The Occasional Observer

1)

Drudge screams he has an exclusive: Huckabee is the Dems dream candidate. "Top Dems" have put out the word not to damage Huck in the hope he'll get the GOP nod, since they think he has a glass chin and will be easily KO'd in the general:

"He'll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill," mocked one senior Democrat operative Tuesday morning from Washington.

"His letting out murderers because they shout 'Jesus', his wanting to put 300,000 AIDS patients and Magic Johnson into isolation, ain't even scratching the surface of what we've got on him."

B)

RCP links to a coincidentally timed Jim Pinkerton column, stating that Huck's faith will be a help, not a hinderance, in this election cycle.:

In decades past, figures as different as Martin Luther King Jr. and Jimmy Carter were widely admired for letting their faith influence their policy positions. Is Huckabee to be held to a different standard?

Indeed, in times when crime and out-of-wedlock births are again on the upsurge, when football players are murdered in their homes, when Christmas shoppers are gunned down in Heartland shopping malls, more Americans might well be thinking: John Adams was right when he said that passions need to be bridled "by morality and religion."

As a culture, as a people, we need to do something different. And everybody knows it.

III:

RCP asks, "Whose behind the Drudge attack on Huck?"

Not the Democrats, according to this response from a DNC spokesperson solicited by the intrepid Jonathan Martin:

"We always appreciate having our hard work noticed, and we know Mitt Romney likes to feel special, but the truth is we've been tracking Huckabee for over a year. The Romney campaign should take heart in the fact that the Drudge Report is buying their spin hook, line and sinker because nothing in that story came from us."

d:

RCP's whodunnit story links to GreenMountainPolitics, who points out that this story is Team Mitt hitting the "panic button" and that Drudge has a dog in the fight (Romney), and is willingly participating in the Romney campaign's shenanigans. The post concludes with this update: "Turns out the DNC doesn't have any idea what Team RomDrudge is talking about."

In conclusion:

What's actually going on here?

1. There is an extremely devious bunch of Dem operatives over at the DNC that don't want to face Huck. As a result, they want GOP voters to think they do want to face Huck, and are leaking this story to scare off undecided GOP primary voters.

2. Mitt (or some other rival campaign) is leaking a fraudulent story in hopes of slowing Huck's ascent.

3. The Dems are extremely sloppy, and someone let leak that they're hoping for a Huck win.

What's definitely NOT going on here?

The Dems have a strategy to help Huck win the GOP nod, and have decided to announce it to the world by having upper level DNC officials leak it to the guy with the widest readership of any politically-oriented blog.

Waterboarding has indeed saved lives, so says a former CIA agent with intimate knowledge of the Abu Zubayda interrogation.

The fact that this same agent considers it torture and is against its use is a separate issue. One can argue whether certain techniques ought or ought not be used by the US. But the admission above lays to rest oft-repeated claims that no form of torture works, so now those who would argue against its use must at least do so conceding that they will not be getting full information out of detainees.

I'd also highlight the articles here and here, that indicate that Dems and Pelosi knew about waterboarding as early as '02 via CIA briefing and were unopposed, and a recent change of heart from a Newsweek journalist after talking with experts, respectively. In particular, an excerpt from the Newsweek article:

The unfortunate truth is that it may take unsavory methods to gather intelligence. It may be true that torture doesn't work well to get at the truth (on the theory that people will lie to stop the pain). But most intelligence experts will uneasily acknowledge that aggressive interrogation measures like sleeplessness—so-called "torture lite"—can work, especially when time is of the essence. The public may have to tolerate or turn a blind eye to more of the dark side if we want more actionable intelligence. I acknowledge this with reluctance and only as a last resort.

In the days of the DrudgeReport and news cycles measured in minutes rather than days, one needs to be very careful of the conclusions they draw based on individual articles.

To wit, I pointed out yesterday that:

"If this case is representative of the pardons Huck was making, and the facts have not been twisted in this account, it will be a bridge too far for me."

I did so b/c it's hard to take years-old stories at face value without further vetting and confirmation. Remember, the story stated that Huckabee had "granted clemency" to a "crazed killer."

The Huckabee campaign website offers up the following rebuttal today:

On December 10, the Drudge Report linked to an article in The Arkansas Leader titled, "Why parole a monster like Green." Drudge links to the article as if it were a new story rather than an editorial 2004.

The editorial by Gary Feldman fails to mention:

--The Governor does not have the power to parole any prisoner. That responsibility lies with the parole board.

--The only action that Governor Huckabee took was to file a notice of intent to commute Glen Green's sentence.

--The commutation would have reduced Green's sentence to 181 years, 10 months, and 19 days.

--After the 30-day public hearing period ended, Governor Huckabee decided against commuting Green's sentence.

"Granted clemency" to a "crazed killer", and yet "Gov. Huckabee decided against communting Green's sentence." This is why I hedge my bets when trusting Drudge.

And more on this soon to come...

