“It was a bad decision obviously, but my heart goes out to Huckabee,” the former Alaska governor said of her potential 2012 GOP presidential rival during an interview Monday with conservative radio host Lars Larson. “I love him, and I feel bad for him to be in this position. But I feel even worse for the victims’ families in this situation.”
–
“It’s absolutely tragic and just unfathomable what has happened there, and I do feel bad for Huckabee,” Palin said. “But it was a horrible decision that he made.”
–
“most Alaskans know me well enough to know that I don’t have a whole lot of mercy for the bad guys.”
“I’m on the good guys’s side,” she said. “I’m all about redemption and recovery and reform and all that. But I will always error on the side of punishing even stricter, even harder on the bad guys.”
Additional 2012 reading;
Palin
Romney
Pawlenty
Gingrich
Huckabee
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Quinnipiac National Survey on Afghanistan
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?
- Approve 46% (49%) [49%] {52%} (55%)
- Disapprove 45% (42%) [37%] {38%} (35%)
Among Independents
- Approve 42% (45%) [46%] {49%} (54%)
- Disapprove 51% (49%) [42%] {41%} (37%)
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?
- Approve 45% (38%) [42%]
- Disapprove 45% (49%) [40%]
Among Independents
- Approve 43% (30%) [41%]
- Disapprove 47% (57%) [43%]
Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?
- Doing the right thing 57% (48%) [52%]
- Should not be involved 35% (41%) [37%]
Among Independents
- Doing the right thing 58% (51%) [56%]
- Should not be involved 34% (39%) [35%]
Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan?
- Approve 58%
- Disapprove 37%
Among Democrats
- Approve 50%
- Disapprove 43%
Among Republicans
- Approve 70%
- Disapprove 26%
Among Independents
- Approve 57%
- Disapprove 37%
Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s decision to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011?
- Approve 60%
- Disapprove 32%
Among Democrats
- Approve 82%
- Disapprove 12%
Among Republicans
- Approve 36%
- Disapprove 57%
Among Independents
- Approve 56%
- Disapprove 35%
Do you think President Obama will or will not begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011?
- Will 40%
- Will not 45%
Among Democrats
- Will 57%
- Will not 31%
Among Republicans
- Will 33%
- Will not 51%
Among Independents
- Will 32%
- Will not 53%
Here are the bullet points for Tuesday morning:
I tear apart Representative Waxman (D-CA) and other newspaper bailout supporters on The Lobbyist.
I’m a little behind the times on this one- I had National Guard duty this past weekend- but late last week Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) supported the idea of bailing out newspapers. As a guy who likes newspapers- you know, printed instead of online- I sympathize with the fact that newspapers are going out of business quickly. Unfortunately for my personal desires, that is part of the beauty of creative destruction. As we improve technology, we eliminate inefficiencies in our system, and that is what newspapers increasingly represent.
There is some argument that losing newspapers would lose the generally quality, in-depth reporting that papers pride themselves on. After all, blogs and other online media are not generally renowned for their quality of reporting or in-depth research; they have other strengths, instead. That said, Huffington Post, Fox News, CNN, The Foundry, CNS News and many other sites and news sources are doing a good job of changing that stereotype through hard-hitting reporting, opinions and interviews. As advertising swings more and more online, I suspect old-fashioned reporters will be doing their fine reporting online instead of on paper more and more often. Best of all, they will be able to do it without the government’s money hanging over their heads, subtly or not-so-subtly influencing every decision that is made.
One other flaw with Waxman’s argument: “There needs to be a consensus within the media industry and the larger community it serves” before the government acts, Waxman said. “We have to figure out together how to preserve that kind of reporting.” Which media industry will he stop at? The television industry? The online industry? Talk radio? Newspapers? Magazines? Movies? Pornography? Mixed Martial Arts? CNN’s IReporter? If you bail out one, you open the floodgates to bail out the rest. Who’s to say The Economist is more important to society than Sports Illustrated? Both have large readerships, after all, and both represent industries worth billions to the American economy. They provide valuable news to America’s citizens.
Huffington Post has written numerous pieces this year alone defending the value they bring to news and decrying people like Rupert Murdoch for not adjusting to what consumers want. As much as I hate to say it, its writers are correct. Print newspapers provide news a day late, they update once a day and they are just one more thing to carry. Given their support for environmental legislation such as cap-and-trade and fuel standards, liberals such Waxman should be ecstatic that this is happening. Going online saves trees, lowers emissions from vehicles and saves on printing press use (though the servers would need electricity, which causes some harm), among others. The argument that going online will cause harm to our republic is a false one- who says online sources can’t (or don’t, or won’t) continue to use professional journalists? The transition is from print to online- news is still news, though to be fair Americans prefer shorter, less detailed news articles than we used to. But that has been happening even before Twitter and blogs became household names.
Also, one of our writers, RJ Caster, writes about Pearl Harbor Day and what it means to him and meant for America. Enjoy.
The Hill reports that Rick Santorum has again indicated that he may run in 2012:
“Absolutely — absolutely taking a look,” he told ABC’s “Top Line” webcast Monday afternoon.
“But look — I’m doing it in the context that right now, there’s very important matters, and I want to weigh into those matters as to what the Republican Party stands for in 2010,” Santorum added.
… And the senator — like the GOP’s other prospective 2012 contenders — tossed a few veiled barbs toward one of his likely conservative opponents: former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
“I think, you know, she’s done a lot to draw attention to herself that’s positive,” Santorum said, noting she was having an “impact” but declining to say whether she was qualified to win the White House.
“She’s done some things that, you know, certainly are going to cause her to have to do some explaining if she runs for president,” he added.
Could Gov. Huckabee’s recent problems have led to these relatively strong remarks from Santorum? After all, the former Senator could very well see an opening in the field, with arguably the strongest social conservative in the 2012 mix now less likely to run. This news should please Gov. Romney, as a Santorum bid would lower expectations for Mitt in Iowa. Stay tuned.
CNN/Opinion Research Political Favorability Survey
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Joe Lieberman 40% / 28% {+12%}
- Joe Biden 47% (45%) [47%] / 36% (40%) [33%] {+11%}
- Al Gore 52% / 42% {+10%}
- Sarah Palin 46% (42%) [39%] {46%} / 46% (51%) [48%] {43%} {0%}
- Dick Cheney 39% {37%} / 53% {55%} {-14%}
- John Edwards 30% / 47% {-17%}
Survey of 1,041 adults was conducted December 2-3. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 16-18 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted May 14-17 are in curly brackets.
Why does everyone in the beltway have to default to race pimping when they are desperate to score a political point against an individual or group?
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) is in deep trouble. Or, he would be, were he under the spotlight in any place but Washington, D.C.
To summarize, Baucus nominated his girlfriend to a top federal prosecutor spot in Montana last February. The girlfriend, a former staffer in Baucus’ office when they began dating, was separated from her husband when the two began seeing each other (Baucus was separated from his wife, as well). The two are now living together.
Nothing is certain; the information only came out this past weekend. Baucus’ girlfriend may have been the most qualified candidate for the position for which he nominated her (she ended up withdrawing her name). However, given their relationship, given they went on trips together last year and given that the “independent” reviewer of the candidates for the federal position was a donor to Baucus…an investigation should take place. In fact, it must take place, if any respect for the rule of law is to stay in Democratic-controlled D.C.
As every American knows, D.C. is something of a cesspool of incestuous relationships where loyalty, money and power are constantly changing hands between a small group of people. It is natural to assume guilt with Baucus, or any other Member of Congress. However, we should give an investigation the chance to succeed, for two reasons, before jumping to conclusions. The first is that Americans are innocent until proven guilty, even if that person is in Congress. The second is that having a contact does not make one’s nomination unqualified. If that was the case, very few Americans would have the jobs, education or relationships we do. We rely on contacts, networking and other advantages to get to the next level in many various areas in our lives. Baucus’ girlfriend may very well have simply ignored common-sense protocol while going for her job. Yes, I know it’s highly unlikely, but the possibility is there and should be given a chance to surface.
