PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
142
options
 
Tuesday, December 1, 2009

 

 

Just for the sport of it, let us conjure this alternative universe:

Imagine, if you will, that the Democrats are out of power in 2009, and anxious to recapture the White House in 2012. One of their prospective candidates is a smooth-talking former governor who hosts a cable news show. He is polling very well among Democrats; according to the latest USA Today-Gallup survey, 71 percent of his party brethren say they would "seriously consider" supporting a 2012 candidacy - the best showing of any prospective party candidate.

On the other hand, let us imagine that this selfsame Democrat is hardly perfect. He unsuccessfully sought the nomination in 2008, flaming out early just as a troublesome issue arose: it turned out that, as governor, he had successfully lobbied to parole a convicted rapist who, one year after being freed, wound up murdering a woman in another state. Shades of Mike Dukakis, the '88 Democrat who presided over a furlough program that freed a rapist. Now flash forward to 2009, where it turns out, in our scenario, that this same Democratic presidential hopeful had, as governor, commuted the sentence of another dirtbag, thus paving the way for parole...and this dirtbag winds up in another state, where he apparently shoots and kills four police officers, execution-style, as they sip their morning coffee.

Care to guess how viable this Democrat's presidential candidacy would be, in the wake of these two incidents? The guy would already be buried under six feet of fresh topsoil. Meanwhile, the Republicans would be gleefully trucking a cement mixer to the burial site, and declaring that such a typically soft-on-crime, bleeding-heart liberal Democrat should never be permitted to rise again.

But now, back to reality. We're actually talking here about that heretofore popular Republican hopeful, conservative talk show host and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

Given the mounting evidence that Huckabee was pivotal in freeing two future murderers - one of them, apparently, a cop killer - we can presumably assume that his 71 percent rating among Republicans (yes, that Gallup figure was real) will plummet in the days ahead, and that, in terms of elective politics, he is now and forever a dead man. It's inconceivable that the Republicans would tolerate and elevate their own Dukakis.

But this is not the end of the story. Most fascinating is the interplay between Huckabee's decision-making and his evangelical Christian faith. (He was a pastor and Baptist leader prior to becoming governor.) Devout Christianity has long been a staple of the GOP's "family values" agenda; at the same time, the party has long prided itself as being tough on crime, all the while insisting that wimp emotions such as "empathy" and "compassion" were liberal criminal-coddling concepts.

Yet here we have evidence that a conservative Republican's Christian faith prompted him to go soft on some dangerous criminals. Exhibit A was his move to free Wayne DuMond back in 1996. DuMond was serving a life sentence in Arkansas for kidnapping and raping a teenage cheerleader, but Huckabee, the new governor, was impressed that DuMond prayed and read the Bible. Huckabee was also swayed toward leniancy by one of his close friends, a pastor who insisted to Huckabee that DuMond was "born again." Ultimately, Huckabee leaned on the parole board to set DuMond free; three board members later said that Huckabee "pressured" them. Result? One year after release, DuMond suffocated a mother of three in Missouri.

Now comes Maurice Clemmons, newly dead after a Monday evening shootout with police in Washington state, where he was the prime suspect in the execution-style murders of four Seattle area cops. Clemmons at one time was serving a virtual life sentence in Arkansas, after having racked up an endless string of felonies. In 1999, however, Clemmons sought to have his sentence radically shortened, so that he could be made eligible for parole. In his appeals to Huckabee, he smartly played the religion card:

"I come from a very good Christian family....I've never done anything good for God, but I've prayed for him to grant me in his compassion the Grace to make a new start....I pray you will be compassionate to my situation....It is so prayed!"

The prosecutors vehemently opposed commutation of sentence. Huckabee defied the prosecutors and signed the commutation in March 2000. Thus eligible for parole, Clemmons soon got it. He subsequently slipped through a lot of cracks in the system, but all those missteps flowed from Huckabee's decision. The results are now clear to the families of those four dead cops. One of the Arkansas prosecutors told The Seattle Times, "This is the day I've been dreading for a long time."

Granted, any governor can make a decision that looks like a mistake in retrospect. But consider these stats: When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he issued 426 pardons and commutations over a span of 13 years. Mike Huckabee issued 1033 in 10 years.

Is it unfair to suggest that his Christian faith made him soft on crime? Not according to Joe Carter, who served as Huckabee's research director during the 2008 presidential primary season campaign, and who studied Huckabee's gubernatorial record as part of his job. Now website editor at the conservative First Things magazine, Carter wrote yesterday that Huckabee "must bear a sufficient measure of responsibility" for what happened this weekend in Washington state - and argued that Huckabee's "naivete" was directly traceable to his evangelical sensibility:

"Huckabee was - and likely remains - a true believer in the concept of restorative justice...The governor seemed to put a lot weight on conversion stories - a common trait among evangelicals, who believe the gospel is sufficient for restoration and redemption of character. The opinion of the clergy appears to have carried a great deal of weight in the decision-making process...His experiences and intuitions that served him well as a minister of the gospel were not always applicable as governor of a state."

Then Carter delivered his funeral euology for Huckabee's political career, albeit in gentle terms: "Ironically, what makes Huckabee such an appealing presidential candidate - his empathy for all people and genuine belief in the individual - is also the trait that will prevent him from ever reaching the White House."

