No need to explain -- but it was nice of you to take the time.

Yes, I meant the topic is sensitive -- when we start discussing what Mike should do or should not do, that he may be remiss, or that he may have acted inapprorpriately -- or may be perceived to have acted as such -- or what efforts critics may attempt or the method in which they might employ such efforts -- (I mean why start giving them ideas??). It is not a question at all that a H/A member is criticizing -- it is all about what a "guest" coming aboard to review could take away from our questions and concerns and attempt to use against us or our candidate. That was the whole reason we had the running Members Thread -- to discuss these very issues -- to afford everyone the opportunity to discuss our thoughts, concerns, fears, questions -- but at all times keeping these levels of discussion amongst ourselves. It is unimportant what is being said all over the internet. What matters is what is being said on Huck's Army that could be misinterpreted. Again, that is what we attempted to do in having the Members Only thread -- and that is all I was suggesting.

But I appreciate your efforts to explain -- so, thanks.

The more important issue was the article writen by Adam Graham. I thought he did a wonderful job and the article went a long way in addressing many of our concerns.

I appreciate it, and I will give your words careful thought, but at this point, I honestly don't understand why this topic needs to be treated differently.

When GH criticize McCain during the general for suspending his campaign, we had a healthy argument here about whether or not he should have done that - some of us felt that he should not have criticized McCain publicly during such a tight election and said as much. There have been more than a few times that we have had such disagreements here - rarely have they needed to go to the MO forum. The fundraising issue didn't go MO until things started getting personal & some were airing things that were not common knowledge nor did they need to be.

What I believe substantially distinguishes HA from other political support groups is not only that we can disagree & argue with civility - and without losing friendships - but that (despite criticisms from certain political quarters) we do not follow GH blindly or unquestioningly as so many others seem to with their political favorites (I will mention no names though the temptation is strong! ). Along the lines of what Adam mentioned in his article - people who are looking for a perfect man to run for POTUS are guaranteed to come up disappointed no matter who they support.

Most of the people here are lovers of truth. We have no delusions here. We support GH because his values & principles are close enough to ours to trump his imperfections. Ignoring his imperfections or censoring the critical discussion of him will make us little more than a cheerleading squad. And I don't believe that's what people are looking for when they come to HA.

I believe it makes sense to use MO when we want to devil's advocate an issue, or for airing doubts & concerns that are private &/or personal - people in danger of jumping ship who want to talk about their issues with others but don't want it to become a press release - but if we're going to have to essentially hide in the closet to deal with all the 'slings & arrows' being launched at our guy, we're going to not only succeed in shutting out visitors from those criticisms, but also the responses that would resolve them for potential supporters. On a substantially lesser point, I think it also tends to stunt regular board discussion.

But this is nothing more than my opinion, and worth the paper it's written on! I will certainly defer to the moderators & honor whatever their wishes are in this.

I agree with voter that these kind of discussions need to be MO because when one of our moderators recently quit Huck Pac, it was listed on the internet giving the impression that GH's followers were against him too and leaving. We don't need to give GH rivals ammunition to post on other sites to prove GH was wrong in what he did. Unfortunately, they will use just some of what is written....that is anything to put Mike Huckabee in a bad light, and because it's from Huck's Army it will be more devastating that from other sites.

Just my thoughts.

My understanding was that it was that person's desire to announce their resignation as AR coordinator as a blog entry which led to the furor you describe rather than his discussion of it here. I am not aware of anyone blogging that person's discussion of their resignation here as part of some kind of mass exodus of Huck's supporters.

At any rate, as I said in my post, MO makes sense for "airing doubts & concerns that are private &/or personal - people in danger of jumping ship who want to talk about their issues with others but don't want it to become a press release" - that fully covers the situation you are referring to.

I doubt anyone is giving critics any ideas which they don't already have. A perusal of the comments across the 'net (including those in reply to Adam) should show that.

It seems just obvious that in excess of a thousand grants of clemency in ten years is uncommon, and controversial on its face --even before one gets to the episodes which went bad. Therefore, it was bound to be fertile ground for attack with some target audiences, anyway.

People who rate law-and-order as a top issue are not likely to look favorably upon any executive who makes much use of clemency. I suspect if you asked the average person on the street whether Governors and Presidents should make grants of clemency, I bet the average person (without careful thought) would say reflexively that executives should use it sparingly. Maybe once or twice in a whole term, at most. IOW, I'm betting Joe Schmo is instinctively with Romney, Palin, and Pawlenty on this one.

So while the likelihood of us providing fuel to the critics is extremely low (IMO) ; the need to flood rebuttals to those pervasive criticisms is necessary, and urgent, imo. What I do hope we do here at HA is float compelling rationales for why the Huckabee clemency policies and practices, are wise (even if imperfect) and not reckless, and naive, as his detractors suggest.