As the contributors here know, I've been defending Huckabee on the Dumond case because, well, his actions were defensible. The commutation of Dumond's sentence were made by Lt. Gov. Tucker under the administration of Gov. Clinton. The parole board and parole process which actually set Dumond free during the tenure of Gov. Huckabee is not under the control of the Governor, and he has little say in the process. The fact that Gov. Huckabee apparently was comfortable with Dumond being set free was not cogent to the facts of the case.

Then there was the issue of the quantity of pardons Huckabee made. That too, was readily defensible. Given that the state criminal justice system jailed tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people during the 10 years Huck was governor there (there were nearly 14K prisoners in AK on 12/31/06), there were probably 1000 cases in which a reasonable request for clemency or pardon could be made. All that was required was assuming that the Governor was being more diligent than previous administrations in rooting out such cases, and acting accordingly.

But now we have a horse of a different color. From Drudge, I caught the link to this story of another pardon:

Gov. Huckabee probably never read the confession of a demented killer named Glen Green before he made the monster eligible for parole. Green's confession
is so depraved, its sadistic details so scary that no sane, responsible adult would consider him for parole. If the governor didn't read the confession, he is guilty of dereliction of duty. But if he read the confession and still considers Green deserving of parole, he's certainly unfit to hold office. Who would free a madman who beat an 18-year-old woman with Chinese martial-arts sticks, raped her as she barely clung to life, ran over her with his car, then dumped her in the bayou, her hand reaching up, as if begging for mercy? We're publishing the gruesome picture of Green's victim on the front page because we believe her hand is reaching up to demand justice. In usual fashion, Huckabee's office didn't even contact the victim's family about the clemency.

Although he's required to by the Constitution, the governor, as is his custom, won't say why he granted clemency to this crazed killer (over the unanimous objections of the Post-Prison Transfer Board)...

...Green, a 22-year-old sergeant, kidnapped Helen Lynette Spencer on Little Rock Air Force Base, where he beat and kicked her as he tried to rape her in a secluded area. She broke loose and ran toward the barracks' parking lot, where he caught up with her and beat her with a pair of nunchucks. He then stuffed her into the trunk of his car and left her there while he cleaned up. Several hours later, he drove down Graham Road, past Loop Road and stopped near a bridge in Lonoke County. Green told investigators he put her body in the front seat and raped her because her body was still warm. He dragged Spencer out of his vehicle and put her in front of the car and ran over her several times, going back and forth. He then collected himself long enough to dump her body in Twin Prairie Bayou...

...As he grants clemency to scores of violent criminals, Huckabee's motives are the subject of speculation: Why, people are asking, is he doing it? After studying the record for several weeks, all one can say is that his actions perhaps reflect a combination of arrogance and avarice and ignorance. While his fellow governors keep electing him to top positions in their little club, he has alienated Arkansans of both parties. They're shocked at not only the amazing number of clemencies but also at the way he ignores the suffering of the victims' families, who are always the last to know when their loved one's killer is up for parole.

If this case is representative of the pardons Huck was making, and the facts have not been twisted in this account, it will be a bridge too far for me. The author of the column quoted above doesn't hide the fact that he thinks the pardons were a result of Huckabee having sympathy on those who professed a religiously-motivated change of heart in prison, but I specifically excluded those quotes because they are mere speculation on the part of the author, without any statements from Huckabee backing them up.

One thing's for sure: if Huck's stock-in-trade in AK was not explaining his decisions, particularly to the families of the victims, that won't cut in a Presidential election. He's going to have to explain why he vacated the decisions of duly appointed juries and judges.

Interesting article here, indicating that as early as '02 the CIA prepped both Repubs and Dems (including Pelosi) on waterboarding and other tactics. So did Pelosi and other Dems raise strong objections and register complaints? Far from it, they gave approval and actually asked for more. Interesting to see how the Dems actually feel about an issue when it is being decided in private behind the scenes, rather than in public as a political issue.

A short while back I posted what I thought might be unpopular opinions. In one of them I advocated a ban on assault weapons. Fredo asked a very good question that I didn't have a chance to respond to, "what is the definition of an assault rifle?" Here's my late response.

My initial thought was that assault rifles are like pornography, I know one when I see one. But that's not good enough as it's not objective. Wikipedia has a definition here. I think that's too complicated, since I know almost nothing about guns and I don't fully understand it. To my mind the definition should be very simple. There should be a general ban on civilians owning weapons which are lethal under normal circumstances that do not require the user to pull the trigger for each shot. Given SHK's analysis of the inability of a civilian militia to stand up to the US Military, I can think of no valid reason for a civilian to own a weapon that discharges multiple rounds with one depression of the trigger. I realize this is an even broader definition that should be called fully-automatic weapons instead of assault weapons. I also realize there will be a black market for these weapons. I also acknowledge that you don't need automatic weapons to kill people (like Columbine & Virginia Tech) and I'd advocate wider weapons bans, but I don't want to get kicked off OccObs ;).

Released yesterday:

• The Secure America Plan
  
  A 9-Point Strategy for Immigration Enforcement and Border Security
  
  Overview: Implement a broad-based strategy that commits the resources of the federal government to the enforcement of our immigration laws and results in the attrition of the illegal immigrant population.
  
  1. Build the Fence
  
  Ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along the border by July 1, 2010.
  
