A very bad day for Huck UPDATED
BAD DAY AT HUCK ROCK:
On his way to leadership of the Republican field, an old blunder is coming back to bite Mike Huckabee on the rear.
While this probably will help him with the nuts who drive the Iowa GOP caucus, the AP's Andrew DeMillo continued his stellar reporting on Huckabee today, here looking back at some incredibly stupid things The Huckster said in his 1992 race against Dale Bumpers about AIDS and AIDS sufferers. This story has been headlined on Drudge and also gets a strong follow on the influential Politico. Politico calls "incendiary" Huck's view -- as expressed in written answers to an exhaustive list of 1992 AP questions (then-AP bureau chief Bill Simmons, author?) -- that homosexuality is aberrant, that AIDS sufferers should be quarantined and that the celebrities calling for more AIDS research, like Elizabeth Taylor, should pay for it themselves if they thought it was so special. A "sunny and compassionate" candidate? Not exactly.
Politico also clucks in reporting this about his inept handling of the Iran question. He is beginning to look increasingly, in the eyes of many important writers, like a man not ready for prime time, except perhaps on a cable talk show as comic relief. The NY Times, however, continues to soft-pedal Huck's gaffes to the extent possible, suggesting, unbelievably, that an LA Times story yesterday was the first time anyone knew parole board members had said Huckabee pressured them to release Dumond. They apparently haven't invented Google or Lexis-Nexis at the NY Times, else they could have found abundant reporting in this over the years in the D-G, the Arkansas Times and, this week, the Huffington Post. The Times team has bought Huck's shtick, hook, line and barnyard clunkers. (UPDATE: The Times has updated its article to reference earlier Ark. Times reporting on the Dumond scandal.)
Here's Huckabee's statement. It's a dodge. He says he was erring on the side of public safety "not political correctness." Problem is, much more was known about AIDS in 1992 than he lets on. He also avoids completely his poisonous statements on homosexuality. This might work in the Iowa caucuses -- even be an advantage. But he has some rough sledding ahead from the national press. For starters, here's a hammering on Daily Kos. Somebody please shoot this to Hendrik Hertzberg.
Talking Points Memo rounds up some, but not all, of the Huck's recent prevarications, flip-flops and theological oddities. This theme has legs and don't think the talk show hosts don't read these trend-setters. They do.
I can't help but wondering what else that 1992 questionnaire with AP says from the extra-large mouth of The Huckster? Do tell, AP. Do tell.
NOTED: Though the AP research is the cornerstone of the new story line, it turns out the doughty bunch at People for the American Way had dug up this angle a couple of days ago by researching the record of the antideluvian Huck of 1992. The NY Times and others have been too busy being charmed by The Huckster to look. Based on comments at that time, it sounds like he's happy to write off the cohabitation vote, gay or straight, not a small number of people:
Q: Do you approve of a man and a woman living together out of marriage?
Huckabee: Whether or not I approve of a man and woman living together is not as much of an issue as whether or not it is right and whether or not God approves of it. The "living together" relationship is demeaning to the highest expression of human love and commitment. I reject it as an alternate lifestyle, because it robs people of the highest possible relationship one can experience: marriage. We should always strive to encourage every human being to experience his or her full potential and possibilities.
As for Huckabee's assertion in 2007 that he was trying to play it safe in 1992 by suggesting a quarantine for AIDS sufferers, the Right Wing Watch of PFAW notes:
This was 1992 – four years after the federal government distributed a pamphlet penned by then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop entitled “Understanding AIDS” which explained that the disease could not be contacted through everyday contact. And is not as if Huckabee just didn’t see the pamphlet, since it “was sent to all 107 million households in the United States in 1988, the largest public health mailing ever done.”
And here's one on which a hearty horse laugh is in order. It's a comment by Andrew Sulivan, a gay conservative writer who has been kind to Huckabee, but who was not a bit impressed on learning of his gay and AIDS nonsense. He wrote the following before Huck's non-response AIDS idiocy response. I laughed out loud when I read it, given Huck's long inability to admit error. Said Sullivan:
It is a crisis for his campaign. But I hope he also sees that it is an opportunity for a statement of inclusion, compassion, and regret.
Inclusion, compassion, regret? You won't find those words in the Huckabee Concordance.
Also on the Huck front: Fred Thompson on the attack, comparing Huck to Clinton.
Also: A solid analysis of how Mike Huckabee blundered into the Wayne Dumond case. The anti-Clinton angle is undeniable. His explanation on this isn't washing either. It's just a footnote to the NYT, naturally. They've found a smiling, shoeshining conservative they can love and they intend to stand by their man.



Comments
Yet another Huckabite...
