Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

The problem with such an attack is that the president has the best advisers from acadamia and inside government. Is Mrs Clinton suggesting that she'll have more knowledge than the president's advisers? The political world is in constant flux. That's dangerous

The article is from 2008 when Mrs. Clinton was a candidate against Obama.

Does that matter?

Yes, it does in the context of my response to TheCobbler. Otherwise I understand your point.

The Lord giveth, Alabama taketh away...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/birmingham-raises-minimum-wage-alabama-takes-it-away-n526806

I was an Independant voter. I didnt have a view pro or con during the First Bush election, and although I was adamant against the Iraq War, I diagreed with Kerry about pulling out of Iraq We made that bed, I felt we were obligated to lie in it. BUT! ... I did vote for Obama. And hes made mistakes, but he didnt drag us into a war that destroyed our respect around the world. And cummon! Sara Palin? Really? And Mitt Romney next, couldn't stand him...rich privileged and too religious for me. Seems like the only part of the constitution GOP respects is the 2nd amendment. I come from a family of hunters. They only reason hunters dont want background checks is cuz cousin Charlie cant go hunting anymore even if hes bat **** crazy.
Sorry Im ranting now...signing off....lol

.

That's just not worthy of a response from you.

Rex, never did I EVER stand behind W. I NEVER voted for him for anything including Governor. I NEVER supported the Patriot Act or Homeland Security Act. I NEVER supported the war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Please cite on source of Bernie saying that "gun manufacturers" should get a full pass".

I don't know that the NRA ever gave Bernie Sanders a penny, but I do know that assault weapons and banana clips and sound suppressors became legal during Bill Clinton's term and that President Obama let expire some restrictions the W administration had attached to some automatic weapons and clips.

And I do now how much the banking industry and Wall Street paid Hillary Clinton to "speak", over $180,000,000.

Regardless of how we feel about gun control, lets face it, the banks and Wall Street are more dangerous to Americans.

Cite one source that Bernie ever said he would want to "see that gun stores have unfettered sales to ANYONE... ".

Here is the record:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban
Wednesday, April 17, 2013

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

Better watch out Cobbler. One of the Bernieites might drop a bomb on you!

Hillary will get all of the things done that Bernie boasts about.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/11/0166/36492/elections2008/Comparing-Hillary-and-Obama-on-Crime-Issues

Comparing Hillary and Obama on Crime Issues
By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:16:00 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The San Francisco Chronicle has an article today by Bob Egelko comparing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on crime issues.

Shorter version: They are pretty similar and not particularly liberal (certainly not as much as I would like them to be.)

There are some things I take issue with. For more on Obama's record on crime and defendants' rights, see my earlier analysis here.

It's true, as the article says, that while both support the death penalty, Obama worked to revise it in Illinois to prevent wrongful convictions and Hillary was an early and consistent supporter in Congress of the Innocence Protection Act.

But neither one opposes the death penalty for the guilty. Obama, for example, supported legislation in Illinois to increase crimes eligible for the death penalty -- specifically for those convicted of brutal murders of the elderly and mentally disabled. (Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2001, available on Lexis.com) He also supports it for heinous crimes.

More...

In 2004, for the first time since the 1980's, the Dems, at the insistence of John Kerry, dropped the death penalty from their platform. Will Obama or Hillary pledge to keep it out? I doubt it.

On mandatory minimums, the article implies Obama is opposed to them while Hillary is not.

The two differ on crime-related issues that have a lower profile but affect many thousands of prisoners, most of them minorities - the disparity between sentences for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine, and the merits of federal mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. On both, Clinton lines up with the prosecution, Obama with the defense.

While it accurately notes that Obama has tempered his opposition recently by merely calling for a review of mandatory minimums, he's also said his opposition applies to non-violent offenses. And he has doubts about spending political capital to change them.

He said that if he were to become president, he would support a commission to issue a report "that allows me to say that based on the expert evidence, this is not working and it's unfair and unjust. Then I would move legislation forward."

"Even if we fix this, if it was a 1-to-1 ratio, it's still a problem that folks are selling crack. It's still a problem that our young men are in a situation where they believe the only recourse for them is the drug trade. So there is a balancing act that has to be done in terms of, do we want to spend all our political capital on a very difficult issue that doesn't get at some of the underlying issues; whether we want to spend more of that political capital getting early childhood education in place, getting after-school programs in place, getting summer school programs in place."

As to Hillary lining up with the prosecution on mandatory minimums, that's wrong. Here is a recent example:

Hillary at the third debate at Howard University:

we have to do all of these things. Number one, we do have to go after racial profiling. I’ve supported legislation to try to tackle that.

Number two, we have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is using now a discriminatory impact.

Three, we need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. (Applause.)

We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

Obama was also a prime co-sponsor of the meth bill that passed Congress and supported bills with greater restrictions on sex offenders. While in the Illinois legislature, he either voted for or present (I can't tell which) on a law with increased penalties and mandatory minimums for ecstasy in Illinois. (Copley News Service May 10, 2001.)In his own words, (Chicago Tribune, October 8, 2004):

"I voted for, or co-sponsored myself, over 100 bills that strengthened criminal penalties for everything ranging from sex offenders to drug dealers to domestic violence abusers," he said. "It would be very hard to argue, if you look at the totality of my record, that I somehow have been soft on crime. ... Those who have tried to paint me recently as being too liberal are some of the colleagues I worked most closely with. They never held that view until election season."

Obama also said last year he would create a new DEA office in New Orleans:

If elected, Mr. Obama said he would establish a Drug Enforcement Agency office in New Orleans that would be dedicated to stopping drug gangs across the region.

The two crime policy areas in which Obama is more progressive than Hillary are (1) anti-gang bills and (2) retroactivity of the recent crack-powder sentencing guideline reductions. Hillary was one of 44 Democrats who voted for the anti-gang bill while Obama voted against it. And on the retroactivity question, Obama supported it while Hillary said,

“In principle I have problems with retroactivity," she said. "It’s something a lot of communities will be concerned about as well."

To say Obama is more progressive on crime issues or that he takes the defense line while Hillary toes the prosecution line, is not accurate. Neither one is particularly progressive or defense oriented. Their minor differences are just that, minor.

The republicans are dangerous to this country. They won't let democracy work like it's supposed to. On all future elections, I''ll never vote for another republican. NEVER.

What republicans did you vote for in the past?

Ulysses, Abraham, and Bush.