Huckabee’s Newest Staffer
Politics — By Joe Carter on November 27, 2007 at 12:01 amAlthough The Corner has outed me last week but I’ve been waiting to share the new with all of you.
I’ve taken a leave of absence from Family Research Council and moved down to Little Rock to work for the Mike Huckabee campaign. I’m heading up their efforts on research and rapid response communications.
I have a simple standard in deciding what type of candidate to support. I call it my ReaganTest: “Are they as conservative as Ronald Reagan was when he first ran for the Presidency?” Huckabee passes that test. I think he’s a solid fiscal, social, and security conservative. I also think he is the only one that can beat Hillary Clinton. I don’t say all this because I support Huckabee; I support Huckabee because I believe this to be true.
I’m hoping to help convince others, so if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
I have to confess that I’m a bit nervous about leaving my wife behind to help a darkhorse candidate win Iowa. But I figured if I wanted to see a conservative in the White House then I’d better get off the sidelines and get into the game. I’d certainly welcome any thoughts or advice you might have as I make the transition. (Oh, and if your comment is, “Are you out of your mind…?”, well, my wife beat you to that one.)
I should soon be settled in so regular blogging will resume tomorrow. And I promise to write a bit less about politics in the near future.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
93 Comments
Joe,
I don’t really think it’s such an old dead story-don’t pooh pooh it. It’s a potential Willie Horton.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/14/huckabee_could_face_hurdles_from_the_past/?page=1
I think it’s a tragic mistake and I wouldn’t judge Huckabee solely on this, but as you know, people play rough/dirty in politics. This is something for a Rapid Responder to tackle.
Mike DV,
What exactly is your problem with Democratic Populism? Growing income inequality is a serious “moral values” issue.
Do you have a problem with government actually being responsive to “we, the people” and not just the top 1% of income earners and big corporations? Maybe you think they are wealthy because God think they are better than the rest of the great unwashed and therefore are destined to rule over us.
Are you a rich man?
JohnW,
You live in one of the richest counties per capita in the nation. It’s easy to be in favor of redistributionist schemes when you are already in the top percentiles of income earners. For people who aspire to earn more for our families, populism may satisfy people on an emotional level, but it hurts families trying to get ahead. For me 3 or 4 thousand dollars in increased taxes per year is a big deal.
I aspires to take care of the poor, not become one of them.
It’s my understanding that populism is a good thing: Government representing the average man on the street. Don’t think populists are proposing socialistic redistribution of wealth and land, just a government representing “we, the people” with a level playing field for all.
Income inequality is a real and growing problem-even the Wall Street Journal has reported on this recently. I think populists are saying let’s have fair rules and not special rules catering to the rich and corporate elites. Senator Webb of Virginia is a good example of a populist.
Why would a christian prefer a system that is rigged in favor of the rich and corporate interests? It seems strange to me that people would have a low opinion of populism.
JohnW,
I have a low opinion of populism because I have a low opiniion of the population. Given the general economic, historical and scientific ignorance of the general population, I am highly skeptical of appeals to the masses. Thats why I’m thankful that for all its flaws we live in a representative republic instead of a democracy.
I’m with Adam Smith when it comes to my opinions of corporations. They have no inherent moral value. I understand and share your frustration with multinational corporations that make decisions which hurt the American middle class. I don’t have all the answers to fix the problem. One thing I’m sure we can both agree on is that one doesn’t help the poor by hurting the middle class. I believe in an America that provides an equality of opportunity, not an equality of outcome, don’t you?
Oclarki, I agree with you, equality of opportunity is what’s needed. Equality of outcome can not and should not be guaranteed. We live in a capitalist country. Business should not be overly regulated. We should have a fair system though.
Also, I agree with you for the most part about it’s a good thing we are not an absolute democracy. Afterall mob rule is not a good thing. Ideally in a republic, people who are minorities or hold unpopular views are given the same rights as everyone else. However, I don’t think our government is responsive enough or concerned enough about the needs/concerns of “we, the people” (low and middle class people).
Here is the Wall Street Journal article from October 2007 I mentioned: online.wsj.com/article_print/SB119215822413557069.html
Keep in mind this article is from the news dept. and not the opinion dept. There are some articles in the opinion section of the WSJ that contradict this article. I think the news division of the WSJ is fair and balanced, while the opinion section leans too much towards the right.