In other words, Huckabee would be well advised to seek an extended contract from Fox News, and remain within its friendly confines. And the next time religious and social conservatives are tempted to deride Democrats as soft-on-crime purveyors of "empathy" and "compassion," they'd be well advised to ponder the downfall of one of their own. 
 

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 10:48 AM  Permalink | 142 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:05 AM, 12/01/2009
    Huckabee is a conservative? Regardless, this was a dumb decision. He tried to rationalize it by saying the judge in the Clemmons case agreed with him on the commutation, and that he did not ultimately free Clemmons from Arkansas, it was the parole boards's decision. However, no mention here of how Clemmons was in prison for child rape when he was freed on bail in Washington even though there were seven other warrants out for his arrest. It does all link to Huckabee's commutation, but the other circumstances also need to be reconciled with the ultimate result.
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:30 AM, 12/01/2009
    Whatever rationalizations are made for and by Huckabee about this, the GOP would be wise to not let him get the nomination because this will be brought up endlessly on a presidential campaign and cause him to lose the non evangelical vote. Might as well put him in an M1 Abrams in a goofy hat.
    donde
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:55 AM, 12/01/2009
    Sorry Mike, you are responsible for who you let out of prison early and what they do when they get out. He is done as a candidate for president in 2012 and beyond. All Governors should take notice, if you have higher political aspirations, you should not commute the sentences of our most violent criminals. donde is right about the M1 tank and the silly hat:) Glad to see the Seattle police had the good sense to shoot to kill when they ran into him again.
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:09 PM, 12/01/2009
    ABC has to reschedule "A Charlie Brown Christmas" tonight for Obama's speech? Will it be rescheduled?
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:18 PM, 12/01/2009
    The GOP used the exact set of circumstances to tar Michael Dukasis.Lets see how the elephant party spins this.
    DerfT
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:19 PM, 12/01/2009
    I would not consider voting for Huckabee after this. His political aspirations are over at this point.
    jmc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:22 PM, 12/01/2009
    swedesboromike: from the last blog - so according to you, Lindzen is very credible, and you can't understand how a professor of meteorology is "being ignored" on this issue. Actually, he is probably the most credible of the skeptics. he is far from ignored, however. He's on TV, newspapers, news magazines, etc. frequently. I ask you, why is he more credible than ALL of his colleagues at MIT, all of whom disagree with him? He first argues that the science isn't settled, then says that it isn't warming due to GH gasses, then says that even if it does heat up will it really be that bad? While I respect his credentials, I'd feel better if he was actually a climatologist rather than a meteorologist (and yes, they are drastically different fields), and would feel even better if he didn't consult for oil and energy companies, have an energy company pay for his trip to testify before congress, and be a paid expert witness for an energy company (oops, swmike, was I not supposed to "follow the money" this time?) In any case, he offers nothing in the article that's actually scientific. Oh, and all of his colleagues disagree with him.
    still_independent
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:24 PM, 12/01/2009
    All of you folks who think that Obama belongs to the extreme left wing of the democratic party, check out their websites; Obama is getting a thorough hosing from them for his Afghan policy.
    liberal
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:27 PM, 12/01/2009
    the spin is the 1st four words of the first comment.
    potus
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:35 PM, 12/01/2009
    it may not matter to the GOP but the rest of the electorate will certainly hold this against Huckabee. Friar Huck is done.
    jimy_max
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:47 PM, 12/01/2009
    tom: also from the last blog. In answer to your question, which is it? is there a conspiracy, or is the science wrong? We can discuss the science all you want, but anyone buying into some widespread conspiracy involving thousands of scientists from more than a hundred countries, and buying into it with NO evidence, has exactly zero credibility with me. But to your question, my answer is simple. If a proponderence of the applicable scientists (thousands of them, as is now the case) come up with a credible theory for the current warming that dismisses GH gasses and fits the historical record, and multiple models and data sets support it (as they do the current assertions), then that will be good enough for me. Even if all the above is true and the conclusion is that man's contribution is "very likely" a minority of the effect, then that's also good enough to me. However, ridiculous, erroneous strawman arguments (like it was hotter 50M years ago), Roswell-like beliefs in vast conspiracies (we can't keep NSA wiretaps secret, but the "truth" about GW is easy to keep hidden), and outright denial of accepted facts (carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse gas and does retain heat, even Lindzen acknowledges this) will not do it. Oh, and I'd prefer that big oil and energy companies aren't funding all the research.
    still_independent
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:56 PM, 12/01/2009
    President Obama talked himself 'between a rock and a hard place' on the campaign trail with all the 'right war', 'wrong war' stuff and now it is coming back to bite him. The dems want no part of afghanistan and the whole world knows it, including the Taliban, Al Qaeda and NATO. The president used this issue to assure the American public he was a 'tough liberal' & we could trust him to do the right thing (ie keep Afghan out of Al Qaeda hands). Now he can't get his own party to go along. I support the President in his 'surge' into Afghanistan & hope our troops are as successful there as they were in Iraq. I just don't trust the liberal wing of the democratic party to run this war to win it and in fact, they are going in 'kicking and screaming'. Some show of strength to our enemies and to our troops in the field would be the prudent action or don't go at all. Sheesh.
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:56 PM, 12/01/2009
    Tom, I hope they do reschedule a Charlie Brown Christmas. It's much more entertaining.
    JimR
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:57 PM, 12/01/2009
    tom: I read it will be rescheduled for Dec 15th.
    still_independent


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.