Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 1, 2008

HUCKABEE'S BLOOD-LUST?....I hesitate to give too much attention to Mike Huckabee's promote-my-ad-for-free attack, but Michael Crowley raises a good point.

About mid-way through the ad, during a litany of accusations against Mitt Romney, Huckabee criticizes his rival with this data point: "No executions."

Apparently, Huckabee -- you know, the evangelical, pro-life Republican -- is going after Romney for not having executed any Americans during his gubernatorial tenure.

I realize Republican politics are far more crass than norms should allow, but it's disconcerting to think "You didn't kill anyone" has suddenly become a criticism in conservative circles.

Clearly, the implication is that Romney is somehow "soft on crime." But given the Wayne Dumond controversy, this seems like a subject matter Huckabee should want to avoid.

Steve Benen 3:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Apparently Huckleberry, who was unaware of the NIE assessment of Iran's nuclear program and also unaware of which side of Pakistan that Afghanistan lies on, also doesn't realize Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

Posted by: Dennis on January 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Huckabee is following in the proud tradition of George W. Bush:

When his allies on the religious right pressured him to spare murderess turned jailhouse born-again Christian Karla Faye Tucker, Governor Bush displayed his trademark resolve - and compassion. As Time recounted in 1999:

Tucker Carlson of Talk magazine described the smirk Bush wore as he mimicked convicted murderer turned Christian Karla Faye Tucker begging, "Please don't kill me," something she never actually did.

Bush's seeming bloodlust towards criminal defendants almost derailed his 2000 presidential campaign. During his second debate against Al Gore in October 2000, Bush was asked about his position on hate crimes laws in the wake of the brutal dragging death of African-American James Byrd in his home state of Texas. His disturbing response - accompanied by a sickening grin - produced gasps among the audience:

"The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty. It's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death."

Even the tone-deaf Bush sensed he had crossed the line. In the third debate, he wisely retreated, acknowledging he was "not proud" of Texas' number one ranking in executions.

Posted by: Furious on January 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Gotta love them Christians, eh?

Posted by: thersites on January 1, 2008 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

First, Massachusetts does not recognize the death penalty, nor has it for 23 years.

Second, wasn't that a professional stylist doing his hair? How much did he charge the campaign to shut down his shop, travel to wherever the cut was and return to his shop? Did the press even ask? Or was it a case of IOKIYAR!

Posted by: goalkeeper on January 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

...[Huckabee] also doesn't realize Massachusetts does not have the death penalty. - Dennis


Wow. He's getting really sloppy. I thought for a while that he was basically a kinder, gentler GW and actually a little brighter than GW. Wrong on both counts. They are both just hateful dimbulbs that represent the Punishment Vote.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

This talk about Mitt not killing anybody must be part of Huck's negapostive
campaign strategy.

Posted by: corpus juris on January 1, 2008 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

corpus juris, Excellent parody video-I especially liked: If he [Romney] can't beat Hillary Clinton he'll just marry her!

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 1, 2008 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

So Mitt didn't off anybody.

How many murderers with a history of sexual predation did he set free because they convinced him that they had found Jesus? But just in case they weren't completely rehabilitated and redeemed, the had to leave the state? Who went on to murder again, and again - in the state next door?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

It wasn't just because Dumond had found Jesus.

Dumond was particularly blessed, because the girl he raped was a distant relative of Bill Clinton.

This is why Huckabee released him.

I have advice for all women who live in red states and who are distantly related to any Democratic politician at all: get the hell out of there right now. If you are raped, all your rapist will need to do is discover Jesus in prison- the easiest thing in the world.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on January 1, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting juxtaposition: Huck proud to save every unborn fetus, proud to destroy (perhaps that same) life later.

Interesting question: what's worse, being for abortion and against the death penalty, or being against abortion and for the death penalty.
Pretty much correlates with liberal vs conservative.

Posted by: Dilbert on January 1, 2008 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking for myself and the 20,000+ Hawaii fans here in the Big Easy, there'll be plenty of time to kick some GOP ass after the Sugar Bowl tonight.

