Globe and Mail Thinks Only Some American's Opinion Mattered

globeandmail.com: Pro-marijuana groups hijack Obama's chat room

Globe and Mail claims that NORML hijacked Obama's townhall meeting by corralling people to ask a specific question. I find this distasteful journalism. The Globe and Mail is ignoring the fact that Obama called for ANYONE, not just those that agreed with drug laws, to post questions. The mere fact that so many asked about marijuana should go to show people that there is considerable support for legalizing marijuana.

"But the ability of interest groups to hijack public discourse is boundless."

This quote I found the most insulting. This makes it seem like only a handful of people used unscrupulous techniques to ensure that Obama's attention was brought to the issue, when in point of fact there was a host of people all voting that the issue be brought forward. Obama's little joke about the online audience was bad enough, but the Globe and Mail's claims are downright mean spirited.

"President tried to promote his $3.6-trillion proposed budget during an online forum, but pro-pot questions dominated the discussion"

So Globe an Mail, you object to questions that are not budget related being brought up in this townhall meeting. Fair enough since it was specifically called to garner support and answer questions regarding the budget, and Obama's toss money at the problem approach. However did you actually read your own article, you quoted the actual question after all. Perhaps you need to read it again, let me assist you:

"Would you support the bill currently going through the California legislature to legalize and tax marijuana, boosting the economy and reducing drug-cartel-related violence?"

and
"With more than 1 out of 30 Americans controlled by the penal system, why not legalize, control, and tax marijuana to change the failed war on drugs into a money-making, money-saving boost to the economy? Do we really need that many victimless criminals?"

and
"What are your plans for the failing war on drugs that's sucking money from taxpayers and putting non-violent people in prison longer than the violent criminals?

Seems pretty cut and dry to me, it seems like some Americans tried to put forth an ideas which would fund the billions Obama is throwing at the economy with a sensible solution, but since it is a solution that you don't agree with then obviously it is a case of "special interest group hijacking". If you run with that concept then really every question could be viewed at that. Lets examine the questions your article claims were the most popular:

The Founding Fathers believed that there is no difference between a free society and an educated society. Our educational system, however, is woefully inadequate. How do you plan to restore education as a right and core cultural value in America?

Obviously this is a case of the Teacher's Unions hijacking the discussion.

What benefits from the stimulus plan are there for those of us who are paying our mortgages, but living paycheque to paycheque?

Obviously this is a case of the rich who want a free cash grab from the government hijacking the discussion.

Why can we not have a universal health-care system like many European countries, where people are treated based on needs rather than financial resources?

Health Care Commies hijacking the discussion.

The unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is higher than the national rate. Our veterans are a national treasure. How can you, the VA and I ensure our veterans are successfully transitioning into civilian life?

Anti-War nuts.

What steps are being taken to ensure that the auto industry uses the bailout money responsibly so that we don't end up in this same situation in a few years?

Anti-Oil nuts.

Am I being ridiculous with those assertions, absolutely, that's my point. Anything put forward in such a forum could be considered the views of a special interest group, that does not mean they should be dismissed offhand such as the Globe and Mail suggests.