[I've enjoyed this pleasant exchange of views]
JohnW,
Oh I wish I were a rich man. Of course rich is a relative term. To 90% of the world’s population the American middle class is rich. You ask what’s wrong with populism. Let me count the ways (actually I won’t bec. of limited space and time). Number one, populism is based on appeals to fear and greed. You do not lift up the poor or middle classes by tearing down “the rich”. The role of government isn’t to “level the playing field” of results, but to level the playing field of opportunity as best it can.
You speak as if “the rich” were some alien race and you just don’t like them. I hate to break it to you, but we DO NOT live in a static society. You speak of income inequality (whatever that is) as if it were a horrible thing. Oh boo hoo, Joe rich guy has more than me. Oh no, now it’s even more and even more. I hate Joe rich guy, because he keeps having ever more than me. Please Uncle, we can’t let Joe have all that wealth. Take it from him and give it to me, because it’s just not fair. And while you’re at it give some to all my friends who are poor like me. Then we’ll all be happy that Joe is just a little less rich than he was before, and that we’re a little less poor and more dependent on the benevolent hand of government to give us something for nothing. Thank you for destroying my character by tearing down the achievement of others. After all, theft by popular vote is still theft.
You ask if I’m rich, as if that would have any influence on what is just and right in a capitalistic, free market society. No one is stuck in their situation in life unless they choose to be. It’s called personal responsibility, friend. So what if I didn’t go to fancy private schools, or if I don’t have the connections Joe Rich’s kids have. My fate is not determined by nefarious forces beyond my control. Maybe that’s why I hate populism so very much. It makes me out to be a robot who is only free to the degree that government decrees, that only government can save me by taking from others.
Our world views are obviously hugely different. I respect yours, but couldn’t disagree with it more. Give me free enterprise, baby, with all its messiness, ups and downs and unfairness. This is what has made America the greatest most prosperous country in the history of the universe, and why people from all over the world continue to try to break down the doors to get here. Life is hard. So what. I’d much rather have a society that is dynamic and unequal, than one that is static and a little more equal.
Anyway, sorry for my rambling. This is something I’m obviously passionate about and I appreciate the opportunity to rant.
Mike D.,
Happy to provide you with an opportunity to vent. I was venting too-as I was getting tired of reading about your hatred of populism which I understand to mean politics responsive to “we, the people”.
Look at my post 56 and ask yourself are you responding to what I said there or are you responding to an exaggerated version of what you think my worldview is? Do my comments strike you as coming from a communist or socialist?
I think you are unaware of the economic reality in our country today. I am for government representing and being responsive to the majority of american citizens (the poor, the middle class, a/k/a “we the people”). Capitalism is the best system for spreading wealth, but the rules must be fair and equal (in other words-no more corporate welfare).
Conservatives like Grover Norquist would like to return our country to the days of the robber barons back in the 1890’s and early 20th century. Is this what you want?
Working for Huckabee, Say it ain’t so Joe.
JohnW, and MikeD
Why do the some people who place no trust in the government seem to place an inordinate amount of trust in big multinational corporations. I’m a conservative who believes in markets, but there is nothing inherently conservative in allowing corporations to operate in the amoral way they do these days.
Every year we hear how corporate products are higher than ever, and the productivity of the American worker is the highest in the world. Yet, the growth of wages has not kept pace with the growth of corporate profits. These companies are trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. Eventually they are going to break the American middle class. They won’t care, however, because they will have plenty of customers in China, India and South America.
It used to be the people who founded and ran American companies were patriotic Americans who saw how their business and products enabled ordinary Americans to live better lives. Now these companies are run by amoral citizen of the world elites, who are insulated from the American people by vitue of their exhorbidant salaries.
JohnW and oclarki,
Thanks for the reply. I re-read 56 a couple times and see that your inclinations for government and free enterprise and not necessarily all that far from mine, at least in terms of rhetoric. So sorry if I caricatured. However I’m not so sure what “we the people” really means, and I mean in an every day, objective policy sense. What more exactly can government do to make the rules “fair and equal”? You mention corporate welfare (how about the farm bill???), and that’s fine. I’m not for showering breaks on big companies just for the heck of it.
But you and those who incline themselves toward your way of thinking seem to forget that these big evil corporations are actually groups of people. And these groups of people all make a living that allows them to feed their families and live indoors, among other blessings. I just picked up my sister from downtown Chicago. She works for Toshiba, one of those big multinational corporations you speak of. I personally hate working for big public companies, and my sister doesn’t like all the politics and crap that goes on, but to say that they all operate in an amoral way these days is just specious. Exactly how are all these companies amoral? Because they want to maximize profits and shareholder value? Are they supposed to minimize profits?
I don’t necessarily trust these huge corporations, but I sure as hell trust people who are driven by the profit motive far more than government bureaucrats who have almost no incentive to maximize anything but their own positions. I have a neighbor, a Democrat, who worked for Cook County Hospital for several years. He said recently that he would never vote for someone who espoused socialized medicine because he saw first hand how pathetic and inefficient and corrupt it can be.
And have you ever run a company that employees thousands of people in a global marketplace? These companies pay what the market will bear. If you don’t like it, if you feel squeezed like a turnip, leave. Nobody has a gun to your head. Nobody is forcing you to stay at a job where you think you’re getting screwed. This is America for goodness sakes! You act like we’re all little cogs in a huge corporate wheel, with no control over our lives. In fact the vast majority of Americans work for small companies (the one I work for has less than 15 employees).
And please, robber barons? That’s really what Grover Norquist wants to do. You, JohnW seem far to level headed to make such a stupid statement. Were these so called robber barons really all evil. Hitler? Satan? Did they not do anything good like help take the industrial revolution to another level, provide products and services that made peoples’ lives better, and then when they were old many gave away some, most or all of their money?
We can no more go back to the late 19th or early 20th Centuries than we can go back to high school. Everything has changed. Capitalism and free enterprise, and America are dynamic and ever changing. The industrial revolution that, with the help of the evil robber barons, was at that time making America the most prosperous and powerful country on earth, a country I might add that saved the world from totalitarianism of every stripe.
I’d better stop. If you want a concise and excellent argument for small government conservatism (is there any other kind?)check out John Hulsman’s article in today’s OpinionJournal.com. Thanks.
JohnW, unfortunately, the response that Joe links to is a lie. Check this out:
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419
And if that doesn’t work, here’s a tinyurl for it:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/85a9r
And here are the opening paragraphs of the story:
“New sources, including an advisor to Gov. Mike Huckabee, have told the Arkansas Times that Huckabee and a senior member of his staff exerted behind-the-scenes influence to bring about the parole of rapist Wayne Dumond, who Missouri authorities say raped and killed a woman there shortly after his parole.
Huckabee has denied a role in Dumond’s release, which has become an issue in his race for re-election against Democrat Jimmie Lou Fisher. Fisher says Huckabee’s advocacy of Dumond’s freedom, plus other acts of executive clemency, exhibit poor judgment. In response, Huckabee has shifted responsibility for Dumond’s release to others, claiming former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker made Dumond eligible for parole and saying the Post Prison Transfer Board made the decision on its own to free Dumond.”
Huckabee is not enough of a man to face up to what he did, so he tries to push it off on the Parole Board, but the fact is that the Parole Board only did what it did because of Huckabee’s unrelenting crusade.
Here’s what Board member Ermer Poindexter said, again from the story:
“Speaking publicly for the first time, Pondexter told the Times that she voted for Dumond’s release from prison because board chairman Brownlee, asked her to vote that way.
“The reason that I voted as I did was because Mr. Brownlee specifically asked me to vote for the parole,” Pondexter said. “I thought that Mr. Brownlee was acting on behalf of the governor, and I was trying to support the chairman of the board, and I was trying to support the governor …
“I signed the [parole] papers because the governor wanted Dumond paroled. I was thinking the governor was working for the best interests of the state. So I signed it.”
**********************************************
OK, that’s pretty clear, right?
And get a load of this, from the Joe’s link:
“Governor Huckabee never took action in the DuMond case that made him parole eligible.”
Now, take a look at this, from the article:
“On Sept. 10, 1996, the board took another vote, going 5-0 against recommending executive clemency and 5-0 against recommending an executive pardon. The no votes were cast by Steele, Brownlee, Pieroni, Suttlar and Fred Allen.
On Sept. 20, Gov. Huckabee announced his intention to commute Wayne Dumond’s sentence to time served.”
*************
OK, now there’s some discussion about the background of the case, the events that happened after Huckabee’s announcement of his intention to commute the sentence, and the public uproar, coming to. . .
“Huckabee’s deadline to act on Dumond’s commutation was Jan. 20, 1997. Four days earlier, the parole board freed Dumond instead.”
So, that’s what Joe means when he links to the statement that “Huckabee never took any action that made Dumond parole eligible.” He means that he announced his intention to take such an act, was alarmed at the public pushback, and worked to get somebody else to do his dirty work. Now he denies it.
So, what do we learn about Joe from this? We learn that carrying water for Huckabee is more important to him than the truth. Joe had a chance to tell (a) the truth or (b) the story Huckabee wanted told.
He chose (b).
Joe thought it was A-OK for Huckabee to free a rapist and then lie about it, and he thinks it’s OK for him to lie about it.
We now know everything we need to know about Mike Huckabee and about Joe Carter.
And JohnW, this isn’t like the Willie Horton case. Michael Dukakis didn’t mount a personal crusade to free Willie Horton, but Mike Huckabee thought that freeing a rapist was a vital use of his office.
Now, I hope that Joe will tell us why he is such an enthusiastic supporter of a man who made a personal crusade out of freeing a rapist. I hope he will tell us why Ashley Stevens doesn’t matter to him. I hope he will tell us what part of the Bible justifies lying to cover up for a man who worked to free a rapist.
Mike,
Thanks for the reply. When I read your comment, intellectually I agree with everything you wrote. In the last few years, however, I am starting to see some real problems on the horizon for the American middle class, and that has me worried.
Incidently I worked for Toshiba for about 6 years and now work for General Electric, so maybe I’m a hypocrite. But I think my experience at GE in particular has really got me thinking. From the inside there appears to be as much waste and inefficiency at GE or any other large corporation as there is in the government (unless you think having 5 people on a conference call arguing over an $80 invoice for 30 minutes is efficient.)
Mike Toreno,
Are you still coming up in here with that weak sauce? You still haven’t answered my questions. Who’s YOUR candidate?
oclarki, I so appreciate what you are saying. I think that is the nature of large organizations. They are simply hugely inefficient. Think about IBM getting decked by MicroSoft, or MS by Google (not that MS is suffering), or the domestic auto industry. That’s why I’m all for the creative destruction of capitalism. It’s messy, often unfair and unsettling, but over time seems to be the best way to organize the affairs of men, and of course women. When we go over the edge, as in the dot com or real estate bubble or corporate scandals somehow, with some help for our intrepid legislators (although you often bring in the bogeyman of unintended consequences), we figure it out and get stronger for it.
As for those middle class problems you speak of they are indeed real, such as health care, retirement, etc. But we simply don’t solve them by class warfare rhetoric so people think if we only break the piggy bank of “the rich” all your problems will be solved. If it were only so easy. It is certainly a challenging time for those looking for answers.
Mike V. and Oclarki,
It’s great we are commenting and not insulting each other.
Mike, I appreciate your thoughts-sorry I don’t have time for a long response. I think we do agree on a lot. I don’t want to misrepresent myself though-I am not very conservative. I used to always vote republican prior to 2004, but now I have to admit my views are more liberal (perhaps I was liberal all along, who knows…).
You are right, the people working at these large corporations are not all a bunch of evil devils, but people just like you and me. I work as a support staff clerk in a large Chicago law firm-some of the attorneys are evil devils, but not the ones in my department, ofcourse. Also, I live in Dupage County and will be helping the county turn blue in the upcoming elections.
I will read the WSJ opinion journal, but it just seems too biased to me. The journal’s straight reporting seems ok.
Just to be clear: I don’t believe in “class warfare” or the “nanny state”, but I believe the government is not responsive to the lower and middle classes (the majority of citizens). I would encourage you to look into this issue of income inequality-you won’t get much info about it on the corporate controlled media though.
Olarcki, what on earth kind of question is that? Again, group identification has nothing to do with anything. What’s important is whether or not Huckabee went on a personal crusade to free a rapist (he did) and then lied about it (he did) and whether Joe chose to tell a lie rather than cast Huckabee in a bad light (he did).
