Crime is dark horse issue of 2010

Taxpayer Association of Oregon,

The Statesman Journal reports that 4,169 inmates are eligible for early release options created by the 2009 soft-on-crime Legislature. In Marion County, 70 inmates have their request before the local judge. Some have been released already and are getting into trouble. One thing we know about criminals who leave early is that they have a great history of getting back into crime. With a possible 4,000 new early release criminals going free, it is a chemistry for disaster. Did the politicians not consider this when they voted? Is people’s safety something that the lawmakers will expect the public to ignore.

These eligble criminals are your favortite variety such as child abusers, domestic voilence offenders, drunk driuvers with multiple arrests. Down south, Bill Whalen at Stanford University saw how this issue created a sudden backlash in California years ago and is predicting a comeback in 2010.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 19 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    No, the politicians did not consider anything when making this stupid decision.
    They are, for the most part, brain dead.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think anyone will give a crap about this in 2010. Oregon’s unemployment is over 10% and climbing. The state budget is screwed because revenues will be lower than anticipated, meaning either a tax hike or reductions in benefits to the poor when the poor are most in need of benefits – and there will be a special session in February where the legislature and governor will have to make this no-win decision. 10-1 they go for more job-killing tax hikes.

    When voters fill out their 2010 ballots, the ONLY things they will care about are jobs, the economy and taxes. No one will care one way or the other about crime, education, abortion, gay marriage, or any other non-issue.

    Message to the GOP: you can win, and win BIG, if you are the party of jobs, the economy and taxes. But if voters think you want to ram through social issues before fixing the fiscal dam that is about to burst, you can expect to finish third in the election, because the voters WILL advance a third party that puts the right priorities first. And as we see in NY-23 right now, third parties are no longer just spoilers. *In this scenario in Oregon, the third party might not win, and the democrats may maintain power, but the GOP will come in third, and the GOP will be seen as the spoiler.*

    You are on notice.

    • Jerry

      Right on. These so-called Republicans are so stupid it makes me sick. They need to forget about social issues. Government needs to get out of our lives, not in. If they can’t figure that out they are gone!
      Witness what happened in NY 23.
      These RINOS are history.
      Fools.

    • Anonymous

      What a punk this guy is. Sounds like Rupert.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        I have a feeling you are my friend who got caught up misusing Latin phrases he didn’t understand. I didn’t think the humor of your presence would go much beyond that but I see it does, you provide morning foolishness as well. Thank you for your antics.

        • Anonymous

          Good morning, Rupert.

          I’m the anonymous from the other thread. The above was not from me.
          It is funny though, isn’t it? Maybe it was Jerry? Trying to start trouble? LOL

          yours truly,
          Commander Mamscam

        • Anonymous

          P.S. an ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >P.S. an ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

            Actually it is not, at least in terms of classifying an mode of argument. I think maybe that’s how you got into trouble the last time, using the terms interchangeably.

            Anyway, Its kind of flattering to have such a fan club of anons following me.

          • Anonymous

            I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I’m going to go ahead and defer to the expertise of someone other than you though.

            https://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem

            https://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm

            Don’t be shy, Rupert. Respond to my response in the original thread. It’s fun, right?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Actually I do regard it as fun. I suppose I have some fame through this little endeavor if, as is clear by your example, enough seem to follow my writing on a regular basis. Do I wish everyone agreed with me? Maybe. Am I glad I have followers such as yourself? Definitely. There is something kind of nice about it. The chance to educate as well is something of a bonus.

          • Anonymous

            Fame? That’s just weird, dude.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >I’m going to go ahead and defer to the expertise of someone other than you though.

            I would suggest you do. Those web sites are correct. An ad hominem attack is a type of logical fallacy. The two terms are not interchangeable however, which as I said is what you were doing in the prior thread. I think if you read through those sites you will see the distinction, and see how your construct of an ad hominem attack in the last thread was in fact not an ad hominem attack, but in fact a general logical fallacy.

            I do commend you for actually looking into this, it seems to have cleared things up for you and that a good thing.

          • Anonymous

            >I would suggest you do. Those web sites are correct. An ad hominem attack is a type of logical fallacy.

            *sigh*

            You have some serious semantic issues, man. “an ad hominem is a logical fallacy” That is a complete thought, Rupert. That it is a type of logical fallacy is implicit in the sentence.

            >The two terms are not interchangeable however,

            No one ever said they were. See above.

            >which as I said is what you were doing in the prior thread. I think if you read through those sites
            >you will see the distinction, and see how your construct of an ad hominem attack in the last thread
            >was in fact not an ad hominem attack, but in fact a general logical fallacy.
            >I do commend you for actually looking into this, it seems to have cleared things up for you and
            >that a good thing.

            Wow. Best of luck to you in all things, Rupert.

  • v person

    Hate to correct people, but the main reason the Beck 3rd party candidate in NY beat out the so-called RINO is that the latter was for abortion rights and gay marriage. Those are in fact social, no economic issues. Apparently her record was pretty conservative on economic matters.

    But hey…its all fun to watch from here.

