Are you concerned civil libertarians will fear voting for Kerry?

[LimpingLib]

Just a quick example to get those of you sympathetic to civil libertys out of our deadly sleep that somehow has befallen all too many of us http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20040610.html and the title SAYS IT ALL "A little noticed Supreme Court case represents a huge injustice" which really proves that the GOP appointments actualy are slightly more supportive (though admittedly it was the more moderate fluke GOP appointments that mainly voted on the civil rights side but overall both GOP and DEM appointments voted against us)of stepping in against disgusting local tyranical decisions and policys (yes it was TEXAS!).

I really fear that some of the most sensitive civil libertarians that ACTUALY follow the policys will fear Kerry's Supreme Court appointments will be as rotten as Clintons 2 appointments which are sadly states rights types on the vital freedom and civil rights issues. It seems that you have either the states rights types (Ginsberb, Breyer, etc.)to look forward to one the one hand or much worse the Chuck Schumer type of preferences. Whats scary is that Chuck Schumer seems to have bulled his way through and made himself an authority on Supreme Court appointments. He called himself a "conservative" (meaning siding with extreme law enforcment measures, that was clearly the meaning)on (I think he used these exact words) "on police/state issues" (or something extremely similar) and gave examples of what he supports that to me were just scary. He was saying this to prove how "MODERATE" and un-extreme he is and said he could easily support "moderate-conservatives" to the bench (anotherwords Nelson Rockefeller types, nearly the worst there is).

This is a serious issue and sadly Nader doesnt even seem to have noticed and if he is caught sleeping then only sombody like (perhaps)Feingold can help sound the alarm , in the past he has stood alone at first but then slowly others in government slowly awoke to the realitys Feingold raised.Aside from the political implications (our chances of winning are severly hurt not to mention its REASON #1 we have never succeded on talk radio , we dont have leaders that sence the anxietys of the broad progressive polulation) I just wish the progressive base was more awake. We really need to put peoples libertys first and nip censorship, torture , unjust sentencing , police brutality, etc. etc. etc. and all other human injustices and right limitations in the bud.

Honestly , if it wasnt for the Ashcroft type of "conservatives" (ie fascist constitution burners) that have become prominent in the GOPs eyes then many civil libertarians could have seen a scenario where the GOP appointments could actualy be better under certain circumstances (this is hypothetical in the extreme mind you). Circumstance #1 is accedentialy nominating moderate types not knowing they arent right wing (and I dont mean Rockefellar or Guiliani type "moderates") Circumstance #2 nominating a right winger but an extreme libertarian type that might at times stike down police state measures and (most important for the hypothetical scenario to work) Circumstance #3 Democrats nominating bad justices.Even then it wont work out to a 5-4 decision in our favor no matter what (we will always loose like 6-3 or worse). There is no substitute other than suggesting our President (Kerry) nominates proper justices and NOT letting Chuck Schumer speak for us .

Editing to mention that with the new Talk America having been founded (or co founded, I know much of it was his idea and he was a leader) by a staunch civil libertarian (at least he seems like it to me) John Podesta then perhaps he can try and influence the party. I personnaly havnt found anywhere to listen to it yet so I have no idea what the hosts are talking about.Podesta is one of our best assets in the fight for freedom.Not to mention he might even (if the hosts represent his views which are MY VIEWS mostly) have given us a possibility to finally attract average Americans leaning left a permanent voice over the radio waves. Podesta actualy went to Kecksberg, Penn to investigate government military harrasment and cover-up of citizens and listened to a town hall meeting. Then he loudly supported the people who frankly are still frightened by what happened decades ago.

[rock]

1. No

They should fear (I mean this literally) bushsucks* more.

On edit: a clarification. They may be apprehensive about Kerry, but fear is the word for bushsucks*.

[malatesta1137]

2. No

Anyone with half a brain would vote for a Jeffrey Dahmer/Ted Bundy ticket instead of Bush/Cheney, so Kerry is in good shape, thanks.

