In my new role as the Director of Research for the Huckabee campaign, I have to respond, ad infinitum to claims that Governor Huckabee is a "fiscal liberal" and an invenerate tax hiker.
If you asked 90 percent of the people who make such a claim how much he actually increased the taxes, they'd have no clue. So let me enlighten them.
Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas from July 1996 to January 2007. During that 10 1/2 year period, taxes that affected all citizens increased by the following amounts:
- Increase in the income tax rates: 0 percent
- Increase in the sales tax: 1 cent
- Increase in the gas tax: 3 cents a gallon
- Increase in diesel fuel tax: 4 cents a gallon
Next time you encounter a "fiscal conservative" claiming that "Huckabee is bad on taxes" ask them if they know these numbers. They won't. They never do.
Note: I knew that the truth would eventually get out (since I push it on people ever day). But I thought that it would come from an honest conservative journalist/pundit/blogger. Instead, it came from The New York Times.
i'm glad to see that huckabee's record is being defended with facts and not distortions. it's odd that it was also explained by the oft-awful ny times.
as a christian, runner, and supporter of the plan to eliminate income taxes, i'm hoping that the huckster gets his message out there in a meaningful way.
OK. Glad to have this information. More, please?
You tell us about tax increases that affected "all citizens" under his governorship between July 1996 to January 2007.
I'd like to know his record on tax increases that affected select (vs. "all") citizens.
I'd like to know what tax cuts he made.
I'd also like to know what spending cuts he made.
Without significant tax cuts and spending cuts, we might still feel free to call him a "tax-and-spend liberal".
Baus,
Here's a more detailed explanation:
One of the things that is most often reported inaccurately is Governor Huckabee’s tax record. There will always be groups like The Club for Growth, and Cato Institute who will never be satisfied, and who will continue to attack Governor Huckabee.
These groups like to oversimplify an issue, and while Governor, Mike Huckabee learned that many issues were not cut and dried. State government's job is to provide prisons and state police for public safety, good roads for transportation and public education.
As Governor, that is what he did while being responsible with the revenue and state budget. Keeping the state budget balanced and spending as low as possible wasn't easy because he also had to deal with a state legislature that had the largest percentage of Democrats of any in the country as well as court mandates from judges who think spending more and more tax dollars is the only solution to any problem.
Tax Cuts
Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative who cut taxes almost 100 times in the state of Arkansas.
Mike Huckabee returned almost $400 million to Arkansas taxpayers. He believes it is immoral to take more money from taxpayers than is needed to run the government, and if a surplus occurs because of growth in the economy and good fiscal policy, it should be returned to the people.
He was the first Governor of Arkansas to pass a broad-based tax cut in the history of the state.
He also doubled the standard deduction to $2,000 for individuals and to $4,000 for married couples, as well as the child care tax credit and eliminated the marriage penalty.
He eliminated the capital gains tax on the sale of a home.
He eliminated the state income tax for families below the poverty line.
He reduced the capital gains tax for businesses and individuals.
He indexed the income tax to protect people from paying higher taxes because of "bracket creep."
Governor Huckabee left the state with almost a $1 billion surplus- a state record, setting the stage for further tax reductions. The “Huckabee Surplus” enabled his successor to follow Huckabee’s lead to begin the elimination of the state sales tax on food.
He urged that the surplus should go back to the taxpayers in the form of a rebate or tax cut.
He cut welfare rolls by almost 50 percent.
With respect to the tax and spending that he had under his control, spending rose about six-tenths of one percent a year during his ten-and-a-half year tenure.
Governor Huckabee established the Murphy Commission by Executive Order (his first as governor) to streamline government to save taxpayers' dollars and make government more efficient.
Governor Huckabee also led efforts to establish a Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and a Property Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, which established a uniform notice and due process procedure guaranteeing all Arkansans they will be treated fairly in the assessment of property taxes.
[cont]
Tax Increases and answers as to why:
Governor Huckabee worked hard to ensure that any tax increase we needed were supported and approved by Arkansans. We were not going to have a case of the Legislature imposing general tax increases on the people behind closed doors.
He made sure any tax increase was targeted, time-limited, and addressed specific state needs. Huckabee has been outspoken in saying that a significant portion of almost $1 billion in state surplus should go back to the taxpayers. He has always believed that a tax refund or reduction makes more sense than a government spending spree.
In 1996 voters approved an increase in the sales tax to support conservation which was a wonderful investment in Arkansas. 1/8 cent sales tax increase approved by voters to fund conservation and park services to preserve Arkansas natural and cultural heritage.