AP - Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk."
Posted by: Gaylord
|
December 8, 2007 10:08 AM
what happens when you combine overly partisan politics, religion, and state power ? (especially with regard to law enforcement/enactment and spending public funds)
you get Autocracy. (what the FF's would've called "Tyranny")
add Corporations to the mix, you get Oligarchy.
historic balances between state power and individual (and state) prerogatives, have been on a diminishing incline for over 200 years (imo, GW's put down of the Whiskey Rebellion marked it's beginning)
in 2008, the overarching political question seems to me to be 'what kind of Autocracy/Tyranny shall the U.S. be?' (and too damn few asking why it should be one at all)
MH never acknowledges the role of partisanship with reference to his clemency tidal-wave. the same of W's DOJ transgressions. (and i expect neither will the DOJ of the next POTUS, whoever she may be)
slippery slope hell, this is a rocket-propelled race to the bottom.
Posted by: muleboy303
|
December 8, 2007 10:45 AM
Brilliant analysis, mb303!! re: "rocket-propelled race to the bottom." ==>The bottom is probably 400' under water, to boot. I did enjoy Edwards' comment about exchanging corporate Republibaptists for corporate Lemmocrats NOT a path to change/reform. Oligarcy 'r Us, supporting our lives of meaningless comfort. Back to HDTV...
Posted by: Larry
|
December 8, 2007 11:13 AM
For another Huckabite let us not forget that when he was Lt. Governor (I think) he preached a sermon at First Baptist Church in Conway stating that prayer can "cure" homosexuality.
Posted by: Charles Eddie Smith
|
December 8, 2007 11:22 AM
While running for Senate, I interviewed Huck for some local and regional gay publications. At the time, the World Health Organization stated 75% of the world's HIV was transmitted heterosexually. While inhaling two Big Macs right before my eyes, he blamed the pandemic on bisexuals.
Lest we forget the struggles Arkansas AIDS patients had under Huck (remember "waiting lists" for medication?), some are documented in the following two parts of a four part YouTube video I produced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrs9jJStEOI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laHh06dYctM
Posted by: HappyCamper
|
December 8, 2007 11:37 AM
ALWAYS HOLD MY BREATH WHEN I TRY THIS.
Posted by: jazzy
|
December 8, 2007 12:23 PM
Seriously?
The "Huffington Post" and "solid analysis" in the same sentence?
Isn't that something like "Max Brantley" and "journalism" being tied together?
Posted by: Arkansas Red
|
December 8, 2007 12:51 PM
Boy, Huffington just made my day. I was carrying on the other night on this blog about how the facts of Huck's involvement in the release of Dumond aren't in question....facts can be checked. But the questions we should all be asking is WHY Huckabee wanted Dumond released and who helped him or pressured him to come to the aid of poor ball-less Wayne Dumond.
Huffington with Max's help, explains just about what I figured in the first place. Jay Cole....what can ya say about this huckster...oops...ok...huckster. Any friend of Jay Cole should be held in great contempt, their wisdom should be questioned every time. And look at the frothing rightwing journalist involved in the setting free of the Dumond....so obsessed, one of them kills off Mrs. Dumond in one story and has her alive and well 5 months later. Republican journalism at it's best!
Sure nuff, Wayne Dumond is Huckabee's Willie Horton. I doubt it will be the rock that pulls Huck to the bottom of the ocean, but it sure won't help him any. I never voted for Bill Clinton, but I will be forever thankful that the rabid pursuit of the Clintons by the vast rightwing conspiracy, Ken Starr and the whole Monica witch hunt opened my eyes to the horrors of the Republican Party and caused me to run away from them as hard as I could.
I will be voting for a Clinton next year and America will be a better place with the Clintons back in the White House. I only hope they won't be interested in turning the other cheek this time around. A whole lot of the Bush administration should wind up in prison or swinging from a rope.
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
December 8, 2007 01:07 PM
It's like watching a train wreck with NO one getting hurt...except the career of the idiot engineer who drove it off the track. I enjoy the hell out of sweet justice when it periodically rolls around. And, Huck deserves to be held accountable for believing, much less spouting, such hateful/ignorant crap. Huck aside, it's damn embarrassing to have him/Janet out there representing our beleaguered state. Clinton's brilliance, after all, can only carry us so far.
Sadly, these recent revelations will only serve to get him more votes from his evangelical Iowan brethren. 'Putting all those homos together (they're the only ones who get aids, after all) and away from 'polite' society is a brilliant idea, Brother Huck!'
