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. 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 Barbour’s 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 ...
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 don’t 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 don’t 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 person’s 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 didn’t 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 didn’t 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. It’s 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 state’s 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.
Three Cheers!
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.