Booker is apparently trying to put sole blame on Biden for the 1994 crime bill. Big mistake.

[highplainsdem]

Biden released his criminal justic plan today, and I've posted another topic about it here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287209583


Cory Booker took a swipe at that plan with a tweet:

Link to tweet

It’s not enough to tell us what you’re going to do for our communities, show us what you’ve done for the last 40 years. You created this system. We’ll dismantle it.

The tweet doesn't name Biden, but his campaign spox told The Hill that Biden was the target:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/454283-booker-takes-swipe-at-biden-criminal-justice-reform-plan

Booker has been a frequent critic of his fellow presidential contender's record on criminal justice, particularly his leadership in passing a 1994 crime bill that included tougher sentencing provisions. A Booker campaign spokesperson confirmed to The Hill that, while the tweet did not mention Biden by name, it was meant as a direct response to the former vice president's plan to counteract mass incarceration, announced earlier Tuesday.

Booker is apparently trying to set up a debate moment like Harris's in the first debate. I hope he isn't already designing t-shirts to peddle, too.

He's making a mistake trying to make Biden solely responsible for the 1994 crime bill (which had some good aspects as well as others we later realized were bad).

As I've pointed out here before, the crime bill had widespread support, including in the black community.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287194327

And in Congress, the bill had the support of the vast majority of Democrats. Most of the votes against the bill came from Republicans who didn't like aspects of the bill like the assault weapons ban.

In the House, roughly 3/4 of the Democratic members voted FOR the bill.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml

In the Senate, only 2 Democratic senators voted against the bill (Richard Shelby and Russ Feingold). All other Democratic senators were FOR the bill.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295

The senators voting FOR the bill included former NJ senator Bill Bradley, whom Booker likes and admires.


Biden's new plan would correct many of the unanticipated problems caused by the 1994 bill.

But obviously Booker doesn't intend to give him any credit for that.

[Kahuna7]

1. His tweet is getting pushback that he probably wasn't expecting...

[Gothmog]

2. Booker is making a major mistake with this line of attack

[LincolnRossiter]

3. I don't think placing the blame squarely on Biden is the issue--though that's asinine, too.

I think the fact that he chooses to take cheap shots at Biden's record, instead of engaging the substance of the policy in question, speaks volumes about him as a candidate and person. As I wrote in another post, this would be sad if he were actually viable at this stage of the campaign. The fact that he isn't even really in contention at this point just makes it pathetic.

[The_Counsel]

7. That's What I Saw, Also...

Sen. Booker's entire message in that tweet seems to be: "Pay no attention to the policy, where the front runner attempts to get it right. Look instead at a 25-year-old law, some aspects of which ended up wrong upon further review."

Wouldn't a better idea be to come up with a better plan of your own?

[Hortensis]

33. Yes. I'd like to say he's going low consistently because he believes

in himself and believes that's the best way to finally move up. But he started out that way, claiming 3 candidates, including Kamala Harris, "bragged" and laughed about using marijuana, and has continued that way since.

There's some stuff to admire in his record, and in other things he's said, but in this campaign I've wanted to like him and he won't let me. It's as you say, and I'm afraid his choices do speak volumes about him. I suspect he may also underestimate intolerance to attacks on Democrats; I know it's especially unacceptable to me this time around.

I notice that the member of the Democratic Black Caucus who just endorsed Biden also supported the crime bill 25 years ago, as did a majority of others in the Caucus back then, though not a huge one.

[SouthernProgressive]

4. His critique is lacking in substance and is really minor.

Very few will see or hear of it.

I read Biden's outline and the SAFE ACT. This is a serious winner.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Wrong target for him anyway

Harris makes more sense, just if you're talking strategy.

[peggysue2]

6. I fully expect Cory Booker to . . .

do exactly what you've outlined, highplainsdem. At this point, Booker has nothing to lose considering his current poll numbers. Booker has repeated the 'I felt disrespected' line for the press as a warm up, and now this tweet is a clear shot across the bow. Why? Because Biden's criminal justice plan is expansive and on the money. And Booker wants voters to remember that he worked on the latest criminal justice reform package with Mike Lee. He doesn't want Joe Biden to steal his thunder.

