Another reason to vote out Troy King [Archive]

View Full Version : Another reason to vote out Troy King

demopolite

08-02-2006, 15:37 PM

Even those of you who don't agree with me on most things should find this story appalling:

http://alablawg.wordpress.com/2006/08/01/a-minister-of-justice/

It appears that our current Alabama Attorney General allows the people who work for him to lie to the court, lie to the opposing attorneys, and lie to the defendant in a case in which a man's life is at stake.

Some of you may think that I'm soft on criminals and such, but even you guys should see the problem with this: think about it...if the prosecutor is lying about the documents available in this man's trial, what if they arrested one of your loved ones for a crime that they did not commit and then lied about the evidence in that case as well. What if someone that you cared about and whom you knew did not commit the crime went to jail because the Attorney General is allowing the people in his office to lie to the court.

The job of prosecutor and of Attorney General are very, very important. These people are charged with enforcing the laws of the state of Alabama.
A prosecutor must be interested in finding the person who committed the crime and then punishing them for committing it, NOT, as Troy King suggests, holding a "criminal" responsible for a crime....even if there is evidence that he didn't really commit the crime.

I would like to invite all of you to take a long hard look at the race for Attorney General of Alabama. Please do not vote for Troy King just because he is a Republican. Honestly, at the state level, the headings "Republican" and "Democrat" mean so little, anyway. The Democratic candidate seems like a pretty decent man. He is an experienced prosecutor for one, while Troy King's only experience is working (rather poorly) jobs that he was appointed to. He's a political insider, not a good lawyer.....and Alabama needs a good lawyer to serve as attorney general.

Heck, guys, if I'm leaning toward voting for a Republican for governor (yes...Riley), please take a serious look at this man and vote him out of office!!!!!

Thanks.

roosterbridge

08-02-2006, 21:26 PM

Can you give me a few more reasons why I shouldn't vote Mr. King? I'm being serious. I'm more of a libertarian (notice small case "l") that usually votes Republican. I don't know why but he rubs me the wrong way. Can't think of anything specific except for the fact that he really likes to grandstand. (Watch out if a camera's around!) I liked Pryor much better.

sgt501

08-02-2006, 21:42 PM

well i have to have more than what looks like a political for the opposing side ... i hope you have not based your whole statement on an article that dosnt even have a person who claims the writing.... since i work in the field i can speak freely i guess... i have worked under severaql of the attorney generals.... and troy king has done more than any of them.... we now have a sex offender act just as one example.... in the past i knew the prior attorney generals only by name.... i have been at meeting that troy king attends, and dosnt send an assistant... so i dont know where your intel comes from but i hope its based on verifiable facts and not political rantings...." my vote is for troy king"

debby

08-02-2006, 21:57 PM

If he they know he lied why can't they disbar him?

leagle

08-02-2006, 22:18 PM

I've known Troy personally for 15 years. He is a dedicated self-promoter, but not much else. He's quick to take credit for things others accomplish (like the aforementioned sex offender act), but has displayed precious little actual skill at prosecuting actual crimes. His opponent is an experienced District Attorney who could actually find the courthouse even if the cameras were not running. Which is more than I can say for Troy. We deserve better than a political appointee like him.

demopolite

08-03-2006, 07:45 AM

i hope you have not based your whole statement on an article that dosnt even have a person who claims the writing....

No...I have actually read the case. This article is just makes it much easier for a non-lawyer to understand because there's not a lot of legalese and case law arguments that you would have to wade through.

As leagle said, all of Troy King's "accomplishments" have actually been the accomplishments of others which he has tried to take credit for. There had been a push for a new sex offender laws in Alabama since before Troy King was appointed. The fact that our legislators were finally able to hammer out the details has little to nothing to do with Troy King. If you like the law, thank you legislators, not the AG - who is only in charge of enforcing it.

