and that’s all he’s running!! I shouldn’t be disappointed in an old school politician falling back on old political tricks..but, I still am..very disappointed in his ads, his campaign and it’s lack of focus on the issues, and in his political choice for V.P who certainly was NOT the most qualified to serve our country as a President, but rather just a gamed pick to “help” in his bad she doesn’t help in either way.

  • Perer

    its time to get my Huckabee 2012 gear, they want to know what is your pick for 2012?

  • Alan Stewart Carl

    Both Giuliani and Huckabee seem to be reacting to what they see as the double-standard of news coverage. The media is spending time digging into poor Joe the Plumber’s tax records and Cindy McCain’s problems but really haven’t done much or said much about Obama’s past drug use. My suspicion is that this is because Obama’s drug use is “old” news while Joe and Cindy are “new” news, but I understand the frustration. If George Bush had admitted to using cocaine, don’t you know liberals would have screamed bloody murder until every drug dealer and fellow user was found and splayed in the press.

    Is Obama’s drug use relevant? No. I never thought Bush’s alleged use was relevant either. But, again, we see how smart Obama has been in managing his career. By being honest about his mistakes early on, he’s turned what could have been a major news story into a below-the-radar blip.

  • stuperb

    Alan, I agree, but they’re conveniently overlooking the fact that the media has completely ignored stories about McCain’s personal failings and hasn’t even really picked up the Keating Five ball.

    The Joe the Plumber stuff was nonsense, I agree – but had nothing to do with the Obama campaign.

    Giuliani is a bottom-feeder, but I’m disappointed in Huck. I’ve always liked him, even if we disagree mightily on most issues.

  • Ed

    You’ve got to be kidding me. If McCain was “investigated” one tenth the amount Obama has been, he’d be disqualified by now. You Republicans with your whining about the media is so tiresome. Anything less than Obama admitting he’s a gay, coke-snorting Socialist Muslim Manchurian candidate, then he hasn’t “answered the questions”.

    Face it, the attacks aren’t working, and you are going to lose so badly the Republican/Conservative brand is going to be damaged for years to come. And it couldn’t happen to a more miserable bunch of losers.

  • pico

    I have to agree with the above posters, particularly after reading the hatchet job Rolling Stone did on McCain:

    It’s clearly biased, and I don’t care for the mocking tone, but the facts about McCain’s life it cites are accurate from everything I’ve read. If the media only picked up on a few of them, this race would’ve been over months ago. McCain wouldn’t have even won the primaries.

    Also, I’m disappointed with Huckabee too. He seemed to be one of the few (only?) big name Republican who was behaving with a sense of integrity throughout this campaign (particularly during the RNC), and I never thought he’d chuck all that and jump in with the desperate character attacks the rest of his party are spewing–not at the 11th hour like this. Disappointing.

  • Alan Stewart Carl

    Ed, I’m not a Republican.

    But I guess I could retort: you Democrats whining about unfair attacks is so tiresome. Anything less than bowing down and kissing Obama’s ring is considered “being biased and nasty.”

    But, yeah, the media has pretty much ignored all the old news about McCain as well. Please read my comment again and notice how I don’t support Giuliani or Huckabee, just that I understand their frustration. I guess atempting to undestand the other people makes me a “loser.” I should just blindly repeat the leftwing talking points, huh?

    And, for the rest of you — Justin too — why is it wrong to bring up Obama’s admitted drug use. This is not a rumor. It’s fact. If Bush’s DWI was important enough to be dropped onto the electorate right before the 2000 election, then why isn’t Obama’s drug use at least worthy of a mention without that mention being decried as “dirty.” As I said, I don’t think it’s relevant, but other people might think it is.

  • Jacob


    Yes Obama used drugs. So have many many Americans- many who are leading successful companies, performing surgeries, writing books, advising all types of people, etc. He was upfront and honest. It was also a long time ago. I’m 22 and I’d hope the mistakes I am making now as I figure out what kind of man I will be won’t define the man I do become. I understand your point, but the Keating Five scandal has a lot more relevance than what either candidate did in their young lives.

  • Alan Stewart Carl

    Jacob, I agree with everything you said. I think it’s not relevant and I don’t think the media has been negligent in its lack of coverage of the issue. I don’t, however, think bringing up Obama’s past drug use is equivilant to accusing him of palling around with terrorists. One is a statement of fact, the other is a knowing distortion of fact.

  • mw

    “…why is it wrong to bring up Obama’s admitted drug use. This is not a rumor. It’s fact.” – ASC

    Simple Alan, we are in the kool-aid zone here. Pointing out negative facts about Obama, even quoting the exact words he uses from his own book is by definition – a Rovian tactics and the product of the dirty Republican smear machine.

    On the other hand, spreading false rumors about Palin’s family, making personal attacks on McCain as “unstable” or questioning his temperament, dismissing his military service, attacking his wife, smearing an American who dared to question “The One” on his tax policy, dragging up the decades old Keating scandal for which he was exonerated, calling Bill Clinton a racist, or for that matter – insinuating that anyone who does not support “The One” is a racist – is all perfectly fair and reasonable to the Obamite.

    It is easy to understand.

    It is simply wrong to question religious belief in “The One”.

  • leapsecond


    I certainly sympathize with both Huck and Giuliani, though I think they’re both, quite frankly idiots (Huck moreso than Giuliani; I can’t trust a guy who wants to modify the Constitution so it meets God’s standards). I think that, if the McCain campaign has a right to bring Obama’s drug use up, though I don’t see it as particularly noteworthy, but it still is a fact that he did use illegal substances. That said, I’d rather see them talk about the real issues for once — especially the neglected wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. They’ve been pushed aside in the wake of this economic crisis, much to my chagrin, since the wars and the financial crisis are invariably intertwined.

