Is Tom Adelson child molester sympathizer

[jamesrage]

I have to wonder about a man who wouldn't vote on a bill to give repeat child molesters the death penalty or life in prison. The Oh I think it is unconstitutional is a cop out because what is and isn't constitutional is subjective considering the fact they were executing for crimes other than murder right after our founding forefathers wrote the 8th amendment . Considering this man chose not to vote for state sovereignty I have to wonder I doubt his claims that he felt that it was unconstitutional. Surely if this man is tough on child molesters and other scum he would be running a ad of all the bills he voted for to counter the soft on crime claims made by his opponent.


http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11349828
"A disgrace to the city." That's what Democratic candidate Tom Adelson is calling the latest ad attacking his record on crime.

Republican candidate Dewey Bartlett is firing back, saying the campaign ad is true and he's standing by it.

   * Ad: "Nothing the Tulsa mayor does is more important than keeping families safe. That's why Tom Adelson's record on crime is troubling."

Tom Adelson says it's not his record on crime, but this negative ad that should be troubling to voters.

"This ad is defamatory, slanderous and outright wrong and we will be taking action," said Tom Adelson, (D) Mayoral Candidate.

   * Ad: "Adelson voted against the death penalty for twice convicted child molesters."

That's true.

Adelson did vote against two bills in 2006 that would have allowed the death penalty for repeat child molesters. But he says that law was unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, striking it down in 2008.

   * Ad: "He wouldn't even let the juries give child molesters life without parole."

No, that's not entirely accurate.

The law already allowed child molesters to be sentenced to life without parole and Adelson's 2006 votes didn't have any effect on that.


http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/oklahoma-state-sovereignty

[waterboy]

I had been on the fence in this election till the latest slew of negative, cynical slime that Bartlett's people have spewed. I say Bartlett's people because I have met DB and found him to be not your regular right wing nutcase. This is party operative stuff we're being subjected to from both sides and its downright hideous. It should be noted though, that Barlett's people commenced the poop throwing and brought it to its peak.

But this one took the cake. Anyone who thinks Adelson is soft on child molesters is rank and file moron.

Gotta go with Adelson. Thanks James.

[RecycleMichael]

What a bogus bucking attack.

The law says life without parole. One politician in another district wants to up the ante and proposes a bill that says kill them, all the while knowing that it was unconstitutional. That lawmaker doesn't care, he wants to be on the record as wanting to kill them repeat offenders.

Almost all of the legislators see through the nonsense and don't want to be wasting time or waste spending state's money defending a law that is clearly going to be instantly thrown out. Tom Adelson is in that group.

That is the most stupid attack I have heard in this campaign (but it is still weeks till election day).

[Townsend]

That is the most stupid attack I have heard in this campaign (but it is still weeks till election day).

Yes, there's much more time to do worse.

[Conan71]

James you are a few days late on this.  Try reading the Tulsa World or better yet, search out other threads on such a topic when it's been simmering for a few days.  This attack was total bravo sierra by the Bartlett campaign.

[jamesrage]

What a bogus frakking attack.

The law says life without parole. One politician in another district wants to up the ante and proposes a bill that says kill them, all the while knowing that it was unconstitutional. That lawmaker doesn't care, he wants to be on the record as wanting to kill them repeat offenders.

Considering the fact they were still executing people for crimes other than murder after the 8th amendment was written, what is and isn't constitutional is subjective. The bill also had a life without parole option, he would have nothing to lose if he voted for the bill and the death sentence was struck down by by some activist judges. And considering the fact he doesn't care about 10th amendment rights by not voting for state soverignty it is clear that he doesn't give a rats donkey about the constitution.

Almost all of the legislators see through the nonsense and don't want to be wasting time or waste spending state's money defending a law that is clearly going to be instantly thrown out. Tom Adelson is in that group.

I believe one person in that group of pedosympathizers claimed it was a bill to get all the rednecks out.

That is the most stupid attack I have heard in this campaign

Surely if he is not soft of scum he should have some bills he voted for to counter the attacks.

[jamesrage]

James you are a few days late on this.  Try reading the Tulsa World or better yet,

I do not read liberal rags.

search out other threads on such a topic when it's been simmering for a few days. 

This is a local and state politics issue, is there better forum section for local and state politics issues other than the local and state politics forum section?

This attack was total bravo sierra by the Bartlett campaign.

