“I will not raise taxes” and “I will enforce the death penalty”
Garren Shipley has two thoughtful and provocative posts on his blog “A View from the Cheap Seats” about Kaine’s stay of ALL executions, including that of convicted police murderer Edward Bell which was set for Apr. 8, while the Supreme Court deliberates on the constitutionality of lethal injection.
First, is Shipley’s very poignant remembrances of covering this story.
I’ve watched the Timbrook family on several occasions weep silently and not so silently as lawyers from the attorney general’s office describe Sgt. Timbrook’s death in vivid detail. I’ve seen a look of powerless, frustrated anger overtake the eyes of his colleagues when they talk about it.
It’s the kind of raw agony that really defies description.
I’ve also seen Edward Bell’s children light up like Christmas morning when they see their father, shackled and under guard, smile and wave to them from the front of a courtroom, and even more recently heard what could only be described as rapturous relief in the voice of family members upon being told of Kaine’s decision to stay.
Unfortunately, Sgt. Timbrook will never be able to see his family again either.
Second, he recalls Kilgore’s “Kelly” ad which doomed the Kilgore campaign then, but seems all to prescient today.
Which brings us to the two biggest lies of the past seven years: “I will not raise your taxes” and “I will enforce the death penalty.”
When will Virginians cease to be gulled into the hypocrisy of Democrats?
When they say they won’t raise your taxes, you know that they will.
And when they say they will “enforce the death penalty” and “carry out death sentences handed down by Virginia juries because that’s the law” (Kaine campaign ad in 2005), you know that they won’t.
When Democrats promise something that is not in keeping with their platform, don’t believe they’ll stick to the promise for minute. My question is really who is more at fault — the elected official or the people who put them there, believing the hollow promise, in the first place?
Category: Campaigns and Elections
Loading ...
I agree with Republican Delegate Frank Hargrove in that we should end state sponsored murder.
I believe that life without parole is the humane solution that would punish the guilty, yet permit the redemption of their souls, while also permitting the possibility that new evidence may be discovered that exonerates the convicted person.
Anyone who closely observes our government in action knows how fallible these bureaucrats are. It is foolish to trust a group that can’t even get a parking ticket straight to murder someone in the name of justice.
It is better that we curb our lust for blood and vengeance, so that we do not ere.
permit the redemption of their souls? What in heck does that have to do with it?
This illegal alien killed a cop and in about a decade, magical evidence hasn’t appeared in his numerous appeals.
And I’m sure that police officer’s family would be thrilled to know you equate the punishment of the murderer who killed their husband/father with a parking ticket.
I believe the subject of the post was not the merits of capital punishment, but the hypocrisy of our last two Democratic governors.
Not only did an illegal alien kill this police office, its the way he went about doing it that is so gruesome.
This many deserves NOTHING from our Gov. Let the U.S. Supreme court stay it if they so choose but Kaine should NOT be soft on cold blooded cop killers.
I can essentially guarantee you that Jerry Kilgore and Bob McDonnell would not be soft on those who kill police officers in cold blood..
“I believe the subject of the post was not the merits of capital punishment, but the hypocrisy of our last two Democratic governors.”
Jim, and there’s nothing really to stop these folks when they’re one-termers and the voters can’t do anything about them.
Without that, we have to rely on their own integrity, and with these two Democrats, we see how far that went.
The fact is that the matter of lethal injection is before the Supremes. It’s nice to have a Governor who considers carefully the taking of each human life.
Moreover, it is becoming obvious that the majority of Virignians support the actions of Tim Kaine and the Dems – which is why Mark Warner will be Virginia’s second Dem Senator.
If only they could be honest about their views from the beginning….
Whew, thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. We can all be glad that Republicans are honest about their views… and would never… (insert all of W’s promises from 1999 here – or Romney ver 1.0 v. Romney ver 2.0, or John McCain circa 1999 v. John McCain circa 2008, or Sen Vitter family values candidate v. Sen Vitter prostitute “John”, or Sen Craig homophobe v. Sen Craig homo-lover, or…).