Time to sign off and head out to the UH tailgate party at the Superdome.

Happy New Year, everyone. Wish us luck. I saw the Georgia team at a photo shoot two days ago, and those Southern boys are huge, so we're probably going to need some, and then some more.

Go Warriors!

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii, reporting live at the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans on January 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

And Mittens let women in Massachussetts walk around in public with unrelated men and not wearing burkhas! Commie liberal!

Posted by: CParis on January 1, 2008 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

One hopes that the Huckabee campaign will counter Romney attacks by pointing out how, at Bain Capital, Mr. Romney used offshore corporations (and continues to) in order to avoid U.S. taxation, and he fee-milked acquired businesses before firing workers and taking them into bankruptcy, to amass his great $250,000,000 wealth.

So, when you compare how Mr. Huckabee's visionary FairTax advocacy compares to Romney's interest in the current tax system, it's pretty easy to see who will lead us out of tax slavery - the $265 billion annual tax code compliance costs representing 5 billion wasted hours, annually.

Posted by: Ian from Ann Arbor on January 1, 2008 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, Steve? Bloodlust and cruelty are the sine qua non of being taken seriously as a Republican today. Bomb Iran, double Gitmo, expel the immigrants, more torture, remember those? They are sure-fire applause lines at Republican functions. But remember, they're not fascists, we're the fascists.

Posted by: calling all toasters on January 1, 2008 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

To be absolutly, scrupulously fair to the Mittster, he DID try to cram the death penalty down our throats, but the Massachusetts legislature would have nothing to do with it. That was Mitty's first big losing run-in with the powers-that-be, as I recall.

Posted by: Helena Montana on January 1, 2008 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Ah Kevin.

Liberals believe that a mother has the right to kill her innocent unborn child. But if an evil adult commits a murder or suicide bombs himself, all of a sudden the liberal finds his compassion.

Sounds backwards to me. Conservatives want to preserve all life, until that life murders or violates another. The morally consistent, commonsense position.

Posted by: egbert on January 1, 2008 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

egbert--
New Year's Eve is over. Stop drinking.

Posted by: calling all toasters on January 1, 2008 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Huckabee expected Romney to have executed them with his own hands and not need anything so "effete" as legislative approval?

Posted by: Col Bat Guano on January 1, 2008 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Bloodlust is perfectly OK for modern evangelicals. Google "avenging Jesus." It's only liberals who buy all that turn-the-other-cheek baloney. Well, I guess that stuff was OK, until the end times began, with, you know, the founding of the UN.

Posted by: rabbit on January 1, 2008 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives want to preserve all life, until that life murders or violates another.

10,000 out of 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians agree!

Posted by: TR on January 1, 2008 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

More and more, Huckabee reminds me of Greg Stillson in The Dead Zone. Stephen King was prescient.

Posted by: Helena Montana on January 1, 2008 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals believe that a mother has the right to kill her innocent unborn child. But if an evil adult commits a murder or suicide bombs himself, all of a sudden the liberal finds his compassion.

If it's proven he did it then I have no compassion. Such acts would endanger me and my family. But I think you're merely wanting to jail everyone named Hussein, because you see the world through the eyes of a racist. Racists use the words "we", "us", "they", and "them" in an inexact way ("they want to kill us", "if we retaliated against them", etc.) that's very revealing of sloppy, prejudicial thought. And there's a distinct preference for the word evil as opposed to guilty. It almost sounds as if you don't realize who you're talking about- as if, for example, you don't realize the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites before you invade the countries where they live.

As for my mother, I never lie awake at night worrying that she might abort me. She's good that way.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on January 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Col Bat Guano: Maybe Huckabee expected Romney to have executed them with his own hands and not need anything so "effete" as legislative approval?

That was my thought as well. He also may believe it will be a poll booster simply to remind people that Romney comes from Massachusetts, haven of nuanced liberals and people in unnatural love, rather than from Arkansas, where men are men and the governor turns a stern gaze on requests for mercy, except when freeing rapist/murderers lets him stick it to the Clintons.