Posted by: zelda
|
December 8, 2007 01:57 PM
Well, A-Red, since you don't believe that Huffington did a solid analysis on Huck, why don't you just detail for us all their errors and misstatements on the issue. As Desi possibly said to Lucy, "You got some splainin' to do, suckah!!" Just tell us where Ariana has gone beyond the strictres of good reportingand what facts she has wrong.
Huckabee handles the truth as if it is a hot potato. I say it's time someone stuck it down his backside and smashed it. The grimacing and angry shouting will be worth it. Maybe Huck ought to talk o Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker on how to handle such moments of embarrassment.
Even better, at their next news conference, Janet can reach over, grab Mikey's balls, and say, "Girls, I promise you he won't ever do such dumb shit again, so help me God." Just for effect, she ought to squeeze them hard enough to make ol' Mikey sweat and flinch.
Posted by: Jake da Snake
|
December 8, 2007 02:39 PM
"Facts!" Is that new food craze? We don't need no stinkin facts mon.
Posted by: eLwood
|
December 8, 2007 04:31 PM
Hmmm. Wonder if the "liberal media" will continue lioninzing Mr. Huckabee after this revelation.
But you'd think it would be something they'd have known about for some time now, if they did good investigative reporting.
Which leads one to the question whether the "liberal media" is really all that interested in reporting stories that demonstrate the ugly and pervasive discrimination against LGBT folks that pervades our society....
ARK. BLOG: Answer: No. With some limited exceptions.
Posted by: MuddlingThrough
|
December 8, 2007 05:33 PM
Huckabee gets a lot of things wrong, in my view, but what do you expect a minister to think about whether homosexuality is a "sin"? Every major religion teaches this, at least in its catechism. A Catholic priest, a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or any other Protestant minister, or Jewish rabbi would say a version of the same thing. These same religions teach that adultery is a "sin," too. Denying gays or adulterers their rights as citizens is another matter, and this is where to measure Huckabee or any other politician. Gays want acceptance as moral equals with straights, and maybe they're entitled, but the best they can hope for is the "acceptance" that adulterers get, which is a wink and a maybe a nudge, but not acceptance as "moral equals" on the part of the great majority of the public. You could look it up.
Posted by: Casimer Pulaski
|
December 8, 2007 05:43 PM
To say, almost in the same breath, that a disease is "a genuine plague," but "it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," as Mr. Huckabee did in 1992, is almost beyond belief.
What kind of heart could embrace such dark thoughts? What kind of man could fail, at last, to renounce them?
Posted by: TAP
|
December 8, 2007 06:30 PM
I lived with my wife before we got married and I hope my kids live with their boyfriends before they get married. I think a test drive is a great idea. Lots of people act differently when they park their house slippers under your bed. Good thing I don't give a FK what people like Huckabee think.
I figure if I was gay I wouldn't give a FK what Huckabee or any other Pharisee thought of me either. What do gay people living together in sin think of Huckabee the Gift Whore? How many gay people living together in sin helped spring a sex offender who went and killed 2 innocent women?
Clearly....and getting more clear everyday, Mike Huckabee is wrong for America. He better have Jennings back up the Brinks truck to campaign headquarters and start hauling out the cash to be buried now. His ship is sinking......see....WWII'er were right...loose lips do sink ships. And as the balmy foreskin...oops, tide slip up over Huckabee's head, we bid a fond adieu to a small-minded jerk whose reach has exceeded his oily grasp. Sayonara......
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
December 8, 2007 06:33 PM
a bad day for Huck indeed, except for ...
1. the polls (MH now leads in MICH..wtf?)
2. the money (today's take quadrupled the previous day, almost $100k)
3. this "sh*t-rain" is preceding the vote in the state whose GOP voters are most receptive to his "values", manners, and method.
If Huckabee gets more than 35% of Iowa's votes and beats the 2nd placer by more than 10%, all of today's headlines will be then dismissed as "old news".
i've seen this movie before, and learned from it. as yet i've read nothing so far that would preclude Huckabee from a spot on the ticket (from my estimation of the electorate and/or the GOP establishment replicating 1964)
Posted by: muleboy303
|
December 8, 2007 07:09 PM
Beware of SATAN in 2008
For if "SATAN" eclipses 'health care', 'immigration', 'the economy', or 'the war' to become one of the top issues in the 2008 elections, then the turnout could be historically low and the results very close. Factor in possibly 3 or 4, perhaps even 5 candidates capable of getting more than 3% of the vote, and the winner could get less than Lincoln's 39% in 1860.
A referendum between "GLAAD(EMS)" and "GO(d)P'ERS" will be the ugliest, most divisive campaign in modern U.S. history, continuing and magnifying the current animosities throughout the next President's term, regardless of who prevails in November.
Posted by: muleboy303
|
December 8, 2007 07:52 PM
"Huckabee gets a lot of things wrong, in my view, but what do you expect a minister to think about whether homosexuality is a "sin"?..."--Casimer Pulaski
You're right, it's not startling nor unexpected that Huck, a preacher, would see it as a sin. But Huck's not running for America's Preacher. He's running to be America's Leader. And suggesting such scientifically/ethically unsound claptrap like turning AIDS sufferers into caged lepers is as un-presidential as Janet in a wet t-shirt contest is undignified. These statements are a perfect example of why a preacher like Huck should NOT be making public policy. But after his abhorrent treatment of the young incest victim when he first became governor, I'll ALWAYS expect him to make decisions based on his personal God view rather than on sound public policy. No matter what he says it will Preacher President if he wins.
Posted by: zelda
|
December 8, 2007 08:03 PM
I understand why a preacher might think homosexuality is a sin, but there is something more dark than faith that makes one believe it is a "God-wants-you-to-die-a-painful, lonely-death" sin, while adultery, fornication and failing to care for the hungry, sick and imprisoned fall in the "go and sin no more" category.
Posted by: TAP
|
December 8, 2007 09:24 PM
A famous nobody once said..."Republican" is located in the dictionary....between "repugnant" and "reptile".....and it is fools like this ( MIke Huckabee)that illustrate that point fully.he should be ashamed of he comments about human beings ,GAYS ,and people with HIV/AIDS .i wonder how many arkansan's died of AIDS while he was GOV with no money or leadership during his terms in office his waiting list for Aids Meds killed people its really no better today and Mike Beebe has said nothing about AIDS FUNDING in the next session people will die just like a large amount of them did during Mike Huckabee rein of terror on the AIDS community in Arkansas.
Posted by: RLR
|
December 8, 2007 11:12 PM
Whether or not I approve of a man and woman living together is not as much of an issue as whether or not it is right and whether or not God approves of it<<
Seems like in the 21st Century people would get wise to this god-human agency facade. If there is by any stretch of human imagination a god seems such god would have more important issues than the sexual obsession of preachers and politicians. Maybe chasv can have a talk with her and find out the truth.
Posted by: eLwood
|
December 9, 2007 01:59 AM
I think it is interesting how you folks proclaimed a few months back that Huck had no chance in Iowa (or evern the Repub primary what-so-ever) and here he is gaining popularity. He is certainly has a chance, and if he keeps getting momentum, has a great chance of ending up on the ticket.
I think this shows that Max's early assessment and declaration of Hucky as a non-candidate were waaaayyyyy off.
Now that he has been proven wrong, he tries to start this shit storm of issues from 15 years ago. Muleboy said it best...we have seen this movie before, there really is nothing that you are reporting that should keep him off the ticket. But once again, the Arkansas Times is not a legitimate news source....just a liberal "trash the Republicans" dish rag, good for lining your pet bird's cage.
Posted by: Catfish Eater
|
December 9, 2007 02:16 PM
Thank God for Max and the AT,,,,all other MSM, print, radio, t.v., are firmly in the bushco.
camp, even the NYT and WashPost have gone over to the dark side. We need our old
Ark Gazette now more than ever.
I feel like I've fallen to the bottom of the rabbit hole.
Posted by: jazzy
|
December 9, 2007 02:38 PM
Now that I'm looking into this Huckabee/Dumond case, I'm astounded at the similarities to Bush's mindset and actions - the lack of judgment, the undue influence, the lawlessness, the resulting disaster, then the lies, the lack of accountability, the coverup - this is not a man we need in the White House.
Murray Wass' original reporting on the case from the Arkansas Times is a must-read. Money quote, citing Deborah Suttlar, former member of the parole board in question:
"For Governor Huckabee to say that he had no influence with the board is something that he knows to be untrue. He came before the board and made his views known that [Dumond] should have been paroled ... "
Suttlar noted that just prior to Huckabee's appearance before the board the board had voted 4-1 against Dumond's parole. After Huckabee's board appearance, her colleagues largely reversed themselves, voting 4-1 for Dumond's release.
"Why did all the votes change?" Suttlar asked. The board members knew the governor's position. And Huckabee knows what influence a governor has over a board. Who's going to turn down a governor?"
Max Brantley, executive editor of the Arkansas Times, put it best:
"The whole deal about the Dumond case, and it can be overanalyzed, was that this was a bad guy with a proven record of sexual misconduct and violence. This is the last guy you want to set free.... And Huckabee formed the judgment to do this not after consulting anyone but after being sold a story and buying it. It's kind of like Bush and weapons and mass destruction
Posted by: jazzy
|
December 9, 2007 02:57 PM