Or Ragnar now compared to when he first joined Bearing Drift.
Just looking for Dems to be true to themselves, Rags. We knew Kaine was a liberal Catholic in 2005 and here we are in 2008 with him finally behaving the way we always knew he would. Isn’t it more liberating just to be honest and let the chips fall where they may? Or are Dems just too fearful of not getting elected?
Kaine lied. He knew he would not keep to his word. Taxes, Capital punishment… whatever the topic. Had he said he liked Chocolate and then banned it from the state, he still lied.
The fact is, Kaine promised, ran commercials and said in interviews infact, that he would do A and B. He has now done the opposite.
What is that called?
Now some of our friends on the left think it is ok because they can simply point out the faults of others to justify it.
Although this enabling method may help some sleep atr night, the fact remains… Kaine lied. He is a liar.
As for the merits of the death penalty, Kaine SHOULD have said he was against it and would stop it from happening. He should have said he WOULD raise taxes. Why didn’t he? Because he KNEW he had to lie to win.
He did and he won.
Ok, so now here comes more anti-death penalty or “Republicans suck” Comments… but not a one of those comments will adress the fact that Kaine lied, period… not matter what anyone else did or does, HE is the Gov, and HE lied to get the votes and now the proof is in the actions.
For every “Well this Republican did this, or that” comment, ytou have to understand the same Republicans you are bitching about are no better that Kaine then…
*ding, ding, ding, ding, ding* We have a winner!
“Don, tell the kid what’s he’s won!”
- A four-year supply of obfuscations and aspersions cast by our mutual friend, Ragnar.
Why does BK always attack me personally? Hmmm… I’m the same guy I always was, I believe both the parties are corrupted by money, moreover I think they believe that they are an aristocracy – as for my regular criticisms of Bush, I simply believe that in the last 7 years W. and his cronies have managed to make the Administration look worse and more corrupt than either of the two parties did prior to 2000.
FYI, in this case, I was only trying to point out the fallacy of claiming clean hands on one side, we all know that lying to get elected is as bi-partisan an activity as any.
Now, if only I could, just once hear he who would condemn me say anything positive about the Dems, or anything negative about the GOP.
oh my god, Jim. You were right!
You can’t offer anything but criticism can you? Thank you for not being a Dem, we’ve got enough of that with Hillary.
Ragnar, you are one of the most amusingly easy liberals to debate. Let’s roll through the archives and see how well “You can’t offer anything but criticism can you?” applies to you.
Let’s roll through the archives and see how many times you comment on a post of mine and your comment is about me, not the post.
But the second I shine a little of the ol’ truth light in your direction, you whine like a prom queen whose mascara started to run.
You sure do whine a lot.
PS – if you think I’M a liberal, you really have no idea what a liberal is.
You left out “Nyah Nyah”
Ok, Ragweed isn’t a liberal. He isn’t a Republican. He isn’t a Democrat. Everyone is corrupt, evil and wrong….except him. He’s a sweetheart and an angel sent from above to attack everyone and cry when they raise an eyebrow back.
Rag’s likely next response? “I know you are but what am I?”
More whining. You amuse me. You have two speeds attack and whine, I’d really like to read you think outside your partisan swamp and actually defend a position sometime.
SW – as for Kaine and the death penalty, there is a serious Constitutional question regarding whether lethal injection fails to meet the test for cruel and unusual punishment. As you have probably read there appears to be debate as to how much a human suffers before dying when injected.
Ergo, regardless of your feelings towards the death penalty, as we are a nation of laws, the Governor has an obligation to wait and hear what the Supremes rule before continuing. I think almost any Republican would do the same (well, probably not W…).
The tax issue on the other hand…?
Ragnar, unlike you, I actually believe what I write. I’m not so blinded by anti-Bushism that I can’t see straight.
Take your blinders off, read away, and enjoy like the rest of us do.