The man has next to no experience, and very frighteningly, he relies on his own personal feelings about issues rather than law to make decisions that effect lots of Alabamians....something that Bill Pryor, our former Attorney General, did not do. King has issued AG Opinions that blatantly ignore the acts of the legislator and the rulings of the state Supreme Court. In short, he is in Montgomery acting like a little Napolean, but without even Napolean's foresight.

demopolite

09-21-2006, 16:54 PM

Another reason to vote out the incumbent:

Our esteemed AGl is suing to have the law declared unconstitutional (and now after having lost, is appealing to the state Supreme Court).

PROBLEM: The Attorney General shouldn't initiate suits challenging constitutionality of state laws, he defends them.

The Attorney General's own website explains the duties of the AG:

As the State's attorney, he provides legal representation for the State of Alabama, its officers, departments, and agencies. The Attorney General defends the State in all lawsuits in which the State is named as a defendant. He represents the State in all court proceedings wherein the constitutionality of a state statute is challenged.

Even if Troy King personally despises the community service grants, it's the job of the Attorney General to defend state law, particularly in cases where the constitutionality of a state statute is challenged. Thus, the Attorney General has an unmistakable obligation of his job to defend state law.

...thus...Troy King is not doing the job that you are paying him to do.

Let's get this politician out of office and get a decent AG in!!!!

debby

09-21-2006, 19:06 PM

mmcd3182

09-21-2006, 23:26 PM

I don't affiliate myself with any political party. I look at the people, not their labels. From what I've read, and here's one article following, I'd have to say IMO, King's gotta go...
----------------------------------------------------------------

from the Birmingham News:

Tyson battles King's built-in edge
Sunday, September 10, 2006
MIKE CASON
News staff writer

Troy King says he's proved himself during 2½ years as Alabama's attorney general and deserves a four-year term.

His opponent, John Tyson, says King hasn't done much except "hold press conferences and recommend legislation."

Between now and Nov. 7, voters can expect to hear those arguments and more from two men who differ in background, experience and some ideas about fighting crime.

Republicans have won the last three elections for attorney general. Some observers say it won't be easy for Tyson to end that streak because King enjoys the advantages of incumbency and being a Republican in a state where the GOP dominates statewide elections.

David Lanoue, chairman of the political science department at the University of Alabama, said Tyson, the Democrat, needs to find a compelling message.

"When push comes to shove, elections are usually about incumbents," Lanoue said. "Unless Tyson can come up with a good reason, sell it well and get it publicized, it's hard to see why people would remove the sitting attorney general."

A poll of 500 likely voters published today by The Birmingham News showed King leading Tyson by 46 percent to 28 percent, with 26 percent undecided.

Republican nominee King, 38, was appointed attorney general in March 2004 by Gov. Bob Riley. He replaced Bill Pryor, who left to become a federal judge.

Tyson, 54, was appointed Mobile County's district attorney by then-Gov. Jim Folsom in 1994. Tyson was elected in 1998 and re-elected in 2004.

Part of Tyson's strategy is to draw attention to the fact he has far more experience as a prosecutor.

But King said he has the experience that matters most. He touts his success in helping push several crime bills through the Legislature, including one that imposes mandatory 10-year and 20-year prison sentences for some sex offenders. King also helped pass tougher laws against child pornography and methamphetamine labs. In July, the Drug Enforcement Administration reported a 57 percent drop in the number of meth labs in the state.

"That tells me the laws we've passed have made a measurable difference," King said.

Tyson the underdog:

Tyson acknowledges that taking on an incumbent places him in the role of underdog. But he said that is offset by his record of more than 25,000 felony prosecutions. He said he's investigated more than 500 homicide scenes during his career.

"I think we need an experienced person in this job rather than someone who is learning on the job," Tyson said.

One of King's proposals sheds light on a sharp difference in the two men's public stances on how to fight crime.

King wants the Legislature to change the law to impose the death penalty on people with multiple convictions for rape or molestation of children.

Tyson said that would be a mistake and would lead to more killing.

"I don't like serial rapists, either," Tyson said. "But as soon as serial rapists realize there's no additional consequence for killing somebody, they're going to do it. An experienced prosecutor would not have proposed that."

A better way to fight sex crimes against children, Tyson said, would be to provide more money for child advocacy centers. There are about 25 centers in the state, some serving more than one county. They are used to interview and counsel children who are suspected victims and to gather evidence for prosecutions. State funding for the centers has been cut in recent years. Tyson said he would work to reverse that and to open more centers.