This is a prologue to the debate stage. Booker is hoping for another 'I am Spartacus' moment. Unlike Kamala Harris' surprise attack, this one comes with a heads up.

I suspect Joe will be ready for the incoming!

[Skya Rhen]

48. I agree - Cory should not underestimate Biden. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

I won't be surprised if Cory comes out of this debate weakened. He might not get the results he anticipates.

[58Sunliner]

8. It's a dog whistle-"our communities" and "You created this system. We'll dismantle it".

Ask him which communities are "ours", who "we" encompasses, and who the "you" represents. I guess i should not be surprised.

[FloridaBlues]

9. I'm afraid this next debate will be a entire gang up against Biden. Which can also backfire

[bigtree]

10. receipts

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[bluewater]

12. Thanks for the videos.

[highplainsdem]

15. Harris's own record is controversal:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/23/18184192/kamala-harris-president-campaign-criminal-justice-record

And as that article points out, in 2004 Harris opposed passage of Initiative 66, which would have reformed California's 3 strikes law (which predated the federal crime bill by several months, since the Californa legislature passed it and Governor Pete Smith signed it in March 1994).

Harris's opposition to reforming California's 3 strikes bill is noted in this San Francisco Chronicle editorial from 2004:

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Why-3-strikes-needs-reform-2724213.php

[bigtree]

18. she was still employing it as prosecutor in 2005

...reason I didn't knock Joe for it in this post. Despite voting for three strikes, he was criticizing it a year later.

That doesn't insulate Biden from criticism, though. He's the principal architect of the 1994 Crime Bill. He was extremely proud of most provisions.

I give proponents credit for the Violence Against Women Act, and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Community Policing.

It was a bad bill, I don't believe we should have been so craven about proving our party 'tough on crime' that we gave away things like Pell grants for prisoner education, or agreed to draconian sentencing provisions.

You can't clean that up pointing to someone who wasn't in a position to influence or counter his vote at the time.

[highplainsdem]

24. Again, all but two Democratic senators voted for the bill. 3/4 of the Democrats in the House voted

for it.

The bill looked quite different to people then. Including to the black community, which supported it then.

[bigtree]

26. good for them

...bad for us.

The bill looked the same to me back then. It was a cynical attempt to avoid the 'weak on crime' mantra coming from republicans.

Speaking for the 'black community' on this is an amazing disconnect from the real world where folks are actually impacted by these provisions, sometimes on a daily basis. It's polispeak to say we supported things like mandatory minimums for drug offenses, for example, with the targeting/profiling of black residents; or three strikes laws with the disproportionate rates of arrest in our neighborhoods.

People largely unaffected speak like that.


Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. speaks against the Crime Bill at a CBC event in Sept. 1994:

[highplainsdem]

29. Apparently you didn't read my OP or check all the links including this one

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287194327

which quotes a Charlotte Observer article:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/south-carolina/article231926968.html

Clyburn, the state’s most influential Democrat, said it was not surprising that many black S.C. voters are either standing by Biden or unfazed by his comments.

In South Carolina, a state with a painful history of racial violence, older African Americans remember a time when politicians like Biden were few and far between, Clyburn explained — white politicians who, while maybe flawed, were seen as sympathetic to the African American cause of civil rights and strove to do the right thing.

“The black community, as a whole, has a very long history of being lied to,” said Clyburn, who will turn 79 years old this month and has promised not to make a formal endorsement. “The reason there is distrust of politicians is because you promise them one thing, you double cross them later. I grew up with that. I know that is a very strong feeling in the African American community. They have a different experience with Joe Biden.”

That different experience could explain why many older black voters reject the premise that Biden should be punished for his work in helping draft the 1994 crime bill, which critics say destroyed black families and ballooned the prison population.

U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., a Texas-raised Methodist preacher and former Congressional Black Caucus chairman, supported the crime bill as the then-mayor of Kansas City, as did Clyburn. Both men said older African Americans can recall when such a measure was necessary.

“I just hit my 40th year in the ministry, and two-thirds of all the preachers I know supported the crime bill — black preachers,” said Cleaver, 74. “Like me, they were doing funerals every other week of people murdered out of gang violence. For the first time churches had started hiring guards. ... Everywhere was just a manifestation of crime and people were saying, ‘We gotta do something.’”