Posted by: shortstop on January 1, 2008 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals believe that a mother has the right to kill her innocent unborn child.

Liberals believe that women have control over their own bodies.

But if an evil adult commits a murder or suicide bombs himself, all of a sudden the liberal finds his compassion.

Unless that evil adult rapes a member of Bill Clinton's family, then Hucksterbee will let him out of prison with a hale and hearty farewell - and a bus ticket to Missouri.

You aren't just a tool, you are the entire woodshop.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 1, 2008 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Romney has been hitting him on granting the most pardons, so Huckabee has to fire back with something.

Posted by: Me2d on January 1, 2008 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

As far as I can tell it's a fundamental disagreement between concepts. Liberals tend to believe it is the content of life that is important vs Conservatives, who lean towards the position that life, for it's own sake, is important.
Thus, Conservatives tend to want to preserve and continue life, no matter what else is sacrificed to do so. So, the old man in terminal pain who would like to cut out that last month of horrible suffering must continue because his life is more important then the content(or lack) thereof. Likewise, conservatives often sacrifice freedoms for security, especially on the national level for the same reason. The presence of Life is sacred, supposedly, over all other things. Apparently, that only applies to certain things, because cancer research, proper healthcare for all, and caring for the poverty stricken around the world tend to non-issues for most conservatives.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to view the content as being the most important. I have never met the Liberal who would tout abortion as a great thing, but more like, sadly necessary. Many women who choose abortion are severely disadvantaged, and thus the content of their lives would be vastly improved by not having offspring. The loss of the potential person growing within, while sad, might be the lesser sacrifice in such situation. Abortion is such an emotional issue, even my statements here will generate a whirlwind of retaliation.

I find that the greatest irony is that conservatives find life to be important only in certain circumstances, and are appallingly casual about it's loss in others. Cancer, Heart disease, and workplace accidents cause far more damage and loss of life to the avg American family then any terrorist could ever hope to. What is even sadder is that when you fund the fight against such things, they do not form strategies to retaliate.
The lives saved, by say, a cure for cancer would save AT LEAST 350,000 lives a year from the top 7 cancers alone (estimate of cancer deaths from 2002).
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
This is 100x as many who died tragicly in the WTC attacks in 2001.

The average American would be better served by mastering irrational fears of terrorists at the airport and consider that we, as a nation, could instead save more lives in other ways. Huckabee is lost in the woods, always has been, always will be. Happy new year.

Posted by: Aaron on January 1, 2008 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals tend to believe it is the content of life that is important vs Conservatives, who lean towards the position that life, for it's own sake, is important.

This sounds approximately but not quite right.

The central difference between them also has to do with their attitudes toward guilt and innocence. Regardless of death count, conservatives went nuts over 9/11 in a way they won't over cancer, hurricanes, or collapsing bridges, because with 9/11 there was intent. There was justice to be meted out. They couldn't give a crap about stuff like cancer. That's an Act of God.

Remember the original conservative response to Katrina? The initial focus was on the looting of goods and supplies, etc. and Bush's very first response was to announce a git tough policy on looters at Walmart. Once it became clear that the actual scale of the devastation was far greater than the looting it triggered, they lost interest, and the government response became sloth and palpable indifference. Their focus turned to personal responsibility; you should know better than to live in such a city.

It doesn't matter to them if more people are killed by the response to 9/11 than 9/11 itself because the later deaths are "justified" and the original ones are not. Liberals tend to concern themselves with the misapplication of justice- so we have the saying "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison". A conservative will reason (and they will tell you this) that it's the exact opposite. It's more important to jail everybody- in case one of the ten guilty people kills some innocent person. That would be like the death penalty if we allowed that to happen. They see no difference between a random killing by a stranger and a wrongful execution by the government. You're dead, you're dead, what's the difference? At least let's make sure that "the guilty" are dead, not "the innocent". They're also not good at conceptualizing the difference between legal guilt and actual guilt. They see them as the same thing. They can understand the idea that a guilty person might go free, but an innocent person being found guilty? Be serious! Bad people are bad people! Let's be realistic when we see them!