King said the centers do important work and need more money, but he said Tyson's suggestion shows that he wants to fight crime by "expanding social programs."

"If you want to prevent that rapist from hurting a child, you let him know there's going to be a harsh penalty to pay," King said.

Tyson said serial rapists are already subject to life without parole and that the death penalty should be reserved for those who kill.

Low name recognition:

Today's poll for The News showed low name recognition for both candidates, especially for Tyson. Neither has sought statewide office before.

Tyson spent Thursday and Friday taping television ads, but declined to say when the ads will begin running. King said he expects to begin statewide television ads in October.

During the primary campaign, King raised about $993,000, Tyson about $478,000.

In the Republican primary, King defeated Montgomery lawyer Mark Montiel. King received 294,696 votes, 75 percent, to Montiel's 99,650 votes, 25 percent.

In the Democratic primary, Tyson defeated Montgomery lawyer Larry Darby, an outspoken atheist who expressed doubts about the Holocaust and other extreme views that were repudiated by the party. Tyson received 214,589 votes, 57 percent, to Darby's 163,067 votes, 43 percent.

Lanoue said Tyson's margin of victory was not impressive, considering Darby's status as a fringe candidate.

Jess Brown, a professor of government and public affairs at Athens State University, said he expects Tyson to be a good campaigner, but has not seen anything to indicate he can overcome King's advantages of incumbency and party affiliation.

"Of the Democrats who could win statewide, I wouldn't put Tyson on that list," Brown said.

E-mail: mcason@bhamnews.com

© 2006 The Birmingham News

debby

09-21-2006, 23:38 PM

mmcd3182

09-22-2006, 00:04 AM

Thanks mm. I agree with King's statement, "If you want to prevent that rapist from hurting a child, you let him know there's going to be a harsh penalty to pay," Although to provide more money for child advocacy centers, is a good idea, I don't think this should be in the state budget. This should come from our communities, churches and fund raisers.
So I'm still voting for King.

I think that funding for these programs should be a priority in the state budget. And being a person who thinks that capital punishment is murder--state sponsored murder--,I find King's statement's ugly. I don't want this to get side tracked on a debate on capital punishment, but it hasn't been shown that it is a deterrent to crime at all...

But I understand that you would focus strongly on that topic--it's evident in many of your posts. (protecting children) However, there are other ways to diminish repeat offenders. I think they should take care of them the FIRST time, and that saying "one child, and you get jail.... two children... more jail... and if you manage to get three kids... you're gonna die"... that just seems illogical to me. If King believes that capital punishment is appropriate for child sex offenders, then one child should be enough -- not two or three or four.

demopolite

09-22-2006, 07:59 AM

Just a note:

If you want to thank someone for the sex offender act, then you need to call your CONGRESSMAN and GOVERNOR RILEY.

King did not have anything to do with the Act. It's been in the works since Pryor was in office.

If you want to believe King's lies, that is perfectly your right...however, there are many of us in the State of Alabama who want a competent person in the AG's office who will perform the job of the Attorney General rather than just campaigning for himself.

Another notable thing about the AG's office under King: an investigator in that office has been indicted for PERJURY in Jefferson County. This is in addition to an Assistant Attorney General lying and hiding evidence in a case.

Do you really want a man in office who lies, tells his subordinates to lie, doesn't do the job he's hired to do, and spends the time YOUR tax money is paying him to do his job to CAMPAIGN?

demopolite

09-22-2006, 08:13 AM

If you are a Republican, then you might be interested in reading this post about King that I found on an Alabama elections blog -- written by a Republican:

Troy King: A Real Republican?

As the political season in Alabama opens for the 2006 elections, many new candidates will run under the Republican banner. While Alabama has no hard and fast rule for party affiliation, running under the banner of a party presumes adherence or at least general agreement with a party’s principles. But party affiliation can be used as a mask to obscure a candidate’s real beliefs and it is incumbent on voters to look behind party labels to determine if a candidate is really true to their party or is using the party label as cover.