Or you can consider this:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/02/why-many-black-politicians-backed-the-1994-crime-bill-championed-by-the-clintons.html

Black Americans Supported the 1994 Crime Bill, Too

-snip-

I spoke to Fortner about the complex politics behind the ‘94 bill and why the coalition of black leaders who supported the Clintons in passing it should not be forgotten. Our conversation has been edited and condensed.

-snip-

How bad was crime in America when Clinton became president?

When he came to power there was a sense that crime had reached insane levels. People in urban communities were afraid to go out. By this point a lot of middle-class African Americans who were able to leave these neighborhoods had left, so you had a lack of civic organization, the housing stock was miserable, and there was just sort of a lot of despair and fear. And the crack epidemic was coming to a head at that point. You had gang violence over the drug trade. It was just a desperate situation for many urban African Americans.

In her essay, Alexander argues that Bill Clinton embraced crime as an issue because it helped him win the votes of white people who were straying from the Democratic Party. What do you make of that argument?

I think Alexander is right when it comes to this point: Clinton was shaped by the changing dynamics of party politics in the late ’80s and early ’90s. And it is true that Clinton and other Democrats were concerned about working-class whites who were leaving the Democratic Party, and they wanted to develop messages that would appeal to them. “Tough on crime” was one of those messages. So, it is true that Clinton pursued this in order to achieve those political objectives. But it’s also true that he wanted to solve a real problem—one that disproportionately affected minority communities.

In hindsight, the law can be seen as a continuation of policies that, decades earlier, started the U.S. down the path of mass incarceration. To what extent did black political leaders see it that way at the time?

Well, in 1973, in New York, many black activists pushed for drug laws, and in the ’80s many black activists pushed for punitive crime policies and supported aspects of Ronald Reagan’s war on drugs. When Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 into law, the one that created the crack-cocaine disparity, Charlie Rangel was onstage with him. And at the time they pushed this because they thought previous policies were not doing the job and that they needed to get tougher on the drug problem in urban communities. And as the drug problem worsened, many of them continued to push for more punitive policies and more aggressive policing.

Why?

I think they saw these things as inadequate but necessary solutions to very urgent problems. And I think they did not foresee the unintended consequences of those policies. … They thought they would stop the violence. And they thought they needed some type of mechanism to create safe streets for people who were not committing crimes, who needed to go to work, who needed to take their kids to school. And this speaks to the urgency of the situation—yes, they realized there was a host of other structural issues going on and they wanted remedies for those things, but they also felt like life in the inner city was just untenable. People were unable to live normal lives.

-snip-

I think the answers to those four questions are relevant here.

Note that Clinton -- not Biden -- is mentioned there. The article is from 2016, when HRC was being attacked for the bill passed during her husband's administration.

But whether the criticism of the bill was made in 2016 or 2020, it's wrong to ignore how people, including those in the black community, felt about it in 1994.

Yes, some black leaders opposed it. Others supported it.

Including James Clyburn, as pointed out in the first excerpt above.

[emmaverybo]

36. The victims of the crimes that this bill got tough on were law abiding black residents trying to

work and raise their families in communities where five percent ran violent roughshod over 95 percent. These victims rightly contended they had been written off, their communities dismissed in a “let them kill each other” attitude pervading law enforcement and the justice system.

[highplainsdem]

40. You really think James Clyburn had a "let them kill each other" attitude? Please look at what

I posted about black support for the bill, and the reasons for it.

[emmaverybo]

49. No. Misunderstanding. I am saying that many black communities perceived the lack of intervention

to be whites, who were not liable to be victims themselves, as sitting in their gated communities, and ignoring crimes black people were victims of. And indeed these crimes were being ignored.

The tough on crime attitude that eventually prevailed was based on community mandate. And the communities affected by violent drug related crimes were black communities.

[bigtree]

45. politicians angling to win elections

...they looked as foolish as they do today.

When people talk about community support for passing the Crime bill I'm personally reminded of the hyper-political atmosphere surrounding it's adoption and passage, including Bill Clinton's own ratings difficulties and his frosty relationship with Senate and congressional leaders at the time.