In 1999, Arkansans supported a fuel tax increase that allowed Arkansas to completely rehabilitate the interstate highway system, changing the interstate system from one of the worst in the country to the best according to Truckers Magazine. The $1 billion project was completed on budget and on time. The legislature passed the gas tax, but it wouldn’t be implemented unless the people voted on, and approved, the bond issue; which was passed by an 80% vote of the people in 1999.
In 2001, a sales tax increase offset revenue lost from constitutional amendment cutting property taxes by $180 million. The sales tax increase and property tax cut were voted on by citizens of Arkansas – they chose how to be taxed.
In 2003, a cigarette tax increase of 25 cents per pack funded state healthcare obligations. Arkansas tobacco taxes are still low, 33rd in the U. S.
In 2003, there was a temporary increase in the income tax to offset the economic recession our country was facing in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. They were needed for one year, and unlike most “temporary taxes,” Governor Huckabee made sure that the legislature kept its promise to the people that it was eliminated after two years.
In 2003, Arkansas had a $110 million hole in the state budget that had to be addressed aggressively. Medicaid, education, and prisons were the main areas that needed funding to keep them operating. Those three services took up to 91 percent of the general revenue fund. Arkansas didn’t have the revenue coming in that was needed to meet the expenses going out and it got to the point where we didn’t have the money to meet basic obligations to the state.
In 2004, he allowed a 7/8 cent sales tax increase to become law without his signature to comply with a Supreme Court order to increase funding for education, which avoided the courts taking over public education in Arkansas. Mike Huckabee was the first governor in state history to oppose a tax increase. He had already cut state budget by 11%.
SPENDING
Club for Growth says that state spending in Arkansas increased 49% during Governor’s ten-year tenure. THIS MUST BE PUT IN CONTEXT – a 49% increase is in line with a 46% increase in aggregate state spending over same time period. It’s still much lower than the 70% increase in federal spending for that period.
The Governor didn’t control higher education spending as that is controlled by the trustees of each institution. Those who want to distort Governor Huckabee’s record of tax and spending includes those in higher education to further their own goals.
Arkansas ranks 43rd so far this decade in spending as a percentage of personal income – this is a fairer judge of spending given disparity between poorer and richer states.
States have to increase spending every year by at least 5-6% just to keep up with rising costs of healthcare, education, and other services.
Spending that Governor controlled, not federal pass-throughs and programs controlled by the Democrat legislature, rose only about six-tenths of one percent a year during his tenure.
Minimum Wage –he increased minimum wage by $1.10 to avoid passage of a constitutional amendment that would have increased minimum wage annually by the amount of inflation. The Governor accepted one-shot deal as price of avoiding regular increases.
Joe,
Keep up the good work! I was just thinking that one thing surging Huckabee needs is a few policy papers clearly defending his record.....on illegal immigration, tax issues, and (to come) crime issues (the man who got out on parole and later murdered another woman).
Alex
Hey Joe,
What do you think of Gary Baur's attack on Huckabee's desire to allow children of illegal immigrants to have the same tuition assistance as their peers in the state school system? It is utterly beyond me why this is a "Christian" issue that we should be up in arms about.
The figure I keep hearing is that he raised taxes by a net $500 million. True or false? Thanks.
You can play all sorts of games with numbers, but here's the bottom line:
When Bill Clinton left the governor's office in 1992 (after having dramatically increased teacher salaries), the overall state tax burden in Arkansas was at 9.8%, giving Arkansas the 39th highest state tax taxes in the nation.
When Mike Huckabee left office in 2006, the state tax burden was 11.1%, making Arkansas #13 for high taxes.
Arkansas may still be 49th in per capita income (thank god for Mississippi), but at least Huckabee moved us up on one scale!
You can verify my figures at taxfoundation . org
Why is this such a horrible accusation? Why is it considered "evil" to want to pay as we go for the government programs (military and civilian) we vote for? Is living within our means and paying for what we want no longer a part of "conservative" "Christian" ethics?
The "party of fiscal responsibility" has given us huge tax cuts followed by historic deficits, and a huge national debt -- plus interest of course -- that our children (ALL of our children, not just the evil Pagan libruls') will be stuck with because too many politicians are pretending we don't have to pay for what we want, and, in effect, buying our votes with our money. As one who calls himself a Christian, how can you justify this chronic shirking of our obligations?
Would a President Huckabee reduce the defense budget, and close down some of our 700 foreign military bases (including the bases in Iraq)?
Would a fiscally conservative President Huckabee continue spending money in Iraq in the hopes that one day control of all that oil revenue there will pay off?
RB, is compulsory wealth redistribution comparable to Christian charity?
As far as I'm concerned, both parties will raise taxes and increase spending and find ways to cover up the accounting. About the only two things I really desire out of my president:
1. Don't increase social programs, they're far too large already.
2. Don't attack and provoke other nations, there's no reason to go to war right now.
And I seem to fit in the spot where no candidate appeals to me other than Ron Paul, and I'm considered an unreasonable crazy person for supporting him.
JohnW -
Here is a great talk by Huck on foreign policy.
http://media.csis.org/csistv/?070928_huckabee
Though I doubt it will satisfy you that he is far enough away from Bush, it sure did me.
Nice spinning, Joe, but next deal with these issues:
• Why Huckabee called The Club for Growth, a simple pro-business group, "The Club for Greed"? What does Huckabee have against people who promote the interests of business? Is he one of those simple-minded populists who think all business is bad?
• Why can't he see that paying instate tuition for children of illegal immigrants is grossly unfair (my out-of-state American citizen son could not get those rates) and is simply an open invitation to have more illegal immigrants flood his state? Why his moralizing on something that is really a political issue?
* An adequate explanation for his pushing the pardon of a rapist? I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation.
Foremost, why Huckabee believes his personal moral feelings should drive public policy? Why does he think that people who disagree with him on practical and political grounds are immoral?
Why, in short, is Huckabee so arrogant out foisting his personal feelings on others?
Wonders,
Thanks for sharing the link with me. I wasn't able to get the video to work, but I printed out the transcript from Huckabee's statement/press conference and read part of it.
He does try to distance himself from Bush by saying our country needs to change the tone of it's foreign policy, but then he starts talking about islamofascism or islamic terror (not much difference with Bush there).
I'll read the rest of the transcript. It's a good resource for people to find out about Huckabee's views.
FYI, I don't want a republican president, but would prefer to have Huckabee instead of Rommney. Every notice how phony Rommney seems? He just looks very fake. Huckabee seems more sincere.
I am supporting Edwards for President and would like to see an Edwards/Obama ticket.
Joe, I know you were (and are) heavily influenced by Hugh Hewitt and really respect him and his opinions. What do you make of his pro-Romney blogging, which has become increasingly anti-Huckabee (*oddly enough* as Huckabee's poll numbers have risen, so has Hugh's and other's attacks on Huckabee)?
I still haven't made up my mind yet (I vote in SC) between Huckabee, Romney or Thompson. Each have strenghts that grab my attention and apparent weaknesses that causes me to second guess.
Since you work for Huckabee, I want to tell you that he'd better do two things to woo over conservative and evangelical voters in SC - use the sense of humor, but show that he has depth and can handle tough, serious issues like immigration and foreign policy with more than just a quip and shake off the tax & spend, "compassionate conservative" label.
Many of the people I talk to that are conservative evangelicals in SC and serious about politics have brought up those things as why they aren't behind Huckabee 100% (myself included).
Alright Joe, here's something of a curveball for you to hit next. This is one of the areas of the Club for Growth's criticism that I haven't seen you defend Huckabee on:
"Big Oil" is largely a left-wing myth. Don't believe me, Joe? Read this post by Radley Balko.
The rest of them are not conservative or libertarian positions for obvious reasons like, well, the state has no business telling a service provider that it cannot raise its rates when demand is nearly maxed out.
Joe, would you talk about Huckabee's positions on illegal immigration soon? I suppose as long as the Republican and Democrat both hold the same positions (as do most of the contenders), illegal immigration issues won't matter much to the voters. However, if a politician actually came down on the side of the citizens and said:
1. Dramatically, frequently, and consistently prosecute employers of illegals in all sectors of the economy and THEN
2. Implement plan to integrate remaining illegals
(forget about the fence-it is costly and unnecessary)
that would, I suspect and hope, result in a net increase of votes. Maybe the candidate wouldn't get as many business contributions, maybe this is impossible in the current climate. But if I actually hear a candidate adhere to the above position, I would do something I've never done. I'd contribute a load of money to his campaign. (never going to contribute to Hillary's campaign no matter what she says. :) )
Why does he qualify it as "taxes that affected all citizens"?
Joe,
I was just reading a piece in NRO about Huckabee, and you've got your work cut out for you. Here's a graph from Rich Lowery:
An editorial in the newspaper The (Arkansas) Leader recounting Huckabee’s tax increases reads like a roll call of most of economic life. Huckabee repeatedly increased or expanded the sales tax; hiked the corporate income tax; imposed an income-tax surcharge on individuals and domestic and foreign corporations; raised the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel; taxed admission to theme parks and other tourist activities; taxed snuff, cigarettes, mixed drinks, private clubs and retail sales of beer; and so on. To all of this, Huckabee can now respond, “Yes, but I want to eliminate the IRS.”
