PDA

View Full Version : Presidential Candidates on Animal Issues



Freedom
01-10-2008, 03:18 PM
You can read what they have for the othercandidates at the links which introduce the article on Huckabee.


Subject: Fwd: FYI About Huckabee

Size: 57 KB

http://www.fund.org/voter_guide/2008_pres_candidates.html
http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/donkeys.html
http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/elephants.html


Humane Society Legislative blog:
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.

Posted at 3:00 PM on Monday, December 17, 2007 in Elections , News & Culture

lizbud
01-10-2008, 04:33 PM
Interesting read. I like to see every candidate's views & policy
on animal issues.

phesina
01-10-2008, 05:02 PM
Thank you for posting these links and this particular item, Sandie. This kind of information has to get out and become widely known.

Pat

Lady's Human
01-10-2008, 05:04 PM
And the office of the President of the United States has what jurisdiction over animal welfare?

I'd like to propose a moment of silence for the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution, may it rest in pieces.

lizbud
01-10-2008, 05:24 PM
And the office of the President of the United States has what jurisdiction over animal welfare?

I'd like to propose a moment of silence for the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution, may it rest in piece.


Seems like, lately, we can always count on you for a negative or
argumentative statement. It's good to know you never disappoint anyone.

Lady's Human
01-10-2008, 05:28 PM
On one hand people complain about the power of the office of the President, and then they ask the federal government to intervene in areas where the federal government has no constitutional standing.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not being argumentative, just asking people to THINK about issues before asking for federal help in solving problems, or bringing the issues up in federal campaigns. When was the last time you read the Constitution?

kitten645
01-10-2008, 11:59 PM
"Seems like, lately, we can always count on you for a negative or
argumentative statement. It's good to know you never disappoint anyone."

I agree. That aside and beyond the 10th amendment, I think that a politicians personal views on issues (any) speaks to the character of the person. If they have the authority to make a decison on something is secondary to what their personal views are on the subject. For me, animal issues are very important and I'd cast my vote for someone with similar views. It speaks to the sensibility of a candidate IMO.
Claudia

Lady's Human
01-11-2008, 12:31 AM
Does it matter what someone who is running for selectman in Dogpatch thinks about the war in Afghanistan? Honestly, no, because he/she can't do anything about it. Does it matter what a Representative thinks about the SALT or SALT II treaties? No, because they can't do anything about it. It isn't in their jurisdiction under the Constitution. That power lies with the Senate, not the House.

The breakdown in the lines of what branch of government has jurisdiction over something is a fundemental flaw in our current system of government.

lizbud
01-11-2008, 08:46 AM
"Seems like, lately, we can always count on you for a negative or
argumentative statement. It's good to know you never disappoint anyone."

I agree. That aside and beyond the 10th amendment, I think that a politicians personal views on issues (any) speaks to the character of the person. If they have the authority to make a decison on something is secondary to what their personal views are on the subject. For me, animal issues are very important and I'd cast my vote for someone with similar views. It speaks to the sensibility of a candidate IMO.
Claudia


It absolutely speaks to the character of the candidate & why anyone
on a pet board can't see that is beyond me. It's not that complicated.

Edwina's Secretary
01-11-2008, 11:10 AM
LH...I don't know if you have ever heard the expression "Bully Pulpit." It was first used by President Theodore Roosevelt. I don't see where in this thread anyone has suggested the president of the United States should get involved in establishing or enforcing animal protection laws.

The president doesn't have constitutional authority regarding many of the issues that are begin debated....and have been debated...by presidential candidates since the country began. Taxes - for example -- are raised or lowered by congress but just today I read an quote from President Bush about the importance of lowered taxes - one of his platforms.

But they influence, lead, set the tone. And people want to know what that tone is.

You might want to read some of what has been written about Theodore Rossevelt and the concept of the Bully Pulpit!

caseysmom
01-11-2008, 11:50 AM
It absolutely speaks to the character of the candidate & why anyone
on a pet board can't see that is beyond me. It's not that complicated.

Not to mention it could help the cause of animals in other countries if the leader of the free world is on board with animal rights issues.

Lady's Human
01-11-2008, 04:20 PM
Sara, I'm very well aware of the power of the bully pulpit, however, I've yet to see concrete proposals on an actual issue from any candidate beyond "National health care would be good", "We have to reduce our dependence on foreign energy", and other boilerplate BS.

I've gone to the websites of several candidates (Good place to list specifics on issues) and nothing is there beyond the boilerplate.

I'm far more concerned with what the candidates say they are going to do about issues directly under their control. So far it's been all style, no substance, and that concerns me, especially mere weeks away from Super Tuesday.

Edwina's Secretary
01-11-2008, 04:38 PM
Then I think your argument belongs somewhere other than on this thread. If you want candidates who take positions on issues as you think they should -- write them, call them -- whatever.

No one in this thread has suggested the president should or does have authority over animal welfare. Some people have suggested they would like to know the candidates' opinions about it.

Apparently you do not think people should want to know the candidates' opinion on taxes, gay marriage, abortion, education, and a host of other issues that are being debated in this election (which is no different from any prior election.)

I won't agree or disagree. But I think you should pick up the pieces of your shattered constitution and take your complaint to someone who can do something about it -- the candidates. Tell them to stop expressing opinions on things like "no child left behind", the economy etc.

I am more concerned about people who might vote and think that your middle name denotes your religion and your willingness tobe a traitor.

cassiesmom
02-04-2008, 08:28 PM
Tomorrow is voting day in Illinois, although they've been encouraging people on the radio to take advantage of early voting because the ballots are not too short this time, plus everyone will need more time to get used to the new voting equipment. I wonder how it's going to turn out. I vote at the park district and it's usually buzzing with after-school program kids when I go. When the weather is nice I can walk there, but not tomorrow! Too much snow over the weekend!

moosmom
02-05-2008, 09:26 AM
Just goes to show you that it's important to have LOTS of money and know people in high places. I think that was the case of Huckabees. I see another Jeffrey Dahlmer in their family.