The provisions like the 60 new death penalty offenses, or the 'boot camps' for children, for instance weren't in there to reduce crime. I don't care who or how it was sold then or today. They were in there to make voters think these politicians were being 'tough on crime.'

Drivel like you posted from them excusing their votes because someone wanted them to 'do something' is pathetic.

[highplainsdem]

35. From Mother Jones:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/who-supported-1994-crime-bill/

That 2016 MoJo article starts with a quote from a NY Times article about black support for the crime bill in 1994. Including a Gallup poll finding that the bill had 58% support in the nonwhite community, more than in the white community (49%).

Obviously everyone should vote for whoever they want. But this piece highlights one thing that continues to eat at me: judging the past by the standards of the present. The 1994 crime bill was hardly supported unanimously, and there was plenty of criticism of it at the time. It’s fine to take note of that. But the plain fact is that 1994 was a different time: crime was rampant and people were scared—including black people—and most of them supported the crime bill, warts and all. Were they wrong to do so? Maybe. But you need to seriously engage with what the world was like in 1994 and what they could reasonably have known about it before you condemn them.

A world where violent crime is no longer an obsession, replaced instead by DWB and Ferguson-style police shootings, calls for different responses. No one would propose anything like the 1994 crime bill anymore. But in 1994 things looked a lot different. You need to understand that deep in your gut before you lash out at the folks who supported it.

[bigtree]

47. it was an overly-politicized bill, a sham when it came to violent crime

...for everyone who voted for it.

[George II]

17. What about the other 94 Senators who voted for the bill?

[bluewater]

20. They are not running for president in 2020, perhaps that's relevant? But Biden is.

[George II]

22. There's another person running for president who voted for that bill. He seems immune to criticism.

[bluewater]

23. Criticize everyone involved. Why do "whataboutism" about other Senators?

It doesn't matter how many other Senators voted with Biden, none of them are running for President in 2020.

Please mention all the names of every House member that voted for the bill or at least give the numbers for representatives in the House who voted for it.

Thanks.

[highplainsdem]

25. All you have to do to find their names is to check the links in my OP.

[George II]

39. The fact is during the early 1990s there was a "law enforcement" clamoring in the country....

The bill was overwhelmingly passed in both houses with bipartisan support.

The fact that now, 25 years later, people are criticizing Biden as though he voted in a vacuum is ludicrous.

[bluewater]

41. Are you saying Biden did what people were "clamoring" for, so we should not criticize him now?

Not a good look.

[George II]

43. .

[bluewater]

46. Joe Biden praising harsh minimum drug sentences

Link to tweet

[George II]

50. So? He was echoing the sentiment of the country and the overwhelming majority of both houses.

Posting those twice doesn't make them more current.

[bluewater]

57. Are you saying Biden was a mirror of his constituency and should not be criticized now?

Not a good look.

Biden himself is trying to repair some of the damage the bill he helped write did:

Joe Biden unveils criminal justice plan that reverses key provisions of 1994 crime bill he helped write

Joe Biden is proposing to reverse several key provisions of the 1994 crime bill he helped write in an acknowledgment that his tough-on-crime positions of the past are at odds with the views of the modern Democratic Party.
In a speech later Tuesday in New Orleans, the former vice president will call for an end to the disparity that placed stricter sentencing terms on offenses involving crack versus powder cocaine as well as an end to the federal death penalty, which the legislation authorized as a potential punishment for an increasing number of crimes.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-joe-biden-crime-bill-20190723-ogzsftxae5gr7keaftui5tukni-story.html

It's just a shame that it has taken almost 25 years for Biden to correct his mistake.

[Cha]

66. Aloha, George.. Please see post #65..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=210329

[George II]

67. Bazinga!

[Cha]

68. Thank You!

[Cha]

65. SO? These Black Leaders make Cory's tweet

look smaller than it already was.

Delaware African American leaders defend Biden

Smith and Latham slammed Biden’s critics, saying they offer “mischaracterizations” of his record that are “misguided” and “wrong.”

"They seek to undermine Joe's campaign for president by incorrectly casting him as out of touch, culturally incompetent, and incapable of grasping the diversity and complexities of today. They also falsely distort the character and integrity of someone who has successfully dedicated his life’s work towards advancing civil rights and addressing systemic racism.”

For decades Joe has been at the forefront of advancing and safeguarding equal rights and combating institutional racism,” Smith and Latham wrote. “Now, as he campaigns for the presidency, he’s continuing to champion progressive policies in health care, education, criminal justice, climate change, and more, that all speak directly to the needs of black and brown people.”

Mayor Keisha Bottom, Atlanta, George Strongly Supports Biden's Criminal Justice Plan

Link to tweet

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287210217

[Cha]

52. Instead of going after Biden and pointing out his shortcomings from 40 yrs ago how about going

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[George II]

11. That message of Booker's is very disappointing.

[customerserviceguy]

13. Even though Booker

got the most talk time of his half of the last debate, he realized that he didn't land any blows, then he saw that Harris did. He's not going to make that mistake this time.

I have to feel sorry for Joe Biden, he'll be right in the middle of a tag team that feels it deserves all of Joe's AA support.

[George II]

14. The 1994 Crime Bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 95-4. Not "Biden's fault" at all.

If one is going to attack Biden for it, one has to attack all of these other Democratic (and republican) Senators, too.

Yeas:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boren (D-OK)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (D-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Danforth (R-MO)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeConcini (D-AZ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-KS)
Domenici (R-NM)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
Mathews (D-TN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Metzenbaum (D-OH)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Mitchell (D-ME)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Packwood (R-OR)
Pell (D-RI)
Pressler (R-SD)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Riegle (D-MI)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sasser (D-TN)
Shelby (D-AL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Smith (R-NH)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Wallop (R-WY)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wofford (D-PA)

NAYs:

Durenberger (R-MN)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Simon (D-IL)

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00384

[bluewater]

19. Only ONE of those 95 Senators is running for President in 2020, right? Biden.

[Kahuna7]

27. Sanders wasn't a senator but he did vote for it.

[bluewater]

28. EXACTLY. Sanders and Biden both bear responsibility for the 1994 Crime Bill

And BOTH Biden and Sanders are candidates for President in 2020 and should be held accountable.

Listing the names of 95 Senators that also voted for the bill was just silly, only Biden is a candidate for President now.

Imagine how silly it would look if someone posted the names of all the Representatives in Congress that voted for it just to try to defend Sanders.

People should stop making excuses for Biden and Sanders about the 1994 Crime Bill.

[Kahuna7]

32. Well. If you don't live in a high crime area like Cory Booker..

Booker who couldn't make it out of his own neighborhood with a security detail, it's easy to talk. I think it's ridiculous for Booker to make the crime bill an issue when by his own admission, his neighborhood is like the wild west.

Let me explain something that should be obvious. The crime bill isn't breaking up families, the criminals are breaking up families when they kill innocent victims of their depraved indifference to human life.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sen. Cory Booker said seven people were shot in his Newark neighborhood last week. <br><br>FACT CHECK: It's true. <a href="https://t.co/sHboywhe2U">https://t.co/sHboywhe2U</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DemDebate?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DemDebate</a></p>— CNN (@CNN) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[emmaverybo]

42. Held accountable for a bill that many in the black community wanted at the time? I remember

working for an elderly man in the projects. Downstairs in the parking lot sat police car every day. They ate their lunch and never entered the housing areas.
He, the old and disabled man, was behind double doors. People were actually killed in the elevators
for money and drugs. Children were raped.
Residents complained that the police did a little window dressing,but did not get involved.

Crime victims in residential areas living next door to crack houses owned by off site landlords lived in fear. Whole neighborhoods,predominantly black, were blighted by crime connected to the
crack epidemic. They wanted the drug dealers, the gang members, to get real sentences, not the
revolving door.

And those of you complaining of the part of the crime bill we now know led to disproportionate sentences according to race, never mention the highly desirable parts of the bill that could
stand today.

The Violence Against Women Act

Billions of dollars allocated to crime prevention, which included community policing, drug deterrent
courts, and gang prevention.

Hate crime laws

Strong gun regulation.