One last note: Baucus is not up for re-election until 2014. Perhaps activists back home can make his life miserable for the next five years. Personally, I find it despicable that a senator is living with his girlfriend. As an elected official, this is not an illegal act…but it does indicate a lot about his ethics and morals as a “leader.”
Guys and gals,
The big Senate health care vote on abortion is today. Call your senators. It’s a big deal for health care reform. Support the ban on public funds for abortion. Millions of lives depend on it.
If you’re pro-choice, perhaps you’ll call your senators to kill the overall bill, since inclusion of this ban will likely cause at least one liberal Democrat to walk away from the bill.
Thanks, and God Bless.
Dustin
Brave little Honduras has become the modern David, teaching the Goliath nations of our time an inspiring message about the power of freedom, and the endurance of democratic capitalism when faced with formidable obstacles. The recent free elections in the Central American nation have ended a prolonged crisis when its elected president decided to defy the Honduran constitution and stay in power beyond the time legitimately allowed.
When he did this, he not only violated a specific constitutional law, he automatically defaulted on his claim to office. To their credit, the Honduran congress and supreme court acted promptly to remove him, per the constitutional mandate, and replace him with an interim government headed by someone from his own party.
They did make one mistake, however. Instead of jailing the deposed president and trying him for his crime, the interim government acted wisely and humanely by sending him out of the country. They did this to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, and to ease the transition to a new government following an immediately-scheduled free election.
Apparently, acting wisely and humanely is not a good course in today’s world. Sr. Zelaya, the deposed president, is a neo-Marxist, anti-democratic politician who sought to establish a totalitarian regime in Honduras, imitating the regimes of his friends and allies in Cuba, Venzeuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia. He took advantage of the generosity of the Honduran interim government to try to bully his way back to power, using misinformation and other propaganda to assist him. There was no surprise when his totalitarian friends backed him, alleging wrongly that a military coup had removed him, but there was a surprise when U.S. President Obama joined this unholy cabal to call for his reinstatement. The financial influence of the U.S. over Honduras is immense, and many observers in the U.S. and world media expected the interim government (and the majority of the Honduran people who backed it) to cave in.
But brave little Honduras did not cave in. The interim government acted impeccably and kept their promise to hold the immediate election. Sr. Zelaya called on his supporters to boycott the election, but the voter turnout was apparently greater than the previous election in which Zelaya had won! The candidate from Zelaya’s party lost, but he acted graciously and patriotically in embracing the victor, a conservative farmer/businessman who won with more than 50% of the large turnout. The various international organizations and leaders which had supported Zelaya were faced by an undisputedly fair and free election, and many of them have now rallied to the president-elect.
The usual totalitarian suspects, of course, still make laughable claims for Sr. Zelaya. President Lula of Brazil, an emerging and successful new economic power in South America, unfortunately has continued his support of Zelaya, disappointing many of his own Brazilian supporters, as well as his admirers in the rest of the world. As long as he continues to do so, and to shelter Sr. Zelaya in its embassy in Tegucigalpa, Brazil is wasting a superb opportunity to show that its recent economic success (as a capitalist democracy) merits leadership in the political life of the Western Hemisphere.
The free world owes the congress, supreme court and interim government of Honduras a very large debt for its courageous leadership, and the Honduran people for their indomitable resistance to threatening tyranny.
Meanwhile, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have wisely accepted the reality of Honduran politics, and finally broken with their totalitarian co-conspirators. They have endorsed the election results, and say they will resume normal relations with Honduras.
The U.S. radical left, of course, is disappointed. But even the Old Media, which had apologized and rationalized the original U.S. policy, is rapidly reversing itself. Perhaps most notable of this phenomenon is the current and embarrassing attempt by that lame duck of American journalism, The Washington Post, to fill its op ed columns and editorials with absurd “Animal Farm” revisionism that claims the Obama policy was right all along. Since I am a long-time admirer of the outstanding Post media critic Howard Kurtz, I hope he is allowed to write about this latest lapse of journalistic integrity and credibility at his newspaper.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-Barry Casselman is one of the deans of U.S. presidential campaign commentary and analysis, and has written on the subject since 1972. He contributes regularly to many U.S. political and public policy publications, and writes a syndicated column and blog for the Preludium News Service at barrycasselman.com.
For the first time at Race42012, here is a thorough breakdown of a number of Governor Mike Huckabee’s more prominent clemencies. Quite a few of these have not been mentioned or examined in any detail before. References are cited at the end of this article. Some are a bit out of order and there are one where I just included the original article information within the quoted text, as I added information at different times and had originally used a different format. The citations that have numbers included refer to the articles listed at the bottom-
This essay is the result of research I have done over the last year. You, the readers, can make up your own minds about Mike Huckabee’s record regarding clemencies. It would be even more helpful if you can give me a logical explanation for it. I’m not going to provide you with a lot of personal analysis regarding each decision, although I will post some of my feelings in a conclusion provided as I feel the record speaks for itself.
The fact is that this is not ordinary. It’s pretty astonishing. This is not normal and exceeds anything that I have come across. At the time of my writing this, very little of this information concerning the majority of these cases have been discussed at length by any of the major media outlets . With Huckabee now having a much higher profile, all of this information will come out if he decides to run for President of the United States again in the future, as his opponents will have much more time to comb through the Arkansas records than they were able to during the 2007-08 primaries.
The Maurice Clemmons case has brought out many of Huckabee’s usual critics going back to his time in Arkansas, such as David Sanders and Garrick Feldman. I should note that I began this research before either published their latest articles, and had been already aware of the cases described in these latest pieces they authored for their respective publications. At the same time, both Saunders and Feldman have a long history of criticizing Huckabee, and neither’s opinion should necessarily be considered the final word because I feel (especially in Feldman’s case) that they both have shown a political axe to grind with the former governor.
In 2004, Mike Huckabee addressed criticism regarding his clemencies. It’s an argument that has become familiar to me, as I have come across numerous cases of Huckabee making similar statements as this when discussing criticism over the way he dealt with these cases in the state of Arkansas (see reference 7 below):
He said his aim is to reduce the number of questions people ask about his clemencies.
But he said people shouldn’t expect many details when he explains why he commutes sentences.
“I don’t want to spend all of my time dealing with that issue,” Huckabee told Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporters and columnists in a meeting at the Governor’s Mansion.
He said he envisions that the new policy would give explanations through some kind of checklist of factors.
“As I review the whole hullabaloo over this thing the past few months, the truth is I could have handled it better; I should have handled it better,” Huckabee said.
A couple of readers have asked for a follow up concerning how many of the clemencies were violent in comparison to the large numbers that have been reported. I just don’t have the time to dig through all the different cases (I certainly don’t have 10 years to dig through 1000+ of them). However, I have provided a more comprehensive list than was previously available below, with more information then had been inaccessable without paid access to newspaper archives.
Inside The Numbers-
Here are the statistics that compare Arkansas rate of clemencies when compared to surrounding states from 1996-2004 (H/T to Michelle Malkin):
___ >> Louisiana – 213.
___ >> Mississippi – 24.
___ >> Missouri – 79.
___ >> Oklahoma – 178.
___ >> Tennessee – 32.
___ >> Texas – 98 (in-cludes 36 inmates released because they were convicted on drug charges with planted evidence).
When you combine these states (all in the southern region), it comes to a total of 624 commutations. During this same period, Huckabee granted 703 clemencies. Huckabee has stated that sentences were much harsher towards African Americans in Arkansas, which may be the case. In recent days, Huckabee has made the assertion that ”because he was a young black kid he got 108 years” while discussing the Clemmons case. While I will give him the benefit of the doubt with Maurice Clemmons, I do have some reservations, considering that all the other states listed above are southern states.
These questions stem from the idea of wondering just how much more severe cases in Arkansas were when compared to other states within the same region. Those facts are not currently available, but I am not convinced that sentencing is more biased towards African Americans in Arkansas than it would be in Mississippi, Tennessee, or Louisiana. Nor am I willing to accept that Governor Huckabee is that much more sympathetic to the unfairness which the justice system treats African Americans than the other governors.
