Okay this is a hard one.  The shooting was a tragedy, everyone's worst nightmare.  But I dont think Huckabee can be blamed (even in small part) for it.  He makes a convenient target for a lot of people and I understand people want someone to blame.  Huckabee reduced the sentence for a teenager that was looking at 107 years.  I find it horrific that he was facing a longer term for theft than child rape.  That's what's wrong here.  Also, by the time he was an adult he should have been facing harsher sentences.

Unfortunately, this doesnt matter to most people as I have already read several slanted articles about this and see how they lead people to blame Huckabee.  Yes it kills any hope I had for him to run.  I do appreciate how he's handled himself in interviews, like the one above, and he certainly has not dodged the issue.

Michelle, I basically agree with you about Huckabee's involvement with the Clemmons case.  He seems to have played a minor role in it and the criminal justice system failed several times over after Huckabee initially reduced Clemmons prison sentence. 

That being said, the case does highlight Huckabee's soft record on crime.  By reducing sentences and granting pardons at an amazingly high rate, Huckabee virtually ensured these types of crimes would be committed by criminals who should have still been behind bars. Being soft on crime is not a virtue in my book and Huckabee, just like any other politician, should not get a free pass on it.  My feeling is if this criminal had been granted clemency by Bill Clinton instead of Mike Huckabee, conservatives would probably have a different take on it.

good article.

two questions, what does Chuck Norris think?

Huck, known for reducing the state deficit, saved how much money by being "forgiving and merciful"?

also, good point about profane nature of the discussion but I think I would have opted for calloused

I do think this is a very tragic situation, and honestly, who really would think a 16 year old necessarily would deserve a 106 year prison sentence (I believe that's years he was given)? That said... the more and more crimes I see being comitted, the more and more I begin to agree with them. But it's certainly not how I felt 10 years ago.

Here's what I really think about the whole situation... IE: the reason why this has been posted in the first place, and the reason WHY it's making news.

The Democrats ARE still upset over the issues that occured with Michael Dukakis (sp?). They WANT to use this to their advantage to potentially hurt the election chances of Huckabee. Whether or not he intends to run again is besides the point, but this has become news SIMPLY because of the fact that he is in the political arena, and this is something negative that can be tied to him. I certainly understand and accept the media's blitz on this.

Democrats however are hoping really to take it to the next level. I honestly think though that they're ignoring what I think was the real problem with his campaign. His tank ride is what really hurt his campaign. There are two things about this tank ride that HURT his campaign:

1. By riding the tank to his speech, he brought validity to the argument from his opponents that he had no military experience and was therefore unfit to run. By riding in the tank, he basically acknowledges that he sees people think he's unfit to run, and this stunt is to try to prove them wrong (which it doesn't).
2. After the tank run, the media went WILD with it. Every now and then, there's a story that gets picked up, and the media just goes nuts with it. A few examples are like the Elian Gonzales fiasco, or most recently, the Tiger Woods fender bender with the fire hydrant. These are stories that for the most part, no one really cares about, but they are stories that the media just has a frenzie over, not specifically because of any important reason, but because it's become the big thing at that moment, and the whole act continues to build momentum upon itself.

The TANK drive IS what hurt Michael Dukakis, not Willie Horton. I would be very interested to see a poll that showed why people did not vote for Dukakis (Tank vs Horton).

During his campaign, the ONLY people screaming about Willie Horton were the Republicans... but EVERYONE was talking about the tank drive.

For the Democrats to focus on this with Mike Huckabee and to parallel them as a closed coffin for Huckabee's future and potential campaign runs is really a very myopic viewpoint. I don't think at all that this has any significant bearing on his future campaign endavours, and the fact that he delt with it "head-on" will work very much in his favor.

the Howard Dean "booooyah" speech was another defining moment.  I don't really understand how such things as the above picture could have that much impact.  So, I'd like to see the data.

It's pretty much common knowledge... I don't think anyone bothered to take a poll as to WHICH reason caused him not to win (never seen a poll conducted like that of any presidential candidate). But here's something I found online:

Public relations failure

Michael Dukakis on tank

Dukakis has been blamed for allowing "liberal" to come to be considered a derogatory term. He was criticized during the campaign for a perceived softness on defense issues, particularly the controversial "Star Wars" SDI program, which Dukakis promised to scale down (although not cancel). In response to this, Dukakis orchestrated what would become the key image of his campaign, albeit not for the reasons he intended. In September 1988, Dukakis visited the General Dynamics plant in Michigan to take part in a photo op in an M1 Abrams tank. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom had been photographed in a similar situation in 1986, riding in a Challenger while wearing a scarf; although somewhat out of character, the image was effective and helped Thatcher's re-election prospects. Dukakis' "tank moment" was much less successful. Filmed wearing a safety helmet that seemed too large for his head, Dukakis looked awkward, out of place, and decidedly uncomfortable in a military setting. Footage of Dukakis was used by the Bush campaign as evidence he would not make a good commander-in-chief, and "Dukakis in the tank" remains shorthand for backfired public relations outings.

Todd, I have to respectfully disagree with you here. First, let me state the obvious: Dukakis's photo-op in the tank wasa  PR disaster and it didn't help him at all.

That being said, the Willie Horton was absolutely devastating and is considered by political scientists to be one of the most effective political ads of all-time. The Wikipedia article states, correctly, that focus groups consisting of voters leaning towards Dukakis switched thier support after viewing the ads.

This is not surprising.  Crime was a much bigger issue in the 1980's than it is today.  Violent crime rates were much higher during the 70's and 80's. This was before most American cities were cleaned up by local conservative civic leaders (e.g. Giuliani in NYC) after which crime rates were drastically reduced.

Liberal policies, like those implemented by Dukakis, were  prevalent at the local and state levels and directly led to these high crime rates.  Lest we forget, while Dukakis was governor, the Massachusetts Supreme Court extended the state's furlough prison to include first degree murderers.  Even the liberal Massachusetts' legislature recognized this policy as borderline clinically insane and immediately drafted a bill to overrule the Court's decision.  Inexplicably, Dukakis vetoed the bill.  To make matters worse, Dukakis later bragged about his state's furlough program while on the campaign trail, drawing attention to one of the main issues that would doom his candidacy.

The charges that the ad was racist were always silly.  The ad was devastatingly effective because it highlighted Dukakis's naive stance on an important issue.

Lets not forget Sonny Crockeet and Ricardo Tubbs, they helped clean up Miami.

I certainly agree with you, but I just question which was worse, and while that ad campaign might have been effective, that doesn't discount the media blitz on the tank ride.

You have to remember that most people are NOT politically charged. Most people are stupid, and remember only the things that are fed to them through the media. You ask "most" people what they remember of Howard Dean, and they'll remember "Yeeeaaahhhh!!!!!!".

I'm pretty confident (short of creating my own polling group) that if you ask someone what they remember about Dukakis (other than losing the election) it will be the "ridiculous" tank ride. Personally, I didn't see the big deal, but I was young, and couldn't even vote back then anyway. I didn't remember anything about Horton, but I did remember that his tank ride was somehow bad... (just didn't know why).

that's good info on the helmet; I always wondered why he wore that ridickelus looking thing.  That was what did it.  He'd have been fine if he'd have been standing (oops, maybe he was standing ar ar). and waving hatless.