[highplainsdem]

21. That was the 1993 Senate vote, before final passage. The House passed the bill in '93 by voice vote.

My OP gives the details for (and links for more info about) the votes in 1994 that finally passed the bill in August 1994, after it was reported out by the joint conference committee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

[George II]

34. Thanks. The vote on the final bill that came out of the the conference was the same.

[emmaverybo]

44. Thanks for your research. If people are gonna criticize it, they need to read it. NT

[Peacetrain]

30. So glad to see VP Biden and team bring this forward..

its has some other candidates so mad they are spinning like tops... I think someones plan got blowed up.. but they never had a chance in hell because they never connected ..

[tonedevil]

37. OK /nt

[Politicub]

31. I doubt the crime bill attacks are going to go anywhere.

While it had a direct and negative impact on POC by disproportionally targeting their communities with more aggressive policing, crime rates in the 90s did trend downward. However, this was part of an ongoing trend that started before the crime bill was passed.

And, as I did some research, I found that incarceration rates have been trending upward starting in the 70s. It seems that it's difficult to correlate the crime bill with increases after it had passed (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/politics/joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-incarceration-fact-check/index.html)

The most lasting damage of the bill, imho, is the minimum sentencing guidelines. That has made it harder to reform the criminal justice system as it applies to drug offenders because there are mandated sentences for certain federal drug crimes.

It's great to see that Biden's new plan would address some of the systemic problems created by the crime bill, especially those that were included because of white panic.

[highplainsdem]

38. You're right about the incarceration trends starting in the 70s. I posted about that back in May:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287122066


Again using a 2016 article, since so many of the same arguments were made against HRC in 2016 because of that bill.

[ucrdem]

51. LOL, I love how these guys reveal their own deficiencies

Cory, it's not enough that you tone police comments you didn't hear, you need to tell us what you've accomplished and why you're running. And that little girl wasn't you so you'll need to come up with something original.

[Cha]

55. Aloha!

Please read post 54..

ucr

[Kahuna7]

59. He was the mayor of one of the deadliest cites in the Country..nt

[calguy]

53. I can't really blame Booker

He's stuck way down in the lower ranks of the pack and searching for something, ANYthing, to break out of the pack and get noticed. This is a desperate attempt that will not get any traction. Biden will not be damaged by this attack, and I predict Cory will be dropping out of the race after the couple primaries, if not sooner. Cory is a good man who is not presidential material at this point.

[Cha]

54. Cory Gets PUSHBACK

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ucrdem]

56. Wow. He needs to stay away from Twitter LOL.

He's really getting his ass handed to him again!

[Skya Rhen]

63. Mahalo, Cha!!!

[Cha]

64. You're Welcome, Skya!

Cory should know you don't go for Biden unless he sends for you.

[matt819]

60. Big fan of history

But FFS can we stop reliving 30-year old votes and positions on school busing and reparations?

Everyone who's held elective office or served in government in some way is going to have made decisions and taken positions that others will see as wrong in some way. It's just the way it is. Not to minimize the issue, but I'm pretty sure that one possible response to such criticisms is, well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. And for any number of reasons - budget, compromise, commitments for future votes, etc.

We are confronting an existential threat to the country. Make no mistake about that. Even some conservatives are coming around to the belief that it will take generations to undo the damage that is being caused daily in so many ways. Might I suggest that, to the extent candidates want to piss all over each other, that they focus on current issues and their plans to win the election.

[Mike Nelson]

61. Did not see...

… sole blame, exactly, in that statement. But, if he said that, he's done.

[ecstatic]

62. I don't want our election to be about the past, because if it is, Russia and dump will win.

We cannot change the past. So making the election about the past (especially out of context) will make all of our candidates, including Booker, unelectable. Everyone was for the crime bill when it came out. Things were injected in it at the last moment and that led to unintended consequences.

[tritsofme]

69. At some point candidates like Booker with no realistic shot at the nomination need to consider how

needlessly sliming the likely nominee and next Democratic president will impact his ability to be effective in the future.

[Skya Rhen]

71. +1,000,000

[gulliver]

70. I consider trying to divide Dems along racial lines off limits.

[oasis]

72. Any ancient history against Joe will hold little weight when he becomes

our nominee. Booker's damaging his own reputation.