And that's the kind of world these empty souls want to live in- everyone is safe, because we know we have all the bad people in prison or hell. If innocent people lose their freedom, so what? They're still alive.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on January 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

How Orwellian.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conservatives want to preserve all life -Egbert

And eternal war is a way to do that?

Posted by: Xisithrus on January 1, 2008 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

Um, even if Massachusetts did have the death penalty, since when does the governor decide sentences?

Posted by: Phil on January 1, 2008 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

Millionth Monkey at 8:27: Excellent post. I have long marveled over the conservative obsession with establishing "guilt" and "innocence" in their valuation of human life.

I'd add that this preoccupation frequently falls down when conservatives identify as "acts of God" and/or as the victims' "fault" events that actually have to do with their own malfeasance: New Orleans flooded solely because of an unpredictable act of nature, not because the levee repairs had been underfunded; Katrina victims should have left town, so the bolloxed-up actions of FEMA aren't even relevant. In their rush to mete out "justice," these folks are curiously indifferent to identifying their own bad actors.

Posted by: shortstop on January 1, 2008 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

It's more important to jail everybody- in case one of the ten guilty people kills some innocent person. - MillionthMonkey

This is a Leninist concept that was applied on a massive scale by Stalin in the former Soviet Union. This Bolshevik idea isn't any different conceptually from the idea that God will reward only the True Believers in Heaven.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 1, 2008 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

"innocent unborn child"

Not according to God, egbert. Remember that book called the Bible? It states that when a fetus is terminated that is a property crime, not murder. Not a child; a potential child. But if there is one constant in life, it is that conservatives oppose God _and_ Aaerica. Conservatives: Proudly anti-America and anti-God.

Posted by: Phalamir on January 1, 2008 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

This is a Leninist concept that was applied on a massive scale by Stalin in the former Soviet Union.

I didn't know that. Although I was characterizing a belief I do not hold myself, so I hope you didn't take it out of context. Your post is short so I can't tell if you did or not.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on January 1, 2008 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

MillionthMonkey on January 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM

Thank you for that post on the subject of guilt vs innocence. Very informative an concise. My post about Content of Life vs Life as Content could probably have been written clearer. I lack people in the real world with whom to bounce my ideas and concepts off of, as my wife has grown tired of endless political discourse in the household. Thus, sometimes, I meander when trying to get my point across. What it boiles down to is, that I believe that the morality of the left on the subject of Life Issues is motivated more by the content, good or bad of the life or lives in involved. Republicans tend to view all issues in a black or white fashion. Your post above plays into their motivations for that. But when I end up in debates or arguments with conservatives, they tend to speak of Life in the same terms as money, as in individual objects to be preserved/saved/lost etc. There doesn't seem to be much concern of the individual(s) themselves, just their lives. As if the continuation, or not, of breathing is so much more important then anything else involved, moral or otherwise. I don't know how to explain it other then that. Conservatives claim to care about the presence of Life as if it is the total sum of things. All is good if your breathing and worshiping god. Liberals, in my opinion, seem to believe that life is an empty vessel to be filled with the experiences and feelings, the more the better. That is what I mean by 'content'. I hope that is closer to the truth, or at least clearer to the reader.

Posted by: Aaron on January 1, 2008 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

MillionthMonkey, I understand your points about guilt and innocence. I was just pointing out that Lenin's concept of the acceptability of jailing some innocent people as long as all of the guilty are caught is very similar to contemporary religious conservatives. The only difference is the religious believe the innocent will be saved by God in the end and that excuses the State erring on the side of punishing too many.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 1, 2008 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

But when I end up in debates or arguments with conservatives, they tend to speak of Life in the same terms as money, as in individual objects to be preserved/saved/lost etc. There doesn't seem to be much concern of the individual(s) themselves, just their lives. As if the continuation, or not, of breathing is so much more important then anything else involved, moral or otherwise. I don't know how to explain it other then that.

