RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
How Republicans Plan on Ganging Up on Obama for Being "Weak" on Street Gangs
April 23, 2008 4:58 PM
Floyd Brown is back.
Brown, the former political director of "Americans for Bush" (meaning George H.W. Bush), was a key player in the infamous 1988 "Willie Horton" ad, and his new group the National Campaign Fund -- which launched a new website "Expose Obama" -- aims to take a similarly low-road approach to the presidential race and his new target, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.
As Time's Michael Scherer reported this week Brown is trying to raise funds to run a TV ad against Obama in North Carolina, which will holds its primary on May 6.
The subject of the ad is Obama's record on gang violence, which in recent days has become a real problem in Obama's home town of Chicago.
"WEEKEND OF RAGE," headlined the Chicago Sun-Times on Monday. "In gang-related drive-bys, an attempted robbery and other flashes of violence, some 37 people were shot in Chicago over the weekend -- seven of them fatally."
“Bloody Weekend: 32 Shot, 2 Stabbed, 6 Dead,” reported the local CBS station on Sunday.
Chicago police blamed the increased violence on warmer weather and gang battles between competing factions of the Gangster Disciples street gang. "You just have too many guns, gangs, too many weapons out there," said Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis.
**
Brown's TV ad names victims of gang violence -- Tamika McFadden-Harris, murdered shielding her daughter after church choir practice; Mike Boyd, 15, beaten with bricks after a gang member crashed into his car; and Severa Enriquez, 14, who was shot five times in the back after he refused to flash a gang sign.
These victims, however, are from 7 years ago, however, in 2001, when Obama was a state senator. Quoting the Chicago Sun-Times calling the mayhem "urban terrorism," the ad points out that in 2001 Obama voted against expanding the death penalty for gang murders.
"When the time came to get tough," says the narrator. "Obama chose to be weak. So the question is, can a man so weak in the war on gangs be trusted in the war on terror?"
The ad ends on an image of the World Trade Center rubble after 9/11.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement that "Floyd Brown and the garbage he puts on TV represent everything the American people hate about politics, and we look forward to John McCain denouncing this shameful effort to boost his candidacy using Willie Horton ads...If Floyd Brown and his right-wing allies want to talk about who keep us safer in the world, they can start by asking John McCain why he refuses to end a war in Iraq that has only strengthened the recruiting arm of al Qaeda."
**
The ad is factually correct in that Obama on May 15, 2001, Obama voted against legislation, H.B. 1812, that would have extended the death penalty for murders committed "in furtherance of gang activity."
The bill was introduced after Enriquez's murder. An earlier version was changed after civil libertarians voiced concerns that it would have given tools for prosecutors to seek the death penalty against members of gangs who commit crimes, whether or not the crimes were related to the gang membership.
At the time Obama argued that the bill would disproportionally impact African-Americans and Hispanics. "There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color," he said. "I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing."
Obama also took issue with the legislation having being drafted as a result of Enriquez's murder.
"It's problematic for us to continually pass criminal laws based on anecdote," Obama said. "When we have a single situation when a prosecutor doesn't get what he wants, we come down here and pass a law, which is why we have a criminal code rife with contradictions. And it seems to me that we already have sufficient laws on the books to deal with these kinds of situations.”
He called the incident "extraordinarily tragic" but said laws already on the books could allow for capital punishment for those responsible for Enriquez's killing.
"For those who support the death penalty, anytime that somebody…carried out these heinous crimes, I think they can, in fact, be dealt with in the appropriate fashion," Obama said.
**
What Brown's TV ad doesn't mention is that the state's Republican governor, George Ryan, largely agreed with Obama, and he vetoed the bill in August 2001, saying the bill raised constitutional issues, that most gang related killings were at the time covered by the state's existing death penalty statute, and because of concerns that the bill would unfairly and disproportionately affect minorities.
Ryan, who had issued a moratorium on the state's death penalty because of concerns innocent people were being killed, also said that the bill's "efforts are misdirected in light of existing laws, constitutional concerns and our past history of erroneously sentencing individuals to death."
Obama campaign spokesman Burton says, "The truth is, Barack Obama supports the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, and he led the effort to reform the death penalty system to ensure that it's administered fairly and that convictions stand in court. Since most gang-related murders already qualified for the death penalty in Illinois, the legislation in the ad wasn't designed to be tough on crime, but to score political points, and it was vetoed by a Republican governor."
There are other votes on gang-violence, however, that Republicans will likely bring up to paint Obama as soft on crime, should he be the Democratic nominee.
In 1988, for instance, Obama was one of only three state senators to oppose a law declaring it to be a Class A misdemeanor for released convicts to knowingly have contact with a member of a street gang if a condition of his release is refraining from such contact.
