This analysis from Bloomberg Politics:What he’s got: Executive experience as a two-term mayor of Baltimore and two-term governor of Maryland; an extensive, largely consistent liberal record on issues that matter to the Democratic nominating electorate, from gay marriage and immigration to gun control, capital punishment, and the minimum wage; plausible breakout potential in Iowa (where he has spent a ton of time, starting in 1984 as a door-knocker for Gary Hart); a keen understanding of both the tactics and strategies of winning campaigns; a fresh, dauntingly handsome face, boyish charm, and energy to burn.What he lacks: Even minimal name recognition, let alone an avid following, outside the Old Line State; national security credentials; a shred of evidence that his efforts to court his party’s Elizabeth Warren wing are paying off; an economic message clearly distinct from that of Hillary Clinton—or as clearly distinctive as that of Bernie Sanders; the focus to shine reliably on the stump.
Certainly an unknown here in Aussie.His support for gun control will probably be a millstone round his neck if the recent events in Texas are any indiction.Even Pro Gun nutters here are appalled at the Texan move to permit holstered guns on the street. What message does this lunacy send to the impressionable kids?. Wyatt Erp,Doc Holliday. Billy the kid and the James brothers all ride again. This time they will be stoned on crack and will have automatics rather than the clumsy six shooters made by Mr. Colt. What does it say for the manhood of a citizen when he feels the need to carry a loaded pistol in plain view along the main street of an American city? If Texan men are so effeminate then there should be a good market for mirrors and means grooming accessories.,
Kingston, Texans were recently panicked when army troops were doing training exercises in their state. Rumors abounded that Obama was going to take over the state and form a military dictatorship (I couldn't make this stuff up). What message does that lunacy send to children?
LOL,Perhaps they should deploy to Baltimore or Ferguson where they could be of more use.What's sad is this government/president generates such mistrust. But you missed that part didn't you.
In my opinion, this is not mistrust, this is insanity.
Of course you would see it as insanity.You would also see nothing wrong with the over reach of executive orders nor anything wrong with the open border policy of this administration.Perspective is everything.
Well, first of all, you have no idea what I would think. And, secondly, if anyone thinks that Obama is going to use the army to invade a state and set up a military dictatorship, they are obviously mentally deficient. That has nothing at all to do with overreach of executive orders or open border policy.
And you left out the other part, I could care less. If your a typical liberal/progressive, rule of law is not your strong suit.
K,If you listen to O'Malley's speech, he hits on every progressive talking point. He's pandering to the Warren contingency in the Demo party.The Times article is the lite version of his platform.Something with a bit more information, plus his speech:http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-30/martin-o-malley-delivers-powerful-campaign-kickoff-speech
O"Malley does have a ding in his armor. A lot of the police tactics resulting in the recent troubles in Baltimore are directly attributed to his time as mayor of that fine city. And speaking of Baltimore we spent a day there enjoying the Preakness. What a hell hole that place is. Pimlico Racetrack I mean. It fits in well with the rest of the city.
A nice line for the media.Something else from the media:O’Malley is referring to 1999-2009 data from the FBI, which tracks crimes reported to law enforcement agencies. Part 1 crimes are serious crimes that are likely to be reported to police, and are divided into violent and property crimes. These crimes include criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson and motor vehicle theft.O’Malley usually clarifies that he is referring to Part 1 (i.e., overall) crimes.FBI data confirm his calculation. The overall crime rate (the number of crimes per 100,000 people) fell by 48 percent during that decade, more than any other large police agency in the country. Specifically for violent crimes, the Baltimore City Police Department saw the third highest drop (behind Los Angeles and New York City) during the period.In 1999, Baltimore had the highest violent and property crime rate among the major police agencies in the country. In 2009, the city dropped to the 13th highest.Some criminologists measure the number of homicides to measure crime levels. In 2009, Baltimore saw the lowest homicide rates since O’Malley took office. (Prior to his tenure, however, there was a high homicide rate following the crack cocaine epidemic.) But the city’s homicide rate was still ranked second highest out of cities with more than 500,000 residents.Baltimore was not alone. The city’s drop in crime rates mirrored a national trend, as other major cities saw large drops leading up to 2009, with some at decades-low levels.One of O’Malley’s strategies, which he refers to in the Iowa speech, was the measuring of input and output. Baltimore began using CompStat, which started in New York City in 1994 and closely tracked arrest data and practices. This strategy is linked to the “zero-tolerance” policy that some large police departments adopted at the time.Such approach to policing led to increased arrests. By 2005, well into O’Malley’s tenure as mayor, Baltimore police arrested so many people that judges had to free arrestees because they could not get court hearings within 24 hours, as required, according to the Baltimore Sun. That year, there were 108,447 people arrested in a city of roughly 600,000 residents. According to a June 2010 report by the Justice Policy Institute, about two-thirds of the people in jail were there for non-violent offenses.A new police commissioner switched the arrest strategy to target the most violent offenders, driving down arrest numbers to 77,595 in 2009, the Baltimore Sun reported.