  • Jim S

    McCain’s judgment in the entire Keating affair was extremely questionable yet he and his supporters attack Obama’s judgment. He was a POW, yes. But much of his military career and his performance in the Academy was in fact that of a screw-up. As those who support the mention of Obama’s drug use have said, that’s just the facts. He is displaying questionable stability and judgment now when he does things like choosing Palin.

    or for that matter – insinuating that anyone who does not support “The One” is a racist – is all perfectly fair and reasonable to the Obamite.

    Who insinuated that everyone who doesn’t support Obama is a racist? I keep hearing this claim but never seeing any proof that it is in fact some kind of wide spread claim by Obama supporters.

  • wulf88

    Heh, heh. Just another Republe-double standard. Of course, Cindy McCain’s drug-related law-breaking have been glossed over and mis-represented by the McCain media spinners. Cindy McCain got employees of her non-profit to fill Rx’s for her, and she still hasn’t fully fessed up to the extent of her addictions or her law-breaking (luckily for her the statute of limitations on her crimes have expired). But at least Obama admitted his college drug-use long before it became common knowledge (and a NY Times investigation of his drug-use determined that, if anything, Obama had OVERSTATED his involvement with drugs).

    People who live in 7 glass houses very definitely shouldn’t throw stones — or should I say get stoned?

  • Lit3Bolt

    mw thou art projecting far too much. Let me simplify matters for the lizard brains in the audience.

    Obama admitted drug use years ago, pure and simple. Just like Alan said.

    GWB denied and buried every dirty secret about his substance abuse problems, then when confronted with evidence, stonewalled.

    Also, mw, I’ll repeat it so your whining and belching will hopefully quiet from now on.

    If you vote for McCain, you’re only doing it because you’re white.

    Please…I beg of you…think about it. Really. Think about how ridiculous that is. Because if you make voting for Obama just a matter of “blackness” or “white guilt,” well…you really do not want to go there. Because it is oh so easy for me to turn it around onto you.

    But whatever. I see now the extent of “Divided We Stand United We Fall.” More like “Agree with me or you’re drinking kool-aid.”

    Your Republican apologist act is clear to all.

  • Lit3Bolt

    Also, one more thing… that NYT piece was bilge water. Grey lady indeed. More like a gossip rag akin to the Post or Daily News.

  • Gaucho Politico

    The piece on cindy was stupid and raised no meaningful issues. It was similar to pieces they ran on the clintons in the 90’s. What can i say but that the tm is generally crap and people who are shocked by that are not paying attention.

    No one cares that Obama used drugs back in the day. He admitted it, everyone moved on. Do Huck and Rudy want to allege obama is still doing drugs? That he is going to be dealing crack or weed from the whitehouse? thats the only reason to bring that up right now. Its not like there is no precedent for that with kennedy being hopped up on an incredible list of drugs. Can we get back to the economy?

  • stuperb

    Ed, I read your comment about “you Republicans” and then scrolled up to find out who wrote something that made you say that. And now I’m more confused.

    Am *I* the Republican? Because I said I was disappointed in & like Huckabee?

    Let me be clear. I’m very, very far from being a Republican. I voted yesterday, wholeheartedly and with some emotion, for Barack Obama. I would be quite frightened by a Huckabee presidency. And yet, I like him. There’s something appealing about the guy and I enjoy listening to him.

    And people ought to be able to say nice things about people on the “other side” without assumptions being made abut them.

    (And, if you weren’t referring to me – I apologize! Cheers!)

    And on the drug topic: I’d like to echo everyone else who’s saying that when a candidate writes a book that includes admission of something, and it’s discussed for years publicly, then it’s probably no longer a big news story. It’s not out of bounds, or inappropriate to discuss, but there probably isn’t much mileage to be gained out of such a story. It just shows desperation.

  • gerryf

    I *heart Huckabee, too. I can’t help it. He’s funny, charming, seems like a nice uncle I disagree with.

    The truth is, Obama’s drug use has been brought up hundreds of time. What the GOP is mad about is it hasn’t been demonized.

    How do you demonize “I took drugs. It was a bad decision. I want everyone to know they shouldn’t do that.”

    On the flip side, we have George Bush, “I never took drugs” (so, he was a liar — maybe we should have anticipated all the lies he has since told in office).

    Cindy McCain didn’t admit to her drug addiction until the day before it was about to become public–not because the press was out to smear Cindy McCain, but because it was part of a much bigger, more relevent story. Cindy McCain’s drug use was about to become public because McCain and his staff were trying to crucify the man who reported Cindy McCain’s theft of prescription drugs from her charity to the DEA.

    Her drug use had been swept under the rug and would have never come out if it weren’t for the McCain’s setting out to destroy a former staffer who DID THE RIGHT THING.

    This is all about marketing.

    We’re supposed to fell sorry for Cindy McCain’s because she went on several television news shows and tearfully admitted her drug use just before it was to be released just like John McCain cried his way out his previous embarrassements (Keating 5, cheating on his wife).

    That’s what McCain’s media savvy staff foes. Get the story out first, with the spin you want and the details you want and without the details you don’t want.

    Afterwards, you remember McCain (the McCains) as contrite and honest, rater than remember McCain did favors for savings and loan failure Charlie Keating, or that he cheated on his wife, or Cindy McCain was a drug addict and thief.

    McCain is not the honest, upstanding guy his handlers have carefully created over the years. He is a crass, often wreckless, vengeful manipulator.

    I admit it. I bought it, too.

    That is what the real story of this eleciton is. The people wringing their hands and lamenting over what has become of John McCain simply didn’t know the real John McCain.

    John McCain is a power hungry, angry, erratic thug who will do anything to be president. End of story.