Wednesday’s Read: Marijuana, Gianforte, & Clinton

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. – Groucho Marx

Welcome to Wednesday!

Here are three things that caught my attention in the past 24 hours:

  • Anti-Marijuana Initiative
  • Gianforte & the Missoulian
  • Clinton’s emails

Anti-Marijuana Initiative:

Lee Newspapers is reporting this morning that the anti-marijuana initiative, I-176, won’t make the ballot in Montana this November.

In other words, it went up in smoke.

I-176 would have made all drugs listed on Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act illegal in Montana, eliminating differences between state and federal law with regards to the possession of marijuana. Read the full story HERE.

There had been some issues with some signatures reportedly not being counted or missing. It ended up in state district court and failed. It seems that’s the same old song and dance just about every time an initiative does not make the ballot.

Personally, I am glad it did not make the ballot. If it had, I would have voted against the reefer madness…

Gianforte & the Missoulian:

The Gianforte campaign and the Montana GOP have been hitting Montana Governor Steve Bullock pretty hard about refugees coming to Montana. It’s expected because it is campaign season and that’s what they do. Every once in awhile they use the word “unvetted” and contend that Bullock would bring “unvetted” refugees to Montana. That part is pretty ridiculous and an outright lie – but that’s campaigning in 2016.

Recently Gianforte sent a mailer about the issue with a photo of a terrorist just about the same time some refugees arrived in Missoula. The Missoulian editorial board said the mailer was a “terrible example of factually challenged fear-mongering, and the Republican candidate for governor ought to apologize for it.”

I agree, but he won’t. The editorial board also said the mailer “is aimed squarely at stoking the flames of fear in order to score cheap political points. In its eagerness to whip up votes, the Gianforte campaign seems to have forgotten that there is a real refugee family living in Missoula – and more are on the way.”

There are several issues that I agree with Gianforte about, but he is way out of bounds on this one. Read the entire Missoulian editorial HERE.

Clinton Emails:

Hillary Clinton should be way down in the polls, but she’s not. Clinton is beating Donald Trump and, as of today, it looks like she will win.

Clinton’s biggest problem is those darn emails. Just recently the State Department announced they were “reviewing nearly 15,000 emails as part of a batch of previously undisclosed communications that emerged in the FBI’s yearlong investigation of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of State.”

Just about the time we think we have seen the last of the emails, there’s more information that comes out. The emails are like a bad rash that just keeps returning – and the prescription-strength ointment is not working well for Hillary and company.

Although the emails may contain juicy pieces of information, it’s becoming a boring issue that has lost most of the public’s attention.

I think an issue with the Clinton Foundation may be something that the Trump campaign can capitalize on. Trump may be able to make people believe that the Clinton Foundation was a pay for access type of place meaning people donated to the Foundation and received meetings and services from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United States.

If Trump can keep a campaign team together and pound the talking points that donations paid for access, he may be able to make it a race. It’s still a long shot.


## END ##

2 thoughts on “Wednesday’s Read: Marijuana, Gianforte, & Clinton

  1. The people gathering signatures for I-176 told people that it kept medical marijuana available to people who felt they needed it. It did not. I heard them saying it on the street more than once. I think the sponsors got defrauded by their signature gatherers. They turned in bad signatures because they get paid per signature. And they misled people about what the measure did.

    • Dave – thanks. It seems that happens a lot when the signature gathers are doing it for pay. – JmB

Comments are closed.