Responding to John Scanlon-
The New York Times article cited favorably by Joe contains the $500 million number:
"But over all, on balance, tax increases outweighed the tax cuts by some $500 million, and many of the cuts that Mr. Huckabee heralds owe little to his efforts."
Gene
• Why can't he see that paying instate tuition for children of illegal immigrants is grossly unfair (my out-of-state American citizen son could not get those rates) and is simply an open invitation to have more illegal immigrants flood his state? Why his moralizing on something that is really a political issue?
Grossly unfair? If you want instate tuition rates then live in the state. Illegal immigrants that live in the state pay sales taxes inside the state as well as generate economic activity. While it may be bad that they are illegal immigrants it is hardly unfair, let alone 'grossly unfair' that they enjoy the benefits of living in Ark. if they live in Ark. Likewise illegal immigrants that live in NYC can walk around Central Park while those that don't would have to hop on a plate to visit central park.
Why Huckabee called The Club for Growth, a simple pro-business group, "The Club for Greed"? What does Huckabee have against people who promote the interests of business? Is he one of those simple-minded populists who think all business is bad?
The Club of Growth is a special interest group that has decided to support someone else in the Republican nomination. It is not a simple 'business promotion group'. Name calling is part of the political process.
An adequate explanation for his pushing the pardon of a rapist? I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation
Ahhh yes, you got a good point on that one. He pardoned a rapist because some right wing nutjobs started putting out the story the rapist had to be innocent because his victim (a 17 year old cheerleader) was a distant relative to Bill Clinton. He ignored the facts, didn't bother to listen to the people who actually knew about the case and pushed the parole board into letting him out. When the rapist went on to rape and kill another woman he then tried to blame Clinton for the mess because some of the members of the parole board (who he badgered into letting the rapist go) were appointed by him.
On that front Huckabee is indeed a scumbag....but I'd rather we talk about that after he gets the GOP nomination.
Just Wondering
Why does he qualify it as "taxes that affected all citizens"?
Almost certainly because a state has hundreds, even thousands of taxes, fees, fines and other costs. For example, if I want a certfied copy of my birth certificate I have to pay $10. Is that a fee or a tax? I need it if I'm going to DMV or getting a passport so you can agrue it either way. If the price goes up to $15 you can score some cheap points by saying "TAX INCREASE OF 50%!!!!". Likewise you can assemble dozens of such small increases to make cheap points like "HE RAISED TAXES 253 TIMES!!!!"
Ex-Preacher -- You wrote "When Mike Huckabee left office in 2006, the state tax burden was 11.1%, making Arkansas #13 for high taxes." You included a reference website. Thanks -- I checked it out.
Actually, what you described was state and local, not just state taxes. As you know, the governor does not control local taxes.
When Mike Huckabee left office in 2006, the state tax burden was $2,029.34, or 7.6%, ranking Arkansas #23 for state taxes.
Grossly unfair? If you want instate tuition rates then live in the state. Illegal immigrants that live in the state pay sales taxes inside the state as well as generate economic activity. While it may be bad that they are illegal immigrants it is hardly unfair, let alone 'grossly unfair' that they enjoy the benefits of living in Ark. if they live in Ark. Likewise illegal immigrants that live in NYC can walk around Central Park while those that don't would have to hop on a plate to visit central park.
I don't know the specifics of Arkansas' plan, but getting in-state tuition rates is a bit more complicated than that. For example, when I was in the military I lived in Texas for several years, paid sales tax, paid property taxes, etc, but I was not eligible for in-state tuition because I maintained an address in my home state. Likewise, when I left the military and moved to Florida to finish school, I was not eligible for in-state tuition even though I established residence their and my family had lived there for several years. You could probably make the case that it is fair for illegals who have moved to Arkansas, lived their for several years, and have no plans to return to the home country to receive in-state rates, but I am not sure that is the case.
what about Huckabee's pardoning of a serial rapist?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/5/14190/6806
With SO many scandals and questionable activities regarding everything from improper pardons to ethics complaints to tax hiking to being soft on illegal immigration, the question is, even if some of these things can be reasonably explained away, why choose Huckabee over a candidate who doesn't have to bother explaining anything?
Because no such candidate exists in the Republican Party?
Being a conservative Southern Baptist myself, I want to like Huckabee but I can't. He spuriously questioned his opponents' motives regarding illegal immigration using Jesus as a political weapon. We most assuredly do not drink the same 'Jesus Juice.'