From Kohlberg dilemmas, Form A, Dilemma III (the "Heinz dilemma"):

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.
Jake, at eleven, is clear from the outset that Heinz should steal the drug. Constructing the dilemma, as Kohlberg did, as a conflict between the values of property and life, he discerns the logical priority of life and uses that logic to justify his choice:
For one thing, a human life is worth more than money, and if the druggist only makes $1000, he is still going to live, but if Heinz doesn't steal the drug, his wife is going to die. (Q: Why is life worth more than money?) Because the druggist can get a thousand dollars later from rich people with cancer, but Heinz can't get his wife again. (Q: Why not?) Because people are all different and so you couldn't get Heinz's wife again.
Asked whether Heinz should steal the drug if he does not love his wife, Jake replies that he should, saying that not only is there "a difference between hating and killing," but also, if Heinz were caught, "the judge would probably think it was the right thing to do." Asked about the fact that, in stealing, Heinz would be breaking the law, he says that "the laws have mistakes, and you can't go writing up a law for everything that you can imagine."
Thus, while taking the law into account and recognizing its function in maintaining social order (the judge, Jake says, "should give Heinz the lightest possible sentence"), he also sees the law as man-made and therefore subject to error and change. Yet his judgment that Heinz should steal the drug, like his view of the law as having mistakes, rests on the assumption of agreement, a societal consensus around moral values that allows one to know and expect others to recognize what is "the right thing to do."

Fascinated by the power of logic, this eleven-year-old boy locates truth in math, which, he says, is "the only thing that is totally logical." Considering the moral dilemma to be "sort of like a math problem with humans," he sets it up as an equation and proceeds to work out the solution. Since his solution is rationally derived, he assumes that anyone following reason would arrive at the same conclusion and thus that a judge would also consider stealing to be the right thing for Heinz to do. Yet he is also aware of the limits of logic. Asked whether there is a right answer to moral problems, Jake replies that "there can only be right and wrong in judgment," since the parameters of action are variable and complex. Illustrating how actions undertaken with the best of intentions can eventuate in the most disastrous of consequences, he says, "like if you give an old lady your seat on the trolley, if you are in a trolley crash and that seat goes through the window, it might be that reason that the old lady dies."
...
In contrast, Amy's response to the dilemma conveys a very different impression, an image of development stunted by a failure of logic, an inability to think for herself. Asked if Heinz should steal the drug she replies in a way that seems evasive and unsure:
Well, I don't think so. I think there might be other ways besides stealing it, like if he could borrow the money or make a loan or something, but he really shouldn't steal the drug--but his wife shouldn't die either.
Asked why he should not steal the drug, she considers neither property nor law but rather the effect that theft could have on the relationship between Heinz and his wife:
If he stole the drug, he might save his wife then, but if he did, he might have to go to jail, and then his wife might get sicker again, and he couldn't get more of the drug, and it might not be good. So, they should really just talk it out and find some other way to make the money.
Seeing in the dilemma not a math problem with humans but a narrative of relationships that extends over time, Amy envisions the wife's continuing need for her husband and the husband's continuing concern for his wife and seeks to respond to the druggist's need in a way that would sustain rather than sever connection. Just as she ties the wife's survival to the preservation of relationships, so she considers the value of the wife's life in a context of relationships, saying that it would be wrong to let her die because, "if she died, it hurts a lot of people and it hurts her." Since Amy's moral judgment is grounded in the belief that, "if somebody has something that would keep somebody alive, then it's not right not to give it to them," she considers the problem in the dilemma to arise not from the druggist's assertion of rights but from his failure of response.
Gilligan, Carol. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.

I think she's being a little hard on Amy. The conclusion to be drawn here is obvious: the pharmaceutical industry is evil!

