DWS Being Shady As Hell Over Marijuana Legalization

janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
series of articles to make fun of her on this point...

? Activist Helps Illustrate the Limits of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Political Courage
This morning Politico posted a piece about Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's ambitions for a run for a U.S. Senate seat representing Florida. The problem, it seems, is that she is a nanny state drug warrior from the left. She publicly opposed Florida's ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana. Politico reported that several medical marijuana and drug decriminalization activist groups promised to go after her if she considered running for Sen. Marco Rubio's seat, should he decide to run for president:

Last year, Wasserman Schultz ran afoul of one major Florida donor, Orlando trial lawyer John Morgan, after she issued a statement criticizing the medical marijuana initiative he helped draft and fund with about $4 million of his own money through his People United political group.

"Other states have shown that lax oversight and ease of access to prescriptions can lead to abuse, fraud, and accidents," Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that likened medical marijuana dispensaries to Oxycontin "pill mills" — a GOP talking point.

Morgan reacted furiously, saying Wasserman Schultz's decision to trash his amendment was an example of why she's "despised" in top Democratic circles.

What a difference a—well, just a couple of hours actually—makes. Marc Caputo at Politico just posted a new item about her situation and her "position" on marijuana and it's absolutely hilarious:

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office offered to change her position on medical marijuana if a major Florida donor recanted his withering criticism of her, according to emails obtained by POLITICO.

The proposal to Orlando trial lawyer John Morgan was straightforward: retract critical statements he made to a reporter in return for Wasserman Schultz publicly backing his cannabis initiative that she had trashed just months earlier. Morgan declined the offer with a sharp email reply sent to a go-between, who described the congresswoman as being in a "tizzy."

"No," Morgan responded. "She is a bully. I beat bullies up for a living."

Wasserman Schultz declined to comment.

The ballot initiative in question, a constitutional amendment, actually, just barely failed last fall. It got a majority vote of support, but a 60 percent threshold was required to pass, and it missed by just a couple of percentage points.
so she's a hard-line drug warrior for some reason (Democrat being "tough on crime," i guess)... but will ditch it if she's not bashed for her stated positions?


  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    and then she doubles down...

    Debbie Does Denial on Doobie Deal
    It's been a tough 48 hours for Democratic National Committee Chair and South Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Yesterday, Politico reported that Wasserman Schultz, who may have ambitions for a transition to the U.S. Senate, was facing opposition by medical marijuana and drug legalization activists because of her opposition Florida's Amendment 2. The failed ballot initiative would have legalized medical marijuana in the Sunshine State.

    Hours later, Politico then reported that Wasserman Schultz's office reached out to John Morgan, a trial lawyer who spent millions trying to get the amendment passed. Morgan was told the congresswoman was willing to switch sides if Morgan would be willing to retract the mean things he said about her. That all blew up last night.

    Today, Wasserman Schultz was interviewed by the Sun-Sentinel in South Florida. She denied the allegation and called it "outrageous":

    Here's what Wasserman Schultz said actually happened: After the original Politico article, in which some pro-marijuana activists suggested they'd be open to a dialogue a Wasserman Schultz staffer reached out to [medical marijuana consultant Ben] Pollara with the message that she wanted to discuss the issue because she felt new, more restrictive language being crafted for a possible 2016 referendum seemed to address some of her concerns with the 2014 referendum.

    She thought the proposal that failed last year was too loosely drawn. "I was worried that it wasn't going to be covering only the people for whom it was intended," she said.

    "I've seen the language that they've proposed for the 2016 ballot," Wasserman Schultz said. "I was more comfortable with the way the language was going…. I wanted to see if, before battle lines were drawn again, we could start a conversation." She said that's the kind of thing she's done for years in Congress and before that in the state Legislature.

    But Politico has been provided the various e-mails and texts that made up this conversation. The way it worked is that a political adviser to Wasserman Schultz contacted Pollara, who was a political consultant for the ballot initiative. He then passed along the message to Morgan. So Politico put out another story showing the conversation:

    [A]t 5:31 p.m. Wednesday, Pollara sent an email to Morgan that bore the congresswoman's initials: "DWS." The email summarized the deal that O'Malley offered on behalf of Wasserman Schultz, Morgan said.

    "In a tizzy over this politico story. Saying she might be willing to support new amendment. Any chance you'll retract your statement to Caputo?" Pollara wrote of Wasserman Schultz.

    Morgan responded in the negative, calling her a "bully."

    So that's how Wasserman Schultz has chosen to deal with this controversy, accusing the people she was allegedly trying to "start a conversation" with of lying, even though there's enough of a paper trail to make it look like her office was at least strongly suggesting, if not outright saying, what Morgan claimed.

    This morning Jacob Sullum wrote about Wasserman Schultz's absolutely abysmal record on drug law reform and how shifts in public opinion may be forcing her hand. Nobody's forcing her to play her cards this poorly, though.

    this is the woman who also, apparently, "began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic" when the word was that Obama wanted to replace her as DNC chair.