home

Police Unions to Endorse Obama/Biden

As I've written many times over the past 18 months, Sen. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are not my cup of tea on criminal justice issues. Neither are particularly progressive. Today I received an invitation to a conference call with Joe Biden.

Today, the Obama-Biden campaign is holding a conference call with Senator Joe Biden to proudly announce the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO). NAPO President Tom Nee will join Senator Biden on the call and the two will talk about Senator Obama’s strong track record on law enforcement issues, support for law enforcement officers and commitment to keeping our communities safe.

NAPO represents more than 2,000 police unions and associations, 238,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 11,000 retired officers and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.

More...

Senator Joe Biden is the former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who wrote and passed the landmark crime bill that put 100,000 new police officers on the streets of America.

All I can say is McCain-Palin would be far worse and represent a shift back towards Newt Gringrich and his abysmal 1994 "Contract On America", that while mostly unsuccessful, still posed a huge threat.

< Chutzpah: McCain Advisor Made Millions Lobbying For Fannie And Freddie | Dodd's Answer To Paulsen's Blank Check Plan >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    NAPO endorsed Kerry in 04, Gore in 00 n/t (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kempis on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:10:29 PM EST


    This is one endorsement... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:05:46 AM EST
    where I wish they went with Brand "R".  

    When the cops are rootin' for ya, that's a bad sign of things to come under an Obama admin.  

    The thing to remember... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:20:20 AM EST
    ... is that, basically, police unions are less interested in crime than in who's going to pay the cops more.

    Parent
    And who will investigate wrongdoing less... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:34:58 AM EST
    or provide federal funding to hire more cops...that's what worries me. I don't mind police getting better wages, a happy cop with a fat wallet is less likely to bust chops.

    Can't speak for other parts of the country, but the last thing we need in NY is more cops.

    Parent

    benefits (none / 0) (#4)
    by wystler on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    harder to buy a well-paid cop

    Parent
    Can we have a few of yours, then? (none / 0) (#5)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:45:05 AM EST
    Because the Seattle Police Department is woefully understaffed and our neighborhoods are reeling under the recent crush of shootings and stabbings and other gang-related activities.

    Parent
    Help yourself... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:17:02 PM EST
    but I don't think you want the sky-high property taxes that go with all those cops.

    Good thing I rent and don't see the actual bill...I'd freak.

    Parent

    An excellent reason... (none / 0) (#9)
    by jccleaver on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 06:48:02 PM EST
    Why it's dumb to be setting cop funding, budgeting, and allocation of funds on a National basis (or subject to Federal government grants/funding/handouts/pork).

    Let States and localities deal with this... cut Federal taxes proportionally and let the States raise whatever money they need. Then we'll never have to hear a Presidential nominee blovating about "cops on the street" again! Yay! :)

    Parent

    A half-loaf is better than nothing. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:41:21 PM EST
    Regardless of the issue or subject, significant political progress is most always achieved deliberately and incrementally.

    Sens. Obama and Biden might not be your ideal, Jeralyn, but as you've rightly noted, they're certainly better than anything the Republicans have to offer.  While I share your reservations about the legislative excesses of Joe Biden in particular, the election of him and Barack Obama holds real potential for significant progress toward leveling the playing field of law enforcement.

    Let's first recognize that even though C-SPAN and local public access channels usually make for some stiflingly boring television, the legislative process most assuredly never functions well when its participants choose to engage in cheap public theatrics, often at the expense of both the issue at hand and common sense.

    As someone who worked for years in the legislative field, it is my considered experience that the worst legislation ever passed are those measures fast-tracked for approval without due regard for either the deliberative process or the measure's potential consequences. I'd offer for your consideration California's recent horrific experience with energy deregulation, a true legislative time-bomb that was passed unanimously in 1996 by a then-GOP-controlled state legislature, signed into law by GOP Gov. Pete Wilson after only a few weeks' worth of cursory discussions, and exploded four years later.