I believe Governor Huckabee has a good heart, and has always wanted to be out front in helping right the wrongs that the south became notoriously famous for after the Civil War. African Americans have been treated unfairly, but with the prominent increase of baby boomers that came into power during the late 1980s and 1990s, I’m not willing to chalk up the inconsistencies between the above numbers to the idea that Huckabee’s record is only the result of he being more of a friend to the black man than any of the other governors who held that same office at the time he was in power (not necessarily his opinion, but one could take that position due to his statements).
His clemency rate even surpassed that of the man known as the “first black president.” To conservatives, Bill Clinton’s name means a lot of different things, and most are probably unflattering. However, there is no real dispute that he understood the amount of racial injustice that took place during the era of segregation, or that he did his best (along with many others) to help make sure that path was not crossed again. The Democrat Party is the party that, at least by public perceptions, are supposed to be “Willie Hortoned.” That is not to say that they are truly more inclined to help African Americans than the GOP, but I have a hard time believing that Mike Huckabee, as understanding to those injustices as he may be, pardoned or commuted sentences at the rate in which he did solely because of racial or economic injustice. In some particular cases, that may be the what happened- I don’t know- but the numbers just can’t be explained away by the perception of social or economical injustices.
In 2004, the Arkansas Leader published this comparison of Huckabee’s pardons/commutations to that of his predecessors (this particular chart was made two years before Huckabee left office, and although it is incomplete, it still gives you an idea of the differences between the governors):
A comparison of prison populations
In 2007, I wrote an article that linked a 2004 piece in the Arkansas News bureau that quoted Governor Huckabee, where he discussed his personal faith in regards to his decisions on clemencies. The news link I cited is no longer active, so I will avoid linking to my article and use one from the New York Sun written around the same time:
Mr. Huckabee’s record of being soft on convicted criminals is harder to avoid. His role as an ordained Southern Baptist minister appears to have guided his actions when it came to forgiving criminals.
“I would not deny that my sense of the reality of redemption is a factor,” Mr. Huckabee told KUAR in Little Rock in 2001. “I don’t know that I can apologize for that because I would hate to think of the kind of human I would be if I thought people were beyond forgiveness.”
In 2004, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ran an investigative piece into Huckabee’s process for giving commutations (see reference 2):
Since becoming governor on July 15, 1996, Huckabee has granted 111 sentence commutations, including 11 for murderers. He has refused to explain his decisions.
But interviews and the previously undisclosed documents obtained by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazettesuggest that inmates’ chances of getting clemency from Huckabee improve if:
The justice system treated them more harshly than most.
They know a person who has known the governor.
They worked at the Governor’s Mansion.
A minister intercedes for them.
State records also show that at least 9 percent of the prisoners who benefited from Huckabee’s clemencies ended up in prison again.
Documents obtained by the newspaper under the state Freedom of Information Act revealed Williams’ role in Claiborne’s clemency.
The documents don’t fully explain why Huckabee grants clemencies, but they open a window on how the process works in Arkansas. And in an interview the governor shed light on the sort of things that guide him on clemency cases.
Without detailing individual cases, Huckabee said he looks for signs of rehabilitation and considers sentences that appear excessive when compared with those imposed on people convicted of similar crimes in different neighborhoods or jurisdictions.
The justice system, he said, isn’t always fair. He offered this scenario: “Four people were involved in a crime. Three people have been released 15 years ago. The actual assailant … is already out. One has a perfect prison record. This person is still in prison. So why is he still there? Who knows? So at that point you may give a commutation to that guy.”
While Huckabee denied that he listened to the advice of fellow ministers when deciding on whom to consider for commutation, others contradicted his statement:
The Rev. Charles Williams, pastor of Covenant of Zion Church in Little Rock, is a Huckabee appointee to the state Claims Commission and has helped promote the Republican governor in the black community.
Williams wrote a letter to the governor and appeared before the Post Prison Transfer Board on Claiborne’s behalf.
Claiborne, who was serving a 100-year sentence, now is eligible for parole because Huckabee granted him clemency July 6.
“Everybody knows that Mike Huckabee makes up his mind what to do by what God tells him to do,” Williams said. “Nobody influences his mind.”
Huckabee, a Baptist minister, insisted fellow ministers don’t have undue influence with him on clemencies.
“Honestly, I don’t remember many that have been influenced by preachers, Baptist or otherwise,” he said.
But Williams says he’s helped win “many, many” clemencies from Huckabee. And, ministers other than Williams have at least played a role in inmates receiving clemency. Huckabee’s pastor at the Church at Rock Creek, the Rev. Greg Kirksey, interceded on behalf of Donnie Clark, a repeat burglar.
In the case of Donnie Clark, the article quotes Arkansas records as stating that:
On behalf of her stepson, Nancy Clark, extradition coordinator in the governor’s office, wrote two letters to the board. She wrote that Donnie Clark had become a “new creature in Christ” and needed to care for his 17-year-old son.
Donnie Clark was convicted in 1996 of numerous burglaries in a four-county area and was sentenced to 40 years. In 2001, Huckabee commuted his sentence to time served.
Claiborne’s vote sheet notes that Williams, three other ministers and family members offered support for clemency.
From the looks of it, his record on this issue appears to be worse than even I realized, and that’s says a lot. The following is a review of some of the more notorious cases that involved Huckabee, and some of these, including the cases of Wade Stewart and Dennis Lewis, have not been discussed by any of the major media outlets in any real detail.
The Cases-
From a 2004 article:
Governors in neighboring states almost never grant killers clemency, while Huckabee has commuted the sentences of a dozen murderers. “That is extremely rare here,” said one corrections official in a neighboring state.
___ She recalled one case in the early 1990s when the governor commuted a killer’s sentence and none since then.
___ In Texas, we could find only one clemency case for a killer.
I was unaware of this particular case before I started this research. He was released from prison on parole. From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (see reference 3):
A convicted murderer Gov. Mike Huckabee wants to release early has 35 disciplinary marks on his prison record, including battery, a Department of Correction spokesman said Thursday.
Huckabee filed a notice of intent Wednesday to commute the life sentence of Wade Stewart, 47, to immediate parole eligibility.
Thursday, clemency documents revealed that Stewart, despite admitting to shooting a Little Rock man in 1973, contends he was wrongly convicted. Stewart wrote that he believes the man died after using drugs.
A Pulaski County jury found Stewart guilty in 1974 of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Nicholas Papadopolos during a robbery at Papadopolos’ apartment.
Prison spokesman George Brewer said Stewart had two battery citations, one in 1988 and one in 1992, most likely for fighting. He also has had five drug or alcohol violations while in prison.
Other violations, according to the Department of Correction, are: lying to prison staff, possession of money, using abusive language, possession of gambling paraphernalia, unauthorized contact with the public, destruction and taking of state property, disrupting or breaking into a line, possession of contraband and throwing or spitting fluids.
Brewer said it was difficult to say whether Stewart’s 35 violations in 30 years were an average, below average or excessive amount.
…
In Stewart’s clemency application on file at the Department of Community Correction, he argues that he deserves early release because he believes there was an injustice at his trial.
He expresses no apology or regret in the application.
Describing the crime, he writes: “We shot a man. He stayed in the hospital 21 days, recuperated from the gunshot wounds. On the day he was being released from the hospital he injected some kind of narcotic into himself and died.”
According to a summary of the crime that parole officers prepared for the Post Prison Transfer Board, “state medical examiners determined that Papadopolos died from injuries inflicted with a .38 caliber revolver and a 16-gauge shotgun.”
Board spokesman Rhonda Sharp said nothing in Stewart’s file indicated that Papadopolos died from drugs.
But during Stewart’s trial there was testimony of the victim’s possible drug use, according to Arkansas Democrat-Gazettearchives.
Stewart and Tommy McGhee, both 17 at the time, went to Papadopolos’s apartment on Louisiana Street on Aug. 25, 1973.
They shot him after he answered their knock on his door.
Stewart told police they planned to rob the victim of drugs. Stewart and McGhee said they accidentally shot Papadopolos.
After he was taken to the hospital for surgery, his right lung was removed. A doctor testified that the victim initially responded well to treatment.
But after a few days, Papadopolos developed an infection and six ribs had to be removed. A large blood clot in an artery between his heart and lung caused his death.
A doctor who performed the autopsy testified he couldn’t say for sure what led to the blood clot.
He said the shooting probably caused the clot. But he also said the surgery could have been to blame. He also acknowledged the possibility that the clot may have resulted if Papadopolos had injected himself with impure narcotics. He said needle marks were found on the victim’s arms and legs.
The doctor noted that he didn’t have proper training in forensic pathology. But the trial judge allowed his testimony.
The state Supreme Court upheld the conviction in 1975.
Then-Governor Huckabee faced some stiff criticism for his ruling on this case. It also gives some indication why the prosecutors involved in these cases had problems with his decisions. In an editorial for the Gazette, Meredith Oakley states (reference 4):
No one has written to the state Post-Prison Transfer Board in support of clemency for Wade Stewart, but no one has written to oppose it, either.
It probably wouldn’t matter either way. When Gov. Mike Huckabee sets his mind to doing something, there’s usually no changing it. And right now, his mind is set on making the convicted murderer immediately eligible for parole.
Perhaps there were good reasons for giving governors the authority to grant clemency to convicts, and perhaps there are good reasons to explain why this governor wants to grant clemency to this convict. Recorded history may explain the first, but for the latter we’ll have to wait until the deed has been done.
Despite his recent claim that he would begin giving his reasons for clemency, Huckabee apparently intends for such action to coincide with the doing of the deed. His notice of intent to grant clemency, made public Wednesday, means we have almost a month to wait before finding out if anything has really changed as a result of this vaunted new policy.
That wasn’t my understanding of how it would work when the governor first announced the new policy, but then I was 50 years old before I knew that “is” had more than one definition, so don’t go by me.
No, you’d do better just to take the governor at his unspoken word that a convicted killer who has more prison infractions on his record than years of incarceration would behave himself once back in the free world.
Stewart, who has never expressed any remorse for his crime that I know of, has racked up quite an impressive rap sheet while serving a life sentence, chief among them fighting, lying, stealing and possession of contraband, e.g. drugs and alcohol.
In other words, a model prisoner he ain’t.
In July of 2007, Stewart was arrested again for violating parole:
In July, when Little Rock, Ark., prosecutor Larry Jegley heard that Wade Stewart had been arrested for the robbery of a prostitute, with a .38 revolver tucked into his pants, Jegley says he just shrugged his shoulders, shook his head and said, “What the heck?”
Stewart had been serving a life sentence after fatally shooting, in 1973, 25-year-old Nicholas Papadopolis.
But on Dec. 18, 2004, Gov. Mike Huckabee granted Stewart clemency, making him eligible for parole, which he was granted. He was the 12th convicted murderer whom Huckabee had helped free from prison. And when Stewart was freed, Jegley had a feeling he’d be hearing from him sooner or later.
“I have been waiting for a lot of these guys that he cut loose to turn up on the police blotter again and again,” said Jegley, the prosecuting attorney for Pulaski County, which includes Little Rock. “I know some of the people that Huckabee let loose have reoffended. Some of them we’ve caught and some of them we haven’t caught.”
Jegley is a Democrat, but the concerns Arkansas prosecutors had about Huckabee were hardly partisan. Lonoke County Prosecuting Attorney Lona McCastlain, a Republican, says she likes Huckabee personally and thought he accomplished “some great things, but I disagreed with his policy on this particular issue. I think later governors will probably learn from the mistakes that were made during the Huckabee administration.”
In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.
Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.
For this survey, the respondents were asked to assume that the Tea Party movement organized as a new political party. In practical terms, it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicates. The rules of the election process—written by Republicans and Democrats–provide substantial advantages for the two established major parties. The more conventional route in the United States is for a potential third-party force to overtake one of the existing parties.
______________________________________________________________
Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area. Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP, a former state representative, and a former trustee at Johnson County Community College (JCCC). You can join Hodge on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Mason-Dixon/Las Vegas Review-Journal Nevada Gubernatorial Survey
If the 2010 Republican primary election for Governor were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were:
- Brian Sandoval 39% (41%)
- Jim Gibbons 18% (20%)
- Michael Montandon 6%
- Undecided 37% (35%)
If the 2010 election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Rory Reid, the Democrat and Brian Sandoval, the Republican?
- Brian Sandoval 49% (50%)
- Rory Reid 34% (33%)
- Undecided 17% (17%)
If the 2010 election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Rory Reid, the Democrat and Jim Gibbons, the Republican?
- Rory Reid 48% (49%)
- Jim Gibbons 34% (37%)
- Undecided 18% (14%)
If the 2010 election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Rory Reid, the Democrat, Brian Sandoval, the Republican, and Oscar Goodman, an Independent?
- Oscar Goodman 35% (33%)
- Brian Sandoval 32% (33%)
- Rory Reid 24% (25%)
- Undecided 9% (9%)
If the 2010 election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Rory Reid, the Democrat, Jim Gibbons, the Republican, and Oscar Goodman, an Independent?
- Oscar Goodman 38% (36%)
- Rory Reid 25% (27%)
- Jim Gibbons 25% (24%)
- Undecided 12% (13%)
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Oscar Goodman 46% (49%) / 13% (9%) {+33%}
- Brian Sandoval 39% (38%) / 6% (7%) {+33%}
- Barack Obama 44% (46%) / 43% (43%) {+1%}
- Rory Reid 23% / 28% {-5%}
- Jim Gibbons 19% (14%) / 50% (51%) {-31%}
Survey of 625 Nevada voters (including a subsample of 300 Republican primary voters) was conducted November 30 – December 2. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points; +/- 6 percentage points among GOP primary voters. Party ID breakdown: 43% Democrat; 37% Republican; 20% Independent. Results from the poll conducted October 6-8 are in parentheses.
Jeffrey,
I have been eagerly awaiting your response to Governor Palin’s statement on settlement rights and my editorial in R412 supporting the Governor, ‘Uneducated Jeffrey Goldberg Errors on Palin’s Israel Settlement Declaration‘, where you promised to challenge the following premise articulated by Governor Sarah Palin on the subject of immigration patterns and settlement rights in Israel;
“More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel”?
Sarah Palin, in an interview with Barbara Walters, talks about settlements:“I disagree with the Obama administration on that. I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.” – Palin
“More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel”? Who, exactly? Is this her analysis of Jewish demography? Is there a sudden upsurge in Zionist sentiment among American Jews, the only sizable Jewish community left outside of Israel? Or is this an indication that Palin buys into creepy End-Times thinking, in which the ingathering of the Jews, and their mass death, presage the return of Christ? Inquiring minds want to know. - Goldberg
Ever curious about the eschatological implications of that Sarah Palin quote from her interview with Barbara Walters — the one in which she said she believes that “more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead”
an alarm bell went off in my head when I heard Palin talk about “days and weeks.” It’s quite one thing to say that Israel needs settlements to contain its growing population (a belief unsupported by the facts, but I’ll deal with that another time), - Goldberg
You accused Governor Palin of making an unsubstantiated claim again in your second post and promised a fact-based follow up. Instead, you refocused your attack from the topic of Israeli’s need and right to expand settlements, to a misguided attempt at portraying mainstream, non-denominational Christians such as Sarah Palin, as fanatical for having a supposed biblical belief that promotes the regathering of Jews in Israel (has she even made this claim in public, or were you continuing the neopaganistic and christianophobic theme of your online magazine?). Are you aware that the Jewish faith believes in the regathering of Jews in Gevulot Ha-aretz? You may also not be aware that non-messianic Jews are also anticipating the coming of the Messiah?
Yes Jeffrey, there are people who believe that God promised them land and will send a descendant of King David to reign over them. Aren’t those Joos so “curious“?
Jeffrey, let us be truthful. The alarm bells you described in your second post were not triggered by the policy statement made by Governor Palin. The bells began ringing in your head when you finally made the effort to research the topic and discovered that in fact Governor Palin was correct. The Wall Street Journal is now reporting what Governor Palin informed us about two weeks ago (included are many of the assumptions highlighted in my post);
JERUSALEM — Immigration into Israel and the Palestinian West Bank is surging after the financial crisis and economic downturn evaporated jobs elsewhere.
