Actually, if you knew Martin O'Malley, you would know that he was planning to run for President. I was pretty sure that was his career track when we were both neighbours in Baltimore's Mt. Vernon Place and students at the University of Maryland Law school. Martin is a few years younger than I am, but he was working for Barbara Mikulski.
New Hampshire, Delegate Tony O'Donnell said, "It's the worst-kept secret in Maryland that the governor has national ambitions" after Martin stood in for Hillary Clinton at a Democratic campaign event in 2007.
I'm not that close to him (surprised and a little annoyed that he didn't acknowledge my congratulations on his winning the Governor post, but that's another story); so, I guess I should have known that he was making his plan to run for President in 2016 and has been since 2013.
Anyway, I received something asking who should run for president in 2016 and guess who was on the list?
Why, Martin O'Malley.
Of course, knowing his attitude toward guns, I should support him. But, there is something deep down in me that wouldn't vote for the guy. Well, at least not in a primary. He's too much of a politician and not enough of a leader. In other words, if you don't like Barack Obama--you will hate O'Malley.
With that, I'll end with this music video from Morrissey (No, I don't really feel this way, but I am a slacker compared with some of the people I've grown up with--although there are people who have done much worse than I have).
Showing posts with label martin o'malley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label martin o'malley. Show all posts
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Thursday, May 16, 2013
No surprises from Gov. Martin O'Malley
I've mentioned that I know Martin O'Malley and my connections to him.
If you think I'm anti-gun: Martin makes me look like one of you lot!
Anyway, he has just signed into effect some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, which comes as no surprise to me. I'm not sure where Maryland fell in the gun law pile, but I thought they were somewhat strict.
Now, Gun magazines will be limited to 10 bullets, gun ownership by people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility will be banned, and Maryland State Police will be able to suspend the licenses of gun dealers who fail to comply with recordkeeping obligations.
This says several things to me with the main one being that there is the political will to get stronger gun laws in place.
Martin is a politician (I'm too smart to be one). He wouldn't do something if it were going to cost him political points. And I think he wants to emulate the Kennedys and take a stab at the presidency.
Well, with some politicians seeing the blowback from failing to vote for background checks--he may have a point.
The real question is where will gun politics go in the US? Especially now that there may be an end to the Public Health research ban.
If you think I'm anti-gun: Martin makes me look like one of you lot!
Anyway, he has just signed into effect some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, which comes as no surprise to me. I'm not sure where Maryland fell in the gun law pile, but I thought they were somewhat strict.
Now, Gun magazines will be limited to 10 bullets, gun ownership by people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility will be banned, and Maryland State Police will be able to suspend the licenses of gun dealers who fail to comply with recordkeeping obligations.
This says several things to me with the main one being that there is the political will to get stronger gun laws in place.
Martin is a politician (I'm too smart to be one). He wouldn't do something if it were going to cost him political points. And I think he wants to emulate the Kennedys and take a stab at the presidency.
Well, with some politicians seeing the blowback from failing to vote for background checks--he may have a point.
The real question is where will gun politics go in the US? Especially now that there may be an end to the Public Health research ban.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Maryland Increases Death Penalty Requirements
Jeralyn over at Talk Left has the good news from Maryland. Governor Martin O'Malley has indicated he'll sign the bill which just passed in the Maryland House.
This will make Maryland's requirements for sentencing someone to death the strictest of any of the 35 States that still carry capital punishment on their books. What do you think about that?
Do you get the impression, with the recent changes in New Mexico, and this news from Maryland, that the country's moving away from the death penalty?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
The measure will limit capital cases to those with biological or DNA evidence, a videotaped confession or a videotape linking the defendant to a homicide.
This will make Maryland's requirements for sentencing someone to death the strictest of any of the 35 States that still carry capital punishment on their books. What do you think about that?
Do you get the impression, with the recent changes in New Mexico, and this news from Maryland, that the country's moving away from the death penalty?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Maryland Governor says Abolish Capital Punishment
Alan Colmes' wonderful site called Liberaland, ran this story. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley said in an interview that he plans to invest heavy political capital to persuade the General Assembly to pass a repeal bill.
O’Malley said the death penalty is not a deterrent, wastes resources that could be better spent fighting violent crime and leaves the state open to the possibility of executing innocent people. “That risk alone should be enough to repeal it and substitute it with life without parole,” he said.
The quote comes from the Washington Post, but rather than linking to that source, I linked to Alan's site because the comments are as great. As usual both extremes of opinion are expressed. Why do the hard-line conservative opinions seem so ridiculous? Is it just because I disagree, or is it more? For example, you have the phrase, "then your ass gets cooked in the chair." But that commenter qualified it by saying only if 100% guilt is established.
The comment thread on the Colmes' site degenerated, or should I say ascended, into a pretty healthy debate on abortion. The old, "how can liberals be for abortion and against the death penalty?" was asked. The ones who ask that are usually guilty of exactly the opposite belief system: against abortion but for capital punishment. Guess which group I align with.
Above all, in the governor's comments I noticed a terrible lacuna. He mentions the non-deterrent factor, and the waste of resources. He talks of the probability of executing an innocent person. But no mention is made of the moral question of whether it's right or wrong. For me that's the major reason for abolition.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
O’Malley said the death penalty is not a deterrent, wastes resources that could be better spent fighting violent crime and leaves the state open to the possibility of executing innocent people. “That risk alone should be enough to repeal it and substitute it with life without parole,” he said.
The quote comes from the Washington Post, but rather than linking to that source, I linked to Alan's site because the comments are as great. As usual both extremes of opinion are expressed. Why do the hard-line conservative opinions seem so ridiculous? Is it just because I disagree, or is it more? For example, you have the phrase, "then your ass gets cooked in the chair." But that commenter qualified it by saying only if 100% guilt is established.
The comment thread on the Colmes' site degenerated, or should I say ascended, into a pretty healthy debate on abortion. The old, "how can liberals be for abortion and against the death penalty?" was asked. The ones who ask that are usually guilty of exactly the opposite belief system: against abortion but for capital punishment. Guess which group I align with.
Above all, in the governor's comments I noticed a terrible lacuna. He mentions the non-deterrent factor, and the waste of resources. He talks of the probability of executing an innocent person. But no mention is made of the moral question of whether it's right or wrong. For me that's the major reason for abolition.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)