RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
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.
Hilliary, despite all her failings, is still the better choice. It's evident by the way she talks about the issues and her policies. Our prayers are with her. HILLARY '08
Posted by: gee | Apr 24, 2008 11:45:01 AM
Staying with the issue, the headline of this article is " Republicans Plan on Ganging Up on Obama for Being "Weak" on Street Gangs."
Yes, he did support laws requiring gang members to have their tatoos surgically removed, and other laws that forbid gang related activity or recruitment in the vicinity of schools or churches.
The question I'm posing is, "Have those measures been effective in significantly curbing gang activity and gang related deaths in the south side of Chicago?"
The latest rise in death tolls does reflect that those measures are not major deterrents. So, I'm saying that while Senator Obama has passed some very good measures, they might, indeed, be considered 'weak' because they are simply not strong enough to dispel the gangs, displace them, or discourage the senseless killings taking place. On the contrary, gang activity and deaths have increased, not decreased.
Posted by: Patti | Apr 24, 2008 11:28:57 AM
bob 4 usa hillary is no exception she too has a criminal background you have not just heard of it you are not told she has many cases pending in court at least in california just google in the clintons or peter paul the ship sailed away when edwards left the race he looked like the only dem hope the rest don't even have good economic policies perhaps we should vote for hillary who will obliterate iran in stead of macain i think the gop will be greatful for another 4 years in the white house which i feel they have already got.
Posted by: shay | Apr 24, 2008 11:09:26 AM
since we're talking facts lets really get the facts straight
Obama Sponsored Bill To Extend Death Penalty For 1st Degree Murder Within 500FT Of A Place Of Worship. Obama was the chief co-sponsor of bill providing that a person who commits first degree murder using a firearm in or within 500 feet of a church, synagogue or other place of worship is eligible for the death penalty. The bill would provide enhanced penalties for commission of other enumerated offenses, including second degree murder and aggravated assault. [91st GA, SB 1615, 2/15/00]
Posted by: andrew | Apr 24, 2008 10:33:32 AM
Actual Facts
Obama Voted To Make Recruiting For A Gang At School A Crime. Obama voted to create the offense of criminal street gang recruitment on school grounds (including a school yard, school playing field, and school playground), which a person commits when on school grounds or public property adjacent to school grounds, he/she threatens the use of physical force to coerce, solicit, recruit, or induce another person to join or remain a member of a criminal street gang, or conspires to do so. The penalty for the offense (House Amendment No. 1) is a Class 1 felony. [93rd GA, HB 4788, 5/13/04, 3R P; 57-0-0; PA 93-0938, 8/13/04]
Posted by: Nigel | Apr 24, 2008 10:28:49 AM
Obama never ever worked the streets of Chicago and never visited the families on the southside that lost their children to gun and gang violence. He lives in Hyde Park in a home bought by his crooked business friend Rezko. Obama doesn't care about the killings he only cares about himself. But he wants the black votes and they are dumb enough to vote for him. Plus they don't know the difference of when he is telling the truth or lying. His close ties to Ayers, Ayres, Wright, Rezko and Farrakhan are enough to view him as anti-american and a racist.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Apr 24, 2008 10:19:27 AM
That Ad tells the truth. Obama doesn't care less about the killings of young people on the southside of Chicago. Since he is getting all the votes from them he should care. But, Obama is for himself and only himself. He wants to make history like MLK. He has read many books on MLK and that's what he is interested in first. Do you think he wants to change politics in Washington? Think again. He wouldn't know what to do the first day on the job. He gives a good speech from the book of speeches of RFK that was given to him and that's what he reads. RFK gave speeches of hope and Obama copied that word. He can't do anything by himself how would he run the country.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Apr 24, 2008 10:11:44 AM
One more comment to add to the one I just posted. I do believe that Senator Obama supports the tougher laws on hate crimes (as do most people I know). So, if he supports those laws, is there hypocracy in his reluctance to support tougher laws for gang crimes? In many ways, they are the same. This isn't about race; it's about passing laws that target heinous criminal activity and deterring and punishing those who commit it. If he bases his position that all criminals who murder should be treated the same, why does he support tougher laws on hate crimes, but not for gang-related crimes?
Posted by: Patti | Apr 24, 2008 9:27:56 AM
I live in the south suburbs of Chicago. I understand legislation and the reason for laws. Laws are designed for two reasons: one, to deter criminal activity; and two, to punish those who are found guilty of criminal activity. The capital punishment laws are designed to do both of those. Gangs are an issue, and a very strong one, for those in the south side of Chicago. That's a fact, and statistics prove it. The one thing that Senator Obama didn't take into account, and if he did, it didn't weigh as heavily as his argument in support of protecting the interests of minorities who are in gangs, is the fact that most, if not all, of the gang-related deaths are minority on minority crimes. So, in essence, what Senator Obama did by voting against this law was to choose the minority criminal over the minority victim. Now, keep in mind that most, if not all, of these victims are minorities. Statistics also reflect that gang members who kill are likely to do it again if they are convicted and released from prison at some point in their lives. So, choosing to protect the interests of the gang member because he or she is a minority on the basis that it is unfair is also not fair to the victims of these crimes. They, too, are minorities. The only difference is they are the ones who die, not the person who murders them.