Troy King is one such candidate. A careful review of his record reveals an opportunistic and unprincipled politician interested merely in self promotion and election to office. Republican party principles mean nothing to him, but the party is a vehicle to propel his political career. His actions both as an individual and as the attorney general give lie to the fact that he can be considered a true Republican.

The Biblical adage of “where your treasure is, so is your heart” in the political world invites an examination of campaign contributions. The simple implication is that if you support Republican candidates, you’ll give financially. In Troy King’s case, there is no record with the Federal Election Commission that he gave any money to President Bush, Senators Shelby or Sessions or any of Alabama’s Congressmen! In fact, the only donation listed is a small contribution to the Alabama Republican Party and that was to purchase a ticket to attend a dinner. How can King claim to be a true Republican when there is no record of contributions to the campaigns of the party’s elected leadership?

So, if Troy doesn’t support Republican candidates, then he must support Republican principles. Wrong! Troy has in many instances sided with Democrats, supported the Democrat agenda and allowed Democrats to sponsor his legislation.

Any issue using “California” and “marijuana” in the same phrase would never gain the support of Alabamians. Yet, King in his role as attorney general, asked the United States Supreme Court to support the principles in California’s medical marijuana law! Sure, he did it under the cloak of states rights, but nothing can obscure the fact that Alabama by actions of Attorney General King supported the agenda of liberals who desire to begin the process to legalize marijuana. Medical marijuana is the tip of the ice berg in their plan. Jonathan Goodman with the Drug Enforcement Agency commented that medical marijuana laws make it “harder to enforce the war on drugs.” In fact, recent studies have shown that marijuana for medical use is over prescribed and abused by unscrupulous health officials. Beginning the process of making marijuana more readily available under the guise of medicine is not a part of a Republican agenda.

One issue that has plagued Alabama’s legislature of late is the policy of allowing felons the right to vote. Democrat legislators have made it a central part of their agenda to ease the restrictions on convicted felon’s right to vote. King helped this agenda in a recent opinion issued by his office. To the shock and dismay of his party, King determined that not all felonies preclude voting privileges; King concluded that in some instances, felons convicted of drunk driving or marijuana possession who are still in prison can exercise their right to vote! This decision is not only dangerous but can throw a potential snarl in voter registration and actual voting. The Republican agenda on this issue has been clear: convicted felons should only be allowed to vote when they take the initiative of asking to have an important privilege restored. By his actions, King has moved the Democrat agenda forward by making it easier for felons in prison to vote.

Another issue reveling King’s support of Democrats is his failure to support the recently filed law suit asking that the current legislative districts as drawn by Democrats be found unconstitutional. Democrats have maintained control of the legislature by drawing districts to over populate Republican districts and under populate Democrat districts. The result is that while Alabama handily elects Republicans as President, Senators and 5 of 7 Congressmen, Democrats still control the legislature. One item very high on the Republican agenda is supporting a law suit that would require that Alabama redraw the districts fairly so that Republican and Democrat voters will have equal representation. As the State’s top lawyer, King should be in favor of this proposal. Yet, he has indicated that he will vigorously defend the current districts against a Republican backed law suit. This revelation sent shock waves through the ranks of GOP lawmakers who’ve spent countless hours planning for the lawsuit and have raised substantial sums to support a re-districting plan that is fair. For King to support Democrats further reveals his true stripes.

Voter will have ample opportunity to size up candidates for offices up and down the ballot in 2006. While party affiliation is important, voters should not be deceived by politicians, like Troy King, who hide under the party banner to gain support and obscure their stand on important issues. King’s actions speak so much louder than his party affiliation and the fact that he has supported Democrats and their principles should make Republican voters cautious lest they elect a Democrat in Republican clothes.