But Obama's entire record paints a more complex picture on this issue. In 1997, he voted for a bill, to make it a Class-3 felony for peace or correction officers to commit a gang-related act (except in cases of undercover investigations.) In 1999, he voted to allow the court to require a minor to undergo a medical (or other) procedure to have a gang tattoo removed -- as a condition of probation. In 2003, he voted to allow courts to prohibit a gang defendant from associating with gang members as a condition of bail or release from detention. In 2004 he voted for a bill to create a new felony offense for gang recruitment on school property.
Obama showed a willingness in other votes to expand the death penalty -- for a first-degree murder near a house of worship, for some domestic violence cases, for killers who targeted disabled people, or who killed seniors with exceptional brutality.
It's clear that Republicans plan on painting gang bangers as "urban terrorists" and plan on connecting Obama to them. Clearly some of that will prey on racial fears.
Will it work? Will Obama's pushback be enough?
- jpt
April 23, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (136)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
If you want to know what's going on in the streets, ask the streets, not the media. Half of the time, they report it completely wrong and miss out on key information. When the City of Chicago decided to expand this ongoing gentrification project that has been going on for the past 8 years, they were already aware of the complications to come when displacing large numbers of CHA residents and moving them into other areas of the city occupied by already existing street gang nations. Sure, many of them chose to relocate to other cities like Gary, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Benton Harbor, Calumet City or other Chicago suburbs, but many chose to remain in the city that they were born and raised in. WHY IS THE CITY ACTING LIKE THEY DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING?!! The idea of creating these high rises was racist from the beginning, no argument about that, but to solve the problem this way is and will forever be known as the ultimate disaster!!! Yes, the leaders of Chicago must take some responsibility for this one!! Plus, the chilren in the decaying urban mess that they call "a school system" need to stop being treated like second-class citizens and have opportunities for a "real education" not this nonsense that they are trying to pass now!! I've been in some of these schools, and it's hard to believe that you are still in America!! Some of them are just that bad! Superintendent Arnie Duncan has managed to make some improvements, but clearly not enough for a school system of that magnitude. YOU CAN ISSUE ALL THE DEATH PENALTIES YOU LIKE, BUT HOW DO YOU THREATEN SOMEONE WITH DEATH AND THEY ARE ALREADY SPIRITUALLY DEAD?!! TALK TO SOME OF THE POLICEMEN THAT HAVE INTERVIEWED SOME OF THESE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE MULTIPLE KILLERS AND HAVE THAT LOOK OF DEATH IN THEIR EYES. I'VE PERSONALLY SEEN IT AS WELL AS MANY IN THE COMMUNITY. THE ONLY THING THAT WILL CURVE THIS PROBLEM IS A SPIRITUAL RENEWING IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY BY TURNING OUR FOCUS BACK TO THE LORD AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. ALL OF MAN'S SOLUTIONS WILL FAIL.
Posted by: ALL5TAR | Apr 25, 2008 10:37:43 AM
No funds are needed. Negative Ads about Obama gets millions of dollars worth of free promotion on television.
Republicans in the legislature and the Republican governor opposed the poorly written legislation. The expanded death penalty, meant lowering the age of children that could be given the death penalty. Illinois eventually banned the death penatly after DNA revealed that 1/3 of those on death row were innocent.
Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | Apr 25, 2008 2:06:46 AM
The point is that Republicans have been sitting on a lot of info that will come out in the general election. That Obama will be arrested and convicted for his crimes. Guess what the Dems will not have a candidate for President that any Democrat voted for in the primaries or caucuses. The VP candidate will end up running for President and McCain will win by a land slide. This info is from a Chicago resident who knows way too much dirty info on Obama that will get Obama convicted on many crimes. Just look at Obama's criminal, radical, racist and terror associates. The Republicans are counting on this. Obama fans come down from your emotional frenzies and allow some common sense, logic, reasoning and rationality back into your minds before it is too late. Vote for Hillary 08
Posted by: Bob4USA | Apr 25, 2008 1:33:03 AM
Maybe the bill wasn't needed; I haven't read the bill at this point so I don't know; but that doesn't change the simple fact that Obama's primary stated reason for opposing the bill was profoundly wrongheaded.
It's true that blacks are more likely to commit gang related murders; but at the same time blacks are more likely to be KILLED in gang related murders.
Thus "singling out" those who commit gang related murders for harsher punishment would actually give disproportionate benefit to law-abiding black people.
Which might not be fair when you get down to it. But the thing is that if it's unfair to anyone it's unfair to law-abiding white people.
I realize George Ryan gave the same idiotic reason for opposing the bill that Obama did; but that doesn’t make it right or logical...