Gangs are known to be violent and ruthless with guns and lives. Why protect them more than we protect the victims, who are of the same race and class? I'd like to hear the justification for this track of thinking. It makes no sense to me, and if I were a parent who had to visit my kid at a cemetary while the parent of the kid who killed him got to see her son or daughter in prison or worse yet, living freely, I'd be angry at any politician who didn't do everything and anything to both deter and punish gangs for these crimes.
Posted by: Patti | Apr 24, 2008 9:17:41 AM
It's amazing how dumb most people are in America. People respond to article without reading or understanding the content of what they are responding to. No wonder Bush was re-elected after a disasterous first term and the whole world was shocked. If someone oppose a piece of legislation because a similar one exist in the book and do not want to duplicate, how does that constitute weakness? The racial tone of many respondents show what kind of society America really is.
Posted by: Maxwell | Apr 24, 2008 8:58:29 AM
It is very very simple.
If an ad is approved by
a candidate (McCain,
Obama, Clinton)it will
say so. It not, then
the ad is a lie and
should be taken as such.
Posted by: Beto | Apr 24, 2008 8:51:14 AM
Obama will lose the general election not because he is black but because he is too liberal! Remember the "Reagan democrats"? they are the ones coming out in droves to vote for Hillary whom they see as a moderate...they will never vote liberal and will just as easily become "McCain dems"..they would love to support the democratic party again but won't if they see the canidate as someone out of touch with their lives..."so saddened" you are so right!
Posted by: morn | Apr 24, 2008 8:36:13 AM
Thanks for the warning - The Clinton McCain ticket! Heads they win - Tails we lose! SO SAD
Posted by: That's Why! | Apr 24, 2008 8:28:56 AM
the devil we know is better than the one
we didnt even know at all.LET VOTE
FOR MCCAIN SO AS TO DEAL WITH IRAN AGAIN
Posted by: kaz | Apr 24, 2008 8:09:41 AM
Obama and his wife brag about his work in the streets of Chicago and what a big positive difference he made in the streets. If he worked in the streets of Chicago, he apparently did not make a difference with all the violence taking place in the streets and homes in Chicago. Go home Obama and prove you can make a differecne on the streets of Chicago and then maybe the American people will trust you to handle the problems facing our country and the world. Obama can't even sway his own people in Chicago!!!
Posted by: Jake | Apr 24, 2008 7:54:46 AM
Smear? If it's factual how is it a smear. Again, no one will be able to attack or criticize Obama without being labled a smear campaign or racist or both.
Posted by: stop2think | Apr 24, 2008 7:05:05 AM
Since the ABC debate, Obama has proven again and again just how weak he is. He crumpled during the debate because he didn't do any work to prepare for it by anticipating the questions that might be asked.
On the campaign trail he pointed fingers at Hillary and ABC, blaming them for his pathetic performance. He was still whining about it this week.
He thinks he should not be criticized. He thinks we should not raise issues about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, or his past votes as a State and U.S. senator. He thinks he should not be questioned on anything he doesn't want to discuss.
Do you really want this man in the White House and meeting with America's worst enemies as he's promised to do? I don't.
I'm fine with Obama as the nominee, because I think McCain is a fine man who will make a fine president. Hillary can run in 2012.
Many Obamabots are too young to remember a Democratic nominee named George McGovern. He is the reason the Superdelegates came into being. The left wing of the democratic party nominated him in 1972. He won ONLY ONE STATE in the general election - Massachusetts (which Hillary won in the primary).
Posted by: HoosierSue | Apr 24, 2008 6:46:26 AM
Terry was right. Racism does still exist. Rev. Wright proved that, and J.J. Jackson, Sharpton, and plenty of other black "Leaders". Our ancestors took your ancestors away from their homeland against their will?? HA!! Blame the Dutch! If you don't like it, maybe Liberia is still available. Oh, I forgot, there might be work to be done to make that place livable. Pretty much like most countries in Africa. I'm sure the white devil produced Robert Mugabe as well, Oh, I forgot Mr. Carter (Democrat?) is his biggest fan.
Why don't you people just stop with the "Po Me" crap. My mother brought me to the U.S. when I was three years old. You might not like this but, I DON'T OWE YOU PEOPLE A DAMN THING!!!! I'm Out.
Posted by: J.L. | Apr 24, 2008 4:48:37 AM
we hillary supporters are tired of being called uneducated racist hicks. we are doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, waiters, truck drivers, accountants, whatever. we are americans.
obamaites persist in insulting us, then hold onto their dreams of a winning general election campaign. just a clue, kids - insulting people then asking for their votes is not a good strategy.
in this case, it doesn't matter anyway, because we're too intelligent to vote for a pro-hamas, pro-terrorist, racist, anti-american, anti-woman, anti-old people, anti-israel, anti-everybody who disagrees with his self-image as messiah, creep.
Posted by: so saddened | Apr 24, 2008 3:07:51 AM
We all knew from the begining and now os prven more thean ever Obama is unelectable. He himself is affraid of debates. He does not know how to answer anything with substance about the issues and has too many shady relationships with US haters.
Posted by: Libre | Apr 24, 2008 2:32:59 AM
Post a comment


