That Mike Huckabee could be polling ahead of or even with Mitt Romney in Iowa is hard to believe, especially given that Romney has spent $7 million-plus there. But Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist with a Reagan-like affability, is giving new hope to those in the conservative GOP base who had seen the ’08 nomination as a lock for liberal front-runner Rudy Giuliani. Quotes like this are part of Huckabee’s appeal: “It was Gandhi who said that first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, and then they attend your swearing in.â€
Meanwhile, quotes like this from George Will show Huckabee had better get ready to duck. “Mike Huckabee’s candidacy rests on serial non sequiturs: I am a Christian, therefore I am a conservative, therefore whatever I have done or propose to do with ‘compassionate,’ meaning enlarged, government is conservatism. And by the way, anything I denote as a ‘moral’ issue is beyond debate other than by the uncaring forces of greed.â€
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
62 Comments
Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas 47% after taking office following — get ready for this — Bill Clinton!
He may get the God, Guns & Gays crowd but he’ll never convince that other key faction of the Republic Party: the Greedy.
” “It was Gandhi who said that first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, and then they attend your swearing in.””
Nice. Since the quote is a tongue-in-cheek revision, few wlll notice that it was Arthur Schopenhauer, not Gandhi who said it in the first place (and, honestly, it was a fairly dumb quote to begin with).
But stealing quotes and getting them wrong is, indeed, vintage Reagan.
Huckabee would be the hardest of the Republicans to beat in a general election. Especially if he is matched with Hillary because they are actually quite close on many issues except abortion. But I cannot see Huckabee being nominated. He might surge in Iowa but when he gets to other states, he will be crushed like a cockroach. I think he is most likely running for VP which is why he doesn’t attack Rudy or Romney too much.
Bitter are we, bitch!
I like Huckabee but his Baptist lifestyle is just unacceptable in the White House. The guy seems sincere, undeterred, and compassionate. I can only wait until he turns scripture against gays, against, divorce, against premarital sex, then we’ll run screaming into the night.
This Jim Nabors (Gomer Pyle) look-a-like has done nothing but copy everything Ron Paul has stated. They (corporate media)are setting up Republicans that can’t beat Hillary. The only candidate on either side who could beat her is of course, Ron Paul.
I’d like to see We The People a little more astute and not be swayed by obvious pandering. But maybe folks really do believe all of the baby-kissing, hand shaking, rhetoric and hyperbole. Has the lie become so big that we have accepted it as truth? I’ll say, “yes, at least in Kansas”. I wish it weren’t true but I believe nowadays we could vote for President with a “reality” show. For instance, “The Great American Presidential Race” or maybe “American Presidential Idol”. How about “Survivor-D.C.”? I hear a lot of people say that they are “tired of the bs and corruption in Washington”. Apparently that’s just talk, cause if people really cared, they would yearn for and resolve to fight for real change. I know truth is painful for a liar. And each time in any debate, Ron Paul (for the 2 minutes alloted to him) meekly and succinctly speaks truths that no one else up on the stage wants to talk about. Folks, this is our last chance. Now that may sound trite or silly to you, but it’s true. I feel like I’m tied down here. You see, I want to be free and in order for me to be free, YOU have to want to be free as well.
Ah yes, more vintage Rhonda. Now proudly waving the right wing banner, she begins to betray what blows the wind that makes it wave…for her.
What’s this? A hint of a Republican who might get into her purse? Can’t have that! It’s long past time for a divorce between compassion and conservatism aint it Rhonda?
Don’t trouble yourself too much dear. Huckabee has no chance.
Duane, the people who can’t handle the truth, and take the straight dope from Ron Paul are just ignoring it. I watched one of the current debates, and after some of Ron Pauls answers, some of the other canidates when asked to give their answers sounded almost exactly what Ron Paul just said, except they put their own little personal spin on it, and pandered to the croweds for cheers.
I like Huckabee and his appeal is spreading according to the polling.
Whether it is spreading fast enough, who knows? If people start looking at him as electable, then look out. I recall another well spoken Arkansas governor who was given no chance, not that long ago.
If he’s an affable old fool, he just may be another Reagan.
“The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
“The buck stops here.”
Harry Truman
“I believe this nation should commit itself to the goal before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”
John F. Kennedy
“That’s not a chin under Chuck Norris’s beard, it’s a fist.”
mike huckabee.
Mike Huckabee needs to run for Andy Griffith’s old job.
I see that the “Who peed in your cornflakes Lib Crowd” is up this morning.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_huckabee_vs_clinton_obama
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
A couple of Rasmussen articles about how Huckabee is pretty much tied with Hillary and just 3% behind Rudy nationally. Sounds to me like a credible contender.
Huckabee? You mean the guy who lied about helping to parole Wayne Dumond, a convicted rapist (who supposedly was framed by Bill Clinton), thereby setting Dumond free to rape and kill again?
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419
Huckabee is a liar: several witnesses refute his claim not to have taken extraordinary measures to secure Dumond’s release.
If I was Huckabee, I’d want to keep this one quiet. And fortunately for him, the national media thus far has been happy to comply.
Perhaps the best comparison to Huchabee just might be the last ‘born-again’ Christian we had in the White House. A man loathed by many on the Right. Jimmy Carter.
Ben,
Only if Jimmy Carter, upon getting ready to leave the governorship of Georgia, had set up a weeding registries at Dillard’s stores for his 31-year old marriage to Roslyn.
http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2006/11/13/week_in_review/news/saturday/news09.txt
Sorry, WEDDING registries. The point here is that Huckabee isn’t above using his office for personal gain.
There are lots of other examples, some larger, some smaller, than this one; but none of them is quite so tacky.
If the DC hostess set hated the Clintons, they’re going to LOATHE the Huckabees. Which, for CF2K, actually counts in Huckabee’s favor.
“If he’s an affable old fool, he just may be another Reagan.”
I thought that was Fred Thompson’s role.
Some of the news channels are kinda making Huckabee out to be a race to see if he can round up all the evangelicals to back him up so he can have all the old christian right voters pocketed. Which is a big group that can make or break a canidate because they show up in numbers to vote, compared to other groups.
Huckabee the Sheperd of the Right, rounding up the sheepies that have gone astray. Nice imagery.
Huckabee does look like he would make a good television president. He looks more like an actor than Fred Thompson.
Reagan-like affability,
And look where that got us. I swear, I have never understood what anybody saw in that dunce.
Another Reagan/Carter/Bush in the White House.
Nooooooo!!!!
Fred the great white hope Thompson, is beginning to look like another also ran.
Wow.
Given Hillary’s! crumbling inevitability campaign, it seems Huckabee worries Dems a great deal . . . .
GMC70,
Oh, Hillary’s “inevitability” was every bit as much a media fiction as Rudy’s. (Remember Rudy? The guy who used NYC taxpayers to foot the bill for security to make his booty calls? How soon the Repubicans forget.)
But Huckabee’s getting a free-ride from a starry-eyed, Wingnut friendly media that loves Cinderella story more than it loves doing its job. As always, scratch the surface of the newest Republican Beauty Queen, and something ugly pokes out.
In Huckabee’s case, it’s good old cronyist corruption, an unwillingness to take responsibility for using parole as a political tool, authoritarism, and an almost perfect indifferent to ethics. Then there’s his worldview, which is a slightly more palatable version of Taliban light.
Given that the media is ready to prostrate itself at the feet of whatever Republican promises to soothe it and make the bad men go away, it falls to Democrats to brand Huckabee. And given his past, there’s no lack of things that the electorate needs to be told.
Huckabee might very win in Iowa, New Hampshire not sure, and by the time super duper Tuesday comes around the candidates bankroll plays a big part in elections and Rudy and Rommey have the most.
I wonder if we will be seeing political ads during the Super Bowl (48 hours before Super Duper)
CF
“free-ride from a starry-eyed, Wingnut friendly media”
“Given that the media is ready to prostrate itself at the feet of whatever Republican promises to soothe it and make the bad men go away,”
Please, tell me you’re not serious.
The media see Huckabee as someone Hillary can beat. Therefore he must win the nomination.
Gee Heckler – I thought the media saw Huckabee as the one who might defeat Hillary – therefore he must get the nomination.
Ben,
No kiddin’.
Heckler,
Given the free ride Rudy had until last week, and the way that the Thompson “candidacy” had the media all happy in their pants (as Borat would say), compared to the endless stories about Edwards’ “haircut” and Hillary’s negatives, I’m QUITE comfortable putting my perception of reality up against yours, thanks.
CF -
That’s the problem, though, isn’t it? It’s all just perception. How one views the “bias” of the various outlets depends entirely on the respective rose-colored glasses.
The real problem is the same as always. The media reports the horse race, rather than simply reporting on the candidates and their respective histories and statements. It’s easier, and it sells better on TV. Tracking polls and providing soundbites on the news channels is easier than fact-checking and research.
It seems to me clear: Reporters all carry their own biases; some are even so blind to their own biases that they deny they have any at all. Newsrooms tend to lean left; corporate boards probably lean right. But corporate boards aren’t in newsrooms, reporters are. And the corporate boards are driven not by ideology, but profit. That leaves newsrooms free to interpose ideology, perhaps without even consciously doing so.
You say potatoe, I’ll say tomatoe. I’ll see your perception and raise you a different colored-glass. But ultimately, we all see what we want to see, shaped by our own biases.
GMC70,
I certainly agree that reporters adopt a boilerplate narrative fram–the horse race–when reporting on elections. They also tend to adopt personality-driven coverage that focuses on ‘intangibles’ and gossip rather than issues.
But from there, it’s pretty clear to me that coverage tilts right, and has since the 1990’s, when Right-Wing media outlets (National Review, Regnery, Fox) began to drive daily news cycles with various “stories” . The Clintons MADE the Right-Wing what it is, since they were endlessly discussable and investigatable–even when nothing turned up at the end of the “investigation” but more rumors of shadowy wrongdoing.
This version of events, and this style of reporting, has been driving the bus ever since, very much to the advantage of candidates that practice “message” PR politics (Republicans), and very much to the disadvantage of candidates who don’t (Democrats).
Moreover, the epistemological relativism of contemporary coverage, typified in FOX’s disingenuous “we report, you decide,” insists that the phony virtue of “balance” excuses media from the necessity of saying whether or not something a candidate says is true or not. The media seems to think that its job is completed when it reports THAT candidate Y said Z–without THEN going on to ask the question of whether or not ‘Z’ is actually true.
I think it’s pretty clear that this ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ media has been an enabler for the serial lies of the Bush Administration, and that Republicans have exploited its shortcomings far more effectively than have Democrats.
And as a final point, the contention that ‘newsrooms tend to lean left’ simply isn’t borne out by what we’ve seen these last seven years: Judy Miller, anyone? Or the editorial board of the Washington Post?
I, for one, GMC70, am just not convinced by the sophomoric relativism implicit in the statement that ‘we all see what we want to see,’ even if I concede, as I do concede, that what we see is shaped by our own biases.
GMC – left or right I think the media loves a Cinderella – and right now that person is Huckabee. Next week? Who knows?
While you saying it isn’t so may be satisfying for you, you’ve left me equally unconvinced as to your side.
However, I agree wholeheartedly that the media is failing in doing any fact-checking. This applies across the board, not just left or right.
Perhaps that we have this discussion is also a reflection of where the “left/right” divide is. Certainly, the “center” has moved to the right over the last 20 years or so, leaving those who sit where you do finding nearly everyone to the right of you. No wonder the media comes across as so “right-wing!” Even media that most people see as center or left comes off to you as “right.”
Just a thought. In any case, as I noted in another thread, however much we may disagree, I respect your opinion and appreciate your (generally) substantive writing. I guess I’ll try to stay less “sophomoric” in the future. Why is in necessary for so many to denigrate those they disagree with?
I’ve said it before, and I say it now: You’re better than that, CF. Or you should be. Consider that a scolding.
GMC70,
When you cavalierly accuse me of ’selectively’ choosing facts without substantiating precisely what you mean by such an imputation, you, too, should be ‘better than that.’
CF -
We both know that what you left out was the definition of who applied there: an “alien illegal combatant,” in think, is the term. Further, that term is defined by statute, and in such a way as to exclude just the persons you claimed were subject to the horribles you trotted out.
And no, I’m not gonna refight that here.
Besides, let’s be honest. Both of us select our facts to support our positions – we’re biased, and perhaps to some extent partisans. It’s what we do. As a trial attorney, in a sense it’s my job to do so. While I don’t know (or remember) your profession, but I have little doubt you’d make a considerable opponent in a courtroom.
So we’re just just practicing, I guess . . .
;-)
How ’bout “both just practicing . . .”
I can’t agree with him entirely on all the issues, but Huck sure is a likeable formerly-fat evangelical pro-life conservative.
GMC70,
I did indeed leave that definition out; I thought it was self-evident that the statute referred to ‘illegal enemy combatants,’ since that’s who the law was putatively written for. My omission–I ‘own’ it, as the psychobabblers say.
While I don’t want to rehash that argument either, I remain stumped by the question of what could possibly be meant by “alien illegal combatants” who are in “breach of a duty or an allegiance to the United States.” It’s like saying ‘a square circle,’ for such an “alien” to have allegiances to the United States.
And while I don’t consider myself a slave to the principle of noncontradiction, this particular use of A and not-A smells real funny to me.
As for my occupation…well, let’s just say that, like the law, it involves a monomaniacal focus on details, rigorous argumentation, and an often-unhealthy dose of self-aggrandizement.
Vote for the Huckster!
Well said, CF. Have a good one, whatever your career choices!
He can’t beat Obama. Compare him to Hillary all you want. Obama is going to be the nominee for the Dems. Righties are so quick to nominate Hillary so they can have another shot at Bill. But not so fast my judgmental friends. Barack for President.
I must counter that by saying, “Vote for Ron Paul” in any case, google him and learn about him. Because you can’t learn a lot in the 2 minutes he’s given in the Rudy McRomney Debate Shows.
“”"CommentsHuckabee raised taxes in Arkansas 47% after taking office following — get ready for this — Bill Clinton!
He may get the God, Guns & Gays crowd but he’ll never convince that other key faction of the Republic Party: the Greedy.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | December 04, 2007 at 01:38 AM
” “It was Gandhi who said that first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, and then they attend your swearing in.””
Nice. Since the quote is a tongue-in-cheek revision, few wlll notice that it was Arthur Schopenhauer, not Gandhi who said it in the first place (and, honestly, it was a fairly dumb quote to begin with).
But stealing quotes and getting them wrong is, indeed, vintage Reagan.
Posted by: Rage | December 04, 2007 at 01:49 AM
Huckabee would be the hardest of the Republicans to beat in a general election. Especially if he is matched with Hillary because they are actually quite close on many issues except abortion. But I cannot see Huckabee being nominated. He might surge in Iowa but when he gets to other states, he will be crushed like a cockroach. I think he is most likely running for VP which is why he doesn’t attack Rudy or Romney too much.
Posted by: Kev | December 04, 2007 at 05:45 AM
Bitter are we, bitch!
Posted by: Door King | December 04, 2007 at 06:18 AM
I like Huckabee but his Baptist lifestyle is just unacceptable in the White House. The guy seems sincere, undeterred, and compassionate. I can only wait until he turns scripture against gays, against, divorce, against premarital sex, then we’ll run screaming into the night.
Posted by: Stu Meckle | December 04, 2007 at 06:34 AM
This Jim Nabors (Gomer Pyle) look-a-like has done nothing but copy everything Ron Paul has stated. They (corporate media)are setting up Republicans that can’t beat Hillary. The only candidate on either side who could beat her is of course, Ron Paul.
I’d like to see We The People a little more astute and not be swayed by obvious pandering. But maybe folks really do believe all of the baby-kissing, hand shaking, rhetoric and hyperbole. Has the lie become so big that we have accepted it as truth? I’ll say, “yes, at least in Kansas”. I wish it weren’t true but I believe nowadays we could vote for President with a “reality” show. For instance, “The Great American Presidential Race” or maybe “American Presidential Idol”. How about “Survivor-D.C.”? I hear a lot of people say that they are “tired of the bs and corruption in Washington”. Apparently that’s just talk, cause if people really cared, they would yearn for and resolve to fight for real change. I know truth is painful for a liar. And each time in any debate, Ron Paul (for the 2 minutes alloted to him) meekly and succinctly speaks truths that no one else up on the stage wants to talk about. Folks, this is our last chance. Now that may sound trite or silly to you, but it’s true. I feel like I’m tied down here. You see, I want to be free and in order for me to be free, YOU have to want to be free as well.
Posted by: Duane | December 04, 2007 at 06:34 AM
Ah yes, more vintage Rhonda. Now proudly waving the right wing banner, she begins to betray what blows the wind that makes it wave…for her.
What’s this? A hint of a Republican who might get into her purse? Can’t have that! It’s long past time for a divorce between compassion and conservatism aint it Rhonda?
Don’t trouble yourself too much dear. Huckabee has no chance.
Posted by: J R | December 04, 2007 at 07:27 AM
Duane, the people who can’t handle the truth, and take the straight dope from Ron Paul are just ignoring it. I watched one of the current debates, and after some of Ron Pauls answers, some of the other canidates when asked to give their answers sounded almost exactly what Ron Paul just said, except they put their own little personal spin on it, and pandered to the croweds for cheers.
Posted by: WhiteElephant | December 04, 2007 at 07:45 AM
I like Huckabee and his appeal is spreading according to the polling.
Whether it is spreading fast enough, who knows? If people start looking at him as electable, then look out. I recall another well spoken Arkansas governor who was given no chance, not that long ago.
Posted by: outlander | December 04, 2007 at 07:55 AM
If he’s an affable old fool, he just may be another Reagan.
Posted by: The Phantom | December 04, 2007 at 08:00 AM
“The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
“The buck stops here.”
Harry Truman
“I believe this nation should commit itself to the goal before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”
John F. Kennedy
“That’s not a chin under Chuck Norris’s beard, it’s a fist.”
mike huckabee.
Mike Huckabee needs to run for Andy Griffith’s old job.
Posted by: J R | December 04, 2007 at 08:05 AM
I see that the “Who peed in your cornflakes Lib Crowd” is up this morning.
Posted by: Kansas | December 04, 2007 at 08:19 AM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_huckabee_vs_clinton_obama
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
A couple of Rasmussen articles about how Huckabee is pretty much tied with Hillary and just 3% behind Rudy nationally. Sounds to me like a credible contender.
Posted by: outlander | December 04, 2007 at 08:22 AM
Huckabee? You mean the guy who lied about helping to parole Wayne Dumond, a convicted rapist (who supposedly was framed by Bill Clinton), thereby setting Dumond free to rape and kill again?”"”
And you can BET that, in the very unlikely event that he gets the GOP nomination, the Democrats will remember the Willie Horton commercial that killed Dukakis (along with the stupid tank stunt) and they will be making a commerical too!
The Democrats have long had a ‘top three’ with Hillary and Obama close and Edwards trailing. This split seems stable; also supporters of one seem willing to support the others in November.
On the GOP side however there seems to be a ‘front-runner of the week’. Also, with the religion issue (Romney) and Giuliani’s divorces there weems to be a lot of “I would never vote for him” going on.
I wonder how this will play out in November?
Interesting that you brought up Drummond Kev.
Found an interesting story about Drummond.
http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/960930/cltniman.txt
It appears that the victim in the case where Drummond was convicted and sentenced to life plus twenty years was Bill Clinton’s cousin.
It was testified that the genetic trace could not match Drummond “in a million years.”
Of course, it is tragic that Drummond was released and killed a woman after he raped her.
But perhaps that was after he became bitter for being in prison for 11 years?
You will find however, that Huckabee did what he thought was the right thing, it’s very unfortunate a con ‘conned’ him.
Evidently Drummond’s wife and a Sheriff were convinced of Drummond’s innocence as well.
Regardless of the past, Drummond was the one who murdered, not Huckabee.
I bet there are many parolee’s that have committed crimes after being released, even some here in Kansas.
oops that last name should be Dumond?
here’s the story as I know some will be too lazy to click the link. :)
“HOW GOV. CLINTON DENIED AN INNOCENT MAN HIS FREEDOM
By Steve DunleavyNew York PostSaturday, June 2, 1996
The bombshell Whitewater convictions that may be President Clinton’s darkesthour gave a middle-aged Arkansas housewife her brightest moment.
“Now that the Clinton people are going to jail, maybe my husband will go
free,” Mary Lou Dumond told me.
Her husband, Wayne Dumond, 49, has just spent his 11th year in an Arkansas
jail. Many say Dumond is the victim of one of the most bone-crunching and
infuriating examples of Clinton-era justice the country has ever seen. And
now, because Clinton’s alleged bagman, Gov. Jimmy Guy Tucker, is going to
jail, Dumond is set to see freedom.
“The new governor, Mike Huckabee, has assured me Wayne will be a free man,”
Mrs. Dumond said Thursday. “He is not one of the Clinton crowd. He is a
very fair man. He has always been disturbed about the way the Clinton
people never wanted my husband free,” she added.
And there was a very good reason for the Clinton people not wanting her
husband to go free.
THE CHARGESThe story of Wayne Dumond is not for the innocent eyes of the young — but
every adult of voting age should read closely.
These are the cold facts as an Arkansas court saw it:* A 17-year-old girl says she was kidnapped and raped on Sept. 11, 1984,
in Forrest City, Ark.* Dumond, father of six, Vietnam veteran, churchgoer, was convicted in
August 1985 of the rape. He was sentenced to life plus 20 years.* An appeal by Dumond, under Gov. Clinton, got a response of “No merit.”
What the public did not see, while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas,
were the following very unpretty facts — which Clinton, despite countless
personal appeals, ignored:* The victim identified two other men as her rapist but they had ironclad
alibis and were set free.* She failed to pick Dumond as her rapist when presented with a lineup.* A genetic expert stated unequivocally that sperm found on the girl’s
jeans could not “in a million years” belong to Dumond.* The father of the girl is a millionaire and one of Clinton’s biggestcontributors.
But guess what? The girl is Bill Clinton’s cousin. And her mother worked
as part of Clinton’s inner circle when he was governor.
The worst was yet to come.
THE HORROROn March 7, 1985, while Dumond was awaiting trial, two masked men with guns
and knives burst into his house. They hog-tied him. They raped him. And
then, with surgical scalpels, they castrated him. The two monsters acted on
the orders of local Sheriff Coolidge Conlee.
The sheriff retrieved Dumond’s testicles from Dumond’s blood-spattered house.
The sheriff then placed the body parts in a jar that he displayed on his deskwith the admonition: “That’s what happens to people who fool around in mycounty.”
The sheriff actually took that jar to “a good-ol’-boys wedding.”
That is a fact.
No reaction whatsoever from Gov. Clinton.
The sheriff would later be nabbed by the FBI for unrelated extortion and
drug-dealing and sentenced to 160 years in jail, where he died of naturalcauses. [sic]
Dumond’s attackers were never picked up even though one of them confessed to
a state cop.
All this and Dumond still rotted away in prison. And Clinton, both as
governor and president, ignored facts that surrounded the case of the rape
of his cousin.
“Bitter? Hell yes, I was at first,” Dumond told me from prison at Varner inArkansas. “But now, I think, I hope, things will change around. With Jimmy
Guy Tucker gone as governor, one of Clinton’s men, and Mr. Clinton running
for cover, maybe the new man will have another look.”
“But, strange as it may seem, it hasn’t been all that bad these days. I havegot a very good education in here. I think I am becoming a computer nut. I
just miss my family, my kids.”
“That girl? Well it’s pretty ridiculous. Sad, but ridiculous. She told thepolice that a man in a new red pickup truck, with no tailgate, drove to her
house, burst in, forced her into her car, drove in her car to some woods,
tied her up, committed a pretty terrible act, drove her back in her car and
took off in her car and dumped it nearby.
“Well I drove a very old dirty brown pickup truck with a tailgate. Now, if Itook her car, what happened to the pickup I drove to her house in? She
changed her story, how many times? I mean, many times.
“She was with this guy driving through town and suddenly, out of nowhere,
months after, she saw me driving my old pickup truck. She told the guy out
of nowhere: `That’s the man that did it.’
“She said I had raped her. When it came to the lineup. She couldn’t
identify me. Suddenly she disappears into a room with her father and a cop
who showed her a picture of me. She came out and immediately identified me.”
THE CONVICTIONThis outrageous identifying scam was exposed by a local cop who witnessed it
all. Deputy Sheriff Henry Leary had the guts to go against his own and told
the world of the scenario. Dumond was still convicted.
“Oh, yeah,” Dumond said, “she identified two other guys who were the rapists.
They had an ironclad alibi. Then it came to me.”
Dumond was still convicted. Gov. Clinton remained silent. But of course at
that time nobody knew that the girl was Clinton’s cousin. The governor
didn’t mention it.
After 4-1/2 years, with his freedom gone, his manhood gone, a five-person
parole board recommended that Dumond go free for time served.
John R. Steer, managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, records the
following reaction from then-Gov. Clinton: “Clinton had a romping, stomping
fit. The victim was a distant cousin and St. Francis County [where all this
took place] had a lot of votes and he deeply resented being under pressure
to free Dumond.”
Clinton refused to sign a release. And Dumond rotted.
Dumond has since been before the parole board twice.
“They ask me: `Do you have any remorse? Well, I tell them straight. How
can I have remorse for something I didn’t do? No sir, I will stay here untilI die before I say I am sorry for something I haven’t done.”
The day of the castration is not something that should be dealt with in
detail.
“My two boys, Michael and Joey, found me there after coming home from school.
They cut me loose and got help.,” he said. “Sure I remember it, but do you
really want to know the details?”
Dumond’s life was miraculously saved after he lost three-quarters of his
blood. As he lay near death, Sheriff Coolidge Conlee displayed Dumond’s
testicles in a jar.
Still no reaction from Gov. Clinton.
THE HOPEThe Dumonds later won a lawsuit “of outrage.” They cleared $20,000 from the
settlement with the county.
This money came in handy, because someone burned down the Dumond house when
they were in hiding from vigilantes. No insurance was paid on the home.
Can this story get worse?
“Sometimes,” said Mrs. Dumond, “I just want to give up. But now, who knows?
The new governor has personally assured me that Wayne’s case will be the
first thing on his desk after he clears up everything with this Whitewater
thing.”
Dwayne Harris, a spokesman for Huckabee, the Republican lieutenant governor
who will succeed Democrat Tucker, told me Friday that Huckabee “has voiced a
very special intention to thoroughly review the case of Wayne Dumond.”
“I hope so,” Dr. Moses Schanfield told me Friday. “This case was a
disgrace.” Schanfield heads the Analytic Genetic Testing Center in Denver.
He was one of the experts dispatched to Bosnia to examine and identify graves
after the civil war. He did an independent Allotyping test of sperm on the
alleged victim’s jeans that supposedly came from Dumond.
“No way, zip, nada. Didn’t happen. No way Dumond was the donor of that
sperm,” Schanfield said. “The girl’s scenario of the so-called crime
couldn’t have happened. I don’t believe anything she said.”
WHY IT HAPPENEDFred Odam, a retired Arkansas State Police captain told me: “This was and
still is a very bad day for justice.”
Odam witnessed Sheriff Conlee retrieving Dumond’s testicles and later
investigated the sheriff for the FBI. “I have been working to get that boy
Dumond free for a long time. In all my time this is the one case where I
know a man is not guilty.”
What was the crazed motive behind this disgusting affair? Why Dumond?
Gene Wirges, a feisty, 67-year-old publisher of a local weekly who is
writing a book on this mess, told me:
“Well, a Clinton kin had to be revenged. The sheriff was on a hot seat and
young Wayne had been talking to a church group about how cars were suddenly
disappearing.
“It turned out to be true. The sheriff along with his drugs and turning the
sheriff’s department into a casino was heading up a car-theft ring,” he said.
“When this girl said she was raped, the sheriff wanted to help out the
Clinton clan. He would do anything for the girl’s father and mother.
“The truth, the terrible truth is, that one of the guys she first identified
as the rapist but who had an ironclad alibi had been going out with the girl.
“But the new governor has indicated to me on several occasions that he was
more than disturbed about Wayne’s case and the way Clinton and his boys
handled this terrible thing.
“You know, this is Arkansas. Right up until now this has been Clinton
territory. Maybe not any more.”
Old News, eh, Kansas?? Really BAD justice there… terrible… but it still doesnt hide, or cover the BIG HUGE goof up Bush made yesterday and today on the Iran issue… Tsk.. Tsk..
Huckabee is surging because the public is disgusted with the cyncism, corruption & hypocrisy of the entrenched Republicans in Washington DC whose only strategies for getting re-elected are to attack the Dems with hot button issues such as gay rights & immigraiton or to claim that the liberal Democrats would have had even more deficit spending than the Republicans.
The GOP controlled Senate & House did nothing to reduce deficit spending on discretonary progams or to stop illegal immigration over the first 6 years of the Bush presidency.
Tiahrt haas not accomplished anything in Washington other than to advance his own career and his wife’s visibility in DC social circles. Brownback is also a do nothing. At least Roberts accomplished something by trying to manage the investigations about the failures of the intelligence agencies. Wheher or not you agree with the Iraq war, at least Roberts spent some political capital defending Bush insted of only acting in a self-serving manner.
George Will can pout about Huckabee being too liberal, but at least Huckabee is a social conservative with real principles rather than a hypocritical incumbent like Tiahrt who claims he is a fiscal conservative but is truly a cardinal of pork barrel spending.
Huckabee can win the nomination because he has a likeable Reaganesce TV personality. He can easily beat Obama especially if he runs with Condi Rice for VP, McCain for Defense Secretary & Thompson for Attorney general. Like Reagan, Huckabee has the humility to manage all of these egos as president.
Because the next Presdient must be perceived as being resolute, ethical, caring, trustworthy and likeable, Hillary does not have a chance.
Bill McKean kiakahahaha@yahoo.com
At least Roberts accomplished something by trying to manage the investigations about the failures of the intelligence agencies. Wheher or not you agree with the Iraq war, at least Roberts spent some political capital defending Bush insted of only acting in a self-serving manner.
Bill?
Is lying for a liar in the best interest of anyone?
This is ugly: letters, from the women who were raped by Wayne Dumond, to Mike Huckabee, imploring him not to parole Dumond.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html
Huckabee never replied, paroled Dumond, and now lies and dodges questions about having worked to do so.
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419
Mike Huckabee used a convicted rapist as an anti-Clinton political football, and a woman in Missouri paid with her life.
If this is who Republicans want to nominate as their candidate, says a lot about them.
It also suggests that Republicans are only interested in “Victim’s Rights” when those victims are Republicans, or are politically adventageous to Republicans.
If this is who Republicans want to nominate as their candidate, says a lot about them.
Posted by: CF2K | December 05, 2007 at 09:20 AM
It says nothing about Republicans. It says more about the Dumond and the Arkansas Parole Board who made the recommendation.
Besides, CF2K, it wasn’t “women” in Arkansas, it was one woman, Bill Clinton’s distant cousin, whose father was a substantial fundraiser for Clinton.
It’s also a story about Dumond, who was before trial, held down and castrated by local thugs before he even had a trial. The same woman who accused Dumond, couldn’t pick him out of line up.
The woman of that letter said that the attacker had a shiny new pickup truck with no tail gate. Dumond drove a very old brown pickup with a tailgate.
It was reported that one man who knew the woman owned a red pickup, it was that woman’s former boyfriend.
There’s more to the case than meets the eye. Evidently Dumond turned sour in prison and became a criminal because of his years of incarceration.
I could blame the Governor of Kansas for not protecting the female citizens of Kansas from being raped with that kind of logic CF2K.
Here are the pdf’s of the letters written by rape victims of Wayne Dumond, to Governor Mike Huckabee, imploring him not to parole Dumond. Huckeabee ignored their pleas and worked hard for Dumond’s release.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/exclusive-the-complete-h_n_75373.html
Sickening.
Occam’s Razor states that the conclusion requiring the fewest assumptions (the simplest explanation) is usually correct.
Which is easier to believe?
That Huckabee paroled a convicted rapist who went out to rape again?
OR
That Dumond was wholly innocent and only decided to become a rapist after 11 years behind bars for committing rape?
The good news it though that should Huckleberry get the nomination, the Dems will be able to run an attack ad showing his face morphing into Dumond’s, just like HW Bush did to Michael Dukkais in ‘88.
Cap’N,
Prediction: Mike Huckabee’s campaign will be the Republican version of Howard Dean’s in 2004. But this time, it won’t be a concerted media effort that knocks the candidate out of the race: it will the candidate’s record as Governor of Arkansas, and his serial lies to cover up the Dumond affair.
“For those people to say that I was responsible in getting him out makes a few presumptions,” Huckabee said, noting that Tucker had commuted Dumond’s sentence years earlier, the seven-member Democratically-appointed panel would all have had to been influenced by a new Republican governor and that two board members who changed their stories did so six years later in an election year, after having not been reappointed to their posts.
“Now if you can follow that line and believe that I am solely responsible then you’ll believe that. But you’ll believe a lot of other things as well,” he said.
—————-
So the parole board was all Democratically appointed (Jim Guy Tucker and Bill Clinton) and two changed their stories after having not been reappointed by Huckabee.
Can you believe Huckabee is accusing Dem politicos of politics? It didn’t work when it was first brought up and I doubt it has any legs. BTW, I notice that Huckabee has overtaken Rudy nationally and now is the leader.
But by the same token, this is a big test for Huckabee. I can understand why Dems are now jumping on because he is definitely perceived as a threat.
But CF, one difference between this and Dukakis’s case. Well, there are actually two. You know the other one.
Huckabee is not Dukakis.
outlander,
Yeah: Huckabee lies as easily as he breathes. I don’t know if Dukakis EVER looked relaxed.
Unlike Huckabee’s slanted version of the accusations made above, nobody has said he is ’solely responsible’ for the parole board’s decision. It’s dishonest of him to depict the charges in this way, in fact. What members of the board HAVE said is that Huckabee lobbied them for Dumond’s release, that he denied there was DNA evidence (there was) and that claimed there was exculpatory evidence (there was not).
Bottom line: Huckabee tells one story about his involvement in Dumond’s parole, the other principals tell a different story. Both can’t be right. And given the lengths Huckabee was gone for the last decade to keep the story from being told, and the evidence that’s now coming up, it’s not hard to decide who’s lying and who isn’t.
Presuming the media takes an interest in this act of gross malfeasance, it’ll be fun to watch Huckabee lose his cool, something Dukakis NEVER did, much to his political disadvantage.
“BTW, I notice that Huckabee has overtaken Rudy nationally and now is the leader”
I must have missed that. What I had seen was Huckabee leading in IA but trailing badly elsewhere.
However, if he can win in IA that could change overnight.
“What Huckabee misjudged is his ability to judge the character of a convicted murderer”
This case makes the death penalty look like the best political decision for any governor wanting to run for higher office.
Dead guys can’t kill again.