« Doggone It, Air America Is Going Down | Home | Air America Has Their Panties In A Bunch »
Police Union Endorses Kerry… Why?
By Matt Margolis | May 15, 2004
John Kerry has received an endorsement from the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO)– which backed Bush in the 2000 election. What does this mean? Not much really, because Interestingly enough, this same union also endorsed Bill Clinton back in 1992 and 1996. David Holway, who was elected President of the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), which is the parent organization of the IBPO, in September of 2002, hails from Cambridge, MA. The union itself is based in Quincy, MA.
Take that for what its worth. John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and is now against it. In a statement provided by the Kerry campaign, Holway, (from Cambridge, MA, by the way) said:
“After 3 1/2 years of disappointing leadership under George Bush, we need to change course in November and elect a president with a real record of supporting police officers and a lifetime of standing with law enforcement.”
But what’s the real truth?
Bernard Kerik, former NYC Police Commissioner issued the following statement regarding Kerry’s remarks to the International Brotherhood of Police Officers:
“John Kerry’s attacks on the President over his support for police and first responders are completely detached from reality. President Bush has provided unprecedented support for first responders. Under the President’s leadership, the federal government has provided more than $13 billion to state and local governments to prepare for terrorism. Last year, President Bush increased funding for the State Domestic Preparedness Program by 2,600 percent over the funding levels when he came into office. The President’s 2005 budget allocates $3.561 billion to state and local governments, an increase of $3.1 billion or 680 percent over the previous administration.
“The President has given law enforcement the tools to do their job in the Patriot Act, while John Kerry attacks the law on the campaign trail. The Patriot Act is giving federal, state and law enforcement officials the same tools to bring terrorists to justice that they have long had to investigate and prosecute organized crime. This law is critical to the ongoing War on Terror.
“John Kerry attacked the President for overemphasizing the War on Terror on the same day that Osama Bin Laden issued a new threat against the United States. The President needs no reminder that we are at war against terrorism. His steady leadership in the War on Terror is the reason that we are fighting the terrorists in Baghdad instead of Boston.”
Do these facts matter to the Kerry campaign? Probably not, after all, Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and now (as of Saturday, May 15, 2004) is speaking out against it. I guess for Kerry, law enforcement is just another “program” to throw money at. The campaign cites cuts to the COPS program, crying that it took cops off the streets, when back in 2001, the Heritage Foundation released a study on the ineffectiveness of that program, including it’s failure to reduce crime, failure to put more cops on the streets, and failure to promote effective crime-fighting strategies. If Kerry wants to fund an ineffective program instead of really fighting crime, then that’s his problem.
Browsing through Kerry’s webpage on the endorsement, I saw one claim which sparked some curiosity: ” Kerry is a National Leader in Working to Ban “Cop Killer Bullets.”
I wonder what John Kerry has to say about his wife’s financing of the Tides Foundation. Amongst many other radical left causes it supports, it also funds the National Lawyers Guild, which earlier this year posted a petition for “Post-Conviction Relief” for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. [Hat tip to Frontpage Magazine]
Isn’t that interesting? Kerry’s wife funds an organization that supports a convicted cop-killer.
Did the IBPO know that?
Kerry can glow over this endorsement all he wants, but when he thinks funding ineffective programs and letting his wife’s money go towards supporting a cop killer, one has to question his committment to reducing crime.
Topics: Blogs For Bush |
Related Posts:
May 15th, 2004 at 6:12 pm
Un-Freakin’-Believable
Look, here’s the deal, Matt, Bush has lost the full-on support of the Police and the NRA all in the same week. I can’t believe I have to explain this to a republican, but supporting the police is about more than creating bureaucracy and hating crimin…
May 16th, 2004 at 2:21 am
Lost the support of the NRA?
May 16th, 2004 at 11:10 am
I posted this at B4B:
Maybe that’s a bit too conspiracy-theory like, but it’s a possibility. Apparently Dukakis had a similar problem in 88
May 17th, 2004 at 12:02 am
Yeah. Playing to the police union really boosted Dukakis in 88, didn’t it? I can still hear the screams of those protesters Lloyd Bentsen pepper-sprayed to court the cop vote. Anyway, thanks for an entertaining blog.
May 18th, 2004 at 5:22 pm
“… the federal government has provided more than $13 billion to state and local governments to prepare for terrorism…”
Except that the number 1 target is New York City (Washington D.C. contending) and every village was put into the mix diluting the amount of money NYC gets. As always, once government starts giving out money, everybody tries to get a piece. Little is really awarded based on merit or need. That is why we get phone calls around Christmas from our police precinct, asking for a bit of charity.
May 19th, 2004 at 12:44 pm
“(IBPO)– which backed Bush in the 2000 election. What does this mean? Not much really, because Interestingly enough, this same union also endorsed Bill Clinton back in 1992 and 1996.
Doesn’t mean much, huh? Well, it looks like the IBPO has a pretty good track record of supporting the eventual winner of the presidency. But of course, we are dealing with Marolislogic. Contradictions so confounding that not even the most rudimentary truths have a chance (e.g. 2+2 = 1.4 or a Bush victory).
May 19th, 2004 at 12:53 pm
So Cole, are you suggesting the the IPBO has the divine knowledge to predict the winner of the presidential election? I’m guessing you’d researched enough to find out just how many times they’ve endorsed the loser in a presidential race?
you’re getting a false sense of comfort over this. But hey, if you want to pretend like this seals the deal for a Kerry victory, be my guest.
May 19th, 2004 at 2:38 pm
“divine knowledge?”
No Matt… Your own post indicates that the IBPO has endorsed the winner of the last 3 presidential elections.
May 19th, 2004 at 5:46 pm
right, but i didn’t swoon over the fact they endorsed the winning candidate 3 times in a row. i fail to see the viability of that coincidence.
May 20th, 2004 at 1:19 pm
Saying it’s BAD that a police union is endorsing Kerry? This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to bashing Kerry. Shouldn’t Bush be campaigning on positive things? I mean, Bush Supporters keep insisting Bush’s approval ratings are 90% and climbing, the Iraq War ended May 1st, 2003 by virtue of Bush strutting around in a flight suit and that gas is $1 a gallon and dropping.
May 21st, 2006 at 5:39 pm
arizona hotels
underestimates deducting dealership Auerbach Hubert pathways:hotel rooms http://www.secured-hotels.com/ livable hazy hotel http://hotel.hotels-activity.com/
August 27th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Online Automobiles Insurance
Campbell forte Gaul vented soothsayer parapet detaches octahedra Automobiles Insurance http://www.theautomobilesinsurance.com/