“the Governor has an obligation to wait and hear what the Supremes rule”
So, if the Supreme Court was going to rule on an abortion case in the next year, you’d favor a moratorium on all abortions until the Supreme Court gets around to ruling on the case?
Bush has been a disaster as a President, heck even most Republicans who aren’t “blinded” agree with that. There are plenty who have gone from saying that they are Republicans to now simply claiming status as either Conservatives or Libertarians.
I am far more like those folks. Heck, I voted for W. in 2000. Oops. Thankfully, I vote back in Michigan – which went for Gore, so it’s not my fault.
Anyhow, as to your question – if the Supremes were to take up an abortion case, b/c of the stare decisis, it is doubtful that a moritorium would be appropriate. Although, I could imagine that such a suspension might be appropriate for certain types of abortions, late term, etc depending on the type of case taken.
In which case, or if the Supremes ordered it then yes, absolutely I would favor a moritorium. Abortion is an awful thing.
You vote in Michigan? Nice to know that thanks to the Democrats, your primary didn’t count.
On the Supreme Court, the chance of this Supreme Court overturning lethal injection is about the same as George Bush withdrawing the troops tomorrow, Barack Obama being offended by a racist preacher, and Hillary Clinton facing sniper fire.
When it’s an abortion, they can’t happen quick enough for the left. Innocent unborn life can’t end quickly enough. But put a cop killer on death row for 10 years, and the left stands up and says “More Delays!”
If only they protected the innocent with the zeal they preserve the guilty.
Again, I provide you with a reasoned response, and I’m rewarded with, surprise, empty rhetoric.
Seriously, do you have ANY thoughts that aren’t generated by the RNC? What was it that turned you into such a fundamentalist?
Ah, yes. Who’s attacking people personally?
I’ll repeat my points, just in case there are any 5-year olds reading along with you.
This Supreme Court – ain’t gonna stop Lethal Injection.
I defend innocent life before I protect cop killers.
Now, I realize you can’t refute these points, so you start namecalling, but maybe one of the 5-year olds could help you.
You didn’t make any points, you just used some simplistic bumper sticker slogans that have no meaning.
Maybe you think that is debating!?
better than your master debating…
BOYS! STOP IT! DON’T MAKE ME COME BACK THERE!
Look…how can you possibly cease to see Brian’s arguments, Ragnar. They’re completely valid.
If this was about abortion, then the left would have 24/7 abortion clinics if there was even a hint that R v. W was going to be overturned.
But, since this is about captial punishment, what does the left do? Shut down ALL duly processed cases where the ultimate punishment was meted out by a jury of their peers.
Horse pucky.
Cruel and unusual? How? Shoot, they probably used needles all their lives to begin with, so what’s one more?
Jim – perhaps that’s the problem, you and BK see this as a right v. left issue, I see it as a legal issue. The Supremes took the lethal injection issue b/c of the serious problems with the method. If we cause pain while killing someone, are we any better than they were?
There have been numerous cases of individuals – human beings, regardless of the crimes the committed – who have suffered severely as a result of lethal injection. The biggest problem is that there aren’t any doctors engaged in deciding dosage, method, etc – they have that whole “do no harm” oath. The result has been unnecessary sufferring.
We are first and foremost a nation of laws, not a nation of right and left. The Supremes want to look at the death penalty, let them. And yes, I recognize that the right owns the Court now – so it is doubtful that they will end the death penalty, but I believe it to be very likely that they may order changes in the method.
FYI, the ending of capital punishment is hardly a right v. left issue, at least not as much as you want it to be. There are plenty of Republicans who oppose the death penalty, and plenty of Dems who support it. In my opinion the practice is simply barbaric, and more importantly, violative of the New Testament. So, yes, I think it is wrong (and if the party ever does get me to run for office – had another conversation about a month ago… I will say this loudly and clearly).
“There have been numerous cases of individuals – human beings, regardless of the crimes the committed – who have suffered severely as a result of lethal injection.”
I hear some have even died from it.