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on January 1, 2008 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Conservatives" don't universally value life for its own sake. There is a class of lives that such people deem not worth living. Not-Americans. If you are a not-American then your life has meaning only if you aren't in the way of some vague goal.

You live under a dictator? Your life is only meaningful if "conservatives" support your dictator. This is, by the way, a fragile condition. One day your life is valuable because we are giving boots and tactical advice on gassing enemies to your leader, the next he is the next Hitler and your life is less valuable than the bombs being dropped on your head to take it.

You live in a democracy? Your life is still only meaningful if "conservatives" support your leader. If he says evil things like "the people of my country should benefit from the extraction of natural resources from my country" then he is a very bad man and may benefit from a bit of .45 caliber brain surgery. At which point you will likely find yourself back in situation #1.

Such "conservatives" are also likely to make allowances for where you happen to be. For example, if you happen to be standing near someone who these "conservatives" have determined is a bad man then there is no age low enough to grant you even a bit of token sympathy. Your death serves the higher purpose of facilitating the pre-trial death penalty. There will be scores of "conservatives" crying in their beer because they were unable to take your life.

So, while in the general case (abortion of a fetus that might otherwise be born to an American, preservation of a brain dead American, life support for any American so long as there is someone who can pay the bill) such so called "conservatives" will support the "culture of life," but remember they aren't extremists about it - there are billions of people whose lives they find totally worthless.

Posted by: heavy on January 1, 2008 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

The above discussion is fascinating, and as a liberal, I'm in basic agreement with many points elucidated. However, I think there are other aspects to conservative thought to mention.

One is the good old "slippery slope". So in the case of Schiavo, and others whose lives no longer have "content" (to use Aaron's term) conservatives fear that if these people are allowed to die, it will be inevitable that state-sanctioned euthanasia for "undesirables", however one defines this, will follow. They can't believe that we liberals are only okay with allowing people to die, who actively have said they are ready to go, or people who are in reality dead and only continuing to "live" due to advanced life support. We would oppose killing off people just because someone else considers them "undesirable" and therefore no longer worth living. So for us there is no slippery slope.

The same fear causes them to oppose gay unions, whether civil or church-blessed. To them, this will lead inevitably toward allowing pedophilia and necrophilia. They seem unable to understand that for us liberals, in the case of sexual relations, what matters is informed consent. We see no need to interfere in relations freely chosen by adults, but pedophilia involves children who not only cannot give informed consent but who are demonstrably harmed. Obviously necrophilia involves terminal lack of consent, as it were. To conservatives, who tend to have an authoritarian mindset, the idea of consent or lack thereof isn't on their radar screens. They seem unable to understand the distinction that we make.

Conservatives also seem to have a problem distinguishing degrees of offense, or imagining mitigating circumstances. Killing is killing. Abortion is abortion. And if someone can be considered an aggressor, even if by some loose association, such as being of the same nationality or ethnicity or religion as some other aggressor, that person deserves death as retaliation for a previous death of someone who is an innocent victim in their mind.

I'm not expressing this very well. It's difficult to get into the mindset that many conservatives seem to have.

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on January 2, 2008 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

Just got here, but glad to see that Dennis got in first to this yahoo post.

I reccomend all US citizens (Americans, too) to oppose the death sentence, in any form. Do we really want another Republican President as ignorant as this one?

Posted by: notthere on January 2, 2008 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

Well, killing a man got Pickles into the White House as First Lady, no?

Posted by: Rula Lenska on January 2, 2008 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

What if you're both anti-abortion (and that's strictly abortion, mind you, not being opposed to birth control, contraception or sex education) and against the death penalty? In terms of conventional wisdom these days, you can't be considered liberal; you can't be considered conservative.

Posted by: Vincent on January 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

and Bill Clinton rushed home to Arkansas during his 1992 campaign to have a man executed - Bill Clinton, our liberal savior

Posted by: larry on January 2, 2008 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

That's nonsensical. I'm sure Mitt would have loved nothing more than to have fried a whole boatload of brown people, but Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

Posted by: cervantes on January 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Some cheezy dickhead named egbert said, 'Liberals believe that a mother has the right to kill her innocent unborn child. But if an evil adult commits a murder or suicide bombs himself, all of a sudden the liberal finds his compassion."