The Club for Growth (which Huckabee attacks as the "Club for Greed" - nice!) has compiled an extensive analysis of Huckabee's record. It is not favorable. I do not see any reason why they would intentionally misrepresent his record.
"Huckabee is the only Republican presidential candidate to refuse to endorse President Bush's veto of a vastly expanded and expensive SCHIP program." - Club for Growth
Huckabee supports a national no-smoking ban. He strikes me as another big-government nanny-statist. Huckabee supported the 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan (an unfortunate black mark on President Bush's record).
Other big government Huckabee proposals (via CFG):
* Raised the minimum wage in April 2006 from $5.15 to $6.25 an hour and encouraged Congress to take the same initiative on a national level, a proposal that President Bush and most congressional GOP members oppose
* Sought to take revenue from his tax hike proposal to be used on economic development projects in 2002
* Threatened to investigate price-gouging after 9/11 if gasoline prices went up too high
* Ordered regulatory agencies in Arkansas to investigate price-gouging in the nursing home industry
* Signed a bill into law that would prevent companies from raising their prices a mere 10% ahead of a natural disaster; services like roof repair and tree removal were targeted
* Calls for a federally mandated arts and music curriculum in schools across America
* He denounced corporate salaries and argued that "the line between capitalism and greed has to be very clearly delineated"
Huckabee apparently has a penchant for defining and attacking "greed" - otherwise known as free-market capitalism - wherever he finds it. Such rhetoric is right out of the class warfare handbook for Democrats. In light of past statements, Huckabee has no problem attacking the Christianity of those who disagree with him.
These things are very troublesome. I cannot help but suspect that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
There's John McCain.
Although I do like him, I'm not a McCain supporter, but he and Huckabee are pretty much equally [non]-conservative. The difference is he doesn't try to hide the fact that he has some maverick opinions. Nor does he have a bevy of scandals hounding his political career.
There's Tom Tancredo.
He's extremely conservative and basically scandal free.
There's also Ron Paul, my personal choice.
He's also very conservative, very scandal free, and the only time he's ever had to explain votes is to explain why he's voted against spending, not why he's voted for taxing.
Between 1997 and 2005, Arkansas’ gross state product increased 46.9% and its per-capita income increased 32%. (Data not available for 2006.)
Between 1997 and 2006 (one extra year), Arkansas’ total state taxes increased 47.8% and its per-capita state taxes increased 35.6%.
Based on the expected increase in 2006 per capita income (2005 income was 4.1% higher than 2004), it is reasonable to say ...
Arkansas state taxes have kept pace with Arkansans’ incomes.
1997 AR state taxes:
total state taxes: $3,776,600,000
per capita state taxes: $1,496.28
http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/9704arstax.html
1997 AR gross state product: $59.1 billions
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/719_gross_state_product_in_current_and.html
1997 AR per capita income: $20,342
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/727_personal_income_per_capita_by_state.html
2006 AR state taxes:
total state taxes: Ranked #30 $5,580,678,000 147.8% of 1997 level
per capita state taxes: Ranked #23 $2,029.34 135.6% of 1997 level
http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/04staxrank.html
2005 AR state gross product on Table 652: $86,802 millions 146.9% of 1997 level
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/income.pdf
2005 AR per capita income on Table 660: $26,874 132.1% of 1997 level
2004 AR per capita income on Table 660: $25,814 126.9% of 1997 level
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/income.pdf
Of course all dollars are in current dollars, as taxes are paid in current dollars.
Boonton says it was "rightwing nutjobs" putting out the story that Wayne DuMond was innocent. Does that include The Village Voice? Here are excerpts from its March 7, 2001, issue:
"Wayne DuMond, guilty or innocent, didn't have a chance at justice."
"One day, the daughter of prominent mortician Stevie Stevens saw DuMond driving down the road in his pickup. She identified him as the man who had raped her 45 days earlier."
[At trial,] no evidence linked DuMond to the teenager's abduction, forced submission to oral sex, and brief penetration. In the primitive blood-semen testing that had been done (DuMond's lawyer said a more expensive DNA test wasn't needed), DuMond's semen, as a match to a spot on the teen's jeans, couldn't be ruled out. (A DNA expert later testified in one of DuMond's numerous appeals that the spot did not match.) The judge wouldn't delay the trial for a single day so the defense could bring in its own witness. The teen had said her attacker had blue eyes; DuMond's are hazel. But she insisted (and still insists) that DuMond did it. It was her word against his. DuMond's trial lawyer never brought up her previous identification of someone else as her attacker."