Posted by: Bob Johnson | Apr 24, 2008 10:18:32 PM
what i do know is that both hillary and bill talk about how they are gonna run the white house when she becomes the president..... now who are we really voting for him or her because she tells us that she is gonna wear the pants in the white house but when she debates and refers always to the clinton days of the nineties that was Bills' presidency not hers. shouldn't bills name be on the ballot for third term president ever? what i see coming is another disaster of a Bush administration.
Posted by: 4honey9 | Apr 24, 2008 8:18:28 PM
Are we talking about the same Obama that said his welfare mother that raised him but then Americans find out that he went to private schools all his Republican life. The only one that made race an issue was the Senator from Illinois when he got in trouble making racist remarks. Obama also got away with making sexist remarks when Obama used "Annie Oakley" remarks toward Sen. Clinton insulting all women and America's first female hero (i.e., Oakley).
Why don't we talk about Obama's tax plan that will force the Middle class and retirees to pay more taxes? Why not discuss Obama's terrorist (e.g., Byers, Farankam, Meeks, etc.) friends, or slumlord (e.g., Rezko and who knows who else) friend, or racist (e.g., Wright, Meeks, etc.) friends. American's know not to listen to the media especially cable news for they are 100% for Obama. Even when he lies, the media will defend him. It is everyone's fault except Obama. What a surprise? Signed Obama style sarcasm!
Posted by: Dr Hubert, Lt Col, USAF Retired | Apr 24, 2008 6:00:45 PM
East Coast - I agree with you ..HilLary did great in the debate -she has concrete answers. Obama looked nervous, defensive and devious and I have concluded that he is both. He won't debate in N.C because it will blow his chances there and he needs that vote because he may lose Indiana. He doesnt connect to the middle calss or older voters because of all his dramas and his awful choice of associates. He acts like a young kid at times and a black rapper at other times. His mask is slipping and theres more scandals to come involving his criminal associates in Chicago. He is not what he seems. He takes money frm employees of oil companies and then criticizes clinton for accepting money also. He is allowed to do it because it is listed as ""donations"", but he still criticizes her for it. What a hypocrite !! Wake up America !!!
Posted by: JIMBO | Apr 24, 2008 3:43:52 PM
Patti, I find that most of the people posting are missing the point, the ad blaming gang violence on Obama is absolutely ridiculous. And the ad ties gang violence to the war on terror! Gang violence is going up all over the country and if anyone should be held accountable, it should be law enforcement and ultimately the administration that is supposed to enforce the laws. Secondly, in Ohio where I live, a low estimate would be 1 out of 10 people hold some form or prejudice that will make them to never vote for a black person. In Ohio and PA, Clinton won by 10%. Nobody wants to admite it but the fact of the matter is prejudice still exist in America. (eg. Bob4USA post)
Posted by: Phil | Apr 24, 2008 3:23:07 PM
I am a rural, small-town American. I’m not bitter. I don’t carry a gun but I do believe in the Holy Bible and God.
Hillary won in Pennsylvania, despite being outspent by Obama's “mega bucks” and bombardment on TV, radio, internet ads, phone calls, etc., etc., because we believe Hillary to be the better candidate --- pure and simple. True Americans cannot be bought!
Hillary was GREAT in the Pennsylvania debate --- Obama did quite poorly.
OBAMA HAS REFUSED TO DEBATE IN NORTH CAROLINA. He apparently can only read a pretty scripted speech from a teleprompter --- And he wants to run our country??? NO WAY!
Does he plan to have Jeremiah Wright spewing “God Damn America” from the White House? It’s bad enough he did it in a church of God.
Are Obama’s frequent visitors going to be their anti-American, terrorist friends: bomber Ayers, Farrakhan, Rezko, among others?
We need someone to show respect to ALL Americans, regardless of where they live.
GOD BLESS AMERICA --- HILLARY 2008!
Posted by: EASTCOAST | Apr 24, 2008 2:56:36 PM
Well, its quite obvious that America is still too racist to elect a black man for president. All the commenters failed to acknowledge the a white governor vetoed the bill and in fact stopped all executions in Ill. But all the people responding show their hatred for blacks, it obvious. Obama has offered hope and not the same old slash and burn politics that you all thrive. As a white man married to a black women, I had hoped that she was wrong when she said the a black man could never be elected to the presidency. But I must now agree, with the bigotry I have read in these comments, she is right. You all make me sick!
Posted by: Phil | Apr 24, 2008 2:17:00 PM
Patti...Good point! Maybe he will give a "speech on the vote. One other thought ..if he is elected president will he ever give a news conference?
Posted by: Jim | Apr 24, 2008 1:53:32 PM
The media needs to stop being bias
People need to relax and let the American voters vote.
The democratic party needs to swallow their pride and count the people of FL and MI - do a revote as requested
I believe Hillary is the stronger candidate and will be the nominee and the President of the United States. It is time for a woman to be in charge; relax she will do a great job and it won't be easy cleaning up Bush's mess.