The difference is, egspurt, for much of a pregnancy (maybe even all of a pregnancy) an unborn child is not a person, just a mass of meaningless organic material not deserving protection any more than the eggs in my refrigerator.

And, when it comes to the death penalty, a big part of the point is to protect that innocent life that you pretend to care so much about. Not the life of the terrorist or murderer etc but the lives of those innocents who are mistakenly convicted for those offenses. As we have learned in recent years, there are a helluva lot of those.

Don't pretend to care about innocent lives, fella. We know what people like you are really about. You're not fooling us with your public piety. Keep it under a bushel, buttmunch.

Posted by: The Fool on January 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Wolfdaughter,
I have to take issue with the notion that what the right wing wanted, in the Schiavo case, was to oppose a "slippery slope" leading to "government sponsored euthanasia." The fact is we have government and insurance sponsored euthanasia in this country--its called our health care system. And its pretty clear that most right wingers knew that even as they went to the barricades over schiavo. At the *exact same time* as the schiavo case a law that Bush had signed in Texas was claiming the lives of a conscious, alive, woman whose family were not given time to get to her bedside to say good bye because the insurance companies wouldn't pay for her treatment. Hospitals in Texas also cut a baby off life support because his parents couldn't pay.

the Schiavo case was a totally made up cause celebre that celebrated "good parents" vs "evil husbands" and faked up "good authority figures" against imaginary "bad authority figures." If the position had been reversed and hippy parents had tried to prolong the life of their child at the expense of "good authority figures" like the insurance companies, wealthy people, etc... what would have happened? Oh, it *did* happen. The SCHIP fracas adn the attacks on the little boy who made the advertisement for SCHIP exactly prove my point. When *money* and authority are at stake the right to lifers on the other side come down heavily on the side of a right to die--as long as the sick person is poor and the death arises from a denial of care they are A-OK about it.

aimai

Posted by: aimai on January 2, 2008 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

I think we can be comforted that Mike Hickabee might be aware that he is unaware of a great deal.

Posted by: Chris on January 2, 2008 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK
Clearly, the implication is that Romney is somehow "soft on crime." But given the Wayne Dumond controversy, this seems like a subject matter Huckabee should want to avoid.
Which is strange, given that Huckabee has also attacked Romney for not pardoning people.

Which hits even closer to the maybe you shouldn't bring that up category.

Posted by: Skemono on January 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK
I'm sure Mitt would have loved nothing more than to have fried a whole boatload of brown people, but Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

I dunno cervantes.
I suspect he wouldn't have tried so hard if he thought that he actually had a chance of being in the position of signing the execution order.
He got the bona fides of having tried and been prevented from doing so by the liberals, which he can boast about, without actually having had to face getting blood on his hands.

Posted by: kenga on January 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Those wacky Christians!

Posted by: 0000000000000000000000 on January 2, 2008 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

This reminds me of thzt pdf of the Segregationist party voting guide that was decrying northern interests as "Anti-Lynching, Pro-Integration".

Posted by: feckless on January 2, 2008 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Catholic Voter Alert:

What Catholics MUST Know About Mike Huckabee

FACT: Mike Huckabee has exhibited a willful blindness in associating with anti-Catholicism when it has benefited him politically.

FACT: Instead of supporting a healthy expression of religion in the public square, Mike Huckabee has used his evangelical protestant faith as a wedge to divide the Republican Party and gain support from fellow evangelicals.

FACT: While claiming to believe Catholics are fellow Christians, Mike Huckabee has kept close acquitance with evangelical leaders who have:

o Compared Catholicism to a disease requiring 'recovery' and rehabilitation;

o Said the Catholic Church collaborated with the Nazis to exterminate Jews;

o Accused the Catholic Church of pulling mankind into the 'dark ages'.