Right wing conspiracy? Perhaps just an effort to release a man wrongly convicted.
George 2
Does the name Mumia ring a bell? One should be careful with media campaigns to free 'innocent men'. The 100+ year old Dryfus case was an exception. It's very easy to pluck out a defense lawyer's brief and make it sound like anyone has been railroaded by the justice system.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html
This wasn't a one time accusation. DuMond had a history of not just rape but violent rape and his victims privately mailed Huckabee pleading with him not to commute the guys sentence.
One ugly case was a rape DuMond committed while holding a woman at knife point as her 3 year old daughter lay terrified next to her.
It was also public record that DuMond had a history of violence. In 1972 he beat a man to death with the help of a friend only to beat the charges by getting immunity in exchange for testimony. In 1973 he got five years for assaulting a teenage girl in a parking lot.
Not surprising, most of the story about DuMond being innocent is basically an urban right wing myth. When the facts are examined, which is what a Governor is supposed to do, the claims of innocence evaporate. See:
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/post/463465.aspx
*************************
The state official who advised Huckabee on the Dumond case confirmed that the governor knew very little about Ashley Stevens’ case:
“I don’t believe that he had access to, or read, the law enforcement records or parole commission’s files — even by then,” the official said. “He already seemed to have made up his mind, and his knowledge of the case appeared to be limited to a large degree as to what people had told him, what Jay Cole had told him, and what he had read in the New York Post.”
Jay Cole, like Huckabee, is a Baptist minister, pastor for the Mission Fellowship Bible Church in Fayetteville and a close friend of the governor and his wife. On the ultra-conservative radio program he hosts, Cole has championed the cause of Wayne Dumond for more than a decade.
Cole has repeatedly claimed that Dumond’s various travails are the result of Ashley Stevens’ distant relationship to Bill Clinton.
The governor was also apparently relying on information he got from Steve Dunleavy, first as a correspondent for the tabloid television show “A Current Affair” and later as a columnist for the New York Post.
Much of what Dunleavy has written about the Dumond saga has been either unverified or is demonstrably untrue. Dunleavy has all but accused Ashley Stevens of having fabricated her rape, derisively referring to her in one column as a “so-called victim,” and brusquely asserting in another, “That rape never happened.”
The columnist wrote that Dumond was a “Vietnam veteran with no record” when in fact he did have a criminal record. He claimed there existed DNA evidence by “one of the most respected DNA experts in the country” to exonerate Dumond, even though there was no such evidence. He wrote that Bill Clinton had personally intervened to keep Dumond in prison, even though Clinton had recused himself in 1990 from any involvement in the case because of his distant relationship with Stevens.
“The problem with the governor is that he listens to Jay Cole and reads Steve Dunleavy and believes them ... without doing other substantative work,” the state official said.
Had Huckabee examined in detail the parole board’s files regarding Dumond, he would have known Dumond had compiled a lengthy criminal resume.
*******************
Boonton --
I agree DuMond had broken laws in the past. I disagree that having done so makes him guilty of every other accusation.
I disagree that Mumia's actual guilt is justification for discounting every con's plea for a fair trial.
Like you, I rely on journalists as a conduit for my awareness of the facts. I cited The Village Voice; there were others -- local ones -- that I did not cite but which supported the position taken by V V.
You did not refute the assertion that DNA evidence exonerated of the crime he was convicted of -- simply stating the opposite is not a credible refutation.
You ignore the motivation the sheriff had for railroading DuMond, just as you ignore the high level of personal hostility the sheriff displayed toward DuMond -- you know, keeping the guy's testicles in a jar on his desk, the ones he happened to get after two unknown assailants broke into DuMond's home and cut them off.
Your case seems to be that DuMond had committed other crimes and that he was defended by people opposed to Clinton, so he must be guilty of this crime. Sad.
George 2
I agree DuMond had broken laws in the past. I disagree that having done so makes him guilty of every other accusation.
No but it should cause one to question claims that he was an innocent man framed. He had a long history of violence, very serious violence.
Huckabee, though, did not pardon him but pressured the parole board to release him. In other words, he did not challenge the legal conviction so such a long history of violence should have indeed been considered when evaluating whether someone should be granted parole.
Like you, I rely on journalists as a conduit for my awareness of the facts. I cited The Village Voice; there were others -- local ones -- that I did not cite but which supported the position taken by V V.
True but we are not sitting on a jury with the power to convict someone nor are we in the Governor's mansion. If we were, our duty would be to not to use tabloid journalists as our sources of information but to get the facts directly. DuMond was convicted and Huckabee's officials warned him that the allagations that he was railroaded were false. (For example, there never was any DNA test that indicated he was innocent despite the reports of the VV or A Current Affair).
