Bill Clinton and the BLM gang

Washingtonpost.com:

NEW YORK — For days now, Bill Clinton has been attempting to extricate himself from a confrontation with Black Lives Matter protesters, trying both to hold to his position and step back from it. It’s been an awkward dance.

But it speaks to a broader problem for the 42nd president of the United States. Clinton is caught in a time warp, having to grapple with how much the era in which he served, the events that occurred then and the actions he took as president have been reinterpreted and, by many in his own party, rejected.

Clinton is a gifted campaigner and remains a popular ex-president. There are few politicians more skilled at synthesizing and explaining issues or making a political argument, as he demonstrated repeatedly in his advocacy for President Obama in the 2012 campaign.

But this is 2016, not 1992 or 1996, and things have changed — particularly within the Democratic Party. Clinton’s exchange with the Black Lives Matter demonstrators over the 1994 crime bill and in particular Hillary Clinton’s use of the term “superpredators” at the time brought into high relief the conundrum he and she face.

Among other things, that 1994 crime bill instituted tough sentencing provisions that resulted in high rates of incarceration for many young African Americans convicted of nonviolent offenses. That provision in particular is now seen by many people as too harsh. Many of the politicians who supported it then — including Sen. Bernie Sanders — have said it went too far. Hillary Clinton is in that camp. So is Bill Clinton.

So did the 1994 crime bill go too far and in what ways?  Let’s talk about what part of it is “too far.”  Crime is down since 1994.  However, gun violence in inner cities is still rampant.  Super predators still exist, preying on young people as they recruit kids into gangs and suck in 8 year olds to be gun runners.

What is harsh about that crime bill?

Highlights of the bill include:  (from wiki)

Following the 101 California Street shooting, the 1993 Waco Siege, and other high-profile instances of violent crime, the Act expanded federal law in several ways. One of the most noted sections was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Other parts of the Act provided for a greatly expanded federal death penalty, new classes of individuals banned from possessing firearms, and a variety of new crimes defined in statutes relating to immigration law, hate crimes, sex crimes, and gang-related crime. The bill also required states to establish registries for sexual offenders by September 1997.

I also believe that this crime bill included some of the fall out from the death of Len Bias which is when mandatory long sentences came into existence.  We do have way too many people languishing in prison, far longer than they need to be there, over relatively low crime drug involvement.   Much of that is overkill, expensive, and frankly non-productive.

Having said that, I can’t think of anything I would change.  I don’t want to reward sex offenders or bank robbers or gang bangers.

So, was Bill Clinton wrong in handling BLM as he did?  I don’t think so.  I would treat them like Code Pink and move on.  There is a right way and a wrong way.  I believe rudeness is just inexcusable.  I don’t care if it is a Trump rally or a Clinton rally.  That kind of behavior is unacceptable.