Post by RealPitBull on Jan 3, 2008 8:32:32 GMT -5
And when you do, remember:
1) Mike Huckabee is soft on animal abuse!
2) Rudy Guiliani is anti-dog!
1) Mike Huckabee is soft on animal abuse!
Huckabee's son's history of torturing dog to death
CONFIRMING LINKS:
hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-presidentia.html
www.newsweek.com/id/78241
www.fund.org/pdfs/ark_gazette.pdf
dogblog.dogster.com/2007/12/06/presidential-candiate-mike-huckabees-son-david-tortured-and-killed-stray-dog-in-1998-charges-never-file-and-huckabee-not-punished/
therealmikehuckabee.blogspot.com/2007/12/presidential-candiate-mike-huckabees.html
ONE STORY:
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Presidential Files: Mike Huckabee's Do-Nothing Approach to Protecting Animals
The presidential primaries are nearly upon us, and it’s time to take stock of the candidates on animal protection issues. The Humane Society Legislative Fund has queried all the major candidates and asked for their positions on animal welfare, and has also examined the records of those who served in Congress or as governor.
For this first entry I’m going to take a look at former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has been surging in the polls and who is in the news today for his son’s alleged history of animal cruelty. Huckabee was the state’s chief executive for more than a decade, and was largely viewed by animal advocates as an impediment to moderate reforms, or at the very least, someone who never lifted a finger to advance animal welfare. The governor’s record on animal issues was further tarnished in 1998 when the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that Huckabee’s 17-year-old son, David, was fired from his job as a Boy Scout camp counselor because he and another teen allegedly killed a stray dog. Animal protection groups reported that the boys hanged the dog, slit his throat, and stoned him to death—but the teens were never charged with any crime.
I generally believe the lives of candidates’ family members are off limits, and I cringe every time the media scrutinizes Chelsea Clinton or the Bush twins. But there are some aspects of history that are pertinent, and this is one of them. It’s especially relevant because it has policy implications on animal cruelty issues, and there are accusations that Governor Huckabee personally mishandled the situation. And for HSLF, any indication of a family tolerance for malicious animal cruelty sets off alarm bells—cruelty to animals is a sign of an empathic disconnect and is often an indicator of broader violent tendencies.
The story about Huckabee's son has been circulating on some blogs, like Dogster for the Love of Dog Blog and The Real Mike Huckabee, but new information has come to light. At the time of the camp incident, a local prosecutor apparently asked the Arkansas State Police to investigate whether David Huckabee violated state anti-cruelty laws. Newsweek broke the story this week that the former director of the state police, John Bailey, says that Huckabee’s chief of staff and personal attorney leaned on him to drop the investigation. According to Bailey, he refused to play ball, and was fired seven months later. It seems that the governor tried to stop the state police from investigating the cruelty charges against his son, and Bailey’s story is corroborated by the former FBI chief in Little Rock.
At worst, the governor acted unethically and obstructed the police investigation, but even at best, Huckabee and his staff took a “boys will be boys” attitude toward malicious animal abuse. The governor’s then-chief of staff Brenda Turner belittled the accusations, asking, “Is it normal for the state police to…investigate something that happened at a Boy Scout camp?” Well, it should be. The public wants nothing less, in fact. The Michael Vick case demonstrates what happens when the justice system is allowed to work and when animal cruelty is taken seriously—a star quarterback is brought down to serve a 23-month prison sentence, an example for countless thousands of young Americans. The Huckabee case shows what happens when the system is thwarted—or when cruelty doesn't occupy a serious place in the political arena.
This flippant attitude toward a heinous act has apparently presented itself in Huckabee's views toward state policies on cruelty to animals. During Huckabee’s administration, Arkansas state lawmakers tried several times to pass legislation upgrading the state’s anti-cruelty law from a misdemeanor to a felony offense. Armed with studies about the link between cruelty to animals and violence toward people—and recent incidents that had horrified people across the state, such as kittens thrown from a vehicle and the torture and decapitation of dogs—animal advocates hoped that Arkansas would join the growing number of states that provided a strong deterrent to animal abuse. They received no help from the governor, and were unsuccessful every time. Stymied by the legislative process, animal advocates collected signatures to place an anti-cruelty and anti-cockfighting measure on the statewide ballot in 2002, asking the state’s voters to do what lawmakers would not.
All that came from Huckabee during the ballot campaign was a deafening silence. The measure went down in flames, largely because of a scorched earth campaign run by groups such as the Arkansas Farm Bureau, Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and Ducks Unlimited—groups with which Huckabee associates himself—falsely claiming that this modest proposal to upgrade the penalties for animal cruelty would have adversely impacted hunting, fishing, farming, and other Arkansas traditions. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a staunchly conservative newspaper, opined again and again in favor of the measure, but it was not enough to counter the misinformation. And Governor Huckabee stood on the sidelines the entire time—a glaring failure of leadership to be sure and perhaps a marker of his own hostile views about animals.
Arkansas is now one of only seven states that consider deliberate, malicious acts of cruelty to animals a misdemeanor offense. Setting fire to a painting of a dog is a more serious crime in Arkansas than burning the dog himself. In 43 states—including all the early primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina—animal cruelty is a felony, because voters and lawmakers have decided that it’s a serious crime that deserves serious consequences. In fact, 29 of those 43 felony cruelty laws have been passed during the last decade, while Huckabee and Arkansas did nothing.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Huckabee’s pandering to the sport hunting lobby. It’s not uncommon for presidential candidates to play up their sportsmen’s bonafides. But for Huckabee, it seems to be a standard talking point. His first television ad in Iowa aired in November and featured action star Chuck Norris, who stated, “Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter…” And during a speech to the NRA in September, Huckabee sounded almost giddy when he talked about shooting a bullet that was guided by angels to pierce an antelope, and he exclaimed, “I’m pretty sure there will be duck hunting in heaven, and I can’t wait.” The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart had fun with this, and asked, “Governor, are you saying that our heaven is duck hell? Is there any place a duck can go to not get shot?”
A former pastor, Huckabee makes a special appeal to people of faith. At HSLF, we do the same. Some animal protection groups are launching new programs that specifically aim to engage religious people and institutions on the principles of mercy and compassion. Americans of conviction bear a moral responsibility to the vulnerable and the weak.
The hunting lines might be laughable, but there’s nothing funny about an alleged family history of cruelty to animals, or the suggestion that the governor obstructed justice. Huckabee should apologize or explain the specifics regarding the camp cruelty allegations. Call his Iowa campaign office at 515-288-3708 and tell him that animal abuse is a serious crime, not a laughing matter.
CONFIRMING LINKS:
hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-presidentia.html
www.newsweek.com/id/78241
www.fund.org/pdfs/ark_gazette.pdf
dogblog.dogster.com/2007/12/06/presidential-candiate-mike-huckabees-son-david-tortured-and-killed-stray-dog-in-1998-charges-never-file-and-huckabee-not-punished/
therealmikehuckabee.blogspot.com/2007/12/presidential-candiate-mike-huckabees.html
ONE STORY:
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Presidential Files: Mike Huckabee's Do-Nothing Approach to Protecting Animals
The presidential primaries are nearly upon us, and it’s time to take stock of the candidates on animal protection issues. The Humane Society Legislative Fund has queried all the major candidates and asked for their positions on animal welfare, and has also examined the records of those who served in Congress or as governor.
For this first entry I’m going to take a look at former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has been surging in the polls and who is in the news today for his son’s alleged history of animal cruelty. Huckabee was the state’s chief executive for more than a decade, and was largely viewed by animal advocates as an impediment to moderate reforms, or at the very least, someone who never lifted a finger to advance animal welfare. The governor’s record on animal issues was further tarnished in 1998 when the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that Huckabee’s 17-year-old son, David, was fired from his job as a Boy Scout camp counselor because he and another teen allegedly killed a stray dog. Animal protection groups reported that the boys hanged the dog, slit his throat, and stoned him to death—but the teens were never charged with any crime.
I generally believe the lives of candidates’ family members are off limits, and I cringe every time the media scrutinizes Chelsea Clinton or the Bush twins. But there are some aspects of history that are pertinent, and this is one of them. It’s especially relevant because it has policy implications on animal cruelty issues, and there are accusations that Governor Huckabee personally mishandled the situation. And for HSLF, any indication of a family tolerance for malicious animal cruelty sets off alarm bells—cruelty to animals is a sign of an empathic disconnect and is often an indicator of broader violent tendencies.
The story about Huckabee's son has been circulating on some blogs, like Dogster for the Love of Dog Blog and The Real Mike Huckabee, but new information has come to light. At the time of the camp incident, a local prosecutor apparently asked the Arkansas State Police to investigate whether David Huckabee violated state anti-cruelty laws. Newsweek broke the story this week that the former director of the state police, John Bailey, says that Huckabee’s chief of staff and personal attorney leaned on him to drop the investigation. According to Bailey, he refused to play ball, and was fired seven months later. It seems that the governor tried to stop the state police from investigating the cruelty charges against his son, and Bailey’s story is corroborated by the former FBI chief in Little Rock.
At worst, the governor acted unethically and obstructed the police investigation, but even at best, Huckabee and his staff took a “boys will be boys” attitude toward malicious animal abuse. The governor’s then-chief of staff Brenda Turner belittled the accusations, asking, “Is it normal for the state police to…investigate something that happened at a Boy Scout camp?” Well, it should be. The public wants nothing less, in fact. The Michael Vick case demonstrates what happens when the justice system is allowed to work and when animal cruelty is taken seriously—a star quarterback is brought down to serve a 23-month prison sentence, an example for countless thousands of young Americans. The Huckabee case shows what happens when the system is thwarted—or when cruelty doesn't occupy a serious place in the political arena.
This flippant attitude toward a heinous act has apparently presented itself in Huckabee's views toward state policies on cruelty to animals. During Huckabee’s administration, Arkansas state lawmakers tried several times to pass legislation upgrading the state’s anti-cruelty law from a misdemeanor to a felony offense. Armed with studies about the link between cruelty to animals and violence toward people—and recent incidents that had horrified people across the state, such as kittens thrown from a vehicle and the torture and decapitation of dogs—animal advocates hoped that Arkansas would join the growing number of states that provided a strong deterrent to animal abuse. They received no help from the governor, and were unsuccessful every time. Stymied by the legislative process, animal advocates collected signatures to place an anti-cruelty and anti-cockfighting measure on the statewide ballot in 2002, asking the state’s voters to do what lawmakers would not.
All that came from Huckabee during the ballot campaign was a deafening silence. The measure went down in flames, largely because of a scorched earth campaign run by groups such as the Arkansas Farm Bureau, Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and Ducks Unlimited—groups with which Huckabee associates himself—falsely claiming that this modest proposal to upgrade the penalties for animal cruelty would have adversely impacted hunting, fishing, farming, and other Arkansas traditions. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a staunchly conservative newspaper, opined again and again in favor of the measure, but it was not enough to counter the misinformation. And Governor Huckabee stood on the sidelines the entire time—a glaring failure of leadership to be sure and perhaps a marker of his own hostile views about animals.
Arkansas is now one of only seven states that consider deliberate, malicious acts of cruelty to animals a misdemeanor offense. Setting fire to a painting of a dog is a more serious crime in Arkansas than burning the dog himself. In 43 states—including all the early primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina—animal cruelty is a felony, because voters and lawmakers have decided that it’s a serious crime that deserves serious consequences. In fact, 29 of those 43 felony cruelty laws have been passed during the last decade, while Huckabee and Arkansas did nothing.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Huckabee’s pandering to the sport hunting lobby. It’s not uncommon for presidential candidates to play up their sportsmen’s bonafides. But for Huckabee, it seems to be a standard talking point. His first television ad in Iowa aired in November and featured action star Chuck Norris, who stated, “Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter…” And during a speech to the NRA in September, Huckabee sounded almost giddy when he talked about shooting a bullet that was guided by angels to pierce an antelope, and he exclaimed, “I’m pretty sure there will be duck hunting in heaven, and I can’t wait.” The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart had fun with this, and asked, “Governor, are you saying that our heaven is duck hell? Is there any place a duck can go to not get shot?”
A former pastor, Huckabee makes a special appeal to people of faith. At HSLF, we do the same. Some animal protection groups are launching new programs that specifically aim to engage religious people and institutions on the principles of mercy and compassion. Americans of conviction bear a moral responsibility to the vulnerable and the weak.
The hunting lines might be laughable, but there’s nothing funny about an alleged family history of cruelty to animals, or the suggestion that the governor obstructed justice. Huckabee should apologize or explain the specifics regarding the camp cruelty allegations. Call his Iowa campaign office at 515-288-3708 and tell him that animal abuse is a serious crime, not a laughing matter.
2) Rudy Guiliani is anti-dog!
Rudy Giuliani Declares Candidacy - Will America Tolerate A Pooch-Hating President?
Rudy Giuliani has set his sights on the White House and has declared his candidacy for President.
There's talk that Rudy, a moderate Republican with appeal to moderate Dems for his support on certain liberal issues, could even edge out the popular John McCain.
But certain groups are saying - not so fast, Rudy. Rudy, it seems, has a few skeletons in his closet.
The buzz about Rudy on My Space and
Groups is that Rudy's bid for the Presidency is already being dissed by that critically important group of voters - dog owners.
Dog owners have dug up the dirt on Rudy Giuliani are sounding the alarm. Already, messages are running rampant across the web urging dog lovers NOT TO VOTE FOR RUDY because ...................
iIt would seem that the hero mayor of New York City is no hero to dogs - specifically pitbulls.
Outed by dog lovers in New York, the dirt on Rudy is that he supports breed-specific laws and measures.
In other words, Rudy joins the ranks of other notorious breed haters, Kory Nelson, Tom Skeldon, Jackie Speier and Gavin Newsom - in his desire to see pitbulls, or is it really the owners of pitbulls, driven out of New York City.
Engaging in breed profiling - and the byproduct of which is actually profiling the owners of pitbulls - is a black eye for the polished Rudy Giuliani.
Now some readers have said wait just a darn minute! Didn't Mayor Rudy support dog parks, and pets for the elderly apartment dwellers? Yea - OK - he did.
But what about it? Rudy DID support such initiatives - BUUUUUUUT - maybe it comes down to what he perceived to be the owners of dogs?
And if Rudy were all that dog-friendly - then why would he support breed discimination? If Rudy were all that dog friendly, why would he want to eliminate the hearing process? Or is it possible that Rudy perceives the owners of cute little dogs to be different than the owners of pitbulls?
Will Giuliani 's pooch-hating past catch up with him? Is his stance supporting BSL an indicator for future policy?
Here's a taste of what may come if Rudy Guilanni makes it to the White House:
Skeletons In Rudy's Closet - Eliminate Pitbulls
From Columbia University's student run paper, Bronx Beat, a 1999 article about Emelinda Narvaez, a Bronx resident and the 'Fairy Godmother Of Pitbulls", discusses Guiliani's breed-specific proposal to elimiate pitbulls from New York City,
"Animal advocates cite the city council’s pending dangerous dog legislation as evidence of an unofficial city campaign to get rid of pit bulls at all costs.
The bill, proposed at the request of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, singles out pit bulls, saying owners of these dogs will need to carry $100,000 in liability insurance or face fines. The bill also streamlines the process for destroying dangerous dogs, eliminating the hearings now required before the city can take action against a dog that is deemed dangerous."
Eliminate Hearings
Giuliani , a former prosecutor, singled out NYC dog owners of pitbulls, and wanted to eliminate the hearings for deeming a dog dangerous.
In an article dating to January 28, 1999, The New York Times Giuliani Proposes Tough Law on 'Dangerous' Dogs, Angering Owners, Guillani's "quality of life" initiative wouldd have required that owners of pitbulls fork over big bucks for additional liability coverage before being allowed to license their dogs.
Do actions speak louder than words? The illustrious Mr. Giuliani was quite content with profiling the owners of pitbulls, and eliminating due process for the owners of targeted breeds - so I would say his actions speak volumes.
Questioning A Guillani White House
None of this history is sitting too well with dog owners, leaving many to seriously question the possibility of a Guilani White House.
Those questions include:
Will a Giuliani dministration support breed-specific legislation?
Will a Giuliani dministration support breed specific insurance requirements?
Will a Giuliani dministration support breed specific mandatory spay/neuter?
Will a Giuliani dministration support guardianship?
Will a Giuliani dministration support the elimination of pets as property?
Will a Giuliani dministration support deeming certain breeds of dogs as dangerous?
Will a Giuliani dministration support the elimination of due process for the owners of targeted breeds?
Will dog owners derail Rudy before he even makes it to the primaries? Will America tolerate a pooch-hating President?
Lots of dog owners are already saying My Dog Votes - but just not for Rudy.
From: dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/11/rudy_guillani_d.html
Rudy Giuliani has set his sights on the White House and has declared his candidacy for President.
There's talk that Rudy, a moderate Republican with appeal to moderate Dems for his support on certain liberal issues, could even edge out the popular John McCain.
But certain groups are saying - not so fast, Rudy. Rudy, it seems, has a few skeletons in his closet.
The buzz about Rudy on My Space and
Groups is that Rudy's bid for the Presidency is already being dissed by that critically important group of voters - dog owners.Dog owners have dug up the dirt on Rudy Giuliani are sounding the alarm. Already, messages are running rampant across the web urging dog lovers NOT TO VOTE FOR RUDY because ...................
iIt would seem that the hero mayor of New York City is no hero to dogs - specifically pitbulls.
Outed by dog lovers in New York, the dirt on Rudy is that he supports breed-specific laws and measures.
In other words, Rudy joins the ranks of other notorious breed haters, Kory Nelson, Tom Skeldon, Jackie Speier and Gavin Newsom - in his desire to see pitbulls, or is it really the owners of pitbulls, driven out of New York City.
Engaging in breed profiling - and the byproduct of which is actually profiling the owners of pitbulls - is a black eye for the polished Rudy Giuliani.
Now some readers have said wait just a darn minute! Didn't Mayor Rudy support dog parks, and pets for the elderly apartment dwellers? Yea - OK - he did.
But what about it? Rudy DID support such initiatives - BUUUUUUUT - maybe it comes down to what he perceived to be the owners of dogs?
And if Rudy were all that dog-friendly - then why would he support breed discimination? If Rudy were all that dog friendly, why would he want to eliminate the hearing process? Or is it possible that Rudy perceives the owners of cute little dogs to be different than the owners of pitbulls?
Will Giuliani 's pooch-hating past catch up with him? Is his stance supporting BSL an indicator for future policy?
Here's a taste of what may come if Rudy Guilanni makes it to the White House:
Skeletons In Rudy's Closet - Eliminate Pitbulls
From Columbia University's student run paper, Bronx Beat, a 1999 article about Emelinda Narvaez, a Bronx resident and the 'Fairy Godmother Of Pitbulls", discusses Guiliani's breed-specific proposal to elimiate pitbulls from New York City,
"Animal advocates cite the city council’s pending dangerous dog legislation as evidence of an unofficial city campaign to get rid of pit bulls at all costs.
The bill, proposed at the request of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, singles out pit bulls, saying owners of these dogs will need to carry $100,000 in liability insurance or face fines. The bill also streamlines the process for destroying dangerous dogs, eliminating the hearings now required before the city can take action against a dog that is deemed dangerous."
Eliminate Hearings
Giuliani , a former prosecutor, singled out NYC dog owners of pitbulls, and wanted to eliminate the hearings for deeming a dog dangerous.
In an article dating to January 28, 1999, The New York Times Giuliani Proposes Tough Law on 'Dangerous' Dogs, Angering Owners, Guillani's "quality of life" initiative wouldd have required that owners of pitbulls fork over big bucks for additional liability coverage before being allowed to license their dogs.
Do actions speak louder than words? The illustrious Mr. Giuliani was quite content with profiling the owners of pitbulls, and eliminating due process for the owners of targeted breeds - so I would say his actions speak volumes.
Questioning A Guillani White House
None of this history is sitting too well with dog owners, leaving many to seriously question the possibility of a Guilani White House.
Those questions include:
Will a Giuliani dministration support breed-specific legislation?
Will a Giuliani dministration support breed specific insurance requirements?
Will a Giuliani dministration support breed specific mandatory spay/neuter?
Will a Giuliani dministration support guardianship?
Will a Giuliani dministration support the elimination of pets as property?
Will a Giuliani dministration support deeming certain breeds of dogs as dangerous?
Will a Giuliani dministration support the elimination of due process for the owners of targeted breeds?
Will dog owners derail Rudy before he even makes it to the primaries? Will America tolerate a pooch-hating President?
Lots of dog owners are already saying My Dog Votes - but just not for Rudy.
From: dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/11/rudy_guillani_d.html
I look forward to learning much here