The point is, the Constitution permits capital punishment but not cruel and unusual pain on the way to the death penalty.
Are you kidding me, Ragnar?
IMO, cruel and unusual doesn’t mean “don’t cause pain.” Perhaps in our tortured legal world it has come to that, but, for me, it is pretty simple…I’d be satisfied if we executed people the old fashioned way…with a bullet or noose. Far cheaper…far quicker.
It’s cruel and unusual for the victim’s family, taxpayer, the community, etc. to have endless legal battles for 95% of the animals that are out there that don’t deserve a second chance in society.
Jim – First, not kidding at all, that was the basis that the Conservative SC took the case on. Sorry – why is this a shock?
Second, there is nothing cheap about the death penatly – average costs to execute someone are north of $2,000,000. It is far cheaper to imprison someone for life.
Thirdly, how can you, endorse torturous deaths? For me, it goes against every tenent of Christianity – and particularly when you consider the manner through which Christ was killed. But, I realize others prefer the Old Testament when it comes to capital punishment.
Fourthly, there is a reason that the Founding Fathers created the 8th Amendment – it was to prevent the kind of torturing and torturous death you would seek to endorse. We can all learn from their example – it was a far more brutal world then, and look at the shining light of civilization they created with the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Shouldn’t we strive to embarce their original intent?
Findally, as for your last point, duh. We are judged NOT by how we treat the best in our society – or our friends – but by how we treat the criminals and our enemies. We are all diminished – and we shall all be judged for our actions.
If what you wrote is how you feel, we will never agree.
There are people on earth that I feel just don’t deserve to live…whether I am Christian or not.
Will I be judged on that belief? Of course. But you know what, and you’re right about the Old Testament, this is the same God that didn’t really seem to mind David killing Goliath, or an Amalekite servant, or Bathsheba’s husband…so I’ll take my chances.
Bottom line: I believe that the death penalty, provided we weren’t so receptive to appeal after endless appeal, could be far less costly if we just got on with it and did so in a fashion that just gets the job done and doesn’t think so much about the criminal’s rights.
It need not cost $2M if the day after the verdict the criminal was taken out to the courtyard and a 9mm was strategically placed in their cerebral cortex.
See, my friend, I care more about the rights of the victim’s family, the community, and the administering of justice.
Your opinion on this favors the criminal far too much for my tastes.
By the way, how is it cruel or torturous to put a bullet in someone’s brain? They did it to their victims. Or perhaps they cut their victims to pieces. Perhaps they’re the ones who sexually molested little girls until they are too weak, and then only do they strangle, burn, or stab them.
Quite frankly, a bullet to the head is probably too good for them.
Cruel and unusual meant to prevent torture…absolutely. But our founders never meant to take capital punishment off the table.
Benedict Arnold was hung. The conspirators of the Lincoln assassination were hung. And their are countless other less-known examples of justice being meted out.
Only recently has the left begun this mythology that capital punishment is cruel and unusual. And it’s only cruel and unusual in their land of sugar plum fairies.
We’re not talking crucifixion here. And, I deeply resent you for comparing what we’re talking about to the brutality of crucifixion. No one is advocating that and it doesn’t compare. A multi-hour (day?) asphyxiation, frequently only accomplished by the breaking of legs, and including dehydration and starvation, is not the method of punishment we’re talking about.
We’re talking about brutal criminals MAYBE experiencing a couple minutes of agony. In my opinion, if that happens, I don’t care. They deserve it.
I got news for you — there’s no good way to kill anyone. I’m sure with every form of death, a good attorney will find examples of horrendous and painful journeys to the afterlife. So if lethal injection is so bad…even though most of these criminals are probably used to using needles to begin with…then let’s go back to what we know is quick and works — a bullet. And if it didn’t work the first time. Shoot again. It’ll all be over in the time it takes to re-cock.
So, Jim, what would you tell the family of Glen Chapman, had he been summarily executed 14 years ago as you suggest? Or any of the other 100+ people who have been set free from death row in the last 30 odd years after having their convictions overturned. Yes, i’m sure the families of the victims are heartbroken to know the killer is still out there, when they thought they had resolution. But is an innocent man’s life a valid price to pay for that closure?
This comment has only tangetial bearing on the original thread, but i’m following it where its gone. I don’t know enough about the “cruel and unusual punishment” aspect to comment on it, so i’ll bypass that aspect. For me, the issue with the death penalty is the permanence of it. An error of judgement can be remedied, and although time cannot be returned liberty can. But life cannot – execution is the one punishment that cannot be reversed.
Jim – do you realize that you are advocating a totalitarian justice system? The kind that is currently enshrined in Communist China?
Do you want to strive to be a civilized nation – one that the Founding Fathers’ would be proud of, or do you want to countanance to our most base instincts as human beings? If you want the later, then why even bother with a trial?
I’ve actually sent people to jail, and I will tell you that I never did so with revenge in my heart – did I think that some of what these criminals did was evil? Of course, but that isn’t for me to decide. My job was to carry out justice as enshrined in our law. Not to seek revenge, not to punish with vengence in my heart, but only to seek justice.
If you are ever accused, falsely or otherwise, of a crime – pray that it is a justice system built on the law, and not on vengance that you are confronted with.
Jeremy, the Supreme Court is not going to void death penalties. They are only looking at lethal injection as a method.
Ragnar, don’t attack Jim’s character. Favoring supreme justice does not mean Jim is “base” or opposes even having trials at all.
When someone murders a police officer in cold blood and gets to lie back in 10 years of appeals and have the Governor act to keep him breathing even longer while his family misses their husband and father that this savage ruthlessly killed, to me THAT’S cruel and unusual.
Brian – agreed, death penalty is not going away any time soon. At most this case will just change methods, and buy a breif stay in executions. Still IMHO doesn’t make it any more right.
BK – you do have a knee-jerk response, I attacked Jim’s positions – as un-American and authoritarian, which in my opinion they very clearly are, and you translated that into a character attack. There is a difference. I think Jim’s character is excellent, I know and like Jim, and respect his positions – even if I disagree.
This is the section of Jim’s response I found most concerning:
“I believe that the death penalty, provided we weren’t so receptive to appeal after endless appeal, could be far less costly if we just got on with it and did so in a fashion that just gets the job done and doesn’t think so much about the criminal’s rights… Quite frankly, a bullet to the head is probably too good for them.”
What you are all missing is that our nation – with one of the finest justice systems in the world, IS more concerned with the rights of the criminal than the victim. The reason is simple, we are NOT a totalitarain state. Our system strives to guarantee that we do justice, and not imprison or kill an innocent man. Our system has a mantra, better to free 100 guilty people than to imprison 1 innocent one.
If you think this is unfair, consider how you would feel if you were that one innocent person convicted of murder – and taken on Jim’s direct path to a courtyard execution with a 9mm.
The Founding Fathers’ realized how imperfect a justice system can be, which is why they led the way in the 18th Century by creating a Bill of Rights – which gave the defendants rights.
I understand where you are coming from when you talk about victims and their families. But, we need to strive to be civilized, to be a nation of laws first, and to be better than our base insticts for vengence – which an appeal to victims’ rights can be a cover for – if we are to be that shining city on a hill.
PS – Just in case I haven’t been clear, I am not saying that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights prevents the death penalty. I believe that the Founders’ original intent was to allow for the death penalty – of course to do so on a federal system where some states elect to have it and others do not.
The question here is not whether supreme justice, as BK puts it, is legal under that document, but rather the manner through which it is carried out. Lethal injection, with some modifications, may be the most humane. But, that is for the Supremes to decide – which is why it is appropriate for any governor to wait for the SC’s decision prior to continuing to sign death warrants.
You attacked Jim’s positions as unAmerican, and you think that’s not personal?
I repeat your own words to you and you want to call in the Kleenex truck to sop up your victimization tears.