FACT: Mike Huckabee has been endorsed by anti-Catholic author Tim Lahaye , who called Catholicism a "false religion" Lahaye's Church also funded "Mission to Catholics", a virulently anti-Catholic ministry.

Read More: Catholic.org: False Profit: Money, Prejudice, and Bad Theology in Tim LaHaye's Left Behind Series and at The Catholic League: The Best-Selling Bigotry of Left Behind

FACT: Mike Huckabee has also played up anti-Mormon sentiment against Governor Mitt Romney by asking a reporter if it was the Mormon Church that taught that Jesus and the devil were half-brothers. For more information, click here .
FACT: Mike Huckabee turned a blind eye to an anti-Catholic whisper campaign waged against Catholic Senator Sam Brownback in the run up to the Iowa Straw Poll in July 2007. For more information, click here .

FACT: While Mike Huckabee has declared himself to be the authentic pro-life candidate in the 2008 Republican primary, in 2006 alone he accepted $35,000 in cash from Novo Nordisk, a company dedicated to promoting research on human life through destructive embryonic stem cell research.

Case in Point: Mike Huckabee was the guest speaker at the notoriously anti-Catholic Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, TX on December 23, 2007.
Huckabee was hosted by the Rev. John Hagee, who has written that the Catholic Church collaborated with Hitler in staying completely silent during the Holocaust. This would be a surprise to millions of Catholics who struggled against Nazism, most especially St. Maximillan Kolbe.

Here is a sampling of Pastor Hagee's writings:

John Hagee: "Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews."

John Hagee: "The Catholic Church plunged the world into the dark ages."

John Hagee: " When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him."

What does Mike Huckabee think about John Hagee?

Huckabee said John Hagee is, "one of the greatest Christian leaders of our nation."
But the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has a different opinion of John Hagee:

READ MORE: "John Hagee: Veteran Bigot."

What did Mike Huckabee do when presented with these vicious statements made by John Hagee about Catholics and the Catholic Church?

Nothing, but Huckabee did make this very equivocal statement: "I can't speak for (Hagee) anymore than he could speak for me. I'm sure that there're things I'll say that he disagrees with… I would certainly never characterize the Catholic Church as being pro-Nazi, never."

Just imagine if a politician:

Spoke at a church/organization which denied the Holocaust ever existed;
Said he did not agree with this statement of the church/organization;
But then went on to call the leader of this church/organization (who made the statement denying the Holocaust) one of the finest leaders in our nation.
Imagine this scenario no longer: Mike Huckabee has put forward this ridiculous line of reasoning.

And to top it off, Huckabee accepted $10,000 from Hagee for speaking at the church!

Why did the self-anointed authentic pro-life candidate in this election—Mike Huckabee—accept $35,000 in 2006 from Novo Nordisk, a company that conducts life-destructive embryonic stem cell research?

While this story line sounds too salacious to be true, Mike Huckabee did in fact accept $35,000 from Novo Nordisk in 2006, a company that is one of the largest embryonic stem cell research firms in the world.

What was the reason for these payments? Huckabee accepted the money for 'consulting services/speaking fees'. Huckabee accepted this money nonetheless while he was the sitting Governor of Arkansas.

How can pro-lifers trust this man when he has taken so much money—for so little actual work-- from a company that profits from the destruction of human life? Simply, put, they can't. At minimum, why won't Mike Huckabee return this money?

Conclusion

Sadly, Mike Huckabee would seek to divide conservatives and Republicans along religious lines for political gain. While America needs a more robust expression of faith in the public square, it does not need a preacher politician who has shown a repeated pattern of dividing people along religious lines. The shared values of Protestants and Catholics are too important to risk endangering this important coalition by nominating Mike Huckabee, a candidate who has demonstrated a blind eye to anti-Catholicism.

Catholic Voters:

Do you want a president who rubs shoulders with Anti-Catholic Bigots?
you have a chance to be heard.
Vote Against Anti-Catholic Bigotry.
Vote Against Mike Huckabee .

Posted by: ADAM on February 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly