"Obama shifts position on marijuana" Paul Armentano: What's Behind the Obama Administration's About Face Regarding Medical Marijuana? Ive seen several statements similar to this in the media recently. And its really got me wondering why? Why change position? Whats the political benefit? If there is no benefit why take the risk? Changing stance on a issue in the political world can often mean the difference in a re-election. Of all the bad things i can say about Obama, being stupid is not one of them. He has shown to be very effective at getting what he wants. The more i think about it the more it feels like some sort of legal "Perry Mason" set up, where he was playing for the right side all along. Some interesting dates April 6: Local News | US attorney warns landlords against pot shops | Seattle Times Newspaper April 14: Why Are The Feds Still Meddling With States' Medical Marijuana Laws? | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform May 2: The U.S. Attorney office sends a letter to AZ Saying they will "vigorously prosecute individuals" for pot. regardless of state law. May 12: Ron Paul makes his bid for the gop. May 16: Multiple states threaten legal action to force the government in to fast paced action (thats 8 blue states and one red?, these would be mostly Obama's liberal friends and 2 republican in the game, Hope you're keeping score) May 25: Members Of Congress Introduce Multiple Medical Marijuana Reform Bills | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform I'm of the opinion that Ron Paul is being perfectly timed by a master clockmaker. If this bill is brought to the floor TOO SOON Ron Paul becomes a deflated balloon, that runs out of air long before the elections. With a house win on the bill Obama gets credit because of the majority of democrats in support. With a lose he still wins because of his support of fed law. If this was a game of chess i would say the Obama admin is at least 6 steps ahead. He has not changed his stance on the issue, I am starting to believe he is playing it from the politicly safe side of the fence. Thanks for climbing my wall of text. cheers
So Obama is against the will of the people, and Ron Paul is co-sponsoring a bill that supports the will of the people. How could this end well for Obama, or poorly for Paul?
Easy, its called politics. "Mankind are, in all ages, caught by the same baits: the same tricks played over and over again, still trepan them." David Hume, Selected Essays (1741-42)
I already addressed this in the first post. Did you have time to read it? Campaigns are a bit like a rolling stone in the essence that a if given enough time to build momentum a stone can make a hell of an impact. If that same "stone" is forced to launch down a small hill it wont have time to build up enough momentum to have the desired effect. Obama has forced Paul to a vote much too soon on the issue. While remaining safely on the side lines.
Ron Paul's been gaining steam since he got involved in politics back in the 1960's. The fact is that he hasn't changed his political stance on anything since those years and that's all the momentum he'll need against liars.