From: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Reply-To: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:09:15 GMT

>>   Good point, but Rush isn't about to hold himself up as a potential
>>leader of the U.S.

>Patrick, Clue time.  The 'no issue' comment was SARCASM.

	Marc, I'm not so sure that the "'no issue' comment was SARCASM" - it 
sounded like a straightforward statement comparing the two different 
reactions to the revelations that Rush and Bill had taken a few puffs at one 
time.  It's clue time indeed.  Mind telling me (the sarcastically challenged)
exactly where the sarchasm is here?  And then would you mind explaining to
me why I can't respond to it?  
	There is an underlying issue here, and that is how much deviance from
accepted behavior the american media and public will tolerate when selecting
a presidential candidate, or any candidate for public office.  Those folks
who lament the lack of tolerance along these lines are simply kicking against
the bricks - I guess that's the message I'm trying to get across here, and
in addition I don't find that intolerance to be a bad thing anyways - I don't
want a president who (potentially) will bring shame to the entire country
by being "caught with his pants down" at some point in time, and I don't 
think anyone else does either. (I realize that I've made a little transition
here, I hope you'uns ain't too upset.)

>> Rush isn't making decisions that affect many people
>>behind closed doors.  Justice Ginzberg would have been making these kinds of
>>decisions and Bill Clinton (although he never will) would like to find
>>himself in this lofty position.

>Both parties to the best of or knowledge have never operated heavy
>machinery (or political power) while under the influance of 'pot'.

	This point is well taken (smile) though, as most of us understand, it
only takes one mistake sometimes to screw up your chances for president - ask
Gary Hart.  They may not have operated anything under the influence, but 
pot smoking and infidelity point up issues that can really call your 
character into question (which can subsequently destroy a presidential bid).
I realize that most people wouldn't call what Bill has done "aggregious" -
but blemishes like these tend to stand out when you wrangle for the
presidential spotlight. - That's what I was talking about when I discussed
making decisions behind closed doors - the people want someone that they feel
they can trust.

>If you are looking for crediblity in a public official, look at your local
>level.  There seems to be some kind of law...the only way to get in on a
>national level is to be dishonest.

	And you're willing to accept this?  Then may I suggest that you're part
of that problem.  And FYI, my home is in NY, so forget the local level thing
-OK? (smile).  In all seriousness, your attitude is definitely not helping 
anything and since most of us are still young and idealistic, it is also
bad in the sense that it is not looking to find solutions to this problem, 
but to use this problem as an excuse for an otherwise unsupportable argument.

	As for your comments on Rush - since I brought him up - I'll let you
have the last laugh.  Making a joke is one thing, but allowing that joke to
snowball into a really boring, tit-for-tat argument is quite something else.
	Now about Alex's calling me on the carpet, we had a server crash here
while I was trying to respond to him and with the system we have here the on

ly way that I could sent him the message intoto would be to completely retype
it.  I tried to send it to him personally using a less painful procedure, but
that didn't work either.  So, I sent him an abridged version and due to the
protracted nature of the subject I don't want to go into it any further.
If you or anyone else decides that that won't do, send me a line and I'll
force myself to discuss the subject of morality and whether it should be
taught in schools even further.  For the record (and I hope that this will
clear things up a little) I am totally opposed to the teaching of morality in
school and prefer the old-fashioned way.  I simply brought up the subject 
(much to my own dismay) that morality would be preferable to religion if 
there ever arose the question of which to teach in school.  
       I hope I've satisfied all of your curiosity on this point, and I 
apologize - to anyone who cares - that I didn't reply promptly to Alex's
callin' me out.
-------------------Patrick "Jesus, do I digress or what?" Conway