After years of a brain drain from the region, and despite the lack of a peace settlement, by the end of this month about 4,000 North American Jews will have immigrated to Israel this year, an increase of 33% over 2008 and the most in one year since 1973, according to Nefesh B’Nefesh, an organization that oversees and assists with immigration to Israel from North America.
Seeking an opportunity to attack the intellectual adeptness of Governor Palin and her fellow conservatives, you refused any effort to obtain the facts on the issue. This should not be a surprise, as you work at the pleasure of Andrew “attack infant Trigg” Sullivan. This have been a consistent theme of the progressive media for the last two years. You heave spiteful and unsubstantiated attacks towards Palin and the conservative movement for the purpose of supporting your misguided world view and the “curious“ Obamacissistic personality disorder your magazine and the far-left has for our President. The progressive movements game-plan to defend their leader, their community organizer, their Agamemnon, was to make Sarah Palin the Clytemnestra of modern American politics, arguing that she only gains followers through her ruthlessness and appealing features.
Well Jeffrey, the reality of the current political environment is that the American public is finally tuning out the hyperbole that was thrust upon them by the progressive movement and President Obama over the last two years. You must be following the recent polling?
On unilateral disengagement from Iraq and Afghanistan; progressives were wrong, Palin was correct. On the economic impact of deficit spending; progressives were wrong, Palin was correct. On job creation; progressives were wrong, Palin was correct. On ignoring Obama’s associations with radical leftist leaders; progressives and Steve Schmidt were wrong, Palin was correct.
These facts will become very apparent on Inauguration Day, January 2013.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
I stumbled across two clips from important conservative leaders overseas today – and I want to share both of them with you as an example of how conservatives are taking the leftist governments to task and winning.
The first video I want to show you is from David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative Party. I personally think Cameron is a genius, but I also know that he has become something of and idol to the wing of the GOP that thinks that conservatism is dead and hard-core centrism is the only option. Apparently, such people have not been watching how Cameron operates.
Cameron has many hard-core conservatives on his front bench and has not been shy at all in advocating “small government”, accusing the Brown government of ”socialism”, and now taking on their class warfare rhetoric. A bit of a row broke out this week when certain Labour politicians decided that Cameron’s Etonian education mad him unfit to lead working-class Britons. The response from Cameron was seize on Labour’s new-found taste for class warfare and label them, “petty, spiteful, stupid thing to do.” If anything, Cameron is lurching further and further to the right these days.
The second is a clip from Barnaby Joyce, leader of the National Party in the Australian Senate (the Nationals are the third largest party, and the furthest to the right, but usually sit in coalition with the Liberals to form a right-wing front). Instead of placating leftists on climate change and cap-and-trade (called “ETS” in Oz), Joyce and new Liberal leader Tony Abbott are going for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s jugular. I think they’ve found a good point of attack by targeting Rudd’s frequent travel and obsession with global warming. As Rudd grows increasingly disinterested in all things Australian, Joyce is now talking about kitchen-table issues and I think he’s spot on.
Looks at some of these lines:
”We have jet-setting Mr. Rudd, who’s now evolved beyond his need to even communicate with the new Premier of New South Wales, even though she’s from the Labor Party”
“We’re quite happy to stay at home and do the work and take him on.”
“The best way to describe Kevin is, ‘he’s overseas.’”
“He thinks he’s going to save the world. I think he needs to leave that job to Hu Jintao and Barack Obama.”
I especially like that last one because it illustrates that our own president’s pseudo-messianic conceit is now becoming something of a global laughingstock. Leftist leaders like Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown are now falling under heavy fire for their big-government, anti-growth elitism. The conservatives in both Australia and Britain rightly smell blood in the water and they are moving in for the kill. The only question is whether we here in America are willing to take on the ringleader.
Conservatives are on the attack all over the world. In the last few years, leftist and centrist governments have fallen to right-wing leaders in Canada, New Zealand, Germany, France, and Israel. In the next year, we are likely to see the same phenomenon in Britain and Spain, and Australia also looks to be spawning it’s own tea-party movement over Rudd’s ETS cap-and-tax plan.
So, my question to David Frum, David Brooks, Steve Schmidt, Dede Scozzafava, and other of their ilk is this: In a time when conservatism is going gangbusters all over the world, why the heck would you suggest that America is shifting leftward and that we must run to the left or die? The polls suggest otherwise, and conservatives in almost every major democracy are making gains by moving to the right rather than the center.
Moderating our approach now, of all times, is precisely the wrong approach. Instead, we need to follow the entire rest of the world and come out strongly against Obama and his leftist agenda. Change sells in the current climate, but big government and self-proclaimed messiahs are meeting horrible political deaths. Life has not been this good for conservatives since at least 1980, and I personally think that the proper approach the Obama agenda is “load all torpedoes and fire at will.”
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
As a Romney supporter and blogger I have very seldom written about faith and religion, whether in the general sense or as it applies to Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate. I’ve always known Romney’s religion to be a stigma to some. I’m sure it is even a boon to others, especially those who share his faith. Today, in remembrance of the 2nd anniversary of Romney’s speech “Faith in America”, I’m going to take a rare moment to share my thoughts on subject.
Full disclosure: I am a life-long member of the LDS (Mormon) church. Now let’s proceed.
I consider myself a strong social conservative. My social views aren’t limited to just abortion and same-sex marriage, but I also place strong emphasis on the morality of a politician or a candidate. How a leader comports him or herself in office and in their private life has a huge effect on our lives, whether they like it or not. Political leaders, sports heroes, and pop culture icons all set the trend as to what is acceptable behavior in our society. My religious belief that the family is of vital importance and is the basic building block of society causes me to decry behavioral impropriety, particularly marital infidelity, amongst those in the spotlight because of its lasting affect on many, many people. Behavior that becomes commonplace among celebrities is all too easily emulated by fans and constituents.
Back in the year 2000, when I was 9 years younger and more naive than I am now, I recall watching the GOP primary debates and being delighted with George W. Bush and some of the religious rhetoric he employed. It was refreshing to hear such talk, especially in the wake of a Clinton presidency and the scandals that had ensued. At the time I thought mostly of the character of the candidate and much less of what they actual knowledge and experience was. In retrospect, and being a little wiser now, I realize that probably wasn’t the best approach to choosing a candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I admire Bush greatly still, but there were many things that he could have done better, especially in terms of the economy. Even so, he was the best candidate available at the time.
In mid 2006, I began to look for a potential candidate to support for the 2008 GOP nomination. I knew I didn’t like McCain, mostly because of bad memories of the 2000 campaign. And I wasn’t keen on Giuliani either because of his highly publicized affairs. I recall thinking about rumors I had heard that Mitt Romney might run for president. Even though I’m from Utah, I knew absolutely nothing about him besides that fact that he was highly involved in the Olympics. In fact, I was away serving an LDS mission when the Olympics scandals happened, so I knew nothing about them.
My first thoughts upon hearing that Romney might run for president were, “Great, he’s probably going to embarrass us (Mormons) on the national stage, and just give people more reason to publicly ridicule us.” A couple weeks later, after reading everything I could about him, it didn’t matter to me anymore whether he was Mormon or not, or whether he would “embarrass” us on the national stage. I knew that he was qualified, and had the business and economic resume I wanted to see in a candidate, and that he had a fabulous record of turning large entities around, whether it be a business, a state, or the Olympics. And I could feel confident that he would not get involved the extracurricular antics Clinton tangled with while in office. Basically, I felt he was qualified AND would be a good roll model, and this was/is very important to me.
Of course there were obstacles to Romney’s path to the presidency. A USA Today poll in February of 2007 showed that of Republicans a full 30% would not support as qualified Mormon candidate. An additional 12% would do so with some hesitancy. Those combined make 42% at least that had a problem with Romney’s faith. I would consider that a substantial obstacle. I recall being somewhat dispirited from that bit of news, but was sure that once people got to know Romney better, and they certainly would, we might see those percentages fall. Fortunately many came to find that they could support a Mormon, especially one as qualified as Romney. Unfortunately, I believe it required from Romney a lot of money and campaigning to slowly break those shackles. That process won’t be nearly as staggering next time around in 2012. It certainly won’t be a cake-walk either.
