Skip to comments.On Segregation: Governor Haley Barbour vs. Governor Mike Huckabee
Posted on 12/27/2010 10:38:42 AM PST by grassboots.org
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour recently put his foot in his mouth as all potential presidential candidates do from time to time. His gaffe, which shows up in a Weekly Standard feature article, consisted of two parts.
The first part of the goof was concerning racial segregation where Barbour says I just don't remember it being that bad. The author of the story, Andrew Ferguson, gave his take on Barbours remark:
"I don't think that he meant segregation wasn't that bad. I think he meant that it didn't roil the town the way some people might think it did." He added: "I get the sense that [Barbour] himself was just kind of oblivious. He was a fun loving football player, probably chasing skirts and all that."I think moderate and conservative blacks are offended not by bad policy decisions but for white failure to see how bad it was in the Jim Crow days. Some of us just dont get it. It ought to impinge on our consciousnesses.
Ferguson said he got a similar sense from others he spoke to in Yazoo City. "No one I talked to would defend segregation or anything like that -- it just didn't impinge on their consciousness the way it does ours in retrospect."
Whites often dont gain respect from blacks on the issue of race. Whites mistakenly think they must hold liberal policy positions. Liberals think they must talk down to them. Admittedly liberals get by with racially dim-witted comments and pay no price: Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid are prime examples of the phenomenon. White Democratic politicians are never going to get the scrutiny for these racially tinged comments, just as Bill Clinton could get away...
(Excerpt) Read more at caffeinatedthoughts.com ...
Grassboots.org (David Shedlock)
I can’t see how anyone could be a supporter of the Huckster. He is as phony as can be. The only good thing about him is that he is pro-life which is my number one issue but he is horrible pretty much everywhere else especially fiscal areas.
I really haven’t looked into specifics on the Huckster’s positions and policies, but there’s something about him I don’t trust. I’ll admit it’s just my gut feelings, but I’ve found I’m usually right about these things. I’m more than willing to listen to any pro or con opinions of him, but something about Huck doesn’t ring true to me.
Blogpimp, teapot tempest, race card up the sleeve alert.
You're either a brave man or a fool by admitting that around here...
BTW, Huck's people have been behind much of the slime being hurled at Sarah Palin from within the GOP.
There are scores of other issues I agree with Huckabee on including the Fair Tax, his view of the UN, his approach to health care (he is the only candidate I know of that has completely rejected the pre-existing condition coverage mandate), he was against TARP from the beginning, and of course, the stimulus packages.
I don’t agree with everything he supports (I do think he accepts government solutions when private ones would be better, for example).
But I am still waiting for the candidate with the same priorities and principals as Huckabee. Please make a recommendation.
That is what I always appreciate from the opponents of Huckabee, a good thoughtful post in response to the original premise (in this example, the blogpost above).
Well I think that Jim DeMint is good. I also think that Michelle Bachmann should be at least Vice President. Sarah is good. She will be tested here soon. Regardless of who runs, I CAN’T WAIT for the debates. They should be something if not entertaining.
Brave or foolhardy, it has to be done.
The people who have been sliming Palin are Romney backers, they hate Huck as much as Palin (Rove and company)
I know in your hatred you hope that repeating the Clemmons story will get the job done, but citing it does not make it as nasty you display. Clemmons got a sentence way out of line with his crimes. Others made the decision to release him after many more problems.
I could easily vote for Demint or Bachmann.
The last thing we need is a nanny-wanna-be Gomer Pyle as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Add him to the Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, “hell no” list. He wanted to regulate pretty much everything in Arkansas and was little better than Clinton, just a different letter behind his name.
You just sense the same thing I do about Huck.
The guy is oily. I hear him talking and I grab my watch to make sure it’s still there, if you know what I mean.
He comes from the same “Arkansas Slick” school as Bubba.
A conman is not what we need with all the problems we have.