[JayS]

3. This Chuck Schumer?

http://feinstein.senate.gov/photogallery/special-events/photo-gallery-special-events-040302-df-kennedy-schumer-kerry-awb-vote.htm

[LimpingLib]

4. I dont want to get into a back and fourth.

I am not pro gun (far from it) but that is an issue that has nothing to do with limiting government.

Its a limit on the civilians libertys (a good one in this case) just like the war on terror (a mostly fraudulent one, but somewhat justified in part).


Anyway it probabily best to stay away from the gun issue politicaly . It actualy hurts us (especially when it comes to a talk radio audience).Wait like 50 years to make guns a major issue again.

[JayS]

5. Our "brand" of gun control does hurt us and it looks like we are...

...beating the same dead horse (a crime in some states :)) this election cycle. I don't think it will cause Kerry to lose just because of what, or rather who, he is running against. My bigger worry is what will happen in the 2006 elections when Bush is just a memory.

This "brand" of gun control I do support. It has shown promise in my area and is well received by the voters.


Gun program is working, officials say
BY TIM ELFRINK
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=1636&u_sid=1129203



Statistics released Monday show that a federally funded program to reduce gun violence in Omaha is working, officials said, though similar figures also show an increase in gang violence last year.

Felony gun assaults have dropped by 38 percent since March 2003, while federal prosecution for gun crime increased by 70 percent, officials said at a press conference Monday.

The program, Project Safe Neighborhoods, in February 2003 began distributing federal funding to create community initiatives, fund police operations and raise awareness of the consequences of gun crime.

*SNIP*

"Looking at our numbers this year, the stats are saying to us that we're starting to make inroads into combating gang violence," Jeanette said. Project Safe Neighborhoods is effective because it encourages state and federal courts to cooperate to find long sentences for gun-related crimes, Heavican said.

*SNIP*

In many cases, state courts do not have minimum sentences they must apply to cases involving illegal gun use, but federal courts do. By allowing a federal court to prosecute such a crime, a longer sentence can more consistently be applied.

*SNIP*

***********************************************


From: http://www.psn.gov/About.asp?section=34
FAQs
Q: What is Project Safe Neighborhoods?

A: Project Safe Neighborhoods is a nation-wide commitment to reduce gun violence by networking existing local programs that target gun crime and providing those programs with additional tools necessary to be successful. The goal is to take a hard line against gun criminals through every available means in an effort to make our streets and communities safer. Project Safe Neighborhoods seeks to achieve heightened coordination among federal, state, and local law enforcement, with an emphasis on tactical intelligence gathering, more aggressive prosecutions, and enhanced accountability through performance measures. The offensive will be led by the newly appointed United States Attorney in each of the 94 federal judicial districts across America.

Q: How will Project Safe Neighborhoods be funded?

A: Project Safe Neighborhoods commits substantial resources -- $901 million over three years -- and state-of-the-art technology to address gun violence. This funding is being used to hire new federal and state prosecutors, support investigators, provide training, distribute gun lock safety kits, deter juvenile gun crime, and develop and promote community outreach efforts as well as to support other gun violence reduction strategies.

Q: How will each United States Attorney be involved in Project Safe Neighborhoods?

A: Each local program has been contoured to fit the unique gun crime problem in that district -- it is not a “one size fits all” program applied uniformly all across America. Each United States Attorney has convened all law enforcement participants in his or her community, has identified the most pressing crime problems, and is attacking those problems through aggressive prosecution and the use of newly developed gun intelligence-gathering systems.

Q: What is the difference between Project Safe Neighborhoods and programs like Project Exile?

A: Project Safe Neighborhoods expands on existing programs such as Project Exile (Richmond, VA) and Operation Ceasefire (Boston). Project Exile in Richmond focused gun prosecutions in federal court under federal law. Under Project Safe Neighborhoods, criminals who use guns will be prosecuted under federal, state, or local laws -- depending on where those laws are the toughest. Project Exile in Virginia coordinated resources statewide, while Project Safe Neighborhoods establishes a nation-wide network of programs linked by aggressive cooperation and information sharing.