It doesn’t MATTER which presidential candidate I support, don’t you understand? What makes Joe a liar or not is whether or not he told a lie, NOT the group identification of someone who points out that he told a lie. Whether or not Huckabee went on a personal crusade to free a rapist, and whether he hid behind others in order to do it, and then lied about what he did, are FACTS. FACTS DON’T CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHO POINTS THEM OUT. If you can point to some evidence that my claims are false, point to it.
Where group identification comes into play is in understanding why Joe supports Huckabee, if (as the evidence shows) Huckabee went on a personal crusade to free a rapist and then lied about it. If Huckabee went on a personal crusade to free a rapist and then lied about it, Joe’s support for him does not arise from any sort of moral or principled stand, and so the explanation must lie elsewhere. Group identification is a good candidate. Huckabee, like Joe, mouths various propositions about Christ and about the Bible, so that Joe is able to identify Huckabee as “someone like me”. This identification of Huckabee as someone like himself may have led Joe to turn a blind eye to Huckabee’s utter moral depravity, and to sacrifice his own integrity in Huckabee’s service.
Mike Toreno,
Why are you so angry, I want to have a dialog with you and understand you, and you have this “how dare you question me!” attitude.
What’s your dog in this fight? If you are a partisan democrat, which I’m pretty sure you are, then it wouldn’t matter which candidate Joe supported. In that case you would be just as apoplectic about some event in that other candidates record.
Frankly I don;t really care about the particulars of the Huckabee case, much like I’m sure you don’t care about the particulars of Obama’s drug use, Hillary’s shady campaign contributions etc. You are a partisan and what ever the republicans do is worse than Hitler, and the democrats can do no worng. When it comes to group identification, you are the blackest kettle around.
JohnW,
Sorry to see you’re going over to the dark side. Oh well, I’ll be working here in Will County to keep it Red. One quick question. Why is something biased because you don’t agree with it? That is somewhat dishonest. You should engage the argument, not dismiss it because it doesn’t agree with you then denigrate it as biased. Just a suggestion. I know we all have our predilections toward that.
One more thing. Alan Reynolds has written a book called “Income and Wealth” that destroys the so called income inequality myth. Too bad it’s so expensive. But he has written some opinion pieces where he makes his case. Too bad liberals resent the rich, even when the Democrat Party is now officially the party of the rich! Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the back and forth. See you back here again sometime.
Mike V.,
Yeah, you are right about the democrats being the party of the rich for the most part they are not showing much moral integrity.
How do I decide what is biased? Good question. We are bombarded with so much misinformation and ideological stuff in the media, it’s hard to get real facts on issues without doing some independent research. Ultimately we have to just make our own decision on who is biased. I used to always buy into the conservative line on everything, however I changed my mind on this after the Iraq war when eventually I came to the conclusion it was based on lies. I now see it is wrong to simply buy into the stuff presented from “liberal” sources too. Generally speaking though, I think I am on very solid ground when I say the opinions presented by Fox News, Hannity/Colmes, Bill O’reily, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc are generally wrong. I am not able to be persuaded by anything they say.
Re: income inequality - check this out http://www.demos.org/pub1514.cfm. Either there facts are right or they are wrong. I think they are right about the facts. Perhaps their analysis of the fact may be debatable. It would be very hard for us to do this research, but I think if you research the issue enough-you’ll generally get the sense that the middle class is shrinking and income inequality is growing. Ofcourse, perhaps its all just a conspiracy of the “liberal media” and everything is really ok and the “liberal media” merely wants to push their socialistic “nanny state” agenda on us.
Olarcki, I’m not saying that whatever the Republicans do is bad. I’m saying that:
Going on a personal crusade to free a rapist due to a desire to disparage Bill Clinton by claiming that Clinton failed to free the rapist because his victim was a distant Clinton cousin is bad.
I’m saying that making false claims about the evidence that led to his conviction, saying that there was exculpatory evidence that did not in fact exist is bad.
I’m saying that strong-arming the Parole Board into granting parole in order to avoid doing it yourself, rather than manfully and forthrightly facing up to the responsibility yourself is bad.
I’m saying that then claiming that you had nothing to do with the release, when that is a lie, is bad.
I’m saying that choosing to lie, rather than to admit to true facts that cast a politician in a (deservedly) unflattering light is bad.
If you don’t care about any of that, it is because of YOUR group identification, not mine. To dispute the truth of those facts is one thing, and you haven’t done that, and I don’t see how you honestly can. Instead, you avoid the issue, wanting to know “what my dog is in this fight” as if that mattered. It doesn’t matter. What matters is whether or not the things that I have said are TRUE, and whether the acts that Huckabee and Joe committed are the sort of acts that warrant condemnation. You can ask yourself, if someone you don’t like did these things, would you condemn that person, and of course you would. The fact that you “don’t care” about them, because they are committed by persons with whom you identify, simply reveals you as the worthless hypocrite you are.
As to Obama’s drug use, no, I’m not wild about that at all, but at least he admits to it and says it was wrong, unlike Huckabee, who’s not man enough to admit what he did.
As to Hillary’s “shady campaign contributions”, well, first, that is certainly a vague claim, compared to my explicit point by point criticism of what Huckabee did, second, campaign contributions are not something SHE did or controlled, and third, I have read about this, and a great deal of the “shadiness” depends on the idea that she got a lot of contributions from Chinatown, and that somehow Chinese people are not “supposed” to be able to give, or interested in giving, substantial campaign contributions.
There’s a solid undercurrent of racism to the criticism, and considering that racism is bound up with group identification, and considering that conservatism and evangelicalism are essentially based on group identification and nothing else, it would surprise me not at all to discover that racism is what motivates you too to attack Clinton’s “shady” contributions.
JohnW,
Rush is right. I listen to him everyday and on almost everything he says we are in complete agreement. I’m not a big fan of the other folks you mention, but saying they are generally wrong just doesn’t fit. You may disagree with certain positions they hold, or disagree with certain underlying assumptions, but what does wrong mean? That they are wrong generally on the facts of everything?
Let me take one example where Rush, and the folks you mention are demonstrably not wrong. Lower tax rates generally raise more revenue. This is known as supply side economics. In the 1980s liberals derided this as “trickle down economics” and made fun of supply siders. We can say liberals are wrong on this because the facts, increased revenue, happens every time it’s tried. Liberalism simply doesn’t get human nature. Why do stores lower prices? So they will take in less revenue? No, to sell more stuff, make lower margins but increase revenue by selling more units. This is not debatable. But Democrats assume human beings do not respond to incentives. Raise the price of something and much more often than not you get less of it.
I believe, JohnW, that you’ve become a liberal not because of the facts or for any intellectual reasons. Rather, you’ve moved in that direction for emotional and maybe philosophical reasons. We can point to things above like taxes that cannot be disputed. Other things simply come down to preferences. I think your using the word “wrong” is simply, well, wrong. You may prefer big government solutions to limited government, but that doesn’t mean limited government is wrong. Factually I can show you that big government solutions generally don’t work very well, are inefficient and often have deleterious unintended consequences (welfare anyone?).
I can go on and on, but we’re talking more world view issues than anything, I think. Basic assumptions or presuppositions control how we think and what we believe, what appeals to us and what turns us off. If we were sitting over a cup of coffee having this debate I would more than likely be addressing these as much as any “facts” about certain issues. I would argue that liberal assumptions about life and culture and public policy are more often than not wrong and have harmful consequences. But that would take far more than a comment at The Evangelical Outpost.
BTW, I’m really enjoying the debate with you and Mr. Olarcki as well. We can haggle and debate in a respectful manner without denigrating views or motives. It’s just great fun.
Why is everyone out for the “middle class”? What about the poor?
Mike T.
Joe’s response about the Dumond issue as well as the response on the Huckabee website’s truth squad is vague and dismissive.
I don’t believe Hukabee would have gone out of his way to release a man knowing he would kill if he was released. I think he made a mistake that had tragic consequences. He should be honest about the whole thing though.
Check this out from the not so liberal Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313384,00.html
Huckabee has consistently understated his role in the parole of rapist Wayne DuMond, who had been convicted in the 1984 rape of a distant cousin of former President Clinton.
Two months after taking office, Huckabee stunned the state by saying he questioned DuMond’s guilt and that it was his intention to free the rapist, who had been castrated by masked men while awaiting trial. Huckabee said then he had “serious questions as to the legitimacy of his guilt” and acknowledged later that he had met with DuMond’s wife about the case while he was lieutenant governor. Two months after ascending to the governor’s office, Huckabee met with the woman again.
The ex-governor now blames his predecessor for making DuMond parole eligible — Jim Guy Tucker commuted a life-plus-20 years sentence to 39 1/2 years — but distances himself from his role in DuMond’s release. Huckabee met privately with the state parole board, and two members have said he pressured them for a vote.
“He made it obvious that he thought DuMond had gotten a raw deal and wanted us to take another look at it,” former board member Charles Chastain said in 2001. “Some board members who were usually very tough about letting people out … (later) voted in favor of him, and seemed eager to.”
On his campaign Web site, Huckabee says the parole board was made up entirely of Democrats appointed by Clinton and Tucker. It doesn’t mention that Huckabee reappointed board member Railey Steele days before he voted with three other members to set DuMond free. DuMond was later convicted of killing a woman in Missouri and died in 2005.
Mike V.,
Rush is an political entertainer, you should not take anything he says seriously.
John
Better to admit one’s mistakes and clear things up, I think.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313384,00.html
JohnW, no one is saying that Huckabee freed a man that he knew (or even thought) would go on to commit murder. What I am saying is that he went on a personal crusade to free a rapist because he was consumed with Clinton hatred and to score political points. He did not learn about the facts of the case, but instead parroted what he read from right-wing commentators who claimed that Clinton was excessively harsh on Dumond because Ashley Stevens was a distant Clinton cousin.
Huckabee may have made a mistake, but it wasn’t an honest mistake. He didn’t free Dumond based on any kind of morally consistent consideration of the evidence. He freed Dumond because he believed him to be innocent (or claimed to believe him innocent), but he didn’t form this belief based on learning about the case, because learning about the case would have told him he shouldn’t do what he did.
He didn’t simply fail to anticipate the outcome of an act that might have been reasonable, he committed a reckless act based on political considerations, and this act did, as it happened, have a tragic outcome.
And how he’s lying about it, and Joe is backing it up. This incident tells us all we need to know about Huckabee, and Joe’s winking at Huckabee’s actions and lies in Huckabee’s defense tell us all we need to know about Joe.
JohnW,
You are joking, right? Just because Rush is entertaining I shouldn’t take, how do you say it, “anything he says seriously.” Obviously you’ve never listened to him for more than two minutes. Then, my friend, you should not take anything I say seriously either.
Mike V.,
I am not kidding about Rush and I have listened to him in the past.
Rush is a demagogue - see definition and useful link below.
A demagogue is a person who tries to stir up the people by appeals to emotion, prejudice, etc. in order to win them over quickly and so gain power
Demagogy (Demagoguery) refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.
See wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy
Mike T.,
It would have been useful if you mentioned the issues you raised in Post 77 earlier.
Also, that’s right, the right-wingers had a nasty hatred of Clinton. There were a bunch of crazy allegations and stories.
It will be interesting how the campaign deals with this Dumond issue. They may be successful in portraying Huckabee as a fine Christian man with impecable character-especially if they can get the Dobson and Perkins media machine behind him….
JohnW,
You could not even be close to more wrong about Rush. He’s a demagogue because you disagree with him, period. Because he skewers the pretensions of liberals you hate him. Because he makes fun of liberals and liberalism you hate him. So it’s my “prejudices and fears” he appeals to? You have an amazingly myopic definition of prejudice or bias. If you don’t agree with it, then that’s what it is. You don’t engage the argument. You simply belittle or dismiss, and that is so completely typical of liberals.
Mike V.,
Ok, how would you describe what Rush does? Would you consider him a serious journalist?
I took a look at Rush’s website just now-he has a big article about how Congressman Murtha saying the surge is working and how he later issued a retraction. It has a picture with the caption - “Democrats – we own defeat”. Also, notice how Rush keeps repeating the quote, “I think the surge is — is working”
It was quite correct for Murtha to clarify his remarks as it is great there as been a downturn in violence, but Bush’s reason for the surge was to improve the political situation in Iraq. This has not improved. Check this out from the Associated Press article re Chief Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte’s recent visit to Iraq and statement about progress of the surge:
“The security surge has delivered significant results, now progress on political reconciliation including key national legislation as well as economic advances is needed to consolidate the gains made thus far,” U.S. “If progress is not made on these fronts we risk falling back to the more violent patterns of the past”.