Posted by: David | Apr 24, 2008 1:44:50 PM
FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR
FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR
Bill Clinton in 2004:
"Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is
this: If one candidate's trying to scare
you and the other one's trying to get you
to think; if one candidate's appealing to
your fears and the other one's appealing
to your hopes, you better vote for the
person who wants you to think and hope.
That's the best."
Posted by: Penny K | Apr 24, 2008 1:12:52 PM
The ad represents what is instore for Obama if he is the Dems choice in the fall, and the same will done to Clinton. The difference is Hillary will give it as good as they dish it. I don't think alot the ads against Obama are very nice, but they are not racist just because he is black...he is the front runner. The relentless calls of racism will hurt him ...now and in the fall.
Posted by: Jim | Apr 24, 2008 1:06:56 PM
my i used to admire the way they used to vet the presidents of this country but now after all this in fighting the people look to even be losing forcus that is the economy which is in real trouble we may not even know the extent of how bad it is until we get an honest person out there to be open we have seen this so far with global warming. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES economic policies will pull the country out of trouble all economist have said so. To me that is the most important thing when the economy get better then the violence robbery and the like will stop. Not even hillary's or obama's plan will make the economy better considering the fact that democates have always increased taxes. macain i don't even know where to start his isn't even good. Do lose focus the economy is a very important issue and by the way hillary being so articulate doesn't mean she is a btter candidate believe me all politicians are like that they lie a lot watch out. Hillary also has a warehouse of skeletons so it doesn't make her an exception google the clintons and see how they pardoned those puerto ricans who carried out bombings in the 90's and also the pardoning of the weather field under ground members found with explosives. Oh but hillary said she would obliterate iran don't forget with nukes i guess we have to forget that and just vote for her coz she is entitled to the presidency since it's a mornacy now.
Posted by: shay | Apr 24, 2008 12:42:36 PM
Obama would be a weak President. Good talker with no substance.
HILLARY 08!!
Posted by: John | Apr 24, 2008 12:27:42 PM
Richardson cannot be trusted and a traitor. Don't vote for him when runs for a Senator. He belongs to Wright, Rezco and Ayer who join any rgoup or fraternity where he will benefit and not the Americans.
Obama’s motto and theme should be Pay per Vote. Obama overspent in Pennsylvannia and still came out the loser.
Look at the facts as to how strong Hillary is:
Obama lost in Pennsylvannia in spite of endorsement by a Senator and overspending in ads, 5 to 1.
Obama lost in Texas and Ohio even overspending in ads and manipulating info in Ohio.
Obama lost in California even though Oprah, Maria Shriver, and Katherine Kennedy endorsed him.
Obama lost Massachusetts even though Kennedy and John Kerry endorsed him.
Hillary won the big states and has more electoral college votes to date than Obama that is crucial in November.
Obama lost the big states even though the media is most of the time unfair with Hillary and always positive to Obama.
Wake up superdelegates! You will make the right choice if you pick Hillary.
Obama mocked the Pennsylvannians and the entire nation, which is so irresponsible and very degrading to all Americans. He is just like Wright who mocked the Americans and like Rezco and Ayers who we can’t trust.
Wake up superdelegates!
Posted by: Alfredo | Apr 24, 2008 12:21:51 PM
Why should someone who prefers a different candidate than someone else be told to be free to leave the country? In every election, people choose one candidate over another. The right to vote and freedom to choose are what America is about.
Posted by: Patti | Apr 24, 2008 12:18:03 PM
I so despise Obama. He's determined to jump in and push his way to the front without earning it. Too many times in the past he has been the beneficiary of affirmative action, no doubt. And now he thinks it applies to running for president. McCain is going to kick his arse because the U.S. is far too smart to vote for someone who has a BLACK AGENDA. So now, instead of a victory by a Dem, and health care and an end to our messing in Iraq, we will have 8 years of yet another Republican and his moneyed cronies. Thanks OBAMA, you sure represent HOPElessness to me.
Posted by: Sick of Him | Apr 24, 2008 12:00:35 PM
Regardless of the issues Americans have with Clinton, she is the best candidate to get the job of running this country. She is a take-charge kind of person. Obama could not talk his way out of a wet paperbag. He is not good at interactions with others -- his speeches sound good when he is talking, but get him in a debating arena and he falls apart. Let's all get behind Clinton, send in your dollars, cast your vote for her and send her to the White House. Time to move on and send Bush back to scrublands of Texas .... Obama back to Chicago to ignore those issues, McCain back to Arizona to drink beer, and Clinto to the White House. Go Team Clinton!
Posted by: dixiecharms | Apr 24, 2008 11:59:13 AM
Post a comment