There is also a video of Huck as a fat governor of Arkansas addressing the legislature in which he tells them that he thinks tax hikes are just fine and that he has no problem with high spending.
Where do people like you come from? Do you intentionally ignore the facts because they don't fit well with the pro-Huckabee agenda you wish to promote? Are you one of those folks who thinks violent offenders can be rehabilitated so you willingly release these monsters back into society?
Until now, Huckabee has refused to comment on his controversial policy of making violent prisoners eligible for parole they include murderers, armed robbers and rapists, who often return to a life of crime after theyre freed but in a statement to The Leader this week, he lashed out at prosecutors for not doing more to keep prisoners behind bars to which Pulaski County Prosecuting Attor-ney Larry Jegley had this response: Thats a load of baloney.
Im offended as a prosecutor and as a citizen. He can blame the prosecutors, but ultimately hes the man responsible, Jegley says. Hes the only one who can sign on the dotted line.
_ In addition, Jegley, Saline County Prosecuting Attorney Robert Herzfeld and others have accused Huckabee of violating the state Constitution when he commutes sentences without explanation. The Constitution requires the governor to give reasons why he grants clemency to criminals.
He doesnt do it, insists Herzfeld, who recently had a clemency overturned because Huckabee did not explain why he commuted a murderers life sentence."
Clemmons got a sentence way out of line with his crimes.
Let's look att he facts you wish to ignore. This is from a 2004 article in the Arkansas Ledger:
Maurice Clemmons received a 35-year sentence in the early 1990s for armed robbery and theft. His sentence was commuted in May 2000, and he was let out three months later.
The following March, Clemmons committed two armed robberies and other crimes and was sentenced to 10 years. Youd think theyd keep him locked up after that, but no: He was paroled last March and is now wanted for aggravated robbery.
If Huckabee decides to set these criminals free, Jegley says, at least he ought to give an accounting. I cant imagine why in the world theyd want them released from jail. Theres a good reason were afraid of them. The sad truth is that a significant number of people re-offend.
The victims families, Jegley says, deserve an explanation. I look into peoples eyes whove suffered the unspeakable. I believe they deserve justice.
"Via the Arkansas Times blog, heres a 1998 court document from Arkansas detailing some of Clemmons criminal history and courtroom threats including hiding a hinge in his sock that he intended to use as a weapon against a judge and extracting a lock from a jail cell that he threw at his mother during court proceedings:"
This disaster is just one of Huckabees ill-considered clemency legacies.
Remember Wayne Dumond?
Again, via the Arkansas Times circa 2005 a closer look at how Huckabee tried to evade responsibility for setting a convicted rapist free only to rape again:
The occasion prompts us to republish Murray Waas prize-winning article for the Arkansas Times in 2002 about the extraordinary steps Gov. Mike Huckabee took to help win Dumonds freedom. He has since blamed others for Dumonds release to kill again, but his actions over many years demonstrated his support for Dumond and, ultimately, the instrumental role he played in the parole boards decision to free him.
New sources, including an advisor to Gov. Mike Huckabee, have told the Arkansas Times that Huckabee and a senior member of his staff exerted behind-the-scenes influence to bring about the parole of rapist Wayne Dumond, who Missouri authorities say raped and killed a woman there shortly after his parole.
Huckabee has denied a role in Dumonds release, which has become an issue in his race for re-election against Democrat Jimmie Lou Fisher. Fisher says Huckabees advocacy of Dumonds freedom, plus other acts of executive clemency, exhibit poor judgment. In response, Huckabee has shifted responsibility for Dumonds release to others, claiming former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker made Dumond eligible for parole and saying the Post Prison Transfer Board made the decision on its own to free Dumond.
But the Times new reporting shows the extent to which Huckabee and a key aide were involved in the process to win Dumonds release. It was a process marked by deviation from accepted parole practice and direct personal lobbying by the governor, in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board (the informal name by which the Post Prison Transfer Board is known).