This attack is nothing more than the usual political campaign tactic of using what someone voted for or against against an opponent. If Adelson is tough on crime then he should have some legislation that he voted for to back it up.  The fact he chose to side with pedophile sympathizers and a guy who claimed it was a bill to lure the rednecks out to vote does not look good on him. The wants to be the next mayor of Tulsa then he should prove that he does not want to turn this city into Vermont by trying to be another Judge Edward Cashman.

[Conan71]

The fact he chose to side with pedophile sympathizers and a guy who claimed it was a bill to lure the rednecks out to vote does not look good on him. The wants to be the next mayor of Tulsa then he should prove that he does not want to turn this city into Vermont by trying to be another Judge Edward Cashman.

There went whatever credibility you had left.

[RecycleMichael]

The death penalty is not the answer for this crime. In almost every case, the death penalty is reserved for murder. Yes, long ago, we used the death penalty for horse thiefs and lesser crimes, but not now. In America currently, there is only one person on death row facing capital punishment that has not been convicted of murder.

Demarcus Ali Sears remains under a death sentence in Georgia for the crime of "Kidnapping With Bodily Injury." Sears was convicted in 1993 for the Kidnapping and Bodily Injury of victim Gloria Ann Wilbur. Wilbur was kidnapped and beaten in Georgia, raped in Tennessee, and murdered in Kentucky. Sears was never charged with the murder of Wilbur in Kentucky, but was sentenced to death by a jury in Georgia for Kidnapping with Bodily Injury. 

There is also mounting concern that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. 57% of police chiefs say is is not effective...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09293/1006865-84.stm

Call me soft on crime all you want...

[Conan71]

The death penalty is not the answer for this crime. In almost every case, the death penalty is reserved for murder. Yes, long ago, we used the death penalty for horse thiefs and lesser crimes, but not now. In America currently, there is only one person on death row facing capital punishment that has not been convicted of murder.

Demarcus Ali Sears remains under a death sentence in Georgia for the crime of "Kidnapping With Bodily Injury." Sears was convicted in 1993 for the Kidnapping and Bodily Injury of victim Gloria Ann Wilbur. Wilbur was kidnapped and beaten in Georgia, raped in Tennessee, and murdered in Kentucky. Sears was never charged with the murder of Wilbur in Kentucky, but was sentenced to death by a jury in Georgia for Kidnapping with Bodily Injury. 

There is also mounting concern that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. 57% of police chiefs say is is not effective...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09293/1006865-84.stm

Call me soft on crime all you want...

It is no deterrent.  If it were, then homicide rates would drop off and they have not significantly since the death penalty was reinstated.  People who commit murder have little or no regard for life, so what is the significance of a sentence which takes away life?

True fiscal conservatives would also appreciate it costs tax payers vastly more to sentence someone to death.  Some states estimate it costs about $90,000 more per year to warehouse prisoners on death row and another $85,000 per year for the manditory appeals a death row inmate gets.

[guido911]

Call me soft on crime all you want...

Okay mister, you are soft on crime.  Feel better?    I too am soft on crime because I oppose the death penalty, albeit on moral grounds and not on the issue of deterrence.

[RecycleMichael]

If Adelson is tough on crime then he should have some legislation that he voted for to back it up. 

You have used this same argument four times so far in this thread. That is one of reasons why people don't take you seriously. When the most liberal and most conservative posters on this forum disagree with you and all you do is post the same words again and again, you lose.

I am not part of the Adelson campaign, but spent five minutes searching for such a vote.
Here is the first one that showed...

SB702 voted on this year..."adding to the minimum sentence for kidnapping"

Adelson voted Aye.

[Steve]

I had been on the fence in this election till the latest slew of negative, cynical slime that Bartlett's people have spewed.

Ditto for me.  It is my understanding that Adelson voted against the measure because of constitutional issues, not because he is soft on child molesters.  And he was right, as the bill has since been ruled unconstitutional by the court.  Bartlet and his ad men that approved this ad should be ashamed of themselves. 

[jamesrage]

There went whatever credibility you had left.

Are you saying he didn't. What legislation did he vote for to suggest that what I said is not true. I'll be waiting.

[jamesrage]

Ditto for me.  It is my understanding that Adelson voted against the measure because of constitutional issues, not because he is soft on child molesters.  And he was right, as the bill has since been ruled unconstitutional by the court.  Bartlet and his ad men that approved this ad should be ashamed of themselves. 

What is and isn't constitutional regarding the 8th amendment is subjective.

If he believed in the constitution like he says he does then why did he vote against state sovereignty?

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/oklahoma-state-sovereignty