When the Supreme Court hears an abortion case, I’ll be waiting for your whole-hearted support for a moratorium on all abortions as we wait for the Supreme Court’s opinion.
After all, a “civilized nation” wouldn’t be killing the unborn, would it?
I also would like to see Ragnar’s righteous indignation on display when we talk about the rights of the unborn, but alas, it’s far too elusive.
Regardless, he only reads what he wants to read. My issue is with appeal after endless appeal allowing those who are guilty with certainty to continue to live at the expense of justice.
I guess Ragnar has been tired of being called a communist, etc. that he felt he finally had an opening to attack me.
Jeremy….hundreds? Please, back that up with a source.
Regardless, no one wants to see the innocent die. That’s why the measure should be imposed with ultimate discretion and certainty. I do believe we need to raise the threshold a bit when it comes to sentencing, because, you’re right, there are some cases where those found guilty have been found innocent with new evidence.
But let’s get to grassroots here — humans are fallible and mistakes are made even in justice. But, by far, we’re right more than we’re wrong. When we’re right, especially in cases like Malvo, Dahmer, Manson, etc., capital punishment is too good for them.
And then there are others, where the act they committed was brutal, such as the case of Edward Bell, who in cold-blood shot Officer Timbrook in the face, who gets to wait over a decade. Gets to, as Kerry Dougherty writes today, the opportunity to “chow down on a last meal…say goodbye to his children…has seen his children!” not while his case gets appealed over and over…but now because we have a governor who thinks we ought to see if lethal injections are cruel and unusual.
What’s cruel and unusual is that a man who jumped out from behind a bush and shot a cop in cold blood because he was trying to stop a drug deal gets to live while the cop never had the opportunity to see his unborn child.
Jim, 128 to be precise. I agree, the crime itself was “cruel and unusual”, and the perpetrator suffered severe moral failings. But then who are we to inflict a similar loss of life in retribution? To my mind, there are 3 motivations behind the death penalty – justice, retribution, and determent. Justice is a questionable rational – after all, the equation can never be equal – the punishment rarely ever matches the crime, nor should it. The revenge path is advocating for the rights of the victims family – but really, do the family of victims in societies that have abolished the death penalty really feel any less closure? Is the risk of taking an innocent man’s life worth giving some base form of “closure” to the victims family? They still know that the person who took their loved ones life will likely never again experience liberty or be free. And as for determent – numerous studies have shown the death penalty to have little effect on reduction for the crimes its been instituted against (of course, there are studies to the counter as well). Either the profit/risk equation is inapplicable (a sociopath), or the lifestyle of the victim densensitizes the prospect of death (drug crimes).
Its easy to pull up Dahmer, Manson, and others and point to them as poster children for the death penalty. Again i ask, what purpose does it serve? “They deserved it?” Unless you have a personal stake in it, that has little but schadenfreude at its root. That’s schoolyard playground logic. I’m not above those emotions – if someone i loved was taken from me, i’m sure i would want whoever was responsible to pay, most likely with their life. But i would hope that i live in a society that realizes that the actions desired in a tornado of emotion and loss are not neccesarily the “right ones”.
Punishment should be used to deter, to isolate from society to prevent future crimes, and to rehabilitate. The death penalty only accomplishes one of those, and it can equally be accomplished by a life without parole sentence.
You can have an unAmerican position – AND be attacked for it, and this is an attack – stay with me – of the position. Not the person.
OK…so you, as taxpayers, want to give these guys three squares a day for the rest of their lives in a nice jail cell where they can smell the air, get some exercise, read a book or two, possibly receive education, religious counseling, etc., despite the fact they took the life of someone else.
Nice.
Frankly, I don’t want to pay for them to live. Screw ‘em. I guess I’m not above them. You take a life…you die. Pretty simple in my book.
Sorry…not a very intelligent argument from me this time. I just want them dead. I don’t want my tax dollars going to fund their lives one extra moment.
Self-centered? Anti-Christian? Perhaps. I don’t really care.
Jim – ok, I understand.