After Huckabee told the board, in executive session, that he believed Dumond got a raw deal, according to a board member who was there, and supported his release, board chairman Leroy Brownlee personally paved the way for Dumonds release, according to board records and former members. During that time from December 1996 to January 1997 Brownlee regularly consulted with Butch Reeves, the governors prison liaison, on the status of his efforts, two state officials have told the Times.
Dumond was transferred to the Tucker unit in December 1996, after his request for rehearing. Had he stayed at Varner, he could not have been scheduled for a new hearing before Jan. 20, 1997, Huckabees deadline to act on his announcement that he was considering commuting Dumonds sentence. His transfer which the Department of Corrections has explained in conflicting ways allowed him to get on the Tucker hearing schedule, which let the board parole Dumond before Huckabees deadline and thus take the heat for his release.
When the board paroled Dumond in January 1997, he had been in prison since 1985 for the rape of Ashley Stevens, a Forrest City high school student. The board made Dumonds parole conditional upon his moving out of state, but initially authorities in Florida, Texas, and other states declined to allow him to move there. Dumond was finally released in October 1999, when he moved to DeWitt to live with his stepmother.
In August 2000, Dumond moved to Smithville, Mo., a rural community outside Kansas City. He had married a woman from the community who was active in a church group that had visited Dumond in prison and believed him to be innocent.
Only six weeks after Dumond moved to Missouri, Carol Sue Shields, of Parkville, Mo., was found murdered in a friends home. She had been sexually assaulted and suffocated.
In late June 2001, Missouri authorities charged Dumond with the first-degree murder of Shields. The Clay County, Mo., prosecutors office asserted that skin found under Shields fingernails, the result of an apparent struggle with her murderer, contained DNA that matched Dumonds.
Missouri authorities also say that Dumond is the leading suspect in the rape and murder of a second woman, Sara Andrasek, of Platte County, Mo., though he has not yet been charged with that crime.
Andrasek was 23. Like Shields, Andrasek had her brassiere cut from her body; Dumond cut Stevens bra off before he raped her.
Its as if he wanted to leave us his calling card, a Missouri law enforcement officer said.
Huckabee is a liar. He's a con man. He's responsible for the unnecessary deaths of many innocent people. He's scum. Why you insist on defending scum like Huckabee is a mystery.
The only controversy is that manufactured by the MSM and vomited up by every talking head and blog pimp.
Haley spoke of his PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND RECOLLECTIONS.
I recall when my school was integrated. A couple of knuckleheads wanted to cause problems for the black kids. A couple of dozen football players put a stop too. No violence; things worked out just fine. Sound familiar?
The Huckster?? Really?
Your hatred is shown by your name-calling. Grow up. This is not junior high. I find it ironic that you disqualify Ron Paul after calling Huckabee a nanny-stater. Just who do you support believes in smaller government than Paul. Wouldn’t that make them a nanny-stater?
The video you are refering to was addressing court ordered spending, and a decision on how to pay for it. Huckabee suggested that the Democratic legislator needed to decide how to pay for it. This was not Huckabee spending more, it was a decision on how to pay for it, I do believe.
Ron Paul is a fraud. He is one of the biggest proponents of redistribution through earmarks. In regards to the areas where the federal government has its primary requirement- national defense, he verges on being a traitor. Just because you say the word Constitution in every other sentence doesn’t make you a true champion of it any more than Fred Phelps is a champion of Biblical principles because he says the word Bible a lot.
As for your whining about ‘name calling’, sometimes it makes a point. Allusions of character through characterizations is a common literary tool.
I have no reason to doubt you but you have to admit: that is a deadly soundbite. It makes him look positively cavalier about it.
If Huck starts doing well and builds a healthy war chest, that video will be used against him constantly and he will have to explain it to a public with a ten second attention span.
People like me come from a place where the words of people who call names or have an agenda should be measured against that fact. I come from a place where the Bible says “One man’s story seems right, until another comes along and questions him.”
When Democrats treat your candidate this way (and they do!) you cry “foul” as you should.
Here is one of two Huckabee responses to the charges:
The senseless and savage slaying of 4 police officers in Lakewood, Washington has raised many questions as to why the alleged murderer was even on the streets. My name has figured prominently in many of the stories because I commuted his 108 year sentence to a term of 47 years back in 2000. I take full responsibility for my decision then. Unfortunately, many of my fellow conservatives dont seem to want to take responsibility for the facts surrounding the case.
The Maurice Clemmons presented in a commutation request in the year 2000 was much different than the one who is being sought for the killings of the police officers.
The case before me was of a 16 year old who received a disproportionate sentence of 108 years for burglary and robbery charges. He had already served 11 years in Arkansas prison by that time, which is more time actually served than most similar cases would have netted in sentencing alone. Under Arkansas law, governors dont parole anyone. The Post Prison Transfer Board does. That board can recommend clemency, and in this case recommended by a 5-0 vote that his sentence be reduced. This was one of 1000-1200 cases I reviewed each of the 10 and a half years as governor. Ninety-two percent of the time, any request for clemency was denied. Most of the ones granted were for clearing a persons record for a minor offense from 20 years previous. The trial judge in the case supported the commutation. During the legally required 30 day public comment period before action on the case was complete, there were no objections registered by my office by any authorities, despite claims of the local prosecutor that he was afraid something like this would happen. Interestingly, if he was so afraid, then he has failed to explain why in 2004 when Clemmons was back in prison for a parole violation, his office failed to pursue charges and in fact dropped them, allowing Clemmons to go free, move to Washington, and for reasons beyond me, continue to avoid extradition back to Arkansas or be kept by Washington authorities as he displayed signs of psychotic behavior. I am responsible for the commutation in 2000. I would not have commuted his sentence in 2004 after the re-arrest or in any of the years following. I can explain my decision in 2000. I cannot explain the decision of the very vocal prosecutor in Little Rock who seems to avoid answering the questions as to why he didnt keep Clemmons in prison in 2004 or get him brought back to Arkansas for his repeated parole violations.
There are some glaring facts that some conservative talkers seem to miss:
1. He was never pardoned. Amazingly, that word has been used to describe my actions 9 years ago. He was never even considered for a pardon.
2. The commutation didnt release him. It made him parole eligible. He had to meet the conditions of parole for the parole board, who in fact paroled him. He had been in prison for 11 years at the time of his release.
3. Despite news reports, there are no records that the prosecutor, law enforcement, the Attorney General, or victims objected to the commutation. The only responses my office had record of during the public comment period were support letters from the trial judge, and members of the community.
4. He was back in prison by 2004 and would have remained there until 2015 due to his parole violations had the prosecutor chosen to properly file the paperwork.
5. The Clemmons of 2000 did not exhibit traits of psychosis and the kind of behavior that he would later express during several arrests in Washington state during the past year.
6. Religion had nothing to do with the commutation. Its been erroneously expressed that my own personal faith or the claims of faith of the inmate factored into my decision. That is simply not true and nothing in the record even suggests it. The reasons were straightforward — a unanimous recommendation from the board, support from a trial judge and no objections from officials in a case that involved a 16 year old sentenced to a term that was exponentially longer than similar cases and certainly longer than had he been white, upper middle class, and represented by effective counsel who would have clearly objected to the sentencing. (His race, economic status, or education level are not excuses for his behavior because many people of color who are uneducated and living in abject poverty are civil, trustworthy, and honest to a fault and many well-educated, wealthy, white people are dirtbags — think Bernie Madoff). But sadly, Arkansas has had numerous instances of disproportionate sentencing in which a probation and fine would be meted out to white upper class kids whose parents were able to obtain the services of excellent defense attorneys, while young black males committing the same crimes and represented by public defenders would end up with inexplicably long prison terms. Blacks comprise 15% of the states population, but 50% of the inmate population, some of which is due to the fact that their sentences are often longer and they are less likely to be paroled.