Now, I happen to disagree with a LOT of things this guy says, but I know that many of you hold the same positions as the author. Considering that this author is a Republican holding many of the same values as you, I consider it insightful that even HE is not supporting King.

http://alelections.blogspot.com/2006/02/new-politics-of-hunting.html

trezhamayn

09-22-2006, 08:55 AM

Demopolite, I read the article, but this was all I got from it: “where your treasure is, so is your heart”

If this is true, then my heart must belong to debby :)

shells

09-22-2006, 11:09 AM

Ok ...so I really don't think ANY one political party is the answer to the ills of America. I'm a made up term called a Liberal Republican that means that I can vote on THE candidate and not the messed up political party agenda. I think this man is a "credit taker" which is one of my highest peeves. Vote your conscious guys, don't get caught up in the game of it all.

debby

09-23-2006, 02:15 AM

I think that funding for these programs should be a priority in the state budget. And being a person who thinks that capital punishment is murder--state sponsored murder--,I find King's statement's ugly. I don't want this to get side tracked on a debate on capital punishment, but it hasn't been shown that it is a deterrent to crime at all...

But I understand that you would focus strongly on that topic--it's evident in many of your posts. (protecting children) However, there are other ways to diminish repeat offenders. I think they should take care of them the FIRST time, and that saying "one child, and you get jail.... two children... more jail... and if you manage to get three kids... you're gonna die"... that just seems illogical to me. If King believes that capital punishment is appropriate for child sex offenders, then one child should be enough -- not two or three or four.
I agree but King didn't make that law. Bill Clinton signed that law into existence. I remember the debate over it. I was sickened that our law system would be so weak on criminals.
So you can't blame that on King. He has to obey the laws handed to him.
I agree wholeheartedly that if a person hurts a child they should receive that states harshest punishment for the crime.
I sure hope this is not your reason for not voting for King.

mmcd3182

09-23-2006, 21:42 PM

I agree but King didn't make that law. Bill Clinton signed that law into existence. I remember the debate over it. I was sickened that our law system would be so weak on criminals.
So you can't blame that on King. He has to obey the laws handed to him.
I agree wholeheartedly that if a person hurts a child they should receive that states harshest punishment for the crime.
I sure hope this is not your reason for not voting for King.

what law?

King wants the Legislature to change the law to impose the death penalty on people with multiple convictions for rape or molestation of children.

This was King if you are talking about the death penalty-- not Clinton....

???

debby

09-24-2006, 01:34 AM

This is the law I was thinking about. I realized King is wanting a state law for these criminals. And I agree. If a person hurts a child the first time they need life in prison. We have pretty tough laws in Alabama for child abuse. Not capital punishment. But I think they deserve it. They take something away from children they can NEVER get back.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/60mcrm.htm#9-60.020
9-60.020 Sentencing Enhancement -- "Three Strikes" Law

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 included a "Three Strikes" provision, which is now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c). Under § 3559(c) a defendant will receive mandatory life imprisonment if he or she:
is convicted in federal court of a "serious violent felony" and

has two or more prior convictions in federal or state courts, at least one of which is a "serious violent felony." The other prior offense may be a "serious drug offense."

On March 13, 1995, the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division issued a memorandum to all United States Attorneys regarding the "Three Strikes" law.

See the Criminal Resource Manual at 1032 for the text of the memorandum.
9-60.100 Kidnapping -- 18 U.S.C. § § 1201 and 1202

So your not voting for King? LOL JK you don't have to answer.

mmcd3182

09-24-2006, 03:11 AM

This is the law I was thinking about. I realized King is wanting a state law for these criminals. And I agree. If a person hurts a child the first time they need life in prison. We have pretty tough laws in Alabama for child abuse. Not capital punishment. But I think they deserve it. They take something away from children they can NEVER get back.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/60mcrm.htm#9-60.020
9-60.020 Sentencing Enhancement -- "Three Strikes" Law
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 included a "Three Strikes" provision, which is now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c). Under § 3559(c) a defendant will receive mandatory life imprisonment if he or she:
is convicted in federal court of a "serious violent felony" and
has two or more prior convictions in federal or state courts, at least one of which is a "serious violent felony." The other prior offense may be a "serious drug offense."
On March 13, 1995, the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division issued a memorandum to all United States Attorneys regarding the "Three Strikes" law.
See the Criminal Resource Manual at 1032 for the text of the memorandum.
9-60.100 Kidnapping -- 18 U.S.C. § § 1201 and 1202
So your not voting for King? LOL JK you don't have to answer.