Critics now point to O’Malley’s record, saying the zero-tolerance approach contributed to the current tensions between Baltimore residents and the police department. But Baltimore has had a long history of racial tensions amid allegations of police brutality, dating to the late 1970s and early 1980s.The FBI cautions against making comparisons with its data, in a warning published annually with its crime statistics. The agency cautions the media, tourism agencies and others in the public from using reported crime figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings “lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions,” as there are many variables that factor into the unique geographic and demographic situation in a city or state.Steven Kearney, a former O’Malley adviser, said the “ambitious” policing, guided by CompStat and similar principles of measuring arrests, was just one of O’Malley’s approach to driving down crime rates. He also created policies and to hold police officers accountable, increase the availability of drug treatment and provide more opportunities for children and students in schools, Kearney said.Kearney acknowledged that many factors contribute to lowered crime rates during any government official’s tenure, but there is only so much government can control: “It’s government’s responsibility to make a difference where it can. Baltimore’s policing strategy evolved over time and as violent crime was reduced, arrests also declined — a trend that has continued in the years since. Baltimore has made a lot of progress reducing crime, but the work certainly continues.”The Pinocchio TestAt The Fact Checker, we often are critical of politicians bragging about successes during their term — such as job gains and drops in crime — that can result from numerous factors out of their control. Such claims usually result in Two Pinocchios. But O’Malley uses a specific measurement of FBI data, and his claim about Part 1 crime rates from 1999-2009 check out. It is to his credit that he references this wonky measurement most of the time in his statements, when most politicians would be tempted to drop that caveat.One Pinocchio awarded.
Thanks Lou, without you I would be less able to sift the wheat from the chaff. I fear it is the chaff which makes up most of the debate in America and the grains of wheat are well hidden in the rhetoric.I watched the speech in its entirety, pretty mush the same as the opening speeches of a National election here with plenty of rhetoric. Some points worth remarking on.(1) The claim the US won the second world war is as offensive now as it was in 1945.Perhaps Mr.Omalley has a selective memory or perhaps he was not born then and has no first hand experience of the war against Germany fought by others before and after Pearl Harbor. (2)O’Malley’s crusade against Wall Street is a fair point and his reference to bringing back Glass Steigal is laudable. It will not happen however until Congress is once again controlled by the Dems. Overall, I thought it a good speech and the American supporters of the Democratic Party now have a viable choice.I posted on this topic as a means of registering my disgust at the changes in the Texas laws on gun ownership. I do not have the ability to initiate topics so I crave your pardon if I am sufficiently incensed to break into a topic in order to make my point. Perhaps I should not be surprised at the lack of reaction from others, you have apparently become insensitive to the mindless killing of so many innocents as you follow the pursuit of a “right” chiseled in stone, perhaps the second amendment could be writ large on Mount Rushmore; chiseled by craftsmen belonging to the NRA.Cheers from Aussie
The gun issue is problematic no matter how you look at it. Get rid of handguns. Many people would comply and turn them in. The criminal faction, gangs would of course laugh.I cannot fathom how that would turn out as we are a brutal country. People here cry of the poor black people are being killed by the police. Black on Black murder is far more a problem Yet ignored by the media as it lacks sensationalism.Interesting article from CBS, St. Louis ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – The shooting death of Michael Brown has unleashed a torrent of pent-up hostility against local police.But a University of Missouri – St. Louis researcher says emotions aside, the number of black youth who have been fatally shot by white police officers has been fairly low in recent years.Criminology professor David Klinger told KMOX’s Charlie Brennan that he conducted a thorough, decade-long study that showed there were 1,265 murders over that time, with 90 percent of the victims being black. And 90 percent of those black victims were killed by other blacks.“While I understand the people are concerned about the use of deadly force by the police, by far – about 50 to 1 – more blacks in St. Louis are killed by other blacks as compared to white police officers,” Klinger says.Over that same period, Klinger says 31 blacks were killed by police officers – 21 by white police officers.“The sad fact is, we had well over a thousand black-on-black homicides in the city of St. Louis during that same decade,” he says.