    • Anonymous

      I respectfully disagree. I believe that had Dede been socially liberal, but still fiscally conservative, and had she opposed bailouts, opposed more big government spending, and supported tax cuts, she would have had no opposition from the right. Sure, some social conservatives might have been holding their nose, but they would have given tepid support. And, with no conservative opposition, she might be winning the race right now.

      But she did not do these things. She did the opposite of these things. And she did the opposite IN ADDITION to social liberalism.

      Now consider the converse:

      Suppose she had been the same big government, fiscally liberal, candidate – but also was strongly pro-life and opposed to gay marriage… who would that have made her like? Sounds like GWB and John McCain to me. Well, GWB and John McCain were never purged from the party. But GWB’s popularity (or lack thereof) combined with tepid support for McCain handed NY-23 to Obama in 2008.

      I believe we have seen in today’s race that the formula for GOP success is to get back to the fundamentals of limited government – and this means not just fiscally, but socially, too. We don’t need government in our bedrooms. I am not saying the GOP needs to suddenly embrace abortion or go all gay. But maybe these are issues where intelligent people can disagree, and we can continue to debate and discuss them while we all come together to move forward with smaller government, lower taxes, more economic and personal freedom.

      The GOP will win in 2010 and 2012 if it nominates someone who puts these domestic issues ahead of any “social” issues:

      Stop spending money
      Shrink government
      Cut taxes
      Cut bureaucracy
      Get out of people’s lives

      If the GOP instead gets behind someone who wants to put abortion and gay marriage at the forefront, we lose.

      Again, this doesn’t mean we need a pro-choice pro-gay nominee. On the contrary. We can win with a candidate who is socially conservative. But the candidate needs to be willing to let the people decide and focus on jobs, the economy, and taxes.

      Shrink government first. Debate social issues after we fix the other problems.

      • v person

        Look at where the core of the Republican party is located these days….that being the Bible belt. There is no way that Republicans can run nationally without kowtowing to social conservatives, and as long as they do that they can’t win in places like Oregon. This is the problem, or challenge, of a 2 party system. In a parlimentary system you could have a party of social conservatives and a party of economic conservatives who can form a governing coalition now and then, otherwise going their own ways. But in our system you need a marriage of disharmonious parts on a more or less permanent basis. For Republicans that means: defense hawks (expensive & bloody,) fiscal conservatives (breaking budgets to fight wars & cut taxes,) and social conservatives (who don’t care about budgets or necessarily support overseas entanglements). President Bush embodied all 3 of these as well as Reagan did. He failed because of the inherent contradictions in the goals of each party led to intolerance, unnecessary wars, and avoidable deficits.

        The Democrats have the same problems holding together many different parts with very different priorities: labor, environmentalists, progressive business, intellectuals, minorities, women, poor people, & gays. Centrifugal versus centripetal forces at odds. Eventually they will crash over their own internal contradictions. The only question is how long eventually takes.

        To the extent that Republicans continue their purge of moderates, whether these are social or economic moderates, they will shrink faster than they grow. There are not enough tea-partiers to make up anywhere close to a majority nation wide. And simple demographics do not favor any program that will eventually have to cut benefits to geezers who like their SSI and Medicare as is.

        Lastly, the right is finding fertile ground in opposing the expansive government agenda of Obama. Huge deficits scare people, and rightly so. But the question remains, what will the right actually cut if they regain power? Defense spending? No way. They are pushing Obama to double down in Afghanistan and stay in Iraq forever, plus attack Iran. Medicare? Can’t go there after the whole death panel thing. SSI? Once burned twice shy. Veterans benefits? Not very patriotic. Sell off the National Parks or Forests? Not very popular. What does that leave? Deficits as far s the eye can see. Right back to Bush.

        • Anonymous

          “Look at where the core of the Republican party is located these days….that being the Bible belt.”

          Gee, I didn’t know the Bible Belt extended up to New Jersey.

          BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

      • eagle eye

        Stop spending money
        Shrink government
        Cut taxes
        Cut bureaucracy
        Get out of people’s lives

        What is your plan for the above? Eliminate social security and medicare (and medicaid)? End the war in Afghanistan? Bring all American armed forces home (from Europe, Japan, Korea ….)?

        I ask because what you ask for can’t be done otherwise.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, eliminate social security and medicaid, at least in their current forms. We need to transition to privatization of social security, and why in hell are we giving out so damned many benefits to people who have 10 kids and smoke dope?

          End the war in Afghanistan? Well, YES. We sure as hell aren’t in it to win it. Pull out. Cut losses. And by all means, bring the troops home from Europe. I mean, Russia swears it won’t attack anyone, so why do we have 200,000 troops still guarding the Iron Curtain?

          How about gutting education spending? We spend more and more each year, and kids get dumber and dumber. Money is not the solution! Privatize, vouchers, charter schools – hell, why not just turn it over to the Catholic Church? I’d be willing to break that “wall of separation” in exchange for a generation of youth who can read and do basic math.

          And as for cutting bureaucracy and getting out of people’s lives, this doesn’t cost anything. We can do it right now, save money, grow the economy, and everybody wins. Well, everybody except government bureaucrats… and who the hell cares about them?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)