1. We're talking about specific type of criminals -- child predators.
2. That is a US Code generalized law that covers many many many other types of crimes as you posted.
3. It nowhere mentions capital punishment.

?

I'm not sure who I'll be voting for -- you know how politics are -- a LOT can happen, and a lot of new information can be put out within a period of about 40 days. Look at what Eatmon did...

leagle

09-24-2006, 14:45 PM

Wyldfire

09-24-2006, 15:52 PM

I would like to thank those who have given other info about Mr. King than what is provided in newspapers and news web sites that I have read. One thing is for sure, you've got to be educated from many different sources and view points to make an informed vote...

mmcd3182

09-25-2006, 07:41 AM

You are confused. The last few posts concern federal law, federal courts, US Attorneys, federal sentencing guidelines.
These have absolutely nothing to do with Alabama law, the Attorney General or State court convictions.
But being confused is as good a reason as any to vote for Troy, I guess. I'm not sure he knows the difference either.

Yes, that's what I was posting... debby posted a US law, which had nothing to do with Troy King at all... and I was telling her that even the law she posted (the 3 strikes law) didn't really have anything to do with this thread except for the one condition that you are a violent predator and manage to get 3 strikes and then you're done.

But most States already have much stricter child predator laws inacted right now don't they? I don't really know why that "Bill Clinton" and "3 Strikes" came into play...

demopolite

09-25-2006, 12:41 PM

Call it a sort of "scientific curiosity," but I'm curious as to why anyone would want to vote for Troy King, given his record of lying, telling his subordinates to lie, taking credit for things he has not done, advocating positions without thinking of their ramifications, never having to work for anything in his life, and having everything he has ever gotten in life given to him on a silver platter.

Particularly given the fact that King's opponent is a well-respected District Attorney who has actually practiced law, actually put criminals behind bars, I find support of King ASTOUNDING, at the least. King's opponent Tyson is even a "god-fearing Christian," which seems to be an important thing for many Alabama voters.

I'm just facinated by the fact that many blue-collar Alabamians would want to support such a spoiled brat whose only jobs have been given to him because he knew people! That's not the kind of person most hard-working Alabamians I know would support, particularly when he doesn't know how to do the job he was hired...excused me...APPOINTED to do!!

Most Alabamians I know -- given a spoiled pretty boy who got his job because of who he knows, who doesn't do his job and lies all the time -- would suggest that employee be FIRED.

If you are a King supporter, speak up and tell us why!

It can't be because he got a new sex offender act passed, because that Act was being drafted well before King came into office -- even though he has tried to claim that he "drafted and passed" it (an out-and-out lie...you can look it up).

It can't be because he's good at his job, because since Bill Pryor left the number of cases tried by the AG's office that have been handed wrongly has vastly increased.

It can't be because he is honest, because he has falsely claimed credit for things he did not do, and under is oversight several of his subordinates have been caught in flat-out lies -- with one even being tried for perjury.

It can't be because he is good at advocating for children, because he doesn't do anything and simply claims credit for the acts of others.

It can't be because of King's experience, because his only work experience has been in jobs to which he was appointed because of his "connections."

King supporters...why do you support such a man? Speak up!

demopolite

10-17-2006, 11:51 AM

What's Troy King been doing lately?

Arguing against an Alabama law (you know...the laws he swore to uphold) and losing. This is after he argued FOR the Alabama law and LOST last time.

Way to waste our money, T-Roy!

Now....what has his opponent Tyson been doing?

Only saving helpless newborns from neglect and death (http://betweenthelinks.com/2006/10/17/powerful-tyson-video/)

Choose wisely, Alabamians. Do you want a politician who will only argue for things that benefit him politically as Attorney General? If so, then vote for Troy King.

But if you want someone who has actually tried cases, who actually understands the laws of Alabama and wants to uphold them, and who actually cares about protecting the people of Alabama, then vote Tyson.

demopolite

10-23-2006, 14:59 PM

Wow....simply "Wow."