  Ensure that the border fence construction is completed by July 1, 2010.
  
  2. Increase Border Patrol
  
  Increase the number of border patrol agents.
  
  Fully support all law enforcement personnel tasked with enforcing immigration law.
  
  3. Prevent Amnesty
  
  Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected.
  
  Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.
  
  4. Enforce the Law on Employers
  
  Employment is the chief draw for most illegal immigrants and denying them jobs is the centerpiece of an attrition strategy.
  
  Impose steep fines and penalties on employers that violate the law.
  Institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system as part of the normal hiring process.
  
  Prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don't match the employees' names.
  
  5. Establish an Economic Border
  
  Move toward passage of the FairTax.
  
  The FairTax provides an extra layer of security by creating an economic disincentive to immigrate to the U.S. illegally.
  
  6. Empower Local Authorities
  
  Promote better cooperation on enforcement by supporting legislative measures such as the CLEAR Act, which aims to systematize the relationship between local law and federal immigration officials.
  
  Encourage immigration-law training for police. Local authorities must be provided the tools, training, and funding they need so local police can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.
  
  7. Ensure Document Security
  
  End exemptions for Mexicans and Canadians to the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure of foreign visitors. Since these countries account for the vast majority of foreigners coming here (85 percent), such a policy clearly violates Congress' intent in mandating this check-in/check-out system.
  
  Reject Mexico's "matricula consular" card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.
  
  8. Discourage Dual Citizenship
  
  Inform foreign governments when their former citizens become naturalized U.S. citizens.
  
  Impose civil and/or criminal penalties on American citizens who illegitimately use their dual status (e.g., using a foreign passport, voting in elections in both a foreign country and the U.S.).
  
  9. Modernize the Process of Legal Immigration
  
  Eliminate the visa lottery system and the admission category for adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.
  
  Increase visas for highly-skilled and highly-educated applicants.
  
  Expedite processing for those who serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces.
  
  Improve our immigration process so that those patiently and responsibly seeking to come here legally will not have to wait decades to share in the American dream.
  
  Governor Huckabee has always been grateful to live in a country that people are trying to break into, rather than break out of.

Now that he's flying to the fore, the opposing campaigns are obviously conducting an oppo research dump. Makes for some fun at Drudge. It's all to the good. Get it all out now. If Huck has Teflon, he'll put in the rear-view. If not, he's not the guy the GOP needs.

My guess? He's up to the challenge.

To wit:

Huck on those with AIDS ca. '92:

In 1992, Huckabee wrote, "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

Huck called homosexuality aberrant and sinful (now there's a shocker for a minister...):

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, surging in Iowa polls in the Republican presidential race, wrote on a questionnaire while running for U.S. Senate in 1992 that homosexuality is "aberrant" and "sinful."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk,"

And of course, more drum beating on the Dumond case.


UPDATE:

Huck has responded on the AIDS story. Here's a piece of what he had to say:

At the time, there was widespread concern over modes of transmission and
the possibility of epidemic. In the absence of conclusive data, my focus
was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus, following traditional medical
practices developed from our public health experience and medical science in
dealing with tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.

We now know that the virus that causes AIDS is spread differently, with
a lower level of contact than with TB. But looking back almost 20 years, my
concern was the uncertain risk to the general population – if we got it wrong,
many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political
correctness last.

My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for
dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between
the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a
realistic path toward our goals. We must prevent new infections and provide more
accessible care. We must do everything possible to transform the promise of a
vaccine and a cure into reality.

Assuming this poll is true (ht: Drudge), Huck has Iowa even more locked up than I previously suspected.

With Huck's numbers also soaring across the South (namely in recent SC and NC polls), Huck is beginning to look the Southern parochial choice. With IA and SC setting up for him, he's setting up a multi-state tear that would give him tons of mo' heading into the 2/5 national primary. On his current trajectory, FL could end up being in play as well (which would be devastating to Rudy).

Outside of the South, NH is still critical. While winning is probably out of the question for Huck, a strong showing (3rd or better) in NH is essential for him to be seen as someone who can win outside of the South. That would place him ahead of Rudy, Mitt or McCain in a state with a relatively small evangelical vote and a tradition of voting for libertarians.

To do so, I think it would be smart for Huck to pivot now. His numbers are surging, so the natural instinct will be "if ain't broke, don't fix it." But it's important for him to remember he's still the least known of the major candidates nationally. While the religious right has gotten the message that Huck is their guy, there are also large swaths of independent and moderate Republican voters who are still judging the man. Many are turned off by overtly "preachy" language, and campagin stops like the pastor convention he just attended are not helpful in wooing such voters.

Rather than acting on the natural instinct to shore up recent gains, I'd like to see Huck move into the mode of wooing voters outside of his core constituency. These voters are still there to be had, but with the white hot spotlight now shining directly on Huck, the opportunity won't be there long. In short order, many Americans will be deciding if Huck is a religious man who is suited to be the President of a Repbulic without an established religion, or if 4 years of Sunday Sermons will be too much to take. Time for Huck to open his big-tent wide: he's got nothing left to prove to those of us who care about social issues.

Check out the arrogance of these bastages.