But, really, my primary target audience is not the unfriendly lurkers skulking around to amuse themselves on what we write. My primary audience is Gov. Huckabee. I take it for granted (based on Mike Huckabees preference for ordinary folks over professional political strategists) that Sarah Huckabee and other staff members surf this forum periodically (at least I hope they do), and use this place as a help to think through the matters of the moment.

Verticon, FWIW, I don't think we should take it for granted. I think it is best that we send our concerns & suggestions directly to HuckPAC. It is entirely possible that they may have someone keeping an eye on us as a "thermostat" of Huck supporters, but since it is not certain that they do - or if they do, how often they visit or how closely they keep up with us - I believe we should be pro-active. The more of us they hear from, the more likely we will see a positive response. After all that we have seen, I do not doubt at all the political "savvy" of GH - but this has to be a sensitive issue & one that he is probably feeling understandably defensive on, so I think such feedback would be beneficial.

Sometimes I will tell my husband after Huckabee makes a comment, "Oh, he got that from Huck's Army!" Like the comment on how we need to rebuild the Republican party from the ground up, starting at the Precinct level (on the issue of third parties). That has been my soapbox issue here.

There have been several instances that make me think maybe Huckabee comes here every day to feel our pulse. That is one reason, too, that I want to be encouraging to him, as well as to help work through these issues.

As a child, I was often told by my parents: "Put the best construction on everything." That is what I try to do. Not exactly "spin," but try to see things through Governor Huckabee's (or whoever's) eyes. For often, with further investigation, my own experience that humbles me, or seeing through another's eyes I find that I was short-sighted and misinformed.

With Governor Huckabee, I want to give him every benefit of the doubt, while still acknowledging he has imperfections as a human. But I like to look for growth in a person, too--not just what he did ten years ago. We all have to slightly adjust our perceptions when we see the picture more fully. We have to become wiser, as well as more reserved in judgment.

But to me, Governor Huckabee is essentially the same as he was as a pastor or as a radio announcer. He is a man of faith and warmth for people and trust in God. He has a tremendous gift for taking conservative and time-honored principles and weaving them into policies that elevate people and freedom. He is who and what America needs as a leader--and President--because of the gifts God has given him, not because of any fame or fortune his accomplishments might bring.

Actually, Huckabee has been talking about the need for re-building the party from the ground up for almost as long as I've been watching him (late 2007). It is best to see things in a positive light - I don't disagree with that. But I do believe that it is important to do so while looking at things realistically & it would be unlikely that he would be watching our board - certainly not with any regularity - considering how full & busy his schedule is. It is much more likely that someone from HuckPAC would be doing so, if anyone is, and giving him general or summary info about the sentiments here as well as out in the blogosphere. Otherwise, it would be too much to keep up with with all that he is doing.

You never know! Actually, I was mostly teasing about Huckabee coming here and caring what I said. But just in case...

Maybe it is just like my mother and father used to say, "Great minds run in the same track." Maybe it just seems like he is stealing our ideas. Now, I am really getting into trouble. I better quit.

Agreed. He wouldn't have the time. But, if Sarah (or another staff person) peeked in to see what threads were/are hot, and she (or whomever) saw some interesting conversations its not unreasonable to imagine her saying, hey dad look @ this one or that one, I think some of the HA people are on to something.

I'm with you there, but the problem is that it all begins with "If".

At least if you sent something to HuckPAC, you know that someone associated with him will read it & that makes it a little more certain.

(And IF someone monitors our board, PLUS you send something to HuckPAC, you have two different people considering what you are saying - just in case one of them decides not to pass on the point, the other might think differently!)

Not to keep this issue going on forever, but I was surprised to read about Haley Barbour's pardons at GOP12

http://www.gop12.com/2009/12/pardon-me-haley.html

Slate's Radley Balko says it's Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (and not Mike Huckabee) that should have to answer pardon questions from potential 2012 primary voters.

Balko traces the unexplained conversion in Barbour's record since 2007.



[In a 2006 case] A Barbour spokesman put it bluntly and broadly, "The governor hasn't pardoned anyone, be it alive or deceased. The governor isn't going to issue a pardon here."

And then he started to. Over the last two years, as reported by the Jackson Free Press, Barbour has pardoned, granted clemency to, or suspended the sentences of at least five convicted murderers, four of whom killed their wives or girlfriends. Those four are:

* Bobby Hays Clark, who in 1996 shot his ex-girlfriend in the neck and beat her boyfriend with a broom handle. Clark, who had a previous aggravated assault conviction, was sentenced to 38 years. Barbour pardoned him last year without notifying the family of Clark's victim.

* Michael David Graham, who in 1989 shot his ex-wife point-blank with a shotgun while she waited at a traffic light. Barbour suspended Graham's life sentence, and he was released.

* Clarence Jones, who stabbed his ex-girlfriend 22 times in 1992. She had previously filed multiple assault and trespassing charges against him. He was sentenced to life in prison. Barbour pardoned him last year.

* Paul Joseph Warnock, who in 1989 shot his girlfriend in the back of the head as she slept. He was sentenced to life in prison in 1993. Barbour pardoned him last year.