You ignore the motivation the sheriff had for railroading DuMond, just as you ignore the high level of personal hostility the sheriff displayed toward DuMond -- you know, keeping the guy's testicles in a jar on his desk, the ones he happened to get after two unknown assailants broke into DuMond's home and cut them off.
Motivation? Yea well you had a murderer who had gotten off by getting immunity, a repeat sex offendor who had also committed rapes he got away with because the victims said they were afraid to testify. I'm sure the local sheriff was not thrilled with this guy to begin with and when he raped a 17 year old cheerleader it's not exactly out of bounds to have considered him a prime suspect. While his castration was not right if it was done by assailants, many in law enforcement and even his wife suspected he had mutuliated himself.
Your case seems to be that DuMond had committed other crimes and that he was defended by people opposed to Clinton, so he must be guilty of this crime. Sad.
My case is that the claims of his being innocent only stood up to the most superficial reading of the facts as reported by a tabloid reporter and an anti-Clinton preacher with a radio show that Huckabee liked. As governor Huckabee's duty was to have fully investigated the case before embarking on a crusade to overturn the determinations made by the legal system. He failed to do that as he also failed to listen to the guys victims who made impassioned pleas to him. Seriously, how many people who are granted parole get a letter from the gov. congratuating them? As a result a pregnant woman was raped and murdered because of it and Huckabee's reaction was to try to blame the thing on Clinton. Did Huckabee take responsibility for rushing to judgement, failing to fully get the facts and brushing off those whose job it is to give him the facts? Has he indicated he has learned from this huge mistake that needless caused a woman to die?
As I wait for my post to clear Joe's filter, let me just summarize the points:
1. While DuMond's previous crimes didn't mean he was guilty of the more recent rape, it certainly should have given one pause before buying into angle that he was railroaded. It also should have been something Huckabee should have considered before strong-arming the parole board into granting him release.
2. We may use the news media or wacked out Clinton hating televanglists to get our information but a governor, when making such major decisions, has an obligation to hear the facts first hand. Huckabee ignored law enforcement, the prosecutors and even the victim and her family until after he decided to get DuMond released.
3. Most of the 'DuMond was railroaded' story is just plain false. From the Arkansas Times article:
4. What is clear here is a horrible defect in judgement. Huckabee choose to jump on a bandwagon instead of getting the facts. It's stunning he asserted DuMond might have been innocent without even asking the prosecutor to put forth his side of the case to him. It's stunning he didn't even meet with the victim until after he had made up his mind.
The power of the Executive to intervene in criminal cases on a personal basis should be used only in exceptional situations. A responsible executive would have done more than run with a cheap tabloid news story on A Current Affair and the rantings of a local tv radio pundit/preacher. Huckabee didn't and as a result an innocent woman was needlessly killed.
When state taxes are figured as a percentage of personal income, Arkansas has the 7th highest taxes in the nation at 9.4%.
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/06taxbur.html
"Tax"-achusetts comes in at #30 and neighboring state Missouri is #46.
Ex-Preacher -- You wrote "When Mike Huckabee left office in 2006, the state tax burden was 11.1%, making Arkansas #13 for high taxes." You included a reference website. Thanks -- I checked it out.
Actually, what you described was state and local, not just state taxes. As you know, the governor does not control local taxes.
To a degree. A state government can force local gov'ts to increase taxes by pushing various mandates down to them without giving them funding to pay for it and vice versa. I wouldn't say off-hand it is unfair to look at both state and local taxes in evaluating whether a governor has done a good job in his state.
In my universe, an increase in taxes is an increase in taxes. Just because it’s less, or more, than someone else’s tax increase is irrelevant. Not that then-governor Huckabee did not have good and sensible reasons for raising taxes, or that it would not have caused undue hardship, fiscal and otherwise, for Arkansas had he not raised those taxes.
But we all know it is possible to keep taxes down, if one is willing, and able, to reduce spending rather than increase taxes. In fairness, it is the “able” part that is tough. If it were easy to keep taxes down, all governors would do so. But most governors spend like drunken sailors on liberty, so, perhaps, Mike Huckabee is, relatively speaking, a principled member of, as Mitt Romney put it, “the Republican wing of the Republican Party.”
However, the key words are “relatively” and “increase in taxes.” So, some gratuitous yet friendly advice to the Huckabee campaign: don’t play up the fact that Mike Huckabee didn’t raise taxes as much as the next fellow. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of limited government and fiscal conservatism.