My own experience as an LDS missionary in Southern Jersey taught me that folks can have wild misconceptions of what a Mormon really is. Then there were others that were well informed of our beliefs and remained strongly opposed to them. In both cases I was often the first Mormon they had ever talked to and they were surprised to find that I was a normal person, as opposed to being a socially degenerative schmoe stuck in the 1800’s. I share my experience because it coincides with a study on religious tolerance that was also revisited this last week in a USA Today column:
The study was an online survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of 3,000 respondents. We provided randomly selected respondents with different statements about Romney and then asked whether they would vote for him.
Some were given a boilerplate biography that did not mention religion; others were told that he has been a local leader in his church; others were told he has been a leader in the Mormon church. Still others were told, “Some people say Mormons are not Christians.” By comparing reactions to these various statements, we could see how each one affected a person’s willingness to vote for Romney, and also how different kinds of people responded to the statements.
The claim that Mormons are not Christians was particularly potent. […] the results of our study — conducted not long after Romney’s [Faith in America] speech — suggest that his religion was a liability. When respondents were told about the claim that Mormons are not Christians, nearly one-third said they were less likely to vote for him.
Interestingly, the claim that Mormons are not Christians had virtually no effect on those people who reported a close personal relationship with a Mormon.
…
People who objectively know a lot about Mormons — that is, those who scored 100% on a short quiz on facts about Mormonism — were much less likely to be bothered by the claim that Mormons are not Christians. In contrast, respondents who claimed they knew a lot about Mormons, but who actually did not, were bothered most of all by claims about Mormonism.
Bottom line: those who were well acquainted with Mormons, whether personally or informatively, were not affected by the debate of whether Mormons were Christians or not. Yes, ignorance is the greatest inhibitor of tolerance. The study shows that this is unfortunately true for other less-known religions as well. This really ought not to be, but misinformation will always abound, and until the public becomes generally educated on these minority religions we’ll continue to see similar results.
I believe these findings to also be consistent with the results from the GOP primary elections. There is and undeniable pattern that Romney is well-liked western states, but he is not so well received in parts of the south. Nevada is a state that has an LDS population of about 10%. It’s not a large percentage but it’s enough that most people are at least acquainted with Mormons. I’ve often heard people say that Romney only won Nevada because of the large number of Mormons in Nevada (I wouldn’t call 10% a dominant slice of the pie). But the fact remains that if every vote from a Mormon were discounted from the tally, Romney still won the state handedly. The point again: in situations where people were familiar with Mormons, they were much less hesitant to vote for one.
One can see why Romney ultimately decided to give his speech on faith in December of 2007, a speech that he hoped he would never have to give. I believe the decision to give the speech was driven by the fact that Huckabee had emerged on the national stage and portrayed himself as the “Christian Leader”, coupled with the fact that the once strong Romney state of Iowa was slipping away from him.
So what was the purpose of the speech? Merely for people to get acquainted with him on a large scale. Perhaps many wanted Romney to explain certain tenets of his faith to assuage their concerns. Romney wisely did not fall into that trap. In matters regarding doctrine he reffered people to the LDS Church itself, which is the proper manner to handle this situation because as a political leader it is not his duty to educate people on all the points of his beliefs. Perhaps also the buzz around the speech would draw folks to see it and realize “Hey, that Mitt is not a crazy Mormon like I thought him to be.” Many people got to hear from his own mouth that he was a Christian in the sense that he believed that Jesus is the savior of all mankind. But that wasn’t even the main point. The main point to get across was that Americans by and large want a person of faith to lead the country, and that he fit in those parameters. Was it effective? I think so. But it obviously didn’t yield the desired results of turning Iowa back in his favor.
I have embedded Romney’s full speech below so you can revisit it. I recall vividly watching this speech live on TV. I rarely get emotional, especially in the realm of politics, but this speech hit home with me. Regardless of Romney’s future, I believe this speech will hold it’s place in history as one of the most regarded speeches of the 2008 campaign cycle, and will be held by many as an inflection point their lives.
Part 1
Part 2
Here is a permanent link to the videos and transcript.
So did Romney lose the ’08 GOP primary because of religious intolerance? Who knows? It think there are valid arguments for both cases. I DO know that no one likes a sore loser and Romney has lead well by his example. Never has he tried to claim that he was discriminated against because of his religion. He lost because in the end he didn’t get the most votes, and it all happened fair and square. I think his supporters would be wise to follow suit. I recommend removing the word “bigotry” from your vocabulary. Even if you do see true cases of religious bias against Romney I would ask you to consider your reaction. By yelling “bigot” at every corner you do much more harm to your cause than good. Be an adult and just let it go.
For those interested in following the topic of religion and how it pertains to political office (especially in regards to Romney) I recommend reading the Article 6 blog run jointly by a Mormon and an Evangelical Christian.
You can read my full account of today’s Sarah Palin book-signing over at Conservatives4Palin. It was most definitely an experience to remember!
Gateway Pundit has a posting about the latest scandal from Obama’s “safe schools czar” (whatever that means), Kevin Jennings. It’s a bit of a shocker — to put it mildly.
Jennings is the founder of an organization called Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. On their website they have lists of recommended reading. One would hope that such reading lists would be books that would help gay kids come to terms with their feelings or to help straight kids understand their gay friends. Probably many of the books do such things.
But to see what some of the books are you will have to click the link. I warn you that what you see will be extremely offensive. After an introduction (and several warnings), you will see images of pages from some of the books.
We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships …
It goes on, but Kavon might object to even having the full description here, so I’ll stop at this point. I’m not easily shocked by sexual matters, and I can’t say that I’m shocked by what I read — but I am shocked beyond belief that anyone could consider the material there appropriate for recommended reading by adolescents.
I am not naive — I know that kids read stuff that their parents would prefer they not see. But this is kiddie porn being recommended by schoolteachers. And by a high-level member of the Obama Administration.
A word of caution: Just as we all know the truism about things that are too good to be true, the same applies to things that are too crazy to be true. It’s hard to believe that anybody could be crazy enough to recommend such books to schoolkids — so maybe this is a hoax of some kind, or there is some sort of reasonable explanation.
I also want to repeat and endorse the following statement from their posting:
This issue has nothing to do with gayness or straightness, which is irrelevant to this report. The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.”
And this is not about censorship: It’s about deciding what constitutes appropriate reading material for children. We’re perfectly OK with these books existing and being read by adults; we only start to worry when these books are assigned to children.
Gateway Pundit, by the way, is currently under cyber-attack, according to Instapundit, where I got this link.
Again: Do not click the link if you are offended by graphic sexual material.
Here is an excellent ten minute interview from the other day when Mitt was interviewed by Larry King. He touched on Afghanistan, the Economy, Health care, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee. It’s worth watching in its entirety.
Governor Huckabee has penned a new commentary on Afghanistan where he expresses that the public timetable announced by President Obama is a huge mistake:
I have read all of your comments regarding Afghanistan. Some of you disagree with my assertion that the President should have our non-partisan support as he seeks to give our military the resources they need to push al-Qaeda back to hell. I respect each of your opinions and understand that reasonable people often disagree.
However, there is one part of the President’s speech that I do not agree with and I want to make sure that my position is perfectly clear. I do not agree with the President’s statement that we would begin to remove American troops fromAfghanistan in July 2011. The President said “And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.” I view any timetable as a huge mistake.
I believe that the President will not be able to keep the time line that he outlined and will ultimately be forced to abandon it. I hope that even giving it is President Obama’s way of trying to emphasize urgency to the Afghanistan government.
The reason that I have always opposed giving a public timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from either Iraq or Afghanistan is quite simple. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Afghan people and the Pakistani military will all view the use of a specific date for the commencement of withdrawal of our forces as proof that we will leave the region beginning in July 2011. The Taliban and al-Qaeda will be content to sit back and wait for us to leave. The Afghan people will be afraid to support us in any way in fear of what will happen to them when we do leave.
The Pakistani armed forces may also be demoralized by the use of a specific date. There is no way to stop them from interpreting the President’s statement as evidence that our government has already made a decision to leave Afghanistan . There will be those in the Pakistani Army who will use this statement to temper their search for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. That is the wrong message to send to an unstable region of the world.
CNN/Opinion Research Survey on Barack Obama and Afghanistan
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
- Approve 48% (55%) [54%] {55%} <58%> (53%) [56%]
- Disapprove 50% (42%) [45%] {43%} <40%> (45%) [40%]
Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?
- Favor 46% (45%) [40%] {41%} <39%> (42%) [41%]
- Oppose 51% (52%) [58%] {57%} <58%> (57%) [54%]
Regardless of how you feel about the war in general, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s plan to send about 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to stabilize the situation there?
- Favor 62%
- Oppose 36%
President Obama also announced that he plans to start removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011. Thinking specifically about that policy and not about Obama’s decision to announce it at this time, do you favor or oppose Obama’s plan to start removing troops from Afghanistan in 2011?
- Favor 66%
- Oppose 32%
And regardless of how you feel about the plan to start removing troops in 2011, do you think it was a good idea or a bad idea for Obama to announce that policy at this time?
- Good idea 39%
- Bad idea 59%
And just your best guess — do you think conditions in Afghanistan will or will not be good enough in the summer of 2011 for the U.S. to start removing troops?
- Conditions will be good enough 33%
- Conditions will not be good enough 61%
Whose policies do you blame for the problems that the U.S. is currently facing in Afghanistan – the policies of George W. Bush or the policies of Barack Obama?
- Bush 64%
- Obama 17%
And if the current situation facing the U.S. in Afghanistan does not improve by the summer of 2011, whose policies would you blame for that — the policies of George W. Bush, or the policies of Barack Obama?
- Obama 54%
- Bush 34%
Survey of 1,041 adults, including 965 registered voters, was conducted December 2-3. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 30 – November 1 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16-18 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 11-13 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 28-31 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3 are in square brackets.
The relevant section that Matthew highlighted is this:
Here is my problem with beating up on Palin for this: A lot of the people who will beat up on her are the same sort of people who say the Republican Party needs to be open to moderates, and toss moderates a rhetorical bone here and there, and stuff like that.
…So what did Palin do? Well, what she did here was toss a rhetorical bone to the 25-30% of the country which is very much interested in this birth certificate question, while not nearly embracing the theory itself. She offered, in other words, a sort of vague stab at consensus — let’s agree that these questions are fair game and punt on the more divisive question of whether the theory has any merit — which is what what people like David Frum are always urging when it comes to appeasing moderates.
That is not what David Frum and the rest of us over at FrumForum mean by “tossing a bone” to the moderates. The equivalent of tossing a bone to the hard-right would be to say that Obama’s policies resemble socialism, or talking about ACORN and the desire to remake America in the image of the radical progressives, or something like that. Good, red meat stuff. You don’t have to lie to throw rhetorical bones. If thirty percent of the Republican Party decided tomorrow that Hillary Clinton was secretly a reptilian humanoid and demanded to know why exactly a woman with interplanetary interests was allowed to head up our diplomatic missions, we’d not hear any chatter about “bone-throwing” to them (I hope!).
In other words: talking about whether people “embrace the theory itself” is language that is incredibly legitimizing. “Well, some people might not agree with the Clinton-as-reptilian theory, but we ought to toss them some bones by saying that it’s a fair question that’s rightfully being brought up by the public.” No! No, we cannot “agree that these theories are fair game.” They’re stupid. Asinine. Embarrassing. Morose. Childish. Whiny. Incorrect. And perhaps worst of all, “bone-throwing” to conspiracy-mongers utterly destroys our chances at attracting the middle — and even the mainstream right. If you want to attract 51%, you need to toe the right line between firing up half of them while not repulsing the other half.
Sorry, Ace. Sorry, apologists. Go back to the she-didn’t-mean it angle, ’cause this new one ain’t working.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
As the self appointed grump of this fine website, something just came to me. Having spent a lot of time being critical of Huckabee, dismissive of Palin, and hypnotized by Pawlenty’s remarkable resemblence to Doug Flutie… I just realized that it’s been a very long time since I’ve had anything bad to say about my personal punching bag for most of 2007: the Clark W. Griswaldesque former governor of the “great” state of Massachussetts. It’s strange because along with Alex and Aron, I got such pleasure out of examining the trials and tribulations that revolved around the campaign of Romney. Whether it was the over the top fanaticism of his more vocal supporters, the immense joy he took from the time he spent contemplating the inner workings of the government while flying down mountains at breathtaking speeds on his trusty sled named Rosebud, the seriousness he put into those family discussions about whether or not he should run for president (all the while the cameras were conveniently rolling), the way in which he so gracefully turned himself into a man of the wild after his first varmint kill… I could go on and on about the fun I had at the expense of Citizen Charles Foster Kane Mitt Romney.
Upon reflection, I guess there’s a reason why I don’t think I’ve said more than one or two critical things about Governor Klutz in the last eight months. It’s because he’s behaving exactly the way I would expect one of the frontrunners for the GOP nomination to behave. Whether it be in the interviews he’s given, the articles he’s published, or the speeches he’s made, he’s doing everything right. He’s even kept the clone creepily similar Kevin Madden out of my sight.
In other words, he’s doing everything right so far. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not joining Rombot Inc., nor do I intend to. But still… where are his proclamations to make sure “In God We Trust” remains on the nickel? Or ridiculously titled economic plans like the Reagan Zone? Where are stories of dogs being tied to the roof of his car?
The fact is… Mitt Romney is behaving the way a candidate should behave, and by doing so, it will be a lot harder to criticize him so effortlessly, as so many of us took great joy in doing the last time around. We are all aware of his propensity for doofusness. We’ve all heard about the flips and the flops. The problem is that so has everyone else. Is there no ammo left in our cannons for the pleasure of tearing down Mitt Romney?
If he’s able to impress me, then he’s obviously doing something right. I may not join the fanclub, but he’s given me nothing to bang him over the head with. Good job, Governor!
Ace, over at AceofSpades, has a relatively savvy take on the Palin birther dust-up. He writes:
No, I don’t believe he was born in Kenya, no, I don’t believe there is some massive conspiracy, but yes, people have a right to know these things for a fact and not a belief, and yes, he’s being sketchy about this for whatever reason, and yes, people have the right to ask questions and demand proof.I think it’s an empty thing to ask for proof since the thing is already well-proven. But no one else has to accept my personal evidentiary standard. And given that this mystery (well, not-really-a-mystery) is entirely within Obama’s power to solve by signing a simple form requesting that Hawaii release his long form, I think it’s fair to ask him to do so.
Here is my problem with beating up on Palin for this: A lot of the people who will beat up on her are the same sort of people who say the Republican Party needs to be open to moderates, and toss moderates a rhetorical bone here and there, and stuff like that.
Which I agree with, actually.
But the deeper point they are making is that politics is not about Simon Pure purity on questions. They are advancing the idea that politics is about coalition-building, doing what is necessary to attract 51% to your flag, and that those they consider too hardcore about conservative principles are doing the party a disservice by elevating philosophical integrity and ideological coherence above the vagueries and punts often necessary to negotiate a rough consensus.
Which, again, I agree with.
So what did Palin do? Well, what she did here was toss a rhetorical bone to the 25-30% of the country which is very much interested in this birth certificate question, while not nearly embracing the theory itself. She offered, in other words, a sort of vague stab at consensus — let’s agree that these questions are fair game and punt on the more divisive question of whether the theory has any merit — which is what what people like David Frum are always urging when it comes to appeasing moderates.
Well, look: The exact same principle applies to both moderates and conservatives. If we’re supposed to overlook the frequent leftward deviations of, say, Lindsey Graham, as necessary (it is asserted) for winning an election and building a coalition, can it really be honestly contended that we must suddenly become Simon Pure on other issues?…now we’re going to demand that everyone in the party adhere strongly to one side of this issue?
You mean: There’s a litmus test for Republicans now? Really? Gee, every time I hear about litmus tests people like Frum freak out about an attempt to “purge” the party. But now we’re suddenly in favor of them?
There’s something to this, which why I’ve argued that Republicans shouldn’t beat up on birthers. I have never, no matter where I’ve stood on the right’s ideological spectrum, believed that you could have a one-way coalition; where one side concedes some of their priorities while the other side stands resolute on every particular. Sometimes, moderates need to accept that the base needs red meat; sometimes, the base needs to accept that the meat is the essential bit, not the color.
But, here’s the thing: you have to weigh these choices seriously. If you’re someone in the “moderate camp”, or just someone in the conservative camp who finds birtherism worrying, where’s the balancing point? It’s definitely not “birthers are lunatics who must be gelded to stop their line”. Because there are a fair number of people in the Republican Party who take birtherism seriously; there’s no reason to so badly alienate them. If this were a 4% issue, hack away. When upwards of 50% of the party, in some polls, is skeptical, you need a finer instrument.
But look: is anyone, anywhere, waiting in front of their TV with bated breath to hear a Presidential Candidate question Obama’s citizenship? Like, they think Palin’s a cool gal and all, but they’re gonna have to stay on the fence til she calls Obama a beady-eyed Indonesian. I’d say…probably not. Lots of people are birthers, or are willing to say they are in anonymous polls. Lots more are happy to express vague “skepticism”. But, you could probably fit the number of people for whom this is the pivotal issue in a small mini-van. Which is strange when you think about it. We’ve got ourselves a Rogue Manchurian President, but we go to work, pay our taxes, and keep our bunker-building to a minimum. Or wait, is Rogue always a good thing now?
Strange or not, though, that’s pretty much where we are. Which means that birthers don’t need “rhetorical bones”. They’re never, ever, going to revolt over a lack of rhetorical bones. Birthers are like a dog in a banquet hall. With so many, you know, real choices, what the hell good is a bone? They just need you to not insult them. They just need you to not geld them. And Palin’s statement did a whole lot more than that. Which would be fine- the dog will take the bone even if he doesn’t need it.
Except, there are a heck of a lot of people- an overwhelming number really- who think that bone is…well, a human bone. And they wonder what kind of character throws around human bones for dogs to gnaw on. That’s just not right, man. And they’re thinking maybe next time they won’t invite her to the banquet.
That’s where Palin is now. I don’t know why. Maybe she really is a birther and is just “asking questions”. Maybe she just miscalculated the politics. Maybe she realizes that her base is so chock full of birthers that the politics work out differently for her- any nudge of extra enthusiasm brings her closer to the nomination. A banquet hall full of birther dogs and all that. But, if she simply wanted to avoid alienating a goodly portion of her base, she could have said something simple like “I’m satisfied that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, but I understand that many of these folks are frustrated and while I think they’re wrong about this, I look forward to helping them expose the real deceptions of the Obama administration”. There are a dozen ways to go that play out a whole lot better. And if it’s not an instant disqualifier, and I don’t think it is, this dust-up certainly goes in the “Sarah Palin has a lot to learn” file.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog
The American Revolution Center recently gave a test to a random sample of 1001 U.S. general population respondents. The test covered questions about the American Revolution. 83% scored an average of 44%. Ouch!
Here are the survey questions. How well do you do?
(Selecting the space immediately following each question with your cursor reveals the answer)
On Tuesday afternoon, hours before his televised address at West Point, President Obama wisely acknowledged, “None of this is easy. I mean, we are choosing from a menu of options that are less than ideal.” For such a statement, I applaud the president for his candor and realism. He is right in asserting that Afghanistan can no longer be the forgotten war regulated to the back page of the American mind. Afghanistan is not the “good” war, it is really the great unknown—troubled by a corrupt and feeble central government, a lack of infrastructure, and persistent attacks from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Afghanistan has a bleaker future than even Iraq. That would have been difficult to say three years ago.
Over the course of the weeks he spent huddled with cabinet members and Pentagon officials sketching out his next move in Afghanistan, Obama certainly gave a thought to rejecting every military proposal placed on his desk. If only he could rid himself of a foreign entanglement not of his doing, he could surely devote his time to the social reforms on which he built his presidential campaign. Alas, Obama is now as much of a war president as Lyndon Johnson was in the waning years of his first term. Had the president decided to withdraw immediately from Afghanistan, I would have respected his decision as a commander-in-chief making what he felt was the best decision for American troops. Admittedly, while I support Obama’s announced policy to increase troop levels in an effort to boost security and eventually hand control to the Afghans, his timetable for America’s exit is shortsighted and setup for failure.
The moment Obama decided to add more troops to the equation should have been the moment he placed all of his cards on the table. Go all in, or do not go at all. Expediting the deployment of 30,000 troops may help in the short term, but it is not a viable solution. Contrary to what some Congressional Republicans have argued in recent days, this is not about aiding the enemy by handing them our timetable for departure. There is no doubt that Obama recognized the divisions in his cabinet (Vice President Biden is wary about the “surge” strategy, whereas Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is more supportive of renewing the military effort) and the widening rift in his party over war policy (liberals oppose escalation and conservative Democrats worry about the rising price tag). More certain is the fact that the July 2011 date to begin some form of an orderly exit coincides well with a looming presidential election the following year. Politics, rest assured, is always part of the equation.
No one can argue with Obama surrogates that reject the prospects of extended nation building in Afghanistan. Depleted after a decade of war and a severe economic downturn, America’s finances will not defeat an entrenched insurgency if the Afghan government refuses to cooperate on issues such as educational development or reductions in the illegal drug trade. What is perplexing about the Obama war plan, however, is his awkward marriage of a substantial troop increase with his refusal to embrace the essential features of the army’s counterinsurgency tactics. Adding manpower to protect the civilian population is admirable, but what will happen when we depart in the coming years?
Unless we commit ourselves to ramping up the training of Afghan security forces, the current mission will go to waste. It is best that we learn that killing the enemy is only a temporary respite from the underlying problem—they have nothing to lose and possess eternal patience. Unfortunately, neither America, nor Obama, has the same luxury. If the president is sincere about leaving Afghanistan in stable condition, he will grant American troops the time they deserve to prove their mettle.
From the department of things that make you go, “Hmm…”
Gov. Mitch Daniels will be raising money for fellow Indiana Republicans during a reception in Chicago tonight, his press secretary said Thursday, not building a war chest for a presidential run.
“I don’t know how many times he can say that he’s not running for president,” Jane Jankowski said.
The law office of Mayer Brown LLP in Chicago will be the site of “An Evening with Gov. Mitch Daniels” tonight. Hosts listed on an announcement include former state Rep. Dan Dumezich, Wil Davis, CEO at the Gary Jet Center and businessman Dean White.
Individual tickets to the private event are $200. A co-sponsor can buy two tickets for $1,000 and a sponsor can buy eight tickets for $5,000.
Jankowski said the money will be used to support Republican candidates for statewide office in Indiana.
“This is about him encouraging people who are interested in keeping Indiana moving forward, encouraging them to seek office,” Jankowski said.
The fund-raiser is organized by the political action committee Aiming Higher, which Jankowski said is used to support “reform-minded candidates.”
According to the announcement, Daniels will “share his governing approach, Indiana’s story, and his new mission to ‘promote results, ideas, and candidates that focus on government reform and serving taxpayers.’”
Daniels easily won re-election in 2008 at the same time Hoosier voters were choosing a Democrat for president, Barack Obama, for the first time since 1964.
That, along with Indiana’s rare budget surplus, have some Republicans urging Daniels to seek his party’s presidential nomination in 2012.
Daniels, though, has repeatedly denied harboring any presidential aspirations.
While Public Policy Polling has yet to post the results of its online poll of second-tier Republican candidates from earlier this week, Daniels was coming in a strong second just before the polls closed, beating better-known Republicans like Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani while only Pawlenty edged out Mitch for the top spot. Daniels’ assumed, effortless conservatism combined with his ability to apply his philosophy to the issues of the day, all packaged in a personality that provides voters with a stark contrast with President Obama, may mean that Mitch Daniels is in the perfect position to re-assemble the Fred ’08 movement, only this time led by a candidate who can actually go the distance.