I don't know what else to say about the comments that Troy King recently made about his opponent, John Tyson.

Here's some background from www.betweenthelinks.com:

Tyson is the Democratic nominee for attorney general. He has spent the last 14 years as the district attorney of Mobile County, and was recently recognized for one of his initiatives in that position.

Tyson’s Helping Families program — which sends social workers into the schools to try to help troubled students before they land in the juvenile justice system — was just featured in Education Week, a magazine distributed nationally. Here's a link to the story. (http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1161594912171710.xml&coll=3)

Everyone seems to like this program except Troy King, the incumbent attorney general.

King called it a “fuzzy, feel-good, liberal social program.”

“It is not the attorney general’s job to run social programs,” King said, adding that he has heard Tyson say that the purpose of such initiatives is to keep people out of jail. “If the attorney general is not going to put people in jail, who is?”

Wow…. just… wow. He threw out the “fuzzy,” the “feel-good,” and the “liberal social program.” There are so many things wrong in those few short phrases that it just boggles the mind. I can agree that the attorney general is not constitutionally required to implement this program statewide, but here’s the big difference between Tyson and King. Tyson sees his job as “keeping the peace.” King sees his job as “thrower of people into jail.” Troy King’s last comment about, “If the attorney general is not going to put people in jail, who is?” is especially telling.

***

Tyson started the program to guarantee mothers who abandon their unwanted children would not face criminal prosecution if they safely left them at a hospital under certain conditions. The Troy King approach would be to mandate capital punishment for mothers who left unwanted children unsafely. Which is more effective at saving lives and preventing crime?

Tyson looks at all the evidence that suggests that criminal behavior in adults is tracable to certain characteristics in children. He therefore helped implement “social programs” to address this behavior in an effort to curb the number of future criminals. The Troy King approach would be to jump for joy at the thought of so many future criminals to throw in jail.

I honestly think some of John Tyson’s ideas might go too far, but I generally subscribe to the opinion of an editorial released by the Birmingham News today:

Imagine a public health leader who sees her job as treating diseases, not preventing them. A preacher who believes it’s his job to condemn us when we sin, not to encourage us to adhere to paths of righteousness. An auto mechanic who sees the frayed belt but doesn’t do anything to avert the inevitable breakdown.

Troy King wants to fight crime — which is an admirable trait for an attorney general. But when it comes to fighting crime Tyson has him beat on experience. Tyson also seems to have a true passion for keeping the peace, which appears to be a characteristic our incumbent attorney general is completely lacking.

I thought that Troy King's quote was very, very telling -- he sees his job as "throwing people in jail." That's it. He doesn't even care if there is a CHEAPER AND MORE EFFECTIVE way to stop people from committing crime, and kids from becoming criminals when they grow up.

PLEASE PLEASE no matter what your background, your party, your political leanings, PLEASE do the people of Alabama a great service and VOTE OUT TROY KING!!!!!!!!

demopolite

10-31-2006, 12:56 PM

The Anniston Star has endorsed John Tyson. If you are thinking about voting for Troy King, you should really read their op-ed and look into the facts for yourself.

Alabama has enough of its own problems in matters of criminal justice. The state’s attorney general and staff ought to fill their days with the various challenges of Alabama’s legal system.

Sadly, though, recent Alabama attorneys general have treated the office as if it were a right-wing think tank, sticking their noses into legal matters far outside the state. One AG who is now a federal judge, William Pryor, even filed a “friend of the court” brief taking George W. Bush’s side in the 2000 presidential election case. The case might be relevant to a partisan politician, but not to the state’s highest law enforcer.

Unfortunately, Pryor’s replacement, Troy King, whom Gov. Bob Riley appointed to the office in 2004, has kept up this highly ideological practice.

What Alabama needs is an attorney general capable of representing the state in legal matters as well as overseeing a staff charged with pursuing justice for Alabamians. Because of his experience as Mobile County’s district attorney and his record of innovative ways of combating crime, John Tyson Jr. is the right candidate for the job.

