Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 24th 10, 06:12 PM posted to talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,nyc.politics,ny.politics,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default A Major Blunder: Candidate Warren Redlich is against the PoliceGiving Drunk Driving Tickets

A Major Blunder: Candidate Warren Redlich is against the Police Giving
Drunk Driving Tickets

Albany CBS News is broadcasting on video an interview of Local Town
Council Member Warren Redlich asking the town council to tell the
police to stop issuing DWAI tickets. DWAI stands for “Driving While
Alcohol Impaired”

http://www.cbs6albany.com/video/?vid...upId=&play=now

http://www.cbs6albany.com/video/?vid...71293&play=now

I just did a Google Search for DWAI and Warren Redlich comes out right
on top. Apparently a major part of his legal practice comes from
defending DWI drunk driving tickets.

It just comes back to me that when Warren Redlich made a speech to the
Manhattan Libertarian Party last month, he said that he advocates
reducing the drinking age to 18. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

I can understand that an attorney who wants to lower the drinking age
to 18 and who wants the police to stop issuing drunk driving tickets
would naturally come to the Libertarian Party, because no other
political party would want to have anything to do with him.

However, I cannot imagine a worse issue for a one-issue candidate to
have. Can you imagine what will happen to us if we place such a
candidate at the top of our ticket? Not only will MADD, “Mothers
Against Drunk Driving”, attack us; but they will attack the entire
Libertarian Party nation wide.

New York is already fairly lenient on this particular offense as
compared to other states. A quick check showed that other states give
a mandatory ten days in jail for the same alcohol limit that Warren
Redlich says should not even merit a simple ticket in New York.

This example shows that we should do a better job of checking out our
candidates whom we do not know well before considering nominating them
for important public offices.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old March 24th 10, 07:26 PM posted to talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,nyc.politics,ny.politics,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default A Major Blunder: Candidate Warren Redlich is against the PoliceGiving Drunk Driving Tickets

In the first place, did you play the video? If not, you should do so
because, if he becomes our candidate it is likely that this video will
be played over and over again by our opponents. That video is right
now being played on CBS Channel 6 News in Albany so possibly millions
are watching it.

http://www.cbs6albany.com/video/?vid...upId=&play=now

http://www.cbs6albany.com/video/?vid...71293&play=now

I agree that the drunk driving laws are a legitimate Libertarian
issue. The question is: Should that be our main issue: Front and
Center, or should it be a back burner issue?

I think it should be a back burner issue. Here is an example:
Libertarians agree that heroin should be legalized. However, we know
that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to us on this issue so we do
not mention it. On the other hand, we know that there is considerable
support for legalizing marijuana so we feel safe in talking about
that.

How many were there when he gave his speech to the Manhattan
Libertarian Party? He started it as follows, by reading a list:

"Ten reasons why I am not qualified to be the Libertarian Party
Candidate for Governor of New York:

"1. I have never been convicted of a felony.
"2. I have never been married to more than one woman at the same time.
"3. I have never been caught having sex with a prostitute"

and so on.

Apparently he was trying to be funny David Letterman style. We were
polite but nobody laughed. I would wager that if he gave that same
speech to a convention of Republicans or Democrats, he would have been
ejected and thrown out before he had even finished reading his list.

I am not saying that he should not defend drunk drivers. They have a
right to be defended and he has a right to make a living. He probably
makes a good living from this since I am sure he gets lots of clients.
However, I still wonder why he refuses to use any of his own money to
campaign for office and why he just wants to use our money for his
campaign.

Please note that he does not advocate changing the law. He does not
advocate raising the lower alcohol limit from .05 to .08 for example.
Rather he states in the video that the police should stop enforcing
the law.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old March 24th 10, 08:48 PM posted to talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,nyc.politics,ny.politics,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default A Major Blunder: Candidate Warren Redlich is against the PoliceGiving Drunk Driving Tickets

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Bill Garcia Jr
wrote:
If Warren explains why DWI tickets are considered unconstitutional he should
be fine. The only negative I can see of this is that Lazio, Levy, Cuomo and
if the Conservative Party nominates a candidate can use this to attack
Warren as being "soft on crime".


Thank you.

It appears to me that his appearance in this news broadcast in not
part of his campaign for Governor of the State of New York. I would
say that it is part of an advertising campaign for his services as a
drunk driving legal defense attorney.

He does not raise any constitutional issues nor does he advocate a
change in the law. Rather he states that he is good at getting the
charges reduced to a non-alcohol offense.

He is also known to favor reducing the drinking age back to 18.

New York used to have one of the lowest drinking ages in the country.
It was 18. It got raised to 21, but I do not know how long ago, as I
do not drink. Now he wants it reduced back to 18.

He is not campaigning against his own interests. A lower drinking age
means more business for Warren Redlich, as there will be more drunk
driving cases to defend.

Note that his TV interview is being broadcast in connection with the
following news story:
"84 Teens Charged in Underage Drinking Party
"A blow-out bash at a million-dollar home has 84 teens facing charges.
Police say the teens are to blame for $200,000 worth of damage.
Alexandra Field explains why the investigation isn't over yet -- and
who's likely to face charges next."

I sure am glad that he did not mention the name of the Libertarian
Party in connection with this news story.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 25th 10, 03:09 AM posted to talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,nyc.politics,ny.politics,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2010
Posts: 2
Default A Major Blunder: Candidate Warren Redlich is against the Police Giving Drunk Driving Tickets

samsloan wrote:

New York used to have one of the lowest drinking ages in the country.
It was 18. It got raised to 21, but I do not know how long ago, as I
do not drink. Now he wants it reduced back to 18.


It was 18 when I was growing up. It made some sort of sense that if the
government felt I was mature enough to go to SE Asia and kill people, I
might be able to handle having a beer or two.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017