Does Rush talk about the political situation in Iraq not improving or discuss John Negropointe’s comments?
JohnW,
I think you are doing a little goalpost moving. There were people clamouring for “more troops” to stabilize the security situation a year ago. People who thought General Shinseki was right in his calls for a larger occupation force. Once the surge began, these people said it wasn’t working because the levels of violence in Iraq were still too high. These same people were criticizing Gen Petreus and said he was sugar-coating the results and couldn’t be trusted.
Now that the results are conclusive and decisive as to the scope of our military success in Iraq, those same people who thought all was lost, and there was no winning in Iraq are all of the sudden realizing they look foolish. Now to save face they have to backpedal and start with the yeah, buts. You can call it stubborness, but people like me who have been consistent and unwavering in our confidence about our ability to win this war are finally being vindicated.
There’s still room on the bandwagon.
I am curious how you feel about the fact that there will probably a medium to low level prescence of US forces in Iraq for the forseeable future, much like our prescence in Korea. Is this acceptable to you?
No, I would not want a long term presence in Iraq like we have in Korea. However, I do realize an american colony in an oil rich country in the middle east though kind of makes sense as it will help secure oil for our future and keep prices down.
What!!! Joe, are you out of your mind!?!?! Write less about politics? Why?
Thank you and may the Lord continue to bless you.
What!!! Joe, are you out of your mind!?!?! Write less about politics? Why?
Thank you and may the Lord continue to bless you.
JohnW,
I figure I’d come back and see if you had any response to my Rush defense. Since I listen to Rush every day I hear much more nuance than the casual listener or someone who tries him out for a day or two. He is NOT a serious journalist and never claimed to be. He is a radio personality with very defined opinions. He is a Provocateur and entertainer, so big bold strokes come with the territory. He single handedly change the face of radio in America.
The man is not only an entertainment genius, I believe he is incredibly brilliant intellectually. If you sat down and had a conversation with him you would find him respectful, forceful and persuasive. Whether you agree with him or not. Every time a liberal caller gets through (and he always puts them to the front of the line) he treats them with respect. He debates fairly and with reasoned argument. I know this, John, because I hear him every day. I grew up politically in the 80s when there was no conservative voice. Thank God for Rush for taking on the liberal monopoly and changing the playing field forever.
BTW, I think his take on Democrats and liberals is spot on. Democrats have owned defeat every since the polls starting tanking with the surge in violence. They have viewed the war as a political cudgel to try to destroy the president. Period. That is not debatable. Their policy has been cut and run, declare defeat and pummel Bush over his “failed policy.” Look how they treated Gen. Petraeus when he went before them last summer. It was a disgrace. Now that the surge’s success is too obvious to ignore, they harp on the lack of political success. Fair enough, but don’t tell me they are dispassionate observers who just want what’s best for American. They have no idea what that even is!
I see you are a big Rush fan-didn’t mean to offend you, but I have no respect for the man.
I agree the democrats have used the war as a political cudgel-it’s my view that they should show some integrity and immediately assert their constitutional role and cut off funding for continueing the occupation of Iraq.
They say they don’t have the votes-they don’t need them, all they have to do is simply refuse to send a budget to the President.
Also, it’s my view that the democrats should not have condemned Moveon.org’s General Petraeus (General Betrayus) ad. The General is a “yes man” and just a mouthpiece for the administration.
God bless you in this transition. Governor Huckabee is fortunate to have you on his team!
huckabee should of asked us a few questions.
Did Huck really destroy the state’s hard drives while
leaving office?
Good Luck Joe — I like Huck quite a bit, too.
I think you’re wrong about something tho: every Rep can beat Hillary if Iraq is a “success”. This is why the Dems have to make it a failure.
Please get Mike H. to define success in mostly military terms — body counts.
If success is Iraq politics, compare Iraq to Darfur. Constantly.
http://fagbrtgeugjpypyhh.com fagbrtgeugjpypyhh
fagbrtgeugjpypyhh
[url=http://fagbrtgeugjpypyhh.com]fagbrtgeugjpypyhh[/url]
Verifile China can authenticate Chinese Secondary Level and Postsecondary level Certificates of Graduation