Barbour also pardoned William James Kimble, convicted and sentenced to life for robbing and murdering an elderly man in 1991.

None of these men were pardoned because of concerns that they didn't receive a fair trial or could be innocent. Instead, all five were enrolled in a prison trusty program that had them doing odd jobs around the Mississippi governor's mansion.

Helpful....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/sup ... tml?hpt=T2

Justices rule 6-3 that life sentence for teen robber is unconstitutional
Court finds that life sentences for teens who don't kill are "cruel and unusual"
Case involved Florida teen Terrance Graham, who participated in home invasions
Court ruled in 2005 that defendants under 18 cannot be executed
Washington (CNN) -- Sentencing juvenile criminals to life in prison without parole is "cruel and unusual" punishment, especially when their crime is not murder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, found such a sentence for a 16-year-old armed robber from Florida was unconstitutional.

The court concluded life behind bars without the chance of even being considered for possible release was not justified for those offenders who may lack full "culpability" for their actions because of their ages.

"A state need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The appeal came from Terrance Graham, who was 16 and 17 when he took part in a series of violent home-invasion robberies while on parole for another felony.

The high court in 2005 said juvenile murders cannot be executed, and Kennedy applied the same standards in this case, saying a "national consensus" had developed against life without parole sentences for those under 18 at the time of their crimes.


Child legal advocates had argued many states lack adequate resources to handle young inmates given long sentences, including a lack of proper jailhouse counseling. Few studies have been conducted on the psychological and penological effects of young defendants facing life in prison at such a young age, said the nonprofit Equal Justice Initiative.

"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law," Kennedy wrote. "This the Eighth Amendment does not permit."

He was supported by the court's four more liberal justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, who said the sentence in this case was too harsh. But in cases of juveniles "who commit nonhomicide crimes far more reprehensible than the conduct at issue here," life with parole may be acceptable, he said.

"What about Milagro Cunningham, a 17-year-old who beat and raped an 8-year-old girl before leaving her to die under 197 pounds of rock in a recycling bin in a remote landfill," wrote Roberts. "A holding this broad [for Graham] is unnecessary because the particular conduct and circumstances at issue in the case before us are not serious enough to justify Graham's sentence."

In the Cunningham case, the girl survived, and Cunningham was convicted of attempted murder, kidnapping and sexual abuse of a minor, for the 2005 crime in Lake Worth, Florida. He also received life without parole.

In a separate case argued the same day as Graham's, the high court dismissed the appeal of Joe Sullivan, now 33 and in a wheelchair, serving a life term without the possibility of parole in a Florida prison. He was sentenced for a rape of an elderly woman committed when he was 13.

The appeal was dismissed without explanation, meaning state courts can now review it in light of the Graham case, which could mean Sullivan will have a chance of having his sentence reduced eventually.

Sullivan's attorneys said he is one of only two people in the world who was tried as an adult at such a young age and sentenced to "die in prison" for a nonhomicide.

His attorney, Bryan Stevenson, had told the court there was a racial component, claiming the majority of "juvenile lifers" are minorities. Both Graham and Sullivan are African-American.

State lawyers from Florida had argued states should have the discretion they have long been given to decide how harshly young criminals should be prosecuted. Sexual battery remains a crime punishable by life imprisonment in Florida.

About 80 such inmates in Florida are serving life without parole, and a little over 100 nationwide, according to statistics compiled by opponents of those sentences.

In dissent to the Graham decision, Justice Clarence Thomas faulted the majority for ignoring legislative intent, saying it "simply illustrates how far beyond any cognizable constitutional principle the court has reached to ensure its own sense of morality and retributive justice pre-empts that of the people and their representatives."

He was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.

A study by the Equal Justice Initiative found eight prisoners currently serving life terms for crimes committed at age 13, all in the United States.

The Justice Department reports that in the past decade, no 13-year-old has been given life without parole for nonhomicides. And while about 1,000 people every year under 15 are arrested for rape, none have been given life without parole since Sullivan.

A handful of states -- including Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Oregon -- currently prohibit sentencing minors to life without a chance for parole, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The thrust of Sullivan's and Graham's arguments before the high court was not that they are innocent, nor that they seek freedom now, just that they deserve to some day make a case before the state parole board.

Kennedy said such a request is reasonable and permitted under his reading of the Constitution.

The ruling is likely to create further challenges from other inmates who say their sentences as juveniles were excessive.

The next legal frontier could be juvenile defendants who received up to 40 years or more behind bars, yet still may be eligible for parole. They may now claim such extreme sentences also are unconstitutional.

Sorry but I have to disagree that this is helpful.

The case was actually 5-4 with Kennedy going with the liberal wing against the conservatives.

That is not a context which improves the framing of the pardon/parole/criminal justice issue for a hopeful GOP nominee.

Huck is most helped by a long silence not "vindication" by a Court ruling of Ginsburg, Sota, Breyer, Stevens, Kenedy overpowering Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts.