Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

[audtatious]

http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin...sitem

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

--------------------------------------------

Overview of the issue:http://husaria.wordpress.com/2...ights/

[audtatious]

News report video:

http://www.kmov.com/video/inde...shu=1

[skylndrftr]

to provide another viewpoint...It appears that The Republican Governor (who by the way may have violated yet another record keeping law) supports people running campaign ads that lie or intentionally mislead the American public?

I really hope people don't support/vote for people who support lieing to them

EDIT: heres the project vote smart entry on the good governor: http://www.votesmart.org/issue...20529

Hes so very worried about this obviously, he votes for your rights 29% of the time.

[Jesda]

Waste of my state tax dollars.

[audtatious]

to provide another viewpoint...It appears that The Republican Governor (who by the way may have violated yet another record keeping law) supports people running campaign ads that lie or intentionally mislead the American public?

I really hope people don't support/vote for people who support lieing to them

Is that viewpoint similar to the one Bob stressed in the "McCain against (legislation to) protect children from sexual predators" thread? I know you are simply goofing it with that answer, but, puhleeeeze....

EDIT: heres the project vote smart entry on the good governor: http://www.votesmart.org/issue...20529

Hes so very worried about this obviously, he votes for your rights 29% of the time.

You mean in 1999 he supported PROMO's (advocating for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equality) civil rights initiatives 29%, correct?

[HashiriyaS14]

Maybe I read too quickly, but I couldn't find any mention in the article of what, precisely, the Obama campaign is attempting to do with said law enforcement, specifically.

I'm not going to doubt until I have the facts, but I think you'd better post up what exactly Obama & Friends was trying to do with said law enforcement.

And yes, I'm too lazy to watch the damn video.

[audtatious]

It's in the video



Numerous Sheriffs, DA's, etc. are on the lookout for "falsehoods" against the Obama campaign which would be "against the law". They are also going to make sure people know he is a Christian and going to cut taxes for everyone making less than $250k (which is a lie since they can't drop taxes from 45% of people who pay no taxes in the first place).

Now, if they were intending to do it for both Obama AND McCain, then there would be no issue. Instead they are specifically pointing out protecting the Obama candidacy.

[dusred]

^ Watch the video and it will answer your questions.

Of course, this act by Obama is for our own good.

[srellim234]

So are the McCain campaign's usage of law enforcement to drive away possible dissenters from Colorado town hall meetings supposedly open to them.

http://www.progressnowaction.o.../Cqyh

[audtatious]

It depends

Historically those who oppose a Republican will do what they can to interrupt things. Look at the RNC and other public events. Honestly, I would not expect someone who is carrying a McCain = Bush sign to be there to actually hear anything or be involved with the event other than a distraction. Why would you think she has a right to be a distraction to the others that may want to learn or participate?

Again, her rights end where others begin.

[srellim234]

So you have a right to use the police to deny entrance to someone you invited to or cite someone for something they haven't done yet just because you don't like their politics and they may cause a distraction? Don't invite them in the first place!

[AZhitman]

Yep.

When the immigration reform protesters around my office made it impossible for me to hear myself think (with all their chanting nonsense), snarled traffic, and made me two HOURS late getting home to my kids, YES.

As far as I'm concerned, they all belong in small claims court, paying me my hourly rate for the two hours of my life they selfishly wasted.

I'd have said the SAME THING if they were marching for something I wholeheartedly support, so politics play no part in this.

[audtatious]

So you have a right to use the police to deny entrance to someone you invited to or cite someone for something they haven't done yet just because you don't like their politics and they may cause a distraction? Don't invite them in the first place!

He has an open forum for discussion. Discussion is 2-way communication to get thoughts and ideas out. The anti-Bush, McSame people don't care about 2-way communication so why should they be allowed in there? That's like having open doors for Code Pink to be there (which they probably will anyway) and expecting to have open discussion without interrupting the whole thing.

[ishkabibble]

Yet another attempt rationalization by the righties on this forum. It's OK when McCain does it, bad when Obama does it.

[audtatious]

Where has Obama had to remove Republicans who were interrupting him? Are you stating that keeping someone from disrupting a speech by having them leave the venue is the same as what Obama is doing in Missouri? You kidding me?

[ishkabibble]

Where has Obama had to remove Republicans who were interrupting him?

That's your own perceived issue, not mine.

Are you stating that keeping someone from disrupting a speech by having them leave the venue is the same as what Obama is doing in Missouri? You kidding me?

Yep. You have zero proof that the woman holding a sign in the lobby was going to do anything disruptive.

You kidding me?

[audtatious]

That's your own perceived issue, not mine.

Perceived how? I can point to the RNC for one with Code Pink interrupting numerous times, along with others, and I can find quite a few links where "protesters" are constantly interrupting meetings. You know it happens all the time.

Yep. You have zero proof that the woman holding a sign in the lobby was going to do anything disruptive.

Where is your proof that she wasn't? Her word?

[ishkabibble]

This librarian was Code Pink or intended to be disruptive? You kidding me? Have you seen the video of her arrest?

Ah, yes, let's start "proactively" arresting people for wrongdoing just like we have "pre-emptive" wars. Minority Report, here we come.

Innocent until proven guilty. I don't have to prove anything; you do.

[audtatious]

No I have not watched the video and I could really care less at this point as the cops acting stupid towards one librarian is FAR different than cops and officials promoting one Presidential candidate within a state.

[ishkabibble]

In both cases, law enforcement is used to quash dissent. That's pretty equal in my book, and it's completely consistent with the Republicans urinating all over 1st Amendment rights for the past 8 years.

You could care less? Or couldn't? Anyway, more proof of the right's lack of objectivity. Fascism is overlooked if the right does it, evil if the left does it.

[audtatious]

I'm not overlooking it. You didn't ask me if I called BS on it or not. I just have some understanding of why it could happen due to past issues. That does not mean I approve.

Let's not get into a grammar contest.

[Jager]

ish that makes ZERO sense.

if the article was discussing how obama at a DNC get together had protesters arrested sure then yeah it floats. however the article is discussing how law enforcement is actively looking for anti obama information or anything particularly bad image wise for him as i understand it.

so unless this is limited to a convention the left is pissing all over the 1st amendment by using police to push propaganda. so if i get a traffic ticket in Missouri they are gonna let me know how obama is gonna save me taxes so i can pay my ticket?

that seems rather retarded no? if its true it makes the left alot closer to fascism then youd think.

[ishkabibble]

so if i get a traffic ticket in Missouri they are gonna let me know how obama is gonna save me taxes so i can pay my ticket?

that seems rather retarded no?

Ironically, your comment shows your ignorance and makes ZERO sense relative to the discussion. Please at least research the issue a bit before trying to discredit me.

The "Truth Squads" are groups of Dems, some of whom include law enforcement officials and Attorneys, who plan on speaking out against known campaign ethics violations in Missouri. They have stated openly that they are not going to use their official capacities to prosecute offenders.

The biased reporting you are seeing here is based on a botched report by a local news channel and subsequent statement made by a highly partisan governor. Like much of the right-wing vitriol, it's untruthful propaganda.

[audtatious]

The "Truth Squads" are groups of Dems, some of whom include law enforcement officials and Attorneys, who plan on speaking out against known campaign ethics violations in Missouri. They have stated openly that they are not going to use their official capacities to prosecute offenders.

That's not what the reports said. Why do you find it OK for them to do it for Obama but not for truth in general across the board? It's not like you are voting for him in the first place.

[ishkabibble]

I'm not overlooking it. You didn't ask me if I called BS on it or not. I just have some understanding of why it could happen due to past issues. That does not mean I approve.

I'm not going to ask you if you call BS on something that you appear to be defending. It's up to you to state your position, not up to me to pry it out of you.

Just so we are clear about my position, I call BS on the right's pre-emptive arrests and the left's use of government employees to perform partisan work. I feel that they are both suppressive of dissent, and as such fall into the same category.

[audtatious]

Then I tend to agree with you.

[ishkabibble]

That's not what the reports said.

Edited due to thread chronology: Here is Jennifer Joyce's statement:

"As a citizen, I believe that elections should be about issues. I also have enormous respect for our First Amendment and freedom of speech. My sole purpose in participating in this initiative is about getting truthful information to the voters. This has never been or never will be about prosecuting people.

Clearly there are those who are attempting to twist the purpose of this initiative for their own benefit. This attack is a great example of how the truth is distorted in campaigns and what we’re trying to stand up against."

[Jager]

its a simplified statement showing exactly how it "can" be perceived, and its sarcasm. sorry that you missed that part ish, but my "ignorance" of the issue in general is much less then you'd think.

regardless of personal beliefs or political views i expect that my law enforcement personnel and my district attorneys state attorneys etc distance themselves from political statements while in office. It does not help them do their job, and it makes mountains out of molehills almost every time.

I really could care less that missouri state law enforcement is trying to highlight "truths" out of campaign lies. good luck to them as no politician gets elected without snowing the public and bull****ting. It annoys me that people see this as a right versus left issue, when its one of a job that should remain above political leanings before we as a nation go too far in persecuting the other sides. if the cops cant stay unbiased as we have seen in the past, it becomes something of an us versus them mentality, be it race, religion, area of birth (rednecks versus city folk stereotypes) etc. and it hinders their ability to do their job, there has been more then one case where a public prosecutor or a cop being publically adamant about their viewpoints on issues getting them in serious hot water in important cases and sometimes losing the case due to bias or non impartial trial rulings.

i expect my law enforcement personnel when on the job to uphold the law regardless of their views on it. if its something they dont agree with fine, work to change it, but law enforcement is held to a higher standard when in uniform or on the job. politics has to stay at the door as much as possible to be fair to everyone.

[audtatious]

Which is why I stated I would have no problem if they were doing it both ways. But they are not....

[Jesda]

Just so we are clear about my position, I call BS on the right's pre-emptive arrests and the left's use of government employees to perform partisan work. I feel that they are both suppressive of dissent, and as such fall into the same category.

Protests are okay, but it is not okay to block people from going to work. Physical intimidation is not free speech. I have the same standard for war protesters as well as abortion clinic protesters.