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.


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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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.


    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! :)


    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.

    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.