    Conversely, the most dramatic and memorable single events in American legislative history have been those unplanned or unscripted moments which appear to occur spontaneously:

    (1) U.S. Army attorney Joseph Welch's morally unequivocating response to a red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) -- "Have you no decency, Senator?" -- during the infamous Army-McCarthy hearings back in 1954;

    (2) White House counsel Alexander Butterfield's stunning 1973 revelation to Sen. Sam Ervin's Watergate Committee that President Nixon bugged his own office with a voice-activated tape recorder.

    (3) Congresswoman Barbara Jordan's emotional 1974 appeal to her House Judiciary Committee colleagues to do uphold their oath to the Constitution as they duly considered articles of impeachment against President Nixon.

    Lawmaking is not unlike baseball, where fortune generally favors those teams grounded in the game's fundamentals. Home runs can certainly be spectacular and memorable, but games are most often won by the team that hits the most singles and has the best fielding and on-base percentages.  While the San Francisco Giants' home run slugger Barry Bonds was so feared in the 2002 World Series that opposing pitchers preferred to walk him than pitch to him, it was his critical fielding error in Game 6 that helped to open the floodgates for the Anaheim Angels' dramatic rally and eventual triumph.

    Similarly, long-lasting success in the legislative process -- or for that matter, Jeralyn, in your own chosen field of criminal law -- is achieved through both meticulous preparation and strict adherence to the fundamentals. Unnecessary and / or contrived drama only increases the chances for subsequent critical errors.  What we can expect from Obama / Biden probably won't pass for Masterpiece Theatre, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.

    oh really? (none / 0) (#11)
    by JamesTX on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:33:10 AM EST
    I would agree that changes are incremental. That is how we got to the situation we are in today. I painfully watched each baby-step in the direction of creating a police state, trying desperately to warn others -- all to no avail. Although it may seem like a low level state issue, criminal justice really represents the political mood of the country. Police officers are really the only government authority that most people come in contact with. The rest is abstract. For the most part, none of the people who are so personally involved in the campaigns of late will ever meet Obama or Biden, nor will anything they do personally effect most people .

     Criminal justice complaints, for the most part, get few comments and little attention on major "progressive" web sites, like KOS. That is why I call the so-called "Netroots" a "non-movement". The country is largely happy with unbridled and absolute police power. It is paradoxical that they rail against executive fiat in the abstract, repulsed by the Bush claim to absolute power and his escapades of executive caprice, while they wholeheartedly support the exact same governmental style at their local level with respect to police power.

    The makers of the conservative movement early on realized they were not going to be able to implement their program through reason (because it was unreasonable), so they went about a systematic program of exalting and glorifying the most common image of executive authority that most people recognize -- the badge. They succeeded. At first, they achieved the support through argument, although flawed. As their ranks grew, they began to achieve it through force. Somewhere around the early 1990s, it became unacceptable to criticize the police in public. Punishment was swift and severe, usually through extreme ostracism. After that was achieved, all other sources of authority the conservatives wanted to implement became "deputized", so that people would unquestioningly obey them and there could be no dissent.

    The point is, most people are happy with unbridled and absolute police power. They have been forced to voice that view so long now that they believe it is ethical. It is shored up by cognitive dissonance theory, in that they have trouble maintaining beliefs that they have been forced to recant publicly.

    That is why the "change" that we are hearing about is not much change at all. Deep down, most Americans believe in the Bush philosophy of government, and thus believe in a police state. That is why they elected him. Although it has become chic to criticize his government, it is not executive caprice that they are really unhappy with. As usual, they are just going along with the media. They don't really know why they dislike him, they just know they are supposed to.

    I hope the Obama/Biden ticket really does represent change, and that baby steps back to reason will start soon. I am not confident, though.

    Parent

    Union endorsements (none / 0) (#10)
    by codekeyguy on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 07:11:15 PM EST
    It is interesting to note that unions always endorse democratic candidates, while the rank and file, in general, is (are?) not necessarily pro democratic.  I say this as a former (retired now) union member whose union "management" ALWAYS endorsed the Democrats.  Anecdotally, EVERY MEMBER I spoke with always indicated that he/she disagreed with this policy.  
    One man's opinion.