Our Platform for Outlining Colorado’s Future

Reasons  to agree with Obama: If you get killed because you made someone mad, or they want to steal your car, or because you were in the wrong place in the wrong time, that is one thing. But gangs are specifically targetting cops. We need them to be un-afraid of going into dangerous places. If they are not safe, than none of us are safe. It should be worse to kill cops, because they stand in the place of all of us in keeping our society together, and all that thin-blue-line stuff. Background: Q: On mandatory death sentences for gang members who kill cops you voted no. Would you explain? OBAMA: [The proposed legislation] was entirely unnecessary and unconstitutional. It suggested that I could kill a police officer but because I’m not a gang member, I would be treated differently. I think both cases should be death penalty eligible. KEYES: Senator Obama does not think it superfluous to have hate crimes legislation that adds a special animus to certain acts of violence already penaliz...

Reasons  to agree: Q: On the right to let cops go into dangerous places with search warrants without knocking, you voted no as well. Would you explain? OBAMA: With respect to the potential for police officers not to knock when they go in, there’s an issue of search and seizures and there must be some parameters for law enforcement to protect our civil liberties. Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Reasons  to agree: “While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated” The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006

Reasons  to agree: “Obama had a 2002 bill to stop police abuse. Chicago had become infamous for use of torture by police to help frame innocent people. Thirteen innocent men on Death Row were exonerated and released, some of them victims of these tortured confessions. Illinois desperately needed some action to restore confidence in the police. Obama’s proposal was to require videotaping of interrogations of suspects in capital cases. When Obama began, the idea of a bill was opposed by police, prosecutors, most of the senate and the governor. The governor was determined not to appear soft on crime, and had promised to veto any proposal for mandatory tapings. By the time Obama finished his work, the police and prosecutors embraced the bill, it passed in the Illinois Senate by a vote of 58-0. The governor took the unusual step of reversing himself to sign it, and Illinois became the first state to require such tapings.” ~ The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.145 Oct 30, 2007. I thin...

Reasons  to agree: “I don’t want to wake up four years from now and discover that we still have more young black men in prison than in college.” ~ Barack Obama, fund-raiser in Harlem, NY, Nov. 29, 2007. “Simply untrue, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There may be a case for arguing, as some Obama supporters have done, that the total number of black prisoners is slightly higher than the total number of black students. But I can only fact check the comparison the candidate actually made, which was between young black men in prison and in college. Rather than acknowledge the error, the Obama campaign declined to provide statistical support.” Source: GovWatch on 2008 Pinocchio Awards for Biggest Fib of 2007 Jan 1, 2008. As GovWatch points out, there are more black men in prison (age 18 to 100 years old) than there are “young   black men” in college. However Obama said there were more young black men in prison than in college, which is far from true.

Reasons  to agree: Rich people use cocain. Poor people use crack. It is wrong to punish the poor people more.

"Obama will work to ban racial profiling" ~ Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 48-49 Feb 2, 2008 Reasons  to agree: Race should only be considered when it is used to describe a specific suspect in a specific crime and only when used in a manner like other physical descriptions (e.g., hair color, weight, distinguishing marks). This is often referred to as the "be on the lookout" (B.O.L.O.) exception. “If we know that in our criminal justice system, African-Americans and whites, for the same crime, receive--are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, receive very different sentences. That is something that we have to talk about. But that’s a substantive issue and it has to do with how do we pursue racial justice. If I am president, I will have a civil rights division that is working with local law enforcement so that they are enforcing laws fairly and justly. But I would expect a white president or a woman president should wa...

Reasons  to agree: An Obama campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 42 Feb 2, 2008 said: “Obama will work to ensure that ex-offenders have access to job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling, and employment opportunities. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program and reduce barriers to employment.” There is no specific plan, just a promiced outcome. No real-world analasis of trying to figure out how much things will cost, or how they will force people to hire ex-cons... It is nice to say that you want ex-cons to be able to get jobs, but it is stupid to just say your going to do it, without saying how, looking at how much it will cost, or trying to figure out if you even have the money to do it. For instance should the Federal Government be spending tax money collected from New York, and California, to pay ex-cons from Idaho, to go to a jobs program in Pennsylvania? The federal government shouldn't be doing crap lack that. They should have limit...

Reasons  to disagree: We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior . Fighting for people who do nothing but "stand around on street corner" is rewarding bad behavior. Obama didn't stand around on street corners. It sounds cruel, but kids need to see that people who make bad decisions fail. That prevents more bad decisions. But it all depends on what you mean by "fight for". We should, of course, be smart. If we can fight for them in a way that does not reward bad behavior, but gives them different options, that is ok, but that is the problem with generic stupid language, like "fight for". A lot of parents fight for their kids, and cause damage... sometimes it is better to let the kids fight for themselves... but this language is stupid... Usually compassion is not a limitless resource. When you have compassion on criminals, to some degree, you are less able to provide compassion to law abiding citizens. You will have less money, time, and oth...