What we hear from Tyson regarding targeting at-risk schoolchildren and intervening in their lives to keep them out of a life of crime is similar to what we hear from Gov. Riley and Richard Allen, the state’s prisons commissioner. All three men recognize that senseless tough-guy punishments are not enough to reduce crime. King, on the other hand, has derided Tyson’s ideas as useless social programs. Call them what you want; if they keep Alabamians from turning to a life of crime, this page endorses them.

HERE (http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2006/as-editorials-1030-0-6j29x1949.htm) is the link.

VULCAN-A-

10-31-2006, 13:52 PM

PROBLEM: The Attorney General shouldn't initiate suits challenging constitutionality of state laws, he defends them.

when he became AG did that disqualify as a citizen of Alabama?

demopolite

10-31-2006, 13:59 PM

when he became AG did that disqualify as a citizen of Alabama?

????

It's "inappropriate" to bring a suit that you are also supposed to defend against. Additionally, Troy King had already defended the exact same laws.

The job description of the Attorney General is to defend the laws of the State of Alabama. If Troy King has a moral, spiritual, or other personal problem with doing that, then maybe he shouldn't have the job!!! I have a moral problem with the death penalty....do you think that I should be the state executioner and then refuse to do my job on moral grounds??

I'm sorry, but I can think of absolutely no intelligent reason to support this man other than blind allegiance to the Republican party...and if that's your reason...well...let's just say that I feel really, really sad for any person who has blind allegiance to any party.

VOTE SMART....VOTE TYSON!!

shells

10-31-2006, 14:51 PM

????well...let's just say that I feel really, really sad for any person who has blind allegiance to any party.

....I do, as well. Why can't we have blind allegiance to ideals, instead? ....irrespective of political candidates?

RonBurgundy

11-06-2006, 17:43 PM

bump..and reminder to please vote for John Tyson, Jr.

The only candidate for Attorney General who has any experience really prosecuting criminals, who is committed to working on fighting the causes of crime (which some politicians disdainfully call 'social programs'), and is committed to advancing the safety and well-being of all Alabamians..and not just furthering his political career.

Someone who won't go against his well-educated and well reasoned predecessor and single handedly cut funding for attorneys who represent abused and neglected children by issuing an opinion that one Montgomery Circuit judge called baseless in its reasoning, and contrary to earlier AG opinions from someone like Bill Pryor, now a federal judge...

Someone who won't play politics with people's lives by refusing to sign off on court orders that would force the state to provide funding for mentally challenged adults whose caretakers can no longer provide for their needs...all in the name of preventing extended litigation, when all it means that the case will go forward...resulting in extended litigation.

I think it's great that King helped push anti-sex crime legislation through the legistlature, since something like that really doesn't have a chance of passing otherwise...especially in a time when sex crimes and sex crimes against children are national news and a top priority for alot of states. Visionary thinking...as long as you acknowledge the many other visionaries who accomplished the same things.

Oh yes, he also helped get tough on meth. Another cause that was sure to fail on it's own merits since no one could have recognized the dangers without his guidance.

My vote is for John Tyson, Jr....who has a history of actual practicing law, serving his fellow man and not just his political career, and who is an actual crime-fighter both before and after the crime has occurred. I hope you will join me.

mmcd3182

11-06-2006, 17:57 PM

I have several sample ballots printed out, and tonight me and those in my family that are voting tomorrow are going to go over the information, with a computer handy to look up any questions on candidates.

When I go to vote tomorrow at 8:30 am.... I'll have my ballot already marked (sample) and won't be making any uninformed decisions "in the moment."

I have to admit threads like this and others that have been on the site definately have made me think more about the voting process itself. I think of how most people vote, how my family has voted in the past, and most people go in to fill out the ballot hoping they can remember which commercial they saw that they liked the best, or just picking a name at random based on a party, or based on wrong information.

Be an informed voter. Something I've learned a lot more about these past few months.

RhondaRoo

11-06-2006, 23:05 PM

MM, I did the same thing that you have done. LOL I thought that I would be the only person going to the polls in the morning with my sample ballot marked.

You are so right about the posts on here concerning politicial issues. They have opened my eyes and made me do more research into all of the candidates.

Faith

11-07-2006, 01:12 AM