Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY —
In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race — and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.
The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network — which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws — contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.
Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.
"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.
Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.
Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Bravo! This needs to be said more often; disturbingly, some alleged "conservatives" don't agree.
The incumbent lost becuase he let too many people off, connected people. He let Scott Ritter walk from child sex charges, he let Boxley walk after he admitted he raped two women, he let a doctor off hwo was buying crack. The incumbent screwed up for 4 years then he didn't campaign.
It turns the entire American experiment on it's head, but hey, it's all good.
I thought it was "tyranny of the majority", and it's what the Bill of Rights and the limits on the federal government in the Constitution are designed to protect us from... apparently that's a secret to some "conservatives".
Socialism?
Look it up. It's not just government owning the railroads.
REPLACE
MARTHA STEWART
with
SOROS!
LENGTHEN THE SENTENCE, THROW AWAY THE KEY.
The freedom to exchange goods and services without government intervention in the absence of force or fraud is not new and has always had it's place alongside other fundamental rights.
The federal government's main concern here is that local legalizations do not lead to the creation of legal transshipment zones for distribution across the country.
All the states have the right to do, apparently, is to make state drug laws more harsh than federal laws.
Or, alternately, institute laxer laws in-state that still strictly limit out-of-state commerce. Difficult to do in practice.
So do you feel that the Federal government is out of place in telling the states what to do on this issue?
Not if the states create laws that result in undue burdens on their neighbors. If FL wanted to make drugs freely available to its citizens, then it shouldn't be GA's responsibility to deal with the negative externalities of that decision - it should be FL's responsibility to assure GA that no one crossing GA's border from FL is carrying those substances, not GA's responsibility to check.
Do you then agree that a federal Drug Czar is a position for which there is no Constitutional justification?
The federal government needs some apparatus to deal with illegal interstate commerce, a matter over which it has constitutional authority. Whether a "drug czar" is the best way to do that is a policy question, not a constitutional one.
Yes I have, and its quaintness resides in the fact that it is metaphorical.
Does that apply to any item that GA chooses to ban (but FL doesn't ban)? If not, why not?
The fact is that you asserted that if a law has not been thrown out in the courts, it must be Constitutional. The NYC gun confiscation laws have not been thrown out in the courts. Ergo, you are asserting that gun confiscation is Constitutional. QED.
What crime has Soros committed?
That's interesting. While we're on the subject, what are your definitions for the words "alone", "sex", and "is"?
To a globalist/billionaire....It's a small world, after all...
I beleive I once heard Charles Schumer say the same about guns.
And they claim that the only apparatus they can use is regulation of intrastate commerce. The problem is, that "apparatus" was not made available to them by the people who gave them the power to regulate commerce among the several states.
This is true. In the case of crack, as opposed to aluminum siding and DVDs, we have a product which quickly erodes the freedom of the purchaser with each subsequent purchase.
The goal of the retailer is to ensure that his customer is his slave and even to encourage his customer, if necessary, to commit any sort of crime in order to buy more of his product.
Let the record show that you have precisely echoed the gun grabber lobby's argument (e.g. "the reason gun control fails in DC is because of lax laws in Virginia").
Wrong. Why would a liberal despise a drug law? Drug laws lead to more victims, more victims swell the ranks of the dependent class, more dependents = more entrenched government programs. If liberals despised drug laws, how come they haven't been overthrown in Massachusetts, the liberal bastion of the United States?
This bets the question. WHY is Soros so hot to turn this country into a bunch of drug addicts? Is he in the clandistine drug business along with everything else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.