Huckabee scares me. Why are so many Christians voting for him? He had a convicted rapist let go when he was governor of Alabamber, and the guy went and raped two more and killed two more people.
See: http://www.latimes.com/la-na-huckabee8dec08,0,4343390.story?coll=la-home-center
Scary dude, professional politician. Just like the rest. Money and power. I don't trust him at all.
Huckabee is very bad news for the GOP. It's only because the rest of the field has crashed and burned that he now appears to be surging.
But when his efforts to free a convicted rapist come to light, when his remarks about quarantining gays come out, as his many dubious achievements as governor are exposed, he's only going to be left with the support of strict evangelicals who do as they are told.
Get ready for a Democratic president. There is nothing in the republic field that can prevent that.
Boonton's attacks indicate -- something. Why is it so important to him to discredit DuMond and Huckabee? He denies the DNA evidence. Didn't exist, he insists. Even Bill Clinton acknowledged it, and blamed (correctly) DuMond's PD for not introducing it. He assumes the sheriff who celebrated the castration of DuMond worked purely from righteous motives, without regard to DuMond's opposition to the sheriff's re-election. He accepts the victim's identification of DuMond without question, even tho she's identified some one else earlier, even tho DuMond did not match her original description, even tho her selection of DuMond happened 45 days after the attack and perhaps with encouragement from the sheriff.
I sincerely doubt that Boonton has any personal animus against DuMond, and he doesn't seem to be the typical law-and-order type. Clearly getting at the truth is not a priority. Is it that important to smear Huckabee in a forum like this?
Maybe so.
George 2 writes of Boonton: "Clearly getting at the truth is not a priority."
Wow, that seems pretty harsh and judgmental. How did you determine that you really care about the truth, but Boonton doesn't?
George2
Boonton's attacks indicate -- something. Why is it so important to him to discredit DuMond and Huckabee? He denies the DNA evidence. Didn't exist, he insists. Even Bill Clinton acknowledged it, and blamed (correctly) DuMond's PD for not introducing it.
There is no DNA evidence according to the Arkansas Times, let alone DNA evidence indicating someone else did it. If you think otherwise why don't you post a direct link to it.
He assumes the sheriff who celebrated the castration of DuMond worked purely from righteous motives, without regard to DuMond's opposition to the sheriff's re-election.
This is very amusing. DuMond opposed the sheriff for re-election? I have no idea whether this guy was a good sheriff or not but somehow I don't think many sheriff's worry about whether a known rapist and murderer endorses him for re-election.
He accepts the victim's identification of DuMond without question, even tho she's identified some one else earlier, even tho DuMond did not match her original description, even tho her selection of DuMond happened 45 days after the attack and perhaps with encouragement from the sheriff.
He (meaning me) accepts that there was a trial and those who heard the evidence found DuMond guilty. He (meaning me) also recognizes a familiar pattern here where a series of half-truths and outright lies are put forth in a media package to make a judicial verdict appear to be a miscarriage of justice.
If DuMond was so clearly innocent why did Huckabee not simply pardon him? Why did his supporters simply hire good lawyers to get him a new trial where they could present all this supposedly dynamite evidence that vindicated him? Why try the case on tabloid TV and the B- level talk radio circuit?
Perhaps we share common ground here. If the evidence vindicating DuMond was so clear cut then Huckabee should have pardoned him...too bad he didn't bother to find out anything much about the case before he acted so rashly!
I sincerely doubt that Boonton has any personal animus against DuMond, and he doesn't seem to be the typical law-and-order type. Clearly getting at the truth is not a priority. Is it that important to smear Huckabee in a forum like this?
Maybe so
I'm not sure what type of 'personal animus' I should have against DuMond. Never knew him and now that he's dead I never will. Then again I never meet Charles Manson and probably never will. I don't see any reason why I would be very impressed by either person.
I didn't realize one had to be a law-and-order type to question why someone entrusted with high office would go to bat for a person like this and given that he decided to do so didn't even bother to get the facts. Then when it blew up he fails to even try to take responsibility for it.
Why is it so important to him to discredit DuMond and Huckabee? He denies the DNA evidence. Didn't exist, he insists.
So it's been about three days now and George2 has yet to introduce any evidence that this DNA evidence actually exists while I've introduced two reputable news sources that state there never was any DNA testing done, let alone DNA testing that vindicated Dumond.
Is it safe to stop watching this thread now or will George2 swoop out of the blue with some fascinating Google results the minute we all move on to more important things?
ldY9MK Wow, it can be truth
ldY9MK Wow, it can be truth