The two professions I value most in our society are soldiers and police officers, with fireman and schoolteachers right behind. Soldiers and police officers are the line between us and anarchy. The death of the four officers in Lakewood should never have happened. I regret that I ever saw the name of Maurice Clemmons and that I commuted his sentence and made him eligible for parole. That is my responsibility and it was based on the evidence before me in 2000. If presented the same facts today, I would have acted in the same manner. But once he violated that parole and his second chance in 2004, he should not have received the treatment he appeared to have received from the Arkansas prosecutor or the officials in Washington, who failed to send him back to prison and who let him go free on bail even after repeated violent outbursts and a rape charge from this past year. I can take responsibility for my actions, but not for the actions of others nor the misinformed words of commentators.
Paul is wrong on earmarks, but that does not make him a big-spender. That is ridiculous. There is no one in Washington fighting for smaller government. This shows you have no perspective. I don’t know who you support, but I dare you to match Paul’s credentials for smaller government.
Name-calling is also a sign of immaturity when done in a non-literary, knee-jerk, repetitive and unthinking manner.
I agree the soundbite is harmful, but I don’t think it is fatal. It was available in 2007/2008 and wasn’t used.
I remember it very well...in fact I haven’t seen it since 2008. Maybe I’m just an oddball political junkie but it has stuck in my mind like glue.
Probably because I LOATHE higher taxes and spending more than anything and the sight of a Republican saying they’re just dandy made me cringe.
You say there was a good reason for it. I’m glad because most Republicans that I’ve talked to are looking at Huck as their second choice, no matter who their first choice is. So he has an excellent chance of winning the nomination as a compromise candidate if no other way. If the convention had to decide the candidate, I think he’d be a sure thing on a second or third ballot. And with so many people talking about running, it might well come to that.
Who can say how effective or ineffective the video was? Huck didn’t do particularly well in the ‘08 primaries. He was persistent and tenacious but not terribly successful.
Your comments are fair, balanced, and unafraid. More debate like that and we could have the best candidate in 2012, regardless of who he or she is.
I certainly hope so...somebody smart, experienced, and thick-skinned. You know the left will be coming after whomever it is with a hammer in both hands.
I try to be fair and balanced WITHIN CONSERVATISM but I’m extremely biased against the other side. And if we can’t be frank and unafraid on a message board, we had better find some courage somewhere! Americans are living in a jungle nowadays whether they realize it or not.
What I recall from those days growing up in Natchez was very much what Gov Barbour remembers from Yazoo City.
A lot of fear, but in reality, nothing like Little Rock in 1957, or Ole Miss in 1962. I'm tired of being told I must disown and disassociate myself from my older friends and relatives because of their attitudes about racial integration at that time. It's so easy to judge 50 year old events through the modern prism of political correctness, but it doesn't make it right. The author of this article seemed to insist that today's middle aged white Southerners wallow in guilt about the Jim Crow days, and that not doing so implies a lack of racial sensitivity, and gives even so-called "moderate" Blacks a justification for feeling offended.
Baloney. Barbour should say exactly what you said: "These were my recollections and personal experiences."
Huckabee had his chance in '08. I supported him then, because believed him to be the best candidate in a weak field. The GOP can do much better in '12. I'm kind of partial to that yankee gov from NJ - Christie.
I don’t think Christie would run with less than a year under his belt as governor. Do we really want to make every election a springboard to the presidency or do we want people to govern?
I'm not sure what you men about making every election a springboard to the presidency...
What matters is electing someone who can get results. The difference between Christie and Huck, each governing in a Democrat state, is striking.
I just meant that we are likely to sour the public on voting for governors and Senators, if they start running for president before even 25% of their terms are completed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.